Tag Archives: Freedom of Access to Information

World Press Freedom Day 2019

Leave a Reply

By providing access to information, knowledge, ideas and opinions, libraries everywhere uphold the value of intellectual freedom as the basis of an informed, democratic society.

They do this both by acting as the guardians of manuscripts, documents and books, and as a place where anyone can access the information they contain.

Press publications already form a core part of many collections. But libraries are also increasingly realising their role not just as a place to access, but also to share and create information., including by supporting journalism and public debate.

Today, 3 May, we celebrate World Press Freedom Day to support, and raise awareness of the fundamental principles of press freedom and freedom of expression!

World Press Freedom Day was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1993 following a Recommendation adopted at the twenty-sixth session of UNESCO’s General Conference in 1991.

It serves as an occasion to inform citizens of violations of press freedom, as well as a reminder of the censorship still seen in many countries today. It also recalls the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) Article 19:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Librarians fighting for the right to speak up

Journalists, editors, publishers and librarians can often be targeted by those who wish to restrain press freedom and punished for bringing news and information to the public.

In a recent incident, a librarian in Kansas City, US was arrested simply for standing up for a library patron’s right to free speech during a public event featuring a former US diplomat at the library.

The library hosts between twelve and twenty speakers each month, and though some of the topics and speakers have been controversial, the events have always been peaceful.

None the less, both the librarian and the patron were faced with criminal charges. 6 months ago, the case went to trial and the librarian was found not guilty on the charges of obstruction, interfering with an arrest, and assaulting a police officer.

The Director of the library stated:

“The library, like the judge, has consistently expressed surprise that this ever went to trial, that a public event at a public library should result in the indictment of a librarian.”

Another recent incident is the cause of Natalia Sharina, former Director of the state-run Library of Ukrainian Literature in Moscow.

In June 2017, she was found guilty of ‘incitement of hatred’ toward Russian people and ‘embezzlement’ and handed-down a four year suspended sentence for holding ‘extremist literature’. Sharina has spent 19 months under house arrest, throughout the investigation and trial.

PEN International believes that the case against Sharina is politically motivated and calls for her sentence and conviction to be overturned. Not only is it far from certain that the books in question were part of the collection, but even if they had been, this should not be a cause for arrest and detention.

IFLA has been following the case and published a statement on the judgement calling for authorities in Russia, and around the world, to bring banning of books and the persecution of librarians to an end.

Unfortunately, these cases are not unique. Librarians worldwide are facing struggle in claiming the rights to freedom of opinion and expression.

Today, on World Press Freedom Day, we celebrate the right to freedom of expression and opinion, and we remind that the support is still needed, and there is still much more to be done.

Four Dimensions of Data Protection in Libraries

Leave a Reply

Scandals around the collection and use of personal information appear to be reaching a critical mass.

The first cases brought against companies under the General Data Protection Regulation are coming to court in Europe, and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has declared that he wants to focus more on privacy. Stories of major data breaches regularly hit the headlines.

After many years of concern that ‘privacy’ was a niche thing, a priority only for a vocal few, it is now the subject of growing attention.

At least in the library world, the importance of privacy is well established. We know that it facilitates free speech and access to information, helps protect users from having their internet experience channelled for commercial reasons, and allows us to function as people.

Yet like all human rights, privacy – and more specifically data protection in terms of control over what data is collected about you and how it is used – is not necessarily an absolute right. Instead, it can be exercised only so far as it does not stand in the way of other rights and interests (and vice versa).

This blog, therefore, sets out four ‘dimensions’ of the privacy debate where libraries, in their work, have to find the right balance.

 

Privacy vs Performance

Much of the excitement around the data revolution has come from its potential to help us understand more about the world and make more accurate predictions.

Clearly a focus on measurement as a tool for performance improvement pre-dates the digital age. However, the new technological possibilities to track individuals’ behaviour have made it far more tempting to use data to try to redesign services or products, including for libraries.

However, there are ethical challenges around the tracking of individuals (not least library users). While the intention may be to improve services, it is not without cost. Tracking can involve a violation of privacy (especially when it’s not clearly explained), and a restriction on personal responsibility of users, such as students.

Moreover, it is not necessarily the case that the measurements made are appropriate. We often focus rather on what can be measured (pages read, downloads, time spent in the library) rather than less easily gauged, but more meaningful, things (understanding, skills development). This can lead to misallocation of effort.

