Library Chief May Refuse to Give Feds Patron Info

The Director of the Boston Public Library says he “would consider breaking the Patriot Act if asked to disclose patron information.” He goes on to say that “Clearly, the challenge for people like me who believe in librarianship and the principles of free speech means if I were to receive such a request, I would have to give very strong consideration to going public with that.” According to the ALA, “they are not aware of any case in which the FBI has sought data on library patrons.” Read More.

July 5, 2004 by Uncategorized 6

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. Anonymous Patron says:
    July 5, 2004 at 6:51 pm

    Except…
    He’ll refuse to release any patron information except for Don Saklad’s…:)

    Reply
  2. Anonymous Patron says:
    July 5, 2004 at 8:36 pm

    Leadership. Mayoral directive. City council order.
    Dear Bernie Margolis, Thank you for your active intellectual freedom leadership !

    Please consider advocating for the mayoral directive and the city council order that actually works for the more routine transmittal of city public documents to the Gail Fithian Boston Public Library Government Documents Department.

    Reply
  3. mdoneil says:
    July 6, 2004 at 3:36 am

    BFD
    I refuse to relinquish my TV remote to Communist control.

    It is quite easy to take a stand when there is very little risk. If the FBI has yet to acquire library records it is a safe bet that the Boston library director won’t risk a great deal by taking this position.

    However if the library is presented with a properly executed subpoena or warrant I doubt the decision will be made by the director to release the records. I am certain the City of Boston has a legal department that can assess the validity of either court order and act appropriately. To be truthful the director would have little input unless the city moved to quash the subpoena. Warrants are more immediate and I doubt the city legal department would advise the library director to interfere with the execution of a judicially authorized warrant.

    This is an example of more rhetoric and little action. If the director is so opposed to the Act perhaps he could detail for us the work he has done to effect its repeal – the letters he has written to his representatives, the information he has provided to elected officials regarding the Act’s effect on the library, any constructive work he has done. Grandstanding makes one look good but it does little to change the status quo.

    N.B. The Boston library director may have worked diligently to overturn those portions of the Act which he finds offensive, I did not check. He may have contated his representatives and done other constructive work. In the intrest of fairness I must disclose that I did not make an effort to find out if he did. I would of course welcome his input on what actions he took.

    Reply
  4. Eli says:
    July 6, 2004 at 6:42 pm

    Records Release
    Mr. Margolis seems to live in a black and white world. It is a little scary when a person in an executive position espouses a “one size fits all” solution. Even the founding fathers would be shocked at an obvious agenda driven policy. Suppose the flight instructor who taught the September 11 hijackers was suspicious and reported his suspiscions. Protection of borrower identity has to be enforced with common sense. The patriot act is not our version of the gestapo. We are at war and in a open society such as ours potential terrorists can work without notice. Common sense means vigilence and awareness. Look as Israel for example. Every citizen is aware of things out of the ordinary. Many a terrorist attack has be prevented. Doesn’t Mr. Margolis realize that as an executive with resposibility for the public he must cooperate with authorities. As long as the searches and requests are legally executed what is his problem. Confidentiality is not intended to protect people who want to cause harm and destruction. Blanket statements confuse and distort real needs.

    Reply
  5. Anonymous Patron says:
    July 6, 2004 at 7:16 pm

    Re:Leadership. Mayoral directive. City council ord
    Saklad?

    Reply
  6. Lis says:
    July 6, 2004 at 8:28 pm

    Re:Records Release
    Where has Mr. Margolis expressed a black and white worldview? He said that if he gets such a request he would “very seriously consider” going public, not that he would automatically do so.

    As for not understanding the importance of security in an age of terrorism: Unwillingness to surrender our basic Constitutional rights without a whimper isn’t the same thing as being indifferent to the danger of terrorism. You say that “legally executed” searches and requests should be no problem, but that’s exactly what’s at issue with Section 215 of the so-called “PATRIOT Act.” Federal, state, and local law enforcement already had the right to get this information via a _properly executed_ search warrant or subpoena. The FISA court allowed federal authorities to get a warrant without risk of the information becoming public too soon. What Section 215 does is remove all the inconvenient burdens of having actual reason to believe someone’s a threat and/or there might be important information in the records; the FBI merely has to “certify” to the FISA court that it is “relevant” to an ongoing investigation. No judgment on the part of the court is exercised; no after-the-fact review of appropriateness is possible because anyone who speaks up is committing a felony. It makes a joke of the Fourth Amendment.

    Meanwhile, the Justice Department tells us that A)Section 215, easy access to your library, business, and medical information, is absolutely critical to the “War on Terror”, and B)Section 215 has never been used. Which is it?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

LISNews Archives