DPC
Records of Local Government
Records of Local Government
 |
||
|
Records from local government (i.e., below the state level) which are required for transparency and may be in many diverse forms, but in which the local authority may lack the capacity to manage the complex digital preservation requirements that arise. |
||
|
Digital Species: Public Records |
Trend in 2022:
|
Consensus Decision |
|
Added to List: 2019 |
Trend in 2023:
|
Previously: Critically Endangered |
|
Imminence of Action Action is recommended within twelve months, detailed assessment is a priority. |
Significance of Loss The loss of tools, data or services within this group would impact on people and sectors around the world. |
Effort to Preserve | Inevitability It would require a major effort to prevent or reduce losses in this group, possibly requiring the development of new preservation tools or techniques. |
|
Examples Born digital records of small and medium-sized agencies; fasting-changing internal manuals, advice or policies shared electronically; records of care services; Documentation supporting long-lived contractual relations like Public Finance Initiatives; Organizational Slack channels; network drives; EDRMS; Email. |
||
|
‘Practically Extinct’ in the Presence of Aggravating Conditions Lack of preservation infrastructure; conflation of backup with preservation; loss of authenticity or integrity; Long-lived business processes; poor storage; churn of staff; significant volumes or diversity of data; poorly developed digitization; ill-informed records management; poorly developed migration or normalization; long standing protocols or procedures that apply unsuitable paper processes to digital materials; encryption; political instability; lack of sustained funding. |
||
|
‘Endangered’ in the Presence of Good Practice Well managed data infrastructure; preservation enabled at the point of creation; carefully managed authenticity; use of persistent identifiers; finding aids; well managed records management processes; recognition of preservation requirements; strategic investment in digital preservation; preservation roadmap; participation in digital preservation community. |
||
|
2023 Review This entry was added in 2019 as a subset of a previous entry for ‘Records of long duration from Local Government or Other Government Agencies.’ The split was intended to allow greater concentration on the challenges that these distinct types of agency face. Local government typically operates across a broad range of digital formats and services, but it is unclear and unlikely that relatively small archival agencies are properly funded locally to support the wide range of digital preservation requirements that arise. The 2020 Jury noted a trend towards greater risk based on significant political and economic upheaval placing additional strain on local government and its agencies, making already vulnerable records at greater risk. Trends towards greater risk was also noted by the 2021 Jury and 2022 Taskforce, contributing examples like Grenfell to demonstrate the precarity of local government records, especially when these risks overlap with records of non-governmental agencies, resulting in significance and impact of loss, the impetus for action and call to governing frameworks where failing in enforcement (and depending on the jurisdiction). The 2023 Council generally agreed with the Critically Endangered classification with the overall risks remaining on the same basis as before (no change to the trend). |
||
|
Additional Comments The 2023 Council additionally recommended revisiting and rescoping this entry as part of the next major revision of the Bit List. Some Council members recommended splitting this entry into separate entries to differentiate the various risks associated with different types of digital public records, Others raised concerns regarding the breadth of records held by local government, and that it is perhaps not appropriate to have a distinct entry or split entries for records of local governments but rather provide examples of different kinds of public records in and across other entries The diversity of 'local government records' makes this category quite difficult to score. First, local governments have differing responsibilities in different jurisdictions. For example local governments in the UK have more responsibilities than in Australia. Also, given the number of local government agencies in a state or country, the quality of recordkeeping and digital preservation practice can vary greatly. Additionally, the variety of records that are created by local governments means that some formats or record types may be generally at low risk, while others may be practically extinct. Given this complexity it is important to make clear that the imminence of action, significance of loss, and effort to preserve are context-dependent and generalized. The main factors that reduce risk for these records are that local government is regulated, and there are clear recordkeeping standards that apply to digital records. Also they have consistent funding (although it may not be enough and may not be directed at digital preservation). We feel that due to the breadth of records held by local governments, it is perhaps not appropriate for them to have a distinct record series, but rather be a featured example of other series. This approach would still assist in advocacy for local government as they would be able to cross reference their digital holdings against these classifications. Significant research by the UK National Archives into Local Government Archives in England underlines the digital skills shortages that exist, especially with respect to preservation. There may be a benefit from splitting into a) legally required public record and b) additional information that may enrich our digital preservation of society. My assumption was that the roles and requirements for records management are clearly defined, but if this is not the case and there are inadequate resources to match the requirement, then the risk goes up. Case Studies or Examples:
