Previous messages: "U.S. libraries cull collections at behest of federal government" http://www.politechbot.com/p-03137.html "GPO replies to Politech article on libraries destroying data" http://www.politechbot.com/p-03138.html I invite Mary Bennett to reply to the list. (Mary, I'm interested in finding out what prompted your alert.) -Declan --- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:21:42 -0600 From: "Don Wood" <dwoodat_private> To: <declanat_private> Subject: ALAWON: Volume 11, Number 9 ALAWON: American Library Association Washington Office Newsline Volume 11, Number 9 February 21, 2002 In This Issue: A Message from GPO The ALA Washington Office has received the following notice from the Government Printing office and is forwarding it to you, for your information. The Library Programs Service has been notified that many of you have received an email message from Mary Bennett of the State University of New York, Oswego, urging you to restrict public access to a portion of your depository library collections, specifically the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) publications on microfiche. Please be advised that Ms. Bennett has no authority to make such a request. Only the Superintendent of Documents has the authority to request that depository libraries withdraw or secure publications in their depository collections. No such official request has been made. Furthermore, the NRC has not requested GPO to direct depository libraries to take any actions regarding the NRC microfiche. GPO remains in close contact with NRC officials concerning these materials. The U.S. Government Printing Office takes its responsibility to assure free public access to depository library collections very seriously. We do not condone this unofficial request to restrict public access, and we urge you to disregard it. ****** Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:38:53 -0500 From: "Christie Vernon" <CHRISTIEat_private> To: <declanat_private> Cc: <mmatisat_private> Subject: GPO's "Water Resources....." being withdrawn Dear Declan: I was forwarded a note from you in which you expressed your outrage (fair enough) at the feds demanding back the document on U.S. water resources. You described l300 libraries as 'rolling over.' [That was a forwarded message, not my view. --DBM] Two things, to clarify: if the library received the gov. doc. through the depository system, it is always the property of the feds, and they can do what they want to with it. EVEN SO, libraries resist. If the library bought the document, they are not obliged to give it back. As a result of this order, there was resentment, resistance, and hot discussion in the whole library community, esp. at the midwinter meetings in January. The library community is highly resistant to this sort of thing and fights it all the way. I won't go into details. I am sure many groups, including feds, wish we were more tractable! Regards, Christie Vernon CPSR Activist, and Member, American Library Assoc. Committee on Legislation. Christie D. Vernon, Ed.D. Editor, STC Newsletter 10 Basil Sawyer Dr. Hampton, VA 23666 (757) 766-5835 FX (757) 865-1294 --- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:28:52 -0500 To: declanat_private From: Peter Suber <petersat_private> Subject: Re: FC: U.S. libraries cull collections at behest of federal government Declan, Eric Cordian writes that "libraries cheerfully complied" with government orders to destroy information in federal depository libraries. This is unfair to librarians. These requests anger and frustrate librarians, who genetically want maximum access to maximum information. Compliance with these orders is definitely cheerless and begrudged. For example, here's a recent story about University of Illinois librarians facing this dilemma, http://www.news-gazette.com/story.cfm?Number=10892 Peter Suber The Free Online Scholarship Newsletter http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/index.htm --- [Anonymized per request. --DBM] Declan, Questions to ask the GPO-- * Is it true that USGS "never asked that libraries destroy the information" * Did GPO offer USGS the option GPO says they give agencies to "request libraries pull and hold until further notice"? * Did GPO say "they couldn't expect libraries to maintain security?" * What committee at USGS sets official policy on restriction of sensitive information and was it informed that one option was to request libraries pull and hold until further notice? * We are told that the "original written instructions" from USGS to GPO were valid. Were they also issued -- with the understanding of their options? Another article on the order to destroy the USGS CD-ROM, "Source Area Characteristics of Large Public Surface-Water Supplies in the Conterminous United States An Information Resource on Source Water Assessment, 1999" (I 19.7699-248 USGS Open-File Report no. 99-248) adds to the confusion about what USGS wanted FDLP to do. See this article-- "U.S. orders libraries to destroy key CD-ROM" By Inger Sandal ARIZONA DAILY STAR Sunday, January 13, 2002 http://www.azstarnet.com/attack/20113RECORDSDESTROYED.html This article claims that Geological Survey spokesman Butch Kinerney "said his agency never asked that libraries destroy the information." Earlier, Francis Buckley had said that Geological Survey Associate Director for Water had followed GPO procedures and requested