Author Archives: Admin

2018 annual gathering!

We are very pleased to announce that on the 1st September 2018, the Radical Librarians Collective’s annual gathering will be taking in Leeds!

The day will be held at:

East Street Arts (HQ)
Patrick Studios,
St.Mary’s Lane,
Leeds, LS9 7EH

To book your self a ticket, please see the Eventbrite page!-

Statement condemning SCL/UKVI deal

Participants of the Radical Librarians Collective condemn the deal between the Society of Chief Librarians and UK Visas and Immigration. We call on library and information workers to sign this statement by emailing us at, and to help resist the deal and its implications for the future of public library services.

Since 2010, the Home Office has been ruthless in its pursuit to effect ‘hostile environment’ policies which up until recently introduced de facto border controls in schools, hospitals and banks as well as used charity data to deport homeless migrants (Bradley, 2018; Hall, 2018; Taylor, 2018).

Last year, a freedom of information request by the BBC highlighted a secret agreement between the Home Office, the Department of Health and NHS Digital. It revealed that ‘NHS Digital was sharing confidential patient information collected by frontline services with the Home Office on an industrial scale to help it locate and deport undocumented people’ (Bradley, 2018). Although the government has since U-turned on some of these breathtakingly underhand arrangements, questions remain about the degree to which Home Office initiatives combined with public services could foster a culture or perception of informal gate-keeping, ‘because of new duties put on [staff]’ (Campbell, 2018).

This represents only part of the concern about the deal that was recently struck between the Society of Chief Librarians (SCL) and an initiative ‘to support applicants for in-country visas on behalf of UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI)’ (Bernard, 2018).

Any system which boasts that it will ‘streamline’ services whilst dealing with complex issues such as the immigration status of individuals should be carefully scrutinised, particularly as many are concerned about the impacts of such a stress test on an already demoralised front-line workforce. There is some evidence indicating that the scanning service is already at risk of failing applicants who then ‘cannot re-submit any documents at a later date’ if there is an administrative or communication error (, 2017). Although SCL have said in their recent statement on Twitter that library staff would not know the results of visa applications, the fact remains that they represent the human face of such transactions and may be put under pressure to offer advice that they are not qualified to give (UKSCL, 2018).

The firm contracted to deliver the service, Sopra Steria, has also been linked to a colossal loss of patient data between 2011 and 2016 (Campbell and Duncan, 2017).

Library staff are also deeply concerned about:

  • Library workers being seen as agents of the application process rather than offering independent help and support, thereby undermining the crucial role of libraries as trusted spaces for all;
  • SCL acquiescing to, and public libraries participating in, a softer but arguably more insidious form of gate-keeping following the Windrush scandal, which would allow HO divisions to take advantage of the largely open, inclusive and supportive role of public libraries, to attract undocumented or otherwise vulnerable people (and equally for users to be put off from using library services. See: Littlejohn, 2018);
  • SCL capitulating to pressure for libraries to ‘demonstrate their value’, by enabling conditions to shape the nature of service delivery in ways that run counter to the ethics that should be present in such spaces (IFLA/UNESCO Multicultural Library Manifesto);
  • the strain such initiatives will likely impose on workers who are already under considerable pressure to provide support or guidance on often complex, sometimes life-changing decisions (employment, benefits, housing), which exist outside their remit and for which there is minimal support available;
  • how any further mishandling of private data by Sopra Steria may negatively affect the positive public perception of libraries as trusted services;
  • how outcomes of the partnership will likely influence public libraries’ key performance targets;
  • setting a precedent for outsourcing immigration services to public libraries at a time when such unethical pressures on public service workers should be rolled back.

If we are serious about achieving a more inclusive and diverse public library service which actually cares about breaking the glass ceiling for minorities, asylum seekers, refugees, temporary residents and migrant workers in the UK, we need to start by protecting and restoring the foundations of our public library services in order meet our statutory obligations ‘to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service for all persons’. This includes taking the ‘radical’ step of adequately funding libraries to serve culturally diverse communities, ‘as an integral part of any library’s full range of library and information services, rather than an isolated or additional part’ (IFLA/UNESCO, 2006; Leong, 2016), and diversifying the library workforce so that library users can see themselves represented (see Bayjoo, 2018).

