{"title":"Plagiarism and Ethics of Knowledge: Evidence from International Scientific Papers","authors":"R. Jamali, Sepehr Ghazinoory, Mona Sadeghi","doi":"10.3172/JIE.23.1.101","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.23.1.101","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"23 1","pages":"101-110"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3172/JIE.23.1.101","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69758021","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"On (the Burdens of) Securing Rights to Access Information","authors":"Jonathan Trerise","doi":"10.3172/JIE.23.1.42","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.23.1.42","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"23 1","pages":"42-54"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69757742","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Information-Based Autonomy vs. Oligarchy","authors":"Ron Houston","doi":"10.3172/JIE.23.1.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.23.1.12","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"23 1","pages":"12-41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69758206","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Lesser Known Business Models of Online Copyright Infringement","authors":"Morris S. Rosenthal","doi":"10.3172/JIE.23.1.55","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.23.1.55","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"23 1","pages":"55-64"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69757800","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Teaching the Ethics of Scientific Research Through Novels","authors":"J. Dilevko, R. Barton","doi":"10.3172/JIE.23.1.65","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.23.1.65","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"23 1","pages":"65-82"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69757849","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Real but Unmentioned Enemy in the \"War on Drugs\": Disorders of American Character","authors":"P. Olsson","doi":"10.3172/JIE.23.1.111","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.23.1.111","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"23 1","pages":"111-120"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69758100","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Daily You: How the New Advertising Industry Is Defining Your Identity and Your Worth Joseph Turow. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011. 234. pp. $28.00I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did: Social Networks and the Death of Privacy Lori Andrews. New York: Free Press, 2011. 253 pp. $26.00Privacy Garret Keizer. New York: Picador, 2012. 194 pp. $15.00Privacy is the bulwark of any free society. It seems like such a simple concept- letting people decide what information about themselves they want to make public-but what does it really entail? Today's political and commercial world is about collecting information about people. Every keystroke from tweets, every keystroke biometric measuring keyboarding pattern, every student accessing pages in online textbooks, is being recorded and logged for data retrieval for potential buyers. There are seemingly endless electronically linked storage sites that collect data on what information we search, what movies we prefer, where we like to vacation, what books we read, and the list goes on. Our society is developing a resigned acceptance of being under surveillance-both visual and audio-from any governmental authority, shopkeeper, or casual cell phone photographer. Coupled with that is a growing concern among some that we are losing the valued right to keep some information about ourselves confidential and to have control over how any personal information is used and distributed. The privacy issue is not new; it has been a topic in the courts for centuries. The difference today is the magnitude of the possibilities for invading a person's privacy and the range of uses, both positive and negative, for which that data is being used.Turow, Andrews, and Keizer have each taken an aspect of the complex world of privacy and shown the reader a web of positives and negatives that exist when the topic is closely examined. Turow's The Daily You takes the reader through a very detailed analysis of the