Some Wisconsin libraries purging circulation records; as a result of the new federal Patriot Act

Associated Press ^ | 10-07-03

[Brian S]

Associated Press

MILWAUKEE (AP) - Some Wisconsin libraries have purged circulation records to protect privacy as a result of the new federal Patriot Act, and others have started warning patrons about the law's effects.

The Wisconsin Library Association issued a sample policy last spring for member libraries to use to "protect against the unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of library users" following adoption of the law. The group has since surveyed its members on what actions they have taken.

Workers at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay's Cofrin Library regularly delete records of requests for books or other material once those transactions are completed.

"If we had kept those patron records and if we were visited by the FBI, then they would have been able to look at all those records. They would have had access to all patron records, not just one individual's," said library director Leanne Hansen,

Hansen said she and her staff do not oppose fighting terrorism but believe the Patriot Act wrongly gives the FBI authority to peruse people's library records.

Mark Corallo, a U.S. Justice Department spokesman, said that to get a search warrant under the Patriot Act, the FBI must show evidence to a federal judge that the records being sought would involve international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

"The FBI is prohibited from conducting investigations of U.S. citizens solely on the basis of activities based on the First Amendment," he said.

Corallo also said the libraries were not breaking any federal law by destroying their circulation records "under the misguided notion that the FBI is monitoring what people are reading."

But he said libraries could be destroying records that grand juries have the right to subpoena as evidence for other crimes, such as child pornography.

Meanwhile, the library association has suggested that its members ask whether they have a good reason to keep records they are keeping and, if not, get rid of them.

"We're telling libraries to consult their local legal counsels, review their policies and know what their privacy and record retention policies are," said Peter Gilbert, state library association president and a reference librarian at Lawrence University in Appleton.

The Beloit Public Library has posted warnings that say: "Although the Beloit Public Library makes every effort to protect your privacy, under the federal USA Patriot Act, records of the books and other materials you borrow from this library may be obtained by federal agents. That federal law prohibits library workers from informing you if federal agents have obtained records about you."

Lynda Moon, the Beloit Library Board president, said her board has always had a policy that "it was essential that citizens be able to read and explore ideas freely without fear of surveillance."

But she said that, if FBI agents arrived with a search warrant, the library would comply with the law as long as they had the proper order from the government.

[TheFrog]

Re:"What with all the hysteria you people bant around, it gets hard to keep up with the actual facts." What hysteria have I "banted around". Is it hysterical to demand accountability of the Federal Government?

Have you forgotten that the Federal Agencies in question once had all of the power being granted them now. The reason it was taken away is that they routinely abused it. That abuse was usually personal or politically motivated and had nothing to do with protecting America or enforcing the Nations Laws. Do I believe that the Federal Government should be allowed to conduct investigations in secret with no oversight and or a quarterly brief to a select committee, No.

I believe more in the Constitution than any political appointee, regardless of which side of the aisle appointed them.

[TheFrog]

Re:"To me, if the suspect you of being a terrorist and you go to the library, your library checkout record should be examined." So what will you do when Hilary Klinton is president a "terrorist" is anyone who is a Republican? Would you be for this if Janet Reno was asking for this power for her cronies?

Hmm imagine the following scenario ... “As I see BTM you checked out Ann Coulter's new book, we must lock you up for the good of society.”

[Harlequin]

You can determine the difference between who is free, and who is not? I want to read your book.

[Harlequin]

Yes, you moron. It IS an attack on my rights. Either everyone is free, or no one is.

[LanPB01]

Genius, let me explain this to you in the simplest terms possible. The section of the Patriot Act that has librarians all in a tizzy is section 215. It lowers the burden of proof necessary for law enforcement to subpoena records. But here's the reality that the hysterical librarians have conveniently forgotten to tell everyone - all section 215 does is replace a few sections of FISA, which only applies to FOREIGNERS AND AGENTS OF FOREIGN POWERS. The U.S. Code already defines what a "foreigner" and an "agent of a foreign power" is. Therefore, if you are an average American citizen, the Patriot Act cannot be used to subpoena your records.

[WOSG]

"Yes, you moron. It IS an attack on my rights. Either everyone is free, or no one is."

No one is free if court-ordered searches take place in libraries and on computers?
suspected criminals under investigation is now "everyone"?
Are you saying that if you were under investigation as a pedophile or terrorist, it violates your rights to be subject to wiretap, library and computer records searches?

[WOSG]

correct!

[dirtboy]

An actual warrant signed by a judge, or an administrative subpeona?

Under an EO signed by Bush, law enforcement must first provide probable cause that someone is engaged in terrorist activity, and afterwards an admistrative subpeona can be used. But there is still a safeguard of probable cause involved, and this does not apply to American citizens. Instead of issuing hysteria, the ACLU would be better served to codify in law that constraint instead of leaving it to be determined by EO.

