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

David McMenemyComputer 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)