world of advertising and how individual companies gather, package, and market information about you to any person or company willing to pay for that valued material. He covers the many clever ways data is collected as persons query Internet sites, tweet, and "like" items. Then he delves into the way consumer-centric insight is bought, sold, and used to the best marketing advantage to promote sales and attract people to particular websites and product lines. This may be viewed with both positive and negative eyes. On the positive, the more precise the data collected on users, the more likely they will have information that interests them displayed the next time they access the Internet. If they enjoy sports, for example, the content they see will more likely contain advertisements for sports events and equipment. On the negative, the data analyzers and artificial intelligent programs are screening the choices that will be displayed, causing a silo effect and censorship for the user. They will only view content and pos
{"title":"The Daily You: How the New Advertising Industry Is Defining Your Identity and Your Worth/I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did: Social Networks and the Death of Privacy/Privacy","authors":"Judy Anderson","doi":"10.5860/choice.49-6375","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.49-6375","url":null,"abstract":"The Daily You: How the New Advertising Industry Is Defining Your Identity and Your Worth Joseph Turow. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011. 234. pp. $28.00I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did: Social Networks and the Death of Privacy Lori Andrews. New York: Free Press, 2011. 253 pp. $26.00Privacy Garret Keizer. New York: Picador, 2012. 194 pp. $15.00Privacy is the bulwark of any free society. It seems like such a simple concept- letting people decide what information about themselves they want to make public-but what does it really entail? Today's political and commercial world is about collecting information about people. Every keystroke from tweets, every keystroke biometric measuring keyboarding pattern, every student accessing pages in online textbooks, is being recorded and logged for data retrieval for potential buyers. There are seemingly endless electronically linked storage sites that collect data on what information we search, what movies we prefer, where we like to vacation, what books we read, and the list goes on. Our society is developing a resigned acceptance of being under surveillance-both visual and audio-from any governmental authority, shopkeeper, or casual cell phone photographer. Coupled with that is a growing concern among some that we are losing the valued right to keep some information about ourselves confidential and to have control over how any personal information is used and distributed. The privacy issue is not new; it has been a topic in the courts for centuries. The difference today is the magnitude of the possibilities for invading a person's privacy and the range of uses, both positive and negative, for which that data is being used.Turow, Andrews, and Keizer have each taken an aspect of the complex world of privacy and shown the reader a web of positives and negatives that exist when the topic is closely examined. Turow's The Daily You takes the reader through a very detailed analysis of the world of advertising and how individual companies gather, package, and market information about you to any person or company willing to pay for that valued material. He covers the many clever ways data is collected as persons query Internet sites, tweet, and \"like\" items. Then he delves into the way consumer-centric insight is bought, sold, and used to the best marketing advantage to promote sales and attract people to particular websites and product lines. This may be viewed with both positive and negative eyes. On the positive, the more precise the data collected on users, the more likely they will have information that interests them displayed the next time they access the Internet. If they enjoy sports, for example, the content they see will more likely contain advertisements for sports events and equipment. On the negative, the data analyzers and artificial intelligent programs are screening the choices that will be displayed, causing a silo effect and censorship for the user. They will only view content and pos","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"22 1","pages":"163"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71138298","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
