Work in an archives encompasses a broad disciplinary sphere which, I fear, reaches well beyond the scope of standard academic training in a Library Science master’s degree program. Surely I would be a better archivist if I could take some supplementary courses on privacy and copyright through IU’s Law School curriculum; accounting, finance, and marketing courses through the School of Business; advanced technology coursework in the SLIS Master of Information Science curriculum or the School of Informatics; as well as topical history courses. Unfortunately, my budget can only stretch so far, and I would rather not be in graduate school for a full decade! Keeping up with archival literature and independently exploring relevant issues will have to suffice. On that note, I decided to read two articles by Sara S. Hodson related to Privacy issues in archives. (Thanks to Cherry for tipping me off on these!)
From my current perspective, privacy issues diverge from copyright issues in that they are less objective and exist as a “gray area” in terms of archival management, however they increasingly emerge in the profession due to technological innovation and the rapidly expanding accessibility of archival documents and/or related information online. A great compendium of sources to reference on this matter is available at http://www.archivists.org/saagroups/privacy/pcbiblio.asp—a selected bibliography on Privacy compiled by Sarah S. Hodson, author of the articles I chose to examine at present myself.
The articles I read include:
Hodson, Sara S. "In Secret Kept, In Silence Sealed: Privacy in the Papers of Authors and Celebrities," American Archivist, vol 67 (2004)
Hodson, Sara S. "Archives on the Web: Unlocking Collections While Safeguarding Privacy." First Monday, 11.8 (August 7 2006).
Note: The first article was not in the above-mentioned bibliography, but I read it instead of Hodson's 1991 article on privacy and personal papers. Admittedly, I did this because I could not access an electronic version of the 1991 article from the comfort of my apartment, nor could I find a journal in an IU library with circulating collections. The perils of being spoiled by the Internet. In any case, from what I gather, the two have similar content though "In Secret Kept..." contains more specifically tailored examples.
After reading both articles, my overall opinion is that both are quite similar though specified toward slightly different angles. "In Secret Kept..." refers largely to paper-based materials and confronts privacy generally as well as specific issues common when dealing with the personal papers of authors or celebrities (i.e. people of popular interest). "Archives on the Web..." quite obviously deals with privacy issues confronted when making materials and/or finding aids available to a wider audience via the Internet. However, the two share extremely similar beginnings grounded in the history of legal privacy issues.
It came as a slight surprise to me to learn that the commonly referenced American "right to privacy" first appeared not in the writings of our founding fathers, but in a 1890 issue of Harvard Law Review, where it was defined as "the right to be let alone." From there, the definition of privacy has henceforth evolved, however there is no singular, authoritative legal statute which governs all realms of what constitutes privacy ethics. Though the ideals behind privacy are similar in paper and Internet-based faces of archives, the two definitely face distinctly different issues and challenges.
In "In Kept Secret..." Hodson addresses privacy issues as they exist in relation to the papers of individuals--both deceased and those still living--who are of popular public and/or scholastic focus. She identifies several significant concepts to consider, all with lend to complicating privacy issues First off, authors and celebrities are "high profile" individuals whose papers will receive more concentrated attention and thus run a higher risk of running into privacy issues; private information will be of more interest to a wider audience because of high profile status. Additionally, these papers more often contain personal discussion of sensitive matters (both of the donor and third parties--people with whom donors corresponded who had no say in whether or not their writings were made publicly available), whereas with most "historical collections," collection content deals with unknown people's experience with or accounts of significant historical events. I am not sure that I fully understand what Hudson means by this, and for the time being, I think we may be in disagreement. Though the writings of "unknown people" may not be of wide interest to a broad archival user base, they certainly often contain personal information. There is no black and white status between merely significant papers of celebrities and those related generally to historical events. Plenty of personal paper collections exist which highlight the achievements and lives of lesser-known individuals. Though scholars may not be scrambling to tell their stories, they still certainly may have stories to be told which contain potentially sensitive personal details.
With authors and celebrities, copyright can also be intertwined in privacy issues. This fact I certainly can't argue and don't know that I fully understand the specifications of rights and use by researchers accessing archival papers. I assume that copyright is mainly wrapped up in the subsequent publication of information contained within archives and not the mere reading thereof. Lastly, papers are increasingly collected from authors and celebrities during their lifetimes. Though this is in one sense wise, since any documents which are accessioned in an archive are saved from any possible intentional or unintentional destruction or disarray, it proves difficult in terms of privacy. Many live donors may want to institute complicated access restrictions and delays, which are frustrating to archivists and potential users. What is the point of having a collection if it isn't used? The easy answer is that it will be used eventually, thus there is certainly a point in saving it for lucky curious scholars down the road.
The article discusses various ways that repositories, including Hodson's own Huntington Library, have dealt with major privacy issues in the past, which serve as precedents and guides for future decisions. Hodson does not offer definitive right and wrong solutions, but she thoroughly addresses possibilities, choices, and both positive and negative repercussions. One issue addressed is that of restriction levels. Repositories have the choice to heavy or light restrictions on materials, either in total or selectively. Arguments can be made for all options, and everything must really be dealt with on a case by case basis. Every collection is unique, and blanket policies don't necessarily reflect the particularities and needs each collection. Legally speaking, it is safest to either restrict all or nothing, leaving it up to the researcher to decide what information is appropriate to publish and disseminate. Living donors and family members may be helpful in assessing what potentially sensitive material should be restricted, thus they may help in deciding upon terms of restriction. However, this is a "double edged sword" so to speak, as over-involvement and sensitivities may lead to prejudice and/or over-censorship of collection contents.
