Category Archives: Uncategorized

From Gatekeeper to Gateway to Gate-Opener: The Changing Role of Libraries (and How We Talk About It)

1 Reply

The emergence of the internet has undoubtedly revolutionised the information landscape, taking us from a situation of information scarcity to one of abundance.

This has of course massively affected the role of libraries, which can no-longer claim any sort of monopoly on provision of access to information, at least beyond that which people’s personal libraries can provide.

Libraries have responded, focusing collections on materials which cannot necessarily be found freely online. They have also placed a greater emphasis on providing a space where people can interact with information and build communities.

As is already reflected in IFLA’s Intellectual Freedom Statement, which turns 20 this year, libraries should act as ‘gateways’ to information.

Crucially, this is the word chosen, rather than ‘gatekeepers’, which would imply that libraries choose what information people should see or not, or even, what information people should see.

This is an important distinction. Given the commitment of libraries to providing access to information, claiming a right to restrict this sends an odd signal. It risks making libraries look paternalistic and even arrogant – something that will not serve our institutions well as we seek public and political support into the future.

This is not to say that there are no situations where access needs to be controlled – because materials are vulnerable, sensitive, or (unfortunately) because of the conditions under which they were acquired. Moreover, the fact that libraries cannot acquire everything does create a limitation of sorts on possibilities for access, at least until a copy can be found from elsewhere.

However, these situations are clearly the exception not the rule. As the Intellectual Freedom Statement suggests, it seems fitting that library and information workers should think first of all about how they can give access, rather than how they should restrict it.

 

Fake News and the Risk of Back-Sliding

Especially with the rise of concern about ‘fake news’, there has also been a tendency to talk about libraries as places where you can find reliable information. Surveys have shown that this is indeed a key strength of libraries in the eyes of communities.

This is welcome – it is certainly true that libraries work hard to acquire high quality books and materials, and librarians aim to help users find the sources that help them best.

However, the idea of libraries as the place where you find reliable information – ‘true news’ – brings with it the suggestion that our institutions have a monopoly on truth and fact. This risks reversing the progress marked in the Intellectual Freedom statement – the recognition that libraries are gateways, not gatekeepers.

Where libraries arguably do have a monopoly is as places where it is possible to develop the skills, at any time of life, to use and interact with information. To recognise that there is often no one right answer, but degrees of accuracy and reliability, and to deal with this accordingly.

This comes both from the diversity of collections libraries can offer, from different sources and publishers, and from the skills of librarians themselves.

Indeed, it’s possible to argue that libraries are not just gateways – passive spaces where people can come in order to read an borrow books, or use the Internet – but gate-openers – to a more active and useful engagement with information.

 

The 20 years since the agreement of IFLA’s Intellectual Freedom Statement have seen huge changes in the way we access and use information. In doing so, they have confirmed the choice of the word ‘gateway’  rather than ‘gate-keeper’ in relation to libraries’ role in relation to access to information.

Today, with a growing emphasis on building skills – and the risk of back-sliding linked to the ‘fake news’  phenomenon – perhaps it is time to think about taking the next step, from gateways to gate-openers.

A Right to Anonymity?

1 Reply

A Right to Anonymity - ImageWith recent reforms in Austria set to remove the possibility to leave anonymous comments on the internet, the question of the right to anonymity is on the agenda.

The justification for the reforms in Austria is concern about the rise of ‘hate speech’, and the sense that anonymity can give people the possibility to spread discriminatory views without consequences. If there’s a risk of being identified and caught, the argument goes, people will moderate their speech.

Civil liberties groups have, however, opposed this, pointing out that it is often the usual victims of hate speech – marginalised groups, those in vulnerable positions – who have benefitted most from the opportunity to use the Internet without giving up their identities.

How does this affect libraries, both as concerns their values and their practice?

