Tag Archives: #intellectualfreedom20years

Intellectual Freedom in Turkey

Leave a Reply

Over the last few months, FAIFE marked the 20th anniversary of the IFLA Statement on Intellectual Freedom with a series of blogs outlining the debates on intellectual freedom in different countries. Today, Ahmet A. Sabancı – a freelance writer, journalist and social critic who focuses on issues surrounding freedom of expression, journalism and the internet – shares an essay about the threats to freedom of information that exist in Turkey.

The essay is based on a presentation he gave during the 2019 World Library and Information Congress session “20 Years of the IFLA Intellectual Freedom Statement: Constancy and Change”. You can find a recording of the session on the website of WLIC 2019.

 

The Many Faces of the Freedom of Information Threats in Turkey

Ahmet A. Sabancı – [email protected]

In recent years, the state of freedom of information in Turkey has become a well known and discussed topic all around the world. Government censorship and control over media becoming more ruthless every passing day, the situation in Turkey has become an example for many. Especially with the rise of similar developments in different parts of the world, understanding how it works in the countries where the situation is already a concern becomes more important.

To understand and analyze the current freedom of information situation in Turkey, I propose a three-layer explanation of the threats against this freedom. These three layers will both help us to understand the levels of the threats and how one type of threat intensifies another.

  1. Government Censorship and Control

Internet Censorship

Law 5651, the infamous law that regulates the Internet in Turkey, has been used actively to censor the Internet in Turkey. With the latest update in 2014, this law gives the government an unlimited power to censor the Internet and surveil Turkish internet users.

According to latest research, there are 245,825 websites blocked in Turkey. This number has increased even since. Some of the well-known websites blocked are Wikipedia; Imgur, an image sharing platform; Pastebin, a text file sharing platform for coders; and Tor Project, a tool for people to use the Internet anonymously. As well, many VPN services have been blocked in Turkey in recent years. This leaves many people without safe options to circumvent the censorship.

The list of censored websites also includes many political websites and news platforms. The most famous one is sendika.org, which is a labor-focused left-wing news site. The courts have ordered access to this site be blocked 63 times: the owners are now using the domain sendika63.org. There are many political news sites or alternative media projects that experience similar situations.

The Turkish government also sends take-down requests to platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. Turkey is usually at the top of their quarterly take down request lists. For example, Turkey sent 5014 removal requests, specifying 9155 accounts between July-December 2018. This puts Turkey on top of the list of countries that ask for content removal. In the same period, Russia comes after Turkey with 3344 requests for 3391 accounts. For comparison, during the same time period Germany sent only 42 requests with 44 accounts specified, and Canada sent 6 requests with 9 accounts specified.

There is also a new regulation that gives the governmental body that regulates television and radio new powers over Internet-based dissemination platforms such as Netflix and YouTube. Currently, Turkish television is heavily controlled and censored, and subjecting these platforms to similar controls might cause most of them to leave the country.

Censorship of Books and Journalism

The Turkish government uses Presidential decrees for censorship. Since the 2016 coup attempt, more than 30 book publishers and 100 news outlets have been shut down and all of their books have been collected. This has resulted in the removal of more than 135,000 books from Turkish libraries.

Journalism is also under heavy pressure in Turkey. Any journalist who writes news articles critical of the government risks arrest and imprisonment. The most-used excuses for the suppression of journalism are alleged links to terrorism or the revealing of government secrets. Right now, Turkey is the number-one jailer of journalists in the entire world. There are in addition ongoing incidents of violence against journalists, which usually comes from random groups because of what journalists have said or written.

  1. Media Ownership and Economic Control

One of the most important threats in Turkey to freedom of information is the concentration of media ownership. Most of the mainstream media, including book publishers and distributors, are owned by a small group of conglomerates which have close ties with the government. The current media ownership situation and its effects in Turkey can be read about in detail on the Media Ownership Monitor Turkey website.

This ownership relationship results in censorship, limiting readers’ access to only information produced by politically approved groups. This forces many minority or opposition groups to search for alternative means of disseminating information. It seriously limits their reach to the general public. The other current censorship mechanisms sit atop this limitation.

Already controlling mainstream media and information distribution through ownership, the government also uses other means of economic pressure over the opposition media, such as reducing advertising revenue. Many corporations buy advertising only from media organizations that are unofficially “approved.” The government also uses official announcements and press releases, distributed through Basın İlan Kurumu, which is an important revenue for print media, only to newspapers that are politically close to the government.

