Homework (Mine and Yours)

When I'm not puzzling over how best to craft a witty blog post, I spend a good deal of time sweating over essays of a less creative variety. Papers written for my Library & Information Science degree offer a challenge in that they deviate quite sharply from my standard operating procedure of using literary allusions, pop cultural deconstruction and sarcastic bromides. And learning to site sources in APA style was no picnic, either. But every once in a while, an assignment comes along that offers a bit more for me to work with than merely aping strategic planning mantras or assembling theoretical budgets. Below find a paper I just submitted on the topic of government information and depository libraries for my Gov't. Info. class. I know, sounds fascinating, but this actually proved to be an interesting project. Limited to 5 pages, I found myself a bit handicapped (I like to run at the mouth, bet you didn't know that), but I was still able to include the vast majority of the information I thought was important.

Read, browse, skim, skip, toss, ignore as you see fit.


Redacted, Reclassified, Recalled: The Difficulties of Controlling Information in an Electronic Age

In 1999, Joe Morehead raised an intriguing question on the primacy of the World Wide Web. Referring to depository libraries being asked to return, withdraw, destroy or surrender up publications sent by mistake, he asked, “isn’t it only a matter of time until the text of a classified document is published on an agency’s Web page and thereby becomes unreturnable in cyberspace” (Morehead, 1999). In the following decade, the Internet grew in size and importance, while an ongoing war against terrorism led to significant attempts at securing potentially sensitive information. The following essay considers developments over the past ten years, along with scholarly commentary, to investigate whether Morehead’s fears have proven true and if such concerns justify limiting access to government information.

“On occasion,” Morehead writes, “publications are sent to depository libraries by mistake. In those instances, the Superintendent of Documents sends a letter to depository libraries that have received the unauthorized publication by virtue of item selection” (Morehead, 1999). Such letters also include “sternly worded” instructions for disposal – returning to the issuing agency, withdrawal followed by destruction, or surrendering materials to federal agents. Morehead references a Journal of Government Information review by S.R. Lynch concerning such recalled documents, in which Lynch claims incidents of recalled documents from depository libraries increased during the 1980s and 1990s (Lynch, 1995). She points to a noticeable uptick in recalls between 1988 and 1992, in which an average of “six to four per year” were recorded, as opposed to “no more than one or two per year from 1981 through 1987” (ibid, 1995). Lynch claims the reasons given for recalls are often vague, and notes that while some incidents concern administrative security lapses and military security, there have also been cases clearly censorious. Lynch highlights a 1986 Vietnam War history series featuring a Marine Corps general quoted on the efficiency of the Corps itself in killing young Americans. An objection from the General led to libraries being asked to remove the offending page, replace it with a new page, and black out footnotes relating to the page and “the index listing for the upset general’s name” (Lynch, 1995).

While noting several librarians refused to alter their copy, Lynch concludes, “most depositories probably obey the recall notices,” adding “depository documents clearly belong to the federal government, even when in the custody of depository libraries”. However, she also agrees with Bruce Thompson that librarians are obligated to determine whether recalled titles represent an “interest to the public that would obligate the library to override the recall request”. This call to rebuff censorship seems to have been heeded by librarians, as Lynch notes “a cursory check of recalled document titles in OCLC reveals holdings for approximately 70 percent of the titles” (Lynch, 1995).

Questions over the recall of sensitive information and the dangers of the Internet dovetail in a 2004 article by E. Herman, with public access to government information weighed against national security protection. Herman compares recent recall efforts with an earlier example from 1979 in which Progressive Magazine was unsuccessfully ordered to cease publication of an article detailing nuclear weapon construction. While Herman argues the government’s case was “weak,” he also notes at least some of the disputed information had been inadvertently declassified (Herman, 2004). What distinguishes the Progressive case from more contemporary examples is that little of the disputed information in 9/11-related recalls was ever classified or restricted. Rather, fears of misuse by terrorist organizations led to “previously published data” being recalled (ibid, 2004). Herman details some of these reclaimed materials, noting a U.S. Geological Survey CD-ROM describing reservoirs and dams, Environmental Protection Agency risk management plans, and a report for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) concerning chemical plant security threats (Herman, 2004).

Of course, not all recalled information relates to terrorist misuse –the Census Bureau recently called for the withdrawal and return of census publications inadvertently sent between 1992-1998. A FDLP desktop post claimed the information was “intended for internal use only,” and might “compromise the integrity of the Census’ program for field agent testing” (FDLP desktop, 2009). Yet scholarly attention seems focused less on mundane matters and more on potentially sensational materials. Herman offers several examples of post-9/11 recalls proving unsuccessful, either through deliberate refusals by concerned librarians or through the sheer number of secondary web sources available for such items. While the Geological Survey CD-ROM may no longer be available in depository libraries, Herman notes, “copies the Government Printing office sold, those the Geological Survey may have given away, and those copied from the original CD-ROM are unaccounted for” (Herman, 2004). A more concrete example is Herman’s findings on the aforementioned ATSDR chemical plant report; “Searches of the All the Web, AltaVista, Google, MSN, Teoma, Vivisom and Yahoo search engines on August 22, 2003, retrieved copies at five different Web addresses” (Herman, 2004).

