The Meaning of Open Access in a Digital Environment

IS-431: Archives, Records and MemoryFall 2015

1

Abstract

Records are documents, or materials, that serve as evidence for past cultures and/or actions.

Nowadays, both the records themselves and the archives that hold them could potentially be

digitalized, and they could be put on open access. Open access has a lot of benefits, as well

as dangers, especially with the rise of digital technologies. Archivists have to think

carefully about the dangers and benefits of releasing records, including sensitive ones, into

the digital environment. Open access, its benefits, its limitations, and its dangers, will have

to be defined within the context of a digital world. This paper explores the controversies

that can result from putting a record on open access, such as the case of the Dead Sea

Scrolls. It then explains the dangers that are associated with digital technologies by

describing recent cases of security hacks and document leaks. The paper then analyzes the

controversy revolving around Edward Snowden’s NSA leak, which demonstrates how

keeping certain sensitive records secret might not be the best solution all the times, but

arbitrarily releasing records is not the right answer, either. After analyzing the benefits and

damage that Snowden’s leak had done, the paper moves on to analyze issues relating to

indigenous records, and what the term “open access” may really mean for indigenous

groups, and how open access can benefit and harm indigenous groups in various ways.

2

In the past, sharing a record would be very time consuming. A record would have to

be physically moved around, which might take hours or even months before it could reach

its destination. With the rise of electronic records and digital technologies, such as emails

and the Internet, records can now be easily and quickly shared. This facilitates open access

of information, as well as the digitalization of archives and records. Thus, some had argued

that the public should have open and easy access to records the government and other

institutions keep, which, theoretically, should not be a problem with today’s technologies.

Indeed, open access and digital technologies have a lot of potential and benefits that should

be explored. However, “open access” is a term that is often misconstrued by many people.

While keeping the records closed to the public is not the best course of action all the times,

allowing open access to records, especially sensitive ones, and releasing them to the digital

environment can also be problematic, and even dangerous. The recent Edward Snowden

affair demonstrated both the dangers and benefits of digital technologies, and raised

questions about how much access should be allowed for sensitive materials, be they top

secret documents or cultural materials. In order to understand the issues regarding open

access and releasing sensitive records in the digital age, we will need to take a look at

several cases, including the Edward Snowden affair, as well as the issues relating to records

of indigenous groups.

When certain records are released to the public, they would most likely gain a lot of

attention from many groups, including the public and scholars. Records such as the Dead

Sea Scrolls, for example, stirred up a huge storm of controversy and received a great deal of

publicity when their access restrictions were lifted, and they became the focus of many

3

debates.1 One can wonder how the simple act of releasing the scrolls can cause such a huge

storm, but there is no simple answer. One the one hand, due to the historical value of the

scrolls, they became valuable research materials for many scholars, especially now that

their access restrictions had been removed. Holding back the scrolls’ release would also

violate the spirit of intellectual freedom and open access.2 On the other hand, there are

groups that want to keep access to the scrolls restricted for various reasons, such as the

murky status of the scrolls’ ownership, the risk of violating ownership rights, and so on.3

The case of the Dead Sea Scrolls is still very relevant to today’s archival world, because

archivists will have to deal with sensitive materials and the question of access eventually,

which has become even more complicated with emerging digital technologies. With the

development of advanced digital and networking technologies, the concept of open access,

its benefits, its limitations, as well as its dangers, will have to be analyzed and defined

within the context of a networked digital environment.

Open access is a term that had become very prominent, especially in today’s digital

world. Yet, at the same time, despite its prominence, many are not aware of the limitations

and problems behind open access. If we are to take it at face value, open access just simply

means that anyone can have access to certain information or records, without any kind of

restriction. Open access is much easier to achieve nowadays than it was in the past, due to

the rise in digital and networking technologies. All it takes is uploading a record to the

Internet, and theoretically, anyone with Internet access would be able to access that

1 Sara S. Hodson, “Freeing the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Question of Access,” The American Archivist 56.4 (1993): 690.

2 Ibid., 693.3 Ibid., 698.

4

document. However, the tradeoff is that unauthorized personnel can also easily get their

hands on these records and tamper with them. Any digital systems could be compromised

or hacked, leading to document leaks, or worse, the destruction of electronic records.

