Presentación realizada por Ricardo Santos, miembro del VIAF GDPR Working Group, en la reunión anual de VIAF. La presentación muestra los resultados de una encuesta sobre privacidad de datos de autores en ficheros de autoridad.

2. Results have been analyzed in two groups: national or national-like libraries or
agencies:
Agencies like the Danish Bibliographic Agency, Nukat or ICCU.
Other nominally non-national libraries have been included here: Library
of Congress, Nat. Lib of Medicine, Library of Catalonia
Non-european National libraries: Chile, Australia, Israel, Korea,
Canada
Others: mainly NACO participants (so, in VIAF through NACO funnel), also others:
university libraries, Project Managemente Institut, public libraries
One respondent decided not to identify.

3. For all the slides. “Others” answers have been adjusted to the pre-established
answers as possible. Every slide will present a selection of the “Other” answers more
relevant.
Others: Depend on what the author asks, by default, only the heading. No policy on
that. Explain the author its use, ask for other means of disambiguations if needed

4. Selection of “Others” answers: These data are not included. Data is removed from
heading or attribute fields (MARC 3XX), but kept in note fields (MARC 670). Only if
data can cause damage or discrimination. Depends on whether this data in publicly
available elsewhere. Never happened

5. Most: request only accepted if there is an actual error, others claims are rejected (not
by legal obligation, especifically)
Some never received such a request.

6. Most comments (from other libs): never happened, or depending on how public the
relation has become.

7. Claims rejected, in national libraries, out of legal obligation. Others rejected because
of needs for authority control, or for catalog functioning (any AAP request an
authority)
In this case, and others all along the survey, non-national libraries have far fewer
cases of authors complaining about privacy issues.

8. One library (BL) has a legal disclaimer when asking for data to authors or publishers
Respondents who does not have their auth info accessible declined to answer.

9. GDPR mandates European institutions to have a DPO.

10. Some libraries have both a cat/auth mailbox, authority mailbox, and/or data privacy
mailbox. They have been counted as one ocurrency for each mailbox.
It’s understood that all libraries have or may have a general mailbox. Here, the
ocurrencies of General are understood as the only mailbox.

13. University or general public libraries are not so familiar with users asking for the
deletion of data. Maybe also users are more prone to make these types of claims with
libraries regarded as “official” or higher in an administrative hierarchy.
The “red lines” ussually means invoking the “legal obligation” exception.