Rights to privacy and freedom of expression in public libraries: squaring the circle

Rights to privacy and freedom of
expression in public libraries:
squaring the circle
David McMenemy
Computer and Information Sciences,
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow,
Scotland

• Considers privacy and freedom of
expression as ethical concepts
• Discusses the tensions that exist between
respecting these rights, and modern library
practice
• Highlights some real issues from the UK
• Poses some questions for future
Overview

• Privacy is the “right to be free from
unwarranted intrusion and to keep certain
matters from public view” (Law, 2015)
• It is a crucial aspect of personal autonomy
and a vital component of individual
fulfilment
Importance of privacy

• “frank communication… needs the shield of
privacy; it needs the restraint of peeping
Toms and eavesdroppers, of phone taps
and bugging devices in one’s house, of
tampering with one’s mail or seizure of
one’s correspondence” (Griffin, 2008,
p.225).
Direct link to freedom of expression

• “restrictions on what we are allowed to say
and write, or…to hear and read, inhibit our
personality and its growth” (Barendt, 2006,
p.13).
• “Underpins other important rights such as
“rights to freedom of religion, thought and
conscience” (Barendt, 2006, p.13).
Freedom of expression

• Privacy can pose significant challenges to
security
• Privacy affords a person more opportunity
to undertake activities that can harm
others
• It is within this space that the debates
around privacy take place
The challenges…

• Both privacy and freedom of expression
are qualified rights
• This means that other rights may take
priority over both
• If we are to successfully advocate for
privacy, we must be in the debate where
the qualifications are discussed and
formed
Qualified rights

• Under the ECHR privacy is recognised as
a human right based around “the respect
for private and family life”
• The qualification made to this is that
governments can only interfere “in
accordance with the law and is necessary
in a democratic society”
The qualification..

• ..in the interests of national security,
• public safety or the economic wellbeing of
the country,
• for the prevention of disorder or crime,
• for the protection of health or morals,
• or for the protection of the rights and
freedoms of others.”
The qualification (con’t)

• How do these qualifications impact on
library services?
• Do we debate them and their impact on
services enough?
• Do we often err too much on the safe
side?
Key questions…

• “Access [to information] should not be
restricted on any grounds except that of the
law” (CILIP, 2005).
• CILIP supports Council of Europe: services
providing “Public Access Points should
respect the privacy of users and treat
knowledge of what they have accessed or
wish to access as confidential.”
Our professional values

• C of E says “use by managers of Public
Access Points of software filtering systems
to block access to certain content is an
unwarranted interference with the
individual’s freedom of access to
information”
And on filtering….

• “If filtering and blocking systems are to be
made available, it should only be as an
option that individuals can choose and
calibrate at their own preferred levels”
• Some discussion now of some Scottish/UK
issues…
On filtering (con’t)

• Brown, G.T. and McMenemy, D. (2013), “The implementation of internet
filtering in Scottish public libraries”, Aslib Proceedings, 65 (2), pp.182-202.
Justifications for filtering..

• Can we be consistent how we define that?
• “grossly offensive” (LA2); “indecent” (LA2,
7, 10, 20, 27 and 28); “disturbing” (LA5,
11, 13, 24 and 26); “depraved” (LA9);
“offensive, indecent or menacing” (LA10);
“any way that offends decency” (LA3) and
“offensive, immoral or distressing” (LA11)
• Gallagher, C., McMenemy, D., Poulter, A. (2015) "Management of acceptable use of
computing facilities in the public library: avoiding a panoptic gaze?", Journal of
Documentation, 71(3), pp.572 – 590.
What is inappropriate?

• “When it comes to material deemed
“inappropriate” rather than unlawful, this can
be a very subjective judgement. For formally
published material, professional publishers
have acted as arbiters of quality or taste and
librarians have decided what to include in
library collections. When it comes to the
internet, it appears that filtering software
vendors have a prominent role”
• Muir, A., Spacey, R., Cooke, L., and Creaser , C. (2016) "Regulating internet access in UK
public libraries: legal compliance and ethical dilemmas", Journal of Information,
Communication and Ethics in Society, 14 (1), pp.87 - 104
As suggested by Muir et al..

