A couple of months ago, based on the current political climate in the US, I wrote a short article on impermanence and trust. I lamented that all of the certifiable research that has already been accepted as fact on climate change and in other scientific and socially scientific areas could be easily wiped away and/or discounted by a government; and if not by the government, it is still relatively easy for those entities in positions of wealth and power to make it disappear, literally and figuratively. What a loss, and what a roadblock to progress. I envisioned librarians and archivists as the keepers of knowledge (somewhat like Maesters in Game of Thrones, but more share-y) and that one role libraries, librarians, and archivists can play now and in the future is one of authenticator or verifier of information. At the time, I was aware of bitcoin, but I don’t think I was aware of its technological foundation, blockchain.
Fast-forward a couple of semesters and I found myself in Bucharest at what can only be described as an Open Accessconference, but applied to every facet of society. In one session entitled “Seeds of Utopia,” Adina Popescu (an AR, VR and blockchain entrepreneur) explained the use of blockchain in her work as a consultant on a European environmental project and how it would protect environmental data. It became very clear to me in that moment that libraries and librarians should definitely be involved in blockchain. Two weeks later, at the Internet Librarian International (ILI) conference in London, Alex Green from UK’s National Archives spoke on their Archangel project, which will use blockchain to ensure records are verifiable and authentic, and to protect heritage and data. They are seeking collaborators, so I spoke with Green after her presentation to connect her to the work of Drs. Sandra Hirsh and Sue Alman.
Blockchain, in a nutshell, is a decentralized verification system, called blockchain because it is a series, or chain, of blocks that verify the information in a previous block has not been altered. Any type of information can be contained within a block, and to change the original information, a new block must be created and reverified. What makes this process decentralized is that there is no centralized authority to ensure validity. Instead there are a series of nodes stored on decentralized computers that perform a number of complex calculations to prove the block is indeed valid. These nodes are part of a peer-to-peer network, where each node’s ability to perform these calculations demonstrates they are worthy of that role. Additionally, a complete copy of the blockchain is stored on the server of each node, so that records are immutable, and any alterations are traced, tracked, and documented.
There has been some speculation around how blockchain, or decentralization, can be used in the library and information sciences, which we can look at with both a magnifying glass and a telescope. Close up, we can think about the protection of data in privacy and security. Because data is not stored on any one server, but is spread out across a series of servers, if one copy is deleted many other copies remain. The programming details of how this works may not be of interest to all LIS practitioners, but the possibilities of its use are endless. Medical records can be securely stored, controlled, shared, and unshared by the patient, and not owned by the doctor’s office or insurance company. Certified credentials and degrees can be owned by the receiver of those items and shared with HR departments and educational institutions when requested. Museums and archives can verify the provenance and metadata of items, and can store digital versions and digitally-born items securely. The opportunities with blockchain are as small as social security numbers, and as large as the inner-workings of smart cities.
Pulling back, we can think about the big picture of decentralization and what effects it can have on a society that so greatly leans on technology as a tool/crutch. Removing centralization can democratize the sharing and access of information, and allows the control of this information to be entrusted to and carried by the hands of the user rather than by a corporation or a government body. Libraries and archives can act as containers for this information and/or as verifiers of the authenticity of the information they hold. As we are currently embedded in a centralized sharing economy we can envision a decentralized version to benefit not just the corporation or shareholders, but those creating the data/product. Due to their technological prowess, we have relied on corporations to create and manage the architecture of this information sharing — think OCLC, Facebook, Airbnb. But imagine smaller, mini internets, closed systems and consortiums, that serve to protect data that is created, while simultaneously providing that data as open access.
Before you feel I am leading you down the garden path, there are of course drawbacks and issues associated with decentralization, primarily those around cost, trust, tech ability, and hackability, which are all important to be explored and considered. Blockchain and decentralized technology will pan out differently from one nation, society, or entity to another, based upon on the norms, values, and intentions behind incorporation of these emerging systems.
So what does blockchain mean for the LIS professional? It means an expansion of our responsibilities to include not only the use and instruction of emerging technologies, but their creation and provision. It means envisioning different ways of approaching our edified structures: Museums, Libraries, Education, Publishing. It does not mean throwing out all of our current technology for the sake of using blockchain, but rather in thinking creatively about how our current processes can be improved through the use of decentralization to facilitate access, and to protect resources and potentially invaluable items of political, legal and scientific interest. This can be seen in cases like the Archangel Project, The Public Knowledge Project, LibChain, and others.
Libraries, archives, librarians, and archivists are sitting at the cutting edge of progress in this area, and while there are risks involved with being an early adopter for any type of technology, blockchain is definitely worth our exploration. As a field, we should identify and claim our own role in this decentralized and democratized method of knowledge guardianship. It is what current circumstances require of us.
Note: This article appears in the May 2019 issue of Archeota
MmePrice 