[savingsPossible]

Reading the article, it seems that this relates not to the internet archive, that is privacy preserving, but to another public library (that aparently was leaking or selling data -- I did not read it entirely)

[GrantMoyer]

In fact, the article sugests it was a third party, for-profit DRM service, such as OverDrive, which publishers force libraries to use to lend audio and e-books, who sold the patron's data to advertisers. Perhaps this is what the GP comment intended to point out.

[mdp2021]

The point is that the Archive highlights the risk of surveillance over library patrons, and I highlighted that instances of said risk have been reported.

[dredmorbius]

Understood, but it took me reading the reply to your initial comment to realise this. You could have been clearer in your first comment.

Getting out too far ahead of your message is a constant challenge in advocacy.

(And FWIW, I strongly endorse the IA, and AFAICT your own viewpoint here.)