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.
Imagine how helpful this woman would be if they were hunting down pro-lifers or pro-straights. She'd be leaping over tables to get the files ready!
My experience is that the FBI will hire part time criminal justice majors and a few gung ho ROTC to be their eyes. It was good fun to make their eyes pop out.
I support the First Amendment - something I don't believe the librarians of this country do. They support children viewing pornography, etc. - to me that is a distortion of the First Amendment when minors are concerned. Call me Dr. Laura, Jr.
I DON'T support crying "Fire" in an open theatre - I generally LOATHE the tactics of the fbi; but, given a choice between the lesser of two evils, I support the fbi monitoring sites visited by KNOWN terrorists when my tax dollars have allowed these killers to do so.
I'm shocked myself to side with the fbi.
You are either with the Constitution, or against it.
So tell me, Ms. Krug. Did you ever get around to studying how many copies of "Stupid White Men" America's "intellectually free" public librarians stocked their shelves with in the last 12 months vs. the number of copies of "Bias"?
I am on the fence with this one. I agree that we should use all means necessary to root out Islamicist terrorists. But can you imagine Bill Clinton and Hillary being in charge of the FBI under this law? Good god. Anyone's library reading habits could be exposed, with one Clinton appointee judge signing the warrent in secret, for any "secret" cause. And the Librarians would be prosecuted if they raised a flag.
Picture this: You support the 2nd ammendment vigorously. On some internet forum, you state that you would rather fight than let the government confiscate your weapons, like what happenned in England. Hillary's stooges see that message, get a secret warrant to search what you have read in the library. You checked out a book on anything to do with homosexuality--just to gain info to fight back. They now have you under their thumb, threatening to expose your reading list to the public. In fact, they leak it to the press.
Under Clinton, this would happen.
Good point.
And then you can show me which provision in the US Constitution allows for such superfelous information to be gathered by the FBI, which the last time I checked is bound by the US Constitution 100% since it is a federal agency. You are so confident that leftists are not going to win any time soon that you trust the power to get whatever information they want without proving they need it to federal agents. 500+ FBI files in Clinton's office. What is to stop a Hillary from coming to power and then using these powers against those that disagree with her? As we libertarians say about censorship, a government big enough to outlaw playboy is big enough to outlaw the Bible. The essence of that applies to police powers. Any power you give the police now, can be used later at their discresion because you've already set a precedent for them being able to use it against one type of dangerous person. The definition of terrorist in the USA PATRIOT Act is so broad that today it's islamists, tomorrow it'll be anti-abortion activists.
Or maybe they see how (a) the filters don't block out a lot of pornography at all, (b) they tend to block out a lot of religious and political sites, FreeRepublic is one of those in certain packages, (c) they would most likely not have the authority to override the filter to let kids view sites that shouldn't have been blocked and (d) these companies have no market incentive to actually block out a lot of pornography sites because surprise, surprise, that would put them out of business! Go take an entry level Computer Science course that emphasises algorithm development. You'll get a taste for how damn near impossible it is to write an algorithm or series of algorithms that can intelligently analyze even the most basic human languages.
Can you please cite to the applicable provision of the United States Constitution that holds that the records of publically funded libraries are private? The Constitution only says that you have a right to be secure in your person and property. It says nothing about public records. If you don't like the idea of law enforcement being able to find out what you are reading, don't check out books at the library.
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.