Librarians and the PATRIOT ACT

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

It was a moment that librarians had been dreading.

Quote:

USAToday.com
Librarian's brush with FBI shapes her view of the USA Patriot Act

By Joan Airoldi
Wed May 18, 6:25 AM ET

It was a moment that librarians had been dreading.

On June 8, 2004, an FBI agent stopped at the Deming branch of the Whatcom County Library System in northwest Washington and requested a list of the people who had borrowed a biography of Osama bin Laden. We said no.

We did not take this step lightly. First, our attorney called the local FBI office and asked why the information was important. She was told that one of our patrons had sent the FBI the book after discovering these words written in the margin: "If the things I'm doing is considered a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal. Hostility toward America is a religious duty and we hope to be rewarded by God."

We told the FBI that it would have to follow legal channels before our board of trustees would address releasing the names of the borrowers. We also informed the FBI that, through a Google search, our attorney had discovered that the words in the margin were almost identical to a statement by bin Laden in a 1998 interview.

Undeterred, the FBI served a subpoena on the library a week later demanding a list of everyone who had borrowed the book since November 2001.

Our trustees faced a difficult decision. It is our job to protect the right of people to obtain the books and other materials they need to form and express ideas. If the government can easily obtain records of the books that our patrons are borrowing, they will not feel free to request the books they want. Who would check out a biography of bin Laden knowing that this might attract the attention of the FBI?

It is for this reason that libraries across the country have taken a strong stand against government intrusion. In the 1980s, it was revealed that the FBI had engaged in a secret "library awareness" program to track the books borrowed by patrons who had emigrated from communist countries. Determined to prevent such activities in the future, librarians helped pass laws in 48 states that bar the surrender of customer information except in compliance with a subpoena.

For our trustees, this sense of responsibility to protect libraries as institutions where people are free to explore any idea ran up against their desire to help their government fight terrorism. But they were resolute and voted unanimously to go to court to quash the FBI subpoena. Fifteen days later, the FBI withdrew its request.

But there is a shadow over our happy ending. Our experience taught us how easily the FBI could have discovered the names of the borrowers, how readily this could happen in any library in the USA. It also drove home for us the dangers that the USA Patriot Act poses to reader privacy.

Since the passage of the Patriot Act in October 2001, the FBI has the power to go to a secret court to request library and bookstore records considered relevant to a national security investigation. It does not have to show that the people whose records are sought are suspected of any crime or explain why they are being investigated. In addition, librarians and booksellers are forbidden to reveal that they have received an order to surrender customer data.

Our government has always possessed the power to obtain library records, but that power has been subject to safeguards. The Patriot Act eliminated those safeguards and made it impossible for people to ask a judge to rule whether the government needs the information it is after. In the current debate over extending or amending the Patriot Act, one of the key questions is whether a library or any other institution can seek an independent review of an order. Even the attorney general conceded in a recent oversight hearing that this is a problem with the law as written.

Fortunately for our patrons, we were able to mount a successful challenge to what seems to have been a fishing expedition. If it had returned with an order from a secret court under the Patriot Act, the FBI might now know which residents in our part of Washington State had simply tried to learn more about bin Laden.

With a Patriot Act order in hand, I would have been forbidden to disclose even the fact that I had received it and would not have been able to tell this story.

Joan Airoldi, a librarian, is director of the library district in Whatcom County, Wash.

Source

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,351 • Replies: 25

No top replies

Our tax dollars at work!

0 Replies

Related:

Officials on Wednesday said a proposal is on the table that would allow the FBI greater access to business records without requiring judicial approval. After consultations with the Bush administration, Republican leaders of the US Senate Committee on Intelligence have proposed allowing the FBI to subpoena records from businesses without a judge's approval if it was declared necessary to a terrorism investigation. The legislation is part of a broader plan designed to make permanent some provisions of the Patriot Act that expire at the end of this year.

The New York Times has more.

0 Replies

Walter

Your article and the result provides satisfactory evidence that the NONE of our civil liberties have been stolen as the reactionaries have charged. The FBI request was challenged and the challenge was upheld by the Law. What else needs to be said?

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

Walter

Your article and the result provides satisfactory evidence that the NONE of our civil liberties have been stolen as the reactionaries have charged. The FBI request was challenged and the challenge was upheld by the Law. What else needs to be said?

