Checking out library users

mmckerral's picture
By Mac McKerral
07/23/08
5 comments

Libraries remain a focus of the debate over personal privacy in the age of terrorism. A recent Associated Press news story reminded me of that and how government often uses terrorism as a trump card in the privacy game.

In the Randolph, Vt., library, children’s librarian Judith Flint recently found herself confronted by state police detectives. They wanted to seize the library’s public-access computers. She refused them access.

Amy Grasmick, library director, backed Flint and asked the detectives to produce a search warrant, which they could not. She refused the request until they could produce a warrant.

The detectives sought a missing 12 year old. A tipster told them the missing girl often used the library’s computers. They wanted to search the computer hard drives for clues to the missing girl’s whereabouts, they said.

Eight hours later, a judge signed the warrant, and the library complied.

With the passage of the PATRIOT Act in 2001 and its subsequent renewal in March 2006, government access to library information remains a contentious issue. Librarians and civil-liberty advocates insist that law enforcement needs warrants to seize library records of what books people check out and what they do on library computers.

Anti-terrorism advocates cite the PATRIOT Act and other provisions for fighting terrorism to support the contention that law enforcement does not need warrants. But in this case, the investigation did not involve terrorism. The state police readily admitted that.

Often people scoff at those who say relaxing law enforcement warrant requirements based simply on a broad fight against terrorism leads to a “slippery slope.” The slide leads to further erosion of rights protected by the Fourth Amendment.

The incident in Vermont shows that the slippery slope does exist.

In this case, Brooke Bennett, 12, disappeared the day before the detectives arrived at the library. Law enforcement found her dead on July 2, and an uncle, a convicted sex offender, faces charges for kidnapping her. The story did not report whether anything found on the library computers led to his arrest. It did report that detectives believe the suspect gained access to Bennett’s MySpace account and altered it to make it look like she arranged a rendezvous with someone else.

So, when it comes to library use, how much should law enforcement know about what you and I read and research?

That’s a tough question.

Maybe readers can offer some answers.

Resources:

Bookmark/Search this post with:
Filed Under: patriot act, fourth amendment

5 comments so far. Add a Comment
11 weeks ago wkupiper commented:

I think the Fourth Amendment says it all. It says we have a right to be “secure in [our] persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…” without a warrant. Going to the library and checking out books or looking up information falls under our right to security of our persons, papers and effects. If there is reason to be concerned about a person’s activity, a search warrant can easily be obtained, as it was in the case of Brooke Bennett’s kidnapping. In that case, the police felt they needed to investigate library activity of Brooke’s uncle. Had they gone for a warrant directly, they could have saved themselves an 8-hour wait for one later. As much as I respect and appreciate state officials for keeping us safe, I see and hear of cases too often where they assume they have power that they do not have. So there are two things on the table here. The first is that the government should have access to information about what a person reads and researches if they have a warrant. The second issue on the table is this: Law officials need to abide by the rules. Don’t violate my rights by neglecting to learn the rules.
Note: Information about the Fourth Amendment received from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html. wkupiper

15 weeks ago an anonymous user commented:

have you considered running for office?

14 weeks ago mmckerral commented:

I’d like to be part of the solution, not part of the problem! Thanks for the note. Mac McKerral

17 weeks ago an anonymous user commented:

I fear that the government will leave no stone unturned in its rampant hunt for terrorists. I believe terrorism is a serious threat to U.S. way of life, but when the government goes unchecked (the Patriot Act affects journalists, universities, and internet service providers and others), the “people” suffer. What I read in a library is my business, not the government’s.

17 weeks ago mmckerral commented:

Thanks for your comment. Librarians and the American Library Association have been dogged in trying to defend the position you take on this issue, and for that we should be thankful. I agree with you that terrorism is real and a threat. But without limits to government’s power with regard to protecting us from it, we face a fundamental shift in the way our country operates and how we live. I think that radical shift would be for the worse. Mac McKerral

Leave a Comment:

Verification Question
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
six - = four
Solve this math question and enter the solution with digits. E.g. for "two plus four = ?" enter "6".
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
You can change notification settings on your user account edit page.
“By the People: Citizenship in the 21st Century”

Citizenship Resources

Visit iCitizenForum on other websites: