The Evil Genius Posted June 24, 2002 Share Posted June 24, 2002 Hmmm...interesting. FBI Begins Visiting Libraries Mon Jun 24, 5:31 PM ET By CHRISTOPHER NEWTON, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The FBI ( news - web sites) is visiting libraries nationwide and checking the reading records of people it suspects of having ties to terrorists or plotting an attack, library officials say. The FBI effort, authorized by the antiterrorism law enacted after the Sept. 11 attacks, is the first broad government check of library records since the 1970s when prosecutors reined in the practice for fear of abuses. The Justice Department ( news - web sites) and FBI declined to comment Monday, except to note that such searches are now legal under the Patriot Act that President Bush ( news - web sites) signed last October. Libraries across the nation were reluctant to discuss their dealings with the FBI. The same law that makes the searches legal also makes it a criminal offense for librarians to reveal the details or extent. "Patron information is sacrosanct here. It's nobody's business what you read," said Kari Hanson, director of the Bridgeview Public Library in suburban Chicago. Hanson said an FBI agent came seeking information about a person, but her library had no record of the person. Federal prosecutors allege Global Relief Foundation, an Islamic charity based in the Chicago suburb, has ties to Osama bin Laden ( news - web sites)'s terror network The University of Illinois conducted a survey of 1,020 public libraries in January and February and found that 85 libraries had been asked by federal or local law enforcement officers for information about patrons related to Sept. 11, said Ed Lakner, assistant director of research at the school's Library Research Center. The libraries that reported FBI contacts were nearly all in large urban areas. In Florida, Broward County library director Sam Morrison said the FBI had recently contacted his office. He declined to elaborate on the request or how many branch libraries were involved. "We've heard from them and that's all I can tell you," Morrison said. He said the FBI specifically instructed him not to reveal any information about the request. The library system has been contacted before. A week after the Sept. 11 attacks, the FBI subpoenaed Morrison to provide information on the possible use of computer terminals by some of the suspected hijackers in the Hollywood, Fla., area. In October, investigators revisited the county's main library in Fort Lauderdale and also checked a regional library in Coral Springs. At least 15 of the 19 hijackers had Florida connections. The process by which the FBI gains access to library records is quick and mostly secret under the Patriot Act. First, the FBI must obtain a search warrant from a court that meets in secret to hear the agency's case. The FBI must show it has reason to suspect that a person is involved with a terrorist or a terrorist plot — far less difficult than meeting the tougher legal standards of probable cause, required for traditional search warrants or reasonable doubt, required for convictions. With the warrant, FBI investigators can visit a library and gain immediate access to the records. Judith Krug, the American Library Association's director for intellectual freedom, said the FBI was treading on the rights it is supposed to be upholding. "It's unfortunate because these records and this information can be had with so little reason or explanation," Krug said. "It's super secret and anyone who wants to talk about what the FBI did at their library faces prosecution. That has nothing to do with patriotism." Krug tells worried librarians who call that they should keep only the records they need and should discard records that would reveal which patron checked out a book and for how long. She is frustrated by the hate mail she says she receives when she speaks out against the Patriot Act. "People are scared and they think that by giving up their rights, especially their right to privacy, they will be safe," Krug said. "But it wasn't the right to privacy that let terrorists into our nation. It had nothing to do with libraries or library records." Some libraries said they will still resist government efforts to obtain records. Pat McCandless, assistant director for public services for Ohio State University's libraries, said, "State law and professional ethics say we do not convey patron information and that is still our stance. "To the best of our ability, we would try to support patron confidentiality," she said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted June 25, 2002 Share Posted June 25, 2002 It's funny, I've never heard of this issue before today but I don't think I have a problem with this. They aren't stopping anyone from reading anything, they're merely looking at what certain people are reading. And those certain people, by definition, are associated in some way with terrorists. It sounds like a legitimate investigative tool, and works much the same way as video surveillance does to see who someone associates with. Just as you can't arrest someone because of who they talk to (irrespective of what they may say) you can't arrest someone simply because of what they read. However, who someone talks to or what they read may lend insight into their overall activities. For example, assume that the FBI was investigating the activities of someone who visited on several occasions the office of an Islamic charity under