Interesting: Provenance of eBooks
This is a bit off-topic, but so interesting that I couldn't resist mentioning it. James Moushon did a little investigation into the absence of basic provenance information in eBooks and what he discovered was not encouraging. He discovered that almost none of the eBooks he examined had any indication of "where the book's content originated from or how we got to the digital format." He asks, rhetorically, how we will be able to accurately cite eBooks and differentiate between editions.
- eBook Publishers: Are eBook Copyright Pages Missing Information?, by James Moushon, The Self-Publishing Review (February 15, 2011). I picked 30 ebooks and analyzed their copyright pages. Somebody must have missed the memo about what information is required and what format it should be presented in because we had a variety of formats and information, to say the least. Although 30 ebooks is not a very big sample, only one of them came close to what is needed to ID the source.
The Pentagon Papers To Be Declassified
Steven Aftergood reports today that the Pentagon Paper are to be declassified:
- Declassifying the Pentagon Papers, Finally, by Steven Aftergood, Secrecy News (February 15th, 2011).
The National Declassification Center (NDC) at the National Archives will declassify the full text of the Pentagon Papers as well as the underlying documentation on which they are based, along with investigative material concerning the 1971 leak of the Papers by Daniel Ellsberg, the NDC said yesterday.As we noted here recently, Steven recently pointed out that "every public and private library in the country that has a copy of the Papers is technically in possession of currently classified material." One has to wonder if the Pentagon Papers had been released digitally and not on paper, if libraries had excluded then from their collections at the time of their release, if librarians had argued against their selection and acquisition and preservation, if they were not preserved in libraries 40 years ago, would we still have them? Would their declassification have happened today? Continue reading
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Launches Website
The U.S. Department of the Treasury has announced the launch of a 'beta' Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) website, ConsumerFinance.gov, a critical link to the American public for soliciting ideas on the bureau’s creation and priorities and for answering questions on its work.
The central mission of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is to make markets for consumer financial products and services work for Americans—whether they are applying for a mortgage, choosing among credit cards, or using any number of other consumer financial products.You can also follow CFPB on twitter and Facebook and YouTube and Flickr. There is a video about the agency that describes "the origins of the financial crisis and what the consumer bureau will do to protect American families and improve financial services markets for consumers and providers alike—and ultimately strengthen the entire economy. The video is narrated by director, actor, and producer Ron Howard." Hat tip to Sabrina I. Pacifici! Continue reading
A Nation Punishes A Lie (Jinbonet)
[This is the 2nd in our guest blogger series with internet activists from Jinbonet Korean activist network. Translation assistance by Shinjoung Yeo] A Nation Punishes A Lie By Jung Minkyung Staff of Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet since 2009 jmk6@jinbo.net In South Korea, there is a law that punishes a lie. According to Article 47 clause 1 of the Framework Act on Telecommunications:
“A person who has publicly made a false communication over the telecommunications facilities and equipment for the purpose of harming the public interest shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding fifty million won.”When a person who circulates false information unjustly makes profits or harms other people, the person can be punished for defamation, fraud, trade mark infringement, etc. However, this clause allows a criminal penalty without questioning whether the circulation of false information harms the public interest. That is, “false communication” itself can be punished. In addition, the biggest problem is that the clause has been exploited for political purposes. So far, the majority of the cases on this has been related to criticism of government policies or the President. Article 47 Clause 1 of the Framework Act on Telecommunications was established 45 years ago, yet this odd clause has never been used until 2008. In 2008, during a massive candlelight protest against US beef imports, a rumor circulated that a female college student had died at the hands of a police officer. As the rumor spread on the Internet, the prosecution indicted the person who had spread the rumor on the basis of circulation of false information. Since then this clause has become known and become a serious social controversy -- even raising a comical incident in the case of a famous blogger nicknamed “Minerva.” Minerva was prosecuted for posting an article online that said, “the government issued an “emergency order” to major financial institutions to stop buying US dollars as if foreign exchange would stop due to depletion of foreign currency reserve." The majority of Koreans criticized his indictment on the basis