Understanding concepts of access and privacy in information is a necessary prerequisite to the developing of information policies at the institutional, regional, national and international level. Users – scholars and other researchers – and gatekeepers – library and archive administrators – of information need to be versed in the implications of decisions regarding access and privacy. New communication technologies such as those associated with the Internet work to minimize barriers to access while conversely working to increase vulnerability of privacy. Thus new technologies work to erode barriers to information while making information control and regulation more difficult. In short, new technologies combined with shifting normative behaviors regarding the use of those technologies to create, acquire, access and transfer information are pressuring existing paradigms of information access and control. This paper will explore these shifting and developing information boundaries by identifying common themes and differences in information regulation and policy-making approaches. Focus will be on access policy formation and privacy issues.

When examining information and communications policy, Ferguson (1998) articulated seven elements: technology, infrastructure, access, content, world information flows, private industry and national and regional initiatives, and multilateral organizations and intergovernmental understandings and treaties. Given the current state of information technology, Ferguson asserts that "technology determines infrastructure, infrastructure determines access, and access determines content that leads to world information flows." While this may be a very simplistic model of international communications policy development, it does point to the dramatic change that technology has imposed on access. Technology, and the infrastructure it forms, does indeed determine access.

Access to information technologies varies enormously throughout the world. Participation in the global community will in the future, if not already, be determined by access to communications, or information, technologies. In countries where access to basic communications services are beyond the reach of many people, policy development in anticipation of improved information infrastructure development may be a goal worthy of examination. While universal service has been heralded as the guarantee of the future, in reality this ideal has never been clearly articulated. Private industry, focussing on maximizing profits, does not want to be in the "business" of providing community services. It is up to the public sector to insure that policy development proceeds as a proactive, planned, explicit activity rather than as a series of ad hoc pieces developed in response to technological advancements.

In the United States, the development of a "national information infrastructure" (NII) can serve to illustrate the various points of view brought to information policy formation at the national level. The passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the events leading up to it illustrate the NII that would connect homes, businesses, universities, schools, and government offices. It was the most visible of several initiatives intended to create a national information infrastructure.

The NII has been defined as many things, but a common thread is that it is a governmental vision of the future of an advanced telecommunications network. More specifically it can be described as "a seamless web of communications networks, computers, databases, and consumer electronics that will put vast amounts of information at users' fingertips." (Case, 1998) The development of a national information policy in the United States has been characterized by differences of opinion based upon the interests of the various stakeholders in the process: corporate players such as telephone and cable companies and the computer industry, public interest groups such as Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, the American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union, and traditional policy makers such as government agencies. All of these stakeholders have pre-existing agendas, and their opinions about how policy formation should proceed are based, obviously, on these agendas. Case has reviewed numerous reports from the various stakeholders and has categorized their views into four groups formed by contrasting political views on two dimensions (based on the work of Dutton et al): the degree to which the infrastructure should be (or is) a commercial initiative and the degree to which is should be (or is) restricted by private or public interests:

In this model, the "Public-Led" viewpoint argues for a network designed with the public interest in mind, whether that be by government or non-government organizations. The "Market-Led" viewpoint says that NII development ought to be left to market forces, based on demand and supply. The "Restriction" camp identifies those who argue that the NII will be subject to either too much regulation by the state, or too much manipulation by private companies. The "Promotion" viewpoint argues that the NII will be overwhelmingly beneficial for everyone despite any of the concerns voiced by the Restriction camp. The four resulting idealized policy viewpoints are described by Dutton, et al as follows:

"Enthusiasts" typically see the public sector playing a key role in fulfilling their belief in the importance of promoting the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs)... Although "guardians" also see the need for public-led policies to harness the real momentum and potential of ICTs, they tend to see the public interest threatened by the development of an information superhighway...The "skeptics" generally have argued that the superhighway is little more than 'hype,' driven by the supply industry and technological visionaries-rather than by real market demand from business or the public at large... "Deregulators" are also "enthusiasts" in terms of promoting technology, but argue for 'government to get out of the way" by removing constraints on business behavior through the undertaking of comprehensive deregulation."

