Slashdot Mirror

Depending on how you want to include in counting the number of libraries, there may be about the same number as McDonalds. If you only consider public and academic (college/university) libraries, they are about equal. However this does exclude nearly 100k school libraries, special libraries (private, medical, law, corporate), or government/military libraries. Source

I find that it's easier to avoid taking other peoples' idiocy to heart when I can pay various non-profit organizations to deal with it on my behalf. Some recent favorites include:

The ever-present EFF
The Freedom from Religion Foundation
The American Library Association
The Wikimedia Foundation
The Nevada chapter of the ACLU (which is explicitly pro-Second Amendment, unlike the national body)

There are plenty of other worthy causes; those are just the ones on my list this year. Think about it this way: the God-botherers contribute a full 10% of their income, pre-tax, to try to drag civilization back into the Middle Ages. What's the best you can do?

I just wanted to say thanks for bringing my attention to the FFRF. This is my new favorite charity. We need more organizations protecting the constitution.

I find that it's easier to avoid taking other peoples' idiocy to heart when I can pay various non-profit organizations to deal with it on my behalf. Some recent favorites include:

The ever-present EFF
The Freedom from Religion Foundation
The American Library Association
The Wikimedia Foundation
The Nevada chapter of the ACLU (which is explicitly pro-Second Amendment, unlike the national body)

There are plenty of other worthy causes; those are just the ones on my list this year. Think about it this way: the God-botherers contribute a full 10% of their income, pre-tax, to try to drag civilization back into the Middle Ages. What's the best you can do?

The right to free expression conflicts with the right to be free from harm. If your expression is causing harm then perhaps your expression should be curtailed.

No it does not, and to claim otherwise is to make a false analogy, just watch as you do it:

In other words, at some stage up around advocating the raping of children

You should rape children. GO! Do it now! You will really like it!

Harm is not caused by speech. Harm is caused by physical action. People like you who falsely claim to believe in freedom of expression are just conflating the two because, like all censorship, it is easier to identify and squelch speech about harmful actions than it is to identify and stop individuals who actually commit those actions and cause actual harm. You get the warm fuzzy of appearing to do something about a problem with high emotional content without all the cost of actually making a real difference.

By the way, bonus points for using "But think of the children!" as your example. I can't think of another meme that has been so widely abused to justify censorship with such little actual reduction in harm.

I have to wonder what the written policies of the library system are, though. It could easily be that the library director violated the policies of the library system itself by not requiring a search warrant, and could face dismissal on those grounds. The ALA is a very libertarian organization in matters of information access for the public and constitutional limits on the powers of government. If this library system adheres to the ALA Code of Ethics and other policies, our friendly library director could be in big trouble.

Here's the Maryland state statute relating to library patron privacy. Like many state laws, it focuses on circulation information, and doesn't mention computer use. This is a weakness in many of the state laws.

10-616. Same -- Specific records

      (a) In general. -- Unless otherwise provided by law, a custodian shall deny inspection of a public record, as provided in this section.

(e) Circulation records, or other item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual. --
(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (2) of this subsection, a custodian shall prohibit inspection, use, or disclosure of a circulation record of a public library or other item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that:
              (i) is maintained by a library;
(ii) contains an individual's name or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual; and
(iii) identifies the use a patron makes of that library's materials, services, or facilities.
(2) A custodian shall permit inspection, use, or disclosure of a circulation record of a public library only in connection with the library's ordinary business and only for the purposes for which the record was created.

The American Library Association, ALA, has a professional code of ethics. It includes the following:

III. We protect each library user's right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information sought or received and resources consulted, borrowed, acquired or transmitted.

In practice, this means that patron privacy is protected--period. No search warrant, no information, no cooperation. It is not difficult for an investigator pursuing a valid investigation of a legitimate crime to obtain a warrant. They shouldn't even bother showing up without the paperwork. The ALA statement on confidentiality goes into more detail about this.

The American Library Association, ALA, has a professional code of ethics. It includes the following:

III. We protect each library user's right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information sought or received and resources consulted, borrowed, acquired or transmitted.