We believe that the creeping normalisation and increased presence of Home Office divisions in public libraries will actively work against the creation of an inclusive and diverse public library service. This is especially important considering that it can no longer be claimed that the recent ‘Windrush’ crisis was simply an administrative error – an unintended consequence of successive immigration regimes. It was a result of repeated and concerted efforts to appear tough on migration, and we now know that ministers were fully aware of the impacts of such policies (Perkins and Gentleman, 2018). As such, as library and information workers, we need to think critically about the incremental impact of such proposals, and resist the death of library ethics by a thousand cuts.


Kevin Sanders
Camille Herault
Emily Nunn
Simon Bowie
Eve Lacey
Angus Sinclair
Diana Stevenson
Alice Corble
Sarah Arkle
Liam Livesley
Morgan Wilkinson
Dan Grace
Mike Saunders
Steve Carlton
Emily Prince
Rebecca Oliva
Layla-Roxanne Hill
Alex Clarke
Matthew Fellion
Stuart Lawson
Siobhán Britton
Charles Oppenheim
Pete Smith
Bryony Ramsden
Jen Fox
Clare Playforth
Martyn Everett
Sibyl Ruth
SarahLouise McDonald
Madeleine Noor Baker
Matt Imrie
Catherine Riches
Julie Hart
Kristina Macdonald
Lloyd Roderick
Library Freedom Project
Mike Stores
Owen McKnight
Sue Taylor
Lauren Smith
Katy Wrathall
Solomon Clarke
Johanna Anderson
Rosie Hare
Daniel Payne
Jonas Herriot
Katie McNamara
Jen Bayjoo
Ellie Clement
YiWen Hon
Mobeena Khan
Karen Raynor
David Hughes
Tom Maher
Dan Holden
Kate O’Neill
Jenny Foster
Frances Marsh
Karen Daniels
Laura Steel
Rebecca Howes
John Krug
Harri Ollikainen
Trevor Craig
Laura Ennis
Stephanie Jesper
Elspeth Ewing
Jo Barber
Louise Livesey
carlin anderson
Suzi Horsley
Leanne Young
Demelza Jones
Zoey Dixon
Ross Noon
Siobhan Cottam
Ian J Simpson
Helen Monagle
Camila Garces
Shaun Kennedy
Harriet Notman
Sarah Denman
Anna Zajda
Hannah Hickman
Jess Haigh
Kathleen O’Neill
Michelle Bond
Ka-Ming Pang
Laura Woods
Thomas Peach
Tom Cook
Naomi Nile
Tanya Williamson
Lyn Denny
Carly Lightfoot
Terry Connolly
Rebecca Wray
Caroline Beatty
Lisa Clark
Elizabeth Jackson
Marie Lancaster
Thomas Ash
Peter Barr
Ingrid Francis
Harriet Davidson
Andrew Day
Karen Butcher
Lucy Hannaford
Jane Buggle
Caitlin McCulloch
Tim O’Dell
Emily Hopkins
Mick O’Dwyer
Liz White
Siobhan McGuinness
Alexandra Burton
J. David Cheyne
Andrew Gray
Matt Mahon
Bethan Ruddock
Andreas Walker
Graeme Tierney
Jo Richardson
Andrew McAinsh
Megan Wiley
Julie McGregor
Sarah Pearson
Emma Sillett
Phil Bradley
Kat Steiner
Martin Strugnell
Leah Emary
Vanessa Farrier
Rachel Shearer
Hugh Jordan
Luke Fowler
Emma Halford
George Bray


Bayjoo, J. (2018). Hi from DILON. Available:

Bernard, M. (2018). Public libraries giving users the digital help they need. Available: Last accessed 20 May 2018.

Bradley, G. (2018). The Government is contemplating destroying patient confidentiality in the name of border control. Available: Last accessed 20 May 2018.

Campbell, D and Duncan, P. (2017). NHS accused of covering up huge data loss that put thousands at risk. Available: Last accessed 20 May 2018.

Campbell, D. (2018). NHS will no longer have to share immigrants’ data with Home Office . Available: Last accessed 21 May 2018.

CILIP. (2017). Existing ethical framework. Available: Last accessed 25/05/2018.

@dawnafinch. (2018). Did I miss a memo? When did library workers receive all this extra training in things like universal credit, employment law, housing law and benefits and now immigration law? The Govt keeps sending pe. Available: Last accessed 20 May 2018.

Hall, K. (2018). Business Arrow Policy UK Home Office hands Sopra Steria £91m digital visa contract. Available: Last accessed 20 May 2018.

IFLA/UNESCO. (2006). IFLA/UNESCO Multicultural Library Manifesto. Available: Last accessed 28/05/2018.