Anonymity is included as a concept in IFLA’s own Statement on Intellectual Freedom, which is celebrating its 20th Anniversary this year:

‘Library users shall have the right to personal privacy and anonymity. Librarians and other library staff shall not disclose the identity of users or the materials they use to a third party’.

Talking about privacy and anonymity is perhaps a little awkward. In effect, anonymity is rather one means – a particularly effective one – of ensuring privacy. If you are never identified in what you do, then there is no possibility of someone else learning about your preferences or activities.

For example, it is the difference between paying for your groceries with a credit or debit card, and paying with cash. Paying with a card leaves a trace which a shop or card provider can use to build a profile. Paying with cash leaves no trace. It is far easier to be anonymous in the latter case.

 

Of course, privacy can be achieved without anonymity. There are conditions under which personal data collection is acceptable – and even desirable.

Indeed, this is recognised in legislation such as the General Data Protection Regulation in Europe. This both looks to ensure that no more data is collected than necessary (data minimisation), and that what data is collected is done with consent, and then stored and used properly.

In short, privacy implies a mixture of anonymity in some cases, and careful and ethical collection and management of data in others.

The question then is of how to decide when we should opt for anonymity, and when not, acknowledging that the highest level of privacy comes from keeping people anonymous.

 

Anonymity vs Data Protection

There are some interesting examples in the wider world that offer some insights into this question. For example, it is seen as normal that we need to identify ourselves in order to buy and drive a car. Nonetheless, the list of who owns which car is not made public.

However, if we were asked for the same in order to ride a bicycle, this would seem shocking.

Why is this? The reason likely lies in the fact that it is far more likely that someone can do harm in a car than on a bicycle. In order to catch those who are driving too fast, or causing accidents, giving the police a means of identifying the owner of a car can be seen as justifiable (if not perfect).

A second example comes from contrasting medical records with information about how someone travels around within a country.

We generally accept that medical professionals should have access to records about allergies, conditions and past treatment in order to improve our care. We of course expect that these are properly looked after.

In contrast, in most parts of the world, we don’t expect to be tracked as we move around within the cities, regions or countries we live in. While, of course, our phones often do this for us, when we become aware of it, we often remember to update our settings to prevent this.

In short, while there may be some situations where being tracked is helpful (for example to find missing people or to make using online maps easier), many given the option will choose anonymity.

In this case, even though medical information is arguably far more personal than travel information, we accept this breach of anonymity because it brings real benefits.

What about libraries?

Many libraries do not require identification for someone to be able to enter a building and use resources on site (although policies do vary when it comes to using library computers). However, in order to borrow books, a library card is necessary, implying a loss of anonymity.

The justification is that lending only works when there are limits on what any individual can borrow, and that there is a time-limit on this. This is only possible with an account attached to a person.

The IFLA statement implicitly recognises this divergent approach, accepting that in addition to anonymity in some circumstances, libraries will also hold personal information which could (but shouldn’t, at least not without consent) be shared with third parties.

How does this choice apply when it comes to using – and expressing yourself – on the internet?

 

The Man Without an IP Address

Clearly the argument of the Austrian government is that the harm done by online hate speech is cause enough to oblige people to use their real names.

At first, this logic is attractive. Hate speech does indeed do harm to people who may already be vulnerable, and it is important to stop it when it risks leading to real harm.

However, it is not necessarily the case that identifying a person stops this from happening – in the end, it is taking down the content itself that resolves the issue. This can be done through notice and (transparent) moderation.

The subject of hate speech itself is also difficult. While there may be some black-and-white cases, there are many more nuanced ones where it is hard to draw a clear distinction. Just because something is rude or offensive for some, it does not necessarily make it hate-speech.

This recalls the situation with other reasons often given for restricting content, such as security (many governments claim that any criticism of their actions is a security threat) or morality (used in many situations to repress LBGTQI expression).

It is clear of course that perhaps some sources of hate speech will think twice if they need to share their identities. But this does not necessarily stop them holding such views, or carrying out acts motivated by them.

