“The United States has the most open government in the world, but it also has the most secretive government in the world, if you measure it by the production of new secrets,”—Steven Aftergood.
This paradox exists especially after the enactment of the USA Patriot Act. Passed by Congress to give law enforcement the ability to track terrorists and prevent attacks, it has expanded the ability of the government to track the activities of private citizens. This is being done through access to Internet (including e-mail), phone, and even bank records. This is a large increase in the government’s ability to track residents, and thus a restriction on civil liberties.
This is also true in the case of libraries and their patrons and the potential for these records to be accessed. “The records that can be searched in a library now include any tangible item that could contain information, such as physical or electronic version of books, records, papers, and documents” (Jaeger, 1976). The act essentially increases the scope of the who, what, when, where, and why of government investigation of library records. Also, it limits the knowledge the patrons have that these records are being accessed and that they are being investigated.
The investigations done through the Patriot Act are under the guidelines of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (and through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court), and information can be collected by law enforcement through FISA, including electronic communications, even if it is “only a part of the investigation” (Jaeger, 1976) rather than the old standard of the information being the sole reason for the investigation. This gives the Patriot Act a much greater scope in retrieving information than previously by the government (Jaeger, 1976).
Specifically, Section 215 of the Act (as described above) allows the FBI to gain court orders which are secret (which means the party being investigated does not know) in furthering an investigation related to terrorism or national security (American Library Association, Office for Intellectual Freedom, 2005). Citizens of the U.S. can be investigated, and libraries cannot tell the patron that their records have been sought. And in some cases, the FBI does not even need court orders, but instead gets “National Security Letters.” (ALA, 2005). The government can access library records, and even retrieve computers from libraries, even if the patron’s records are not the reason for the investigation in the first place. In fact, in the year after September 11, 2001, the FBI targeted libraries on 175 occasions at minimum without giving an explanation (Gerdes, 98).
Libraries have become concerned with this large increase in the government’s power, and while Section 215 does not mention libraries directly, libraries have become concerned that the Patriot Act is “a present danger to the constitutional rights and privacy rights of library users” (Doyle, 2005). Even the reauthorized Patriot Act does little to change this large increase in powers by the FBI and law enforcement. In fact some libraries, trying to avoid government intervention and investigation, “have reportedly stopped keeping certain records to avoid law enforcement inquiries” (Regan, 2004).
Although the American Library Association has to abide by the law, they insist that the law infringes upon the rights and freedoms of patrons in libraries. (ALA, 2005). Libraries are an institution that promotes information and expression of free speech, and the law undermines this directly. “Privacy is essential to the exercise of free speech, free thought, and free association; and, in a library, the subject of users’ interests should not be examined or scrutinized by others” (ALA, 2005). ALA passed a resolution addressing the short comings of the Section 215 and recommended changes in order to improve the law to protect the privacy rights of patrons in the library. Specifically, “the American Library Association considers sections of the USA Patriot Act are a present danger to the constitutional rights and privacy rights of library users” (ALA, 2005).
“Librarians need to be tough and to fight for their values. Toleration, respect for truth, appreciation for quality, dedication to the common good, and a concern for the well-being” is what libraries and librarians need to have as their goals (Dalton, 2000). On one side, Congress wants to protect society from threats that may cause harm to us, but on the flip side, libraries and their patrons feel threatened that they are losing freedoms and rights that are given to them by the First Amendment.
Has Congress gone too far to pry into personal records of library patrons? If so, should there be limits on what can be accessed, and also should patrons be notified?
How much freedom should be given up for security and protection from potential terrorism?
Is the library community aware of any monitoring or eavesdropping on networked communications and/or public access terminals in the library?
Sources:
American Library Association, Office for Intellectual Freedom. (April/October 2005). Analysis of the USA
Patriot Act related to Libraries. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/issuesrelatedlinks/usapatriotactanalysis.htm.
Dalton, M.S. (November 2000). Old Values for the New Information Age, Library Journal, (21), 43-44.
Doyle, C. (2005). Libraries and the USA Patriot Act. Congressional Research Service, The Library of
Congress, (Order Code RS21441), 1-6.
Gerdes, L.I. (2005). The Patriot Act: Opposing Viewpoints, Greenhaven Press, Detroit, 98.