Leong, J. (2016). Library services for immigrants and refugees: actions and principles from a global perspective. Available: Last accessed 25/05/2018.

Littlejohn, G. (2018). David Lammy ‘appalled’ at Home Office after arrest of Windrush constituent. Available: Last accessed 29/05/2018.

Newland Chase. (2018). UNITED KINGDOM: New Application Service Announced for Work and Study Visas. Available: Last accessed 24/05/2018.

Perkins, A and Gentleman, A. (2018). Government knew for years that Windrush generation hurt by ‘hostile environment’ . Available: Last accessed 28/05/2018.

Taylor, D. (2018). Homeless charity aided deportation patrols in search for rough sleepers . Available: Last accessed 20 May 2018. (2017). UKVI document scanning service widely introduced around the world in 2017. Available: Last accessed 20 May 2018.

UKSCL. (2018). 1/7 Here is a series of tweets with more detail on the new assisted digital contract we announced last week. 21 May 2018 Available: Last accessed 23/05/2018.

Wylie, A. (2018). The Society of Chief Librarians, Sopra Steria and visa/immigration services in libraries!. Available: Last accessed 24/05/2018.

Bag of onions: Growing bulbs of intellectual freedom from academic libraries

Reblogged from

Growing bulbs of intellectual freedom from academic libraries

As many of us are increasingly aware, data pertaining to our online behaviour- when and where we have been, what we did whilst occupying that space, etc.- have become increasingly valuable to a range of stakeholders and bad actors, including unethical hackers, commercial organisations, and the state. The weaknesses inherent across various web infrastructures, their deployment, and their ubiquitous, multipurpose uses are routinely exploited to capture the private data and information of individuals and entire communities.

For many librarians, this technological and cultural problem has been increasingly acknowledged as part of a wider political concern that is directly relevant to our professional requirement to protect the right to intellectual privacy (Fister, 2015; Smith, 2018).

Through both my professional and voluntary labour with the Library Freedom Project and the Radical Librarians Collective, I have been trying to directly offer support for individuals in their attempt to protect their privacy through their behaviours and the digital tools they choose to make use of. However, consistently weaving intellectual privacy throughout my professional praxis is a significant challenge.

Peeling back the layers of libraries and the scholarly commons

I am currently employed as the Research Support Manager for Library Services at the University of West London (UWL). A significant aspect of my role is to manage and administrate the UWL Repository, which is the institution’s repository of research outputs. The repository makes these outputs discoverable and accessible through what is known as green open access.

The collection, storage, management, and sharing of information demonstrated in the administration of a repository are all core elements of library work. However, this specific aspect of library work directly contributes towards the development and maintenance of the scholarly commons as an accessible body of work that “admit[s] the curious, rather than [only] the orthodox, to the alchemist’s vault” (Illich, 1973), and to allow people to re-use the research for their own purposes.

In all areas of library work, ensuring that the personal data and information of our user communities is stored securely is very important for the preservation of intellectual privacy. However, in the contemporary environment, libraries’ digital connections to external sources and services can make this challenging. Libraries are reliant on services that are served externally, and as such libraries lack the ability to control how these services share data required for the use of these services.

As the University have control over the repository through an agreement with a hosting service, it has been easy enough to enable some security enhancements. As such, from January 2018, the UWL Repository has been wrapped in HTTPS to respect our user communities’ information security by ensuring that all connections to it are encrypted.

Unfortunately, the scholarly commons is only as accessible as it is permitted to be on the clear-net, as there are many powerful stakeholders that have the ability to suppress access and thus censor scholars and other publics from accessing the published results of academic research and scholarship.

Onions don’t grow on trees; environmental ethics and the scholarly commons

Some popular online services and networks for scholars, such as Sci-Hub, ResearchGate,, also offer users the option to share their scholarly and research outputs gratis. The latter two are capital venture funded, commercial services. Part of their business operations include providing data around research that can, it is claimed, offer insights into its ‘impact’. However, these services do not take responsibility for the frequent breaches of licences that help to calcify the commodification of scholarly knowledge (Lawson et al., 2015,). Many of these services also have vested interests in the data stored and created through the use of their services.

For the scholarly commons, publishing via open access (through both gold open access publishers and via institutional and subject repositories) and making use of appropriate Creative Commons licences is a significantly more effective and ethical way to share and access research and scholarly outputs. Institutional repositories are commonly sustained by institutional funding (i.e. they serve not-for-profit functions), for instance, and they also commonly run on free (libre) and open source software such as EPrints software, which is licensed under GPL v3.0.

