You have not heard from me in quite some time, but I am still here at CDLC. As of July 1, 2014, we no longer have the contract for the Documentary Heritage Program, which is why I haven't been sending out any messages about archives-related topics. At the moment, there is no Documentary Heritage Program in New York State. Rest assured, though, a return of this program is planned. Here is the official word from the New York State Archives:
From Christine W. Ward, New York State Archivist and Chief Executive Officer of the Archives Partnership Trust:
Dear regional archivists and service provider directors,
We
are writing to let you know of changes that are planned for the
regional services portion of the New York State Archives Documentary
Heritage Program (DHP). Our aim is to move the DHP in a direction that
will bring the best quality and most comprehensive services to New
York's historical records community with the resources available to us.
DHP Regional Services
For
over 25 years the DHP regional services have provided technical
assistance and training through contracts between the New York State
Education Department (SED) and nine regional providers, which have
included seven 3Rs library councils, the Museum Association of New York,
and the Greater Hudson Heritage Network. We thank the organizations
that have contributed to the success of this program and advancements in
preservation and access for New York's heritage.
When the
contracts between the SED and these agencies expire on June 30, 2014,
there will be changes to the contractual process for operating this part
of the program. The DHP competitive grants program will not change and
will continue to be operated from the New York State Archives' central
offices.
Service Delivery Changes
Instead
of nine separate DHP contracts, the SED will seek a single, statewide
five-year contract to deliver a set of supports and educational services
for eligible archives, libraries, historical societies, museums, and
other institutions that hold historical records and/or library research
materials and operate programs to preserve them and make them
accessible. The contract will cover DHP services and also incorporate
elements of the New York State Library's Conservation/Preservation
Program.
Interim Assistance
Until
the new statewide contract is in place, the State Archives will provide
basic support to the historical records community through email and
phone communications and delivery of on-line resources. Repositories in
need of archival assistance may contact Pamela Cooley at the New York
State Archives (
pcooley@mail.nysed.gov,
(518) 474-5393) starting July 1 and until further notice. For
preservation-related assistance, organizations may continue to contact
Barbara Lilley at the New York State Library (
blilley@mail.nysed.gov, (518) 486-4864.
Monday, August 11, 2014
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
Privacy and Confidentiality Issues in Digital Archives - Patron Records
In December I attended an excellent Society of American Archivists workshop on Privacy and Confidentiality Issues in Digital Archives at Mount Holyoke College's lovely Willits-Hallowell Conference Center. This is the first Digital Archives Specialist (DAS) course I have taken. I was not planning on earning my DAS certificate, but if all the courses are as engaging as this one, I might change my mind.
The instructor, Heather Briston, brought up many interesting points of discussion that apply to all archives, not just digital archives. Ms. Briston is both an attorney and an archivist, so her point of view is slightly different than that of your usual archivist. The issue that I have been mulling over in my mind the most since the workshop ended is her statement that archivists should hold onto patron information for as long as we need it and no longer.
Archives have long differed from libraries in how we treat patron records. We ask patrons to register with their name, address, i.d number and more, and we keep track of the records they look at. In the name of privacy, libraries keep as little information as possible on their patrons and often completely clear the record of what a patron checked out once the item has been returned. These library practices have increased since the passage of the US Patriot Act. Because our holdings are not as easily replaced as those of libraries - indeed, often our holdings are irreplaceable - archivists have favored security over privacy. Most records management guidelines for archives recommend that archives keep patron records permanently.
In the workshop, Heather Briston challenged the practice of keeping patron records permanently. She recommended keeping the records only as long as the statute of limitations for replevin. The length of this statute of limitations varies from state to state. Her reasoning is that even if repository staff discovers an item is missing, if the statute of limitations has passed, they have no authority to demand an item be returned if it is found elsewhere. Because of this, it is not worth the risk of retaining patron information beyond the statute of limitations. The risk of the repository being held responsible if a patron's personally identifiable information (PII) gets breached is not worth the limited benefits of retaining this information.