Jaeger, P.T., McClure, C.R., Bertot, J.C., & Snead, J.T. (2004). The USA Patriot Act, the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act, and Information Policy Research in Libraries: Issues, Impacts, and
Questions for Libraries and Researchers. The Library Quarterly, 74(2), 99-121.
Regan, P.M. (2004). Old issues, new context: Privacy, information collection, and homeland security.
Government Information Quarterly, 21, 481-97.
14 comments:
Of all the organizations in the world, the library remains the greatest asset to public education. Anyone from anywhere can walk into a library and find information on anything he or she may be curious about. At the same time, library user s opens themselves up for invasion from informants acting as protection from potential terrorism. I think the only weapon libraries have against The Patriot Act is to educate library users and their staff about exactly who has access to their records, why, and what could be the potential risk involved. I am not sure if the average library user is even aware of this restriction on civil liberties. Patrons need to be educated about their rights to privacy and who may be able to access their records.
“It’s time, then, to stop obsessing about governments and focus on the real challenge to intellectual freedom in the library. After all, media consolidation and ever expanding copyright laws threaten the library’s raison d’être. Together, they could so diminish the public domain that libraries—were they to survive—would become indistinguishable from commercial bookshops, with access only available to those who can pay the toll. As Kranich concedes, “If you don’t have access, you have no freedom of expression.” What greater threat to intellectual freedom in the library could there be?”
-Richard Poynder, excerpt from the article below
Read this!
http://www.richardpoynder.co.uk/Fiddling%20While%20Rome%20Burns.htm
It may well light a fire under our butts
I definiely agree about the importance of educating library users about who can access their records. Before taking this class, I never realized the extent to which my information as a library user can be accessed by the government. I think we need to make sure patrons understand what can be accessed and why, especially if people are being investigated without their knowledge. The ALA Code of Ethics says that as librarians "we protect each library user's right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information sought or received and resources consulted, borrowed, acquired or transmitted." If a law is preventing us from doing this in any extent, I think patrons should know (American Library Association, 1997).
Work cited
ALA Code of Ethics. Retrieved March 24, 2008, from www.ala.org: http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/codeofethics/codeethics.htm
This country was founded on the basis of freedom from an overlying power. Now that our government is considerably powerful, the goals have changed a bit. A society based on fear is a society willing to bend over backwards to keep itself safe, no matter how rediculous or severe the circumstances. The biggest problem is that people don't even realize they are at risk just as much as the guilty parties. They don't realize they are being investigated, that they could potentially be prosecuted, hasselled, or monitored for things they have no foul intentions by.
"The distinction between what is criminal, to be dealt with by the legal and justice system, and what creates a 'perception of insecurity' - formerly to be dealt with by social policy - is being eroded at both the macro ('war on terror') and micro ('public order') levels."
Libraries are in a funny position. They are the best tool, as Jen mentioned, to inform society and help people get the information they need to figure out what they need to be scared of, and what is blown out of proportion. But by researching within the public confines of the library, they are at risk of being monitored by higher powers. That's why it's essential patrons are informed on the Patriot act and all it entails.
http://www.irr.org.uk/2004/june/ak000011.html
I had a conversation last night with someone about loss of privacy in and out of the library. He argued that the same librarian who opposes invasion of privacy in the library should also oppose it everywhere else in life. Do you agree? Here was the example proposed: In my neighborhood there are numerous sex offenders whose house addresses you can acquire by visiting a sex offenders map website. All you have to do is plug in your zip code and it will provide you will the locations. One website even claims to provide not only the address, but the phone number and conviction details of that person. At one time this information was also delivered to me in the newspaper. I try to imagine if I had children would I regard this information as loss of privacy toward those offenders or as a public service that could protect potential victims. Or are these two situations not even comparable or relative?
After all our class presentations about ethics, I am considering the ethical theory that one of the groups presented as the Utilitarianism doctrine of "the greatest good for the greatest number.” Does anyone have any insight into my rambling comparison?
Stacy, you ask “[h]ow much freedom should be given up for security and protection from potential terrorism?” And my answer is not much. On Monday, a group posted the following quote by Ben Franklin on one of their slides.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
I love the quote, but I also think Franklin was alluding to more than what people deserve. I think he was warning us about what we will GET if we sacrifice our liberty—neither liberty, nor safety.
