Posted on 06/24/2002 3:34:40 PM PDT by Asmodeus
WASHINGTON –– The FBI is visiting libraries nationwide and checking the reading records of people it suspects of having ties to terrorists or plotting an attack, library officials say.
The FBI effort, authorized by the antiterrorism law enacted after the Sept. 11 attacks, is the first broad government check of library records since the 1970s when prosecutors reined in the practice for fear of abuses.
The Justice Department and FBI declined to comment Monday, except to note that such searches are now legal under the Patriot Act that President Bush signed last October.
Libraries across the nation were reluctant to discuss their dealings with the FBI. The same law that makes the searches legal also makes it a criminal offense for librarians to reveal the details or extent.
"Patron information is sacrosanct here. It's nobody's business what you read," said Kari Hanson, director of the Bridgeview Public Library in suburban Chicago.
Hanson said an FBI agent came seeking information about a person, but her library had no record of the person. Federal prosecutors allege Global Relief Foundation, an Islamic charity based in the Chicago suburb, has ties to Osama bin Laden's terror network
The University of Illinois conducted a survey of 1,020 public libraries in January and February and found that 85 libraries had been asked by federal or local law enforcement officers for information about patrons related to Sept. 11, said Ed Lakner, assistant director of research at the school's Library Research Center.
The libraries that reported FBI contacts were nearly all in large urban areas.
In Florida, Broward County library director Sam Morrison said the FBI had recently contacted his office. He declined to elaborate on the request or how many branch libraries were involved.
"We've heard from them and that's all I can tell you," Morrison said. He said the FBI specifically instructed him not to reveal any information about the request.
The library system has been contacted before. A week after the Sept. 11 attacks, the FBI subpoenaed Morrison to provide information on the possible use of computer terminals by some of the suspected hijackers in the Hollywood, Fla., area.
In October, investigators revisited the county's main library in Fort Lauderdale and also checked a regional library in Coral Springs.
At least 15 of the 19 hijackers had Florida connections.
The process by which the FBI gains access to library records is quick and mostly secret under the Patriot Act.
First, the FBI must obtain a search warrant from a court that meets in secret to hear the agency's case. The FBI must show it has reason to suspect that a person is involved with a terrorist or a terrorist plot – far less difficult than meeting the tougher legal standards of probable cause, required for traditional search warrants or reasonable doubt, required for convictions.
With the warrant, FBI investigators can visit a library and gain immediate access to the records.
Judith Krug, the American Library Association's director for intellectual freedom, said the FBI was treading on the rights it is supposed to be upholding.
"It's unfortunate because these records and this information can be had with so little reason or explanation," Krug said. "It's super secret and anyone who wants to talk about what the FBI did at their library faces prosecution. That has nothing to do with patriotism."
Krug tells worried librarians who call that they should keep only the records they need and should discard records that would reveal which patron checked out a book and for how long.
She is frustrated by the hate mail she says she receives when she speaks out against the Patriot Act.
"People are scared and they think that by giving up their rights, especially their right to privacy, they will be safe," Krug said. "But it wasn't the right to privacy that let terrorists into our nation. It had nothing to do with libraries or library records."
Some libraries said they will still resist government efforts to obtain records.
Pat McCandless, assistant director for public services for Ohio State University's libraries, said, "State law and professional ethics say we do not convey patron information and that is still our stance.
"To the best of our ability, we would try to support patron confidentiality," she said.
EBUCK
Which is exactly what they want you to think. You may want to consider the way the meaning of the word "is" was debated and apply that same methodology to the word "terrorist" before you throw your support in for this.
EBUCK
2) It is a public library. Meaning it is owned by the people. (the government) It's not a private library for persons to do private business in. Just as one would expect a private library or a private school to be able to make its own rules about how it functions, so one would expect a public library to have rules that are made by its owners (the public). And the public makes those rules through its elected governmental represenatives.
The constitution is a wonderful document. But it isn't the inspired word of God. And there is no way that our founding fathers invisioned 21st century America with all of its complexities. That's the beauty of the constitution... it leaves ways for the public to make laws and decisions that effect their lives into an unpredictable future.
Book stores and librarians complain about a request for this information but I am disturbed that they even keep a record of everything that I've bought or checked out.
Once a book has been checked back in, it should be removed from my record.
We don't even have to sign a card in the back of the book anymore to leave a permenant record of what we've checked out.
If the people with the books would stop being so nosey, there wouldn't be any records for the government to request.
Too late. Tampa teen kamimaze terrorist Charles Bishra/Bishop read Clancy novels and even lifted part of The Sum Of All Fears for his suicide note. He made a threat about a stolen nuke being used at the Super Bowl (which is why is note was not released for several weeks, conveniently after the Super Bowl).
EBUCK
There are security cameras in many libraries. Maybe they can spot some terrorists.
The ALA will probably wail about free speech if there is any attempt to even examine the types of sites (not even tying the visitors to any particular user). The ALA has defended porn access in the libraries and even helped to propagate information on how kids can circumvent webfilters at the library and at home.
Private employers don't permit the freedoms of web browsing or emailing (they are even permitted to scan outgoing/incoming email for corporate espionage and other transgressions). Since the library internet systems are there primarily for research purposes (not Chat, online-chess, or porn viewing/printing) the users do not need to have a reasonable expectation of privacy (they are in a public building in a very open area). Go to Kinkos or a cyberbar for contracted "private" computer usage, or better yet, buy your own.
So a strict reading would say that the people and the states can make laws about libraries... because we just dont' find the word Library mentioned in the consitution. It is the living interpretations that pretend that clauses which never address the internet or libraries somehow regulate them instead that 10th ammendment that specifically leaves unmentioned powers to the people or the states.
These are copies of the books donated by patrons or even the author or publisher. And we are talking about some books on the best sellers list.
I've followed the news reports on some of these books in the past. It is really shameful behavior.
The Public Library - They shelve so you don't have to decide...
But once a patron colors in a copy of "Stupid White Men", it is no longer "any good"...
And yes they left a way to ammend the constitution but they do not seem to use that avenue. Choosing expedience over Constitutional procedure. That is where the living interpretation comes into play. Someone aske the question...
"Does the constitution allow for this new gubment increase?"
and someone answers "Well, if you interpret "general welfare" this way it sure does!"
"How do we get the constitution interpreted this way?"
"Well, you just appoint someone to the bench that thinks like us, or is indebted to us, and viola!"
"Kewl, that means we can do just about anything we want right?"
"As a matter of fact it does....it's gonna be a BRAVE NEW WORLD by the time we're done..."
EBUCK
EBUCK
I've heard this argument from HCI too.
Sure is a lot of talk of "democratic society" and "diversity".
The library will not even enforce MPAA ratings when it comes to access for minors. My public library includes some X rated "art" films from the 1970s. Don't know if they have a subscription to Playboy (for the articles, naturally).
The ALA's position against internet filtering has nothing to do with the half-assed nature of filter screening. It has everything to do with the notion of blocking access to something, even on the basis of the age of the viewer.
Is this because:
We are not fighting it to win it?
We shouldn't even be fighting?
We "can't" win it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.