Despite these tradeoffs, digital technologies are not going away any time soon, and many

people would still be using emails and the Internet due to how convenient they are. The

Internet, in particular, has been so integrated into our lives and so useful, particularly for

information retrieval tasks, that removing it would not be possible. There is no denying that

digital technologies have made records much more accessible, but even then, it does not

mean that everyone should be able to access them, due to various reasons, such as

maintaining security and privacy, which has become increasingly difficult today.

Releasing records to the public nowadays can be very dangerous and can put certain

operations at risk, especially when these records can be easily recreated and shared with

digital technologies. Protecting the privacy of someone and sensitive information can be

rather challenging today.4 Someone could easily post a top secret and highly sensitive

report to anonymous websites, such as 4chan, where practically anyone with Internet access

could get their hands on this report, and it would be very difficult to track down those who

downloaded the report.5 The digital environment can, indeed, be a very dangerous place for

any kind of electronic records. Even when access to the records is restricted, there is no

guarantee that they will stay safe when they enter the digital environment.

4 “Basic Principles for Managing Intellectual Property in the Digital Environment: An Archival Perspective,” Society of American Archivists, accessed December 07, 2015, http://www2.archivists.org/statements/basic-principles-for-managing-intellectual-property-in-the-digital-environment-an-archiva.

5 Simon Sharwood, “Junior Defence Staffer on Trial for 'Posting Secret Dossier to 4chan,’” The Register, last modified August 6, 2015, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/06/oz_4chan_classified_leak_trial/

5

There have been many incidents of cyber-attack in recent years, including a major

hacking operation against America presumably conducted by China, where personal

information of about 20 million people was stolen.6 Due to the massive scale of the attack,

America’s human intelligence capabilities could potentially be hindered for a generation.7

Thus, if even records with restricted access can be exploited and stolen when they are put

into a digital environment, one can only imagine the kind of danger a digital record can

encounter when it is moved to an open access environment. As convenient as digital

records are, they have many risks associated with them, and thus, it is not unusual that

some people prefer to send out and retrieve official documents via physical mails rather

than emails, since they are believed to be more secure and more difficult to track and steal,

even if they do take a longer time to reach their destinations.8 Regardless, many

governments and agencies are still using digital records out of convenience, and of course,

they would have to try their best to keep these documents from falling into the wrong

hands. At the same time, there are also many people who would disagree with the

government’s policies regarding access to these records.

For security purposes, many governments and intelligence agencies put some of

their records under the “classified” category, and limit their access to only qualified

personnel. However, the government could also be doing something with these records that

the population probably will not agree with. Hence, these classified records, as well as

6 Natasha Bertrand, “Effects of China Hack on US,” Business Insider, last modified July 11, 2015, http://www.businessinsider.com/effects-of-china-hack-on-us-2015-7

7 Ibid.8 Amy Webb, “Send Letters, Not Emails,” last modified June 12, 2013,

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/data_mine_1/2013/06/nsa_surveillance_why_the_post_office_doesn_t_spy_on_your_mail_the_way_nsa.html

6

other governmental records, can be used to hold the government accountable for its actions.

Allowing the public to have access to certain governmental records is a way to let the

population know whether the government is properly doing its job, and make sure that the

government does not abuse its power. And yet, there are certain classified records that

should never be released, no matter how much the public demands it, simply because the

time is not right yet. When it comes to digitally releasing classified and sensitive

governmental records to the public, many things will be at stakes.

A case which showcased this was the Edward Snowden affair in 2013, where a

former CIA employee leaked many documents that revealed several surveillance programs

that were run by the NSA and other intelligence agencies. While Snowden was hailed as a

hero by many for revealing the government’s surveillance programs, he was also

condemned by the United States government and others for unauthorized sharing of

classified information and theft of government property. The reason this case was so

controversial is probably that while what Snowden did had a lot of merits, he might have

also indirectly put many in harm’s way through his actions. There is no denying that what

Snowden did was very courageous and in a way, he did a great favor for many people by

exposing what the government was doing behind the scene. Some archivists would approve

of what he was trying to do, but at the same time, these archivists would also frown at his

actions.

Most archivists know that records can be used to hold the government accountable,

and securing these records and allowing as much access to them as possible is a mission

7

that many archivists strive to do.9 While it is pretty obvious that Snowden violated the law

by disclosing classified documents without authorization, at the same time, he also released

documents that concerned the interests of the public. Namely, the documents relating to the

NSA’s large-scale programs designed to survey and track the population’s electronic data.10

The case revolving around Edward Snowden and the NSA’s surveillance programs is yet

another proof of how digital technologies can be both potentially useful and dangerous at

the same time. Snowden may have not been the first person to bring up that issue, but he

certainly made many people think about the dangers associated with digital technologies.