  1. Self-Censorship and Other Pressures on Intellectual Workers

These two layers of control have created an atmosphere in Turkey that results in self-censorship and an avoidance of “dangerous topics,” a widespread phenomenon. Self-censorship occurs in many ways. This can be publishers avoiding some content, libraries or bookstores not distributing books about “dangerous topics” or people afraid of talking about such issues. One of the main reasons for this situation is the legal pressure, mentioned as the first layer of censorship in this blogpost.

There is also the social pressure side of this, which can easily be manifested as people “doxing” (unauthorized online disseminating of identifying or personal information about someone) writers and journalists or reporting them to the police because of their work; or reporting teachers because of the books that they have recommended. This kind of pressure also forces many people to self-censor.

This social pressure is perceived by everyone. Whether they’re sharing something on a social media platform or talking with a group of friends, people feel the need to self-censor. This pressure even blocks the spread of information between small groups of people.

Can Libraries Help?

Unfortunately, the current situation of libraries is not good in Turkey either. Limited library budgets and shortage of library personnel leaves many libraries in a bad shape. There is also a serious lack of libraries in general across Turkey. In addition to these economic pressures, there is political pressure that affects librarians, inasmuch as a librarian might be demoted because of their support for an opposition candidate. Filling librarian positions with unqualified workers also weakens libraries.

Although the current situation seems bleak, librarians can help the public to fight back against the threats to the freedom of information. Promoting libraries and hosting events to help people to learn how to find more diverse information sources or how to navigate online when there are many untrusted sources can be an important mission for libraries. In these conditions finding, fact-checking and organizing information is vital for every person. Librarians can help people to learn how to do it.

In Conclusion

Freedom of information and intellectual freedoms in general are in a dire condition in Turkey. This is caused by different actors using diverse tools and tactics to restrict the information that the public can access. A fight against these pressures on the legal front continues, but its effects are unfortunately limited.

Because of this pressure, many people prefer to use the Internet for accessing information, but the Turkish people face new problems on that front. Internet censorship, blocking of access to privacy and anonymity tools and many people lacking Internet literacy leave people in a disadvantageous situation.

It is hard to say how and when this situation in Turkey is going to change, especially because we are seeing similar trends gaining traction elsewhere the world. Many people in Turkey just accept the situation and adjust their lives to it, instead of fighting back. Because we are living in a time in which we must struggle to defend the freedom to access information (and even information itself), the work of organizations such as IFLA becomes much more important and vital. Without our intellectual freedoms, we put everything we humans have created in danger.

Ahmet A. Sabancı is a freelance writer and journalist and a social critic who focuses on issues around internet, freedom of expression and information and technology. He’s also working to improve the situation of journalism in Turkey in the platform called NewsLabTurkey, of which he’s one of the co-founders and its Newsletter Editor.

Intellectual Freedom in Croatia

Leave a Reply

In 2019, FAIFE is marking the 20th anniversary of the Statement on Intellectual Freedom. Over the last few months, we have covered a series of contributions from FAIFE committee members highlighting various perspectives on intellectual freedom in different countries. Today, Davorka Pšenica – a Library Advisor at the Department of Croatian National Bibliography of the National and University Library in Zagreb – is presenting a perspective from Croatia.

1) What do you and your colleagues understand by ‘intellectual freedom’ in Croatia?

Intellectual freedom in the Republic of Croatia means the right to freedom of thought and expression, the freedom to promote ideas and beliefs, and the right of an individual to be informed.

The Constitution of the Republic of Croatia regulates the right to freedom of expression by the provision of Article 38 which reads: “Freedom of thought and expression shall be guaranteed. Freedom of expression shall particularly encompass freedom of the press and other media, freedom of speech and public opinion, and free establishment of all institutions of public communication. Censorship shall be forbidden. Journalists shall have the right to freedom of reporting and access to information. The right to access to information held by any public authority shall be guaranteed. Restrictions on the right to access to information must be proportionate to the nature of the need for such restriction in each individual case and necessary in a free and democratic society, as stipulate by law. The right to correction is guaranteed to anyone who constitutionally and legally established rights have been violated by public communication.”

2) How important an issue is it for libraries, and for the general population, in your country?

