Slashdot Mirror
Effects of the Patriot Act on Librarians
Quaryon writes "The Patriot Act apears to have some chilling effects with respect to libraries and booksellers. An FBI agent can get a warrant, without any evidence, in order to compel a librarian to reveal lending details on a suspect. The librarian cannot tell anyone about the search, including the target of the search, and the details of how many such searches are done are not made public. Articles at SFGate News and Common Dreams give more details." We had a related Ask Slashdot a few weeks ago.
This is fairly old news. Similar stories were on Drudge Report back in June.
m ain513251.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/24/attack/
In the article, it shows that some libraries are resisting as much as possible. I believe the ALA has a section on their website to keep librarians aware of their rights.
The real question is why libraries need to keep track of the books you have checked out after they have been returned? Most places are past the point where you sign the little card in the back of the book, so I don't see why libraries couldn't just delete the info after the book has been returned.
If you care about this issue, you may be interested in the activities of the Freedom to Read Foundation
Here at Duke, the school newspaper The Chronicle ran a recent story about the effect of the Patriot act on librarians. I hope that word becomes more widespread about the effect of this passed-in-the-heat-of-the-moment legislation, so that we can get it off the books as soon as possible.
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
Well, 50% of Americans DO afterall think that the first amendment gives them too much freedom.
That is what sickens me.
AdCouncil is responsible for these ads... Not sure they qualify as a government interest group.
_ fr eedom/
http://www.adcouncil.org/campaigns/campaign_for
has a link to the video you are speaking of.
As the spouse of a Librarian, I can assure you that *most* modern libraries do not track lending habits past the currently checked out books. The ALA (American Library Association) stance is one favoring privacy, not government intervention.
Old card systems kept the names on a card, and the FBI did not need to do much more than scan through the backs of books to get their list. It was available to everyone. Nowadays, once the book is checked in, the users name is dropped from the system, thus fouling any search for history.
I should add the disclaimer that this is true in most cases. You should check with your librarian to see if your library software follows ALA guidelines.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I wonder if some libraries keep this information in order to know when to withdraw books and sell them at book sales.
Lately, at a lot of the 'Friends of the Library' booksales I've been to, I've noticed a lot of "Withdrawn" editions -- perfectly good books, in pretty good shape, but for whatever reason they've been pulled from the shelf.
Well, last weekend I got a copy of Milosz's 'History of Polish Literature' and was actually curious why a book like this was at a FOL sale for a quarter. Anyway, I bought the book then went upstairs to check the card catalog. I figured the book had been replaced. But there was no sign of a new edition.
Then I figured it might be from a different library -- a branch or something -- but all the markings on the spine and front cover matched with the library where it was for sale.
I should have asked the ref librarians -- because i was actually pretty curious about this -- but they were busy and I didn't feel like waiting.
Anyway, I scored a great book (if you're into the history of Polish lit, I suppose) for twenty-five cents. I figured that because it was pretty obscure was why it was pulled.
But I might be wrong. I'd hate to think libraries are driven by marketing -- what's popular, what's not -- but then I figure: well, most libraries have a finite amount of space and new space is not always forthcoming. So instead of just adding, adding, adding to the inventory, they probably have to make some hard decisions and pull stuff off the shelf.
This *might* be why libraries need records. (But they don't need to correlate the borrower records with the book check-out history, I suppose.)
*shrug*
mass of CDRs in my apartment,
so, just what do you need all those CDRs for? you don't happen to use them to violate copyright laws, do you? explain yourself, please speak in to the microphone.
While I am indeed concerned about some of the infringments to liberties post 9-11, I must say that this particular isue is pretty much open and shut. When you go to a library, you are visiting a public place, stocked with public property. The computers you use are not your own privately held property, nor are books/periodicals/music that you check out. There can be no expectation of privacy when the resource one is using is not private.
"Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
"Unlike other search warrants, these warrants do not require the officer to show that evidence of wrongdoing is likely to be found or that the target of its investigation is involved in a crime.
