Our communities are under threat, what are we going to do?

Image c/o Paulo Valdivieso.

Image c/o Paulo Valdivieso.

The murder of the Labour MP Jo Cox in the build up to the EU referendum vote was a shocking and disturbing act conducted by a man who appears to be a far-right extremist with a fascination for the Nazi regime (I’m being deliberately careful with my wording due to the ongoing court case – I am no legal expert so I prefer to err on the side of caution). It is impossible to view this act without placing it in the context of a renewed neo-Nazi far-right menace that has grown in Europe and overseas. In some ways, discussing this case in the context of the ethics of library work seems pretty ridiculous. But there is a convergence of issues here that highlight the extent to which we are currently failing our communities and urgently need to take steps to protect them.

As noted above, newspapers reported that the defendant in the court case had accessed a range of resources related to extremist political viewpoints. How did this detail emerge in court? It is claimed that his fascination was identified by investigating his internet usage at his local public library.

The jury was told that the day before Cox was killed, the defendant had gone to the library in Birstall, where he had used a computer to access a number of items, including the Wikipedia page for an online publication called the Occidental Observer.

This is a troubling development, yet unsurprising given the extent to which libraries are not a safe space for anyone (although they certainly should be). Of course, it’s difficult to be concerned about an invasion of privacy against such an individual. He committed a vile, murderous act. But we have to be careful here, particularly in terms of our current environs, not to make exceptions when it comes to what should be core to our ethical principles. We cannot, and must not, pick and choose whose privacy should be invaded in pursuit of justice.

The case will be made that accessing Thomas Muir’s internet browsing history has provided proof of his far-right extremism and murderous intent. But can this really be so? Can murderous intent be deduced from looking at the browsing history of an individual? This is the premise upon which not only the Prevent strategy is built, but also the Investigatory Powers Bill. That if somehow we could observe internet users, see what they are accessing, we (the state) can intervene and prevent a terrorist atrocity. If we accept that accessing Muir’s internet history is necessary in order to prosecute, then we accept that privacy in accessing information is no longer tenable. Indeed, we play into the very hands of those seeking to justify both Prevent and the Investigatory Powers Bill. We need to ask ourselves serious questions here if we believe this act is justifiable, and we need to return to CILIP’s ethical principles and consider to what extent we are serious about upholding them.

If we decide that we are not serious about upholding them, then we are putting our communities at very real, very serious risk. We are living in a period where the far-right are rising to prominence with alarming speed. Where they are gaining ground not only in Europe, but in the United States following the election of Donald Trump. The consequences of this are stark. Minorities are placed in greater danger. Lives are at risk. We are witnessing, once more, the rise of an authoritarian, anti-libertarian strain of right-wing populism dressed up as libertarianism. That the neo-Nazi right have achieved this under the guise of advancing liberty (posing as libertarians) makes their rise to prominence even more cynical and deadly. It is in this context we must consider both Prevent and the Investigatory Powers Bill and the impact they will have upon our work and, more importantly, our communities.

One of the oft used defences of mass surveillance is the illogical maxim that “if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear”. Such naïve sentiment obscures the obvious: you are not the one that determines whether you have done wrong. The state does. It also obscures another truism – the state is fluid, not fixed. Liberal democracies do not remain in situ for perpetuity. They are always at risk of collapsing. History demonstrates the extent to which this is the case and recent events have demonstrated just how precarious liberal democracies actually are. It is this that should always be kept in mind when we discuss mass surveillance and it’s this we should be alert to when we consider our current environs.

The rise of the far-right in Europe and the United States is a warning sign about the acceptance of mass surveillance. There is no doubt, thanks to the work of the NSA and GCHQ, that we have the infrastructure in place for a truly efficient and ruthless fascist state. In a liberal democracy, you have the luxury of debate over its efficacy and its relationship with ethical concerns. In a fascist state you have no such luxury. It is used to persecute minorities. There is no debate. There will be no dismantling of the surveillance state under the fascist right, rather it will be ramped up and used in ways that make the previous warnings about the dangers of developing a surveillance society seem like stark understatements..

