Proposal being processed in the Senate suggests that, after digitizing, documents be destroyed
The Federal Senate is making adjustments for the publication of the so-called “Archive Burning” Bill (PL nº 7.920/2017, by Senator Magno Malta), which legalizes the elimination of original archival documents, after their digitization and archiving in media optical or electronic, whether by “incineration, mechanical destruction or any other procedure that ensures the disintegration of the document”. In the Chamber of Deputies, a public hearing has been confirmed for September 13th, at 14 pm (in Plenary 10), officially scheduled to debate the importance of archival institutions in the preservation and dissemination of historical and cultural records.
In fact, one of the objectives of representatives of the archival community and groups that deal with the issue of memory is to include the discussion of the bill on the agenda and achieve, if not its archiving, at least the blocking of publication, gaining
time for discussion and introduction of changes to the text. The Edgard Leuenroth Archive, from the Institute of Philosophy and Human Sciences (AEL/IFCH) at Unicamp, in addition to participating in the discussion table at the public hearing, will organize a photographic exhibition at Espaço Mário Covas da Câmara (on the 12th, 13th and 14th of September), contributing to raising awareness around the topic.
Humberto Celeste Innarelli, technical director of AEL, who has been researching and working with digital archival documents for almost 20 years within Unicamp, disclosed personal manifesto remembering that the text fragments of the bill are not sufficient to guarantee the preservation of digitized documents. “There is a very large movement among professionals involved in the archives area so that this law is not approved or, as a last resort, changes are made to the text to avoid minimal risks to preservation. How is it possible to permanently replace an original archival document without guaranteeing the preservation of the digitized document?”
Innarelli explains that technically, within the policy adopted for institutional archives, there are three ages: the current archive, the intermediate archive and the permanent archive. “A purchase request, for example, has its first phase as a current document, until the requested product arrives, when it passes to the intermediate file – where its custody is important for legal issues. It is the same case with the water bill, which consumers are advised to keep for five years before disposal.”
After fulfilling its "legal value", adds the technical director of AEL, a document can have two destinations: elimination, with the complete destruction of information, or the permanent archive, where it is preserved for an indefinite period of time for historical, evidentiary and of research. “There are two archival tools to manage document flow: the classification plan and the document temporality table (TTD) – which determines, based on the classification of documents, the storage periods for each age and their destination. The project under discussion makes current and intermediate documents subject to elimination; documents classified as permanent can be digitized, but not deleted.”
Innarelli clarifies that he is not against the digitization of replacement documents considered non-permanent in TTDs or others whose support has become obsolete or no longer supports the recorded information. “Digitalization can be carried out by adopting institutional processes, rules and regulations in a responsible manner that does not pose risks to the functioning and memory of the institution. However, I am against a law that authorizes the elimination of originals without the slightest concern for preservation policies for digital archival documents – including digitized ones. Not to mention other issues – authenticity, evaluation, temporality, terminology, digital certification – addressed by scholars in the field.”
The technical director of AEL, who is the author of a doctoral thesis (2015) on the development of policies for the preservation of digital archival documents within institutions, states that the majority of institutions do not have such policies. “We have at the National Archives Council (Conarq) the Technical Chamber of Electronic Documents (CTDE), with experts who discuss digital management and preservation policies and computerized systems. Today there are already specific tools and groups in Brazil that can help in the development of these policies. Other than that, there are foreign projects, such as InterPares, from the University of British Columbia (Canada), which would easily serve as a parameter.”
historical value
Aldair Carlos Rodrigues, professor at the Department of History at Unicamp and deputy director of AEL, be aware that documents considered unimportant by the classification plan and document temporality table may be fundamental in explaining past phenomena. “The interests of the present in the past change over time. Furthermore, we must take into account the consequences of digitization, for example, for the field of the history of written culture, where the materiality of the document is very important in research. Its destruction would make a series of research in this direction unfeasible, as depending on the approach and issue being analyzed, contact with the document is essential.”