A librarian who is served with a warrant must surrender records of the patron's book borrowing or Internet use and is prohibited from revealing the search to anyone -- including the patron. The Justice Department has refused to tell Congress how the law is being used, saying the information is classified. "
-- I especially like the standards for warrents. The don't need probably cause of evidence, they just need to tell the judge "it's in the interest of National Security". We all know by historical example that powers like that are never abused, right?
Those libraries which are public are provided to all and funded primarily by the local taxpayer. Access to records, if kept, of who checked out which books should follow due process procedures. Prior to the patriot act, law enforcement would need to get a warrant (U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV) detailing what they were looking for on a basis of probable cause. The patriot act circumvents that. In addition, we are guaranteed a freedom of speech (U.S. Constitution, Amendment I) which would appear to be curtailed by these subpoenas, since people should now fear to check out books which the government might identify as somehow "subversive". Note also, "For the First Amendment does not speak equivocally. . . . It must be taken as a command of the broadest scope that explicit language, read in the context of a liberty-loving society, will allow." Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 263 (1941), which is to say, "Free speech carries with it some freedom to listen." Richmond Newspapers, Inc., et al. v. Virginia et al., 448 U.S. 555, 79-243 (1980).
Every lending library has a record of what books are currently out on loan, and who to. That's unavoidable unless you want your books to disappear. However, once the book has been returned, it's perfectly feasable to destroy that record, and make it impossible to get a loan history of the client. This has no risk - the book has been returned.
Considering that Congress revealed how much the FBI knew about the possible attack, without having to use any of the new capabilities granted to them by the Patriot Act.
You obviously have never taken a political science course have you? The biggest impact of any federal ruling or court decision or action is not the immediate impact but the precident it sets further down the road. For example, the creation of a national bank was not provided for in the constitution, and when the idea first came up, it was a heavy legal battle fought all the way to the supreme court. There, the decision was made based on a 3 part test.
1) Does the law explicitly violate the constitution?
2) Is the purpose bennificial to the people as individuals, the states as entities and the US as a whole?
3) Is there a better way to reach the same ends?
All this ruling did was create a national bank, but the precident for deciding how to rule on controversial laws is still in use today. Those same 3 steps, established in one of the first supreme court cases is a method that is used for many many laws today.
Likewise, there was a ruling which established that there is no such thing as an absoulte right to free speech (can't yell fire in a theater). This ruling allows for the supression of anti government propaganda durring a war. That is a scary precident.
SO is this one. If they can read your borrowing logs today, why shouldn't they be able to read your credit history tomorrow? And read your phone logs the next day? What's the difference? It's all part of the better good to save your life. Better to die young and free than old and opressed.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
PATRIOT Act legislation applies not only to public libraries, but also to school libraries (elementary through graduate school--public, private and parochial) and what librarians call special libraries--historical societies, corporate libraries, etc. Whether a library receives government funds or not (many of them don't, and the ones that do still mostly have to scrimp and hustle), they're still required to comply with the new legislation.
For some increasingly-outdated PATRIOT-ACT-related links, try this links page I put up in late July (I'm a library school student).
My ;ocal library doies nto keep track of who checked out any books. Once a book is returned, and there are no unpaid fines for said book, or any other unfinshed transactions regarding said book, the record is expunged. This has always been their policy. Alaska is a very pro-privacy state. Personal privacy is built into our state constitution and we take it rather seriously.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
I'm not so worried about the library aspect of this. What I >AM worried about is my neighbors, mailmen, and meter readers spying on me. That sucks.
Lots of posts below this one displaying some ignorance of how modern libraries operate.
1) Most all libraries these days have computerized inventory systems using barcodes or RFID tags to track books and patrons. These systems make it LESS possible to track reading histories. In the old days with the 3 x 5 cards and date stamp machines one COULD track reading histories, though the logistics of such an operation would be daunting.
2) Libraries erase lending history upon return of items. In fact, librarians insist the systems keep no history as part of the RFP process.
3) It is potentially possible to retrieve lending history via backup tapes. These are usually recycled in a typical father-grandfather scheme. Restoring data from these tapes would mean the library system would be shut down during the process. It would be a massive operation and very visible.