It also demonstrates the uselessness of the Patriot Act.

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

Walter

Your article and the result provides satisfactory evidence that the NONE of our civil liberties have been stolen as the reactionaries have charged. The FBI request was challenged and the challenge was upheld by the Law. What else needs to be said?

Either you or the author, the US library associations, I and lots of others misread something:

Quote:

For our trustees, this sense of responsibility to protect libraries as institutions where people are free to explore any idea ran up against their desire to help their government fight terrorism. But they were resolute and voted unanimously to go to court to quash the FBI subpoena. Fifteen days later, the FBI withdrew its request.

But there is a shadow over our happy ending. Our experience taught us how easily the FBI could have discovered the names of the borrowers, how readily this could happen in any library in the USA. It also drove home for us the dangers that the USA Patriot Act poses to reader privacy.

Since the passage of the Patriot Act in October 2001, the FBI has the power to go to a secret court to request library and bookstore records considered relevant to a national security investigation. It does not have to show that the people whose records are sought are suspected of any crime or explain why they are being investigated. In addition, librarians and booksellers are forbidden to reveal that they have received an order to surrender customer data.

Our government has always possessed the power to obtain library records, but that power has been subject to safeguards. The Patriot Act eliminated those safeguards and made it impossible for people to ask a judge to rule whether the government needs the information it is after. In the current debate over extending or amending the Patriot Act, one of the key questions is whether a library or any other institution can seek an independent review of an order. Even the attorney general conceded in a recent oversight hearing that this is a problem with the law as written.

I suppose, however, you are correct.

0 Replies

Walter

I should have said: The request was withdrawn for "common sense" reasons after it was challenged. I also doubt the authors statement that the "Gov't" has always had the authority to obtain library records but with safe guards.

I don't know whether this has ever been tested in court but if it hasn't, you can be assured that the ACLU would take it all the way to the Supreme court and the urgency of any national security reason would be lost during the ensuing court battle thus the need for quick authority in the event quick action is needed to thwart a possible attack. Again, common sense should prevail instead of hysteria about supposed loss of civil liberties.

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

I should have said: The request was withdrawn for "common sense" reasons after it was challenged. I also doubt the authors statement that the "Gov't" has always had the authority to obtain library records but with safe guards.

I don't know, why the request was withdrawn.

But now I'm wondering that at first you responded different, now you know the reason (which seems to different to the author, who - as it seems - doesn't know it). (I might email and ask him.)

You may have your doubts, but either the law is different or agencies/authorities have acted unlawful.

rayban1 wrote:

I don't know whether this has ever been tested in court but if it hasn't, you can be assured that the ACLU would take it all the way to the Supreme court and the urgency of any national security reason would be lost during the ensuing court battle thus the need for quick authority in the event quick action is needed to thwart a possible attack. Again, common sense should prevail instead of hysteria about supposed loss of civil liberties.

Again, we are not speaking of common sense (at least, I don't) but about a law.
Well, of course we can speculate the when's, if's, but's - however, my last responses only originate in your first response, which was quite different to what you answer now.

0 Replies

OK Walter.......I'm certainly happy you cleared that up for me. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

It was a pleasure, at your service, rayban.

0 Replies

The whole issue makes me wonder why it is exactly that librarians are keeping records of which patrons borrow which publications to begin with. Librarians are concerned with the government requesting patron lists but they don't see any problem with them keeping the lists to begin with???? Have they consulted their patrons about that to see how they feel??? I can understand them knowing who has a book checked out at any particular time but once I return it what is their justification for keeping a record of it??

0 Replies

Hmm...
Never thought of that.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

The whole issue makes me wonder why it is exactly that librarians are keeping records of which patrons borrow which publications to begin with. Librarians are concerned with the government requesting patron lists but they don't see any problem with them keeping the lists to begin with???? Have they consulted their patrons about that to see how they feel??? I can understand them knowing who has a book checked out at any particular time but once I return it what is their justification for keeping a record of it??

On the one hand, one might say: out of tradition. (I've seen some origanls as early as 15th century 'life'. :wink: )

On the other hand, it's just a consumer-friendly custom: you can always find out e.g. who wrote unlawfully remarks in it.