In practice, this means that patron privacy is protected--period. No search warrant, no information, no cooperation. It is not difficult for an investigator pursuing a valid investigation of a legitimate crime to obtain a warrant. They shouldn't even bother showing up without the paperwork. The ALA statement on confidentiality goes into more detail about this.

Right. I immediately checked the American Library Association too.

Contrary to what some of the posters are saying, we do have an expectation of privacy when we use the library, since we are guaranteed privacy by the ALA policies (below) that we can reasonably expect every library to follow. The library director was indeed an incompetent putz. He was placing our freedom to read, and our entire Constitution, at risk. He should be removed from any position of responsibility.

There was a long story in the New York Times magazine about a guy who was completely innocent, and a completely assimilated American -- except that he was Muslim and his name was Mohammed. He used the same public computer in Kinko's that one of the 9/11 hijackers had used the same day. (Sure, it's a strange coincidence, but how many people used that public computer?)

The FBI arrested him (although "arrest" implies legal process) and kept him for days (maybe weeks, I forget) and repeatedly refused to let him contact his wife or a lawyer. Finally he got depressed and suicidal. These interrogations can be very brutal, as we've recently found out.

After they figured out that he had nothing to do with 9/11, or terrorism, or any crime, instead of apologizing and letting him go, they subject his immigration documents to Kenneth Starr-type scrutiny and tried to make a case in immigration court (where you have fewer rights) that his marriage was a sham, and that he should be deported.

The moral of this story (and there are others) is that even an innocent person has good reason to avoid the FBI's high false positive dragnet.

(Sorry I don't have the citation of the New York Times story; your librarian can help you find it. :)

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/otherpolicies/default.cfm

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/otherpolicies/developingconfidentiality.cfm

Developing a Confidentiality Policy

Recent years have seen an increase in the number and frequency of challenges to the confidentiality of library records across the United States, and a new dimension has been added to confidentiality concerns. Throughout the 1980s, the Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) received queries from individual librarians who had been pressured by the FBI or local law enforcement agencies for information about library users, or who were afraid of being held liable for a patron's acts after providing information on such topics as bomb construction, weapons, or satanism. Some of these librarians were tempted to maintain special files on patrons who seemed "suspicious" or who made "unusual" requests. These queries revealed a lack of confidence in confidentiality procedures or a misunderstanding of the important links among confidentiality, intellectual freedom, and librarians' professional and legal obligations to uphold the privacy rights of patrons.

Right. I immediately checked the American Library Association too.

Contrary to what some of the posters are saying, we do have an expectation of privacy when we use the library, since we are guaranteed privacy by the ALA policies (below) that we can reasonably expect every library to follow. The library director was indeed an incompetent putz. He was placing our freedom to read, and our entire Constitution, at risk. He should be removed from any position of responsibility.

There was a long story in the New York Times magazine about a guy who was completely innocent, and a completely assimilated American -- except that he was Muslim and his name was Mohammed. He used the same public computer in Kinko's that one of the 9/11 hijackers had used the same day. (Sure, it's a strange coincidence, but how many people used that public computer?)

The FBI arrested him (although "arrest" implies legal process) and kept him for days (maybe weeks, I forget) and repeatedly refused to let him contact his wife or a lawyer. Finally he got depressed and suicidal. These interrogations can be very brutal, as we've recently found out.

After they figured out that he had nothing to do with 9/11, or terrorism, or any crime, instead of apologizing and letting him go, they subject his immigration documents to Kenneth Starr-type scrutiny and tried to make a case in immigration court (where you have fewer rights) that his marriage was a sham, and that he should be deported.

The moral of this story (and there are others) is that even an innocent person has good reason to avoid the FBI's high false positive dragnet.

(Sorry I don't have the citation of the New York Times story; your librarian can help you find it. :)

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/otherpolicies/default.cfm

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/otherpolicies/developingconfidentiality.cfm

Developing a Confidentiality Policy

Recent years have seen an increase in the number and frequency of challenges to the confidentiality of library records across the United States, and a new dimension has been added to confidentiality concerns. Throughout the 1980s, the Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) received queries from individual librarians who had been pressured by the FBI or local law enforcement agencies for information about library users, or who were afraid of being held liable for a patron's acts after providing information on such topics as bomb construction, weapons, or satanism. Some of these librarians were tempted to maintain special files on patrons who seemed "suspicious" or who made "unusual" requests. These queries revealed a lack of confidence in confidentiality procedures or a misunderstanding of the important links among confidentiality, intellectual freedom, and librarians' professional and legal obligations to uphold the privacy rights of patrons.