Here, we can see that libraries actively support a libre approach to free, online access to scholarly information.

Layering up for intellectual privacy, access, and the scholarly commons

As referred to above, various fields of informational labour hold a broad consensus view around users’ right and need for intellectual privacy (Richards, 2015). In this context, ensuring that the research and scholarly outputs are accessible in ways that allow users to retain their privacy seems essential.

As such, I have made the UWL Repository accessible from within the Tor network as an onion service.

I briefly consulted Library Services’ director, Andrew Preater, prior to undertaking this work, but I was able to make use of Enterprise Onion Toolkit (EOTK) to create a proxy of the repository without requiring root access to the webserver of the clear-net site, and without having to make copies of the files held on that server. As a proof-of-concept, it is now accessible via https://6dtdxvvrug3v6g6d.onion, but may be moved to a more permanent .onion address in the future, subject to institutional support. (Please note that an exception has to be granted to access the onion service due to some of the complexities of HTTPS over onion services. This is something that I would hope to resolve with institutional support. Please see Murray’s post for further details).

This provision allows global access to the UWL Repository and its accessible content in a form that allows users to protect their right to intellectual privacy; neither their ISP nor UWL, as a service provider, will be able to identify their personal use of UWL Repository when using https://6dtdxvvrug3v6g6d.onion/.

Having repositories available as onion services is of significant benefit for those accessing the material from, for instance, oppressive geopolitical contexts. Onion services offer not only enhanced privacy for users, but also help to circumvent censorship. Some governments and regimes routinely deny access to clear-net websites deemed obscene or a threat to national security. Providing an onion service of the repository not only protects those that may suffer enhanced digital surveillance for challenging social constructs or social relations (which can have a severely chilling effect on intellectual freedom), but also on entire geographical areas that are locked out of accessing publicly accessible content on the clear-net.

The expansion of intellectual privacy for the scholarly commons is bringing tears to my eyes

Although this is a small step for the scholarly commons, it is an important one. In our politically fragile world, marginalised communities often suffer disproportionate risks, and taking this simple step helps to reinstate some safety into this digital space (Barron et al., 2017). As Ganghadharan (2012) notes, “[u]ntil policy–makers begin a frank discussion of how to account for benefits and harms of experiencing online worlds and to confront the need to protect collective and individual privacy online, oppressive practices will continue”.

I hope that other library and information workers, repository administrators, open access publishers, and their associated indexing services will take inspiration from the step that I have taken and help us to lead a collective charge that places intellectual privacy at the centre of both the scholarly commons and digital library services.


I would like to thank Murray Royston-Ward and Simon Barron for their technical support (if you do not have access to a server, Murray has written a guide to trialling a Tor mirror of services via Google’s Cloud Engine), Alec Muffett for his development of EOTK, Alison Macrina and the Library Freedom Project for their advocacy of digital rights within libraries, the Radical Librarians Collective for providing spaces to support my professional development and practical skills, and to all those involved in the Tor Project that support and provide tools that allow us to make good on our right to digital privacy.


Barron, S., Regnault, C., and Sanders, K. (2017). Library privacy. Carnegie UK. [Retrieved from:]

Fister, B. (2015). Big Data or Big Brother? Data, ethics, and academic libraries. Library Issues: Briefings for Faculty and Administrators. [Retrieved from:]

Gangadharan, S. P. (2012). Digital inclusion and data profiling. First Monday, 17(5)

Illich, I. (1973). Tools for conviviality. [Retrieved from:]

Lawson, S., Sanders, K., and Smith, L. (2015). Commodification of the information profession: A critique of higher education under neoliberalism. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 3 (1). [Retrieved from:]

Richards, N. (2015). Intellectual privacy: Rethinking civil liberties in the digital age. Oxford University Press, USA

Smith, L. (2018). Surveillance, privacy, and the ethics of librarianship. Cambridge Libraries Conference, 11/01,2018. [Retrieved from:

This is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence

#radlibchat – 12th April 2016

For the eighth #radlibchat at 20:00 (GMT+1/15:00 EST*) on Tuesday 12th April, we will be discussing whiteness in library and information science with specific reference to April Hathcock’s White Librarianship in Blackface: Diversity Initiatives in LIS.