• 1 of 31 Scottish libraries had ability to
unblock at point of access
• 27 services stated that although there was a
“release procedure” in place, the content
could not be released at the point of use. It
would rather be considered “appropriate”
retroactively and released at a later date:
• 2 stated that no procedure existed whereby
content blocked by the public access internet
filtering software could be released
• (Brown and McMenemy, 2013)
When the filtering blocks incorrectly

• Even when unblocking is an option, we
must consider the privacy of the patron
who may be embarrassed to ask
• We cannot place our service delivery
completely in the hands of blunt
instruments
• One view is “it is not our business to
mediate between users and the virtual
world” (Hauptman, 2002, p.65)
The ethical dilemma

• As Sturges states, “when people describe
internet content as harmful they tend to
lump together both legal and illegal
material” (Sturges, 2002, p. 21)
• Our profession needs more debate on
definitions of inappropriate with regards
Internet access
Legal vs inappropriate?

• Government programmes to tackle
radicalisation
• Movement of services to the cloud
Other issues impacting privacy?

• In a bid to tackle radicalisation of young
British people, successive UK governments
have adopted Prevent strategy
• The strategy’s goal is “to prevent
radicalisation and stop would-be terrorists
from committing mass murder” (HM
Government, 2011, p.1)
Tackling radicalisation

• “We remain absolutely committed to
protecting freedom of speech in this
country. But preventing terrorism will mean
challenging extremist (and non-violent)
ideas that are also part of a terrorist
ideology” (HM Government, 2011, p.13).
• Subtext here is that it might also impact on
materials that are legal but felt to inspire
radicalisation
Impact on freedom of expression?

• Should consider “whether IT equipment
available to the general public should use
filtering solutions that limit access to
terrorist and extremist material” (HM
Government, 2015)
• The majority do so already
Impact on public libraries?

• Libraries in the UK have had to answer
challenges on this issue in recent times
• The 2007 report, Hate on the State, found
that books were found in several libraries
that:
– Glorify acts of terrorism against followers of other
religions
– Incite violence against anyone who rejects
jihadist ideologies
– Endorse violence and discrimination against
women (Brandon & Murray, 2007, p.3).
Public libraries and extremism

• As we move services to the cloud, we
must be aware of the impact on core
values
• For example, the alteration of data
protection procedures when we do so can
have significant impact
The Cloud

• The following DP statement was sent to
members of a Scottish public library
Challenge of cloud data storage?

• Not agreeing to the new statement meant
membership would have to be revoked
– Public libraries in the UK are a legal right
• Blanket 3rd party exemptions
– Why should the public have to trust we will not
use 3rd parties they would not approve of?
• Such changes to practice play on our
trusted role, and arguably abuse it
What are the issues?

• Cloud storage of patron data risks building
databases of immense value on patron
preferences and behaviour
• Use of ebook lending data runs similar risks
• Again, we must debate these developments
more for their long term impact
More globally….

Points to consider:
1. We must be very careful not to hold up
our ethical standards as badges of
honour, if we simply ignore them when
convenient
2. We need to dictate standards for any
tools we use based on our values
3. And we must be clear on why we use
them, and more reflective when we do
Squaring the circle?

• We need to be careful of how many of our
values we cede to software vendors to
manage for us
• We equally need to be aware that when
we do so, we commercialise those values
• If we cannot debate important issues such
as privacy and FoE within our profession,
we will lose our moral authority on them
In summary

• Be at the heart of societal debate about
qualifications of all rights. Our voice must
be heard.
• Call for more debate within profession re
privacy and freedom of expression and
policies from within that challenge them
• Always be aware of our core values
Conclusions

More details/discussion and
references in full paper, available on
IFLA Digital Library (soon, if not
already!)
Thank you!
d.mcmenemy@strath.ac.uk
@d_mcmenemy (Twitter)

Rights to privacy and freedom of expression in public libraries: squaring the circle

More Related Content

What's hot (14)

Similar to Rights to privacy and freedom of expression in public libraries: squaring the circle (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Rights to privacy and freedom of expression in public libraries: squaring the circle