National Archives at College Park, MD, will become a restricted federal facility

I appreciate analogous cases are often not helpful, but in the UK some institutions like the national library of scotland are so-called "copyright libraries" and they have always restricted access to people who register and declare an interest grounded in research, or some gatekeeping around legitemate need otherwise. In many instances the documents held in these institutions are both rare, and contextually unique. Like paleological holotypes their role is different to objects on display in museums and collections.

I also believe in the general public's right to see and access things which relate to government. I'm just trying to point out that whilst this probably is reactive to current affairs (cost management? risks? FUD?) there are reasons and situations outside the USA where this is normal, and I do not mean "has been normalised to disadvantage you" -I just mean that identifying who you are and why you want to do something isn't that unusual, in archive access.

> in the UK some institutions like the national library of scotland are so-called "copyright libraries" and they have always restricted access to people who register and declare an interest grounded in research

As an 8yo, I'd walk into the US Library of Congress alone and ask for rare books.

I like this way best.

It's normal in the US too.. the Library of Congress has required it for certain collections for decades (that I know of):

https://www.loc.gov/research-centers/use-the-library/researc...

Until some random crazy person exercises the same right and destroys an irreplaceable rare book.

You have to get a library card for the library. I don’t see why there is so much outrage over this, and I think the timing is more about budget cuts than about Trump [caveat- firing the archivist might have been personal].

I find the arguments that “he just wants to sow distrust” etc. are completely unbelievable; he has bigger fish to fry than micromanaging the national archives.

I was surprised when I saw this article and realized that until now anyone could just walk in off the street.

> You have to get a library card for the library. I don’t see why there is so much outrage over this

Why do they need a "legitimate business need" to access the material? Why aren't they instead requiring a simple library card and/or identification.

That's why people are upset. This is more than just requiring a library card.

> Until some random crazy person exercises the same right and destroys an irreplaceable rare book.

Every library I've been in with rare books requires supervision by the archivist if you want to browse them. Sometimes only the archivist can handle the book.

The fact that these rare books aren't all being destroyed in mass tells me that this system works pretty well at screening crazy people from destroying books (and, frankly, there's not a whole lot of people dedicated to destroying rare books).

Why surprised? Didn't US taxpayers pay for the collection of all this information? Now only those with "legitimate" interest can get access? I would very much like to know what the reasoning behind this move is. Although I suspect that as per usual, a reason will not be forthcoming. But who knows, perhaps the Epstein files are now being kept there, LOL?

I dislike the fact that people are so hostile to the idea of public goods/services/places. It's really sad that free access to information is something anyone would find crazy or objectionable.

> Until some random crazy person exercises the same right and destroys an irreplaceable rare book.

In considering the LOC's multi-century existence, this parade of horribles never manifested as a meaningful risk. It remains limited to select imaginations.

> Every library I've been in with rare books requires supervision by the archivist if you want to browse them. Sometimes only the archivist can handle the book.

Sure. The LOC librarians never seemed to be out of sight from 8yo me. And they were always happy to get what I asked for. It was a reasonable, functional arrangement.

Overloading of the word "free" here. Contextually you might be meaning anonymous, unannounced, no justification required. Only anonimity would be harmed by requiring ID and in the case of at risk manuscripts, one of a kind, holograph works of significant value, I could see reasons to say "we have a booking system"

are you being reductionist on this, and "demanding" that unconstrained access exist as a norm?

I don't find identified purposeful access objectionable. I am concerned at the amount of degredation to works from constant public access to them: its a thing in european museums, cultural exhibits, lasceaux..

> You have to get a library card for the library

No you don't. You only need a library card if you want to bring a book home. Anyone can read at the library.

I dislike it when all the normal, common, things this administration does is masqueraded as an egregious affront to freedoms and democracy

When the same energy should have either been applied to all the other administrations

Or only focus on the things that actually are unique

> no justification required

That is the main thing I mean by free.

I agree, requiring ID and even appointments is something that isn't objectionable. The issue I have is requiring a justification. Who approves or dismisses justifications? What's considered an invalid justification?

Unconstrained access isn't what I'm talking about, unjustified access is.

Having been a Jan 6 juror, it is sadly all too easy for me to believe a parade of horribles could be showing up now at this NARA facility, especially with all the JFK docs. In the hours of video footage I watched, hardly five minutes would pass without some Jan 6ers swapping their favorite YouTube conspiracy channels. It wouldn’t take more than a few monopolizing staff to act as a denial of service against the core mission.

When I went to the Library of Congress, I'm pretty sure they made me get a card before I could enter the reading room (you can look into it from the main tourist-y area, but to actually get where the books are is different).

Everything is "unprecedented" when you don't know history.

I'm not at all hostile to "at no charge" access, in fact I fully support it and would be much more upset if the article had been "US Archives decides to charge $100 entry fee" than I was about the actual article "US Archives won't let you in until you register and show ID and give some plausible reason why you need to look at specific things".

I am pretty skeptical of "let random people touch difficult to replace things when you don't know who they are".

Until the last decade, we didn't have crazy (or ideologically radical to the point of craziness) people going into museums and throwing liquids on priceless paintings. We don't live in a high-trust world anymore.