that the CD be destroyed. GPO procedures require an official request in writing and inform the requesting agency of "recall options" including "Request libraries pull and hold until further notice" (Admin Notes 11/15/2001 http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/adnotes/ad111501.html#3) Those admin notes quote Patterson of USGS as saying-- "Subsequent contact with the Government Printing Office and the USGS Committee that sets official policy on restriction of sensitive information has reconfirmed the validity of the original written instruction from USGS to GPO to destroy the report..." [elision in original] The only document I could find on the USGS web site that seems to deal with "official policy on restriction of senstive information" was "POLICY -- Release of Data and Information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)" WATER RESOURCES DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 99.23 (http://water.usgs.gov/admin/memo/WRD/wrdpolicy99.23.html) It makes only one reference to non-proprietary sensitive information even in the case of an FOIA exemption-- Exemption I--Matters of National Defense or Foreign Policy This exemption is rarely used for WRD actions. Typically, information may be withheld if there may be security concerns. For example, classified mapping products or sensitive information concerning international water resources activities, such as the Middle East Peace Initiative, or potentially sensitive military information. The ADS article also mentions that-- Advocates for greater public access complain that even though four months have passed since the Sept. 11 attacks, formerly public information continues to disappear haphazardly and without explanation. ...it quotes Gary Bass of OMBWatch on the difficulty of even knowing to what we are losing access-- OMB Watch's Web site now includes an inventory listing material known to have been removed or restricted since Sept. 11. "It's very difficult to maintain this kind of list you don't know what you don't know," Bass said. --- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 21:52:33 -0700 From: "James J. Lippard" <lippardat_private> To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private> Subject: Re: FC: U.S. libraries cull collections at behest of federal government According to this document, there are a couple of such requests a year: http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/adnotes/2001/221601/an2216d.txt --- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:47:17 -0500 From: Jeffrey Clark <clarkjcat_private> To: declanat_private Subject: Re: FC: U.S. libraries cull collections at behest of federal government Before challenging libraries on their compliance with a federal order to destroy conbtroversial documents, those who think like Eric Cordian need to be aware of one salient fact. Libraries desginated as federal depositories for government documents are in a contractual arrangement: they do not in fact "own" the documents. These remain the property of the federal government. So it's the government's call on this one... whether or not the library community would otherwise agree with restricting information in this way. ********** Jeff Clark Director Media Resources (MSC 1701) James Madison University clarkjcat_private --- From: "Allen Smith" <easmithat_private> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:22:39 -0500 To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private>, dwoodat_private Subject: Re: FC: U.S. libraries cull collections at behest of federal government Cc: emcat_private On Feb 12, 11:35pm, Declan McCullagh wrote: > The American Library Association's code of ethics for librarians says: > > http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/ethics.html > >We uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all > >efforts to censor library resources. Indeed. The problem with "government document collections" is, IIRC, that the _physical materials_ in question are owned by the US government, not by the libraries in question. Therefore, the government does have the right to say what is done with said materials (except as any laws governing government document collections may state). Note, however, "physical materials" in the above. Government information is generally public domain - not copyrightable. Making an electronic copy of all materials (especially, given ease of copying, that which is already in electronic form) which comes into government document collections would entirely remove the ability of government to so easily later have such information destroyed - and would be perfectly legal. As the son of a former government documents librarian, I recommend this as a general policy. Yours, -Allen --- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 06:33:28 -0600 To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private> Subject: FC: U.S. libraries cull collections at behest of federal government Hi Declan, Quick point, which will probably be made more authoritatively by other readers (but please keep me anon if you do print this): The post to cypherpunks about federal depository libraries is somewhat misleading because it doesn't describe the ways in which the federal documents are a unique collection within the library. Essentially, a library which acts as a depository has agreed to store federal documents and grant public access to