Maryland DOES have a library privacy law that forbids the library from sharing information that identifies individual users, etc.

Those computers are accessed using the patrons library card (or a temporary access card) that identifies the usages to an individual.

With a warrant, the library can, of course, release the information, but lacking a warrant patrons DO have an expectation of privacy BY LAW in that state.

Here is the pertinent information that the library director should have known by rote:

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifgroups/stateifcchairs/stateifcinaction/marylandprivacy.rtf (Courtesy the American Library Association)

The computers, with information on individual patron usage of same, were unlawfully seized if taken without a warrant, even with the incorrectly given permission of the library director.

--Tomas

If we guess that this library is average, then each of those 10k libs is visited every ~3 years. Or about 10 Libraries per day, every day of the week/year. Thats a crapload of data collection.

Remember that Libraries can't talk about when they get visited if the (un)Patriot Act is used.

Scary.

And they dont even need to visit a judge.

This goes completely against the American Library Association's issued "Recommended Procedures for Law Enforcement Visits" policy:

"Without a court order, neither the FBI nor local law enforcement has authority to compel cooperation with an investigation or require answers to questions, other than the name and address of the person speaking to the agent or officer. If the agent or officer persists, or makes an appeal to patriotism, the library director should explain that, as good citizens, the library staff will not respond to informal requests for confidential information, in conformity with professional ethics, First Amendment freedoms, and state law.

If the agent or officer presents a search warrant or other judicial process, the library director should immediately call the library's counsel and ask for assistance."

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/confidentiality.cfm

This library director was just a putz (and I can say that as a libraian-in-training).

Check out the list of Newberry Honor and Newberry Award books. Even today I will happily sit down with one of these--shorter, simpler prose combined with incredibly powerful stories.

Since you asked for sci-fi in particular, here are a few Newberry suggestions that may suit:

The Giver by Lois Lowry (Houghton)
A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle (Farrar
The High King by Lloyd Alexander (Holt)

Full list can be found here:

http://www.ala.org/ala/alsc/awardsscholarships/literaryawds/newberymedal/newberyhonors/newberymedal.cfm

Check them out, you wont be sorry. :)

In response to the "Patriot" Act, my local library does not store any information about any books I have checked out, except for those on which I currently owe fines. Check out this page, on which the ALA describes its policies with regard to user information: http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/ifresolutions/libraryusagerecords.cfm I think google, who does no evil, needs to follow that example, and then lead by example. If you know that some outside entity can force you to turn over personal data, then by storing that data you are aiding and abetting, and all your statements regarding 'privacy' are nothing but b.s.

However, note this entry in the American Library Association's policy manual:

53.4 Governmental Intimidation

The American Library Association opposes any use of governmental prerogatives that lead to the intimidation of individuals or groups and discourages them from exercising the right of free expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. ALA encourages resistance to such abuse of governmental power and supports those against whom such governmental power has been employed.

Unfortunately, you have to give a member ID to read the ALA policy manual (WTF?).

>That's not a democracy you're describing.. it's a constitutional republic.

I think you meant to say "conditional republic".

As in: "It's a republic unless the king says it isn't", or
"It's only a republic if the people will fight to keep it"

CALEA (1994) - mandated access to the telco switches (even local ones)
http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/woissues/techinttele/calea/calea.cfm

Patriot Act (2001) - removed barriers between domestic law enforcement and "national security"

So, what did you expect?

The US is very different, in theory every book is free, just that libraries that stock the wrong ones get no funding.

• habeas corpus
• torture
• Fourth amendment
• free speech in peaceable assemblies
• freedom of the press
• widespread corruption

My wife and I make it a point to buy the books on their list of "The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-2000". Seriously, people who want to ban "Huck Finn" or "A Wrinkle In Time" should be rounded up and shot (how's that for censorship?). I don't want to live in a society where my kids can't read "Flowers For Algernon" some day, so we make sure that those books will always be available to them.