4) Librarians are generally liberally educated left-wing leaning social and humanities graduates who are well aware of the first amendment and often the only people in the community willing to stand up for it. With recent polls shoing 49% of Americans believe the 1st amendment goes too far, you better go hug your local librarian. Because you know what? Nobody else is helping.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
Seems to me that the various things mentioned in
the article represent a conspiracy to or a deprivation of our God-given, Constitutionally-protected rights. Maybe the following sections of laws from the US Code should be enforced against anyone who passed, signed off or attempts to enforce it.
* United States Code
* TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
* CHAPTER 21 - CIVIL RIGHTS
* SUBCHAPTER I - GENERALLY
U.S. Code as of: 01/05/99
Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such of
ficer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
U.S. Code as of: 01/05/99
Section 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
(1) Preventing officer from performing duties
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;
(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in
any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;
(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
U.S. Code as of: 01/05/99
Section 1986. Action for neglect to prevent
Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.
Many bills cross the floors of Congress with deliberately misleading names. For example, ask someone if they'll favor a Medical Privacy Act, and they'll say yes in a heartbeat. Unless you elabroate that this Act will require all doctors to surrender medical records of their patients to the Federal Government upon request, while making it a crime for your doctor to tell you that your information has been reported.
Or, take the Florida Wetlands Protection Bills, so heavily favored by the Eco-Crowd... which propose to seize privately-owned lands and flood these areas beyond their natural levels, threatening the natural ecological balances.
I do wish we had a rule requiring appropriate naming of legislation. I also wish we had a rule that all sponsors of any legislation at the State or Federal level would have to sign a certain document. This document would state their belief that the legislation is more important than any other use the taxpayers may have for the money it would require, including food, bills, transportation, home repair, personal investment towards retirement, personal investment in education, etc.
But then, I can't see any bill with either of those proposals getting very far.
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
Ok, you're painted in "naive" now, top to bottom. Like the new look?
Seriously, you'd *hope* that judges would screen out frivolous warrants out - but I don't think it happens as often as it should.
For example, one of my uncles used to serve as a Supreme Court justice in Illinois. (I believe he's in private law practice now.) He once told me that he typically just "signed-off" on warrants when they were brought to him. They're simply too busy to spend much time looking them over, and judges tend to have an attitude of "Do whatever you need to do to bring the people in here. We'll sort out what's right and wrong in the courtroom later."
Does this bother me? Yep, sure does! This is a serious flaw in the justice system. Unfortunately, I think this isn't going to be easy to change. As someone else pointed out, there's a considerable "buddy system" in place too. The lawyers know the judges who know the cops - and everyone's doing little favors for each other.
Well, right off the top of my head,
http://www.religioustolerance.org/amend_1.htm
Or, in case you don't want to follow the link:
Current support for the First Amendment:
The First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN conducts a public opinion poll on an annual basis. The results for the year 2000 show that support for first amendment freedoms is not particularly strong in some areas. First Amendment Center director, Kenneth Paulson, said that "While Americans respect the First Amendment as an ideal, increasingly they're ambivalent when it protects offensive ideas or troubling speech or art or music." The results for their poll taken in 2000 show:
Two thirds of American adults favor the banning of hate speech. This troubles many civil rights supporters. As Ken Paulson said: "The problem with that is it's so easy to characterize what someone else says that offends you as 'hate speech.' "
53% favor the banning of speech critical of religions. [Author's note: That is particularly troubling because it would criminalize even the most innocuous criticism of racism, sexism, and homophobia policies established by religious groups.] Paulson said. "That's an astonishing number. Are we really ready to say that you can't talk about religion in the public sector because it might offend someone of another faith? "
"37% of those polled couldn't name even one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. Those freedoms are: the right to worship, speak, publish, assemble, and raise grievances with the government." 4
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
"The poll released Thursday found that 49 percent think the First Amendment goes too far, a total about 10 points higher than in 2001."
The source for the quote above is an AP story on CBS newsabout a poll by the "First Amendment Center" of Arlington VA. Don't know anything about this group, but both the AP and CBS found it worth repeating.
I can't argue the slant of the poll, not having looked any further. And as a strong civil libertarian, statistics like the number above scare me. But I fear I can't dismiss it as easily as you did.
Wait... you mean you still haven't joined the ACLU?