|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Civil & Human Rights : Crime & Police : Elections & Legislation : Government Secrecy : Regime |
|
Libraries Say Yes, Officials Do Quiz Them About Users |
Current rating: 0 |
by Eric Lichtblau
(No verified email address) |
20 Jun 2005
|
|
"What this says to us," said Emily Sheketoff, the executive director of the library association's Washington office, "is that agents are coming to libraries and they are asking for information at a level that is significant, and the findings are completely contrary to what the Justice Department has been trying to convince the public." |
WASHINGTON, June 19 - Law enforcement officials have made at least 200 formal and informal inquiries to libraries for information on reading material and other internal matters since October 2001, according to a new study that adds grist to the growing debate in Congress over the government's counterterrorism powers.
In some cases, agents used subpoenas or other formal demands to obtain information like lists of users checking out a book on Osama bin Laden. Other requests were informal - and were sometimes turned down by librarians who chafed at the notion of turning over such material, said the American Library Association, which commissioned the study.
The association, which is pushing to scale back the government's powers to gain information from libraries, said its $300,000 study was the first to examine a question that was central to a House vote last week on the USA Patriot Act: how frequently federal, state and local agents are demanding records from libraries.
The Bush administration says that while it is important for law enforcement officials to get information from libraries if needed in terrorism investigations, officials have yet to actually use their power under the Patriot Act to demand records from libraries or bookstores.
The library issue has become the most divisive in the debate on whether Congress should expand or curtail government powers under the Patriot Act, and it was at the center of last week's vote in the House approving a measure to restrict investigators' access to libraries.
The study does not directly answer how or whether the Patriot Act has been used to search libraries. The association said it decided it was constrained from asking direct questions on the law because of secrecy provisions that could make it a crime for a librarian to respond. Federal intelligence law bans those who receive certain types of demands for records from challenging the order or even telling anyone they have received it.
As a result, the study sought to determine the frequency of law enforcement inquiries at all levels without detailing their nature. Even so, organizers said the data suggested that investigators were seeking information from libraries far more frequently than Bush administration officials had acknowledged.
"What this says to us," said Emily Sheketoff, the executive director of the library association's Washington office, "is that agents are coming to libraries and they are asking for information at a level that is significant, and the findings are completely contrary to what the Justice Department has been trying to convince the public."
Kevin Madden, a Justice Department spokesman, said that the department had not yet seen the findings and that he could not comment specifically on them. But Mr. Madden questioned the relevance of the data to the debate over the Patriot Act, noting that the types of inquiries found in the survey could relate to a wide range of law enforcement investigations unconnected to terrorism or intelligence.
"Any conclusion that federal law enforcement has an extraordinary interest in libraries is wholly manufactured as a result of misinformation," Mr. Madden said.
The study, which surveyed 1,500 public libraries and 4,000 academic libraries, used anonymous responses to address legal concerns. A large majority of those who responded to the survey said they had not been contacted by any law enforcement agencies since October 2001, when the Patriot Act was passed.
But there were 137 formal requests or demands for information in that time, 49 from federal officials and the remainder from state or local investigators. Federal officials have sometimes used local investigators on joint terrorism task forces to conduct library inquiries.
In addition, the survey found that 66 libraries had received informal law enforcement requests without an official legal order, including 24 federal requests. Association officials said the survey results, if extrapolated from the 500 public libraries that responded, would amount to a total of some 600 formal inquires since 2001.
One library reporting that it had received a records demand was the Whatcom County system in a rural area of northwest Washington.
Last June, a library user who took out a book there, "Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America," noticed a handwritten note in the margin remarking that "Hostility toward America is a religious duty and we hope to be rewarded by God," and went to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Agents, in turn, went to the library seeking names and information on anyone checking out the biography since 2001.
The library's lawyers turned down the request, and agents went back with a subpoena. Joan Airoldi, who runs the library, said in an interview that she was particularly alarmed after a Google search revealed that the handwritten line was an often-cited quotation from Mr. bin Laden that was included in the report issued by the Sept. 11 commission.
The library fought the subpoena, and the F.B.I. withdrew its demand.
"A fishing expedition like this just seems so un-American to me," Ms. Airoldi said. "The question is, how many basic liberties are we willing to give up in the war on terrorism, and who are the real victims?"