Having said that, a lot of those books were challenged for being inappropriate for an age group, and I'm pretty OK with that kind of restriction. I can't think of a single reason why Madonna's "Sex" would be appropriate for a first grader, for example, and I'd be a bit irked if it showed up in the local early-elementary library.

Don't people know most of the stuff in that book is a good way to get yourself blown up? Dangerous or not, though, censorship of any kind is just not acceptable in a free society. Everybody should read banned books.

Unless you're carrying something like the Anarchist Cookbook, it seems unlikely that additional suspicion should be warranted. Given this time of year, it seems ironic that security would be judging others by the cover (and content) of their books rather than their actual threat, if any existed at all.

This was never about national security, it's all about watching people especially those who have the opposite political views as the watchers.

Unless you're carrying something like the Anarchist Cookbook, it seems unlikely that additional suspicion should be warranted. Given this time of year, it seems ironic that security would be judging others by the cover (and content) of their books rather than their actual threat, if any existed at all.

And now look what tops the bestseller lists - Harry Potter.

...which is number 7 on the list of most frequently banned books.

Here's a link to the list that I think you were referencing. It lists A Wrinkle In Time at 22.
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlink s/100mostfrequently.htm

Why I find this humorous is that when I was in 6th grade, some 15 years or so ago, my elementary school had a list of books that we were required to read and write book reports and be generally harassed until they were sure we understood the meaning of the content. Julie of the Wolves and A Wrinkle In Time were among the books that we were required to read, and also appear on the list that I linked to above, in positions 38 and 22 respectively. It's also worth noting that this was a Catholic elementary school that I attended, and I believe it was 1993 when I was in 6th grade. I say all this because I am trying to build a mental time line for when this would have been considered normal reading material to becoming listed on a frequently challenged reading material list dated 1990-2000. I don't know what happened, but something went terribly wrong somewhere along the way.

Dismayed to find it and many other titles on that list would be an understatement. (Damned that foul mouthed and filthy minded Mark Twain)

"super mega huge"?? Hmm . . . With 3.6 million volumes, it's dwarfed by the smallest of the Big Ten libraries (Iowa at 4.6 million). Collectively, the Big Ten libraries hold about 75,000,000 volumes. See:
http://www.ala.org/ala/alalibrary/libraryfactsheet /alalibraryfactsheet22.cfm

This is why you should use the library. The ALA code of ethics says your borrowing history is confidential information. Nearly all circulation systems disassociate borrower IDs with the material after return, providing you don't owe fines, etc.

If your checkout slip has your name on it, complain.

original post claim of which I dispute- "law says records must not be kept"

your cite says "not that they must not be kept, and not that they must be kept."
only that, "if they are kept, they must be kept confidentially"
privacy is required by that law, not non-rentention.

yes, many librarians (and I hail originally from Santa Cruz County, California; a oft-quoted library system ralling against these provisions of the USA PATRIOT act) specifically do not keep records for this reason, but there is no law (although I feel there should be) compelling libraries to not keep records... only compelling libraries to hold what records they do keep into confidence.... which is then trumped when possible by the means of a search warrant or subpeona, a subpeopna being rebuttable/attackable defeatable after receipt and before execution, a search warrant not being so- and requiring immediate compliance.

http://www.ala.org/template.cfm/?Section=ifissues& Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&Con tentID=51866
if they are being held, securely, they must be turned over to an fbi patriot warrant

Here ya go, 48 State Privacy Laws Regarding Library Records. Since the USA PATRIOT Act (and in the 1970s during the FBI's "Library Awareness" investigations), however, federal law (NSA letters, for example) can trump these statutes. So the OP is partially right.

Librarians learned in the 60s not to keep patron records like this. It turns us in to sleeper agents for a snooping government. Pre-9/11 this was the widespread sentiment too.

I guess that the 9/11 hijackers used library computers doesn't help, nor does the current "Library 2.0" movement to offer customized services.

are public enemy #1. The FBI said so to quote: Radical, Militant, Librarians
The site is for buttons supporting the American Librarian Association. The quote is from an FBI report on the NJ incident where a librarian refused to break state law for the police. [As an asside the librarian in question was suspended by the board --- for 'questionable judgment' when the law explicitly states that the following the police request would have been a felony.]