|
||
Towards even greater risk
No ChangeRecords of Non-Governmental Agencies
Records of Non-Governmental Agencies
|
|
|
|
|
Records of independent agencies and contractors that act on behalf of the state in the delivery of public services, and which may be present in many diverse forms, but for which the NGO or contractors may lack the capacity to meet the complex digital preservation requirements that arise, or may have a business motive to minimize or ignore requirements for the maintenance of the record. |
||
|
Digital Species: Public Records |
Trend in 2022:
|
Consensus Decision |
|
Added to List: 2019 |
Trend in 2023:
|
Previously: Critically Endangered |
|
Imminence of Action Action is recommended within twelve months, detailed assessment is a priority. |
Significance of Loss The loss of tools, data or services within this group would impact on many people and sectors. |
Effort to Preserve | Inevitability It would require a major effort to prevent or reduce losses in this group, possibly requiring the development of new preservation tools or techniques. |
|
Examples Born digital records of small and medium-sized agencies; fasting-changing internal manuals, advice or policies shared on intranets or EDRMS; records of care services; historic guidelines and manuals which evidence 'best practice at the time'; Documentation supporting long-lived contractual relations like Public Finance Initiatives; Organizational Slack channels; network drives; EDRMS; Email |
||
|
‘Practically Extinct’ in the Presence of Aggravating Conditions Lack of preservation infrastructure; conflation of backup with preservation; loss of authenticity or integrity; Long-lived business processes; poor storage; churn of staff; significant volumes or diversity of data; poorly developed digitization specifications; ill-informed records management; poorly developed migration or normalizations specifications; longstanding protocols or procedures that apply unsuitable paper processes to digital materials; encryption; political instability; lack of sustained funding; denial of responsibility; failure to include archives within contract from commissioning agency. |
||
|
‘Endangered’ in the Presence of Good Practice Well managed data infrastructure; preservation enabled at the point of creation; carefully managed authenticity; use of persistent identifiers; finding aids; well managed records management processes; application of records management standards; recognition of preservation requirements at highest levels; strategic investment in digital preservation; transfer protocols to public archive; participation in digital preservation community. |
||
|
2023 Review This entry was added in 2019 as a subset of a previous entry for ‘Records of long duration from Local Government or Other Government Agencies.’ The split was intended to allow greater concentration on the challenges that these different types of agency face. Non-governmental organizations typically operate across a broad range of digital formats and services acting on behalf of the public sector. The 2020 Jury noted the trend towards greater risk based on 2020 being a year of significant political and economic upheaval, putting additional strain on NGOs in these circumstances already vulnerable records are likely to be at greater risk. Trends towards greater risk was also noted by the 2021 Jury and 2022 Taskforce, contributing examples like Grenfell to demonstrate the precarity of non-government agencies, especially when these risks overlap with those of local government, resulting in significance and impact of loss, the impetus for action and call to governing frameworks where failing in enforcement for these agencies (e.g., examining current recordkeeping regimes keeping them accountable). The 2023 Council generally agreed with the Critically Endangered classification with the overall risks remaining on the same basis as before (no change to the trend). |
||
|
Additional Comments The 2023 Council additionally recommended to revisit and rescope this entry as part of the next major revision of the Bit List. Some Council members recommended splitting this entry into separate entries to differentiate the various risks associated with different types of digital non-governmental records, Others suggested that it is perhaps not appropriate to have a distinct entry or split entries for records of non-governmental agencies but rather provide examples of different kinds of these digital materials in and across other entries. There is a large variation in the types of records held by NGOs. Additionally the quality of digital preservation performed by NGOs can vary widely. Therefore, the same approach to scoring was taken for this entry as the one above. We consider records of NGOs to be at greater risk due to there being less regulation, and the regulations that exist being less stringently enforced. An additional risk factor for these records is a blurring of the lines of responsibility, which can lead to records 'falling through gaps', or to difficulties funding digital preservation practice. This can be further complicated by outdated legislation which does not take into account the complexity of privatisation and public/private partnerships. For example the legislation that PROV operates under is 50 years old. This in turn can lead to regulation and enforcement being more complex than it is for government agencies. Case Studies or Examples:
See also:
|
||
Records of Quasi Non-Governmental Agencies
Records of Quasi Non-Governmental Agencies
| |
||
|
Records from agencies at arms-length to government whether locally, nationally or internationally. They may be required to maintain archives for the purposes of transparency, sometimes for extended periods, and sometimes in diverse and complicated forms. |
