Librarians Report on Law Enforcement Requests

From the Volokh Conspiracy.

Intersting analysis of the report. I agree with their skepticism on the results of the report, which hasn't been issued to public review.

The keys to the problem:
1) The report is based on Anonymous librarian reports. (Get this, They were told by the group doing the study to act anonymously.)
2) Details of the requests are completely lacking. No indication of what the law enforcement groups were asking for.

The NYT article, that is part of the original topic, does cite specific instances of subpoenas related to specific activities.

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?"

Now, let's look at this statement. The FBI received a report related, if a bit vaguely, to an activity that relates to terrorism. I'm agreeing that the reason for the information request is a bit vague, but not non-existent. So Ms. Airoldi is wrong about "fishing." They didn't just randomly show up to look randomly through the records. That would be fishing.

And as for giving up civil liberties, the FBI could always subpoena library records. The could before 9/11 they can now. The obvious outrage of this librarian is foolish.

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.

"Chilling effect" is interesting, though no quantification of the effect is provided. Note they are relating it to "government powers." If the librarians altered their pattern of buying because of a conceived change in government policy, then shame on them, not on the government.

I think the thing I find most offensive here is that the ALA seems to think that libraries should be exempt from law enforcement practices. The things they are railing against have been legal for a long time. I agree that law enforcement shouldn't be allowed to perform fishing expeditions, but I also believe that libraries should not be exempt from searches.

Go Read.

Now.