One of basic tasks of libraries in Croatia is to ensure free access to information to all citizens –this fundamental role is stated in all the main documents of the Croatian Library Association (CLA). It also underpins the activities of the CLA Committee for Free Access to Information and Freedom of Speech that for 20 years has organized roundtables on free access to information on International Human Rights Day.

At these roundtables, topics related to problems of free access to information, freedom of the media, freedom of speech and censorship, copyright, intellectual freedom and education, and transparency and openness of the organizational and socio-political system in Croatia have all been discussed at all levels.

It is important to highlight the efforts and involvement of the library community in a multi-year process of adopting the first Law on the Right of Access to Information in Croatia. The law was created due to encouragement of the academic community and civil society; its acceptance was preceded by a long-term public campaign led by a coalition of 17 non-governmental organizations, with the participation of the Croatian Library Association. The law has undergone a number of amendments and harmonization with relevant acts of the European Union and has been in force since 9 August 2015.

3) What have been the biggest questions and controversies in recent years?

In Croatia there is a problem of harmonization between, on the one hand, legal regulations concerning free access to information, freedom of the media and speech and regulations concerning free access to the internet, copyright protection, and on the other, a market-based, neoliberal economy that gives priority to capital and large companies. The neoliberal economy can, by introducing collection and citizens’ control systems, impair to a great extent free access to knowledge and information.

4) What do you think are the biggest challenges for intellectual freedom in the coming years?

The greatest challenges are those in the area of intellectual freedom protection, i.e. those relating to free access, accessibility and openness of information. More specifically, the business sector is not legally obliged to provide information to the public, that is, private companies and organizations are not subject to any legal obligation. Moreover, international institutions, such as the World Bank and other financial organizations, have their own rulebooks on providing information about their work.

The regulation of the right of access to information depends on individual national laws. For example, Freedom of Press Act of 1766 in the Kingdom of Sweden is regarded as the first law on the right of access to information. Acts introducing an obligation on public authorities to make their information available to the public mainly only date from the second half of the 20th century. The United Nations has encouraged drafting of the mentioned Acts on the grounds that the right to seek, receive and impart information also implies an obligation of states to allow access to information in their possession.

In Croatia the Right to Free Access to Information Act is a key anti-corruption tool requiring authorities, administration and the public sector to be responsible and report about their work to citizens, i.e. to report how they work, how much and what they spend public money for, how they make decisions, and who participates in this process.

This is how citizens and especially media and associations, as guardians of democracy and promoters of public interest, can hold the government and administration and make them remember they are here for citizens and for the public interest. Progress has been achieved at the level of the state administration, as the result, among other things, of bigger capacities to prepare, publish and provide information to the user. According to analyses, 60 to 80% of statutory information in Croatia is published, depending on the state institution.

The biggest problems appear in small municipalities, some of which continuously ignore citizens and fail to fulfill their legal obligations. This is a problem for public libraries too, because they depend on local authorities and therefore operate under harsh conditions in terms of limited procurement power, availability of library materials and information in the online environment. As a result of insufficient libraries funding and a lack of clearly expressed libraries policy, there is therefore a limit to the free flow of information flow more broadly.

5) What role do you see libraries playing in relation to intellectual freedom in 10 years’ time?

Librarians in Croatia are aware of the important role of libraries in promoting fundamental human rights such as intellectual freedom, freedom of thought and speech and the right to free access to information, but the state and local government’s support for, and understanding of, library programs and tasks is still insufficient.

That is why it is extremely important for the library community to take a proactive role in the society into the future, in terms of advocacy and lobbying for libraries and library programs as well as activities at all levels. This should include a focus on ensuring adequate funding for the acquisition of materials and equipment, and efforts to balance conditions under which different categories of users can use the library.

Librarians must actively and publicly advocate the defense of intellectual freedom whenever freedom is in danger of being limited or diminished. Intellectual freedom means the right to freedom of thought and expression, based on which the right of an individual to be informed is derived. The librarian must provide users with the information needed for communication about a topic and must actively prevent any attempt to obstruct a transfer of information to users.

 

You can read more about the work of Croatian libraries to promote access to information, intellectual freedom and other human rights in IFLA’s submission to the Universal Periodic Review in Croatia.