||
|
Digital Species: Public Records |
Trend in 2022:
|
Consensus Decision |
|
Added to List: 2019 |
Trend in 2023:
|
Previously: Critically Endangered |
|
Imminence of Action Action is recommended within twelve months, detailed assessment is a priority. |
Significance of Loss The loss of tools, data or services within this group would impact on people and sectors around the world. |
Effort to Preserve | Inevitability It would require a major effort to prevent or reduce losses in this group, possibly requiring the development of new preservation tools or techniques. |
|
Examples Records of non-executive state or national agencies; museum or leisure trusts; industry or public regulators; public audit services; public-good funding and investment agencies; autonomous and semi-autonomous public agencies; sovereign wealth funds; public/private partnerships; publicly owned companies. |
||
|
‘Practically Extinct’ in the Presence of Aggravating Conditions Lack of preservation infrastructure; conflation of backup with preservation; loss of authenticity or integrity; Long-lived business processes; poor storage; churn of staff; significant volumes or diversity of data; poorly developed digitization specifications; ill-informed records management; poorly developed migration or normalizations specifications; long standing protocols or procedures that apply unsuitable paper processes to digital materials; encryption; political instability; lack of sustained funding. |
||
|
‘Endangered’ in the Presence of Good Practice Well managed data infrastructure; preservation enabled at the point of creation; carefully managed authenticity; use of persistent identifiers; finding aids; well managed records management processes; application of records management standards; recognition of preservation requirements at highest levels; strategic investment in digital preservation; preservation roadmap; participation in digital preservation community. |
||
|
2023 Review This entry was added in 2019 as a subset of a previous entry for ‘Records of long duration from Local Government or Other Government Agencies.’ The split was intended to allow greater concentration on the challenges that these different types of agencies face. Records of quasi non-governmental agencies are at arm’s length to government, but the ’QuaNGO’ or ‘ALEO’ (Arms-Length Executive Organization) may lack the capacity to meet complex digital preservation requirements that arise, nor be able to deposit in the government archive. The 2021 Jury added that arm's length bodies are still public bodies, and they have a duty of care for maintaining evidence of their actions and transactions. They often receive public funding, and depending on the archives, legislation may be required to transfer to an archive. The issue is when there is a lack of clarity regarding the recordkeeping requirements or neglect of records and information once it has outlived its usefulness. These bodies still create records that affect citizen lives and have a duty to document, and therefore changed the classification from Endangered to Critically Endangered. The 2021 Jury and 2022 Taskforce noted a trend towards greater risk when looking at the precarity of records in QuaNGO agencies in periods of significant political and economic upheaval creating greater strains for funding to support preservation capacity. . The 2023 Council generally agreed with the Critically Endangered classification with the overall risks remaining on the same basis as before (no change to the trend). |
||
|
Additional Comments The 2023 Council additionally recommended to revisit and rescope this entry as part of the next major revision of the Bit List. recommended splitting this entry into separate entries to differentiate the various risks associated with different types of digital records of quasi non-governmental agencies, Others suggested that it is perhaps not appropriate to have a distinct entry or split entries but rather provide examples of different kinds of these digital materials in and across other entries. There is a large variation in the types of records held by QuaNGOs and/or ALEOs. Additionally the quality of digital preservation performed can vary widely. Therefore, the same approach to scoring was taken for this entry as the one above. Similar to the risks of NGOs, we consider these records to be at greater risk due to there being less regulation, and the regulations that exist being less stringently enforced. An additional risk factor for these records is a blurring of the lines of responsibility, which can lead to records 'falling through gaps', or to difficulties funding digital preservation practice. This can be further complicated by outdated legislation which does not take into account the complexity of privatisation and public/private partnerships. Although the split draws attention to the different pressures faced by QuaNGOs it could be further subdivided into legally required public records and additional information that may enrich our digital preservation of society. The classification assumes that the roles and requirements for records management are clearly defined, but if this is not the case or there are inadequate resources to match the requirements, then the risk goes up. While the 2022 trend shows increases in risk there are some green shoots of hope in Ireland found when working actively with the agencies, and communicating some of the concerns they have for their data so there's better awareness and hopefully that will turn into action. See also:
|
||
Unpublished Research Data
Unpublished Research Data
| |
||
|
Data sets produced in the course of research but never shared or made available outside of the initial research team. |
||
|
Digital Species: Research Outputs |
Trend in 2022:
|
Consensus Decision |
|
Added to List: 2019 |
Trend in 2023:
|
Previously: Practically Extinct |
|
