Abstract
As data privacy legislation and protections are implemented and advocated for internationally, archivists must consider how these developments impact their work, particularly appraisal. Online digital collections make records more easily accessible to researchers and the general public. However, private and sensitive information may be disseminated through these collections inadvertently. In 2018, the European Union (EU) passed the General Data Protection Regulation, which includes right to be forgotten (RTBF) legislation. This enables EU citizens to request the redaction of their personal information online. In the wake of EU court rulings which demonstrate how the RTBF impacts what archives make accessible, and increasing public concerns regarding online privacy, archivists should be aware of the possibility of receiving increased digital collection takedown requests and what their legal liabilities may be. This article explores how takedown requests, as well as RTBF advocacy and criticism, are positioned with respect to appraisal theory. It also addresses how takedown requests affect appraisal praxis and how archivists can be better prepared to manage them.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Association des Archivistes Français (2013) The European Parliament: Adjourn the adoption of the regulation about personal data. https://www.change.org/p/the-european-parliament-adjourn-the-adoption-of-the-regulation-about-personal-data. Accessed 25 Aug 2019
Beckles C (2013) Will the right to be forgotten lead to a society that was forgotten? The International Association of Privacy Professionals. https://iapp.org/news/a/will-the-right-to-be-forgotten-lead-to-a-society-that-was-forgotten. Accessed 30 Apr 2019
Cavoukian A (2011) Privacy by design: the 7 foundational principles. Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. https://www.ipc.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/resources/7foundationalprinciples.pdf. Accessed 18 Aug 2019
Cook T (2011) ‘We are what we keep; we keep what we are’: archival appraisal past, present and future. J Soc Arch 32(2):173–189
De Baets A (2016) A historian’s view on the right to be forgotten. Int Rev Law Comput Technol 30(1–2):57–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2015.1125155
Dressler V, Kristof C (2018) The right to be forgotten and implications on digital collections: a survey of ARL member institutions on practice and policy. Coll Res Libr 79(7):972–990. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.7.972
Dressler V, Marchionini G (eds) (2018) Framing privacy in digital collections with ethical decision making. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San Rafael. https://doi.org/10.2200/S00863ED1V01Y201807ICR064
Edwards E (2017) Libraries and the right to be forgotten: a conflict in the making? J Intellect Freedom Priv 2(1):13–14. https://doi.org/10.5860/jifp.v2i1.6249
European Commission (2011) European Commission consultation on the Commission’s comprehensive approach on data protection in the European Union (COM(2010) 609 final)—response from The National Archives of England, Wales and the United Kingdom. https://web.archive.org/web/20160514134142/http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/0006/contributions/public_authorities/natarchives_uk_en.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2019
Farley L, Willey E (2015) Wisconsin School for girls inmate record books: a case study of redacted digitization. Am Arch 78(2):452–469
Gilliland AJ, Wiener JA (2014) A hidden obligation: stewarding privacy concerns in archival collections using a privacy audit. J Soc NC Arch 11(1):19–35
Henttonen P (2017) Privacy as an archival problem and a solution. Arch Sci 17(3):285–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-017-9277-0
Hollins Digital Commons (n.d.) The Spinster. https://digitalcommons.hollins.edu/spinster/. Accessed 6 May 2019
International Council on Archives (1996) Code of ethics. https://www.ica.org/sites/default/files/ICA_1996-09-06_code%20of%20ethics_EN.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2019
International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (2016) IFLA statement on the right to be forgotten. https://www.ifla.org/node/10272. Accessed 5 May 2019
Intersoft Consulting (2018) Art. 17 GDPR—right to erasure (‘right to be forgotten’). https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/. Accessed 18 Aug 2019
Isaak J, Hanna M (2018) User data privacy: Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, and privacy protection. Computer 51(8):56–59. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2018.3191268
Kafka AC (2019). College president sparks controversy by taking down blackface photos. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/College-President-Sparks/246055. Accessed 1 May 2019
Kaplan D (1996) The Stanley Milgram papers: a case study on appraisal of and access to confidential data files. Am Arch 59(3):288–297
Lynch GR (2016) Could a right to be forgotten online kill libraries? Bloomberg BNA. https://www.bna.com/right-forgotten-online-n57982078697/. Accessed 29 April 2019
Moravec M (2017) Feminist research practices and digital archives. Aust Fem Stud 32(91–92):186–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.2017.1357006
Ng Y (2018) Deepfakes, human rights, and archives. Presentation at the Association of Moving Image Archivists conference, Portland, 28 Nov 28–1 Dec. https://vimeo.com/306923138. Accessed 6 May 2019
Noble SU (2018) Algorithms of oppression: how search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press, New York
Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) (2010) Well-intentioned practice for putting digitized collections of unpublished materials online. https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/activities/rights/practice.pdf. Accessed 29 Apr 2019
Pike G (2016) The right to be forgotten. Inf Today 33(3):13
Robertson T (2018) Not all information wants to be free: the case study of On Our Backs. In: Peter DF, Kelly T (eds) Applying library values to emerging technology: decision-making in the age of open access, maker spaces, and the ever-changing library. Association of College and Research Libraries, Chicago
Schofield B, Urban J (2016) Takedown and today’s academic digital library. I/S J Law Policy 13(1):125–160. https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/3rhfe
Shilton K, Srinivasan R (2007) Participatory appraisal and arrangement for multicultural archival collections. Archivaria 63:87–101
Society of American Archivists (2011) SAA core values statement and code of ethics. https://www2.archivists.org/statements/saa-core-values-statement-and-code-of-ethics. Accessed 25 Aug 2019
Society of American Archivists (2019) SAA response to Hollins University removal of year books. https://www2.archivists.org/statements/saa-response-to-hollins-university-removal-of-yearbooks. Accessed 3 May 2019
Szekely I (2014) The right to be forgotten and the new archival paradigm. In: Ghezzi A, Pereira ÂG, Vesnić-Alujević L (eds) The ethics of memory in a digital age: interrogating the right to be forgotten. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137428455
Tschan R (2002) A comparison of Jenkinson and Schellenberg on appraisal. Am Arch 65(2):176–195
Vavra AN (2018) The right to be forgotten: an archival perspective. Am Arch 81(1):100–111. https://doi.org/10.17723/0360-9081-81.1.100
Wyber S (2018) The right to be forgotten and libraries. J Inf Ethics 27(2):81–97
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Black, S. The implications of digital collection takedown requests on archival appraisal. Arch Sci 20, 91–101 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-019-09322-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-019-09322-y