As always, reading the article isn’t a pre-requisite for joining in, but we would very much encourage you to read April’s article.

The discussion will be hosted by @AprilHathcock in conjunction with @RadicalLibs on Twitter using the #radlibchat hashtag.

Questions for the chat (c/o April).

1. What kind of diversity initiatives do you have at your library? Are they effective? How can you tell?
2. In what ways do you see whiteness at work in your library?
3. Do you perform whiteness at work? Do you expect others to? How?
4. What can we do to dismantle whiteness in our profession?
4.5. What role can white people play in helping to dismantle whiteness?
5. How can we mentor/help others to navigate the whiteness in our profession?
* Please note, this originally stated 14:00EST…but due to poor time conversion skills, it turns out this was wrong. Apologies!

#radlibchat – 8th March 2016

For the seventh #radlibchat at 20.00 (GMT) on Tuesday 8th March, we will be discussing critical information literacy praxis, using Eamon Tewell’s open access article ‘A decade of critical information literacy: a review of the literature‘ as suggested background reading plus April Hathcock’s Decolonizing social justice work‘ blog post to shape questions about decolonizing critical information literacy.

The discussion will be hosted by @RadicalLibs on Twitter using the #radlibchat hashtag.

You can suggest questions or points for discussion, or comment on the questions ahead of time using the #radlibchat etherpad – or comment on this blog post.


Citing the work of educator Paulo Freire, Tewell (p. 26) argues that:

Critical pedagogy is in essence a project that positions education as a catalyst for social justice…

Q1. How far do you consider critical pedagogy in #infolit to be a form of social justice work?

Definitions of ‘information literacy’ are contested and standards, codes and and frameworks abound in our professional organisations. Can we “hate the framework, love the frame” as Kevin Seeber suggests?

Q2. How do you reconcile critical #infolit approaches with standards such as the ACRL ‘Framework…’ or the SCONUL ‘Seven Pillars’?

We talk about praxis as a reciprocal combination of theory and practice, but it is not necessarily obvious how to put theory into practice in #infolit work. Jessimaka recently asked about practical examples of critical pedagogy, which resonated with me:

Q3. What does critical-informed #infolit look like to you, in practice? Practical examples from your work very welcome.

Previous #critlib chats on critical pedagogy and information literacy included discussion of practical problems using a critical approach in the neoliberal academy, especially when information literacy is set up as a “one shot” session.

Q4. Can we reconcile a critical #infolit approach with a ‘student satisfaction’ agenda, and marketized higher education?

Q5. What suggestions can you offer to include critical approaches in “one shot” #infolit, if this is all that is available?

April Hathcock (2016) problematizes the false dichotomy of theory vs. practice in a recent blog post, and calls instead for decolonizing of theory:

We’ve been framing the debate as theory vs practice or lived experience vs theory, but for those of us who critique critical theoretical work from within, we’re talking about something much more nuanced. We’re not saying theory has no place or lived experience can’t be theoretical. What we are saying is that much of the theory we see and hear from our colleagues remains largely colonized, that is, it is largely white, male, Western, cis-het, Judeo-Christian.

Q6. How can we move to decolonize our own critical #infolit practices?

Tewell’s closing paragraph (p. 37) emphasizes the importance of developing critical praxis in librarianship:

It is the writings, words, and work of others that helps us as a profession to achieve praxis via the reciprocity of theory, practice and action, and to thereby provide educational opportunities with emancipatory possibilities for both our students and ourselves.

Q7. How could we frame this approach with respect to the centrality of lived experience emphasized by Hathcock and others?

Q8. Finally, Tewell’s paper is a review. What recommended reading or further suggestions would you add to it about critical #infolit?


Hathcock, A. (2016) ‘Decolonizing social justice work’, At the Intersection, 2 March. Available at:

Tewell, E. (2015). ‘A decade of critical information literacy: a review of the literature’, Communications in Information Literacy, 9(1) [Online]. Available at:

#radlibchat – 9th February 2016

For the sixth radlibchat at 20.00 (GMT) on Tuesday 9th February to tie in with the libraries lobby, we will be discussing Unions in Public and Academic Libraries by Kathleen de la Peña McCook (OA article available here).

The discussion will be hosted by @RadicalLibs on Twitter using the #radlibchat hashtag.


  1. To what extent should associations focus on the rights of workers?
  2. Are trade unions more of less effective in defending library workers than associations?
  3. Can unions still be an effective mechanism to defend worker rights in a neoliberal, globalised environment?
  4. Are there overarching themes for advocacy or is it still very localized, as noted in the article?
  5. How may we effectively advocate for our professional selves?