Which, then, is e.g. a great source for historians (the study of old library records is certainly a kind of historical auxillary science).

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

The whole issue makes me wonder why it is exactly that librarians are keeping records of which patrons borrow which publications to begin with. Librarians are concerned with the government requesting patron lists but they don't see any problem with them keeping the lists to begin with???? Have they consulted their patrons about that to see how they feel??? I can understand them knowing who has a book checked out at any particular time but once I return it what is their justification for keeping a record of it??

I imagine it's so that they know who has it and, if it was destroyed, who had it last. Now that there are computer systems, I imagine it would be possible to erase the record of the 2nd previous borrowing. But before there was just an index card kept in the book with names and stamps.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I imagine it's so that they know who has it and, if it was destroyed, who had it last. Now that there are computer systems, I imagine it would be possible to erase the record of the 2nd previous borrowing. But before there was just an index card kept in the book with names and stamps.

Why wait until someone borrows the book again? I get that they need to know who has checked a book out during the period that the book is off their premises.

They can check it for damage when I return it. I see no reason for them to maintain any name beyond the point where the book is returned to them.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Which, then, is e.g. a great source for historians (the study of old library records is certainly a kind of historical auxillary science).

There are several copies of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, although few complete ones. One of the complete copies is in the British Museum. Exactly such a thing occured, and became a "fact" of history.

One of the Earls of Wessex, commonly known as "Kings," was Aethelred. This comes from aethal (sorry, can't do anglo-saxon letters on this keyboard) meaning noble, and rede, meaning counsel. Aethelred was a train wreck of a King. He gave away the entire candy store to his sycophantic hangers-on within a year of succeeding to the dignity. Therefore, his people named him Aethelred Unrede--Aethelred the Ill-Counseled, or Ill-Advised.

Centuries pass. While that copy was still a dusty tome in some Oxbridge library, at some point in the late 15th or early 16th century, some wit of a gnomish scholar wrote in the margin "Ethelred the Unready." The joke was apparent to all anglo-saxon scholars, and coughing up dusty little laughs among themselves, they retailed the joke for a few more centuries--to the point now that even sincere university instructors in history name Aethelred Unrede as Ethelred the Unready, and go through ludicrous contortions of explanation for why he was named "Unready."

EDIT: I have it on good authority that the author of that unseemly witticisim now owes library fines in excess of the annual gross domestic product of the United Kingdom.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
I imagine it's so that they know who has it and, if it was destroyed, who had it last. Now that there are computer systems, I imagine it would be possible to erase the record of the 2nd previous borrowing. But before there was just an index card kept in the book with names and stamps.

Why wait until someone borrows the book again? I get that they need to know who has checked a book out during the period that the book is off their premises.

They can check it for damage when I return it. I see no reason for them to maintain any name beyond the point where the book is returned to them.

Maybe, but if the destruction is in the form of missing pages from the middle of the book, I doubt they would notice it until someone else checked it out and reported it. But maybe a librarian will happen along and tell us how it all works.

0 Replies

Like every other business a library needs records and documentation on its activities. It is usually beholding to another agency - often a governmental body - and the level of funding relies on the volume of loans and general usage.

If you have an electronic loans system you are pretty sure to backup on a daily basis in case you need to reconstruct just who has what and where and for how long - this can amount to thousands of loans for what is probably millions of dollars worth of accountable items. You would also need to keep at least a year's worth of these records to ensure that you can provide some data to back up your requests for funding. Soem datamining to ascertain demographics of usage and demand is very important too.

Librarians are just following best practice by keeping the best possible control of their stock. It appears to be a bit of a stoush over who owns and/or has access to their records. I think the librarians here are spot on - bring us proof that there is something unlawful going on and we'll assist you. Turn up with a book that may have even been vandalised in the local FBI HQ to provide a bit of 'proof' and you can just keep whistling thru your hat.....

0 Replies

Hear, hear, Mr. Pondquility . . .

0 Replies

Why shouldn't a govt agency have to give records to another govt agency? Especially if you receive said govt money in the first place. If they are unwilling to give up the records then they should have to forfeit the money they receive. You can't take something and not expect something else in return.

0 Replies

Librarians and the PATRIOT ACT

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know