Right to Information Recognised in New European Court Rulings

Leave a Reply

Image: Group of scholars studying books. Text: A Right to Information: Finding a Good Balance with the Right to Be ForgottenTwo much anticipated rulings have come from the Court of Justice of the European Union. Both are ‘preliminary rulings’, effectively requests to the Court to offer clarification on what EU law – in this case the ‘right to be forgotten’ doctrine created by the Court in 2014 and placed in legislation in the General Data Protection Regulation of 2016.

As a reminder, the right to be forgotten refers to the right of individuals to ask that particular stories not be included in search results for their name. The idea is to ensure that there is a way of avoiding that search engines automatically give prominence to information that is unduly invasive of privacy.

IFLA has released a statement on the subject, underlining that the right to remove search results risks undermining access to information for internet users. While the IFLA statement notes that in some situations, a right to be forgotten may make sense, it argues strongly that this should be the exception, not the norm, and stresses concern about the impacts of leaving this choice to private actors.

The two cases in question come from France, and its Conseil national de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL) – the national digital data protection authority. In the first (C-507/17), the CNIL itself was in dispute with Google about whether, once there had been a decision to award the right to be forgotten, this should only be applied within Europe, or whether Google should be obliged to apply it on all versions of its search engine, around the world.

The second (C-136/17) asked whether the ban on ‘processing’ (doing things with) certain types of personal data, such as that about religious beliefs or politics, should also apply to search engines.

 

The Right to Information

In the first case, the Court decided that there was no obligation to remove relevant links from search engines around the world, rather than just in France or the EU (global delisting). This is an important decision, and one that IFLA itself supported, given our own statement on the subject.

Significantly, the Court explores the question of the costs of global delisting: ‘However, it states that numerous third States do not recognise the right to dereferencing or have a different approach to that right. The Court adds that the right to the protection of personal data is not an absolute right, but must be considered in relation to its function in society and be balanced against other fundamental rights, in accordance with the principle of proportionality. In addition, the balance between the right to privacy and the protection of personal data, on the one hand, and the freedom of information of internet users, on the other, is likely to vary significantly around the world.’

This definitely a welcome point for libraries, and one that underpins the final decision of the European Court, given its explicit recognition of a right to information of internet users around the world.

In the second case, the Court does note that the bar on processing highly personal information applies also to search engines to the extent that they process it.

However, it also argues that the exceptions to this bar do too – in a case where including a link in search results is essential if a balance is to be found between the rights of individuals and of information seekers, then this can be OK.

Therefore, in cases where the subject of the information has a prominent role in public life, it may well be acceptable to maintain search results, in order to ‘protect[…] the freedom of information of internet users potentially interested in accessing that web page by means of such a search.’

 

But No Resolution Yet

In both cases, the final decision rests with the French courts. The European Court has given guidance on how to take this, but leaves enough margin of appreciation the judges in Paris. As a result, in the case of global delisting, despite all of the arguments to suggest that this is a questionable move, the judgement still says that there’s nothing saying that this cannot still be requested.

Similarly, the judgement on highly personal data suggests that it is for the French judges to determine whether Google has taken sufficient care in working out whether it was necessary to include the relevant links in its search results. As a result, we will not know the final results for a while yet.

Clearly Google itself is a lightning rod. Its size and reputation make it a bogeyman for many. However, it is worth noting that the judgements apply not just to Google, but also to any other company or information service offering search functionality.

As seen in the Le Soir judgement in Belgium in 2016, the idea of the right to be forgotten can also be applied to a service offering search into digitised old newspapers.

Crucially, while Google may be in a position to apply the rules set out, it may be harder for others to do the same. For example, in the judgement on highly sensitive data, the Court argues that a search engine should be able to rearrange results about court judgements in order to ensure that the most recent information comes first.

If the rules around offering search services become more complicated, the risk is that it’s the smaller players who will fall foul of the rules, not Google, reducing the choice of information seeking tools available to users around the world.

 

Facial Recognition, Libraries, and Intellectual Freedom

Leave a Reply

FAIFE is marking the 20th anniversary of the IFLA Statement on Intellectual Freedom. As part of this, Jonathan Hernandez-Perez, a FAIFE member from the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) has shared the below blog on the subject of facial recognition technology, and what it means for libraries and their values. 

 

Facial recognition is one of the current obsessions of the tech industry, with regular high-profile product launches meaning that it is also high on the public agenda. It has developed rapidly over the last years, making it possible to undertake tasks that usually take hours in just the blink of an eye.