Raising the awareness of the population is something that most archivists would probably

want to do, and in a sense, Snowden achieved that by digitally leaking the NSA documents.

Sharing thousands of documents associated with the NSA and other agencies so easily is

something that would only be possible with digital technologies, seeing that carrying

thousands of documents around is much more inconvenient than putting them into a thumb

drive.11 At the same time, digital technologies also allow the government to collect private

data of citizens behind their back,12 and now that the secret is out, the government had

potentially damaged the sense of privacy that many citizens treasured. Another important

issue that the Snowden affair raised is the question of access. Specifically, how many secret

documents are the government allowed to keep from the population, who should be allowed

9 “Basic Principles.”10 Josh Barro, “Here's Why Edward Snowden Deserves a Long Prison Sentence,” Business Insider, last

modified Jan. 6, 2014, http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-edward-snowden-needs-a-long-prison-sentence-2014-1.

11 Michael Kirk, “Transcript of United States of Secrets,” accessed December 08, 2015, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/united-states-of-secrets/transcript.

12 Ibid.

8

to handle these documents, and whether sensitive information should be disclosed to the

public through digital methods.

According to the Society of American Archivists, “a copyrighted work might be

received by a governmental agency and as a public record must eventually be made

available to the general public interested in how their government is functioning.”13 The

public has to know what the government is doing, especially when what it is doing is a

matter that involved the public itself. It is true that there are certain restrictions with the

surveillance documents, but the interest of the public probably comes first in this case,

since no citizen would want their privacy to be violated, especially when it is done by the

government, an entity that should be trusted by the public. One the other side of the

spectrum, the government justified that the loss of some privacy is a tradeoff for the

security of the nation, and as Barack Obama put it, “you can’t have 100 percent security

and also then have 100 percent privacy.”14 James Comey, Director of the FBI, also noted

that “the means by which we conduct surveillance through telecommunication carriers and

those Internet service providers who have developed lawful intercept solutions is an

example of government operating in the way the founders intended.”15 It seems that the

government knows that collecting private data from citizens is wrong, but at the same time,

some privacy must be sacrificed to ensure security. If we are to interpret Director James

Comey’s words literally, the government also seems to be trying to collect data through

13 “Basic Principles.”14 Kirk, “United States of Secrets.”15 James B. Comey, “Going Dark: Are Technology, Privacy, and Public Safety on a Collision Course?”

October 16, 2014, accessed Dec 05, 2015, https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/going-dark-are-technology-privacy-and-public-safety-on-a-collision-course

9

legal means as much as possible, not unlike how many archivists would probably have to

keep the law in mind when they are working with sensitive information.

Hence, one can argue that the NSA’s surveillance program was ultimately well-

intentioned and was designed with the greater good in mind, especially after what happened

during the 9/11 incident as well as other terrorist incidents, but the fact that the NSA was

collecting data on citizens should have never been a secret to begin with.16 The government

could have explained why conducting surveillance on citizens was necessary instead of

keeping everyone in the dark for so long. Therefore, while many people acknowledged that

what Snowden did was illegal, they also acknowledged that citizens have “a right to

demand that the government stop undermining privacy rights.”17 In other words, by leaking

the NSA documents, Snowden “took a stand for patron privacy—for citizen privacy.”18 He

was advocating a cause for the sake of the public, to put it in another way. Similar to what

Snowden did, one of the archivist’s missions is to serve the public interest, and to ensure

that both current and future generations can have access to records concerning the

government’s functions. It would not be fair when the government knows so much about

the citizens’ activities, and yet, citizens do not know much about what the government is

doing due to restricted access to its records, and citizens cannot hold the government

accountable if they do not know what exactly the government is doing behind closed

doors.19 Some of the government’s records will have to be declassified eventually, and be

put on open access so that everyone can look back and see whether the government did its

16 Barro, “Long Prison Sentence.”17 Sarah Shik Lamdan, “Social Media Privacy: A Rallying Cry to Librarians,” The Library Quarterly:

Information, Community, Policy 85.3 (2015): 265.18 Ibid.19 Kirt, “United States of Secrets.”

