IN HIS letter, "Data privacy risk overlooked in IT rush" (ST, May 3), Mr Ngiam Shih Tung alluded to the potential abuses that may arise from not having a Personal Identification Number (PIN) under the National Library Board's (NLB) automated procedures for loan and renewal of books.

NLB introduced the procedures five years ago to make services easily accessible and convenient to members.

Despite the increase in the number of loans from 14 million in 1995 to 25 million last year, we have reduced the average waiting time at peak hours from 45 minutes to less than 10 minutes.

NLB had considered carefully whether to introduce a PIN under the automated procedures, but decided against it.

The reason: The very large volume of transactions requires that the procedures must be simple, fast and easy, even for young library members.

So far, we had not had any case of a thief stealing library books using someone else's NRIC number.

If and when such a case occurs, we will refer it to the police for investigation and prosecution.

If a prankster reserves library materials using someone else's NRIC number, the NLB will waive the reservation fees arising from the abuse when the genuine library member reports it.

The police would be requested to investigate and take action.

For the automated enquiries, we would also like to point out that the machines will show only information such as overdue items, reservation and outstanding fees.

Personal information is not displayed.

These safeguards, deterrence and ready remedy are, for now, sufficient to deal with any potential abuse of the system.

So there is still no need for a PIN in the library's automated transactions.

LOW KWEE FAH
Senior Manager
Corporate Communications
for Chief Executive
National Library Board