Oh come on...
As I said before all this information is widely available anyway, and what
is to stop people coming in to consult our public records?
I don't think we are entitled to withhold locational information, this is
the age of freedom of information.
The responsible thing to do is to warn users that sites must not be damaged.
Provided we have warned people, I do not think that if sites get vandalised
the local SMR is responsible - the vandal is.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Cuming [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 14 June 2002 15:27
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: site protection vs. access to information
As Martin says, the issue of whether to put information on the web is one of
information publication, not information accessibility. No-one is obliged to
put data on the web and we are all free to choose whether to do so at 4,6 or
8 figs as we wish. For me a major issue is whether or not SMRs want to be
isolated even among other archaeologists by publishing information that they
believe likely to endanger sites. Certainly our objectives are not the same
as those of contractors and consultants but they are also not the same as
other curators even within our own organisations. SMR officers have an
implicit duty not only to make information available, but also to actively
promote it, development control archaeologists do not. Therefore conceivably
we could be opposed by every other archaeologist in a region and yet still
publish our information in the knowledge that we are doing our job in a
perfectly responsible way. But who would be brave enough? It is true that
much of this information is available elsewhere but we are bringing it
together, repackaging it so that anyone can understand it, delivering it to
every would-be vandal's home and advertising the fact. To me it seems almost
certain that if SMRs go on the internet with accurate location data then
sites WILL be damaged that would not otherwise have been. We should
acknowledge this and as Sandy suggests we should prepare our defence in
advance and make our case. I don't think that just claiming that the info is
out there anyway will really cut much ice in the aftermath of a savaged SAM
or two.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Newman, Martin [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 14 June 2002 14:39
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: site protection vs. access to information
There is a difference between what you choose to disseminate (say by making
an SMR available over the web) and what you have to divulge if asked for,
Paul's presentation to the user group next week may cover some of this area.
Martin
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Sydes [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 13 June 2002 16:03
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: site protection vs. access to information
That's a bit hLocal Government covered by access to information legislation.
End of debate. arsh David!
;-(
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: David Evans [ mailto:[log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> ]
Sent: 13 June 2002 14:41
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: site protection vs. access to information
Most SMRs are local Government
Thank you
David Evans
Environment and Conservation
>>> [log in to unmask] 13/06/2002 14:10:27 >>>
As this topic is causing some concern perhaps there ought to be an agreed
ALGAO position (ideally with EH backing) which would help individual SMRs
defend their position? Something for the ALGAO SMR Committee?
Sandy Kidd
Senior Archaeological Officer (Bucks CC)
Tel:01296-382927
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Wood [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 12:39
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: site protection vs. access to information
>
> I have followed this discussion with a slight sense of disbelief. This
was
> very topical 10 or more years ago but the world has simply moved on - or I
> thought it had!
>
> This genie was out of the bottle long ago. People who want to find
> archaeological sites and monuments have no difficulty doing so. Many of
> them have been marked on OS maps for many years. Or they can get the
> information easily from the NMRs or SMRs. With the modern requirements
for
> freedom of information, I don't think that we could justify withholding
> information. The NMRS is about to back its online records, which offer
full
> information, with online mapping. I hope we will follow suit in due
course.
>
>
> In Humberside, in the early 1980s, I remember there was the full listing
of
> sites published by Loughlin and Miller. I also remember metal
detectorists
> telling me that they believed the grid references had been deliberately
> messed up to confuse them! This was not actually the case.
>
> No, the only answer is public education and raised awareness of they
should
> not damage sites, and why sites are of value to everyone, not just
> archaeologists.
>
> John Wood
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> John Wood
> Inverness
>
> This is a personal, not an official communication, and any opinions
> expressed do not necessarily represent those of my employer. It is
> confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s)
> only. You should not disclose its contents to any other person. If you
> are not the intended recipient please notify the sender named above
> immediately.
**** Buckinghamshire County Council E-mail Disclaimer ****
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended
recipient, the use of the information by disclosure, copying
or distribution is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have
received this email in error please notify the system manager
at [log in to unmask]
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been
swept by MailSweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
**** End of Disclaimer *********************************************
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it from South
Gloucestershire Council are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error
please notify the South Gloucestershire Council
Postmaster at the address below.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has
been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
[log in to unmask]
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
The views and comments expressed in this email are confidential to the
recipients
and should not be passed on to others without permission. This email message
does
not necessarily express the views of Bath & North East Somerset Council and
should
be considered personal unless there is a specific statement to the contrary.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for all
known viruses by the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service.
Making Bath & North East Somerset a better place to Live, Work and Visit.
**********************************************************************
|