10

job properly. However, the keywords here are “public interest” and “eventually.” Perhaps

Snowden had picked the wrong timing to release these documents, and what he released,

while serving the public in a sense, can also potentially damage the public at the same time.

While the government should not have kept the fact that it was collecting data from

its citizens a secret, there were also other sensitive records besides the surveillance

documents that Snowden probably should have never released, or he could have picked a

different occasion. What Snowden did was heroic, but also reckless, because among the

NSA documents, there were many other documents that could potentially hamper a

country’s effort to safeguard its citizens if they were released. Also, many of the documents

that Snowden leaked had nothing to do with America’s privacy issues, and thus, would not

really be serving the interests of the American public even if he leaked them.20 In a speech

regarding the NSA surveillance, Barack Obama said that “if any individual who objects to

government policy can take it into their own hands to publicly disclose classified

information, then we will not be able to keep our people safe, or conduct foreign policy.”21

At the same time, Obama also acknowledged that the American government being able to

collect so much data from citizens can potentially lead to abuse.22 And yet, the government

still has to keep certain things secret because of how easy it is for data to be stolen in the

digital environment, if the recent security hacks and leaks following the Edward Snowden

affair are any indication. In a sense, the American government’s decision to keep certain

things secret is not so different from what archivists have to deal with today. Namely, the

20 Barro, “Long Prison Sentence.”21 “Transcript of President Obama's Speech on NSA Reforms,” NPR, last modified January 17, 2014,

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2014/01/17/263480199/transcript-of-president-obamas-speech-on-nsa-reforms.

22 Ibid.

11

question of whether a record should be put on open access or not. Some records just have to

stay buried and hidden for the moment, because otherwise, there can be long lasting

consequences. And indeed, Edward Snowden’s leaks will no doubt have long-term

consequences that will not be fixed any time soon.

When Snowden was leaking the NSA documents, the documents that he disclosed

were supposedly also obtained and decrypted by China and Russia.23 Because of this,

several western intelligence agencies had to halt their operations, and the UK was also

forced to pull some of its agents out of hostile countries.24 The documents that Edward

Snowden leaked might have allowed foreign nations to identify potential American and

British agents who were operating within hostile countries, as well as hacking operations

conducted in countries such as North Korea and Iran.25 Hence, by leaking these documents,

Edward Snowden also potentially exposed the identities of several agents, and while no

harm had been done to them,26 it would still be dangerous for them to stay in the countries

that they were operating in. It is quite ironic that while Snowden was advocating for

privacy of American citizens, at the same time, he was also exposing a lot of private

secrets, such as the identities of intelligence agents. It is still unclear what the extent of the

damage was, and whether Snowden leaked these documents to China and Russia

voluntarily,27 but what Snowden did still had the potential to ruin many intelligence 23 Michal B. Kelley, “Snowden, Russia, China, and NSA Files,” Business Insider, last modified June

13, 2015, http://www.businessinsider.com/snowden-russia-china-and-nsa-files-2015-6.24 Ibid.25 Michal B. Kelley, “We Now Know A Lot More about Edward Snowden's Epic Heist,” Business

Insider, last modified August 17, 2014, http://www.businessinsider.com/snowden-russia-china-and-nsa-files-2015-6.

26 Kelley, “Snowden, Russia, China.”27 “Snowden Files 'Read by Russia and China': Five Questions for UK Government,” The Guardian,

last modified June 14, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/14/snowden-files-read-by-russia-and-china-five-questions-for-uk-government.

12

operations and put intelligence agents into harm’s way. The government kept the identities

and certain records of its agents secret in order to protect them, as well as their operations.

Some of the documents Snowden leaked had nothing to do with issues relating to civil

liberties in America, and thus, it is not hard to see why Snowden was hailed as a hero by

many, but also condemned as a traitor by many others.

The reason that Snowden was condemned by some people was not necessarily the

records that he was leaking, although leaking classified documents is a major crime itself.