of merely expressing his opinion and predicting economic doom. After Minerva’s indictment, many netizens announced their last piece of writing on the Internet. The Minerva case has brought a widespread chilling effect. The comedy of the prosecution did not stop there. In 2008, the prosecution indicted citizens for sending text messages to suggest that students strike against US beef imports or create parody materials ridiculing current South Korea president Lee Myung-bak. Both cases were ruled as not guilty but these are clear cases which infringe on freedom of expression by forceful indictment. Netizens were also indicted for questioning the government’s announcement that a North Korean torpedo had attacked the South Korean warship Cheonan -- or suggesting different views from the government. Recently, numerous people were indicted for spreading false information on the Internet in regard to the incident of North Korean artillery attack on Yeon Pyung Island. Despite citizens having the right to freely discuss and express diverse opinions, the prosecution ruled that this act was intended to harm the public interests by circulating clearly false information. During the Yeon Pyung Island artillery incident, many students and other citizens were investigated or actually indicted because they had sent prank text messages to friends and said, “I heard that a war is about to break out” or “government is calling for reserve troops.” Most people took these messages as the pranks that they were as no one was harmed by the messages. Through mass media, the government could clarify their position, yet they took legal action in response to the pranks and citizens’ opinions to question the administration’s position. Fortunately, on December 28, 2010, the Constitutional Court ruled that Article 47 Clause 1 of the Framework Act on Telecommunications was unconstitutional. The logic behind this decision is that this clause violates the constitutional principle of a clear definition and excessive restriction. The concept of “public interest” is unclear and abstract and it is difficult to judge objectively what kinds of acts maybe considered as harming to the “public interests.” Also, the expression of false information is protected under freedom of expression and freedom of press within the 21st Amendment of the South Korean Constitution. Thus, Article 47 clause 1 of the Framework Act on Telecommunications clearly violates freedom of expression. However, immediately after the Constitutional Court ruling, the South Korean government began pushing forward an alternative legislation. The Ministry of Justice announced that in order to resolve the legal vacuum, they would soon push a bill to provide legal grounds to punish those spreading false information on war or terrorism that harms or puts at risk the national welfare. A member of the ruling Grand National Party (GNP) proposed alternative legislation to change the phrase from intention to “harms the public interests” to “national security, social and economic order or normal operation of public institutions.” However, on the basis of the recent Constitutional Court ruling, there is a great possibility that this alternative legislation will be unconstitutional as well. The reason a majority of people express criticism about the government is because they question the administration’s position or think that the government is doing wrong. In the case of harming others and unjustly making profits, there are existing laws like fraud or trademark infringement which can be applied. Thus, punishing someone for merely “false” information should not be tolerated in a democratic country where people have a right to express diverse opinions and discuss freely. No one can own the truth exclusively and there is no need for alternative legislation for the clause that already turns out to be unconstitutional. Continue reading
A librarian reacts to “A librarian reacts to wikileaks”
February 13, 2011 / 12 Comments on A librarian reacts to “A librarian reacts to wikileaks”
[Update 2/18/11: The editor at the Center for Journalism Ethics has kindly agreed to reprint our response to Bill Sleeman on their site. The piece was slightly edited from the original. We greatly appreciate their efforts in providing wide ranging context to this critical issue.] Thanks to Bill Sleeman for his govdoc-l post and link to his op-ed piece "A Librarian Reacts to WikiLeaks." His parsing is thought-provoking, but incomplete. I'd like to add some context to Sleeman's op-ed because I think he conflates and ignores several issues surrounding Wikileaks the organization and the leaked US State Department cables themselves. Unfortunately, I can not submit a comment on the Center for Journalism Ethics site where he published his op-ed, but I post it here in the interest of open discussion. Sleeman ignores the information and focuses instead on WikiLeaks, Julian Assange and the actions of members of the American Library Association -- Al Kagan's American Libraries Magazine article as well as Larry Roman's comment/response offer a good review of the ALA Midwinter conference WikiLeaks dustup. Sleeman repeatedly suggests that we have only one choice: "embrace" WikiLeaks or reject it. This is a false choice and misdirection. In doing this, Sleeman has adopted the strategy being used by those who wish to suppress the information by distracting us from