#radlibchat – 12th January 2016

For the fifth radlibchat at 20.00 (GMT) on Tuesday 12th January, we thought we’d break from the chat around an Open Access article for a change (break into the new year gently and all that) and have a discussion about filtering in libraries. Following the great work conducted by those engaged with the Collective to reveal the state of filtering in public libraries, it seemed a good time to have a discussion around the implications and ramifications for both society and the profession of internet filtering.

The discussion will be hosted by @RadicalLibs on Twitter using the #radlibchat hashtag.

Potential questions for discussion*

  1. What ethical/professional issues does filtering raise?
  2. Are there good reasons for filtering? How do we balance our responsibilities?
  3. What could be done at policy level?
  4. What could be done in individual libraries?
  5. What can library workers do?
  6. What should next steps be for e.g. CILIP?

* All welcome to suggest alternative Qs for discussion…these are suggestions at this stage!

#radlibchat – 10th November 2015

For the fourth radlibchat at 20.00 (GMT) on Tuesday 10th November, we will be discussing John Buschman (2005) On Libraries and the Public Sphere. This link is to an open access post-print of the article.

The discussion will be hosted by @RadicalLibs on Twitter using the #radlibchat hashtag.

Questions to frame the discussion to come…keep an eye on our Twitter account for updates.

Questions to frame the discussion

1. To what extent is librarianship in 2015 in a more precarious state than previously?

2. Is there a disjunct or “structural contradiction” between our purposes/practices and current environment? Why/why not?

3. Are there changes in our practice/professional values as a community, or as individuals, that have made us more precarious?

4. How do we respond to our current environment?

6. Who/what is sovereign and thus normalizing/determining the current state of librarianship?

“sovereign is he who decides on the state of exception: If there is some person or institution, in a given polity, capable of bringing about a total suspension of the law and then to use extra-legal force to normalize the situation, then that person or institution is the sovereign in that polity” (Carl Schmitt)

#radlibchat – 13th October 2015

For the third radlibchat at 20.00 (BST) on Tuesday 13th October, we will be discussing Gabriella Coleman’s (2009) journal article Code is Speech: Legal Tinkering, Expertise, and Protest among Free and Open Source Software Developers. This link is to an open access post-print of the article.

The discussion will be hosted by @RadicalLibs on Twitter using the #radlibchat hashtag.

Questions to frame the discussion to come…keep an eye on our Twitter account for updates.

Questions for framing discussion

1) Should code be treated as speech? To what extent should LIS workers engage in this issue?

2) To what extent is there a link between libraries and FOSS software? How could libraries engage in this area?

3) What links or differences are there in the approach to politics taken by programmers and LIS workers?

4) Do you think LIS workers would benefit from informal legal expertise? If so, how could LIS workers acquire it?

5) Can piracy of proprietary (non-FOSS) software ever be justified?

6) To what extent should we work within a legal framework if we believe the state making the laws is unjust?

Upcoming chats:

10th November 2015 – On Libraries And The Public Sphere by John Buschman.

An @RLC_SE #CryptoParty: 19/09/2015

The Radical Librarians Collective will be holding a CryptoParty from 1200-1600 on Saturday 19th September, at The London Action Resource Centre (LARC), 62 Fieldgate St, London, E1 1ES.

A CryptoParty aims to introduce practical skills to support the use of some cryptographic tools that can help to promote your online privacy. As is the custom with both CryptoParties and RLC, the session will operate on a non-hierarchical basis, although there will be some members of the group that have experience in using some of these tools. These people will be there to offer advice, understanding, and support to ensure people become more confident in the use of the tools.

We want the day to be fun and interesting, but we also want to try and help to educate one another about the importance of digital security. As librarians, we interact with communities of users that may be unaware of the extent of national and corporate surveillance enabled by web technologies. With some basic skills, we can use cryptographic tools to protect our privacy online and ensure that our digital lives are unmonitored.

The specifics can be decided by the group on the day. Tools which have been suggested include:

Creating and managing secure passwords
Web browser plugins
Encrypting harddrives / phones
TextSecure, RedPhone, Signal
Encrypted instant messaging
PGP emails
Secure operating systems

To anyone planning on attending, where possible, we advise bringing laptops, mobile devices, extension leads, USB drives, external harddrives, and the obligatory RLC samosas, of course.