Again and again, if you listen to the news, you will hear of incidents of torture, mass killings, people being disappeared, and so on. Until very recently, these incidents all took place in foreign countries — in places where the populations lack civil liberties…and where the governments engage in at least some of the following practices authorized or enabled by the Patriot Act: surveillance of the population, monitoring citizens communications, tightly controlling the movement of suspected dissenters or foreign nationals.
To me, the citizens in these well-monitored countries are hardly what I would call secure or protected. And in most cases, people living in repressive states are not even safe from terrorism — consider Russia’s problem with Chechnya.
In contrast, although we suffered a horrible terrorist attack on 9/11, we have been remarkably safe from and free of terrorism in the United States. I don’t believe this is an accident. I think our freedom is what has kept us safer than most (I believe completely safe is unachievable). Moreover, it has been during periods in which we have allowed people to be stripped of freedom, or people believed that their freedoms had been infringed, that the most violent and shameful events in our nation’s history occurred.
I’ll add here James Madison’s observation:
‘“[a] popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” ‘ (Kreimer, 2007, p. 1144)
In otherwords, a nonautonomous democracy is an oxymoron. A population that is not free is a population that will soon become under- or misinformed, and unfit or incapable of effective self-governance.
As you note in your blog, the ALA takes the position that “[p]rivacy is essential to the exercise of free speech, free thought, and free association; and, in a library, the subject of users’ interests should not be examined or scrutinized by others” (ALA, 2005). And these freedoms are essential to maintaining an informed populace. But audits permitted by the reauthorization act revealed that under §505 of the Patriot Act, the number of NSL requests (orders akin to the §215 administrative orders discussed in your blog, but without even cursory judicial review) in 2004 alone, including requests made to libraries, was close to 65,000. (Kreimer, 2007, p. 1183) To put this in perspective, issuing 30,000 NSLs would have represented ‘“a hundredfold increase over historic norms.”’ (Kreimer, 2007, p. 1178)
Even worse,
‘[r]eporting of the letters was slipshod, and supervision was haphazard. Previous classified reports required by Congress had substantially understated the number of NSLs issued because of delays and mistakes, and public reports had understated numbers because of creative use of definitions. A random audit of seventy-seven investigative files revealed twenty-two possible violations of law and policy regarding NSLs. The audit also delicately presented the “Noteworthy Fact” that “no clear guidance was given to FBI agents on how to reconcile the limitations expressed in the Attorney General Guidelines, which reflect concerns about the impact on privacy of FBI collection techniques, with the expansive authorities in the NSL statutes.”’ (Kreimer, 2007, p. 1183)
Add to the Patriot Act the current administration’s unprecedented generation of secret documents (an increase of 81% from 2000 to 2004), its manipulation of all kinds of information, (Jaeger, 2007), and its policy of consolidating ownership of big media companies (Goetzman, 2007) and my question becomes, knowing this, how is it that anyone feels more secure after giving up some portion of their freedom?
I should note that I am not advocating that we should do nothing to protect ourselves from terrorism, just that we should not take actions equivalent to killing the patient in order to eradicate a virus. I am glad that “the American Library Association considers sections of the USA Patriot Act [to be] a present danger to the constitutional rights and privacy rights of library users” (ALA, 2005) and that its advocacy, and the advocacy of others, is slowly inching government policy and law back towards the traditional values and norms of a functional democracy.
But I find it ironic that, to this day, sectors of our society continue to argue for giving up certain freedoms (as well as some of our ideals) for safety. Our founders shouted “give me liberty or give me death,” and we have benefited greatly from their sacrifices. And around the globe today people are dying on a daily basis fighting for democracy. Democracy doesn’t come cheaply, but in the US, I believe we have forgotten this. We have been spoiled by the relative safety and comfort of the most powerful nation on earth. Indeed, we might do well to ask ourselves, do we still deserve to be a democracy?
Works cited:
American Library Association, Office for Intellectual Freedom. (April/October 2005). Analysis of the USA Patriot Act related to Libraries. Retrieved by Stacy Z on March 12, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/issuesrelatedlinks.
