Jim Heckel, director of the Great Falls Public Library, Says Libraries have become the symbolic canaries in the mine shaft since the passage of the overly zealous USA Patriot Act, enacted shortly after 9/11 and contentiously renewed early this year.
What does terrorism have to do with your local public library? That is, as they say, an interesting question.
- Next Smithsonian Official Resigns After Admitting Destroying Meeting Transcript
- Previous Westchester NY School Library Destroyed by Lightening
Recent Posts
- E-Books Can Subvert Book Bans, But Corporate Profit-Seeking Stands in the Way March 10, 2024
- Ten Stories That Shaped 2023 December 15, 2023
- War Sows Disruption at the National Book Awards November 16, 2023
- “No one else is saving it”: the fight to protect a historic music collection November 16, 2023
- No, I Don’t Want to Join Your Book Club November 9, 2023
- Iowa election 2023: Pella Public Library retains independence November 9, 2023
- A door at a Swedish library was accidentally left open 446 people came in, borrowed 245 books. Every single one was returned November 9, 2023
Recent Comments
- Examining Arab and Muslim librarians in fiction – Pop Culture Library Review on Librarian Combats Muslim Stereotypes
- St. Paul libraries face moment of reckoning – LISNews – News For Librarians on Secret and mysterious libraries
- Ellie on Just How Gross Are Library Books, Exactly?
- Prodigious1one on The Teaching Librarian Versus The Teacher
- Jason on Ten Stories That Shaped 2019
- centaurea on Libraries using Internet Trust Tools
LISNews Archives
- March 2024 (1)
- December 2023 (1)
- November 2023 (5)
- October 2023 (1)
- September 2023 (1)
- August 2023 (22)
- February 2023 (3)
- January 2023 (20)
- December 2022 (6)
- February 2022 (3)
- December 2021 (1)
- December 2020 (1)
- July 2020 (11)
- June 2020 (11)
- January 2020 (1)
- December 2019 (2)
- November 2019 (4)
- October 2019 (1)
- June 2019 (1)
- May 2019 (4)
- April 2019 (3)
- March 2019 (11)
- February 2019 (41)
- January 2019 (31)
- December 2018 (6)
- November 2018 (11)
- October 2018 (15)
- September 2018 (9)
- August 2018 (22)
- July 2018 (1)
- June 2018 (1)
- May 2018 (7)
- April 2018 (8)
- March 2018 (5)
- February 2018 (17)
- January 2018 (13)
- December 2017 (8)
- November 2017 (16)
- October 2017 (18)
- September 2017 (11)
- August 2017 (8)
- July 2017 (8)
- June 2017 (21)
- May 2017 (39)
- April 2017 (22)
- March 2017 (15)
- February 2017 (21)
- January 2017 (40)
- December 2016 (20)
- November 2016 (9)
- October 2016 (20)
- September 2016 (48)
- August 2016 (48)
- July 2016 (55)
- June 2016 (61)
- May 2016 (39)
- April 2016 (67)
- March 2016 (81)
- February 2016 (85)
- January 2016 (69)
- December 2015 (90)
- November 2015 (126)
- October 2015 (107)
- September 2015 (85)
- August 2015 (42)
- July 2015 (32)
- June 2015 (35)
- May 2015 (39)
- April 2015 (14)
- March 2015 (60)
- February 2015 (75)
- January 2015 (44)
- December 2014 (30)
- November 2014 (39)
- October 2014 (43)
- September 2014 (30)
- August 2014 (36)
- July 2014 (59)
- June 2014 (46)
- May 2014 (62)
- April 2014 (58)
- March 2014 (52)
- February 2014 (37)
- January 2014 (42)
- December 2013 (41)
- November 2013 (25)
- October 2013 (43)
- September 2013 (28)
- August 2013 (32)
- July 2013 (61)
- June 2013 (51)
- May 2013 (50)
- April 2013 (52)
- March 2013 (68)
- February 2013 (62)
- January 2013 (62)
- December 2012 (53)
- November 2012 (64)
- October 2012 (111)
- September 2012 (109)
- August 2012 (128)
- July 2012 (57)
- June 2012 (75)
- May 2012 (163)
- April 2012 (158)
- March 2012 (109)
- February 2012 (125)
- January 2012 (136)
- December 2011 (109)
- November 2011 (74)
- October 2011 (82)
- September 2011 (95)
- August 2011 (106)
- July 2011 (93)
- June 2011 (102)
- May 2011 (94)
- April 2011 (105)
- March 2011 (100)
- February 2011 (92)
- January 2011 (110)
- December 2010 (124)
- November 2010 (83)
- October 2010 (118)
- September 2010 (115)
- August 2010 (110)
- July 2010 (108)
- June 2010 (113)
- May 2010 (78)
- April 2010 (121)
- March 2010 (191)
- February 2010 (182)
- January 2010 (168)
- December 2009 (129)
- November 2009 (116)
- October 2009 (131)
- September 2009 (149)
- August 2009 (162)
- July 2009 (166)
- June 2009 (189)
- May 2009 (112)
- April 2009 (164)
- March 2009 (185)
- February 2009 (151)
- January 2009 (173)
- December 2008 (200)
- November 2008 (155)
- October 2008 (252)
- September 2008 (267)
- August 2008 (193)
- July 2008 (208)
- June 2008 (161)
- May 2008 (208)
- April 2008 (253)
- March 2008 (201)
- February 2008 (246)
- January 2008 (185)
- December 2007 (200)
- November 2007 (208)
- October 2007 (241)
- September 2007 (227)
- August 2007 (269)
- July 2007 (201)
- June 2007 (205)
- May 2007 (157)
- April 2007 (217)
- March 2007 (250)
- February 2007 (183)
- January 2007 (181)
- December 2006 (163)
- November 2006 (180)
- October 2006 (170)
- September 2006 (215)
- August 2006 (210)
- July 2006 (202)
- June 2006 (257)
- May 2006 (280)
- April 2006 (271)
- March 2006 (347)
- February 2006 (284)
- January 2006 (300)
- December 2005 (267)
- November 2005 (238)
- October 2005 (364)
- September 2005 (349)
- August 2005 (377)
- July 2005 (382)
- June 2005 (403)
- May 2005 (371)
- April 2005 (420)
- March 2005 (367)
- February 2005 (368)
- January 2005 (346)
- December 2004 (311)
- November 2004 (260)
- October 2004 (308)
- September 2004 (228)
- August 2004 (319)
- July 2004 (395)
- June 2004 (338)
- May 2004 (288)
- April 2004 (364)
- March 2004 (348)
- February 2004 (438)
- January 2004 (266)
- December 2003 (222)
- November 2003 (226)
- October 2003 (281)
- September 2003 (317)
- August 2003 (315)
- July 2003 (278)
- June 2003 (282)
- May 2003 (265)
- April 2003 (271)
- March 2003 (249)
- February 2003 (283)
- January 2003 (210)
- December 2002 (186)
- November 2002 (184)
- October 2002 (222)
- September 2002 (210)
- August 2002 (207)
- July 2002 (184)
- June 2002 (166)
- May 2002 (160)
- April 2002 (195)
- March 2002 (183)
- February 2002 (195)
- January 2002 (203)
- December 2001 (203)
- November 2001 (238)
- October 2001 (183)
- September 2001 (153)
- August 2001 (204)
- July 2001 (243)
- June 2001 (176)
- May 2001 (92)
- April 2001 (116)
- March 2001 (153)
- February 2001 (142)
- January 2001 (131)
- December 2000 (110)
- November 2000 (124)
- October 2000 (128)
- September 2000 (132)
- August 2000 (138)
- July 2000 (166)
- June 2000 (135)
- May 2000 (120)
- April 2000 (121)
- March 2000 (181)
- February 2000 (163)
- January 2000 (54)
- November 1999 (37)
sensible?
Sensible as this may sound on the surface, Section 215 actually has caused a firestorm of protest, especially from librarians, because the order circumvents one of the foundations of constitutional law and, in fact, historical precedent dating back to the Magna Carta of 1215: that search and seizure attempts must be supported by critical judicial review: In other words, supported by a legally authorized subpoena.
Sensible as that may sound on the surface a public library is not a personal residence. It is a public institution funded by public tax dollars. The bar is and should be considered lower than someone’s home.
Re:sensible?
Why is that? Shouldn’t the Government always show just cause in obtaining information about individual citizens? The potential for abuse is simply too great.
I’m not sure where you get your theory that governmental records of individuals have fewer protections. Would you be willing to elaborate? I don’t remember seeing anything in the Constitution that gives the Government greater lee-way.
Re:sensible?
I don’t remember seeing in the Constitution anywhere where it doesn’t.
Re:sensible?
Only powers expressly granted by the Constitution can be exercised. All others reside in the States and in the People. If the Constitution doesn’t grant that power to the Government (Federal), then it doesn’t exist.
Re:sensible?
I don’t consider it a ‘power’, like I said, its a public institution, funded by tax dollars. If people are going to keep making extreme arguments about privacy then I’m just going to start making the argument that library use is public record just like almost every other gov’t record.
Re:sensible?
I’m not sure how compelling one governmental agency to turn over records, without a warrant, to another, is not a power.