The survey also found what library association officials described as a "chilling effect" caused by public concerns about the government's powers. Nearly 40 percent of the libraries responding reported that users had asked about changes in practices related to the Patriot Act, and about 5 percent said they had altered their professional activities over the issues; for instance, by reviewing the types of books they bought.
Representative Bernard Sanders, independent of Vermont, who sponsored the House measure to curtail the power to demand library records, said he was struck by the 40 percent response.
"What this demonstrates is that there is widespread concern among the American people about the government having the power to monitor what they are reading," Mr. Sanders said.
The margin of the vote on Mr. Sanders's measure, which passed 238 to 187, with support from 38 Republicans, surprised even some backers, but Bush administration officials say they are hopeful the decision will be reversed and have threatened a veto of any measure that would limit powers under the Patriot Act.
Carol Brey-Casiano, who runs the library system in El Paso and is president of the library association, said she, too, sensed a public unease.
"We're concerned about protecting people's privacy," she said. "People will say to me, 'I've read about the Patriot Act, and does that mean the government can come in and ask you what I'm reading?' And my answer to them has to be, 'Yes, they can,' and quite frankly, I can't even tell anyone if that happened, because there's a gag order."
Investigators have long had the ability to seek out library records in tracking leads in criminal inquiries. In two of the most noted cases, investigators in the 1990's used library records to search for the Unabomber, who wrote detailed and unusual academic treatises in his string of bombings over almost two decades, and for New York's "Zodiac Killer," who had cited the writing of an obscure occult poet.
Government officials say that while they have no interest in using their expanded powers under the Patriot Act to monitor Americans' reading habits, they do not believe that libraries should be safe havens for terrorists. They point to several cases in which Sept. 11 hijackers and other terror suspects used library computers to send e-mail messages.
Perhaps the fiercest counterattack from the Bush administration on the issue came in 2003 from John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, who said in a speech in Washington that groups like the American Library Association had bought into "breathless reports and baseless hysteria" about the government's interest in libraries.
"Do we at the Justice Department really care what you are reading?" Mr. Ashcroft asked. "No."
Ms. Sheketoff at the library association acknowledged that critics of the study may accuse the group of having a stake in the outcome of the Patriot Act debate. "Sure, we have a dog in this fight, but the other side has been mocking us for four years over our 'baseless hysteria,' and saying we have no reason to be concerned," she said. "Well, these findings say that we do have reason to be concerned."
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com |
Copyright by the author. All rights reserved. |
Comments
|
Re: Libraries Say Yes, Officials Do Quiz Them About Users |
by via email
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Jun 2005
|
Here is the latest on the Patriot Act, from the library perspective. The events listed at the end will be in Chicago in case you happen to be there at the right time. ALA is the American Library Association.
USA PATRIOT Act
The ALA Washington Office has released preliminary results from a survey of law enforcement activity in public and academic libraries and its effect on library policy and patron behavior and attitudes. Survey results indicate a total of at least 137 legally executed requests by federal and state/local law enforcement in both academic and public libraries have taken place since October, 2001 – 63 legally executed requests for records in public libraries and 74 legally executed requests in academic libraries. The study has already received major press attention, including an article in the New York Times (6/20/05). More results will be released at the Washington Office Update during the ALA Annual Conference. See www.ala.org
SAFE Act (S. 737 and H.R. 1526)
Supported by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers and advocacy groups, the Security and Freedom Ensured Act (SAFE) seeks to correct some of the excesses in the hastily-enacted USA PATRIOT Act and to protect Americans’ civil liberties by making modest but important changes to several of the USA PATRIOT Act’s most troublesome provisions:
¬ SAFE would protect the privacy of library, bookseller and other personal records by requiring a finding that specific, articulable facts giving reason to believe the party whose records are sought is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power before a court order for the records is issued.
¬ SAFE would restore the “agent of a foreign power standard” for using a National Security Letter (NSL) and require the government to show that there are specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that communications facilities registered in the name of the person whose records are sought have been used to communicate with an individual who is engaging or has engaged in international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities that involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the U.S. or a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.
Senate Intelligence Committee Markup of PATRIOT Act
June 7, in an 11-4 vote, the Senate Intelligence Committee approved legislation to reauthorize and expand the USA PATRIOT Act. While the text of the final bill has not yet (10 June 2005) been made public, it is believed the proposed legislation would have the following effects:
¬ It would make permanent, with one exception, the USA PATRIOT Act. The only exception, section 223, [currently] protects privacy by giving victims of unlawful government surveillance a court remedy; the Senate bill would allow that section to expire.
¬ The Senate Intelligence Committee bill would expand the use of “administrative subpoenas,” eliminating prior court review of FBI library and other private records demands for intelligence gathering purposes. The new records power could be used to obtain all tangible things, including library records, business records, medical records, etc. A gag order would be attached. The new power would mean that the FBI would be unlikely to use Section 215, as administrative subpoenas would be simpler and quicker to obtain – and have only after-the-fact judicial supervision.
¬ The Senate Intelligence Committee bill would offer some modification to Section 215, such as allowing a recipient of a FISA (Foreign Intelligence Security Act) records search order to consult with an attorney or other person necessary to comply with the request, and making the standard for issuing an order explicitly “relevant to” (rather than the current low standard of “sought for”).
¬ The Senate Intelligence Committee bill would create new statutory authority for intelligence investigators to track mail of ordinary citizens. It would add a new section to FISA on “mail covers,” which would allow intelligence investigators to track, without probable cause, the outside of any sealed mail sent or received or the contents of any unsealed mail – without any evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
Saturday, June 25, 8:00-10:00 Sheraton, Chicago BR VIII-X, ALA Washington Office Update will include the announcement of the preliminary results of the USA PATRIOT Research Survey, a major survey of the Impact and Analysis of Law Enforcement Activity in Public and Academic Libraries. The survey--which was commissioned by the Washington Office and sponsored by the Carnegie, Knight and Ford Foundations--found that there have been multiple contacts by federal, state and local law enforcement in academic and public libraries. The survey also found that librarians are unclear about the correct way to respond to law enforcement requests. The Washington Office will work together with OIF, ALTA and ACRL to create an educational program on law enforcement and libraries.
Monday, June 27, 8:00-10:00am, McCormick Place, Grand Ballroom B/C, join ALA President Carol Brey-Casiano for a screening of “Unconstitutional,” a feature-length documentary about the USA PATRIOT Act by filmmaker Robert Greenwald. The film was written and directed by journalist/filmmaker Nonny de la Peña. A panel discussion featuring U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald and Colleen Connell, Executive Director, ACLU of Illinois, will follow the screening.
Monday, June 27, 1:30-3:30pm, McCormick Place S403, “Intellectual Freedom: A Casualty of War?” – Co-sponsored by the ALA Intellectual Freedom Committee, the Association of American Publishers Freedom to Read Committee, and the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, the session will explore the history of intellectual freedom in wartime and strategies for book and information communities to help maintain liberties. Speakers include Geoffrey R. Stone (Harry Kalven Jr. Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School, author of Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from The Sedition Act of 1798 to The War on Terrorism) and Floyd Abrams (law firm of Cahill Gordon & Reindel; the William J. Brennan Jr. Visiting Professor of First Amendment Law at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism; author of Speaking Freely: Trials of the First Amendment).
Here is some more related to the Patriot Act.
Privacy: The Campaign for Reader Privacy
The Campaign for Reader Privacy is a joint initiative of the American Booksellers Association, PEN American Center, the American Library Association, and the Association of American Publishers. It is a collaborative effort to raise awareness about the USA PATRIOT Act, and the threat it poses to reader privacy by making it easier for federal agents to gain access to bookstore, library and publisher records. The Campaign for Reader Privacy is collecting signatures on its online petition at www.readerprivacy.com to support legislative efforts to amend the USA PATRIOT Act to restore traditional reader privacy protections.
Reader Privacy bookmarks are available at the ALA Store, the OIF exhibit booth, and the ALA Office area – free of charge in packets of 250, on a first-come, first-served basis.
Using public transportation to get around Chicago? Watch for the Reader Privacy public awareness campaign on the Chicago Transit Authority “el” trains. The Red (to Wrigley Field and beyond) and Blue lines (to O’Hare) will feature posters asking “Is someone reading over your shoulder?” -- plus information about the campaign and the USA PATRIOT Act.
Want more information?
Monday, June 27, 10:30am-noon, Sheraton, Chicago BR IX-X, -- “Protecting Anonymity on the Internet,” sponsored by the ALA Intellectual Freedom Committee and ALA Committee on Legislation. Speakers include Franklin S. Reeder (The Reeder Group) and Paul Alan Levy (Public Citizen Litigation Group). Learn who is trying to prevent anonymity on the Internet and why, why anonymity is important, and how to protect yours. |
|