A careful judgement needs therefore to be made around where it can be appropriate to collect data, ensuring not only transparency, but also protection of users.

 

Privacy vs Price

While the idea of surrendering privacy in order to save money can sound cynical, it is in effect what we are doing when we use many free services online.

In the US, there has been the suggestion that consumers can choose between a high-privacy, more expensive internet connection package, and a cheaper one where user data is sold on to advertisers and others.

This choice may not always be explicit, but vendors with whom libraries work can and do collect data about library user behaviour. It is reasonable to think that without this possibility, they would charge more for the services provided, in order to maintain revenues.

It is not always an easy decision, especially when budgets are tight, but libraries a need to take well-judged, conscious decisions, and of course give users the tools and possibility to do the same.

 

Privacy vs Public Interest

The concept of ‘public interest’ can be a fair reason for taking steps that limit rights. The imprisonment of violent criminals for example – depriving them of many of their freedoms – makes life safer for everyone else.

Where there is a genuine reason, due and transparent process is followed, and restrictions are proportionate, there can be a case for restricting privacy too. The challenge is that all of these terms are at least partially subjective, and require careful (and well-explained) judgement in order to be used properly.

Too often, the ‘public interest’ can also serve as a justification for disproportionate limitations on rights, for example mass-surveillance. This makes it a difficult area for institutions with a strong commitment to freedoms and privacy.

Libraries of course are institutions operating under the law, and cannot be expected to break it. However, within these limits, there can be means of ensuring that privacy is protected, such as through the deletion of data, or allowing anonymous internet browsing.

The key, once again, is to find the right balance. There is of course no simple answer, but it is clear that privacy must be born in mind, and restrictions kept to a minimum.

 

Privacy vs Preservation

A final debate focuses more on library content itself. Inevitably, any library charged with collecting information that documents contemporary society and thinking will acquire books, journals, newspapers, webpages and other materials that contain information about people.

Much of this – dealing with biographical detail or political views for example – counts as personally identifiable information. While libraries’ activities in this area, strictly speaking, count as a ‘violation’ of privacy, it is one that is necessary for them to do their jobs.

Indeed, thanks to the collection and preservation of such materials, it is possible to ensure as complete a historical record as possible for the benefit of the researchers and readers of the future. It also helps promote, for example, the accountability of politicians or other influential people.

IFLA has therefore been highly cautious around concepts such as the ‘right to be forgotten’ and the ‘right to erasure’. This is not to say that, as part of professional codes of ethics, librarians shouldn’t take care with information that is sensitive. Indeed, this is where the debate should be, not around the deletion, pure and simple, of work.

 

Perhaps depressingly, this blog serves only to set out questions rather than answers. The questions are also hard, at least for those defending privacy, given that the case ‘against’ in each example can seem attractive –higher-performing services, a greater budget for acquisitions, safer societies, and the preservation of the historical record.

Nonetheless, privacy cannot be sacrificed, given the fundamental impact it has on the way we live our lives, and of course use libraries. The job of librarians – and of IFLA – is to help find the right balance.

What is the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and why libraries should get involved

Leave a Reply

There is little doubt about the importance of human rights in the library world. Outside too, few will dismiss them openly, even if their actions speak differently. However, there are concerns about their enforcement – what use are principles if they are not turned into reality?

Many countries have of course integrated many (most) aspects of key international human rights texts into national law. In the case of Europe, there is even an international court which has the power to go against the decisions and policies of independent states.

However, even where human rights feature in national legislation and constitutions, their application is only as strong as the rule of law – and this is highly variable.

Universal Periodic Reviews (UPRs) are a response to concern about the lack of impact of the UN’s human rights work. Launched in March 2006 under the auspices of the Human Rights Council, the process monitors and reviews the human rights situation of all 193 UN Member States. Its goal is to promote improvements and address violations wherever they occur, as well as to share best human rights practices around the globe.

How do UPRs work?

The reviews are ‘state-led’. This means that it is governments (rather than independent experts or the United Nations) which control the process. The reviews are formally conducted by the UPR Working Group (48 Member States) which meets three times a year for two weeks at a time. Each review is facilitated by groups of three States, known as “troikas”, who serve as rapporteurs.

