Library Wouldn't Help Police Identify Woman Pulled From River -- Legislation Needs Amending

NewsNet5 WEWS Cleveland, OH ^ | Feb. 4, 2007 | Unknown

[saquin]

This one was clearly a policy to discourage cooperation with the police under any circumstances because it demanded a court order.

Bull. Why is reasonable protection of private information seen by you as discouraging cooperation with police "under any circumstances"? Do we live in a police state? Do you want ALL your private information turned over without question? I thought we were conservatives here.

This is the written policy:

Citizens using the public library have the right to expect privacy with regard to information sought or received and materials consulted, borrowed or requested.

In accordance with HB 389, Confidentiality Legislation, effective October 3, 2000, library records and patron information are confidential. However, library records or patron information will be released in the following situations:

1. parents, guardians and custodians will have access to their minor children's records;

2. in accordance with a subpoena, search warrant, or other court order, or to a law enforcement officer who is investigating a matter involving public safety in exigent circumstances;

3. with the consent of the individual who is the subject of the record or information; or

4. for library administrative purposes only.

Please explain to me what the problem is with that policy. It seems to me a perfectly reasonable balance between the need for privacy and the need for information in certain circumstances.

[saquin]

How would you know if your library has Caller ID or not?

Because I've worked there nearly 20 years and know the phone system. How do you know whether or not YOU have Caller ID?

[saquin]

Nope, that's not an assumption in my reasoning toward a conclusion. I'm pointing out all the possibilities CM glossed over in his conclusion.

He didn't "gloss over" anything. He was discussing the reasons for not disclosing personal information over the phone. Why is that such a difficult concept? Do you want your credit card information released to anyone who calls the company identifying himself as an officer? Your bank records? Medical records?

[plan2succeed.org]

"Hopefully, maybe that bitch will be the one in the river."

This is not appropriate here. And it is likely untrue.

The librarians who refused the police were only under orders and were likely fearful of the ALA if they did not follow orders. The head librarian who finally used common sense is not a bad actor here either.

The problem is that policy. That policy modeled on ALA policy is what caused this entire fiasco. That policy is what needs to be changed immediately.

[Doctor Raoul]

Do you want your credit card information released to anyone who calls the company identifying himself as an officer?

Since you're playing "Wander all over the place", my turn.

The library doesn't have my credit card information.

[saquin]

OK, how would YOU write the policy, keeping in mind it needs to be logical, legal and impervious to lawsuits, not simply "me thinks the dumb liberal library ladies should give out any information the gubmint wants, no questions asked".

[saquin]

The library doesn't have my credit card information.

No s**t, Sherlock. Try to think a little more abstractly or this will be very painful.

[caveat emptor]

They said they concluded within 10 minutes that it was a legitimate request they could comply with. I have no problem at all with that timeframe.

There isn't enough time or info here to sort out all the possibilities - was the woman unconcious?- within 10 minutes of death?- are "privacy policies" sometimes abused, etc- but it seems to me that you're just about right, and plan2succeed.org hijacked his own post. FWIW, my library card has my name on it.

[Doctor Raoul]

Because I've worked there nearly 20 years and know the phone system.

Excuse me, but this story is out of Ohio and you profile lists New York as your state.

Pardon me if I'm a bit unconvinced...

[plan2succeed.org]

You said, "Are you an idiot?"

That's not necessary, is it?

[peggybac]

My library card has my name on it.

[saquin]

"Because I've worked there nearly 20 years and know the phone system."

Excuse me, but this story is out of Ohio and you profile lists New York as your state.

Are you insane? Or just really, really dumb?
I never said I worked in THAT library.
I asked you why you assumed THAT library had Caller ID.
Specifically, I wrote "What makes you think they'd have Caller ID? My library doesn't."
You responded "How would you know if your library has Caller ID or not?"
And I told you.

Is this quantum physics? Why are you so befuddled?

[DannyTN]

Throw shrimp on the Barby?

No, throw that shrimp into a huge pot with crawfish, corn, potatoes and Zatarain's seasoning.

I only read the headline and thought she was dead. In an hour, she wouldn't be any more dead. And you'll need those shrimp for the wake.

But even though she was alive, the lack of info didn't impede her care, or the shrimp boil. And the library used common sense and was ready in 10 minutes. Which is 3 minutes longer than the corn takes.

[plan2succeed.org]

You said, "I see nothing wrong with that policy as written."

I am happy (actually sad) to hear that. However, again, that is not the facts of this case. In this case, Steiner, the head librarian who used common sense and had the guts to override the policy despite potential ALA consequences, DID find something wrong with the policy. And she overruled portions of it by allowing for the release of info in life or deaths situations.

So arguing the policy is fine as it sands is irrelevant as the article states the policy was not fine and had to be adjusted on the fly by Steiner.

[Zeroisanumber]

This thing where librarians, who maintain city records, will not release those city records to the police of the same city is a total made up excuse, made up by the American Library Association.

The policies of the ALA might seem a bit hard core, but they're in place to keep private records private. In this day and age that's a laudable goal, and one that I support.

[saquin]

And she overruled portions of it by allowing for the release of info in life or deaths situations.

Did you even read the policy you quoted in your post? It covers legitimate requests by law enforcement officers in exigent circumstances regarding public safety... without a court order. It's right there in the policy you quoted, which is why I have no problem with the policy.

[plan2succeed.org]

You said, "OK, how would YOU write the policy, keeping in mind it needs to be logical, legal and impervious to lawsuits, not simply "me thinks the dumb liberal library ladies should give out any information the gubmint wants, no questions asked"."

Good. We're getting away from the irrelevant hypotheticals and getting back to the facts.

Now I'm no legislative expert. But I do see that Steiner, the head librarian, did an on-the-fly amendment, so to speak. Now if these laws are truly written to be inclusive, then they should all be amended to account for the fiasco that happened in this story. Again I'll bet that won't happen--the ALA goals would not allow for that.

[plan2succeed.org]

You said, "and plan2succeed.org hijacked his own post."

I don't really want to violate any rules. Did I do something wrong? Am I not supposed to reply to people? I don't understand.

[plan2succeed.org]

Your humor is appreciated.

[saquin]

But I do see that Steiner, the head librarian, did an on-the-fly amendment, so to speak.

I hate to turn this into a remedial reading class but please read the policy again, the very policy you've quoted several times. The head librarian made no such "on-the-fly amendment". She followed the policy as written, which clearly states that information can be disclosed, without a subpoena or court order, "to a law enforcement officer who is investigating a matter involving public safety in exigent circumstances".