Yet as the number of public spaces that use this technology keeps rising, so too do the public’s concerns about privacy and surveillance, leading to many  more negative media headlines and an intense social media debate. This blog explores what facial recognition technology is, the questions it raises, and what this means for libraries.

 

What is Facial Recognition?

Facial recognition is a type of technology that allows the verification and identification of a person through analysis of his/her facial features. This technology has been with us since long before the coming of the internet.

With the intention of obtaining a definition of the “criminal face” during the 19th century, several facial patterns of ex-convicts and criminals were gathered. Fortunately, the idea that the measurements of someone’s head are associated with criminal tendencies has long been rejected.

However, some of the techniques involved have been enriched and improved, involving a greater number of actors and interests, leading to current technology that makes our daily lives more comfortable, from the basics of unlocking our cellphones or automatically “tag” a friend in a picture, to the more complicated issues, such as airport check-ins, tools to validate our identities at ATMs, or even means of gauging emotional responses. It turns our face, our emotions, and expressions into a bar code.

Furthermore, facial recognition has the potential to be combined with other technologies in order to combine and enhance the tracking that happens in the digital and physical sphere.

 

Enabling Surveillance, Hidden Bias

The convenience allowed for by facial recognition comes with a price, and in the digital era the cost is our privacy. This is because nowadays, our facial expressions – the very essence of human social and emotional interaction – have become an object of experimentation, propaganda, and database development. Arguably, we are only partially aware of the extent and consequences this technology could have in a very short time period, particularly because biometric technologies are still not widely understood.

A particular worry is the degree to which facial recognition technology enables mass surveillance. In 2013 the IFLA Trend Report stated that expanding data sets – for example of faces – held by governments and companies will support the advanced profiling of individuals, while sophisticated methods of monitoring and filtering communications data will make tracking those individuals cheaper and easier, warning that serious consequences for individual privacy and trust in the online world could be experienced. This now appears to be coming true.

In 2014, Insecam demonstrated the possibility of illicitly obtaining images from security and surveillance cameras that use weak passwords. This poses a particular threat to public privacy since they are placed in public spaces. Meanwhile, in 2016, a Russian photographer carried out an experiment to show how easy it was to identify strangers in the streets using only one picture to identify them. More recently, FaceApp, which takes your photo and gives an idea of how you’ll look decades from now, put back into focus the privacy vulnerabilities of mobile applications.

The consequences of the implementation of facial recognition technologies have come into the spotlight with the recent protests in Hong Kong, showing how our faces can become a weapon either for persecution or prosecution. Responding to public pressure, some cities have begun to ban the use of facial recognition software by state agencies; San Francisco, Somerville, and Oakland are the first cities in the United States with a regulatory law over this topic.

A further concern is around the risk of bias in facial recognition technologies. These systems are usually trained on a different number of faces from specific groups of people with similar facial characteristics (Mostly Caucasian) which could lead to the failure of people recognition in a more diverse environment, and in a legal way, this could lead possible mistaken identification entailing people to crimes they didn’t commit.

This matter involves race, gender identity, and sexual orientation issues which makes it more threatening and harmful, there are a number of examples of how this technology is developing an automated racism.

 

Impacts for Libraries

This year IFLA celebrates the 20th anniversary of the “IFLA Statement on Libraries and Intellectual Freedom”. It is as crucial as ever to underline one of its key principles:

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.

This principle is relevant at the moment because today, privacy and mass surveillance are some of the most pervasive and threatening issues we face. Certainly, we risk seeing facial recognition turn from being a “fad” into a normal practice and would eventually be part of a new common sense and part of our mainstream culture. This would imply an important loss of privacy.

Libraries have always worked to keep up to speed with new technology and to make best use of the possibilities it offers. Therefore, facial recognition will also impact in their services.

Facilitating the registration, loan, and access to information resources could be a very attractive reason to implement this kind of technology in libraries. Companies are already selling biometric software for book loans and some libraries have been using these systems for a couple of years now.

In the near future, libraries may be able to offer material based on our facial expression, then, our face could become a personal card that does not belong to us, associated with all the data about books read, web pages consulted, and topics we are passionate about. If we are not aware of the extent of this information, it could become a big threat to our privacy.

