Skip to main content

The implications of digital collection takedown requests on archival appraisal

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, access via your institution.

References

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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

  10. Farley L, Willey E (2015) Wisconsin School for girls inmate record books: a case study of redacted digitization. Am Arch 78(2):452–469

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hollins Digital Commons (n.d.) The Spinster. https://digitalcommons.hollins.edu/spinster/. Accessed 6 May 2019

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. Intersoft Consulting (2018) Art. 17 GDPR—right to erasure (‘right to be forgotten’). https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/. Accessed 18 Aug 2019

  17. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

  19. 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

    Google Scholar 

  20. 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

  21. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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

  23. Noble SU (2018) Algorithms of oppression: how search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. 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

  25. Pike G (2016) The right to be forgotten. Inf Today 33(3):13

    Google Scholar 

  26. 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

    Google Scholar 

  27. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Shilton K, Srinivasan R (2007) Participatory appraisal and arrangement for multicultural archival collections. Archivaria 63:87–101

    Google Scholar 

  29. 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

  30. 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

  31. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Tschan R (2002) A comparison of Jenkinson and Schellenberg on appraisal. Am Arch 65(2):176–195

    Google Scholar 

  33. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wyber S (2018) The right to be forgotten and libraries. J Inf Ethics 27(2):81–97

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shelly Black.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

Keywords

  • Takedown requests
  • Right to be forgotten
  • Digital collections
  • Appraisal
  • Privacy
  • GDPR