investigation for its affilitation with al-Qaeda. That person is also observed to visit a number of people who frequent his mosque and who are under suspicion for terrorist activities. They also see him make several trips to a local library around that time. The FBI agents then question him and he claims that he simply wishes to donate to charitable causes and that all he's doing is innocently socializing with fellow members of his mosque. He denies knowing anything about terrorism. When asked about his library visits, he claims to only be reading about his hobby, bird watching. Wouldn't it be interesting under those circumstances for the FBI to know from its investigation that in fact he's been reading about chemical weapons and pollution in the water supply, for example? They'd not only know what was in fact his reading subject matter, but also that he'd lied about it when speaking with him. That's just good investigative technique, and there's nothing wrong with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted June 25, 2002 Share Posted June 25, 2002 Some libraries said they will still resist government efforts to obtain records.Pat McCandless, assistant director for public services for Ohio State University's libraries, said, "State law and professional ethics say we do not convey patron information and that is still our stance. "To the best of our ability, we would try to support patron confidentiality," she said. Ms. McCandless needs a lesson in Federalism. Specifically, she needs to understand that state law means nothing in the face of a federal statute that allows law enforcement to obtain this information. And I doubt that there's any written professional ethics for librarians that would support her position on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 25, 2002 Author Share Posted June 25, 2002 Specifically, she needs to understand that state law means nothing in the face of a federal statute that allows law enforcement to obtain this information. Yes and no. Yes I agree with the concept but no, I believe, State law does take precedence in most cases. For example, we can look at the sale of alcohol. The Federal Government has mandated (legislated) a drinking age of 21. But, each of the states still have the ability to set a lower or higher drinking age. This is an example of where state laws or even city laws take precedence over federal laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted June 25, 2002 Share Posted June 25, 2002 Why stop at terrorist affilliations though? Why not check the library records for anyone suspected of being involved in any federal crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 25, 2002 Share Posted June 25, 2002 There is no right to privacy in a public forum. Individual rights are not being infringed upon. Pretty simple rule, if you dont want the Govt to know what you are reading, dont read it in their house. I also think it's reasonible to look at Library records for any crimes. What if some sicko is looking at pedophilia sites on the library computers? I certainly want law enforcement to find that out and arrest the SOB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted June 25, 2002 Share Posted June 25, 2002 Kilmer, this scares me. I agree with you. You can take out whatever you want. You read whatever you want. But there's no right saying the records are confidential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 25, 2002 Share Posted June 25, 2002 Should I change my stance or do you want to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romo Posted June 25, 2002 Share Posted June 25, 2002 I dont like this one bit. To be honest I suspect the FB has been doing this for years though. This is not a new phenomenon. I wonder if because ive checked out The Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital, Mein Kempf does that mean im going to have a file in the FBI? Being a history student i read lots of books that would be considered "dangerous". I even tried to find a copy of The Turner Diaries for an essay on the Militia movement. Dont worry im not planning to go blow any buildings up or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 25, 2002 Author Share Posted June 25, 2002 Romo sits to pee, I was just thinking about the Turner Diaries - the hate Bible of the Timothy McVeighs of the world. I wonder if the FBI asks (or requires) Green Peace, the NRA, et al interest groups (who have both good and bad citizens) for membership rolls. Just to check if any alleged terrorists or terrorist organizations are card carrying members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted June 25, 2002 Share Posted June 25, 2002 What you guys choose to ignore to make your points is amazing, and disingenuous. First of all, this isn't the Red Scare which consisted of the (largely) unfounded belief that communists were infiltrating the government. And we aren't worried about political or even religious beliefs. We're worried about mass murderers and the coordination of their efforts and resources into criminal conspiracty to commit mass murder. So enough about the perceived 1st Amendment infrigements, and the targeting of fringe groups or radical left groups as they don't apply. The government by definition simply uses this power regarding people who are associated with terrorists or terrorism, and only after being cleared by a tribunal. In addition, Kilmer is exactly right. These are records in a public forum. The government can go