I am sad to have missed the meeting and want to connect with the group in the near future.

I just wanted to add, that I read the meeting notes and I think that the NexusUNI and ICE issue is not about customers of the service, and instead is about several databases they maintain and sell access to.  LexisNexis purchased and owns the Accurint database.  This is not something that regular people can buy (to purchase access you need some kind of clearance; I can purchase access and am precleared due to I have an active bar license and all lawyers can purchase access), but essentially it is a database to help find people for service of process and such.  It will have address records going back 20+ years, and stuff like that, and you can look up a social security number.  The amount of information available varies by customer.  I am precleared for a less detailed report, and people working with criminal law get more info.  One of my friends had worked at Innocence Project, and he had better reports than what I could get with the standard lawyer account.  I have heard that the government law enforcement accounts give really detailed reports.

LexisNexis also sells asset reports, for seeing what bank accounts someone has to decide whether or not to sue, and CLUE reports used for rating someone's insurance risk.

You all just see this little slice of LexisNexis, but because I'm a lawyer, they sometimes send me ads for this and that.  I think that the ICE stuff is about the really detailed Accurint reports that the federal government and people in criminal law can get, but most people can't get them.

I don't think that for patrons using NexusUNI that there is anything extra going on.  It's just that there is a lot of consolidation in publishing and LexisNexis has bought many services.  The services that collect and sell detailed reports on people are separate product offerings and are getting data from many sources.  For example, the info on CLUE reports are provided by insurance companies to Lexis for every claim, and the core of Accurint is public records that get ingested and sorted.  If anything, I would think that research accounts on LexisNexis might be kept separate.  For the individually issued accounts to LexisNexis, they keep a research trail, but it is privileged and if it were passed somewhere else and that came out, that would be detrimental to their core markets of selling to lawyers.


Wilhelmina Randtke
Head of Libraries Systems and Technologies
Zach S. Henderson Library
1400 Southern Dr.
Statesboro, GA, 30458
(912) 478-5035

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 4:25 PM Walker, Paige <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Dear PETs,


Following today’s poll and meeting (notes here!), we decided to use our June meeting to pilot a reading group structure for PET.


Prior to June 15 at 3pm Eastern, please read the ALA Privacy Subcommittee’s recent revisions of their Library Privacy Guidelines for Vendors.


We’ll discuss this article at our next meeting, and will circulate a more robust agenda with discussion questions in a future email.


Looking ahead to July, we’ll discuss NERL’s values statement Demanding a Better Deal. So if you have spare time (haha), we welcome you to get started reading this in advance!


After collective discussion of these two articles, we’ll determine if the group has the interest and capacity to take on guidelines for values and/or implementation for institutional privacy and ethics review. If not, we will continue with volunteer-led reading groups.


In summary:


Also, Andy and I will be in touch regarding our conversation with Jason Griffey at NISO.


Thanks again, all, for your continued interest and enthusiasm!


Paige & Andy



Paige Walker

Head of Digital Initiatives, Tisch Library

Tufts University

[log in to unmask]






To unsubscribe from the DLF-SURVEILLANCE-TECH list, click the following link:

To unsubscribe from the DLF-SURVEILLANCE-TECH list, click the following link: