Librarian’s Brush with the FBI

Fang-Face writes “It seems the Whatcom County Library System is flaunting USAPA. Read:
Librarian’s Brush with FBI Shapes her View of the USA Patriot Act, an editorial by librarian Joan Airoldi published in USA Today (and reprinted at CommonDreams.org).“

May 19, 2005 by Uncategorized 8

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. mdoneil says:
    May 19, 2005 at 7:44 am

    This is no big deal, it should be SOP
    1) Someone asks for a list of patrons who used/borrowed/accessed… something. Librarian refuses.

    2) Someone presents a subpoena for the same thing. (Subpoenae differ from search warrants – there is no urgency with a subpoena.) Library says lets see what a judge says and begins procedure to quash. (A perfectly legal and in my opinion adviseable process to be followed whenever one receives a subpoena.)

    3) Someone says nevermind.

    I have some questions for the library:

    1) Do you actually keep records of every patron that checked out each item?

    2) Assuming you don’t why didn’t you tell the FBI that those type of records do not exist.

    3) On the off chance that those records do exist did you inform the borrowers so that they might join your motion to quash.

    4) Why did you even bring the USAPATRIOT Act into the equation? Since you are able to discuss the incident the Act was not involved. It seems your fears are based on supposition.

    5) It is too bad you don’t have the fortitude to challenge the Act’s gag provision. If it were me, and I agree with the Act but I don’t agree with the blanket gag imposed, I would have challenged the gag (if and only if I was certain that it would not be detrimental to the secuirty and safety of our nation.) A gag after judicial review -yes. Prior restraint -no. Then again I don’t forsee the Act being used at my library as it has yet to be used for library records anywhere.

    Reply
  2. mdoneil says:
    May 19, 2005 at 7:51 am

    Crap
    I always forget something… I’m getting old and forgetful.

    They paid a lawyer to do a google search of the quote penciled in the book in a building full of librarians. Holy Lord, thats rich.

    Reply
  3. Anonymous Patron says:
    May 19, 2005 at 6:15 pm

    Re:This is no big deal, it should be SOP
    er, given the act’s provisions, you couldn’t possibly know that it hasn’t been used. That’s why they call it:

    • “secret” court
    • “gag” order.

    Is this somehow unclear? Also, the librarian writing this implicitly makes two points:

    • given the subpoena powers, the USAPA is unnecessary.
    • if it were used in this case, they couldn’t disclose it, therefore there would be NO article for us to read, argue over, etc.

    I would add that if they can make provisions for not telling anyone that the act has been invoked, they can certainly mandate record-keeping of patron checkouts. If you think it won’t happen…
    I also wonder WHY the FBI withdrew the request. Could it possibly be that real terrorists don’t write in library books? I mean, the administration is always using the reasoning that “the terrorists don’t tell us what they’re going to do ahead of time”, hence they need extraordinary powers to search, etc. Now it seems they are saying the terrorists announce their plans, in library book margins no less.

    Reply
  4. Anonymous Patron says:
    May 19, 2005 at 7:45 pm

    Re:This is no big deal, it should be SOP
    Could it possibly be that real terrorists don’t write in library books?

    It amazes me that there is not more explicit discussion of whether borrowing records are at all relevant in a broad-based request like this. In an open stack library (with photocopiers, no less), asking for all circulation records for a particular title is problematic with respect to both precision and recall. Historical circ records, if they exist, would give law enforcement only a subset of patrons who potentially read the book — and that subset, on a hot topic, can be pretty broad. At least in my library, there are plenty of people here all day who never actually borrow anything (yet use plenty of library materials), and plenty of people who photocopy library material (and why should a little copyright violation bother a terrorist?) without checking it out.

    It has also been my experience that book mutilation, including angry written comments, (but excluding highlighting) often clearly takes place in the stacks by people who don’t want to be caught.

    Given those circumstances, historical circ records for “unknown patron, known title” searches are misleadingly incomplete — let alone the chilling effect, freedom to read without harassment from the FBI, Patriot Act issues.

    Reply
  5. Lis says:
    May 19, 2005 at 9:08 pm

    Re:This is no big deal, it should be SOP
    Not every library has been able to convert to new systems that automatically purge circ data after the book is returned. Also, if they can compel the production of the information where it exists, and legislate provisions like sec. 215 of the USA PATRIOT act, they can potentially pass legislation requiring libraries to keep the circ data.