Furthermore, we also have to accept that removing the right to anonymity risks opening the doors to other moves away from anonymity as default, and so weakening a key protection for vulnerable individuals and groups.

People who have found a community and a voice online that has been denied to them in the physical world risk losing it when their names are shared. Through this, they can become the victims of attacks on their persons and property.

At a less extreme level, the feeling of being watched can have a chilling effect on online behaviour, restricting people’s ability to follow their interests and develop their personalities. In any case, for a democratic government to take such a step, even for the most honest of intentions, simply risks legitimatising those who will use restrictions on anonymity to crack down on diversity and dissent.

 

The implication of the General Data Protection Regulation, as well as of IFLA’s Statements on Intellectual Freedom and Privacy in the Library Environment is that the default in any situation should be the highest possible level of privacy – i.e. anonymity.

It follows that the collection of data should be the exception, not the rule, and in this case be justified, with cases such as that of Austria provide an opportunity to remind ourselves what’s at stake.

Nonetheless, decisions about when it is acceptable to derogate from anonymity also appear in the work of libraries. It is important to be conscious of these, in order to take the best decisions for users.

Going Beyond – Promoting Vulnerable Voices in Libraries

Leave a Reply

IFLA’s Intellectual Freedom Statement turns 20 in 2019. This is the first in a series offering perspectives, and raising questions, about its different provisions. 

 

A recent TechDirt blog highlighted an effort by Cloudfare – one of the biggest companies offering content delivery services on the internet – to protect particular sites and services.

Through its Project Galileo, Cloudfare looks to offer ‘some of the most politically and artistically important work online’ free use of the best available defences against cyberattacks.

It raises two interesting points.

First of all, there is the reality that while any site can be targeted using cyber-weaponry, that some are more vulnerable than others.

Both governments and private groups can use various techniques to stop particular sites from operating. Cloudfare already works to protect voter registration and other electoral sites for example.

Secondly, there is the parallel with debates about whether particular content should be regulated or blocked (as opposed to which content should be protected). In effect, should some sites be treated better (or worse) than others? And how should decisions about this be made?

 

How does this relate to the work of libraries ?

First of all, it is clear that certain books in libraries are more likely to face criticism and requests for removal than others. The problem seems worst for content addressing LGBTQ+ issues, that addressing particular political or religious themes and other books and materials deemed offensive by particular groups.

IFLA’s own Statement on Intellectual Freedom argues that content should be selected on professional grounds, and reflect the diversity of the community. It speaks out against discrimination in general (without distinguishing between positive and negative discrimination).

Meanwhile, the Public Library Manifesto stresses that ‘Collections and services should not be subject to any form of ideological, political or religious censorship, nor commercial pressures’.

While complaints from local politicians and members of the community may require a different sort of response to a cyberattack, the response is still necessary. A number of librarians and library associations have done so, highlighting both the challenges of censorship in general, and celebrating those books which face the most criticism.

 

This leads to the question of how – and whether – libraries should go out of their way to support works which may not prove popular with some.

The spirit of the Statement on Intellectual Freedom, as well as the Public Library Manifesto, certainly goes in the direction of actively providing a diverse range of content, reflecting a diverse range of interests – including the artistically and politically important work targeted by Cloudfare. Many of the types of content frequently subject to challenge are indeed connected with the interests, of certain groups.

But what does this mean for what libraries can and should do to acquire diverse – and sometimes difficult – content, especially given inevitable budget constraints? How does it affect the way libraries promote and display works? How can libraries best defend the choices they make when challenged?

Cloudfare can clearly rely on a panel of experts, but this is not likely to be possible for libraries. What do you think about how libraries can (or should) champion intellectual freedom by supporting vulnerable voices, in the face of opposition and challenges.

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.

