 |
 |
Many thanks to all those of you who replied to my posting regarding DP and cataloguing guidelines. Here is a (belated) summary of the information shared with me in that regard. It seems a great many repositories are taking steps with regard to DP and donors/depositors, archive users and so on, but that as yet, fewer have set about tackling the issue of DP and archive catalogues. Almost without fail, I was pointed in the direction of the PRO/SoA/RMS 'Revised draft code of practice for records managers and archivists under s51 (4) of the Data Protection Act 1998'. This seems to be the main handbook for guidance on all DP matters - not just cataloguing. Another useful source is 'Records Management, Data Protection Act 1998. A guide for Records Managers and Archivists' (PRO, 2000). From a purely cataloguing perspective, Susan Healy drew my attention to guidance notes produced by the PRO on DP and the preparation of PRO finding aids. These notes deal with issues such as what is covered by DP legislation; the fact that piece/item descriptions need to be considered in conjunction with higher level descriptions (since the two used together may infringe DP rights); the fact that when drafting lists, decisions need to be made about what should be included in a description and whether the description can be made available immediately or should be withheld until a record is open. They conclude with a list of useful questions for the archivist to ask in order to reach such decisions. Some repositories have produced examples from their own holdings of types of catalogue description which might be liable to cause 'substantial damage or distress' under the terms of the Act. These include examples of libellous or obscene statements, data relating to physical or mental health, sexuality or political adherence, receipt of means tested financial support, crime and punishment issues, and so on. Most repositories appear to be assuming a life span of 100 years if an individual's death date is unknown. Some repositories are now including a statement at the beginning of their modern finding aids which, amongst other things, indicates that they contain data about living individuals with the proviso that every attempt has been made to ensure that all personal data has been processed fairly, lawfully and accurately. I'm sure this is something we should all be considering. Another issue which cropped up as a concern was whether producing catalogues electronically and mounting them on the web (therefore making them accessible from anywhere in the world) would contravene Principle 8 of the DPA. The general feeling is that web-based catalogues are exempt under the research exemption so long as the 'relevant conditions' as set out in the DPA are met. I hope that this summary is useful to some of you. Please don't hesitate to contact me if I can provide you with any further information about the responses received. Generally, it seems that whilst some repositories are already up and running with DP and cataloguing, others are only just beginning to take the implications on board. Thanks Lynda Lynda Crawford Assistant Archivist (Newcastle Estates Project) Department of Manuscripts and Special Collections Hallward Library University of Nottingham University Park Nottingham NG7 2RD Tel: 0115 951 4619 e-mail: [log in to unmask]