Imminence of Action Action is recommended within twelve months, detailed assessment is a priority. |
Significance of Loss The loss of tools, data or services within this group would impact on people and sectors around the world. |
Effort to Preserve | Inevitability Loss seems likely: by the time tools or techniques have been developed the material will likely have been lost. |
|
Examples Unpublished research data can include different kinds of unpublished research data outputs, such as unstructured or structured datasets, databases, or other organized collections of computerized information or data such as periodical articles, books, graphics and multimedia |
||
|
‘Practically Extinct’ in the Presence of Aggravating Conditions Originating researcher no longer active or changed research focus; staff on temporary contracts; dependence on single student or staff member; weak or fluid institutional commitment to subject matter; weak institutional commitment to data sharing; complicated or contested intellectual property; encryption; limited or dysfunctional data management planning. |
||
|
‘Endangered’ in the Presence of Good Practice Replication and documentation; data management plan; preservation pathway agreed |
||
|
2023 Review This entry was added in 2019 as a subset of the ‘Unpublished Research Outputs’ reported in 2018, which was split into entries to draw attention to the different preservation requirements and concerns that arise. This entry relates specifically to research data which has not been shared or published by any means and is thus in contravention of the ‘FAIR’ principles which require data to be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable. Without proper planning, research data can have a high barrier to re-use, especially where documentation is lacking. The Jury takes the view that documentation and re-use go hand in hand, and researchers should be under no illusions that data not documented or shared faces material and immediate risks of extinction. Over the years, there have been numerous attempts to address the risk of data loss, and it was the 2019 Jury’s hope that this is now a small group. The 2021 Jury agreed with the description and Practically Extinct classification but added a trend towards reduced risk in light of more robust collaborative initiatives to jointly address the risk of data loss in and across research communities. The 2022 Taskforce agreed on a trend towards reduced risk based on material improvement over the last year that have not only offered examples of good research data management and preservation practices but also suggest a significant shift towards culture of change and collaboration across different research communities and stakeholders. These include (but are not limited to) improvements and initiatives by the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC), Science Europe, Research Data Alliance (RDA), Digital Curation Centre (DCC) and related projects on the preservation of research data and outputs. The 2023 Council changed the classification from Practically Extinct to Critically Endangered. This change was due to the fact that there is a positive trend of increased research data management activity and engagement by libraries, which should help to ensure that more research datasets are properly deposited in data repositories. There is a general trend across many if not most HEI libraries that are producing research to do more in terms of research data management and much larger part of what libraries do, with activities in this area growing and scaling up. However, the scale of unpublished datasets is hard to assess, as they are by definition unknown. Due to this, it was recommended that the classification change to Critically Endangered. |
||
|
Additional Comments If we do not know it exists, does it exist? It may also be that in certain circumstances this includes data that is unfavourable and has intentionally not been published. If perceived as high-value, someone in the research team will likely take steps to ensure it is protected. We can be proactive and offer advice, but ultimately it is down to them. We cannot keep everything! This is a wide field, so the scale and impact are hard to describe, but the risk is higher than papers due to potential file format complexity. Success is dependent on how successful an institution's research data management communications are. Advocacy and research are needed to show the scale of the problem, as well as education regarding open science and preservation. Simply having a data management plan prepared is not sufficient, it needs to be properly implemented and kept up to date and relevant for both the researcher and the repository which will take a copy of the data. DMP should be used to appraise what data is worth long term preservation (e.g. NERC Data Value Check List), and what data is of lower quality, non-reusable, and even a reputational risk should it be shared further. |
||
Material ImprovementData Posted to Defunct or Little-used Social Media Platforms
Data Posted to Defunct or Little-used Social Media Platforms
| |
||
|
Older or less widely used social media platforms to which content has been uploaded but for which no guarantees have been made about the long term. |
||
|
Digital Species: Social Media |
Trend in 2022:
|
Consensus Decision |
|
Added to List: 2019 |
Trend in 2023:
|
Previously: Critically Endangered |
|
Imminence of Action Immediate action necessary. Where detected should be stabilized and reported as a matter of urgency. |
Significance of Loss The loss of tools, data or services within this group would impact on many people and sectors. |
Effort to Preserve | Inevitability Loss seems inevitable: loss has already occurred or is expected to occur before tools or techniques develop. |
|
Examples BeBo, MySpace, Google Buzz. |
||
|
‘Practically Extinct’ in the Presence of Aggravating Conditions Closure of platform; lack of offline equivalent; lack of export functionality; no preservation undertaking from service provider; unstable business plan from service provider. |