    That’s why you move to quash the subpoena rather than merely telling them the data don’t exist–you do not concede them the principle of having the right to pry into patron records on a fishing expedition.

    As for Sec. 215 never having been used for library records–your faith is touching but unfounded. The gag provision means that anyone who reports it being used in their library is risking getting swallowed up in the War on Terror, and not everyone is as brave as you are.

    Reply
  6. mdoneil says:
    May 19, 2005 at 9:40 pm

    Re:This is no big deal, it should be SOP
    When the AG was asked if it was invoked to obtain library records he related that it hadn’t. I believe the AG, if you don’t believe the AG then there is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.

    Mandating record keeping… come on now that is a bit much. Orwell’s 1984 was a work of fiction after all.

    Reply
  7. Anonymous Patron says:
    May 19, 2005 at 10:01 pm

    Librarian’s Brush with FBI Shapes her View …
    “I have some questions for the library:
    1) Do you actually keep records of every patron that checked out each item?”
              By Washington State law we can only release such records in response to a warrant; our ILS supposedly eliminates the link between borrower and item once the item returns.

    “2) Assuming you don’t why didn’t you tell the FBI that those type of records do not exist.”
            Our ILS is housed in another jurisdiction. …

    “4) Why did you even bring the USAPATRIOT Act into the equation? Since you are able to discuss the incident the Act was not involved. It seems your fears are based on supposition.”
          Precisely because had the Act been invoked in this particular case (as has happened elsewhere) we presumably might not be telling the story; yet, its potential use as a totalitarian weapon must constantly be warned against.

    “5) It is too bad you don’t have the fortitude to challenge the Act’s gag provision.”
          We have yet to come to such a bridge.

          The amount of hate mail we are receiving is an indication of how thoroughly the current Administration has scared many of our fellow citizens.

    Reply
  8. mdoneil says:
    May 19, 2005 at 10:43 pm

    Re:Librarian’s Brush with FBI Shapes her View …
    “I have some questions for the library:
    1) Do you actually keep records of every patron that checked out each item?”
    By Washington State law we can only release such records in response to a warrant; our ILS supposedly eliminates the link between borrower and item once the item returns.

    Most jurisdictions have library privacy laws as I think they should. It really is no one’s business what others are reading. I think (and please correct me if I am wrong) that your answer means that you don’t keep historical records of an item’s use by specific patrons. Good for you! That information is of little value to libraries (usage of an item is important- who used an item is not.) and only serves to bloat a database.


    “2) Assuming you don’t why didn’t you tell the FBI that those type of records do not exist.”
    Our ILS is housed in another jurisdiction. …
     I’m not clear what that means in relation to the question I posed. Either the records exist or they don’t. If it was made clear that the records don’t exist it would negate the need to subpoena them. (one would hope the FBI would understand that they can’t have what does not exist).

    “4) Why did you even bring the USAPATRIOT Act into the equation? Since you are able to discuss the incident the Act was not involved. It seems your fears are based on supposition.”
    Precisely because had the Act been invoked in this particular case (as has happened elsewhere) we presumably might not be telling the story; yet, its potential use as a totalitarian weapon must constantly be warned against.
    The act was not invoked, I think that speaks more to the question of the Acts fairness than any supposition that could be made had it been invoked. Had I had a car crash on the way to work I would have been late. Since I drove carefully I was not late. Since the FBI did not wish to persue the matter using the Act the ill advised subpoena was withdrawn.


    “5) It is too bad you don’t have the fortitude to challenge the Act’s gag provision.”
    We have yet to come to such a bridge.

    If you believe as I do what the AG said, then no other library has come to such a bridge either. I can’t see it happening. The probative value of library records seems quite the strech to me since in this country we are free to read whatever we please. Reading a diet book did not make me thin, reading a book about Osama bin Laden (even if I pencil in quotes) most likely won’t make me a terrorist.

    The amount of hate mail we are receiving is an indication of how thoroughly the current Administration has scared many of our fellow citizens.
    Hate mail? What kind of idiots would send hate mail to a library for following established court procedures to quash a subpoena in order to protect library records. Have those people write to me, I’ll set them straight.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

LISNews Archives