Rather, the manner in which he leaked these documents was the reason a lot of people

condemned Snowden, and indeed, many archivists probably would not approve of his

actions, either. Archivists would need to consult and collaborate with each other and other

concerned parties, including record creators, before releasing certain records to the public.28

However, Snowden was mostly acting on his own, and did not consult with anyone about

the records he obtained. Due to the huge amount of documents he obtained, Snowden did

not exactly know which documents should be released to the public, so he instead decided

to let the journalists and editors whom he collaborated with decide which documents will

be published.29 Considering the kind of documents he was working with, it was probably

not wise to approach anyone about it, and even if he does approach someone, journalists

and editors are probably not the most qualified people to decide which documents will be

released.30 At the very least, he should have collaborated with these journalists to decide

28 “SAA Core Values Statement and Code of Ethics,” Society of American Archivists, accessed December 07, 2015, http://www2.archivists.org/statements/saa-core-values-statement-and-code-of-ethics.

29 Zachary Keck, “Yes, Edward Snowden Is a Traitor,” The Diplomat, last modified December 21, 2013, http://thediplomat.com/2013/12/yes-edward-snowden-is-a-traitor/.

30 Ibid.

13

whether to release certain documents or not, instead of leaving them to their own devices.

Plus, with today’s social media and the Internet, the articles that these journalists published,

along with the classified records, will spread at a rapid rate, and they will fall into the

wrong hands eventually. Leaving people to their own devices can be a bad idea in the

archival world, since many people will have conflicting interests, and archivists need to

work together with these people to decide the best course of action and try to create a

compromise that benefits as many people as possible. Thus, while Snowden was a very

brave man, and his actions still have a lot of merits to them, some of his leaks did not

benefit the American public in any way, and also indirectly hampered the intelligence

efforts of some countries.

Regardless of whether Edward Snowden was a hero or a traitor, the damage had

already been done, and its impact can clearly be seen. It is not clear who is in the right here,

because both the government and Edward Snowden had valid reasons for keeping certain

records secrets and releasing sensitive information, respectively. Much like the Dead Sea

Scrolls case, the Edward Snowden affair brings up questions relating to access of records,

even though the Edward Snowden affair is much bigger in scale than the Dead Sea Scrolls

case. The Snowden affair will be relevant to the archival world for a long time, especially

now that digital technologies have become very integrated into many people’s lives,

because archivists will have to adjust to these technologies and their downsides, and

continue to deal with the question of access. Simply keeping records secret might not be the

right answer all the times, but arbitrarily putting them on open access would be dangerous

and problematic as well, especially sensitive records like governments and intelligence

14

agencies’ records. Of course, sensitive records do not just include secret documents the

government might want to keep from the population, but also culturally sensitive records.

Much like the Snowden affair, open access of culturally sensitive records has to be

redefined within the context of the digital world, and we have to keep the indigenous

population, such as Native Americans, in our mind as well.

In some countries, such as the United States, the Internet has become such a

prominent part in the population’s daily lives that many simply take it for granted.

However, out of 7.2 billion people in the world, over 4 billion people do not have access to

such technology. This means that roughly 60 percent of the world’s population does not

have access to the Internet.31 Thus, while open access technically means that anyone can

have access to information, in the context of the Internet, a large majority of the world does

not have access to it, meaning they have no way to access the information that has been put

on the Web. In the context of the digital world, the term “open access” itself only really

applies to those who have access to the Internet in the first place. While being able to

access a document anywhere and anytime is a nice thing, we have to be aware that not all

people have access to the technology that allows them to navigate and access information

on the Internet. Even in developed nations like the United States, access to the Internet is

often limited for certain ethnic groups. This is certainly true for many tribal groups in the

United States and other countries.

31 Roberto A. Ferdman, “4.4 billion people around the world still don’t have Internet. Here’s where they live,” The Washington Post, October 2, 2014, accessed November 27, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/10/02/4-4-billion-people-around-the-world-still-dont-have-internet-heres-where-they-live/

15

Indigenous people are probably one of the most underrepresented and

misrepresented groups in the world of records and archives. Not only that, their access to

digital technologies is severely limited, sometimes even nonexistent. In the United States, a

major part of the country is connected to the Internet, and generally, many people do not

have any problems with access to the Internet. However, many Native American

reservations are often located in remote areas, which often do not have Internet services or

even cell phone connection. In some cases, a resident of a reservation would have to drive

30 miles just so that he can get online access.32 Some residents do not even have electricity,

laptops, or computers, since they are unavailable in the area or simply because the residents

cannot afford them.33 About less than 10 percent of homes on tribal lands have access to

broadband Internet service,34 which demonstrates how isolated Native Americans are

compared to the rest of America’s population. Hence, when we talk about “open access,”

we need to think about the implications behind it, especially when indigenous and tribal

people are involved, since many of them are isolated from the technologies that many take

for granted.