In preparation for the Review, a Member State will provide a ‘national report’ on their own work to fulfil international human rights law. UN Special Rapporteurs (for example on Freedom of Expression or Cultural Rights), Treaty Bodies (such as the Commission the Rights of Persons with Disabilities), other UN entities, other Member States and NGOs can also submit information.

The UPR assesses human rights obligations as set out in: (1) the UN Charter; (2) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; (3) human rights instruments to which the State is party (human rights treaties ratified by the State concerned); (4) voluntary pledges and commitments made by the State (e.g. national human rights policies and/or programmes implemented); and, (5) applicable international humanitarian law.

Each review consists of an interactive discussion between the state under review and the other UN member states, lasting about three and a half hours. In the course of the discussion, states under review can declare what actions they have taken to improve the human rights situations in their countries and to fulfil their human rights obligations.

The review process takes place in cycles. During its first cycle (2008-2011), all UN Member States were reviewed. The second cycle (20012-2016) reviewed 42 states, and the third cycle (2017-2021) is currently reviewing 48 countries.

Why is relevant to libraries?

As highlighted, libraries have a key interest in human rights. Freedom of access to information and freedom of expression are clearly central, but as IFLA’s series of blogs in the run up to the 70th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights set out, other rights are also significant.

Where this is possible, librarians are often active in defending and promoting human rights, and watching out for problems. They can use different opportunities – national or local-level advocacy and lobbying, complaints to national human rights institutions, or other actions – to make progress.

UPRs offer the possibility to add action at the global level. Given that they welcome input from civil society, there is the opportunity for libraries to raise concerns or make recommendations. These feed into a stakeholder report, and can be cited by the UN or other Member States. Where this happens, there is a chance that such recommendations will form part of the published final report.

Libraries can also attend the UPR Working Group sessions and can make oral statements at the regular session of the Human Rights Council when the outcome of the State reviews are considered.

In an ideal situation, a Member State will then face a formal (and public) recommendation to act. Some examples taken from recent reviews are below:

  • Review legislation in order to ensure that all legislation, including any laws regulating the internet access to information, comply with international human rights standards protecting freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.
  • Make amendments to the Protection of State Information Bill with a view to guaranteeing the right to access to information and freedom of expression.
  • Continue efforts to ensure the right to access to information and freedom of expression by adopting regulations that would be in accordance with both the Constitution and international treaties and commitments.
  • Continue providing human rights education, in particular through access to information and promoting existing mechanisms for protection and reparation
  • Strengthen health information services, particularly with regard to sexual and reproductive health, and ensure that they are accessible to young people and persons with disabilities.

Practical issues

Submissions have usually a deadline and they must adhere to a specified format, and should not exceed five pages (or ten pages if submission is by a coalition of stakeholders). They are meant to be public documents and openly accessible and shareable, and ideally will be the result of coordination at the national level.

Deadlines for submissions are relatively early, in order to allow time to prepare reviews. For example, documents for the 34th session (to be held in October-November 2019) need to be sent by 28 March 2019. A full list of sessions, countries under review, and dates is available on the UPR website. More information on submissions are available online through this report.

In person participation at reviews is possible but requires accreditation, but a priori only in an observer status (i.e. it is not possible to speak). Accredited stakeholders can also attend and make oral statements during the regular sessions of the Human Rights Council when the outcomes of the State reviews are considered.

Reflections

UPRs clearly do offer an opportunity to highlight areas where improvements could be made to national human rights practices in order to benefit libraries and their users. In turn, recommendations resulting from UPRs can be a powerful tool in advocacy at the national and local levels.

At the same time, it is important to be realistic about the impact that can be had. The power of recommendations will depend on how likely governments are to listen (variable). Furthermore, some dismiss the process as a whole given the equal status it gives to all countries, regardless of their own human rights record.

Your views on libraries and Universal Periodic Reviews are welcome!

Digital Cooperation Day One: What values and principles should we bear in mind when taking decisions about the internet?

Leave a Reply

In the first of three blogs about the questions the United Nations Secretary General’s High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation is asking in its call for submissions, we’re focusing on values. Which values should lie behind any effort to build agreements and decide on actions concerning the internet? We’ll be incorporating your answers into our final submission to the Panel!