Hodson suggestions:
“Archivists must take care to seal manuscript material only with the utmost caution, rigorously and objectively analyzing the situation without imposing personal beliefs or values. . . In a previous article on privacy, I recommended that archivists should become as knowledgeable as possible about the moral and social milieu of the individuals represented in the collection, and attempt to deal with sensitive materials based on this knowledge.” Pg 200
Though I think these suggestions are wise, I am not sure how feasible they will come to be given constraints of time, money, and other resources which bind many archivists in an increasingly MPLP-driven world ("More Produce Less Process") where funds fall short and responsibilities continue to build. Doing as much as one can to understand the contents and particularities of a collection, looking to historical cases for guidance, consensus with one's institutional policies and ethics, combined with professional discussion provide perhaps the best resource in terms of addressing issues in regards to personal papers of authors and celebrities.
In Hodson's other article, "Archives on the Web...," the author treats the uniquely contemporary problem of how to deal with privacy issues when the Internet is involved in archival description and content access. Web access and privacy represent uncharted territory for modern day archivists. To borrow from an analogy which has surely been used before, this is our “frontier”; what the West was to Louis and Clark, the interconnected web of electronic information is to contemporary (wo)man. Privacy rights and violations in the digital realm are actively being determined by individuals, groups, and institutions; no outside body or force can define what definitively constitutes privacy violation, however we can categorize the ways by which privacy may potentially be violated. To quote from another quote pulled by Hodson from Heather MacNeil's book Without Consent: The Ethics of Disclosing Personal Information in Public Archives,
“Legal scholar William Prosser has gone further, identifying four ways in which the invasion of privacy can occur: intrusion upon the individual’s seclusion or solitude, or into his or her private affairs; public disclosure of embarrassing or private facts about the individual; publicity that places the individual in a false light in the public eye; and, appropriation, for another person’s advantage, of the individual’s name or likeness.” All potential manners of privacy invasion are an increasing threat given the proliferation of data collection in so many facets of life, from online public records, to the local grocer's club card, Internet site traffic, and beyond. Archives, businesses, public organizations, and individuals alike will continue to face issues of Internet privacy at an increasing pace should the ubiquitous nature of personal information subsist in the digital domain. To analyze the best manner by which an archivist should confront privacy issues in the online environment, Hodson goes back to basics rather than theorize anew. Privacy is a concept which remains constant though the details surrounding information collection, dissemination, and access change.
Hodson first cites the Society of American Archivists Code of Ethics in regards to both privacy and access. In doing so, she stumbles upon the paradigm which has long afflicted the profession: how can archives protect privacy rights of donors by maintaining confidentiality and protecting sensitive personal information in accordance with security procedures of each institution while also providing open and equal access to archival
A large part of Hodson's discussion is applicable to paper-based records as well. Common sense dictates that if materials would be restricted on paper, they should certainly be restricted online. These include legally protected documents (e.g. medical records, many student records, etc.), materials with relative currency that may affect the lives of living donors or third parties present within collections (largely correspondence and private writings such as diaries), sensitive files of public officials, and other collections or parts of collections which may lead to invasion of privacy issues. Levels of restriction must also be considered. The "all or nothing" approach--restricting all records of a certain type or collection for a certain period of time or restricting no records at all, which makes the researcher responsible for repercussions of how information is used--provides perhaps the best results legally, however it is also likely frustrating and in some cases senseless. Selective restrictions are more complicated, require more time and energy, and make the repository legally responsible and accountable for such decisions.
These potential issues must be considered in general as well as in the specific context of the Internet. A much wider audience may potentially access information launched online, which in and of itself makes many people uneasy. I listened to an interesting presentation on this very topic at the Society of American Archivists IU Student Chapter Conference in March 2010. The presenter talked about an issue with which the Archives at Iowa State University dealt in regards to digitized photographs compiled in an online exhibit. A woman contacted the archives and demanded that a picture in which she appeared (as a third party) and was identified be removed from the website. The photograph was not inappropriate in the traditionally accepted sense nor did the Archives deem the general subjects of the photograph collection to be at all sensitive in nature. However, the mere fact that the photograph and related descriptive metadata were online and openly available for anyone to access made the woman object. She was perfectly comfortable that these materials remain physically available to users, but the "uncharted territory" of the Internet represented a dangerous realm of unknown use and access. After much debate, the Archives ended up removing the "objectionable" photographs because of these complaints. Comfort levels with information available online may rise as the Internet continues to infiltrate more facets of everyday life, though it is important to consider multifarious perspectives on comfort in exposure and privacy.
Aside from fully digitized materials, archivists must also consider various levels of description. Finding aids or even mere catalog records can be precarious when the materials of living individuals are involved. More thorough description invites even more problems. One must consider both what is described and what is deliberately left out. Is it better to make the presence of restricted materials known or leave them out of collection descriptions all together, which creates a false impression of total collection contents? In what has become the theme of this article and my reactions, the answer is: there is no definitive answer. From my own analysis, I believe that ethics are rarely black and white in terms of archival privacy and use. An archivist's best bet is to analyze ethical considerations, inform decisions by theoretical guidelines accepted broadly by the profession (such as the SAA Code of Ethics), and make decisions based on individual as well as institutional policies, judgment and general comfort levels.
Though this issue remains a bit confusing to me, I feel that the information Hodson provides in her articles in reference to the history of privacy issues in archives, various levels of and reasons for sensitivity, strategies to make informed decisions, and examples regarding how specific privacy concerns have been handled by repositories in the past give me a solid frame of reference which will prepare me to confront privacy issues from an informed perspective in the future.
[Phew! That was a long one... apologies for typos. It's getting late, and I don't have the energy to proofread. I like to think that's at least marginally acceptable in the blog world.]
Amy
No comments:
Post a Comment