We’re not talking about privacy, per se, at the moment. We are talking about the Government having the power (because that is what it is) to obtain information about individuals without showing just cause. Like it or not, Greg, The Founders enshrined protections against unreasonable searches and seizures on the premise that such power is too easily abused. The Constitution requires a warrant for searches and seizures. Why do you think that is? And do you think it’s really a good idea to lower that particular bar? If you’re going to do that, don’t you think a Constitutional Amendment would be the way to go instead of simply handing greater power to the Feds? Once it has been established that there is a lower threshold for Constitutional protection, it becomes a precedent, and can be used to justify expanded powers. Take a look, for example, at the expanded use of the RICO statutes if you think I’m just making stuff up.
Historically, and until recently, the police have needed a court order to access information from other Governmental agencies (despite your claims that the bar already is lower). Why do you feel the bar should be lower? Since we all have to deal with the Government in one fashion or another, your standard completely does an end run around Constitutional protections that the architects of that document considered important enough to include in the first 10 amendments.
Re:sensible?
I’ve stated my reasoning very clearly Robert, its a public building, a public service, funded by public dollars. By definition everything about it should be public. That it isn’t is a common sense measure because of the nature of the service, yes, in a community you should be able to check out materials of a personal nature and have it be private. But to attach any greater value other than that, some concept of *absolute* privacy is absurd. It is not a private home, not a private business, the redcoats are not coming.
Re:sensible?
You keep talking about privacy, and now absolute privacy. Who are you discussing that with? Not me, I never used that phrase.
And you haven’t come anywhere near answering the question: you’ve talked around it. What is the reasoning behind the belief that simply because something is tax funded, that is has a lower bar for obtaining information on the part of various law enforcement agencies? Simply because I use a public facility, does not mean that I have given up my constitutional rights to be protected from warrantless searches.
And your second sentence contradicts your first. If everything about a library is public, why shouldn’t my circulation records be open to perusal by all members of the public? After all they pay taxes. And following your same logic, all medical records at the VA should be open to public examination since those hospitals are funded by taxpayer dollars.
I’m not talking about an *absolute* privacy. In fact, most people aren’t. I’m only saying that the Constitutional forms should be followed, and that the police should be required to obtain a search warrant. Why shouldn’t they show just cause? How do you know, in a library setting, that a police officer is coming in to find out where his or her battered spouse now lives? Checks on governmental power and authority are there for a reason. Why dilute them?
The founders were no longer worried about the Redcoats when they drafted the Constitution. Independence had been already won. They were worried about the power that officials would have and the ability to abuse that power. That is what requiring a search warrant is about. And it is still a legitimate concern. Think about how many times our various levels of government have spied on citizens in the last 50 years alone simply for exercising Constitutional Rights.
Re:sensible?
You keep talking about privacy, and now absolute privacy. Who are you discussing that with? Not me, I never used that phrase.
Good for you. I did use it.
And you haven’t come anywhere near answering the question: you’ve talked around it. What is the reasoning behind the belief that simply because something is tax funded, that is has a lower bar for obtaining information on the part of various law enforcement agencies? Simply because I use a public facility, does not mean that I have given up my constitutional rights to be protected from warrantless searches.
Well, actually yes you did. Once you left your property you gave up that right. All any police officer needs is probable cause to stop and search you.
And your second sentence contradicts your first.
And then the third sentence explains my reason’s why.
I’m not talking about an *absolute* privacy. In fact, most people aren’t. I’m only saying that the Constitutional forms should be followed, and that the police should be required to obtain a search warrant. Why shouldn’t they show just cause? How do you know, in a library setting, that a police officer is coming in to find out where his or her battered spouse now lives? Checks on governmental power and authority are there for a reason. Why dilute them?
So nice to know you speak for ‘most people’. I speak for myself and I say that a publicly funded institution that people use on a voluntary basis should not be held to the same level of protection as a person’s private home or business. As for your battered spouse example, you might wonder why a police officer would need a library for that kind of information, or better yet why a librarian is supposed to be considered more trustworthy than a police officer. Abuse is not limited to professions with badges.
The founders were no longer worried about the Redcoats when they drafted the Constitution. Independence had been already won. They were worried about the power that officials would have and the ability to abuse that power. That is what requiring a search warrant is about. And it is still a legitimate concern. Think about how many times our various levels of government have spied on citizens in the last 50 years alone simply for exercising Constitutional Rights.
The Founders drafted the Constition based on prior experience which consisted of an overbearing gov’t abusing power to search a person’s private property not whether someone was using a public library computer to communicate with terrorist cells.
Re:sensible?
“All any police officer needs is probable cause to stop and search you.”
From what I’ve read, that is untrue. In order to search your person, they have to arrest you first.