it and focusing instead on the messenger. Libraries should be focused on how to address the information needs of their users. Different libraries will have different answers to that question, which is as it should be. 1) Sleeman casts his piece as a minority opinion. However, if the preliminary data on my WikiLeaks survey hold true (and I hope those that haven't done so will take the survey ;-)), then Sleeman is not an "outlier" as he would have us believe. The documents community seems to be split 50/50 on whether or not it is important for libraries to collect and give access to the cables -- and only 3 libraries so far say that they've even cataloged the WikiLeaks cable site. When Sleeman says that the situation, "demands more careful parsing than the [liberal] library community has been willing to do," he is, in one stroke, mischaracterizing and demeaning his colleagues. 2) The cables are not a "dump" but are in fact being actively vetted and redacted by Wikileaks and the the news organizations with which WL is working (UK Guardian, der Spiegel, NY Times, El Pais, and Le Monde). Only a very small number have actually been released (3891 of 251,287 to date). Those cables, while technically classified, are now publicly available to anyone and analysis by journalists around the world continues to grow (see WikiRiver as well as the news organizations' sites linked to at the end of this piece). By ignoring the role of journalists and newspapers in the vetting and release of the cables, Sleeman tries to turn the issue into one of Assange vs. the world. I don't think Sleeman would suggest that we should ignore other leaked materials, but maybe he would? Does he object to any publication of leaked information in any newspaper, or is there something about this particular release that he finds objectionable? Does he oppose libraries containing any leaked information? He does not say. As Steven Aftergood wrote recently, "[T]he bulk of the Pentagon Papers, which were leaked in 1971 by Daniel Ellsberg, never formally underwent declassification review.... This means that every public and private library in the country that has a copy of the Papers is technically in possession of currently classified material." Would Sleeman say that we should remove all versions of the Pentagon Papers from our libraries -- including the 4,100 pages of the [w:Pentagon Papers] read into the record of the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds by then Senator Mike Gravel (D-AK).? 3) There have always been leaks of government information, most often for political purposes or individual vendetta ([w:Pentagon Papers] and the [w:Plame affair] are but the most in/famous). There are (admittedly weak) laws on the books to protect whistle blowers but none really to protect military whistleblowers (hence PFC Bradley Manning, the alleged cable leaker, has been held without charge at Quantico Marine base since July, 2010). These cables are not "stolen" per se, but leaked information. Daniel Ellsberg, perhaps the most famous leaker of government secrets, has praised wikileaks and their work. 4) Researchers and the public are justly intrigued with this kind of information. The Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series is one of libraries' most highly sought-after titles so it only makes sense that library users would want access to the cables and their cache of diplomatic information far in advance of any FRUS publication -- which is supposed to be "no more than 30 years after the event recorded" but which is currently far behind schedule in violation of the law (see Aftergood, "State Dept Series Falls Farther Behind Schedule"). These materials will certainly be sought-after by researchers and the public in the future. But who will ensure that they have that access if libraries do not? Sleeman uses the cliche of the information on the web being like "toothpaste from a tube," saying that, once information is "out there," it "isn't going back." But this cliche is only half of the story. While it is true that one cannot guarantee that information, once released, can be successfully erased, it is also true, and more importantly so, that one cannot guarantee the preservation or integrity of information without explicit effort. This has important ramifications for libraries as they address the needs of their users. In a year (or 10 years, or more...) when a researcher wants to see the WikiLeaks documents behind news stories and books, will the researcher have a place to go where those documents have been preserved and authenticated as unaltered from the WikiLeaks release of those documents? Or will documents have disappeared or become unreadable or altered over time because they lacked adequate curation? Will there be documents, but no way to know if they are the ones that were used by earlier researchers? When FRUS releases some of these cables, will researchers be able to compare them to the WikiLeaks versions to verify accuracy of earlier research? Libraries have a role to play in preserving information over time for their users. Sleeman would ignore these issues; he says, "I am not willing to embrace the many calls in the library community to harvest and preserve this material locally." To me that seems like a short-sighted response, inadequately justified with ad hominem rhetoric. 5) Wikileaks staff and volunteers are transparency activists.