As we often underline in IFLA blogs, libraries are institutions built on values. Their mission – to preserve our heritage and give access to information to all – is not based on a drive to maximise profit or power, but to ensure that everyone has the possibility to learn, grow and live fulfilled lives.

These values feed into the approach libraries take to their own decision-making, and into the positions they take in broader political debates. This of course includes discussions about how the internet should be governed.

It is therefore good news that the UN Secretary-General’s High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation has given such attention to the importance of values. This is why our first question is about the values which should steer decision-making about the internet – for example how to protect data, deal with content that some people do not like, or promote connectivity and digital skills.

Which of the values promoted by libraries are applicable? What can the experience of libraries tell us about how to balance conflicting rights and priorities, such as between free speech and privacy? Does the internet, given its role in empowering individuals and its multistakeholder nature (i.e. governments, individuals, businesses and civil society all have important roles to play) mean anything is different?

Let us know what you think! We look forward to seeing your views in the comments box below!

You can read IFLA’s initial submission to the High Level Panel on our website. See all of our blogs on Digital Cooperation here.

Personal Identifiable Information and Archiving For The Public Interest

Leave a Reply

 “There is no political power without control of the archives, if not of memory. Effective democratization can always be measured by this essential criterion: the participation in and access to the archive, its constitution, and its interpretation.” Jacques Derrida

Archives and libraries are important memory institutions. Their role in documenting many aspects of human lives can, alongside providing a vital support to researchers, also promote accountability and the bringing to justice of those who infringe rights. One of my favourite archive stories relates to an episode of Guatemalan history.

In 2005, some abandoned old buildings in Guatemala City were opened for an upcoming city project. Unexpectedly, they revealed the entire archive of the defunct National Police. Amidst piles of papers ruined by humidity, vermin and tears lay the documentation of a series of horrors committed at the height of Guatemala’s civil conflict in the 1980s. During this time, governmental death squads roamed the city and kidnapped individuals who never returned to their homes.

Upon the discovery, local volunteers and archivists worked alongside colleagues from the USA to collect, preserve and digitize all the papers. The effects of such discovery had profound repercussions on Guatemalan society as the discovery allowed the country to close the door on one of the most violent periods of its history. The digitized archives were made available online and they are now publicly available here.

This story underlines that institutions such as libraries and archives are the homes for our collective memory. They help us to understand the past, make sense of the present, and guide us for the future. Archives and libraries collect and store this information in the public interest, and inevitably, they will collect information concerning people.

The broad definition of personally identifiable information potentially covers a wide range of materials – blogs or news stories containing political views, Wikipedia pages, tweets. These all serve to identify a person.

Clearly there are significant concerns about how data is used, for example by social media platforms, credit rating agencies, or marketing companies. The new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which entered into force on 25 May 2018, applied to all of them. But what what does it mean for memory institutions?

The law has the general aim to protect individuals’ rights and freedoms and enables organisations to process personal identifiable information with due regard for the rights and freedom of individuals. As such, a data subject has the right to be informed about the data gathered about him/her, has the right to access, the right of rectification and process and the right to erasure or the right to be forgotten, among others.

Article 17 of the GDPR states that the “data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller, the person who determines why and how personal data are processed, the erasure of personal data concerning him or her without undue delay and the controller shall have the obligation to erase personal data without undue delay”.

However, there is an exception for archiving purposes, amongst other circumstances. “Importantly, the right to erasure does not apply if processing is necessary for archiving purposes in the public interest, where erasure is likely to render impossible or seriously impair the achievement of that processing”.

However, this exception is only optional – countries have to decide whether they want to include it in national law. Moreover, it is unclear what the phrase “archiving purposes in the public interest” really means and which archives/collections are covered. The phrase is not defined in the GDPR itself.  A recital may imply that coverage is limited to institutions with a legal obligation to acquire and preserve records but there are others who collect for different reasons and their mission also results in public benefit.

With more and more countries looking to adopt data protection legislation, there is a need to ensure that archiving exceptions are protected. Without this, there is always a risk that those who committed crimes during the Guatemalan civil war can ask for the evidence of their crimes to be deleted.

IFLA is planning to write a statement on personal identifiable information and archiving in the public interest and it would like to gather opinions, comments and suggestions from its FAIFE community on this topic. Please let us know if you have any ideas to contribute. We are looking forward to hearing from you.