IntroductionThe convergence of libraries, archives, and museums (or LAMs) into mono lithic institutions is not a particularly new idea. Although the Alliance of Libraries, Archives and Records Management (ALARM) published multiple studies on human resources in the information sector in the 1990s (1995), the literature on the subject really starts to build in the early 2000s with some of the most prominent examples of LAM convergence in Canada happening nearly ten years ago. Despite the fact that the convergence proposal has been a part of infor - mation management discourse for over a decade, we have not yet begun to feel the full effects of its introduction. As the pro-convergence movement grows, an antithetical movement has failed to emerge and the arguments for convergence have gone largely unanswered in a systematic manner. This absence of a unified critique is particularly worrisome because the implications of LAM convergence are so wide-reaching that even many of its proponents have not yet recognized its potential effects. These effects have the ability to vastly alter the fundamental principles of library, archives, and museum management and it is for this reason that a critical re-assessment of convergence is so urgently needed.The convergence movement is building momentum with several related movements and cannot be fully assessed without taking these developments into consideration. As more institutions ponder a convergence like that seen at Library and Archives Canada (LAC), for instance, business culture seeps further into an information sector built on concepts of public service. As business culture makes more headway into cultural and heritage institutions, top-down management models become more ingrained. It is for these reasons that LAM convergence is a potential threat to the professional principles of libraries, archives, and museums, a threat that runs counter to the best interests of both information workers and patrons of information institutions.This paper will provide a review of the arguments presented in support of convergence, demonstrate the fallacies in these arguments, show how the convergence model is both influenced by and influences the corporatization of the cultural sphere, and argue that convergence is a threat to the principles of libraries, archives, and museums that should be opposed with great deliberation.Before continuing, a definition of these principles is in order. Beginning with libraries, the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights (1996) succinctly defines the principles for "all libraries" as being devoted to equitable access to information regardless of background, provision of material regardless of the background of those contributing to its creation, challenging censorship, cooperation with "all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgement of free expression" and the provision of exhibit and meeting spaces on an equitable basis.For the principles of archives, the Associ
图书馆、档案馆和博物馆(或lam)融合成单一的机构并不是一个特别新的想法。虽然图书馆、档案和记录管理联盟(ALARM)在20世纪90年代(1995年)发表了多项关于信息部门人力资源的研究，但关于这一主题的文献真正开始建立是在21世纪初，加拿大LAM趋同的一些最突出的例子发生在近十年前。尽管十多年来，趋同建议一直是信息管理话语的一部分，但我们尚未开始感受到其引入的全部影响。随着支持趋同运动的发展，一场对立的运动未能出现，而趋同的争论在很大程度上以一种系统的方式没有得到回答。缺乏统一的批评尤其令人担忧，因为LAM趋同的影响是如此广泛，以至于它的许多支持者还没有认识到它的潜在影响。这些影响有能力极大地改变图书馆、档案馆和博物馆管理的基本原则，正是出于这个原因，迫切需要对趋同进行批判性的重新评估。趋同运动正在与若干相关运动一起形成势头，如果不考虑到这些事态发展，就无法对其进行充分评估。例如，随着越来越多的机构考虑像加拿大图书馆和档案馆(LAC)那样的融合，商业文化进一步渗透到建立在公共服务概念基础上的信息部门。随着商业文化在文化和遗产机构中取得越来越大的进展，自上而下的管理模式变得更加根深蒂固。正是由于这些原因，LAM趋同对图书馆、档案馆和博物馆的专业原则构成了潜在的威胁，这种威胁与信息工作者和信息机构顾客的最佳利益背道而驰。本文将回顾支持趋同的论点，论证这些论点中的谬误，展示趋同模式如何受到文化领域公司化的影响，并论证趋同是对图书馆、档案馆和博物馆原则的威胁，应该慎重反对。在继续之前，有必要对这些原则进行定义。从图书馆开始，美国图书馆协会的图书馆权利法案(1996年)简洁地定义了“所有图书馆”的原则，即致力于公平获取信息，而不考虑背景，提供材料，而不考虑那些为其创造做出贡献的人的背景，挑战审查制度，与“所有与抵制限制言论自由有关的个人和团体”合作，并在公平的基础上提供展览和会议空间。对于档案的原则，加拿大档案工作者协会(Association of Canadian Archivists, 1999)有一个道德规范，明确定义了该职业的原则以及这些原则通过核心职能的应用。从本质上讲，该文件指出，“为了当前用户和后代的利益，档案工作者评估、选择、获取、保存和提供档案记录，确保其知识完整性并促进对这些记录的负责任的实物保管。”文件继续写道:“档案管理员根据公认的档案原则和做法履行职责，尽其所能，尽一切努力促进和维持最高的行为标准。”美国博物馆协会(2000)也为博物馆从业人员制定了明确的道德准则，将博物馆的角色定义为“收集、保存和解释这个世界的事物”。《守则》指出:“博物馆有责任成为人类的资源，并在其所有活动中促进对我们所继承的丰富多样的世界的了解。．..