Open access of cultural materials can have many benefits for tribal groups. After all,

when certain records or documents are visible on the Internet, it would mean that the

groups that owned or created them will be more visible, and being more visible might help

these groups deal with issues of misrepresentation and underrepresentation. While it is true

that open access can improve visibility, there are still many issues that have to be dealt

32 Gerry Smith, “On Tribal Lands, Digital Divide Brings New Form Of Isolation,” The HuffingtonPost, April 20, 2012, accessed November 27, 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/digital-divide-tribal-lands_n_1403046.html

33 Ibid.34 Ibid.

16

with. If we put records and artifacts belonging or related to Native Americans on the

Internet, many people would be able to view them. However, since many Native American

reservations still do not have connection to the Internet, they will not be able to view

records that are related to them or belong to them in the first place. While a tribe can obtain

a record in its physical form, there is also no guarantee that an institution will return a

record back to a tribe, so there is no choice but to obtain a digital copy or view it on the

Internet, which is not an option if the tribe does not have the technology to access it in the

first place. Hence, in a sense, by allowing “open access” of certain tribal records by putting

them on the Internet, an institution could be indirectly marginalizing and isolating the tribe,

because other ethnic groups with access to Internet could view the records, but the tribes

could not view the records that are rightfully theirs. Also, just because a record is visible on

the Internet does not mean that it can improve visibility for a group in a good way.

When a record is posted on the Internet, it is very likely that some of the contexts of

the original record will be lost. If culturally sensitive records are released to the digital

world without presenting any sufficient context,35 misinterpretations will surely happen.

Much like sensitive governmental records, culturally sensitive records can be exploited,

especially if “secret information” of a tribe is put on open access, and released to the

Internet. The Internet can spread information very quickly, but it can also spread

misinformation with relative ease as well. Protecting the “secret information” of a tribe,

much like protecting intelligence agencies’ records, can be a matter of “national security”

for tribal groups.36 Thus, if tribal records are digitalized or released without asking for 35 “Protocols for Native American Archival Materials,” First Archivist Circle, accessed December 10,

2015, http://www2.nau.edu/libnap-p/protocols.html.36 Ibid.

17

permission or input from a tribe, which might not even allow its records to be released, it

might create resentment between many parties and make cooperation in the future more

difficult. Thus, before digitalizing a cultural archive and making it open access, we need to

consider the culture that we are dealing with. When we digitalize a culture, we have to try

to do so in a way that would be “responsible, respectful, and politically meaningful.”37

There are ways to digitalize culturally sensitive records in a respectful manner, and

still allowing some amount of access. All of that is possible through digital technologies, as

the Plateau Peoples’ Web Portal demonstrates.38 This project allows tribal groups to decide

whether certain records are open access or restricted, and is an example that shows how

modern technologies can be integrated with a tribe’s cultural beliefs to create a digital

archive that strikes the balance between open access and respecting the tribe’s culture.39

There is still much work to be done, however, because as aforementioned, many tribes still

do not have access to technologies that can help them benefit from this project, but this

topic is beyond the scope of this paper. In any cases, archivists should not disregard digital

technologies, but rather, they have to discover the full potential of technologies to continue

preserving the cultural records. Archivists also have the obligation to limit restrictions and

maximize access, in order to preserve cultural heritage. They also have to compromise and

maximize the benefits for as many people as possible. This is certainly the case when they

have to deal with culturally sensitive materials, as well as governmental records, since there

37 Timothy B. Powell, “Digitizing Cherokee Culture: Libraries, Students, and the Reservation,” MELUS 30.2 (2005): 87.

38 Kimberly Christen, “Opening Archives: Respectful Repatriation,” American Archivist (Spring 2011): 205.

39 Ibid.

18

often will be many interested parties that will either benefit or suffer from the restrictions,

and in some cases, releases, of these records.

Digital technologies have brought many wonders, and also terrors, to humanity.