[eno_]

Actually the last time I got my prescription, I had to be informed by the pharmacist that my medical records are private. I also had to sign a book that acknowledged that they told me about this law.

And the reason for that rigamarole is that your pharmacist rats you out preemptively. Law enforcement KNOWS you have prescritions, and KNOWS exactly where to look for them - in a database they already have. Calling that "privacy" is a lie.

[eno_]

When records are collected in central databases that law enforcement can browse with a minimal nod toward "probable cause" THAT is neither freedom nor is it privacy. That form of investigative power reduces everyone's freedom to a tepid least common denominator.

Compare the powers of police investigation today to what existed at the time of the Founders. Not in the form of technology, although that is part of the problem, but in the form of laws that make it easier for investigators to acquire information.

Read my tag line. I have no need to put my life on the line, much less my son's life, for a nation that rapidly slides toward being unfree.

Perhaps some of the powers in the Patriot Act are needed. But there was certainly no give back in other areas where law enforcement powers are too intrusive. It was therefore purely reducing the "freedom" we supposedly are fighting for.

[BushisTheMan]

A lot of people on this Web site seems to be pretty paranoid about law enforcement for some odd reason.

[eno_]

So you don't think there are strong objective reasons for people to want stronger protections against abusive applications of government power?

If you want specific examples, search FR for "donut watch."

The Founders had it right: laws should be difficult to enforce. Some laws, especially ones that require intrusion into private financial, medical, and other private matters should be damn near impossible to enforce when our Constitution is strictly observed.

[Trickyguy]

BWAHAHAHA! Terrorists can cross the border without the
feds saying boo to them. But they think they can catch them because they're gonna be stupid enough to look up plans to make bombs on a library computer! There's no fool
like a federal gubmint fool, or the buffoons who support them!

[joyful1]

Psssst....little secret being revealed here....

Terrorists come from middle east TO canada TO UpperPennensula Michigan TO Wisconsin TO...anywhere in USA

Result worse than 9/11 guaranteed!

Too easy it is

[BushisTheMan]

No, I'm saying that I think the requirements to have a judge review the request to view your library records seems sufficient to me. And, to date NO judge (yep, not a single one) has been asked by the FBI or CIA to require ANY librarian to provide anyone's library history under the Patriot Act. It seems that librarians are up in arms over nothing so far. And if the previous poster is correct, where the government can only look into foreigners library records, then I see no problem.

If you are asking...No, I don't believe the Government is out to get me! I don't think there is a big conspiracy afoot to see what I'm reading or checking out of the library, or what type of medicine my pharmacist is providing to me. If I was doing something that I might be worried out if they found out, then maybe I'd be paranoid. But now, I'm not.

[eno_]

I don't believe the government is out to get me. However, you won't find my son fighting to defend watered-down freedom, either. If the government gives me half what the Constitution promises, I might, sort of, if I feel like it, sand up for a nation like that. Or maybe not.

[BushisTheMan]

And if I find that the Government is abusing people's rights, I too will stand up against it. Right now (because we are not under people like the Clintons), I am not fearful. Maybe in the future if the Dems are in control, I might be. So I guess we agree on that. And my son also defends his country by serving in the military, but he is not in Iraq.

[eno_]

Then take a close look.

What have we lost since the Founders' time?

What have we lost just in the 20th century?

What have we lost in the past two decades?

Are we even a fraction as free, private, and unmolested by government authority as the Founders? Or even as people were before the New Deal? How much of a haircut should freedom take before it isn't worth your son risking his life?

[TheFrog]

Re: "And if the previous poster is correct, where the government can only look into foreigners library records, then I see no problem." Actually, most of the posters are incorrect and only reference one of the two sections of 50 CFR 1801, that being 50 CFR 1801(b)(1). The code clearly states that the act can be used to gather intelligence on a united states person as long as the investigation is not being conducted “solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States”.

Can a United States Person be considered a ''Agent of a foreign power'', Yes.

I refer you to 50 CFR 1801(b)(2)
(2)
any person who -
(A)
knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(B)
pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(C)
knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;
(D)
knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or
(E)
knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).

[BushisTheMan]

Thanks, your post was very informative. It is not what I had heard previous here at FR and elsewhere. However, it is logical that any U.S. citizen, including those whose parents are of Middle Eastern descent but born in the U.S., suspected of helping terrorists should be included. Then perhaps we might have used the Patriot Act to catch John Mohammed (sniper) and the miltary person who tried to frag his fellow soldiers waiting in Kuwait to enter Iraq. Perhaps we could have caught these U.S. citizens earlier before they killed fellow Americans.

This post actually makes me feel MUCH better that the Patriot Act includes these items.