> One of the big difficulties with this settlement (and probably with any
> class-action suit) is that all of the negotiation was done under NDA
> (non-disclosure agreement). There WERE folks involved from the Google
> partner libraries, but they can't talk about what was said or what influence
> they had, because they are bound by secrecy...
This is no different than how libraries do business with other
entities. NDAs are the norm rather than the exception, so the
agreement with Google shouldn't be a big deal. All libraries and
companies have always been free to agree to whatever they like.
We claim dedication to openness, but as a profession we generally
accept that it's OK to force librarians and others to withhold
knowledge that would really help improve services or help colleagues
make informed choices. Secrets govern contracts, system behavior,
development plans, job references, salaries, and a bunch of other
things that really affect what we can do. The very nature of secrets
is that they benefit the informed at the expense of the uninformed.
In the case at hand, I wonder how much of the hubbub is just about
"discomfort." We have a professional neurosis with certain
organizations which makes us look harder for issues with them. For
example, OCLC is also a favorite whipping boy despite the fact that
it's a membership organization and we have mechanisms to apply
pressure. Meanwhile, we give a free pass to other institutions that
have demonstrated less accountability.
It is much easier to argue that Google has been a positive presence
than a negative one. If Google really is that bad, we shouldn't use
their products, just as we don't use most products created by most
companies.
kyle
Received on Tue Mar 03 2009 - 17:33:27 EST