This class assignment asked me to examine a news article through the lens of an information organization specialist, relating it to the skills and principles we’re learning about in class. While most of our coursework is focused on the conceptual understanding and practical skills of information organization, it’s also important to think carefully about ethical considerations related to information, and to apply this perspective to all of society rather than only the confines of the library.
Article overview
I chose to review an article published by Thomson Reuters (2025) about an anti-Jewish attack in Manchester earlier this month. The article discusses a newly released detail of the synagogue attack in the United Kingdom, and provides some information about the event, perpetrator, victims, the Jewish community, and other groups impacted by the event. Despite not being specifically about the organization of information, this article is of interest to us as information professionals because there were two information databases referenced in the article.
Audience knowledge assumptions
This was published in a Canadian adult general audience news feed. No domain-specific knowledge of information organization concepts was expected among the readership. While other articles published by Thomson Reuters and carried by the CBC have examined these information collections more directly, including their abuses and ethical concerns, it’s disappointing that no such mention of those concerns was made in this particular article.
What kind of information
While the article references many different information sources and types, I’d like to focus on two. The first is one that the police have access to: a database of people who have been referred to an anti-radicalization anti-terrorism program run by the UK government called Prevent. The second is a list of members within a pro-Palestinian protest group called Palestine Action, a direct action group that aims to directly disrupt the UK’s involvement in the genocide in Gaza, in which membership has been made illegal by the UK under anti-terrorism laws. Both of these are collections of information about people, specifically people the government of the United Kingdom believe are terrorists or may become terrorists.
Why it’s important
The information collection within the Prevent program is organized by the British state, and contains information about British citizens and others that the state believes or assumes are at risk of becoming terrorists. Despite membership in Palestine Action being informal, the state must have some roster to which they can compare a person of interest to determine whether the crime of being a member has been committed and in order to carry out any kind of enforcement measures. The existence of these databases is part of an ongoing push by the UK government towards increasing surveillance and curtailing freedom to protest, both of which have significant human rights implications.
Connection to course content
Glushko (2020) says that “to organize is to create capabilities by intentionally imposing order and structure.” The data about these people has been placed into an organized collection, and one of the capabilities that results from this organization is the ability for law enforcement to check whether a specific individual is within either collection, along with context about how and why they were added to them. Glushko also raises points about the information lifecycle, asking questions about what information is being collected, how it’s being organized, when, and by whom? There is no transparency about those questions for either of these databases.
Briet (as described by Buckland in 1997) might argue that the people themselves are the primary documents, and the information about them contained in these databases would be secondary documents.
EDIDA and ethical concerns
Neither of these databases is accessible to the public. The information lifecycle for these collections, particularly the criteria under which an individual could be added to the collection, who has access to its contents, and what ability someone erroneously added to it has to appeal, are not published.
Prevent has specifically stated a focus on “Extreme Right-Wing terrorism and Islamist terrorism”, referencing a political position and a religion (Home Office, 2025). 6,922 people were added to the Prevent database in the 12 months ending in March 2024, and has been criticized for justifying surveillance of Muslim communities and being ineffectual at preventing violence (“UK Counter-Radicalisation Scheme Prevent Must ‘up Its Game’, Review Concludes,” 2025).
Palestine Action is an activist group focused on stopping Israel’s genocide of Palestinians and the UK’s role in supporting that genocide. The UN Human Rights Chief described the ban on Palestine Action membership as a “disturbing” misuse of UK counter-terrorism laws (OHCHR, 2025).
Thus, both of these databases result in a chilling effect on the political speech and action among minority communities and those engaged in political activism. Information does not exist in a vacuum, and cannot be politically neutral. The existence of these information collections is a direct expression of colonialism in its suspicion of the “other,” and are both ethically suspect in both their stated purpose and their implementation by the state.
At an individual level, both collections raise ethical concerns about the rights of people as primary sources. Do individuals have the right to know if they’re in a particular government database? Do they have the right to appeal their inclusion, or to correct inaccurate information in them? In the modern world of ubiquitous surveillance, what rights does a just society afford individuals to balance against the state’s need for security?
Conclusion
Collections of information, especially information about people, have a significant tendency and capacity for ethical abuse. Ethical information organization about people must be very careful to collect the minimum amount of information necessary for the collection’s purpose and ensure it’s used only for its intended purpose. Legal protections should exist for the people described in such collections, including a right to transparency and correction of errors at minimum. As information professionals, it is our responsibility to act according to the values of our profession, including upholding EDIDA values and exercising ethical consideration in all areas of our practice.
References
Buckland, M. K. (1997). What is a “document”? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 48(9), 804–809. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(199709)48:9%253C804::aid-asi5%253E3.0.co;2-v
Glushko, R. J. (2020). The discipline of organizing: 4th professional edition. Robert J. Glushko. https://berkeley.pressbooks.pub/tdo4p/
Home Office. (2025, May 29). Get help for radicalisation concerns. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/get-help-if-youre-worried-about-someone-being-radicalised
OHCHR. (2025). UK: Palestine action ban ‘disturbing’ misuse of UK counter-terrorism legislation, Türk warns [Press Release]. United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/uk-palestine-action-ban-disturbing-misuse-uk-counter-terrorism-legislation
Thompson Reuters. (2025, October 3). British police may have shot 2 of the Manchester synagogue attack victims, one fatally, officials say. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/manchester-synagogue-attack-police-shooting-1.7650095 UK counter-radicalisation scheme Prevent must “up its game”, review concludes. (2025, July 16). Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-counter-radicalisation-scheme-prevent-must-up-its-game-review-concludes-2025-07-16/