Herman concludes that increasing user sophistication means restrictions on data may have little practical impact. But the threat of such “leaks” seems directly related to decisions made by individual depository librarians on whether to obey expungement requests. A few examples outside the literature help illustrate this point.

An article in the Spring 2006 edition of the Collection Connection, a newsletter for the Harry Trexler Library (a federal depository institution), references the availability of a secret report on the mistreatment of Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib prison. Head of Technical Services Linda Bowers writes how she and other documents librarians wondered whether this report would become a depository item and, if so, when. The report was soon leaked and posted online. She writes, “The next question was, ‘Whose website was most reliable and was it going to be posted in perpetuity anywhere’?” (Bowers, 2006). Bowers adds the report was immediately made available on their catalog, concluding, “Federal information belongs to the people …the act of making this information accessible to the community is an important responsibility” (ibid, 2006).

Numerous websites and organizations have sprung up to pursue the preservation of leaked information. The National Security Archive publishes declassified information in manuscript and microfiche form, as well as on their website. The Archive draws attention to the reclassification of declassified information, or “Declassification in Reverse” (Aid, 2006). An essay posted on the Archive’s website details a concerted effort since 1999 by government agencies to reclassify some “9,500 documents totaling more than 55,500 pages (Aid, 2006). In response, Matthew Aid offered PDF files of 18 examples of reclassified information, making the documents available once more.

Finally, one must consider the existence of Internet projects like Russ Kick’s The Memory Hole, dedicated to preserving information in danger of being lost or destroyed. In May of 2004, Kick posted images of files recalled from federal depository libraries between 1986 and 2000, noting the images were supplied by “a librarian who will remain anonymous”. While only displaying titles of pulled files, Kick noted a desire to post the actual documents, adding, “we know that not all libraries acceded to the demand to pull the documents, and many librarians resent being asked to do so” (Kick, 2006). He requested any librarian with such information send a copy to The Memory Hole.

While disgruntled librarians have not been flooding websites with reclassified documents, one might conclude that sensitive information will continue to be made available on the Internet, often with the encouragement or at least without the censure of librarians. Perhaps an update to Morehead’s question might be an investigation into the ethics involved in such matters? While Lynch argued depository documents belong to the federal government, she also stressed “care should be taken that requests should not become a tool used in censorship” (Lynch, 1995). And while Herman avoided explicitly defending such actions, he argued many post-9/11 protective measures were unnecessary, as those intent on causing harm need not “acquire login codes and passwords from insiders” (Herman, 2004). Comments made by Linda Bowers in the cited newsletter suggest many librarians believe part of their duty is to keep federal information available to, not from, the public. One could perhaps equate a librarian’s position with that of military physicians. While both are accountable to government oversight, both also share separate loyalties to non-government entities. Just as military physicians must make decisions with their patients in mind (not solely the government) so, too, must depository librarians maintain an allegiance to the public. Such distinctions bring with them enormous responsibility, potential conflicts of interest, and ethical dilemmas. A full decade on from Morehead’s posing of the question, perhaps more attention should be focused on the intricacies of this “dual loyalty,” and how librarians in a post-9/11 world should respond to competing claims for information access

Sources

Aid, Matthew M. (February 21, 2006). Declassification in reverse: the U.S. intelligence
community’s secret historical document reclassification program. The
National Security Archive. Retrieved February 22, 2009 from
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB179/
Bowers, Linda. (Spring 2006). Federal government information in Trexler library.
Collection Connection: The Newsletter of Trexler Library, 2(2), 6-7. Retrieved
February 21, 2009 from
http://www.muhlenberg.edu/library/about/newsletter/2006_spring_newsletter.pdf
FDLP Desktop. (January 9, 2009). Census document recall. Retrieved February 22, 2009
from http://www.fdlp.gov/component/content/article/42-distribution/224-censusrecall
Herman, E. (2004). A post-September 11th balancing act: Public access to U.S.
government information versus protection of sensitive data. Journal of
Government Information, 30(1), 42-65.
Kick, Russ. (May 27, 2004). Government documents pulled out of public circulation.
The Memory Hole. Retrieved February 22, 2009 from
http://www.thememoryhole.org/foi/yanked_govt_docs.htm
Lynch, Saragail Runyon. (1995). GPO recalls of depository documents: A review.
Journal of Government Information, 22(1), 23-31.
Morehead, Joe. Introduction to United States Government Information Sources.
6th ed. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, 1999.