This is why it is vital to consider where we are in relation to the ethical principles clearly stated by the body that represents us. We are tasked with ensuring the intellectual privacy of our patrons. Our failure to do this in a liberal democracy is one thing, our failure with a rising fascist movement is quite another. Our failure to tackle this question firmly and consistently will put lives at risk. If we accept that, in a liberal democracy, it is justifiable to interrogate the internet history of those perpetrating vile crimes, then what precedent is being set for democracy less liberal, less tolerant, more fascistic?

I put much of the blame of our current malaise at the feet of professionals who have abandoned ethical principles in favour of money and prestige. This cuts across all professions. It’s led to the creeping privatisation of our health service, the academisation of our schools, the erosion of civil liberties and the destruction of our public library network. In many respects, it’s long since passed the point of no return. But if we don’t act on our principles now, if we don’t protect our communities, the far-right will take advantage. They are coming for the people we should be protecting. The success of the far-right in the United States was the latest in a series of lethal blows to our communities. It’s time we stood side-by-side with them and asserted that we can no longer tolerate such incursions and that we will not throw them to the wolves.

Dundee, Radical Librarianship and changing the world

The view on Dundee’s waterfront out across the River Tay.

A little while back I was approached to deliver a session at the CILIP Scotland conference on the concept of radical librarianship. I was delighted to be offered the opportunity to speak at the conference, not least because it also afforded me the opportunity to meet up with some of my favourite people on the internet (well, and generally some of my favourite people – hi Jennie, Lauren and Lisa!). I should make it very clear right from the start: I am not a spokesperson for the Radical Librarians Collective. If you are interested in someone coming to talk at your event about radical librarianship, then please do contact the Collective directly rather than me! Whilst I was delighted to be asked, we don’t want (I certainly don’t want) any one person to become the public face of the Collective. Ok, now that’s established, I guess I ought to talk about my talk and the conference itself…

As noted above, I was asked to basically do a talk explaining what radical librarianship is. Even for someone involved in it from the start, this was a fairly daunting task. I would argue that all of us engaged within the Collective have slightly different perspectives about what radical librarianship actually is. Not wildly different, but marginally different. This is probably not surprising, we come at this from different experiences, different backgrounds and environs, it’s not much of a surprise that we might have slightly different perspectives on the concept. For me, I hold to Angela Davis’ definition of “radical” – that it is about grasping things at the root. I see this in two respects: understanding the root causes of the issues we face (ie capitalism and, in particular, the neoliberal orthodoxy) and the roots of the profession (ie professional ethics and the values which are fundamental to the profession). So it was this dual interpretation that I decided to focus on.

I won’t go into the presentation itself in too much detail (I have a rough outline of a script here [ODT] and the slides are available below and original PDF is here – fonts render better on the original PDF compared to Slideshare), but I will explain the rationale behind the structure/content etc. Unlike some of my fellow RLC-ears, I’m not so good at the theory/philosophical stuff. For me, having come from an English Literature/History background, I tend to very much take an historical approach to my thinking. I look at and interpret historical events and use those to form the basis of my views and perspectives. For example, in my presentation I used the example of Chile, the coup against Allende and the policies of Pinochet to inform my views on neoliberalism, rather than the theories of Hayek and the economic thinking of Milton Friedman. I guess, ultimately, I’m more interested in the actual outcomes of political ideas than the theories and ideas that underpin them. I like to think (and I very much hope this is the case) that providing a historical perspective can be easier to engage with than heavy theory (although I appreciate not everyone is as enthused by history as I am).

The oppressed penguins of Dundee.