||
|
‘Endangered’ in the Presence of Good Practice Offline Replication; clear notice periods and alerts; committed ongoing maintenance of service. |
||
|
2023 Review The 2019 Jury revived this entry from initial submission in 2017 that they were not able to assess at the time, added to the Bit List following the 2019 assessment to emphasize the different threats faced when attempting to preserve materials on older or defunct social media, emphasizing the different threats faced by social media users who uploaded content to defunct or little-used social media platforms. Because these services are older, the need to act is more urgent than for others. Often, the significance is only brought to attention once they are lost. The 2021 Jury noted a trend towards greater risk due to the existing risks of defunct or little-used platforms with recognition of the need to develop tools or techniques for applying to others that may follow the same path. The 2022 Taskforce agreed these risks remain on the same basis as before (‘no change’ to trend). The 2023 Council agreed with the Critically Endangered classification and noted an increase in imminence and effort to preserve, recognizing that while the need for major efforts to prevent or reduce losses continues on the same basis as before, it is now much more likely that loss of material has already occurred, and will continue to do so, by the time tools or techniques have been developed. Therefore, immediate action is necessary. |
||
|
Additional Comments The 2023 Bit List Council additionally recommends that the next major review for the Bit List includes a consideration of merging this entry with the ‘Consumer Social Media Free at the Point of Use’ entry to provide examples of loss prompted by aggravating conditions. The risk to this content depends on the specific service or platform, but older platforms (BeBo, MySpace) pose a higher risk of loss than current platforms (and is likely already lost) but social media wasn’t used to the same extent (and not as widely used by government, corporations, research institutions, etc.) in the early 2000s/2010s when these platforms were popular, which reduces the impact slightly. When looking at the digital preservation landscape and where we need to apply effort as well as resources, defunct early social media spaces are not high on the list; but, when considering how contemporary social media channels could become defunct, it becomes a different conversation because of how intrinsically tied they are to political discourse and influencing political opinion It is to be hoped that some of these have been archived via traditional web archiving, and so the remnants of these sites can be found in bits and pieces in various web archives, but it may be too late to save some of the content that is likely already lost. If some of this is still available, there may be hope in trying to preserve, but it may be difficult if the platforms are not willing to share data or work with preservationists. ArchiveTeam has stepped in here too. There is undoubtedly a story here that could be used as a call for arms to raise awareness about the preservation of current social media platforms too Case Studies or Examples:
|
||
Digital Archives of Community Groups
Digital Archives of Community Groups
| |
||
|
Digital materials including ephemera, correspondence and campaign materials created as a by-product of small scale or ad-hoc community action groups. |
||
|
Digital Species: Community Archives |
Trend in 2022:
|
Consensus Decision |
|
Added to List: 2019 |
Trend in 2023:
|
Previously: Critically Endangered |
|
Imminence of Action Action is recommended within three years, detailed assessment within one year. |
Significance of Loss The loss of tools, data or services within this group would impact on people and sectors around the world. |
Effort to Preserve | Inevitability It would require a major effort to prevent or reduce losses in this group, possibly requiring the development of new preservation tools or techniques. |
|
Examples Archives of smaller and ad-hoc political and campaigning organizations; environmental protests; sports clubs; smaller religious groups; amateur music or drama; fan groups. |
||
|
‘Practically Extinct’ in the Presence of Aggravating Conditions Poor documentation; lack of replication; lack of continuity funding; lack of residual mechanism; dependence on small number of volunteers, lack of preservation mandate; lack of preservation thinking at the outset; conflation of backup with preservation; conflation of access and preservation; inaccessible to web archiving; dependence on social media providers; distrust of ‘official’ agencies. |
||
|
‘Endangered’ in the Presence of Good Practice Residual archive with residual funding able to receive and support collections; active user community; intellectual property managed to enable preservation. |
||
|
2023 Review The Jury created this entry in 2019 as a subset of ‘Community Archives and Community-Generated Content’ which was split into two to provide greater specificity in recommendations for approaching the preservation of created as a by-product of small scale or ad-hoc community action groups (versus digital materials generated for significant purpose of a community initiative). There was a 2020 trend towards greater risk based on community groups such as sports clubs, religious communities, arts and political groups, often relying on volunteer effort, being unable to meet for extended periods in 2020. Moreover, the local community centres, clubs or places of worship on which they depend have closed, in some cases for good. This trend continued for 2021; the Jury commented that much of the content in community archives has easily preservable content just the resources are not directed towards them, basic digital preservation practices are not well embedded amongst the general population, and selective approaches are needed to get a handle on the situation and to find the resources to do the work. The 2023 Council agreed with the classification of Critically Endangered and discussed an increase in the significance of loss due to the fact that community heritage tends to be part of wider conversations within the international landscape. |
