Access policy

[jamesgorrie]

Given the conversation we have had with D&I around being open about how we catalogue, I think we should chat about how takedown is handled.

Currently we remove the record, and surface to the user "This catalogue item has been removed.".

There are already some access statements that are setup for the stacks, and are reflected in the digital items. You can see some related information here.

In short they are (definitions are mine, and could do with refining):

• Closed: Completely off limits
• Restricted: After agreeing that you acknowledge there is sensitive information in an item, and you should consider this when publishing, you're able to access it
• Open: Open to all
• ... (There are more, I am just getting the official definitions)

Thoughts

• We should be storing what images we're doing this with to be able to bring them back to life if we need
• Should we have a different states of takedown? e.g. the image is taken down, but the metadata stays, the metadata is taken down as well as the image?
• Could we surface the policy that caused this to be marked? This will not only be useful for our future selves, but also to surface to the public what we think is good practise. It also might allow us to, if we revoke a policy, revoke the restriction to all images which had it applied

[alexwlchan]

e.g. the image is taken down, but the metadata stays, the metadata is taken down as well as the image?

If we do, can you request an image if it's relevant to your research?

(cf archives about people who are recently deceased)

[amme2]

It would be extremely helpful if CI could work with you on automating some of the record-keeping and messaging on this issue, but drawing on the already published policy and procedures on collections access and sensitivity review of course. Extending, enhancing and revising these guidelines is an ongoing piece of work for my team anyway. What we definitely don't want to end up with are two sets of guidelines and two parallel records of takedown requests!

[alexwlchan]

Adding some notes from a conversation around the desks right now:

• We might track internal/external reasons for suppressing a record, and only present the latter publicly.

  e.g. Public: "This record was removed in line with our obscene content policy (link)"

  Internal: "This record was removed as part of a batch of images that were flagged by Jane Doe. This is why it fits the policy, this is the historical context, these are the other images we removed."

• This has overlap with discussions around how we delete material from the storage service (#4002).

[jamesgorrie]

@amme2 100%, this was just some talking points that have come up over the past weeks.

Could you share those policies, they'd be super interesting!

[amme2]

The Access Policy is on WC.org https://wellcomecollection.cdn.prismic.io/wellcomecollection%2F4e36cfae-2d7f-486d-a1c1-7de71dad186d_wellcome+collection_access+policy_jan+2019.pdf#_ga=2.27922618.781724945.1574769185-50401810.1519918931 (relevant section is section 12).

[amme2]

And the current public version of the more detailed Access Procedures is on wellcomelibrary.org https://wellcomelibrary.org/content/documents/policy-documents/access-to-personal-data.pdf This is designed to be a living document which can be updated and enhanced regularly.

[kenoir]

Closing as no action to take (takedown is now documented in a private repo).