In terms of the structure, I decided early on I want to lay out a few themes and define them clearly to help establish some foundations on the talk. To that end I decided to outline how I interpret the word “radical” as well as explaining what “neoliberalism” is. Fortunately with the latter I came across an excellent article exploring neoliberalism which had a neat summary explaining the difference between laissez-faire, a planned economy and neoliberalism. It’s probably, for me, the clearest explanation I have come across and really underlines how it operates as a thing (hopefully if you read it you’ll agree!). As with other sources I used in preparing my presentation, I decided that I would add this to a list at the end of the presentation, highlighting not only resources I used in preparing it, but also other resources on related issues that I think people might be interested in. It did take up five slides, but I hope people find at least one text there of interest that they hadn’t come across before.

I also wanted to explore things such as surveillance and the myth of neutrality, as well as giving some examples of things that we have done in the Collective since it emerged. Surveillance in particular is a topic I’m very keen on us as a profession engaging in (this seems like a good place to plug my recent article…). Indeed, I was really pleased that that issue came up a few time throughout the conference in a number of different sessions and keynotes.

In terms of the other talks during the two day conference, all the keynotes were interesting in a variety of different ways. I was very much interested in the issues raised by Colin Cook, head of Digital Public Service for the Scottish government – I particularly liked the use of the term “digital participation” rather than “digital inclusion”. The former, for me, speaks of the importance of activity rather than just equal access. There’s something deeper and more meaningful about the notion of individuals participating rather than just being included. Again, this raises the question of surveillance and the impact of this upon the extent to which people can participate (marginally, because of the divide between those who can seek information online and those that cannot).

Gary Green talking about the most excellent Library A-Z Project.

These themes were again picked up by Stuart Hamilton, Director of Policy and Advocacy at IFLA (the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions). It was interesting to hear of the work of IFLA in this area, the importance of intellectual privacy and information rights in general. I think it’s fair to say Stuart’s talk was the one I really got a lot out of. If you could design a keynote that hits all my buttons, then Stuart’s was pretty close to nailing it. So much so that, contrary to my standard conference tactic, I actually pitched a question after his talk (an actual question too, not one of those “I am going to wrap my question up in a point that I think will make me look good because I’m less interested in your perspective and more interested in grabbing a platform for myself” type things…):

Given the #ipbill is going through parliament today and the historic issue around individual liberty/privacy in the UK, what do you see we can do to protect intellectual privacy here?

Stuart’s response was basically we need to keep engaging and pushing in this area…particularly working with other groups (for example Open Rights Group) to help push forwards with this. I certainly think collaboration with ORG could lead to some very profitable developments for the profession, and I really hope something can move forward and develop in this area.

Other keynotes included Jan Holmquist (who I finally met having first made contact with him back in about 2009 when my local authority were looking at introducing ebooks and I was charged with investigating the possibilities), who talked about some of the interesting initiatives he has been involved with, particularly emphasising the notion that we should “think globally and act locally”. And we also had author James Robertson who delivered an entertaining talk with some interesting reference points, not least the reference to v. by Tony Harrison (not the pink bladder from the Mighty Boosh obviously…).

Other sessions I attended during the conference included Scottish PEN talking about some of the assaults on free expression across the world (again, the Investigatory Powers Bill came up here), which was very interesting yet depressing at the same time. I also got to see my good friend and colleague Gary Green delivering a talk on the Library A-Z Project, how it came about, how it was delivered and where it is now. It’s a great project and one that deserves a huge amount of credit, not least in the original way in which it seeks to advocate for libraries with key influencers and decision-makers (to use those rather euphemistic terms we use to describe people that wield power).

I’ve not been to many CILIP conferences over the years (although I have been to a fair few conferences now), but I really did enjoy this one very much. There seemed a good atmosphere and everyone seemed positively engaged in the conference as a whole. I certainly came away with plenty to think about, which is always a good sign about a conference (who likes a conference where you come away never thinking about the issues raised?).

Couple of additional things I’ve been contemplating as a consequence of the conference…

Libraries as safe spaces

This came up a lot during many of the talks I attended. Now, I don’t want to disparage this idea too much. I understand the safety that libraries offer. What I would argue, however, is that they offer a particular kind of safe space – a safe space free from violence that manifests itself physically. I’d argue, however, that libraries are more vulnerable to the kind of abstract violence against the individual employed by the state and its actors. So, for example, I would argue that libraries are not (currently) immune from mass surveillance. As a consequence then, is the space offered in the library no longer a safe one? Because you are ultimately protected from physical violence by person[s], but you are not immune from state violations upon you mentally. In a library you can only ever be safe from physical violence, not other forms of violence, perhaps?