||
|
Additional Comments The 2023 Council additionally noted that the entry currently contains a broad spectrum of very diverse types of materials each with different preservation considerations. For this reason, they recommend that the next major review for the Bit List includes a rescoping or splitting of this entry to allow for a deeper discussion of the preservation issues that exist within this spectrum. Typically born digital material is more at risk - community groups may not know about the risk of loss. Many are unaware of digital preservation terminology. It is the ad-hoc nature of these groups and projects which is of great concern. There is a significant need to raise awareness and provide a ‘home’ but also to do so with sufficient sensitivity so as to ensure community groups remain in control of their own material. Communities who live in rural and remote areas may have a lack of access to services such as broadband connectivity, which is a well-reported issue and is often referred to as the “digital divide”. Inadequate internet connectivity would diminish the capacity for these communities to access digital preservation solutions, such as cloud storage for digital assets. This is especially prevalent with personal photos and videos on mobile phones as possession of a mobile phone does not necessarily mean the user has adequate internet connectivity to be able to upload videos to web-based platforms. AI could potentially be used to assist with easy access to simple, succinct explanations and principles of digital preservation and archiving solutions which would give these communities a wider understanding of the work being done and empower them to be able to do minimum digital preservation themselves. See also:
|
||
Digital Evidence and Records of Investigation Prior to Court
Digital Evidence and Records of Investigation Prior to Court
| |
||
|
Digital materials assessed by police and other authorities in the course of investigation and retained as evidence of due process such as case files and correspondence, including materials not submitted to court. |
||
|
Digital Species: Legal Data |
Trend in 2022:
|
Consensus Decision |
|
Added to List: 2019 |
Trend in 2023:
|
Previously: Critically Endangered |
|
Imminence of Action Action is recommended within twelve months, detailed assessment is a priority. |
Significance of Loss The loss of tools, data or services within this group would impact on people and sectors around the world. |
Effort to Preserve | Inevitability It would require a major effort to prevent losses in this group, such as the development of new preservation tools or techniques. |
|
Examples CCTV; Email; 3d scanning; social media interactions; police records; court records; text messages. |
||
|
‘Practically Extinct’ in the Presence of Aggravating Conditions Poor chain of custody; fragile or obsolete media; dependence on proprietary formats or products; lack or loss of documentation; inaccessible to web harvesting technologies; lack of version control; lack of integrity checks or integrity records; poor chain of custody. |
||
|
‘Endangered’ in the Presence of Good Practice Meticulous transfer and disclosure processes. |
||
|
2023 Review This entry was added in 2019 as an entry made in 2017 for ‘Digital Legal Records and Evidence,’ which the Jury split into four more discrete entries. This category includes evidence prior to court that may form part of an investigation or gathering of evidence but which are not formally submitted as evidence. It recognizes that police and other investigating authorities are not limited in the types of evidence that they need to administer, but that this creates an almost unbounded limit of preservation requirements to ensure authenticity and admissibility. A 2021 risk was identified based on examples bringing to question whether legal bodies have the skills and capabilities to preserve these materials should they need them if a case is reopened etc. The 2022 Taskforce found no significant trend towards greater or reduced risk. The 2023 Council agreed with the Critically Endangered classification with the overall risks remaining on the same basis as before (no change to the trend). |
||
|
Additional Comments In the International organizations realm, more and more of these investigative missions are being set up. They are collecting huge volumes of data and the same issues around chain of custody, integrity records/checks continue to be aggravating especially with respect to authenticity and admissibility. Given the potentially huge volumes of data, and the drive to keep costs low, it is debatable whether there will be sustained funding for preservation. Case files and correspondence are one thing: retention of these should be clear but may differ widely between jurisdictions and levels of government. If retention is not long-term or permanent, the risk of loss may not be so critical. Retention of 'unused' or 'potential' evidence is likely a different matter altogether. Is it even a record? Certainly, it is not a record of the court. Should it be returned to the suspect or accused? Are their rights being considered here - not just in terms of preservation, but also simply disposition? There may be legal and ethical issues around this that need to be fleshed out in conjunction with assessing its preservation risk. I was talking about forensic techniques with some law enforcement types a while back. Police forces tend only to have the resources to maintain forensic capability with relatively recent technology - for older technology, institutions and specialist companies are the only sources of expertise. This has an impact on cold cases. There have been many examples of convictions being overturned when previously unused evidence was brought to light. Therefore, the retention and preservation of unused evidence can have immense value. |