We cannot, of course, *know* the motivations of Assange or other WikiLeaks staff or those who leaked the documents any more than we can know the motivations behind other leaks or even the motivations behind the official release of documents in FRUS. Journalists and librarians can, however, document what we do know and provide that as context to any document or publication. As librarians, we do not "embrace the WikiLeaks initiative" when we point to it or even when we add the documents themselves to our collections. Libraries have information on all points of view created for all kinds of reasons. Part of what we do is document the record of society for others to use and evaluate. Our role as librarians is to select what is significant and give it context. (Part of that context is the bibliographic metadata that describes information and its source; part of the context is the rest of our collections that we build by subject and discipline.) Isn't it self-evident that the WikiLeaks material has become significant regardless of the motivation of those who leaked it? Perhaps a close analogy here is to the collections of emails of scientists studying climate change (which *were* in fact stolen, not leaked). In both cases, I can see different libraries making different decisions about including WikiLeaks or those emails in their collections. I would hope that libraries that chose to collect the emails would include the several official reports that exonerated the scientists from the wrong-doing that the thieves attempted to impute. In the case of WikiLeaks, I would hope that a library would include news reports, State Department publications, and robust metadata etc., giving additional context to the cables. 6) Unintended Consequences: There was a fascinating debate hosted by DemocracyNow in December, 2010 between Steven Aftergood and Glenn Greenwald in which Aftergood laid out many of the same arguments that Sleeman does about agencies becoming more restrictive because of the cable leak. However, I think Greenwald's arguments countering this are equally feasible. Again, however, Sleeman is misdirecting us from the issues facing libraries. Now that the information is available and has been widely used and quoted, libraries need to deal with the existence of the information. While it is interesting to think about whether or not the information should have been leaked and what the consequences of the leaks might be, those issues are unrelated to the issue of preservation of and access to that information. 7) Quality, Provenance, Authenticity: Sleeman says, "Yet many in the library community seem eager to point to, to acquire, and to preserve this content without any of the usual assurances regarding quality or origin that we would otherwise require when making a collection development decision." The State Department has not claimed that any of these were invented, modified, falsified or otherwise not authentic. If anything, the official response has implied that the cables are indeed authentic. In the digital age, it is *particularly* important that libraries document the how and where and who of acquisitions so that users can evaluate them accurately. It would be wrong for libraries to say "here are cables released by the State Department" but it is right to say, "here are cables released by WikiLeaks and claimed to be leaked from the state department." That is an accurate description of their origin. Related to this, let's be clear: no librarian is suggesting that we should raid the State Department of all its cables. Instead, many librarians are saying that, given the prominence, public availability, and apparent authenticity of this material, and, given that reputable news organizations have published the cables as well as articles based on these materials, these are legitimate materials for us to consider providing to our users. One option that libraries have in a situation like this is to select and acquire digital files and preserve them without making them publicly available yet. Think of this as preserving with an embargo -- something that many libraries' special collections units do on a regular basis. This ensures that the materials are preserved, but allows the library to put off the decision to make them available until more information on their authenticity and provenance and legal status is available. Preservation does not happen by accident. Preserving the materials now for possible future release is both prudent and cautious. 8) Preservation: Sleeman does not address the preservation of these materials. Perhaps he hopes that, even though the toothpaste is out of the tube, it will slowly wither away and get lost. As noted above, I think it is important that the recently released WikiLeaks information be preserved for future scholars. The fact of the matter is that someone will have to preserve this information if it is to remain accessible. As noted above, preservation does not happen by accident. That means the key question we should be asking is: Who will preserve it? I am not suggesting that every library should collect these materials. Many libraries will find these materials out of scope for their collections. The strength of a community of libraries with many different collections is being able to make preservation decisions based on the needs of our users. If we rely on others (other organizations, other libraries, other individuals) to preserve material that is important to our users, we may find that we are losing important information (for a similar case in point see "While BBC Wants To Kill Off A Bunch Of Websites, Geeks Quickly Archive Them"). If we rely on a very small number of huge digital repositories, we may find ourselves without an adequate voice in their preservation decisions. By building our own digital infrastructure, we put ourselves in control of decisions that affect our user communities. That, in my opinion, is what we should be doing. With that infrastructure in place, we should make decisions about WikiLeaks based on the needs of our users -- not based on our like or dislike of Julian Assange. For readers who want an overview of the issues, I would recommend these additional links:- CQ Researcher has published an paper that covers the wikileaks issue:
Government Secrecy: Does greater openness threaten national security?. By Alex Kingsbury. February 11, 2011
- Nuanced response from the Project on Government Oversight (POGO)
- NY Times cable archive
- Guardian cable archive
- der Spiegel cable archive
- CableSearch search interface of cables as they're released. By the European Centre of Computer Assisted Research.
- WikiRebels - The Documentary: in-depth documentary on WikiLeaks and the people behind it.
Continue reading →Continue Reading →