Why Privacy Matters, For Everyone: Chose Privacy Week 2019

Leave a Reply

Choose Privacy Week was initiated by the American Library Association to draw attention to the importance of privacy, and what people can do about it. It is a great opportunity to learn about the important role librarians play in achieving this.

This year’s theme of Choose Privacy Week is “Inclusive Privacy: Closing the Gap”, and raises awareness of the privacy inequities imposed on vulnerable and historically underrepresented groups. It highlights how libraries can close the privacy gap for those who need it most.

Why Privacy Matters

Privacy is of course a right. As set out in Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, people should be able to live free of arbitrary interventions in their private life.

There is a good reason for this. The possibility to have a private life is central to much of what makes us human. In particular, it gives us the freedom to think, speak and access information freely.

IFLA’s submission to the UN Special Rapporteur on Privacy stresses this point, underlining that without privacy, there can be a powerful chilling effect on creativity and innovation.

Privacy has traditionally been seen as a means of protecting the individual against efforts by states to import control. However, increasingly, it is privacy in the face of companies that is coming to the fore.

Data collection has never been easier, and the companies whose services we use are increasingly able to draw conclusions about us on the basis of what they see. Indeed, many of these conclusions may reveal traits and preferences of which we are not necessarily conscious ourselves.

Clearly advertising has done this for years, but the possibility to do so in such a targeted, individual manner is new.

If this was only about advertising, it would not necessarily be so important, although clearly still has a certain ‘creepiness’ factor. However, more is at stake. It can also shape the content we see on line – which stories, posts or search-results are promoted.

Ironically, perhaps, the effort to personalise services comes at the cost of individuality and privacy, as a coded version of your personality is constructed, held on a server somewhere, and then used.

This is not just an issue on social media, but also in the research space. With efforts to move from institutional to personal log-ins to academic articles, the possibility for publishers and platforms to monitor use, and make their own efforts to tailor results and experience also arise.

This is a problem, because it means that we cannot assume that the person next to us is seeing the same thing as we would. Moreover, given that the algorithmic version of your personality can only work on the basis of past data, it does not allow for you to change in the future, potentially locking you into a particular set of preferences and interests.

 

Privacy Can’t Be A Luxury

Yet privacy – and the need for privacy – may not be equally distributed or equally shared.

A first challenge is for people who belong to a vulnerable or marginalised group. In many cases, they may feel the need to hide what it is that makes them unique, given political, cultural or social pressures in the society around them.

The internet has been a major source of support for many in this position, given the possibility to connect to those in a similar situation elsewhere, without having to use what may be a hostile public space.

To have these characteristics and interest coded and used to shape advertising and online experience (and potentially even inform governments) takes these gains away.

There may also be challenges for people on lower incomes, who may, for example, be more reliant on smart phones to access the internet (which pose a number of privacy concerns).

They can also be obliged to share more personal information anyway online in order to apply for government services or other programmes. A 2017 study on privacy, poverty and big data by Data & Society reveals some key trends.

Add to this stories of internet subscribers being asked to pay more for a privacy-friendly connection, or the fact that more expensive phone brands are using privacy as a selling point, and the potential connection between income and the right to a private life becomes clear.

Finally, there is often not a connection between the risks faced, and the ability to do something about it.

Recent privacy legislation, such as the General Data Protection Regulation in the European Union, gives important new rights to individuals. The success of this depends on people being sufficiently skilled and motivate to choose privacy.

Yet is seems clear that even where there is awareness, there may not be the skills – or even the attitude – necessary to act on it. As the Data & Society study shows, while there is demand, people with less money, less time, and less education may feel helpless in the face of companies and government agencies.

This is just as true in the case of right to be forgotten cases. While there is certainly a place for such rules in protecting people against unfair, irrelevant or incorrect information about them being found through search results, the risk is that it becomes a tool for those in positions of power to ‘edit’ the historical record.

