Entries Tagged 'Electronic Records' ↓

"Electronic records" is a particularly awful phrase and does not even actually capture anything about the underlying records at all. As far as the term goes, it's not too far off from "machine readable records." As a profession, can we start actually thinking critically about the underlying technical issues and push for using terms that more accurately describe what it is we're dealing with? I understand it's a convenient catch-all term, but there is a large range of issues that differ with the kinds of data and systems.

Amidst this week of notorious hoaxes, Google has launched Google Message Discovery as an enterprise-focused add on for its Google Apps platform. Google Message Discovery goes well beyond a simple and reliable e-mail backup system and provides three key features of interest to records managers:

1. Content-addressable storage for electronic mail stored immediately upon sending or retrieval
2. Creating explicit retention policies based upon time
3. Compliance with relevant laws and best practices
4. Straightforward discovery for any use, regardless if internal or concerning litigation

Google Message Discovery, as well as other related offerings such as e-mail security, clearly has its origins in Google's acquisition of Postini last year. Postini isn't some startup with dubious or perpetually beta offerings (e.g. Dodgeball or GrandCentral); some of their better known clients include BASF and  Merrill Lynch. At $25 per user per year, the service seems to be an incredible steal.

I just discovered DataPortability.org through Peter Van Garderen's blog post about it. I was entirely surprised that I'd heard nary a peep about it. Some basic examination (running a WHOIS query on the domain) shows that it's still a fairly new project. I have to say, though, that I'm entirely impressed. Those involved have given a whole lot of thought to how they're going to be doing things, as evidenced by those who have signed up to be involved and the DataPortability Charter. To wit, the Charter's principles tend to speak for themselves:

1. We want sovereignty over the profiles, relationships, content and media we create and maintain.
2. We want open formats, protocols and policies for identity discovery, data import, export and sync.
3. We want to protect user rights and privacy.

And, of course, the thing that made me squeal with delight like a pig in mud:

4. DataPortability will not inventing any new standards.

I mean, that's probably the best news that someone like me could get. They have a graphic on their home page that sums it all up perfectly:

Now, naturally they didn't have preservation in mind at first, but as Peter's post notes, it's ripe for that sort of use. This also got me thinking about Dan Chudnov's old brainstorm about blog mirroring using Bittorrent and Atom, too. In particular, note this comment of his:

It's a pretty simple idea: you extend an aggregator system to "archive" entries posted each day into bittorrent files, and then build a secondary system to turn the data distributed over bittorrents back into browseable "blog" mirrors if/when you need to. The best part is that you don't really need any new technology to do it.

I feel like things are coming full circle. I also feel like I could really have fun and find new ways to extend ArchivesBlogs, at least when I finish the other countless little projects that litter my mind. Anybody got some free time they want to contribute?

Today, Nancy Beaumont, Executive Director of the Society of American Archivists, made an announcement on the Archives & Archivists listserv that SAA would no longer retain the first thirteen years of posts from the listserv. During this time the listserv was hosted by Miami University of Ohio, and last September, the list was moved to an SAA server. This stems from a decision made by SAA Council that they not retain the archives for three reasons: 1) an appraisal decision informed by the SAA's archives at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, 2) a consideration of administrative issues, and 3) a consideration of cost.

While the appraisal decision is well-informed by the claim that the list archives do not have evidential value as SAA records, the belief that these records have little informational value does not sit well with me. The list archives document the development of archives becoming a stronger profession in the face of technology and the creation of a tight-knit social network. While not all of the posts are "serious," the discussions themselves are important to preserve as one can see the ways in which archival discourse has changed over time.

The administrative issues stem from legal concerns about copyright and posters wanting certain messages removed. While these concerns also have merit, a great deal of discussion lists have retained their messages for periods even longer than the existence of the A&A list. And finally, in terms of cost, SAA claims that the financial burden would be too much to bear to preserve and maintain the list archives. I find that to be completely ridiculous! Storage costs continue to go down, and even if SAA chose not to make the technical commitment to serving the archives themselves, I'm sure enough interested individuals or organizations could find a way to host the archives themselves. In fact, I'm sure a few technologically inclined archivists have already found a way to capture the list archives without a second thought.

Neither SAA Council nor staff made the effort to let the SAA membership know about the potential plans throught the A&A listserv. While a motion regarding this matter was documented in SAA Council minutes from last August, there was no mention of the creation of any task force to determine the disposition of the list archives. Furthermore, the statement made by Ms. Beaumont claims that the Task Force created reports to justify their decision, but they have yet to be released to the SAA member body for review. Most egregious of all, though, is that SAA Council made this decree less than three weeks before the deletion of the archives from the Miami University listserver. The final version of the motion passed by SAA Council reads:

THAT SAA retain the electronic records of the A&A List archives for a minimum period of two years for the purposes of appraisal based on content analysis, cost of maintenance, and ongoing study of the use of the data.

Simply put, it has not been two years since even the last of the archives held at Miami University were originally posted. SAA Council appears to be violating its own motion.

In all, I find this to be an embarrassment to the profession. How are we to be trusted with retaining the memory of society if we can't even retain our own? I certainly hope there are some enterprising archivists out there that are willing to step up to the plate to find a way to store this data before it gets thrown out all together. Do we have to prove SAA Council wrong, or go against their wishes just to prove a point? In some ways I hope not, but if we must, we should. This is finally getting some good coverage thanks to librarian.net and Boing Boing posting links to Rick Prelinger's post. (Edit: I've been watching Technorati, too - coverage is starting to spread like wildfire!) I certainly it gets more since this appears to be such an egregious violation of the profession's goals and the trust of the SAA members.