{"title":"The Canadian Disease: The Ethics of Library, Archives, and Museum Convergence","authors":"Braden Cannon","doi":"10.3172/JIE.22.2.66","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.22.2.66","url":null,"abstract":"IntroductionThe convergence of libraries, archives, and museums (or LAMs) into mono lithic institutions is not a particularly new idea. Although the Alliance of Libraries, Archives and Records Management (ALARM) published multiple studies on human resources in the information sector in the 1990s (1995), the literature on the subject really starts to build in the early 2000s with some of the most prominent examples of LAM convergence in Canada happening nearly ten years ago. Despite the fact that the convergence proposal has been a part of infor - mation management discourse for over a decade, we have not yet begun to feel the full effects of its introduction. As the pro-convergence movement grows, an antithetical movement has failed to emerge and the arguments for convergence have gone largely unanswered in a systematic manner. This absence of a unified critique is particularly worrisome because the implications of LAM convergence are so wide-reaching that even many of its proponents have not yet recognized its potential effects. These effects have the ability to vastly alter the fundamental principles of library, archives, and museum management and it is for this reason that a critical re-assessment of convergence is so urgently needed.The convergence movement is building momentum with several related movements and cannot be fully assessed without taking these developments into consideration. As more institutions ponder a convergence like that seen at Library and Archives Canada (LAC), for instance, business culture seeps further into an information sector built on concepts of public service. As business culture makes more headway into cultural and heritage institutions, top-down management models become more ingrained. It is for these reasons that LAM convergence is a potential threat to the professional principles of libraries, archives, and museums, a threat that runs counter to the best interests of both information workers and patrons of information institutions.This paper will provide a review of the arguments presented in support of convergence, demonstrate the fallacies in these arguments, show how the convergence model is both influenced by and influences the corporatization of the cultural sphere, and argue that convergence is a threat to the principles of libraries, archives, and museums that should be opposed with great deliberation.Before continuing, a definition of these principles is in order. Beginning with libraries, the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights (1996) succinctly defines the principles for \"all libraries\" as being devoted to equitable access to information regardless of background, provision of material regardless of the background of those contributing to its creation, challenging censorship, cooperation with \"all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgement of free expression\" and the provision of exhibit and meeting spaces on an equitable basis.For the principles of archives, the Associ","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"22 1","pages":"66-89"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69757676","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
IntroductionThe archival community has embraced government accountability as a "core value" of archivists and ethical codes for archivists have long included prohibitions on document destruction designed to sanitize "the record" or conceal evidence (Society of American Archivists ["SAA"], 2013). For government archivists such values and standards are not simply aspirational or theoretical, but an integral part of their professional and legal obligations. In particular, the duties of the Archivist of the United States and NARA include the responsibility to authorize and empower federal agencies to destroy records. Exercising this authority requires NARA to negotiate a unique mix of competing, and sometimes conflicting, interests. While working cooperatively with federal agencies to improve the efficiency of agency record-keeping by encouraging agencies to dispose of unnecessary records, NARA archivists are simultaneously tasked with ensuring that agencies retain records that may be directly adverse to the interests of the agency and enforcing records retention responsibilities when agencies fail to comply.This essay explores the relationship between NARA and government records destruction. It begins by discussing relevant