I was going to write about the gaming in libraries this week, but as you all know we are all very busy, and by the time I sat down to write this down class 618 occurred.  For those of you who are not part of that class this might seem confusing and I do not blame you.  So let me fill you in on what has occurred.   We had a lawyer as guest speaker from JP Morgan, and even now thinking about her presentation makes me angry.  Whole presentation when I had chance to think about afterwards was designed to scare audience into being nice cooperate drones who will take interests of their cooperation before anything else.  She was talking about trade secrets and how they needed to be protected.   This part was ok as long she was talking actual theft.  What was the problem was that she then started to talk about how government is getting stricter with enforcement, and companies now can pursue criminal cases against anyone involved in betraying those trade secrets.   You have to understand trade secrets the way it was described are anything that company wanted to keep secret and gave that company competitive edge (legal or illegal in nature).

                This might seem like not big issue in itself, after all if someone steals they should be prosecuted, but that was not the whole story.  Questions were asked about whistleblowers and situations when companies might try to sit on ‘trade secret’ while it is not beneficial to communities at large.  Our presenter being a lawyer tried to give quick answers and redirect attention from those topics while still trying to stick to her scare tactics.  The problem was she has slipped up during her presentation.  She started talking about Personal Information Identifiers (PII).  She presented a case example where a company while sticking to the law violated intent of the agreement they had with their customers.  The company sold customers PIIs during bankruptcy to another company.  To clarify company which sold that information has posted on their website that they would never sell that information.  The presenter actually got excited at this blatant misuse of power to bypass the intent of the agreement through use of the fancy legal manipulations.   When questioned about rights of people who might not like their information being sold, her first response was that they might not benefit if they try to have their information removed, and when that failed she tried to redirect the question.  When she was pressed she ultimately admitted that if precedent was set and people were able to remove their information then the information sold would become worthless.  Which she then admitted would not benefit the companies involved.

                This might not seem like topic associated with libraries, but it is.  If you plan to work within special libraries attached to companies this will affect you in aspect of the enforcement.   To me there seems a bigger issue at play here.  This concept of keeping secrets seems to be opposite of what most librarians stand for.  Hiding of the knowledge and misdeeds of companies for benefit of few flies in the face what librarians often work towards.  I am not against people making profit and improving their lot in the world, but that presentation was just rhetoric trying to influence future professionals to toe the line the way companies like JP Morgan want you to.   Based on her talk my take on the whole thing was that JP Morgan and other companies while adhering to the law want you to shut up and keep their interest at heart.  While the part of talk about illegal activities that should be stopped was vital, and I agree totally with that part, the other part which dealt with cover up of misdeeds of those companies insulted me.