As a result, the use of this technology in libraries is a matter that should be analyzed in the light of user freedoms and rights, and the potential damage it could do to privacy and intellectual freedom, values that libraries have defended for years.

Therefore, libraries must provide digital secure spaces where our movements are not tracked and develop privacy programs for librarians and their community. An interesting example is the Library Freedom Institute, which teaches librarians and patrons how to protect their privacy online and how to influence public policies on this matter.

 

Conclusion

Although we may share similarities with other people all over the world, every face has its own interesting and unique features. Thousands of databases are daily fed with biometric information and we are taking part into this dynamic through our daily digital behavior. But the problem shouldn´t be attached to the user. Knowing the value of our data or agreeing on the terms and conditions companies impose it’s not enough, neither is derision or banning some apps or software.

What is required is having strong legal frameworks and policies that protect individual rights for limiting such tracking. Libraries can both lead the way in their practice, and push for the right laws and regulations in their advocacy.

Intellectual freedom in Syria

Leave a Reply

FAIFE is marking the 20th anniversary of the IFLA Statement on Intellectual Freedom. To understand where the debate on intellectual freedom stands today, we are talking with the members and expert advisors of the FAIFE Committee. Today, we’re getting the perspective from Inaam Charaf, originally from Syria, and who is now Assistant Regional Director at the Department of Post-Secondary Education, Training and Labour of New Brunswick, Canada. 

 

 

For us, as librarians, intellectual freedom (حرية التفكير والتعبير) is the right to access and receive information it without any restriction. In short, it’s freedom of expression, thinking, providing, reading and receiving knowledge, ideas and information.

Intellectual freedom in Syria is seen and interpreted in many ways, depending on someone’s  political, social and individual status or orientation. However, the importance of this issue has led the general Syrian public who, for decades was deprived of this right, to revolt against the dictatorship and claiming a democratic system where people have the right to autonomy as well as the right to self-governance.

For this cause, since March 2011, hundreds of thousands of people have lost their lives, hundreds of thousands more have lost their freedom and have been reported as cases of enforced disappearance, and have been either detained or died under torture and behind bars, in addition to the millions of Syrians who faced and suffered from forced migration, including myself and hundreds of other librarians.

For libraries, in a healthy and democratic country, intellectual freedom is a vital issue. In Syria, the level of awareness about the importance of this issue, is very high. However, on the practice front, libraries and librarians are deprived of the right to provide people with information and knowledge of all kinds, nature and intellectual content.

The biggest questions and controversies that librarians facing in Syria today are: “what is the future of Arab spring revolutions? What is the cost of intellectual freedom and how can libraries and librarians deal with these questions and controversies? How to be just a librarian?”

The answer to these questions, from a personal point of view and as a librarian, is to keep fighting for our profession and to deal with intellectual freedom as a vital historical process as well as a supreme goal to which we need to attend. Intellectual freedom has been associated, historically, with the claim to political freedom, and pursued with the aim of breaking the walls of intellectual exclusivity and other restrictions. The status of intellectual freedom was controlled by the state and the Church. These two authorities interfered in every aspect of life, faith, daily practices, art, science, etc.

“The Name of the Rose” by Umberto Eco is a novel which takes place in the 14th century, but which is somehow linked with our era, with all of its social and political events. That medieval library run by young novice librarians, and where many monks were found murdered in mysterious ways, is the perfect example of the status of intellectual freedom, libraries and librarians in Syria today, but in different forms and tools.

In the novel it turns out, at the end, that all those terrible crimes were committed for a supreme ethical and intellectual reason: the second part of the ”Poetics”, a manuscript by Aristotle containing his theory of comedy and laughter, thought to be lost, had been found in the library. Somebody was willing to do anything – even kill – to prevent the circulation of this manuscript.

The many and different events in ”The Name of the Rose” reflect in a way or another the contemporary Arab spring revolutions and the severe repression of those revolutionary movements. Authorities have been ready to go to any lengths to prevent the emergence and spread of ideas.

The biggest challenges for intellectual freedom in the coming years in Syria could be briefly described in the following statements:

– A peace plan for Syria to put a stop to the spread of violence

– A drive to help a whole generation of Syrian children who were forced to displace with their families and living today either in displacement camps or European countries to make up for the lost years of education and literacy

I believe that libraries have a key role and very strong relation to intellectual freedom. By providing all information resources, in all formats and methods, and equally to all users in all their categories, without any discrimination based on cultural, ethnic, religious or sexual background, libraries could play a vital role in changing the status of intellectual freedom in Syria, in the next 10 years.

