Things Go On In There…

dcstone says:

Michigan law requires libraries to protect privacy

Actually, the ALA doesn’t protect library users’ privacy. Michigan law does.

MCL 397.603-604 states: “Unless ordered by a court after giving the affected library notice of the request and an opportunity to be heard on the request, a library or an employee or agent of a library shall not release or disclose a library record or portion of a library record to a person without the written consent of the person liable for payment for or return of the materials identified in that library record…A library or an agent or employee of a library which violates section 3 shall be liable to the person identified in a record that is improperly released or disclosed. The person identified may bring a civil action for actual damages or $250.00, whichever is greater; reasonable attorney fees; and the costs of bringing the action.”

Thus, Michigan libraries (and librarians, and library employees) are required, under the law, to protect a user’s records. They violate the law by disclosing the information without a court order. [And the Wyandotte detective who doesn’t understand why libraries can’t or won’t release records merely at his request needs to brush up on Michigan law outside the criminal code.]

One might more profitably ask under what authority the individual librarian barred the woman and her child from the library’s computer lab. What library policy authorized her to do that? On what grounds? Her own personal disapproval of the web sites some users view? Why doesn’t she address those “bad” users’ behaviors rather than refuse service to a “good” user? (According to the story, the library’s policy is to ask those viewing porn to leave the library – and it does not sound as if the library director or the library’s board authorized the librarian to prohibit users from the computer lab on the grounds that someone might, maybe, be violating the library’s policy on porn viewing.)

Other food for thought: the story fails to distinguish porn viewing from using emails or chat rooms to contact minors (and I think we can all admit that “porn viewer” does not automatically equal “pedophile”.) A user could be using an “innocent” web interface to troll for minors without raising any alarms with the librarians that are so concerned about porn.

The story also fails to inform the reader whether or not the arrests detailed in the story actually involved libraries or are merely examples of “what might be happening in the library because it’s happening in the outside world.”

Not the best example of factual, unbiased journalism from which to draw conclusions.