archival "values" and ethical codes related to document destruction and government accountability and stressing the unique role of government archivists. It describes the methods federal agencies have used historically to evade record-keeping responsibilities and archival guidance, which have often relied upon manipulating archival concepts and terminology. The essay then examines the CIA's 2005 destruction of videotapes depicting the detention and brutal interrogation of detainees as a practical illustration of both an agency apparently attempting to avoid recordkeeping requirements and the difficult task of archivists in attempting to enforce them as a means towards government accountability. The article ends by suggest - ing that the most practical efforts to deal with conflicts are largely within the special expertise of archivists, but that current record-keeping reforms may unfor - tunately result in diminishing the role of archivists in ensuring accountability.Archivists, Ethics, and Government Document DestructionArchivists have a unique relationship with document destruction. Unlike many professionals who work in repositories of historical and cultural material, archivists' destruction of material in their care is not only acceptable, but a crucial and indispensable responsibility. In the process euphemistically called "selection," the role of the archivist is to separate the wheat from the chaffand determine which portions merit long-term preservation. The primary justification for this process is that with ever-present limitations of resources, archivists must reject the many to preserve the few (Cox, R.J., 2004, p. 8). In fact, the responsibility to select arguably rises to the same level as the duty to preserve. The
档案界已经将政府问责作为档案工作者的“核心价值”，档案工作者的道德准则长期以来包括禁止销毁旨在净化“记录”或隐瞒证据的文件(美国档案工作者协会[“SAA”]，2013)。对于政府档案工作者来说，这些价值观和标准不仅仅是理想的或理论上的，而是他们专业和法律义务的组成部分。特别是，美国档案保管员和NARA的职责包括授权和授权联邦机构销毁记录的责任。行使这一权力要求NARA就各种相互竞争、有时甚至相互冲突的独特利益进行谈判。在与联邦机构合作，通过鼓励机构处理不必要的记录来提高机构记录保存的效率的同时，NARA档案保管员的任务是确保各机构保留可能直接不利于其利益的记录，并在各机构不遵守规定时强制执行记录保存责任。本文探讨了NARA与政府档案销毁的关系。它首先讨论了与文件销毁和政府问责有关的相关档案“价值”和道德准则，并强调了政府档案工作者的独特作用。它描述了联邦机构在历史上用来逃避记录保存责任和档案指导的方法，这些方法通常依赖于操纵档案概念和术语。这篇文章接着考察了CIA 2005年销毁记录拘留和残酷审讯被拘留者的录像带，作为一个实际的例证，表明CIA显然试图避免记录保存要求，而档案保管员则试图强制执行这些要求，作为对政府负责的一种手段。文章最后提出，处理冲突的最实际的努力主要是在档案工作者的专业知识范围内，但目前的记录保存改革可能会不幸地削弱档案工作者在确保问责制方面的作用。档案工作者、道德与政府文件销毁档案工作者与文件销毁有着独特的关系。与许多在历史和文化材料仓库工作的专业人员不同，档案保管员在他们的照料下破坏材料不仅是可以接受的，而且是一项至关重要和不可或缺的责任。在这个被委婉地称为“选择”的过程中，档案保管员的作用是将小麦从谷壳中分离出来，并确定哪些部分值得长期保存。这一过程的主要理由是，由于资源的限制，档案保管员必须拒绝多数以保留少数(Cox, r.j.， 2004, p. 8)。事实上，选择的责任可以说上升到与保存的责任相同的水平。例如，1955年由国家档案馆制定的“档案保管员守则”规定，档案保管员“在处理没有重大或持久价值的记录时，必须像保留有重大或持久价值的记录一样勤奋”(国家档案馆，1955年)。在执行选择功能时，道德考虑主要集中在不故意歪曲或消毒记录。例如，SAA道德准则规定，“档案工作者不得故意改变、操纵或销毁数据或记录，以掩盖事实或歪曲证据”(2013年)。因此，这一道德标准只是禁止档案保管员故意从事这种破坏性行为。然而，在实践中，更为复杂的现实是，对“记录”的操纵或破坏通常发生在文件到达档案馆之前，而这些文件仍在创建它们的机构或个人手中。也就是说，档案保管员可能永远不会看到成堆的文件被扔进垃圾桶，不管它们的创造者认为它们无关紧要、不重要，还是令人尴尬或不受欢迎的不法行为的证据。…
{"title":"In the Trenches: Archival Ethics, Law and the Case of the Destroyed CIA Tapes","authors":"Douglas Cox","doi":"10.3172/JIE.22.2.90","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.22.2.90","url":null,"abstract":"IntroductionThe archival community has embraced government accountability as a \"core value\" of archivists and ethical codes for archivists have long included prohibitions on document destruction designed to sanitize \"the record\" or conceal evidence (Society of American Archivists [\"SAA\"], 2013). For government archivists such values and standards are not simply aspirational or theoretical, but an integral part of their professional and legal obligations. In particular, the duties of the Archivist of the United States and NARA include the responsibility to authorize and empower federal agencies to destroy records. Exercising this authority requires NARA to negotiate a unique mix of competing, and sometimes conflicting, interests. While working cooperatively with federal agencies to improve the efficiency of agency record-keeping by encouraging agencies to dispose of unnecessary records, NARA archivists are simultaneously tasked with ensuring that agencies retain records that may be directly adverse to the interests of the agency and enforcing records retention responsibilities when agencies fail to comply.This essay explores the relationship between NARA and government records destruction. It begins by discussing relevant archival \"values\" and ethical codes related to document destruction and government accountability and stressing the unique role of government archivists. It describes the methods federal agencies have used historically to evade record-keeping responsibilities and archival