Libraries can also lead awareness and social mobilization campaigns to defend intellectual freedom and freedom of expression, as well as to advocate for individual freedoms and for others’ freedom and privacy, to limit interference in individual and daily life, and respect for personal choices.

IFLA Statement on Libraries and Intellectual Freedom, 20 Years On – the UK Perspective

1 Reply

FAIFE is marking the 20th anniversary of the IFLA Statement on Intellectual Freedom. To understand where the debate on intellectual freedom stands today, we are talking with the members and expert advisors of the FAIFE Committee. Today, we’re getting the perspective from the United Kingdom from Louise Cooke, Professor of Information and Knowledge Management at Loughborough University.

 

This year we celebrate twenty years since the IFLA Statement on Intellectual Freedom was prepared by IFLA FAIFE and approved by the Executive Board of IFLA on 25 March 1999 in The Hague, Netherlands.

This seems a good point to stand back and reflect on where we are now as a society in terms of intellectual freedom, and some of the challenges facing this critical human right.

Of course, our perspectives will differ according to where in the world we are living, not to mention our own subjective views: therefore, this blog can only be written from my own perspective as a UK citizen. However, comments and reflections from your own personal and geographical perspective would be welcome in the comments section below. Please feel free to contribute!

The term ‘intellectual freedom’ can mean many things even to a single person. Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that relates to intellectual freedom, states:

“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.” (United Nations, 1948)

Although not explicitly using the term ‘intellectual freedom’, this is a useful starting point for a definition.

It is inclusive – everyone has an equal right to this basic civil liberty. It also acknowledges the right to hold opinions without interference, whether or not we choose to express them.

In addition, it does not constrain itself to freedom of expression (i.e. the right to speak, write or publish controversial opinion) but also highlights the importance of freedom of access to information, in whatever form it takes and wherever we may be in the world.

In the UK this right is all too often taken for granted: albeit that it is restricted by numerous legislative instruments (such as the Obscene Publications Act 1964, the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 and the Public Order Act 1986) and social norms that proscribe potentially offensive or harmful speech, there is a general belief that we are relatively free to voice our opinions and to access information without constraint.

The UK Human Rights Act 1998 Article 10 reflects the UN UDHR in asserting that everyone has the right to freedom of speech, including the right ‘to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers’. Since 2005, we have also held a legal right to request information held by public authorities via the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

However, it must be borne in mind that these rights are qualified, for example in the interests of national defence and security and, in the case of the Human Rights Act, also for ‘the protection of health and morals’, all of which exemptions seem sufficiently broad (and vague) as to raise questions about the validity of the protection of freedom of speech and freedom of access to information in practice.

The UK is currently undergoing a period of turmoil, change and uncertainty, in particular with regard to the proposed exit from the European Union.

A recent ‘Democracy Audit’ (Dunleavy, Park & Taylor 2018) carried out by scholars at the LSE highlighted the adverse impact of divisions over Brexit and chaotic political party relations, the polarisation of debate and the damaging impact on small parties inflicted by the ‘first past the post’ electoral system, and the damage caused to public services by the austerity agenda pursued between 2010 and 2018.

Public libraries have been hit particularly hard by this agenda, with nearly 130 public library closures in 2018 alone, and many local libraries being ‘deprofessionalised’ and left to community groups to run.

This is a concern for intellectual freedom: whilst well-meaning volunteers may prevent a local area from being left with no library service, volunteers are not usually professionally trained and may not hold the same awareness of, and commitment to, the professional body CILIP’s commitment to the principle of intellectual freedom and rejection of censorship and its newly revised Ethical Framework.

Meanwhile, work carried out at Loughborough University between 2012 and 2014 on UK public libraries’ management of internet access, found that, while the use of filtering software appears to be ubiquitous in UK public libraries, most professional and frontline library staff regarded the expediency of this to be of greater import than the potential adverse impact of filtering on intellectual freedom.

In addition to the impact of public library closures, increasingly restrictive anti-terrorism legislation, and the use of filtering software, public libraries in the UK are, as elsewhere, subject to challenges from members of their local community regarding appropriateness of material held by the library.