check these records the same way that they can go and see which Amtrak ticket you bought. If you don't want them to know what you're reading, then get the book from someplace other than a library, like Amazon. And EG, you're dead wrong about state supremacy. Sure, states can choose to have different standards than those prescribed by the Feds, as long as those standards are more stringent in favor of the public policy behind the federal law. So while the federal government says to the states that, "Thou shalt not allow the purchase or consumption of alcohol by people less than 18 years of age (and expect to receive federal transportation funds, which is how I believe they enforce that mandate)", the state is entirely within its rights to have a 21-year old minimum drinking age because that's more, not less stringent than the federal mandate. They most assuredly could not have a 14-year drinking age though. See the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shamaran Posted June 25, 2002 Share Posted June 25, 2002 Romo sits to pee, you don't need to wonder if Big Brother has a file on you. They do. It just got longer. In your last post you hit at least five (5) key "red-flag" words that will earn you a longer file. Believe it or not. Welcome to the "New America" -- it's the one that the government decides what is best for its citizens (proletariate). My response has also been noted and recorded by our vile little friends. I'm not too worried. I can sew my pillow tags back on when I hear them at the door.:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted June 25, 2002 Share Posted June 25, 2002 I thought it was matress tags. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsLegacy44 Posted June 25, 2002 Share Posted June 25, 2002 The FBI should be able to do what they have to, to eliminate the threat of terrorism. I would much rather my computer get hacked into by the FBI, then having a terrorist attack take place in my town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 25, 2002 Author Share Posted June 25, 2002 Redman, Actually I think you are wrong on the drinking age. I remember back in the 1980s when, I think, West Virginia (and Louisiana??) had a drinking age of 18 while the rest of the US had one of 21. It wasnt until they threatened to take away the Federal Transportation Dollars that the states got in line. In fact, when I was in New Orleans in 1993 - I remember the drinking age for beer was 18 and hard liquor was 21. Or that at least was what the bars had posted and what they told me. So I dunno - but the fact remains - I dont care what the FBI is looking at at libraries. But if they asked the NRA (okay I should stop singling them out - sorry ) or another group to hand over their membership roles - do you think they would comply? Or does the FBI already do this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted June 25, 2002 Share Posted June 25, 2002 I like the way that the right wing turns this into an either/or situation - either we start invading your privacy and curtailing your rights or the terrorists will win. Either we start start obtaining warrants from secret trinunals to rifle through your reading materials, based on our suspicions and without even having to demonstrate probable cause, or we are soft on terrorism. Either we arrest people and create legal entity called an 'enemy combatant' (try and find that in US Criminal or international law) in order to hold someone without their being charged, denied access to counsel, and placed in military confinement, in likely violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, or we are soft on terrorism. Either we slowly nibble at the 5th and 6th ammendments, or we are soft on terrorism. Why is it we can't investigate terrorism and maintain our basic rights and freedoms at the same time? Is it because we are lazy, or we don't care about those rights in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted June 25, 2002 Share Posted June 25, 2002 Leftist foolishness: Originally posted by shamaran Welcome to the "New America" -- it's the one that the government decides what is best for its citizens (proletariate). What's your alternative? Let's have town hall meetings around the country and build a consensus about how much our feelings are hurt because the government has the power to know (if they've shown reasonable suspicion of our affiliation with terrorists) what we've read in a library. Guys, you either have to fish or cut bait. There is a clear tradeoff here, individual freedom versus security. You simply cannot have more of one without having less of the other. This 60's era set of values that gets bandied about in opposition to a war on terror was born of a time when we didn't have to worry about attacks on our soil upon thousands or millions of our citizens. Save your sit-ins and lectures about this for those who care, because our enemies could give a damn about that. And they won't wait for us to make up our minds on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 25, 2002 Author Share Posted June 25, 2002 Redman, Here's what I found doing a little research... In 1984, Congress passed the National Minimum Purchase Age Act, to encourage each state to enact a minimum legal purchase age (MLPA) of 21 by 1986. I don't know what encourage means..but I guess it meant that the state could hold their rights to whatever age they wanted, despite a federal drinking age of 21. Maybe we are just arguing over semantics? I dunno. Peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 25, 2002 Author Share Posted June 25, 2002 It appears to be a lose lose situation. If the war of terrorism is directed against America - then America has 2 ways to deal with it. 1 - government continually violates basic rights (and we are not just talking about libraries here - way beyond that) to protect Americans. 