Through digital technologies, open access and sharing of records are much easier than

before. However, the tradeoff is that digital technologies can also be exploited, and

sensitive records put on open access can be dangerous. The Edward Snowden affair

demonstrated the dangers as well as benefits of digital technologies, as well as the

consequences of the release of sensitive materials. Nevertheless, digital technologies still

have a lot of potential and benefits that should be explored, such as helping promoting the

visibility of underrepresented groups, and so on. Archivists will have to integrate digital

technologies into their methods, but they also have to understand the dangers and

limitations associated with them, so that they can decide whether sensitive records should

be digitally released to the world or not. Open access in the digital world has many

promising aspects, but before digitally putting something on open access, one should

probably consider what the consequences will be, and whether the benefits are worth

risking irreparable damage that will be caused by releasing records.

19

Bibliography

Barro, Josh. “Here's Why Edward Snowden Deserves a Long Prison Sentence.” Business Insider. Last modified Jan. 6, 2014. http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-edward-snowden-needs-a-long-prison-sentence-2014-1.

Bertrand, Natasha. “Effects of China Hack on US.” Business Insider. Last modified July 11, 2015. http://www.businessinsider.com/effects-of-china-hack-on-us-2015-7

Christen, Kimberly. “Opening Archives: Respectful Repatriation.” American Archivist (Spring 2011): 185-210.

Comey, James B. “Going Dark: Are Technology, Privacy, and Public Safety on a Collision Course?” October 16, 2014, accessed Dec 05, 2015, https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/going-dark-are-technology-privacy-and-public-safety-on-a-collision-course.

Ferdman, Roberto A. “4.4 billion people around the world still don’t have Internet. Here’s where they live.” The Washington Post. October 2, 2014. Accessed November 27, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/10/02/4-4-billion-people-around-the-world-still-dont-have-internet-heres-where-they-live/

First Archivist Circle. “Protocols for Native American Archival Materials.” Accessed December 10, 2015. http://www2.nau.edu/libnap-p/protocols.html.

Hodson, Sara S. “Freeing the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Question of Access.” The American Archivist 56.4 (1993): 690-703.

Keck, Zachary. “Yes, Edward Snowden Is a Traitor.” The Diplomat. Last modified December 21, 2013. http://thediplomat.com/2013/12/yes-edward-snowden-is-a-traitor/.

Kelley, Michael B. “Snowden, Russia, China, and NSA Files.” Business Insider. Last modified June 13, 2015. http://www.businessinsider.com/snowden-russia-china-and-nsa-files-2015-6.

— .“We Now Know A Lot More about Edward Snowden's Epic Heist.” Business Insider. Last modified August 17, 2014. http://www.businessinsider.com/snowden-russia-china-and-nsa-files-2015-6.

Kirk, Michael. “Transcript of United States of Secrets.” Accessed December 08, 2015. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/united-states-of-secrets/transcript.

20

Lamdan, Sarah Shik. “Social Media Privacy: A Rallying Cry to Librarians.” The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy 85.3 (2015): 261-277.

NPR. “Transcript of President Obama's Speech on NSA Reforms.” Last modified January 17, 2014. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2014/01/17/263480199/transcript-of-president-obamas-speech-on-nsa-reforms.

Powell Timothy B. “Digitizing Cherokee Culture: Libraries, Students, and the Reservation.” MELUS 30.2 (2005): 79-98.

Sharwood, Simon. “Junior Defence Staffer on Trial for 'Posting Secret Dossier to 4chan.’” The Register. Last modified August 6, 2015. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/06/oz_4chan_classified_leak_trial/

Smith, Gerry. “On Tribal Lands, Digital Divide Brings New Form Of Isolation.” The Huffington Post, April 20, 2012. Accessed November 27, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/digital-divide-tribal-lands_n_1403046.html

Society of American Archivists. “Basic Principles for Managing Intellectual Property in the Digital Environment: An Archival Perspective.” Accessed December 07, 2015. http://www2.archivists.org/statements/basic-principles-for-managing-intellectual-property-in-the-digital-environment-an-archiva

—. “SAA Core Values Statement and Code of Ethics.” Accessed December 07, 2015. “http://www2.archivists.org/statements/saa-core-values-statement-and-code-of-ethics

The Guardian. “Snowden Files 'Read by Russia and China': Five Questions for UK Government.” Last modified June 14, 2015. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/14/snowden-files-read-by-russia-and-china-five-questions-for-uk-government.

Webb, Amy. “Send Letters, Not Emails.” Last modified June 12, 2013. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/data_mine_1/2013/06/nsa_surveillance_why_the_post_office_doesn_t_spy_on_your_mail_the_way_nsa.html