Having called the library director I learned,
1) She seems to be trying her best to do the right thing and I have no complaints regarding her actions,
2) She called an ACLU attorney to determine her course of action, and
3) If the Police and the Library Director are both working for the same boss, the town, why is there a need to protect patrons privacy since such information was being revealed to others working for the same boss, not to the public. The librarian agreed this was a valid issue.
If in answer to 3) one says, well, that's the law (NJS 18A:73-43.2), one has to ask:
3A) Why is the law written the way is is?
3B) Why is it interpreted the way it is?
3C) How did the law come into being in the first place -- the librarians themselves under ALA guidance, perhaps?
3D) If the law is supposedly intended to protect patron privacy, why is there a section carved out that lets the library itself violate this privacy in pursuance of its own interests, such as collecting library fees?
3E) Is the collection of library fees a more important public policy goal than the prevention and determination of criminal activity? (Do librarians have more power than the Police?)
3F) Why are libraries destroying the records police need to solve crimes and the FBI needs to prevent terrorism, while at the same time preventing access to the records they are destroying? More importantly, is this what the public wants or what the ALA/ACLU want?
3G) Why did the librarian turn to the New Jersey Library Association and the ACLU for advice and not the town's own attorney?