||
Evidence in Court
Evidence in Court
|
|
|
|
|
Digital materials presented in court as evidence or documents such as rulings and proceedings generated through legal proceedings |
||
|
Digital Species: Legal Data |
Trend in 2022:
|
Consensus Decision |
|
Added to List: 2017 |
Trend in 2023:
|
Previously: Critically Endangered |
|
Imminence of Action Action is recommended within three years, detailed assessment within one year. |
Significance of Loss The loss of tools, data or services within this group would impact on people and sectors around the world. |
Effort to Preserve | Inevitability It would require a major effort to address losses in this group, possibly requiring the development of new preservation tools or techniques. |
|
Examples Evidence submitted to courts of all kinds, including text messages, photography, CCTV, email, 3d and 2d scanning, scientific reports and analyses, documents and websites. |
||
|
‘Practically Extinct’ in the Presence of Aggravating Conditions Loss of context; loss of integrity; external dependencies; poor storage; lack of understanding; churn of staff; significant or diversity of data; poorly developed specifications; ill-informed records management; poorly developed transfer protocols; poorly developed migration or normalization; longstanding protocols or procedures that apply unsuitable paper processes to digital materials. |
||
|
‘Endangered’ in the Presence of Good Practice Well managed data infrastructure; preservation enabled at ingest; carefully managed authenticity; use of persistent identifiers; finding aids; well managed records management processes; recognition of preservation requirements at highest levels; strategic investment in digital preservation; preservation roadmap; participation in digital preservation community. |
||
|
2023 Review This entry is a subset of an entry made in 2019 titled ‘Proceedings and Evidence in Court,’ which was itself created as a subset of entry in 2017 for ‘Digital Legal Records and Evidence,’ The 2021 Jury split ‘Proceedings and Evidence in Court’ into two more discrete entries to highlight their distinct preservation challenges and risk profiles. This entry includes evidence that has been presented as evidence in court. It was given a Critically Endangered classification to highlight its higher risk profile and additionally emphasize that courts are not limited in the types of evidence that they can admit but that they have a responsibility to provide robust preservation that ensures the authenticity of their records and evidence. The 2022 Taskforce found no significant trend towards greater or reduced risk The 2023 Council agreed with the Critically Endangered classification with the overall risks remaining on the same basis as before (no change to the trend). They emphasized the importance that organizations with these materials should have identified preservation actions established in their workplan–for digital evidence of investigation prior to court–to put into practice within the next three years. |
||
|
Additional Comments Temporary courts are continuing to gradually close and decisions about preservation and management of their archives are being made hurriedly and at the last minute. Some of the decisions are placing materials at high risk due to; materials being split all over the place - including to entities with no capacity or capability to preserve them, a seeming lack of understanding that preservation and management of the archives has no completion date, an unwillingness to invest in preservation or a drive to keep costs low which is resulting in negative implications for preservation, hurried choices on preservation measures which are not allowing for proper testing of approaches to safeguard authenticity and legal admissibility (e.g. extracting digital data from complex systems in formats that can then potentially not be restored). Standard Records Management processes within designated agencies should be able to take care of the preservation of materials like this but given that it is likely to involve complex types of data, such agencies may not be equipped to deliver preservation effectively. It is surprising that courts are not more prominent in the digital preservation community, where solutions now exist. Case Studies or Examples:
More concrete examples would be welcome. It is the evidentiary value of submissions to court that may be lost, and therefore veracity of the decision could be questioned. Evidence submitted in digital form is of greater risk (e.g., a video file submitted on a CD in the 90s) than records of the proceedings themselves (e.g., transcripts). |
||
Legacy Research Web Collections
Legacy Research Web Collections
| |
||
|
Research related collections of digital content on the web which are now outdated and/or no longer actively maintained. This can include software and published or unpublished source code. |
||
|
Digital Species: Web, Research Outputs |
Trend in 2022:
|
Consensus Decision |
|
Added to List: 2019 |
Trend in 2023:
|
Previously: Critically Endangered |
|
Imminence of Action Action is recommended within twelve months, detailed assessment is a priority. |
Significance of Loss The loss of tools, data or services within this group would impact on people and sectors around the world. |
Effort to Preserve | Inevitability Loss seems likely: by the time tools or techniques have been developed the material will likely have been lost. |
|
Examples Academic and institutional websites from the first decade of the web containing details of research projects and interests as well as research data. |