those documents - but it does not in fact OWN those federal documents. They remain under the ownership of the federal government. The comparison of government docs to "The Turner Diaries," "Why Buildings Fall Down," or "Heather Has Two Mommies" is a specious one, since those texts would presumably be purchased by the library rather than merely borrowed from an original owner; in the case of federal docs, the government is simply asking the libraries to please destroy government property, which is a contractual obligation of their role as depositories. It's also misleading to say that this is without precedent. The government has asked for federal docs to be destroyed in the past; the significant difference now is that it's asking for current, relevant federal docs to be destroyed, rather than outdated information. I'm absolutely opposed to the government's attack on public information and on our hard-won right-to-know laws, but it's important that we get all of the facts straight. The real issue here isn't that libraries (private and public) are abandoning their principles and destroying items in their collections at the behest of the government. The real issue, rather, is that our government is now denying public access to information which has been printed and distributed with public money - information to which public access has often been won only after extended legislative, regulatory, or legal battles on behalf of the public interest. We've seen decades' worth of hard-won citizen victories on government (and corporate) accountability evaporate, quietly, within mere months. Hi Declan, One additional point: I disagree with the characterization that "Libraries cheerfully complied" with the government directive to destroy government documents. I don't know of any cases of resistance, but I do know that some of the government docs librarians in my institution did not support the decision. At least one of them is even a Politech reader. I suppose it would be nice to think that some of those CD-ROMs are still intact out there. I don't blame librarians for complying with their contractual (legal) obligations in this case, however, and the gospel truth is that libraries are not to blame for the government's attack on public access to information. Criticizing libraries as "cheerful" accomplices is not only disrespectful to the many librarians who are true champions of freedom of information; it also distracts us from the real threat at hand. Best wishes. --- From: terry.sat_private To: declanat_private Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:13:33 -0500 Subject: Re: FC: U.S. libraries cull collections at behest of federal government On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 21:56:09 -0500 Declan McCullagh <declanat_private> writes: > The American Library Association's code of ethics for librarians > says: > > http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/ethics.html > >We uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all > >efforts to censor library resources. We might recall the battles in Boston when CyberPatrol marketed to public libraries there, despite MA state law requiring adherence to ALA standards. I ran across a posting of the ALA code in an unexpected place recently, a state law library in a courthouse. It turns out that was prompted by a judge objecting to the content of an article published in the only CT state law journal, who in turn ordered subscriptions to that journal such libraries are obligated to treat as an essential part of their collections discontinued. The corrupt judge found he couldn't directly enforce that demand, but did defund judicial management funds formerly available for such subscriptions. At some of CT's state law libraries, private donations now fund the same subscriptions, though the more legal and ethical solution would have been disbarment of the corrupt judge, acting in his official capacity. That type of corruption invites the question of what effective means can we enact to terminate judges who act out of political or personal prejudices rather than professionally as justices? Absent that, can we ever hope to hold lesser levels of government responsible? Terry --- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:51:28 -0500 To: declanat_private From: "J.D. Abolins" <jda-irat_private> Subject: Re: FC: U.S. libraries cull collections at behest of federal government At 09:56 PM 2/12/02 -0500, you wrote: > The American Library Association's code of ethics for librarians says: > > http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/ethics.html >> We uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all >>efforts to censor library resources. Thank you for mentioning that ethics item. I wonder what would happen if a librarian refused to destroy the CDs or made backups. Perhaps the government would blacklist the library form getting further public documents and/or try to pull any federal funding for the library's "unpatriotic" act. > From: Eric Cordian <emcat_private> > Subject: Libraries Cull Collections to Make Feds Happy > To: cypherpunksat_private > Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:38:35 -0800 (PST) [...] > Maybe we need a program to certify people as "Trusted Citizens" > in order to enable their access to forbidden technologies like > chemistry and encryption. I am not laughing. That is a significant likelihood