Goetzman, K. (2007, July-August) Big media meets its match: FCC commissioners Jonathon Adelstein and Michael Copps, two Washington power players you’ve never heard of. Utne Reader, 52-59.
Jaeger, J. (2007, March 2) Information policy, information access, and democratic participation: The national and international implications of the Bush administration’s information politics. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 840-859.
Kreimer, S., Rays of sunlight in a shadow “war”: FOIA, the abuses of anti-terrorism, and the strategy of transparency, 11 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 1141 (2007).
I love that libraries have stopped keeping certain records so the government has less of an opportunity to invade people's privacy. On the ALA's website, it has a list of procedures to lessen government access to personal information. For example, it follows the ALA code of ethics regarding privacy to shred documents in a consistent and timely manner. That way, if the feds come knocking and the information is gone, they don't get it and the library isn't in trouble either. If we don't have it, we can't give it to them.
The ALA also recommends not keeping any records that aren't necessary for running the library efficiently. Sure, we need to know who checked out an item last in case they damaged it or forgot to return all the components, but there is no reason we need to have a list of everyone who checked something out.
The ALA also reminds us that "there is no affirmative duty to collect or retain information about library patrons on behalf of law enforcement." So basically, we need to keep our patrons and the efficient functioning of our libraries in mind, and not investigators. If the FBI came and asked for information that we did have, of course under the law we have no choice but to give it to them. But, again, if we don't have it, they don't get it.
Work Cited:
ALA: Confidentiality and Coping with Law Enforcement Inquiries:
Guidelines for the Library and its Staff accessed March 25, 2008
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/confidentiality.cfm
"Judith Krug, the American Library Association's director for intellectual freedom, tells worried librarians who call that they should keep only the records they need and should discard records that would show which patron checked out a book and for how long." (USA Today, 2002).I am with Kate on this subject. If the records do not exist then they cannot be requested by the government or anyone else. A record could be kept from the time one checks out a book until it is returned - and then wiped clean. Necessary statistics are easy to keep without the personal information. If a patron would like to keep a record, AFTER reading the fine print of library policy and the Patriot Act, then that would be their free choice. It is pretty scary to see that a telephone company can keep your text messages 2-3 years after the act. I am not defending perjury here, but why does a company keep records of conversation, and for so long?? Libraries do not need the information either - it serves no purpose.
References:
FBI checks out records of terrorist suspects, USA Today. Retrieved on 3/26/2008 from www.ala.org. http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002/06/25/fbi-libraries.htm.
The idea that a secretive governmental agency like the FBI or NSA can have "extra-constitutional power" in the minds of many to prevent crime is hard to justify. In normal law enforcement, deterrents are put in place (punishments) and perpetrators, those who have committed crimes, are subjected to them via due process of the legal system. In the case of the PATRIOT Act law enforcement agents are using powers that go beyond what is normally granted to them to prevent perpetration of a crime. The situation can easily be viewed as a "cart before the horse scenario."
I certainly don't want anyone to be harmed by "terrorism" but I cannot accept law enforcement organizations punishing citizens without having to prove imminent danger. In the case of library searches especially, investigations are kept secret and no charges are filed against the targeted people to justify such an invasion of privacy. Invasion of privacy is a crime (or punishment) in and of itself. The idea that authority to invade privacy is granted in the effort to prevent a counterfactual event is counter intuitive. In essence, punishment has already been exacted for a crime that has not been committed, or likely contemplated. I think libraries are completely justified in resisting such perversions of due process by discarding documentation about their patrons.
For further illustration of the punative effects of invasion of privacy please see:
Case No. 06-CV-10204 of the United States Distrcit Court Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division (ACLU, et al. v. NSA, et al.)
Having reading and talking about the Patriot Act in class, I decided I really wanted to know when, how, what and who came up with this act. The Patriot Act was written and passed almost unanimously in the wake of 9/11. Basically in the heat of the moment from that huge tragically. Government realized they needed to look like they were doing something to protect the country. Now, however, the furor of that time is coming down and people are realizing this might not be the solution. Congress is starting to take a closer look at some of the provisions. Some in the govenment are trying to enact the Patriot Act II and even the Victory Act which will give them even more control and access.
