More Propaganda by Libraries, Media: "Libraries Balance Privacy, Law"

Exeter News-Letter ^ | June 13, 2006 | Michael W. Lenz

[plan2succeed.org]

With the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act by Congress this past March, local libraries find themselves again confronted with having to balance the public’s privacy rights with the potential practice by federal authorities of section 215 of the anti-terrorism bill.

Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, allows the FBI to obtain any tangible things such as records or books, and other relevant material, from any entity without having to show probable cause that the person whose records it seeks is engaged in criminal activity.

Additionally, those served with Section 215 orders to turn over any relevant material are prohibited from disclosing the fact to anyone else. Those who are the subjects of the surveillance are never notified.

Carol Gulla, library trustee, at Wiggin Memorial Library in Stratham, expressed concern over the reauthorization of the act, because she said it forces the library to resolve the tension between the library’s mission statement guaranteeing the protection of the public right to intellectual freedom and privacy and the obligation to obey federal law.

“I am deeply concerned about civil liberties. Our mission statement supports intellectual freedom and protects the right to privacy. But we are also obligated to obey the federal law,” said Gulla.

Lesley Kimball, library director, at Wiggin Memorial Library in Stratham, explained that the gag rule in Section 215 poses the biggest challenge to public libraries.

“The most difficult thing for the public library is the gag order because when someone is being investigated, that person has the right to a legal defense under state law. However, under the USA Patriot Act they don’t. There is a tension between state and federal law,” said Kimball.

Kimball also explained that Section 215 could potentially pose other threats to the public’s civil liberties.

“Hypothetically, under the USA Patriot Act, federal authorities could subpoena the library’s whole Internet service if it was trying to obtain the records of one person. However, by subpoenaing for the whole service, they could also see the records of all the library’s users,” said Kimball.

Hope Gordino, library director, at Exeter Public Library in Exeter, said that the nation’s Patriot Act poses similar privacy concerns, but that the public should be aware of existing federal policies.

“It is a challenge to protect free access to information for all ages and abilities. That’s more of an important problem in libraries today. However, the public needs to be aware that what they are seeing hearing or reading, another may look at. People need to be aware of policies so they are not blindsided,” said Gordino.

Both libraries have initiated policies that mitigate the potential effects of section 215.

For example, at both libraries, circulation programs erase book records once the item is returned. Both libraries also destroy Internet records within hours after usage or at the end of the day.

Wiggin Memorial Library also only asks for the first name of Internet users to better protect their confidentiality.

Kimball emphasized that the idea is to comply with federal laws but to uphold privacy to the best of their ability.

“Our goal is both to comply with the law but also to take seriously the charge of what the state has called for us to do. State confidentiality laws go back to 1989. It is important to find a balance between a user-friendly library and privacy,” said Kimball.

Kimball and Gordino both emphasized that while the Intellectual Committee of the American Library Association (ALA) has been active in collecting information about how the act is affecting public libraries and combating the legislation in general, libraries are trying not to be, in the words of Kimball, “in complete panic mode.”

Both directors pointed to the pending challenge to the gag rule in the high courts as evidence that not all is bleak.

“I’m glad that the gag rule is being challenged. If you abide by laws as they stand, there are ways to object to laws without breaking them, the present challenge to the gag rule is a case in point,” said Gordino.

[plan2succeed.org]

All, please review the article to see if you agree that this is a propaganda piece by the librarians and the media. While being titled "Libraries Balance Privacy, Law," and while the librarians claim to attempt to balance privacy and the law, in reality, at least as I see it, the librarians have found a clever way to circumvent the USA Patriot Act.

While claiming they are in compliance with the law designed to help protect us all from terrorists, a law that requires the turnover of certain library physical and electronic records, the librarians have devised a scheme deleting electronic records every few hours and deleting paper records as soon as a book is returned. Is this action, taken in response to the USA Patriot Act, not a means for the librarians to effectively and legally ignore the law? If true, they have not really balanced anything -- rather they have defied the law at least in spirit. If so, is not an article about librarians trying to balance the law incorrect where there actually is no real balance? And if the librarians know this but make efforts to hide this from the public, is this not propaganda, perhaps of the worst kind (according to Lord Tennyson)? And if the article fails to question this but merely acts as a megaphone for the librarian's propaganda, is the media not complicit in propagandizing the public?

I think the propaganda is librarians do what they can to protect privacy but the reality is they do what they can to defy US law without regard to how that may help terrorists.

Do you agree? What do you think? As the conversation develops, I may add more relevant information, such as top ALA leadership's support for the privacy of one of the actual 9/11 terrorists as reported in the news.

SafeLibraries.org - Are Children Safe in Public Libraries?

[seastay]

[coconutt2000]

Let's see... If I checked out books on electronics, bombs, explosives, as well as maps of the local area, and other similar and relevant info to my research project on the migratory patterns of geese - the library would protect my privacy.

[plan2succeed.org]

Exactly -- at least that is often official policy.

[John Lenin]

Not one penny of taxpayer money should be spent to keep open libraries that can't make a profit off their operation. The Internet is the new library.

[plan2succeed.org]

The American Library Association or ALA even sells "Radical, Militant Librarian" buttons to celebrate defiance of the USA Patriot Act!

[HiTech RedNeck]

The librarian societies are no way making a secret out of this. They can't, because they want all comers to the library to know about it.

[plan2succeed.org]

Did you notice the article says, "Both libraries have initiated policies that mitigate the potential effects of section 215"? Mitigate the potential effects? You mean duly authorized laws of the United States of America need to be "mitigated"? Have librarians taking on the role of mitigators of American law? Whom do they help when they "mitigate" the law in this case? Is not this "mitigation" a tacit admission that they are skirting the law? And that they know they are skirting the law?

[plan2succeed.org]

If it is not a secret, why isn't the public up in arms? Could it be the propaganda campaign is working? I spoke with Bernard Kerik about this very issue. He said librarians need to "cut it out," or was it "knock it off."

[HiTech RedNeck]

If you go to the library you will know. Librarians are sending special beams out from libraries to stop conservatives from going there /sarc

[Clinging Bitterly]

It's a tough nut. Every person has the right to be secure in their so called papers and effects, but a library (which is the entity whose papers and effects are being seized) is not a person and so would seem not to be entitled to that protection. I'm not saying I agree with that because I don't, but the administration, our lawmakers, and the Supreme Court (at least in one oft cited case) apparently do.

A subversive should be smart enough to stay away from government libraries and their internet terminals, and probably anyone who values their privacy for any reason should think likewise. If we didn't have this unconstitutional (IMO) law I still wouldn't trust the government. That would be un-American.

[VeniVidiVici]

Close 'em all and put 'em online. Talk about dinosaur media.

[plan2succeed.org]

No, closing them is not the answer. However, libraries are transforming, and we may all benefit thereby.

[plan2succeed.org]

All,

See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1650304/posts