The state and federal laws are pretty clear.  In the
federal system, site locational data is classified
"Confidential."  Here in New Mexico, state and local
agencies treat the information in the same manner.  A
client fits the "need to know" criteria because that
person is usually a project planner or implementer who
needs the information in order to adjust projects to
archaeological needs.  If client releases such
information publicly, he or she has violated the law. 
When I worked as a private consultant, that fact was
pressed home in almost every communication with the
client.


--- Lee Bennett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> This has been a fascinating and curious exchange and
> it has illuminated the
> differences in "right to know" and "public
> archaeology" in a manner that is
> intriguing.
> 
> In my experience, any report, site form, map, or
> other data presented to a
> client in fulfillment of an agreement with that
> client belongs to the client
> and not the archaeologist.  In these cases, it is up
> to the client to
> determine if and how to make the information
> available.  I've seen this
> written into agreements and made very explicit. 
> This brings out two obvious
> concerns to our profession:  (a) the "need to know"
> effect of making site
> data publicly available, and (b) the professional
> obligation to further
> archaeological knowledge by sharing results of
> investigations.
> 
> Regarding the "need to know" of data protection,
> archaeologists often sign a
> "confidentiality agreement" with SHPO or a
> government entity to allow us to
> review the data and reports maintained by SHPO or
> the government office.  By
> leaving the security of archaeological data in the
> hands of clients, the
> archaeologist appears to be "hanging out" with
> respect to their agreement to
> guard site location and content information. 
> Federal clients usually have
> in place safeguards to protect the information, as
> do some state agencies.
> County and city governments and private businesses
> and individuals usually
> lack such policies.  I've seen several reports
> submitted to the latter group
> wherein the archaeologist has put a cautionary
> statement or some other
> disclaimer that says, in effect, the data are not to
> be shared with the
> publish without prior written authorization from the
> SHPO.
> 
> When it comes to sharing information with the public
> and colleagues, the
> "ownership" clause of agreements or contracts can
> dampen our professional
> zeal to publish or present papers.  We have to
> obtain written permission
> from the client, perhaps let them review a draft,
> and might have to give
> credit to the client for funding the work.  Many
> clients are pleased to
> comply, I've found.  But we might be asked to
> provide copies of the
> publication or talk, which then moves us right back
> to the "need to know"
> question when the presentation was intended for
> colleagues rather than the
> general public.
> 
> With contract archaeologists scrambling to finish
> reports on schedule, there
> is often little time left to pursue publication when
> doing so involves
> asking permission to develop data obtained when
> working for a client.  This
> is a CRM conundrum.
> 
> Lee A. Bennett, RPA
> Bennett Management Services, LLC
> PO Box 656
> Monticello, UT 84535
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com