What Case found in using this classification scheme highlights the priorities of each stakeholder group (government, business, education, public interest). Promotional visions of NII are common to all groups – little conflict appeared in the documents examined by Case. Other goals of the federal government are obviously at odds with the goals of business: lack of incentive for business to service poor populations, for instance. This divergence of goals further segregates the information rich from the information poor and policy statements such as that promoting "universal service" provide little beyond resources for public institutions such as schools, libraries and hospitals.

Educators and community groups are also in agreement with government and business when it comes to "Promotional" views of the NII. Educators see themselves as preparing students for employment and public interest groups see the NII as a source of more employment opportunities for the disadvantages.

The "Restrictive" point of view often arises from grass roots initiatives. Issues such as freedom of speech, for instance, including a concern about the division of providers of channels with providers of content are illustrative of this category. While the "Promotional" view holds that content will consist of factual information and opportunities for public exchange, concerns of the "Restrictive" group are that content will be dominated by "entertainment" programming, including advertising.

This brief description of Case's use of Dutton et al's classification scheme for examining stakeholders' viewpoints regarding the NII is necessarily brief and incomplete. It should, I hope, prompt you to consider the complexity of coming to consensus in terms of information policy. Not only do contradictory viewpoints prevent consensus, but these disagreements are complicated by common goals on some key issues. No agreement has yet come to light on whether policies should serve as incentive enhancements or regulatory mechanisms. A key issue that provokes strong disagreement as well as concurrent agreement among U.S. policy discussants is privacy.

As access issues are discussed, the importance of dealing with the question of privacy becomes more and more apparent. While there is no universal agreement about what "privacy" is, it is of considerable and increasing concern to most ICT stakeholders. The critical question has become: how do we balance the need to use information (by government, business, and individuals) with the natural desire of individuals to decide what information about themselves will be exposed to others? (Metivier-Carreiro & LaFollette, 1997) Information privacy protection efforts in the United States are generally reactive than proactive: policies are adopted in response to incidents of nonconsensual disclosure involving readily discernible harm. This piecemeal approach to privacy protection has made it difficult to afford consistent and comprehensive attention to the issue. (Severson, 1997)

So what is the best mechanism to implement fair information practices that balance the needs of government, commerce and individual? Three tenets must be adhered to: first, an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy regarding access to and use of his personal information should be assured. Second, personal information should not be improperly altered or destroyed. Third, personal information should be accurate, timely, complete and relevant for the purposes for which it is provided and used. Information ethics must make up for the lack of comprehensive legal protection by encouraging policy makers to be strong moral advocates for personal privacy. Companies such as AT&T can serve as examples by earning the trust of their customers by taking measures to ensure privacy. Policies adopted by conscientious companies can serve information providers as well:

Privacy is one of the key ingredients of a free people. Records about how people use information technologies have become increasingly sensitive as these technologies are incorporated into all facets of our lives. As information professionals, we are responsible for insuring that these records, the scope of which is enormous, are not abused.

In summary, I would like to reiterate the relationship between access and privacy: increasingly sophisticated technologies have resulted in enormously comprehensive records about how people access and use information. These activities must be protected along with the privacy of the users. Policy makers must adopt the moral high road and insure that information users can take full advantage of the resources available to them without fear of having records of that use misused.

Resources

1. Case, Donald O. (1998). Enthusiasts, deregulators, guardians, and skeptics: contrasting policy viewpoints on the national information infrastructure. Library & Information Science Research 20:377-413.
2. Ferguson, Kerry. (1998). World information flows and the impact of new technology. Social Science Computer Review 16:252-267.
3. Kubicek, Herbert, et al. (1997). The Social Shaping of Information Superhighways. Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag.
4. Metivier-Carreiro, Karen A. and LaFollette, Marcel C. (1997). Balancing cyberspace promise, privacy, and protection – tracking the debate. Science Communication 19:3-20.
5. Severson, Richard J. (1995). Principles of Information Ethics. New York: M.E. Sharpe.