Censorship challenges to books held in Scottish public libraries are detailed in a 2012 paper by Taylor and McMenemy, which also discusses the actions taken by the libraries concerned in response to the challenges.

Although this study is also a good example of the use of Freedom of Information legislation to shine a light on the extent of censorship in libraries, and the protection that can be offered by a carefully developed and implemented collection development policy, it also reflects the fact that there is no room for complacency with regard to the state of intellectual freedom in UK public libraries.

Moreover, as new challenges and threats arise in line with new technological developments that offer ever greater opportunities for surveillance and more sophisticated and widespread data collection and analytics, the need for librarians to be constantly aware of their ethical responsibilities with regard to protection of user privacy and the protection of intellectual freedom will only become more acute.

Intellectual Freedom in Japan

Leave a Reply

FAIFE is marking the 20th anniversary of the IFLA Statement on Intellectual Freedom. As part of this, we had a chat with Yasuyo Inoue, expert advisor to the FAIFE Committee and Professor of Library Science at Dokkyo University, to find out more about intellectual freedom in Japan from her personal perspective.

1) What do you and your colleagues understand by ‘intellectual freedom’ in Japan?

知的自由 means ‘Intellectual freedom’ in Japanese. It includes free expression, free access to information at libraries and free access to information at national/local government offices. It is linked to the same concepts as those discussed in IFLA FAIFE and is essential for libraries in Japan.

2) How important an issue is it for libraries, and for the general population, in Japan?

The Japan Library Association adopted in 1954 its own statement on intellectual freedom in libraries. The Association has furthermore noted the IFLA Statement on Intellectual Freedom at Libraries, given that this concept is a core value for Japanese libraries including public, school and academic libraries.

Generally speaking, people in Japan are often more interested in free expression rather than free access to information in libraries. In Japan people think that libraries are only a place for studying and are mainly for students. It is difficult for many to imagine that libraries – especially public libraries – are public spaces for communication and information flow.

3) What have been the biggest questions and controversies in recent years?

There have been several cases of intellectual freedom being threatened in Japan.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that libraries have the right to decide which books or documents are to be selected and provided. This was related to the case of the Funabashi Library, where a librarian made available more than 100 books with rather right-wing content without following the appropriate method.

In 2013, the manga book titled “Barefoot Gen”, as well as elementary school libraries holding copies of this book were attacked by an extreme-right wing group. The group claimed that the book included excessive violent expression and were not suitable for small children. The group insisted that the book should be removed from the shelves of all school libraries! It later came out that the group wished the book banned, not due to the violence, but because of the main character disliked the Emperor of Japan because of the war and the atomic bombs. Even so, still more and more people are signing petitions to local governments to ban this manga book from the shelves at school libraries.

In January, the copyright law was changed because of the ratification of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), to which Japan is a signatory. The issues of digitisation, notably in order to preserve materials was addressed, with a decision to wait a further 20 years to start the process of digitisation. Though public libraries are an exception, private companies, NGOs and other organisations are facing many challenges. This is a huge issue, in particular for disabled people and to free access to information in general.

Furthermore, the Japanese government has planned to raise the sales tax rate to 10%. Publishers are demanding books and other media commodities should be excepted from this raise. To this the Government answered that if the publishers stop making “harmful books”, they may be ready to act. The publishers insist that this reaction is against free expression.

We have also recently seen several cases of library users’ private information being compromised.

Earlier this year, the police of Tomakomai city searched library users’ reading records without warrant. The library had agreed to show the documents, though the act by the police was illegal.

Also the company CCC has publicly admitted that they provide clients’ private information to authorities. This company manages several public libraries and provides its own card, for which clients can get points every time they buy something or use it as library card.

4) What do you think are the biggest challenges for intellectual freedom in the coming years?

I see the biggest challenges as big data and the protection of private information. This is a huge issue for libraries, and it is important that we get involved. Participating in Internet Governance Forum activities is a great way to do this.

I also see copyright issues and free access to information, especially related to AI as big challenge.

Furthermore, is the lack of full-time professional librarians who are trained in intellectual freedom in libraries an issue, as well as the increase in privatised public libraries.

5) What role do you see libraries playing in relation to intellectual freedom in 10 years’ time?

In Japan, future librarians will be more like social workers and educators who make services for the people facing difficulties to get access to the information they need. There will also be more services for reading-challenged people, seniors and foreigners/immigrants who cannot read Japanese.

 

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.