Access to information in war

Among the many outcomes of the events of September 11 has been increasingly restricted access to scientific information. The Bush administration has gone to what are described as unprecedented lengths in the name of national security to control the dissemination of information, escalating the debate over balancing protection with the public's right to know [1]. In early 2002, the government began withdrawing from public release, through the National Technical Information Service, more than 6,600 documents dealing mainly with the production of germ and chemical weapons. It is also reported to be drafting a new information security policy that will establish guidelines for the review and availability of information. Government agencies have removed information from Websites or limited access to them [2]. The U.S. Geological Survey directed federal depository libraries to destroy copies of a CD-ROM publication about surface water supplies [3]. The USA Patriot Act, passed in October 2001, expanded the investigative powers of federal law enforcement agencies and broadened access to business records such as library records [4]. The U.S. attorney general has also encouraged federal agencies to exercise greater caution in disclosing information under the Freedom of Information Act [5].

Others have followed the federal government's lead in making it more difficult for persons to gain access to sensitive information. The Federation of American Scientists is reviewing its Website to remove sensitive information related to national security policy. The Internet search engine Google has coordinated with federal agencies to ensure that material deleted from government sites is not saved through caching functions [6].

Proponents of more public disclosure of government information argue that no official inventory exists of what has been removed from public access and that policies for restoring access need to be developed with stakeholder participation. The restrictions extend not only to classified information but also to other sensitive material [7]. The citizens advocacy group OMB Watch maintains a list of information eliminated from government Websites [8].

The debate over the proper balance between security and public access includes concerns about the impact on research and innovation. The New York Times reported that the administration had asked the American Society for Microbiology to limit potentially dangerous information in the eleven journals that it publishes. One proposal under discussion was to eliminate the methods sections of articles [9]. The society later refuted the accuracy of the story and said it was working with the administration “in its struggle to balance the priority of scientific openness with issues of national security.” However, the article generated concern in the scientific community about the importance of free scientific exchange and independent verification of research results [10].

What does history tell us about access to information in times of war? In her study of censorship, Geller traces the development of the ideal of the freedom to read within the library profession. World War I raised several issues, including the question of whether the international flow of ideas could be maintained, the definition of propaganda and its treatment in libraries, and the conflict between librarians' traditional neutrality and advocacy. In 1915, librarians were urged to practice “interested neutrality,” providing full information on all sides—pacifist literature as well as defense of the war—along with impartial criticism. However, when the United States entered the war, advocacy came to mean allegiance. Legislation denied the use of the mails for materials deemed treasonous and created a Censorship Board. Prominent librarians assisted in compiling an army index of books not to be provided to military camps. Although most were anti-British or pro-German, pacifist and Socialist publications were also included [11]. The State of Washington published guidelines for suppressing publications in U.S. libraries of benefit to the enemy, including those too vivid in the portrayal of war and likely to lessen the courage of soldiers and their families [12]. On the other hand, Library Journal “defended the purchase of seditious and propagandistic books of historical value that would be unobtainable after the war, reserving them for students and for future use” and the inclusion of pacifist literature in circulating collections [13].

As the next war broke out in Europe, the American Library Association (ALA) adopted the first Library's Bill of Rights in 1939. It stated that reading matter should be selected for its value and interest to the community not for the identity or views of the writers, all sides of questions should be represented fairly and adequately, and library meeting rooms should be available on equal terms to all in the community [14]. In the context of the time, the bill represented a commitment to democratic teaching and advocacy, with librarians performing their traditional tasks in the service of pluralistic democratic values. The passage of the bill began the process of establishing the defense of intellectual freedom as a primary tenet of librarianship [15, 16].