Changing the world

One of the questions that cropped up was one that I had pretty much expected: isn’t it already too late – too late to tackle neoliberalism and the state we are in? To which I return to my history (because that’s ultimately how I try to understand the world). In Chile during the height of the Pinochet regime, change seemed nothing but a hopeless dream. But change happened. Although progress is slow, the forces of opposition to the Pinochet reforms are gaining strength. Reversal of reforms looks like a realistic possibility at last. The same is true throughout history. Societies are never static, they are ever changing. The challenge is to ensure that we are the ones that seize the opportunity to achieve change. I think that is possible.

In addition to this the broader picture regarding professionals also cropped up (I forget where this came up, I think possibly this was also at the end of my talk, but forgive me if the detail is hazy). My wife works in a different profession and I see the same issues there. Professionals have been the biggest culprits of our current malaise. They have broadly become (you could argue they always have been) apolitical in nature. The politics has been completely stripped out of our professional existence. Some might argue this is a net consequence of neoliberalism which, ultimately, seeks to replace ethics and values with one sole consideration: market exchange (I would subscribe to this). What I see RLC doing is tackling this head on within our own profession. Forcing people to confront our values and seek out ways to ensure that our ethics are defended against an assault by an ideology hostile to ethics, values and principles (because they obstruct the process of market exchange). Librarians can’t save the world, but they can save their profession. Further, if all professions were to vigorously defend their values and principles and seek solidarity with others across professions then, yes, maybe we could effectively block some of the hostile forces ranged against us and our communities. Who knows, maybe collectively we could halt the progress of neoliberalism, push back and reclaim territory. Maybe. Can librarians change/save/liberate the world? No, emphatically not. Can people? Absolutely.

It is easy to be disheartened in the battle for change. The forces defending the status quo are very strong. Here in the UK, we very much exist in a country that has rarely seen dramatic change and has instead drifted down a particular course with very little deviation (I can think of maybe two real examples in the last century – the immediate post-war Attlee government and the Thatcher government). As I said in my talk, I know that the world I want to see won’t emerge in my lifetime (if at all). The important thing for me, and the thing that keeps me prepared to battle, is to remain idealistic in my goals, but realistic in my expectations. It’s the expectations that will kill you, it’s the idealism that makes you feel alive.

Further Reading

DEFINITION OF A RADICAL:   Davis, A. Y. (1984). Women, culture and politics, London: The Women’s Press Ltd

CORE PRINCIPLE OF NEOLIBERALISM: Fox, J. (2016). “Neoliberalism” is it? Retrieved from: opendemocracy.net/uk/jeremy-fox/neoliberalism-is-it

WHAT IS NEOLIBERALISM?: Martinez, E. & Garcia, A. (nd). What is Neoliberalism? A Brief Definition for Activists. Retrieved from corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

FREE MARKET LIBERALISM: Smith, A. (1776). The Wealth of Nations.

NEOLIBERALISM AS TERRORISM: Letizia, A. (2012). A Conversation with Henry A. Giroux. Retrieved from: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13030-a-conversation-with-henry-a-Giroux

LIBRARIES AS APOLITICAL INSTITUTIONS: Annoyed Librarian (2006). Libraries as Liberal Institutions. Retrieved from http://annoyedlibrarian.blogspot.co.uk/2006/12/libraries-as-liberal-institutions.html

ALL LIBRARIANSHIP IS POLITICAL: Jaeger, P. T. & Sarin, L. C. (2016) All Librarianship is Political: Educate Accordingly. The Political Librarian. 2(1), Article 8. Retrieved from: openscholarship.wustl.edu/pollib/vol2/iss1/8