guidance, which have often relied upon manipulating archival concepts and terminology. The essay then examines the CIA's 2005 destruction of videotapes depicting the detention and brutal interrogation of detainees as a practical illustration of both an agency apparently attempting to avoid recordkeeping requirements and the difficult task of archivists in attempting to enforce them as a means towards government accountability. The article ends by suggest - ing that the most practical efforts to deal with conflicts are largely within the special expertise of archivists, but that current record-keeping reforms may unfor - tunately result in diminishing the role of archivists in ensuring accountability.Archivists, Ethics, and Government Document DestructionArchivists have a unique relationship with document destruction. Unlike many professionals who work in repositories of historical and cultural material, archivists' destruction of material in their care is not only acceptable, but a crucial and indispensable responsibility. In the process euphemistically called \"selection,\" the role of the archivist is to separate the wheat from the chaffand determine which portions merit long-term preservation. The primary justification for this process is that with ever-present limitations of resources, archivists must reject the many to preserve the few (Cox, R.J., 2004, p. 8). In fact, the responsibility to select arguably rises to the same level as the duty to preserve. The ","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"55 2 1","pages":"90-101"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69757955","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In recent years, the state has evidenced a dedication to preserving our documentary heritage not only by maintaining archival repositories, but also by attempting to remove particularly notable and valuable historical documents from public circulation. North Carolina's efforts to regain its official copy of the Bill of Rights, a downright caper featuring a sting operation directed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is perhaps the most notable recent example of the phenomenon (Goss, 2010). In recent decades many such cases have been handled much more quietly, but in initiating suits to pursue contested historical documents and when relying heavily on particular legal strategies for their recovery, the public sector has decisively shaped this debate. The ubiquity of the term "replevin" among relevant parties is one sign of success: in the councils of state archivists, among the professional organizations of both state and academic archivists, and throughout the community of private manuscript collectors, in conference sessions and journal articles, and in informal conversation, "replevin" serves as a pervasive shorthand descriptor of conflicts involving the ownership of public documents. A common law remedy for parties seeking the return of stolen or otherwise unlawfully held property, and largely concerned with proof of title, replevin is the central feature of most individual state laws created to defend the property rights of governments in their official records (Bain, 1983). Replevin's stringent requirements, have, much to the detriment of informed and reasonable dialogue, lent a consistently acrimonious tenor to an otherwise episodic string of conflicts over public records. Relations between state archives and private collectors have only deteriorated in recent years, and at this point it would be helpful to develop alternative approaches to the analysis and mediation of these contests.The Private Market and Archival Preservation in the United StatesRecognizing the priority and influence of the private sector in preserving American archives is a necessary step in beginning to understand the complexities of this issue. American documentary preservation efforts have always been pursued within a mixed economy of public and private activity. At one time or another, either of the two sides might have been said to be dominant. Institutional archives, including government repositories and university special collections, are now the primary actors, but for much of our history governments have been imperfect guardians of the documentary heritage embodied in their inactive records. Only at the turn of the 20th century did state-funded archival institutions emerge as dedicated organizations to protect these records. And for years the state archives were alone; there would be no national archives until the 1930s. In terms of archival preservation, the 19th century belonged almost wholly to the individual collector of historical manuscripts. Private