 

How Libraries Can Help

A year ago IFLA and the FAIFE Committee used the momentum of the Chose Privacy Week to bring awareness to how personal data ownership affect libraries and library users and offered practical steps that individuals can take to keep their private lives private in regards to the General Data Protection Regulation.

A year after, there is still a need to work to ensure that everyone really is aware of, skilled and motivated to use their choice of privacy.

Libraries have an expertise in information management, and a responsibility to help others develop their own information literacy skills. With more and more library resources found online, libraries can not only offer a means of accessing information and expressing yourself in as private a way as possible, but can encourage privacy-friendly behaviours in their users’ own lives.

In short, the library is not only a trusted source of information but also a community support and can “close the privacy gap” for its users by providing a safe space, training and resources to help them take control of their private lives and data.

Here are a few steps that you can take to ensure the users privacy:

  • Make use of the privacy guidelines for libraries. In 2016, IFLA published the IFLA Statement on Privacy in the Library Environment. The Statement is intended to give guidance to libraries and information services in an environment that includes mass surveillance by governments and routine user data collection by commercial interests that provide content or services through the Internet.
  • Reduce data traces online. Greater care in choosing privacy settings, and simply better data hygiene can all help. And there are great tools such as the Data Detox Kit already available.
  • Apply tools to protect user privacy. ALA has created a list of resources on relevant tools, you can find the list here, while Scottish PEN has a Libraries for Privacy Toolkit.
  • Watch presentations and webinars on the subject. You can learn a lot by watching webinars such as the IFLA webinar on the GDPR, or the ALA video on raising privacy awareness in your library.
  • Help raise awareness throughout Chose Privacy Week!

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 Three: How can libraries play a strong role in partnerships and decision-making related to the internet?

Leave a Reply

The final day of our consultation on IFLA’s response to the UN Secretary-General’s High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation looks at how we can give libraries a stronger role in decision-making about digital issues.

As highlighted in previous blogs, libraries already have a strong record of cooperation. The sorts of partnership involved vary according to the type of library, from local community groups to major multinational companies, but all can help achieve library goals.

What about cooperation at the global level? IFLA regularly represents libraries at the Internet Governance Forum, and there are often librarians at regional and national editions. Indeed, a key benefit of participation in these meetings is the potential they offer to build and pursue partnerships.

However, not all discussions about major digital issues are so open. Libraries are not always so well listened to in other fora, despite the contribution they can make.

So our final question focuses on what should be done to ensure that libraries play a strong role, both in order to influence decision-making, and in order to ensure that their potential to provide solutions to digital challenges is not left unrealised.

Does there need to be a more formal role for voices like those of libraries? Greater consultation? Discussion of digital issues at local levels?

Let us know what you think! You can also post your ideas on social media with the hashtag #LibrariesDigiCoop.

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

Digital Cooperation Day Two: What can libraries contribute in the key areas where digital cooperation is required?

Leave a Reply

Day two of our consultation on IFLA’s response to call for contributions launched by the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation focuses on how libraries can make a difference to the challenges set out.

Why cooperate? Libraries have long worked with others – governments, partners – in order to provide better services, going beyond what they can do alone. Libraries are often as much of a platform for others to deliver as an actor themselves.

This is logical – everyone has different strengths, roles and possibilities. It makes it possible to achieve goals, and tackle problems, effectively.

The same goes for the online world. The emergence of a digital economy and society both changed the way we think about existing challenges, and created new ones. These can be linked to a lack of cooperation or shared understanding between players.

To respond, it is necessary to cooperate, bringing together different actors – governments, private companies, individuals, organisations, and of course libraries!

What these actors can do, together, is one of the key areas of focus of the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation.

So our second question is about what libraries can contribute to responding to these challenges. The Panel suggests inclusive development, inclusive participation in the digital economy, data, protection of human rights online, human voice and human agency in the digital age, digital trust and security, and building the capacity of individuals, institutions and governments for the digital transformation as particular challenges.

Let us know what you think!

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

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.