Privacy is a long-held value of information professionals, but new technologies of the contemporary digital age pose new risks to privacy. In an effort to build participatory, profession-wide action in support of designing privacy-oriented library services, two groups were formed with the goal of generating ideas and sustaining action: the National Forum on Web Privacy and Web Analytics, and Digital Library Federation Technologies of Surveillance Working Group. In this paper, members of these two groups present case study descriptions and analysis via reflective self-assessment. The authors discuss how these groups can serve as models of participatory action for integrating the value of privacy into the design of library services, technologies, policy, and outreach.

The 24th Annual Meeting was held in Dallas, Texas, from 21 to 23 of February 1978. There were 309 papers submitted, of which 168 were accepted for presentation, 24 were displayed in the poster sessions and 116 were presented by title. The ever increasing number of submissions and subjects was treated by having four concurrent sessions, but with two plenary sessions to bring all the members together. The sessions included biomechanics, biomaterials, physiology, immunology, and biochemistry. This review will deal with the first two. Knee mechanicsThere were a number of papers on the laxity of the knee and on the role of specific ligaments. In testing a particular plane of laxity, the effect of the coupling of other planes of motion was emphasized, a good example being the preferred angle of transverse rotation at a given flexion angle (1). In using radiographic techniques to measure bone displacements, for example in a-p drawer, varus-valgus and transverse rotations accompanying the a-p motions could be manifested as erroneous readings unless corrections were made (2). In restraining varus and valgus moments, the lateral and medial collaterals were the most important as expected, more so in mid-flexion than in extension, and the medial collateral more so than the lateral collateral, even when the fibula was fixed to the tibia (3). It was also confirmed by the same group that the cruciates carried about 90 per cent of the anterior and posterior forces on the tibia, with the mid-capsule and posterior capsule being the principal back-ups respectively if the cruciates were ruptured (4). Another approach to the evaluation of laxity was to use mechanical impedance (peak force/ peak velocity) to assess ligament injuries, but this was found to be insensitive except for acute injuries, and it was concluded that primary laxity was the better indicator (5)