I know it is the legal profession's standard position to destroy records as soon as legally possible so the records cannot be subject to discovery. As an archivist, I am glad that many institutions have not always followed that recommendation since many rich historical records are now in archives that might have been destroyed if their original owners adhered to this policy. However, in this age of almost daily breaches of information - as I type this Target Corporation is dealing with a breach of over 40 million credit cards - I also appreciate the argument that destroying information and being upfront with how we deal with patron data will make patrons and the public trust us more.
But in the back of my mind are the stories that come across my desk once or twice a year of big caches of stolen material being found in the home of a thief who has been pilfering items from archives for years and has finally gotten caught. (One example is the case of Barry Landau.) The authorities often have a very difficult time figuring out who the rightful owners are of many of the items. Sometimes the only hint they have are the call slips filled out by the apprehended thief. In these cases, even when the statute of limitations has expired, items are often returned to the original repositories.
This is something I definitely will have to mull over for a while. Your thoughts?
The instructor, Heather Briston, brought up many interesting points of discussion that apply to all archives, not just digital archives. Ms. Briston is both an attorney and an archivist, so her point of view is slightly different than that of your usual archivist. The issue that I have been mulling over in my mind the most since the workshop ended is her statement that archivists should hold onto patron information for as long as we need it and no longer.
Archives have long differed from libraries in how we treat patron records. We ask patrons to register with their name, address, i.d number and more, and we keep track of the records they look at. In the name of privacy, libraries keep as little information as possible on their patrons and often completely clear the record of what a patron checked out once the item has been returned. These library practices have increased since the passage of the US Patriot Act. Because our holdings are not as easily replaced as those of libraries - indeed, often our holdings are irreplaceable - archivists have favored security over privacy. Most records management guidelines for archives recommend that archives keep patron records permanently.
In the workshop, Heather Briston challenged the practice of keeping patron records permanently. She recommended keeping the records only as long as the statute of limitations for replevin. The length of this statute of limitations varies from state to state. Her reasoning is that even if repository staff discovers an item is missing, if the statute of limitations has passed, they have no authority to demand an item be returned if it is found elsewhere. Because of this, it is not worth the risk of retaining patron information beyond the statute of limitations. The risk of the repository being held responsible if a patron's personally identifiable information (PII) gets breached is not worth the limited benefits of retaining this information.
I know it is the legal profession's standard position to destroy records as soon as legally possible so the records cannot be subject to discovery. As an archivist, I am glad that many institutions have not always followed that recommendation since many rich historical records are now in archives that might have been destroyed if their original owners adhered to this policy. However, in this age of almost daily breaches of information - as I type this Target Corporation is dealing with a breach of over 40 million credit cards - I also appreciate the argument that destroying information and being upfront with how we deal with patron data will make patrons and the public trust us more.
But in the back of my mind are the stories that come across my desk once or twice a year of big caches of stolen material being found in the home of a thief who has been pilfering items from archives for years and has finally gotten caught. (One example is the case of Barry Landau.) The authorities often have a very difficult time figuring out who the rightful owners are of many of the items. Sometimes the only hint they have are the call slips filled out by the apprehended thief. In these cases, even when the statute of limitations has expired, items are often returned to the original repositories.
This is something I definitely will have to mull over for a while. Your thoughts?
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Welcome to My New Occasional Blog
In these tight fiscal times, fewer and fewer people in the archival field are able to get to workshops and conferences. I, as your Regional Archivist, am lucky enough to occasionally take advantage of these opportunities. I then take what I have learned and share it with you all through site visits, phone calls, and other one-on-one communications. While that's great, I thought I would provide more bang for the (very small) buck by sharing this new found knowledge more widely through a blog.
For months, there was the angst of naming the blog. I consulted all my wittier colleagues who can turn a phrase better than I can, but we all drew a blank. One of my children suggested The Traveling Archivist, so here we are. I don't intend to limit my posts to my travels, though. If I attend on online course or discover good professional information through other sources, my plan is to share it here.
I welcome questions and tips on upcoming workshops, webinars and other professional development opportunities.
For months, there was the angst of naming the blog. I consulted all my wittier colleagues who can turn a phrase better than I can, but we all drew a blank. One of my children suggested The Traveling Archivist, so here we are. I don't intend to limit my posts to my travels, though. If I attend on online course or discover good professional information through other sources, my plan is to share it here.
I welcome questions and tips on upcoming workshops, webinars and other professional development opportunities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)