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.
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".
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..
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.