And I would like to know the criteria for the "correct" evaluation of the objectivity and authority of these sources.

It appears I was wrong. Great list of cases here: http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/firstamendment/courtcas es/courtcases.htm#fes

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
the Supreme Court held that students "do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate"

Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico
"Local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion."

Interactive Digital Software Association, et al. v. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al.
speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors.

Maybe there is a first ammendment case here after all.

I'm on a first name basis with one of the librarians at the local public library. In light of Banned Books Week, we were discussing censorship. He noted that the USA has some of the best anti-censorship laws in the world*, both in strength and legal firmament.


*public schools notwithstanding

The American Library Association (ALA) collects information from two sources: newspapers and reports submitted by individuals, some of whom use the Challenge Database Form. All challenges are compiled into a database. Reports of challenges culled from newspapers across the country are compiled in the bimonthly Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom (published by the ALA, $40 per year); those reports are then compiled in the Banned Books Week Resource Guide. Challenges reported to the ALA by individuals are kept confidential. In these cases, ALA will release only the title of the book being challenged, the state and the type of institution (school, public library). The name of the institution and its town will not be disclosed.

That's the problem with anarchist books. Their intended audience can't be arsed to read.

these books are actually banned? this lists sounds more like a list of required-reading books than banned books.

This is, of course, a major point of the banned book lists. Sometimes people will challenge* a book because it's thought-provoking. And sometimes people just miss the point, like those who've wanted to ban To Kill A Mockingbird for being "racist" or 1984 for being "pro-communist."

This particular list was made by taking someone's top 100 novels of the 20th century and looking at which of them had been challenged or outright banned by various nations, states, libraries, etc.

*The ALA list is technically the "Banned and/or Challenged Books" list. Meaning either that someone has deliberately removed the book from a library or school curriculum (for political reasons, not just because the copy was falling apart, or they wanted to teach another book this year) or that someone has attempted to do so.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/100-Banned-Books-Censorship- Literature/dp/0816040591
[2] http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlink s/100mostfrequently.htm

A quick glance at these 2 lists only confirms my suspicions. We are well and truely fucked as a nation.

Fortunately I think that crap has died out,

What's the Difference between a Challenge and a Banning?
A challenge is an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group. A banning is the removal of those materials. Challenges do not simply involve a person expressing a point of view; rather, they are an attempt to remove material from the curriculum or library, thereby restricting the access of others. The positive message of Banned Books Week: Free People Read Freely is that due to the commitment of librarians, teachers, parents, students and other concerned citizens, most challenges are unsuccessful and most materials are retained in the school curriculum or library collection.

How is the List of Most Challenged Books Tabulated?
The American Library Association (ALA) collects information from two sources: newspapers and reports submitted by individuals, some of whom use the Challenge Database Form. All challenges are compiled into a database. Reports of challenges culled from newspapers across the country are compiled in the bimonthly Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom (published by the ALA, $40 per year); those reports are then compiled in the Banned Books Week Resource Guide. Challenges reported to the ALA by individuals are kept confidential. In these cases, ALA will release only the title of the book being challenged, the state and the type of institution (school, public library). The name of the institution and its town will not be disclosed.

Considering we're coming up on Banned Books Week 2006, this is the perfect time to make these books available.

And yes, every book that Google has up there has been banned or challenged in public libraries across the country. There are still places where 'To Kill A Mockingbird' or 'Tom Sawyer' are considered improper reading for children - and for adults.

Good work, Google. Keep on it.

From the list of Top 100 challenged books:

#7 : Harry Potter (Series) by J.K. Rowling
#19: Sex by Madonna
#88: Where's Waldo? by Martin Hanford

[1] http://www.amazon.com/100-Banned-Books-Censorship- Literature/dp/0816040591
[2] http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlink s/100mostfrequently.htm

The write-up is missing some context. For more info on what's being banned and why, see here and here.

The write-up is missing some context. For more info on what's being banned and why, see here and here.