Archibald MacLeish, librarian of Congress, addressed the role of librarianship in society in 1940. The attack on democracy forced the profession to reconsider its purpose. The social end of librarianship—to select from the record the parts needed to help citizens make decisions and to make them available in a form responsive to their needs—would serve the cause of democracy [17]. In speaking of the Library's Bill of Rights, the ALA executive secretary pointed to the opportunity for libraries to demonstrate their usefulness as educational agencies. He called for librarians to be advocates for intelligent, informed consideration about issues demanding social action, by stimulating intellectual curiosity and meeting demands for reading material. Education for democracy required knowledge of theories on which both democratic and other governments were based [18].

The issue of propaganda in libraries was also scrutinized in this period. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis was established in 1937 to analyze propaganda and formulate methods for U.S. citizens to conduct their own critical thinking. Librarians were called upon to make use of the scholarship of propaganda interpretation [19]. The librarian of the University of Maryland examined the selection of propaganda for college, university, and research libraries. The past policy of having all sides represented—subject to certain limitations of taste, style, and presentation—was ineffective in light of more sophisticated propaganda. The primary consideration in accepting materials should be the usefulness of the content for instruction and research. Documents had historical and curricular value as well as service as a body of material for the study of propaganda techniques [20].

Government censorship in World War II was governed by the Code of Wartime Practices, which outlined prohibited items. The 1942 edition barred military-related information such as troop movements, identity and sailing schedules of ships, industrial production, weather, movements of the president, and wartime rumor. Due to the time lag in publication, these restrictions affected serials more than books. The export of books and periodicals containing scientific, technical, or professional data was carefully scrutinized; authorities approved the content of each publication, as well as such information as the nationality of employees of the publisher, before issuing licenses for export. One inadequacy in the law governing importation was the lack of a provision allowing subversive material in larger libraries for the purpose of research. Shipments of books for university libraries had been destroyed at entry, with the Library of Congress receiving a limited number of publications through diplomatic pouches. The profession supported censorship of materials that could “sabotage morale and impair unity” [21].

Medical libraries were concerned with the flow of publications from abroad, particularly journals. The ban on imports from designated countries, the blockade of shipping, and the freezing of foreign funds in the United States hindered importation and cultural exchange [22]. Difficulties beset the publication and safe delivery of journals. European titles were published irregularly or with a marked decrease in the amount of material. A survey on the effect of the war on receipt of foreign journals in U.S. medical libraries noted a delay of two to six months in receipt, loss of packages, and payment of war risk insurance. Most libraries reported they were willing to lend journals to the Army Medical Library and Biological Abstracts for abstracting and indexing [23]. The Library of Congress implemented a union list of U.S. holdings of foreign periodicals published since 1938, so that scarce issues could be located for interlibrary loan or microfilming [24].

In the World Wars of the twentieth century, government censorship focused on excluding writings that advocated or aided other belief and value systems. Librarians defined their role as consistent with the fight for democracy. As their body of professional philosophy evolved, they supported the inclusion of unpopular viewpoints, to a degree, as well as the continuity of the historical record. The belief in intellectual freedom was part of the development of the professional code and began in a period of international conflict and intolerance.

In contrast, the restrictions on access to information in today's climate reflect the characteristics of the war against terrorism, with an ill-defined, networked enemy and an anticipated ongoing nature.* The restrictions attempt to prevent the misuse of information by potential terrorists, information previously in the public record. These limitations have occurred in advance of the development of guidelines, and groups such as librarians are still assessing their impact. The Internet has also had a major influence on the accessibility of information. Controls on the press, publishers, and libraries no longer check the flow of information.

In a 1991 policy, ALA recognized that legitimate national security concerns might restrict access to certain information under limited circumstances, but it strongly supported the right of confidential access to unclassified information available in libraries by individuals, including foreign nationals [25]. In January of 2002, ALA adopted a “Resolution Reaffirming the Principles of Intellectual Freedom in the Aftermath of Terrorist Attacks.” Among other principles, it promotes dissemination of true and timely information necessary to people in exercise of their rights, opposes suppression of access to unclassified government information and monitoring of access to information, and encourages protection of confidentiality of lawful use of the library [26].