Exploring the Inconsistency of Archival Privacy Policies Laura Barfoot The lack of consistent privacy practice remains a point of contention for archivists. Why is this problem so difficult to counter? The Society of American Archivists (SAA) created a Code of Ethics to act as “an ethical framework” (Preamble, ¶2) to guide decisions for this issue. In Section VI the code states that access is a fundamental role of archives, while Section VII says archivists have a responsibility to protect the donor and subject of artifacts. The conflict and tension these two principles espouse prompts much discussion and debate between those who place either privacy or the right to know as the most important guideline. Reflecting the same dilemma present in American society, privacy and access, taken as opposites, leads to differing opinions on who or what should most influence policies. In effect, the profession is burdened with ambiguous definitions and subjective, case-by-case decisions. Conclusions  Viewing privacy as inhibiting access or access as infringing privacy causes inconsistent policies.  Archivists are divided about whether access or privacy is the higher good.  This debate exists in varying levels within American society. Pro-privacy defintions: goal is to prevent code- and value- breaking Marybeth Gaudette: “If there is no definition of ‘privacy,’ how is an archivist or curator to know when she has breached the code” (2003, p. 24)? Pro-Access definitions: goal is to prevent unnecessary obstacles to access Paul Sillitoe: “without a clear definition of privacy limits, archivists are unable to fully consider when an invasion of personal privacy might be occasioned…We are thus not able to manage access to such potentially sensitive information consistently…” (1998, p.5) PrivacyAccess American’s are inconsistent with when and where privacy or access should rule.  When asked to define privacy, many people think, “I know it when I see it” (Rosen, 1999, as cited in Cirasella, 2000).  78.3 % of Americans would add “privacy” to the Declaration of Independence (Robbin, 2001, p. 517).  Case Study: The huge public outcry against the release of Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) by the Census Bureau to sociologists (Robbin, 2001).  Americans expect quick and easy access to information with the advent of digital resources and the internet (Wallach, 2001).  Americans’ current infatuation with the Freedom of Information Act of 1966 in response to such acts as the Patriot Act. The Archival Problem is a microcosm of a larger societal issue. Microsoft Clipart Currently Archivists Disagree over… …What is privacy… …How to respect privacy Pro-Access Pro-Privacy Legislation (Gaudette, 2003) Repository Imposed Restrictions (MacNeil, 1991) Profession- wide “Access” guidelines (Sax, 2001; Sillitoe, 1998) Process for “Eventual Open Access (Schwartz, 1992, p. 182)  Pro-Access policy Lesbian Herstory Archives: The archivists chose to actively pursue and persuade donors and concerned third-parties to relinquish privacy for the sake of cultural memory (Schwartz, 1992).  Pro-Privacy policy University of Michigan’s Special Collections Library and Ted Kaczynski’s (Unabomber’s) letters: The archivists redacted names and determined access case-by-case to protect third-party privacy (Herrada, ). 68% of archivists believe they possess the authority to make “case-by-case” privacy decisions. (Gaudette, 2003, p.29) Some institutions use existing laws to guide privacy decisions. Examples include: Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (Dawne Lucas, ) Privacy Act of 1974 (Georgia Historical Society, Access and Restriction Policy, p. 4) Freedom of Information Act (GHS) Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (GHS) Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (GHS policy, p. 5) Various State Policies (GHS, Lucas, Meaghan McCarthy [ ])  Archivists could create standards by viewing privacy as “a condition of limited accessibility” (Paton-Simpson, 1998, p. 319). By seeing privacy and access as degrees on a scale, rather than as opposites, archivists from both camps can work together to create adequate professional standards.