NEUTRALITY: nina de jesus (2014) Locating the Library in Institutional Oppression. In the library with the lead pipe. inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2014/locating-the-library-in-institutional-oppression/

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS: CILIP (2015) Ethical Principles. Retrieved from: http://cilip.org.uk/about/ethics/ethical-principles

LIBRARIES AND PERSONAL DATA: Travis, A. (2016). Snooper’s charter: cafes and libraries face having to store Wi-Fi users’ data. Retrieved from: http://theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/13/snoopers-charter-theresa-may-cafes-wifi-network-store-customers-data

FEAR OF SPEECH BEING MONITORED: President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. (1967). The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, (February), 1–342. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=42

DECLINE OF WIKIPEDIA VIEWS: Penney, Jon, Chilling Effects: Online Surveillance and Wikipedia Use (2016). Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 2016. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2769645

THE CHILLING EFFECTS: National Telecommunications and Information Administration (2016). Lack of Trust in Internet Privacy and Security May Deter Economic and Other Online Activities. Retrieved from https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2016/lack-trust-internet-privacy-and-security-may-deter-economic-and-other-online-activities

CITIZENS AS CONSUMERS: Mobiot, G. (2016) Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems. Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

VOCABULARIES: Massey, D (2015). Vocabularies of the economy. Retrieved: https://www.lwbooks.co.uk/soundings/kilburn-manifesto

MORALITY OF NEOLIBERALISM: Amable, B. (2011). Morals and politics in the ideology of neo-liberalism. Socio-economic Review, 9(1) 3-30. DOI: 10.1093/ser/mwq015

NEOLIBERALISM IN CRISIS: Peck, J., Theodore, N. and Brenner, N. (2010), Postneoliberalism and its Malcontents. Antipode, 41: 94–116. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2009.00718.x

IMMEDIATE RESULTS: Luxemburg, R. (1900). Reform or revolution? Retrieved from: https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/ch05.htm

WHITENESS IN LIBRARIANSHIP: Hathcock, A. (2015). White Librarianship in Blackface: Diversity Initiatives in LIS. In the library with the leadpipe. Retrieved from: http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2015/lis-diversity/

JOURNAL OF RADICAL LIBRARIANSHIP: Barron, S. (2015) A radical publishing collective: the Journal of Radical Librarianship. In the library with the leadpipe. Retrieved from http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2015/a-radical-publishing-collective-the-journal-of-radical-librarianship/

CRITICAL THEORY: Smith, L. (2014). Radical Librarians Collective (Part Three): Critical Theory. Retrieved from: https://laurensmith.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/radical-librarians-collective-part-three/

RLC GATHERINGS: Radical Library Camp: in the fight over information, librarians start to get organised. Open Democracy UK. Retrieved from: https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/bradford-radlibcamp-collective/radical-library-camp-in-fight-over-information-librarians-

COMMODIFICATION OF INFORMATION PROFESSION: Lawson, S., Sanders, K. & Smith, L., (2015). Commodification of the Information Profession: A Critique of Higher Education Under Neoliberalism. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 3(1), p.eP1182. DOI: http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1182

RLC OVERVIEW: Arkle, S., Brynolf, B., Clement, E., Corble, A. & Redgate, J. (2016). Radical Librarians Collective: An Overview. Post-Lib, 79.

CRITICAL INFORMATION LITERACY: Tewell, E. (2015) A Decade of Critical Information Literacy: A Review of the Literature. Communications in Information Literacy. 9(1), pp. 24-43. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10760/28163

DISASTER CAPITALISM: Klein, N. (2008). The Shock Doctrine. Penguin.

LATIN AMERICA: Guardiola-Rivera, O. (2011) What if Latin America ruled the world? Bloomsbury | Galeano, E. (2009). Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent. Serpent’s Tail.

