When asked to reflect on the readings and technical activities from last week, I think that just as physical access has both pros and cons, the same can be said for digital contexts. Who owns the materials? Were they gained through ethical means? Is there sensitive matter that could cause undue harm but is freely available just for the sake of satisfying curiosity? These are all points to ponder.
One of the main articles discussed a particular platform that was designed to allow public access to certain data, while additional areas are more restrictive depending on the user. This platform was designed to assist those within the indigenous community to be able to better curate their information both on an individual basis and as a community as a whole. Allowing only restricted access to sensitive materials caused an outcry from some in the broader public. My first thought was of HIPAA, and my second was, if this was my family’s story, what would be my reaction?
As with HIPAA, certain identifying information and materials are confidential to protect the privacy and safety of the individual, so the concept of restricted information is not new and certainly has its place. This restricted access is a mainstay in the medical community, medical service providers, rehabilitation institutions, and a host of other places. So, with the precedent already set for good reason, why is there an outcry against protecting sensitive information on these platforms?
Many of the articles share a common thread of storytelling, whether through means of digital access or physical items and history. When the stories tell the lives of the individual, family, or the community, the power belongs in their narration. To open access to these stories and items is to lend a means of education to the consumer, from which they can build understanding.
Jamie, your comparison between privacy (in a cultural heritage context) and HIPAA is an important one. It’s interesting to think about how privacy functions in our society, the laws that exist (and don’t exist) and what information can or should be private versus public. While an “open” approach certainly increases access, I agree it’s crucial to consider the wishes of the person to whom these stories, objects, and ideas belong!