2- government assures basic rights while not protecting America to the max. I think Terry would suggest option 3 - because if 1 or 2 happens, America loses and terrorists have won - they have made the great Satan either a martial law driven government (option 1) or an easy target (option 2). Who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 25, 2002 Share Posted June 25, 2002 If the NRA was using a public facility for their meetings, than the Govt would have the right to know who was there. I dont like the Govt invading privacy, but this isnt privacy. There is no assumption of privacy in a public place. This has been applied repeatedly by courts in cases as varying as girls who lift their shirts at MArdi Gras getting mad when they end up on a video, to criminals who speak to their lawyers in a courtroom hallway and are overheard. It's a public place, therefor there is no right to privacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted June 25, 2002 Share Posted June 25, 2002 Originally posted by The Evil Genius Redman, Here's what I found doing a little research... In 1984, Congress passed the National Minimum Purchase Age Act, to encourage each state to enact a minimum legal purchase age (MLPA) of 21 by 1986. I don't know what encourage means..but I guess it meant that the state could hold their rights to whatever age they wanted, despite a federal drinking age of 21.Maybe we are just arguing over semantics? I dunno. Look this may be a totally inapplicable example that's taking us off course. I don't purport to be a drinking age expert, and that law may well have its own special set of rules as part of a broad federal scheme relating to Interstate Highway safety or some other issue. Suffice it to say that my point about federalism is that where a valid state law and a valid federal law conflict, the federal law wins and the state law loses, 100% of the time, period, end of story. That's why the librarian citing state law in the face of a federal law explicitly allowing these types of inquiries to occur is utter nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted June 25, 2002 Share Posted June 25, 2002 Originally posted by The Evil Genius 1 - government continually violates basic rights (and we are not just talking about libraries here - way beyond that) to protect Americans. But we are talking about libraries here. What we're not talking about are our bookshelves at home, or some other more intrusive monitoring/investigating of us. I'm not one who buys into slippery slope types of arguments. So let's not get into those types of all or nothing arguments here. No one's saying that we must climb into a guilded cage in the name of security. What we're saying is that the nation's investigative toolbox, if you will, needs to be enlarged to account for a new kind of enemy - one who blends into our society instead of wearing an enemy uniform, and who uses our nation's resources to act in concert in others to attempt to murder as many people as possible. Is that such an unreasonable - much less such a radical - idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted June 25, 2002 Share Posted June 25, 2002 Oh please. The bottom line is that even if an FBI Agent is reading this post right now, it has no effect on my life. When they start breaking into my house and rifling through my possessions then I'd start complaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romo Posted June 26, 2002 Share Posted June 26, 2002 Originally posted by shamaran Romo sits to pee, you don't need to wonder if Big Brother has a file on you. They do. It just got longer. In your last post you hit at least five (5) key "red-flag" words that will earn you a longer file. Believe it or not. Welcome to the "New America" -- it's the one that the government decides what is best for its citizens (proletariate). My response has also been noted and recorded by our vile little friends. I'm not too worried. I can sew my pillow tags back on when I hear them at the door.:laugh: Im not too worried either. Im in Canada. The Home of the Free and The Brave...oh wait im confused..thats your song....lol. Our government is WAY to inept to keep records like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted June 26, 2002 Share Posted June 26, 2002 Can anyone tell me where the word "privacy" exists in the Constitution? I can't find it and I'm confident it doesn't exist and I'm not sure what "basic" rights we are violating when the FBI queries PUBLIC entities for information. The government owns these facilities and when they want information on what is happening within, they shouldn't even have to go to a secret tribunal to get permission. There is likely a file on every single one of us. And I feel better knowing our government is intercepting and recording every cell phone call in this country. I appreciate knowing that we are looking into public libraries for possible criminal activity. Right to privacy folks have no legs here when talking about the government's right to conduct information gathering at government facilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.