Section 215 in particular goes after the Libraries. Many groups including the ACLU have gone this section.
Anyway, I think the government is going alittle to far into our privacy rights. I understand they want to protect us. But they should also show some respect. There are a some majority of terrorists. I would think the FBI, CIA probably knows who they are. The govenment shouldn't be able to know what we check out or look up on the internet. Unfortunately it is nearly impossible to hide what you do on the internet. And patrons should know that not everything is secret. Very little in the information age, can be kept totally private.
Slate. "A Guide to the Patriot Act, Part 1." Lithwick, Dahliah and Julia Turner. 8 Sept 2003. 27 Mar 2008. http://www.slate.com/id/2087984/
Roby,
You are right. The Richard Poynder article, Fiddling While Rome Burns, is a must-read. While Poynder seemed to acknowledge that actions taken under the Patriot Act deserve to be fought on civil liberties grounds—and are by various groups—the library shouldn’t be one of them. That is, as your excerpt from his article shows, libraries should be concentrating on issues such as media consolidation and intellectual property laws (the latter of which I comment on in the “Copyright and Digital Media” blog).
But what I especially love is the cynical look he takes at the mixed history and motives of librarians’ advocacy of intellectual freedom. His article isn’t so much about how dangerous the Patriot Act is, as it is about how inconsistent the ALA is in its advocacy—and how it needs to and can get itself on track and be truly useful. Poynder seems pretty jaded against the ALA, but the article was enlightening anyway.
The Richard Poynder article reprinted in its entirety from the Jan. 2004 issue of Information Today.
"It may have once been true that on the Internet no one knew you were a dog...these days marketers probably know your favorite brand of dog food."
Josh Dubeuman and Michael Beaudet."Privacy Perspectives for Online Searchers: Confidentiality with Confidence?". Searcher8,no7(2000)
Congress has gone too far in their reaching for personal records. Personally in the climate in which the Patriot Act was initiated I suspect members of congress did not do much reading of the specifications of the act or thought in the possible consequences. Absolutely htere should be alimit on what can be accessed, how it can be used and patrons shold be notified if someone is digging through their records. I understand the law enforcement aspect of not wanting to tip off a potential suspect to an investigation, but the greater responsibility is to maintaining a free society rather than a safe one. I know it is cliche at this point but Ben Franklin had a point, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". For the most part I feel the ALA is thoughtful in their ideas and mandates and their stand on the Patriot Act is something I wholeheartedly agree with, "The American Library Association (ALA) opposes any use of governmental power to suppress the free and open exchange of knowledge and information or to intimidate individuals exercising free inquiry…ALA considers that sections of the USA PATRIOT ACT are a present danger to the constitutional rights and privacy rights of library users".
American Library Association 3-28-08
The USA Patriot Act in the Library
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/usapatriotactlibrary.cfm
Benjamin Franklin wikiquote 3-28-08
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
I can't help but wonder what the founding fathers would say if they could read the Patriot Act and see how it is affecting things in everyday life. I can't begin to fathom how different things would be if something similar had been in place 300 years ago.
On one hand, I understand that the Patriot Act was put into action to protect the greater good, but the larger part of me loathes it with every part of my being because deep down I think that it is contrary to everything that this country was founded on.
Right now the government can see what books we read and monitor internet use, I wonder what is next on the horizon.
I have to agree with Kimberly on the issue of what would our founding fathers would say to the Patriot Act. Freedom was the basis of this country and now little by little is taken away from us everyday. One has to be educated on what is being done by the government, especially in the library. Many people are unaware of the monitoring in the library and that records could be obtained without their knowledge. As Roby mentioned, "educate library users and their staff about exactly who has access to their records, why and what could be the potential risk involved." Many are not aware of what is meant by the Patriot Act, and if more are informed, the more they are able to protect their freedom. In the end, one wants to protect library patrons from the intrusion of privacy, but one also has to think that the is govt looking out to protect us from terrorism. Kate also made a good point, libraries should not keep as little information as possible. At work, we shred certain docments so no one will be able to get their hands on it. before taking this class, I never really thought about shredding materials, I rarely thought about what the government could really do, now that I am more informed, I can better understand how to protect myself as much as possible.
Post a Comment