CHILE: Guardiola-Rivera, O. (2014). Story of a death foretold. Bloomsbury

SURVEILLANCE & LIBRARIANSHIP: Clark, I. (2016). The Digital Divide in the Post-Snowden Era. Journal of Radical Librarianship, Vol. 2. Retrieved from: https://journal.radicallibrarianship.org/index.php/journal/article/view/12

CROWD SOURCED READING LISTS

CRITICAL THEORY: Critical Theory in Library and Information Studies reading list https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OJVC40-SPRKlw02ck2FBMySGHdtMAjan9m30IEa6GVg

INFOLIT: The IL Articles That Blew Us Away in 2015-16. Retrieved from: https://rlc.sandcats.io/shared/ejgPhpxK_gnyDuJi1fNajEMQT_npy1rpywfHgeOXgjY

The Imbalance In Transparency

Transparency

Image c/o Jonathan McIntosh on Flickr (CC BY-SA).

Yesterday was a big day in terms of transparency, democracy and information rights. After months of criticism for the way in which it has been loaded to discriminate in favour of curbing Freedom of Information legislation, the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information published their findings, followed by publication of the government’s response. On top of all this, the government published its revised Investigatory Powers Bill (or “Snooper’s Charter”). In terms of the information flow between state and the individual, these two developments couldn’t be more important. The question is, to what extent is the information flow weighted in favour of citizens rather than the state? A question to which the answer is, I think, obvious to anyone with even the vaguest grasp of the history of the British state.

Given the sheer size of the debate and discussion in these two areas, I thought I’d bang all this together in one post, but split it up into two many themes: Information From Them and Information FOR Them. Seems to me that both these areas say a lot about where we are as a country, and I think such a distinction further emphasises the current state of play.

Information From Them

The FoI commission may have found that there is no case for new legislation with respect to the Act (meaning no substantial changes to how it operates), but this does not mean that it won’t continue to have serious limitations. The Act itself is imperfect as it stands now (and the increased outsourcing of public services to the private sector further limits its scope), and it’s not clear to what extent the government will use the findings of the Commission to come up with new and innovative ways to further restrict its impact. As Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for FoI, notes, rather than changes to the legislation it “could be that they are now possibly talking about various forms of guidance”.

For the government, the FoI Act has a very narrow appeal. It’s less about creating a culture of full transparency across government, both nationally and regionally, and more about beating the drum for value and efficiency. The Freedom of Information Act is more than just providing citizens with access to information on how taxpayers’ money is spent, it’s about holding politicians to account, ensuring that that all of their decisions are subject to scrutiny, not merely about how money is spent. This narrow perspective is still very much central to the government’s thinking, as evidenced by Matt Hancock’s statement in response to the findings:

“We will not make any legal changes to FoI. We will spread transparency throughout public services, making sure all public bodies routinely publish details of senior pay and perks. After all, taxpayers should know if their money is funding a company car or a big pay off.”

For the Conservatives, it makes sense that this is the extent of their endorsement of transparency. Spending taxpayers’ money plays directly into their narrative of difficult economic conditions that warrant the rolling back of public spending. Ensuring a focus on FoI as purely a mechanism to monitor local government spending shifts the emphasis and, ultimately, sends a message about how they view FoI. It’s not about transparency, or holding politicians to account. It is purely and simply about being a stick with which members of the public can beat local government profligacy.

One recommendation that is worth noting is the position regarding the “Cabinet veto”. The Commission recommended that:

“…the government legislates to clarify beyond doubt that it does have this power. We recommend that the veto should be exercisable where the executive takes a different view of the public interest in release, and that the power is exercisable to overturn a decision of the IC. We recommend that in cases where the IC upholds a decision of the public authority, the executive has the power to issue a ‘confirmatory’ veto with the effect that appeal routes would fall away, and any challenge would instead be by way of judicial review of that veto in the High Court.”

Although the government have decided that the veto will only be deployed “after an Information Commissioner decision”, the Minister’s statement adds that so long as this approach proves “effective”, legislation will not be brought forward “at this stage”. This is, to say the least, disappointing. As has been noted before, the veto simply acts as a way for ministers to avoid embarrassment (see the Prince Charles letters for example). Of course concerns about this particular aspect need to be considered in the context of the fact that the worst case scenario regarding Freedom of Information has not come to pass, but the phrase “at this stage” should put us all on alert regarding the government’s intentions.