down the line as security classification's "need to know" is being applied to normally unclassified public information. (By the way, this is a big kicker. The more traditional classification approaches assume that once a document is declassified or its level is reduced, most of the advantages of hiking up the classification are lost. Information deemed sensitive was classified before released to the public. The content security concerns for public info started months before September 2001 with the emergency planning info from the US environmental "right to know" data. The approach to prevent "terrorists" from accessing the information was to keep the documents in certain libraries and require people to request access to them. The core concept was that if people want to see certain public information documents, they have to come forth and identify themselves. (At several periods in modern times, there have been "library awareness" programs where the government has sought info from librarians about patrons who sought certain types of books or fit a particular profile.) Now, we move to another core concept: Don't let libraries have certain government documents and if they do have them, have the libraries destroy the records. Will the day soon come when people who purchased books such as "Applied Cryptography" via, say, Amazon.com to rip out and burn certain pages? <g> Looking at some trends in digital rights management and electronic publishing (plus legal trends with DMCA and the proposed SSSCA), future publication of government public information might swing towards new e-formats with DRM that allow remote virtual redaction. For example, the info could have encryption keys that expire within a year and need to be renewed. If the info is deemed to be too sensitive for the particular person to have anymore, the key is not renewed or revoked. A variant could be a heartbeat approach where the e-document checks back to an authorization server. Hackable? Yes, even if goes back to manual transcription. (Once I used a hand scanner to capture the screen display on another computer. Crude but it does work.) This still leaves legal and other repercussions. Quick kids, memorize the value of pi to at least 5 decimal places and the periodic table before they are redacted fro "security" reasons. <g> J.D. Abolins --- From: "Richard Storey" <richardsat_private> To: <declanat_private> Subject: U.S. libraries cull collections at behest of federal government Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:14:07 -0500 Right. What about the removal of, The Secret Team, by Fletchard Prouty, from libraries across the country as well as the disappearance of the book from book stores and the cancellation of the contract with the publisher? This was the testimony of Prouty himself on a radio show. The Canadian gov. made the importation of the book illegal (at the behest of Big Brother CIA, of course). R.S. --- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:00:54 -0500 From: Tom Maguire <tmidslat_private> Reply-To: tmidslat_private Well this may seem like someone's good idea. I am sure it's intentions were well founded. The enemy within is the one from whom we have the most to fear. Who is more trusted than your Postman yet what is the definition of "Going Postal". People bent on doing wrong will do so no matter what and will even be creative about it from halfway around the world with no research available just as well as from a trusted position within. Maybe we don't need detailed nuclear weapon plans in libraries. People who study such things should have to pass the same muster as someone requesting a permit to carry a handgun in NYC. You have to have a very good reason, no criminal record, pass a psychological profile and leave the examining officer with a warm fuzzy feeling. If there is an ethical problem with restricting access to info maybe they should review the NYC gun laws first. After all, the right to arms was guaranteed. One can only ponder the Post-Enron definition of "Getting Layed"! Tom Maguire TMI Engineering --- From: "Charles Aldarondo" <aldarondoat_private> To: <declanat_private> References: <20020212215609.A4516at_private> Subject: Re: U.S. libraries cull collections at behest of federal government Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:50:33 -0600 On the item that got withdrawn, it seems that some of the information is still available (which I probably got tracked for downloading): http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/of/ofr00-510/pdf/ofr00-510_v2.pdf Page 9 has a nice 1/2 page graphic of the US with markings of where the points are and discusses the CD-ROM. It doesn't though provide the details of the measurements of water flows, but enough information if any terrorist was really interested in finding these water reservoirs. One example of it's difficult to delete the past, because it's referenced throughout other items. Charles Aldarondo --- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:00:28 -0800 From: Mike Ege <mtegeat_private> Subject: Re: FC: U.S. libraries cull collections at behest of federal government To: declanat_private Indiana University memo on GPO recalls. Lists other recalled docs since 1995. http://www.indiana.edu/~libpers/lmt/2001-11-29_LMT_(GPD_Recalls).pdf this issue is overblown. mte --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Feb 25 2002 - 09:36:21 PST