In Rodrigues' opinion, the project being processed in the Senate does not have technical support, as its preparation was carried out unilaterally. “Professionals with specific training in this area point out several flaws in the project and are not listened to, they are being run over. These technicians have chambers where they discuss issues such as digital preservation and have already taken a position, a position that has been ignored. The hearing will be important to bring in other voices that will be directly affected by this PL. We want to make the process more complex, showing its importance for memory preservation institutions and for researchers in the humanities, mainly.”
Humberto Innarelli ignores who the “real” authors of the project are, assuming, based on the language used in the text, that they are not laypeople in the area. “They understand archives, however, they are not actually concerned with the preservation of digital archival documents nor with the historical value of the originals. We should not demonize the paper document, due to the space it takes up and the costs of personnel and maintenance – this is the political justification for its elimination. Digitization brings advantages such as ease of availability and access, but It's unknown when it comes to cost reduction, as it will require specialized teams and constant investment in advanced equipment; it's very difficult to quantify this value. I believe the costs are equivalent."
Heavy lobby
This bill has been in progress for ten years, since it was presented under nº 146/2007 and provoked a manifesto from entities representing archivists, historians, social scientists and anthropologists. The manifesto warned that the destruction of original documents after their digitization could cast doubt on the authenticity of public documents, making future verification impossible in the event of suspected fraud, “which could be considered a true 'file burning'”. At the time, the Amnesty Commission, the Commission for Relatives of the Dead and Missing and the Torture Never Again Movement, as well as other groups, feared seeing their work compromised, as they depended on authentic and reliable documents.
According to Innarelli, there is a heavy lobby from digitization and equipment companies to approve the project, with the interest of offering services to governments, which would hardly have the technical capacity and infrastructure to digitize all existing documentation. “In the first attempt to approve the project (Law nº 12.682, of July 2012) there was sensitivity that it would not be approved, so much so that it suffered a series of vetoes – and one of the main ones was exactly that original documents could be eliminated after digitization , due to the risk of simply erasing the memory of the period. Furthermore, the lack of preservation policies for digital archival documents brings the risk of chaos and paralysis of institutions in the event, for example, of a computer system collapse.”
SIARQ manages archival processes at Unicamp
The File System Central Archive (SIARQ) is the Unicamp body responsible for the classification plan and the temporality table, established by a multidisciplinary committee, which aim to decide whether or not a document is subject to deletion. “The idea of eliminating the Lei Áurea document, kept in the National Archives of Brazil, after its digitization, cannot be conceived. It is an iconic document, which represents a permanent document. Every day the University produces permanent documents, such as a university council minutes, a thesis, an architectural plan representing a master plan; to the Sometimes, a set devoid of administrative interest may be of historical interest and must be preserved in its originality and integrity”, exemplifies the coordinator of the SIARQ, Neire do Rossio Martins, in letter (link) sent to JU.
PL 7.920/2017, according to Neire Martins, provides that original paper documents, permanently stored, must be maintained as such, even if digitized. “The question posed is about the identification of permanent documents produced and accumulated in archives, sheds and warehouses spread across public administrations, without any treatment. But the project is not clear about the commitment to require that, before digitizing accumulated masses of paper documents, careful management and evaluation work be carried out, following approved and published temporality tables, and group guidance made up of multidisciplinary professionals. It will not be the digitization process, in itself, that will magically do this work.”
The SIARQ coordinator states that even outsourced companies hired for digitization must be guided and supervised to comply with the archival regulations of the contracting body. “The concern of archival professionals, researchers and citizens is that without compliance with the requirements determined by the Constitution and the Archives Law appearing in the PL, a race for digitization will be created and the irreparable loss of original permanent documents will be promoted. Public administrations that do not strengthen archival institutions may place documentary heritage in the hands of third parties (digitization companies and registry offices) – a public asset that, ultimately, gives identity to a nation.”
About PL 146/2007 | Neire do Rossio Martins