That said, contrast the government’s position on freedom of information (where openness comes with caveats) with their position on surveillance (where caveats barely seem to exist)…

Information For Them

Following a number of critical reports about its Investigatory Powers Bill, the Home Office yesterday put forward revised draft legislation seeking to, in their words, “reflect the majority of the recommendations” from these reports. The reality is quite different, and very troubling on a number of levels, not least because of the intention to rush this bill through parliament at a time where other stories with substantial ramifications are dominating the news cycle (the intention seems to be to rush it through before DRIPA expires at the end of the year).

What of the proposals themselves? Well, they don’t make for comforting reading if you care about individual liberty and intellectual privacy. Despite criticism that the initial draft lacked any sense that privacy was to form the backbone of the legislation, the only change in this respect has been to add the word “privacy” to the heading for Part 1 (“General Protections” becomes “General Privacy Protections”). This tells you all you need to know about how the government views privacy. It’s a minor concern when compared to the apparent desire to engage in mass surveillance.

The Bill proposes that police forces will be able to access all web browsing records and hack into phones, servers and computers. Although the Home Office later claimed that hacking powers date from the 1997 Police Act and would only be used in “exceptional circumstances”, when giving evidence to the scrutiny committee, Det Supt Paul Hudson noted that these powers were used “in the majority of serious crime cases”. Needless to say, he refused to provide any further detail on the record. But there does appear to be a shift here from the police being able to view any illegal sites you have visited, to enabling them to view any website you visit.

In terms of encryption technologies (the bête noire of Western democracies hostile to privacy), there has been some clarity and yet there also seems to be somewhat of a loophole that could prove advantageous to those who know what tools to use to ensure their intellectual privacy. In the government’s response to pre-legislative scrutiny it advises:

“The revised Bill makes clear that obligations to remove encryption from communications only relate to electronic protections that have been applied by, or on behalf of, the company on whom the obligation has been placed and / or where the company is removing encryption for their own business purposes.”

The implication here seems pretty clear: to ensure you provide sufficiently strong encryption technologies, move towards encryption that you do not control, rather than those you do. If you don’t control it, you cannot remove it. I suspect the net consequence of this will be a muddying of the waters for those who wish to protect their intellectual privacy. It is already difficult to differentiate between which encryption tools truly protect you from mass surveillance, and which arguably do not (consequence being a new manifestation of the digital divide). Being able to differentiate between which tools do control the encryption placed on communications and which tools do not will undeniably require a degree of social capital that not everyone has the privilege to possess.

There are many significant concerns regarding this draft bill, many of which would take a huge blog post to cover…and I’ve not even read the full bill and accompanying documents yet. Rather than hit the 2,000 word mark, I’ve put together a list of key resources below. As librarians and information professionals we need to be on top of this. Defending the intellectual privacy of our users (whether that be in schools, public libraries, further or higher education) is a fundamental ethical concern. We need to take whatever steps we can to ensure we advance privacy, ensure the protection of digital rights and reject the monitoring and/or collection of users’ personal data that would compromise such privacy.

One thing I will add is that the combination of these two developments speaks volumes about the nature and transparency of government and in the United Kingdom. It is far less about ensuring a democratic system by which elected officials can be held to account, and far more about treating citizens with suspicion and thus undermining the democratic process. Given these circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that we live in a fully functioning democracy. When the state is entitled to more information about us than we are about them, there is no democracy.

Further resources

IFLA Statement on Privacy in the Library Environment

Investigatory Powers Bill – all government documents

Privacy International statement on IPBill

Investigatory Powers Bill – How To Make It Fit-For-Purpose

Don’t Spy On Us (authors of the above report on making it fit for purpose)

Access Now statement on IP Bill

 

Independent Commission on Freedom of Information report

Statement by Matt Hancock on Commission’s report

Campaign for Freedom of Information statement