||
|
‘Practically Extinct’ in the Presence of Aggravating Conditions Inaccessible to web archive; bespoke code; insufficient documentation; uncertain intellectual property right. |
||
|
‘Endangered’ in the Presence of Good Practice Secured by web archive; documentation and rights information published alongside. |
||
|
2023 Review This entry was added in 2019. There are overlaps with the entry with the ‘Semi-Published Research Data’ entry, and also ‘Unpublished Research Data,’ but it is a separate entry to distinguish between ‘current’ and ‘legacy’ collections with different risk profiles: in this case, the fact that materials of legacy web collections are no longer actively maintained increased the classification to Critically Endangered in comparison to Endangered Semi-Published Research Data. The 2021 Jury agreed with these distinctions, adding that loss has already occurred and future loss can be prevented through approaches such as web archiving and code preservation; however, risks had become greater notably over the preceding years due to security issues posed by hosting legacy technology software and services which prompted disposal of content imminently without adequate review or selection. Therefore, there was a 2021 risk towards increased risk to reflect this. The 2022 Taskforce agreed with this assessment, noting no change to the trend (it remained on the same basis as reported in 2021). The 2023 Council agreed with the Critically Endangered classification and noted greater inevitability of loss compared to previous reviews. Additionally, the Council recommended that a nomination for consideration as a Bit List entry, for an entry on unpublished digital indices and transcriptions in the DIMEV Open-Access Digital Edition of the Index of Middle English Verse, would provide a valuable example to this entry rather than as a new, standalone entry. |
||
|
Additional Comments The 2023 Council additionally recommended that the next major review considers rescoping the entry, possibly splitting this entry into separate areas to assess different levels of risk relating to published and unpublished source code in legacy research web collections. These collections are valuable but lose funding and care as institutions re-configure their tasks and individuals retreat from tasks due to retirement or (as volunteers) to old age. There are an endless number of legacy research web resources out there that people don’t know about. Not necessarily a technical challenge but a resource challenge. The Internet Archive and other national web archiving bodies have copies of a lot of websites that would fit into this category but by no means all. There’s also a distinction between the software or code used to deliver the user experience and the data. Such code is secondary to the content. This issue can be intensified by the legacy IT Infrastructure in cases where much of the content is hosted there, as security concerns may lead to disposal of content imminently. In these scenarios, their imminence of action becomes more urgent given the security issues posed by hosting legacy technology/software/etc. Case Studies or Examples:
|
||
Media Inside Paper Files
Media Inside Paper Files
| |
||
|
Media inside paper files occurred in records since the 1980s and will continue to do so for many years. |
||
|
Digital Species: Portable Media |
Trend in 2022:
|
Consensus Decision |
|
Added to List: 2019 |
Trend in 2023:
|
Previously: Critically Endangered |
|
Imminence of Action Action is recommended within three years, detailed assessment within one year. |
Significance of Loss The loss of tools, data or services within this group would impact on people and sectors around the world. |
Effort to Preserve | Inevitability It would require a major effort to prevent or reduce losses in this group, possibly requiring the development of new preservation tools or techniques. |
|
Examples Digital media mixed with paper files in records offices and filing cabinets of almost every kind of enterprise. |
||
|
‘Practically Extinct’ in the Presence of Aggravating Conditions Unsustainable effort to assess; exotic or obsolete media; poor storage; lack of descriptive labelling. |
||
|
‘Endangered’ in the Presence of Good Practice Carefully labelled; managed programme of assessment and retrieval; robust media used. |
||
|
2023 Review This entry was added in 2019 to report the significant amounts of digital media being transferred to archives folded into traditional files. The 2019 Jury noted that it is relatively simple to preserve this material once identified using standard tools, but it can be an ‘unknown unknown,’ and that assessment can seem overwhelming and, therefore it may overlap with other portable media risks but has a higher risk classification. The 2021 Jury agreed on a 2021 trend towards greater risk due to the increased time sensitivity and need for conducting collection audits as soon as possible, in order to determine what you have to then work out a plan about opening carriers, assessing files, and extracting them if significant. The 2023 Council agreed with the risk classification of Critically Endangered with the overall risks remaining on the same basis as before (no change to the trend). |
||
|
Additional Comments This is highly dependent on who is looking after the portable formats. There are good examples, for example in libraries, where disks are stored at the back of books or in front of magazines and can be processed at the point of acquisition. In archives, however, dealing with bit-level preservation of external media (often on legacy formats) is largely an unquantified problem, and so resource commitments will not be in place. So, there is a method and tools but simply no time committed and no proper assessment either. In other agencies, the issue will not have even been considered, and for them, it will be much harder over time with some inevitable loss. |
||