近年来，国家不仅通过维护档案库，而且通过试图从公共流通中删除特别著名和有价值的历史文件，证明了对保护我们的文献遗产的奉献精神。北卡罗莱纳试图重新获得其《权利法案》的官方副本，这是一场彻头彻尾的闹剧，由联邦调查局(Federal Bureau of Investigation)指挥的诱捕行动，也许是这种现象最近最引人注目的例子(戈斯，2010)。近几十年来，许多此类案件都得到了低调得多的处理，但在提起诉讼以追查有争议的历史文件，以及在严重依赖特定法律策略进行追回时，公共部门决定性地影响了这场辩论。“归还”一词在相关各方中无处不在，这是成功的一个标志:在国家档案工作者委员会、国家和学术档案工作者的专业组织中，在整个私人手稿收藏者群体中，在会议和期刊文章中，以及在非正式谈话中，“归还”作为涉及公共文件所有权冲突的普遍速记描述。追回被盗或以其他方式非法持有的财产是一种普通法救济，主要涉及所有权证明，追回是大多数各州法律的中心特征，这些法律是为了保护政府在其官方记录中的财产权而制定的(Bain, 1983)。雷维文的严格要求，在很大程度上损害了知情和合理的对话，给围绕公共记录的一系列零星冲突带来了一贯的尖锐基调。国家档案馆和私人收藏者之间的关系在最近几年才开始恶化，在这一点上，开发其他方法来分析和调解这些争论将是有帮助的。认识到私营部门在保存美国档案方面的优先地位和影响，是开始理解这一问题复杂性的必要步骤。美国的文献保存工作一直是在公共和私人活动的混合经济中进行的。在某一时期，双方中的任何一方都可以说是占优势的。机构档案，包括政府档案馆和大学的特别收藏，现在是主要的参与者，但在我们的历史上，政府在很多时候都没有成为他们不活跃记录中体现的文献遗产的完美守护者。直到20世纪初，国家资助的档案机构才成为专门保护这些记录的组织。多年来，国家档案馆是孤独的;直到20世纪30年代才有国家档案馆。就档案保存而言，19世纪几乎完全属于历史手稿的个人收藏者。在这一时期，私人历史协会和个人主要担任档案保管人，通过拍卖和目录销售、私人商业，以及亲自寻找存放物品的地方，收集手稿。在私人信件中，他们有时会保存公共文件:联邦、州或地方政府的记录，这些记录当时通常保存在各种简陋、肮脏和容易发生火灾的地方。这些材料有时是偷来的，有时是从官方批准的销毁中抢救出来的，从造纸厂或垃圾场，也许是从公职人员的监护下骗来的，或者被公职人员带回家，或者以其他意想不到的方式偶然发现的。通过这种方式，州、地方和联邦档案的重要部分进入了私人签名交易，之后静静地等待，直到最近几十年才成为一个有分歧的公共政策问题。尽管至少在20世纪10年代或20年代之前，所涉及的资金相当有限，但私人收藏家之间存在着充分的竞争，从而为某些种类的历史文献带来了日益活跃的私人市场。…
{"title":"State Property or Cultural Property? The Limitations of Replevin as an Interpretive Framework for Disputed Archives","authors":"Ryan Speer","doi":"10.3172/JIE.22.2.102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.22.2.102","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, the state has evidenced a dedication to preserving our documentary heritage not only by maintaining archival repositories, but also by attempting to remove particularly notable and valuable historical documents from public circulation. North Carolina's efforts to regain its official copy of the Bill of Rights, a downright caper featuring a sting operation directed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is perhaps the most notable recent example of the phenomenon (Goss, 2010). In recent decades many such cases have been handled much more quietly, but in initiating suits to pursue contested historical documents and when relying heavily on particular legal strategies for their recovery, the public sector has decisively shaped this debate. The ubiquity of the term \"replevin\" among relevant parties is one sign of success: in the councils of state archivists, among the professional organizations of both state and academic archivists, and throughout the community of private manuscript collectors, in conference sessions and journal articles, and in informal conversation, \"replevin\" serves as a pervasive shorthand descriptor of conflicts involving the ownership of public documents. A common law remedy for parties seeking the return of stolen or otherwise unlawfully held property, and largely concerned with proof of title, replevin is the central feature of most individual state laws created to defend the property rights of governments in their official records (Bain, 1983). Replevin's stringent requirements, have, much to the detriment of informed and reasonable dialogue, lent a consistently acrimonious tenor to an otherwise episodic string of conflicts over public records. Relations between state archives and private collectors have only deteriorated in recent years, and at this point it would be helpful to develop alternative approaches to the analysis and mediation of these contests.The Private Market and Archival Preservation in the United StatesRecognizing the priority and influence of the private sector in preserving American archives is a necessary step in beginning to understand the complexities of this issue. American documentary preservation efforts have always been pursued within a mixed economy of public and private activity. At one time or another, either of the two sides might have been said to be dominant. Institutional archives, including government repositories and university special collections, are now the primary actors, but for much of our history governments have been imperfect guardians of the documentary heritage embodied in their inactive records. Only at the turn of the 20th century did state-funded archival institutions emerge as dedicated organizations to protect these records. And for years the state archives were alone; there would be no national archives until the 1930s. In terms of archival preservation, the 19th century belonged almost wholly to the individual collector of historical manuscripts. Private ","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"22 1","pages":"102-109"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69757711","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：