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlink s/100mostfrequently.htm

Be sure to get your RML pin today!

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/basics/basicrelatedlink s/radicalbutton.htm

The FBI prefers to refer to them as 'radical militant librarians'.
You can buy your button here

I think "educational sector" means teachers, not students. heh.

It also includes Museums... as recently several Museum groups have submitted positions supporting balanced copyright and supporting the public interest and opposing DRM/TPM legislation.

So it's those eeeeevil librarians and teachers and museums in the educational sector conspiring to abolish copyright on the internet. Damn those Radical Militant Librarians! (Be sure to catch the third paragraph, where the origin of the term is explained.)

-

Oh, they do. Some countries seem to still live under the illusion that they are sovereign states and not obliged to let the MPAA draft their IP legislation, but a little trade sanctions can work wonders in rectifying that minor error.

And you probably should read this book, it may revise your impression about that "signed treaties" thing.

>>So you think any adult should be able to see any other adults reading history?
>Why not? What's the big deal?

For starters, it is against the law in most states. (Of course that doesn't explain any real "why".)

The real reasons involve concepts found in the bill of rights (free speech, freedom in one's effects from unlawful search/seizure, etc).

Basically, reader privacy has a been standard expectation of libraries for pretty much the entire existence of the institution. Here is a nice snippet:

"Libraries are based on sharing information also, but in a different way: they are a place (virtual or physical) to find reading and to read. Reading is so necessarily private and so related to the process of thought as it has evolved over the centuries that its history is congruent with the history of the concept of the private, individual thinking mind in Western culture. In accordance with our conceptualization of the privacy of the act of reading, libraries have traditionally treated the privacy of readers as sacred. Privacy is a central, core value of libraries." -- Rory Litwin (LibraryJuice)

You can find all the reading material you could ever want on the subject at http://www.ala.org/

> My reading list includes Rainey, Feldhahn, Lewis, Eggerichs, Piper, Thomas, Luther, Calvin, Smith, Lewis, McGraw, Cussler, Clancy, Grisham, business books, and geek titles.

Wonderful. You have no problems sharing, and that is fine. That doesn't mean everyone else feels the same. And it doesn't mean a third party should be able to make that decision for you, whether you like it or not.

> Who cares? What difference does it make? Now that you know this about me, how does it benefit you or harm me?

There have been (and still are, actually) places where the theological bent of your reading materials could be considered enough positive ID of your religious thinking for someone to consider you an enemy that should be harmed in some fashion or even killed. Not so much here and now... but a person's reading materials can be incriminating in all kinds of ways, as it reveals to others a ton about your thinking processes in a short period of time. (Often mistaken or misleading, but people sometimes use their interpretation of that kind of information as if it were gospel truth.)

The very fact that law enforcement finds that kind of information valuable enough to seek it out confirms its value to third parties, for myriad purposes.

It is the closest a stranger can get to your mind without ever interacting with you.

> Look, there's no such thing as privacy anymore.

In many cases, that is true. However it does exist in libraries, because they tend to take it just as seriously now as they always have. Is the lack of privacy in many elements of life a reason to elimate it everywhere? Personal information in a library is of a kind that can be easily found nowhere else short of invading your home.

> Why should the library insist on a draconian policy?

You misuse the word. You were inconvenienced for a few moments, yet your goal was still accomplished. The library left the decision about disclosure of checkout information in your wife's account up to your wife... exacly the person that should be making that decision.

You know, if she asked the library to put a note in her record authorizing you to see her checkouts, they might very well be OK with that.

> It's a waste of time. Besides, my tax dollars paid for the books, the people, and the processes for checkout. Why shouldn't those records be public?

No they didn't. They paid a contribution toward all of the above, which was shared by all other taxpayers in your library's service area (more or less). You have no right to singlehandly insist on particular policies (such as disclosure of private records) any more than anyone else does to insist on something you might disagree with. It's not YOURS, it is yours a

There's buttons here : https://www.ala.org/ala/oif/basics/basicrelatedlin ks/radicalbutton.htm

The phrase "Radical Militant Librarian" was used by the FBI to describe exactly this situation where somebody actually insisted on following the law.