Booth Library Staff Reviews Privacy Issues ––

Confidential Library Records Join

The Arsenal In The War On Terror

By Jan Howard

A provision of the USA Patriot Act, approved by Congress six weeks after September 11 and signed into law by President Bush in October, authorizes searches of some records kept by libraries and bookstores.

Under the new antiterrorism law, the FBI can now visit public libraries to check records on the reading habits of people the government suspects of having ties to terrorists or plotting an attack, according to the American Library Association (ALA).

The process is quick and secret. First, the FBI must obtain a search warrant from a court that meets in secret. The FBI must show it has reason to suspect a person is involved with a terrorist or a terrorist plot. The burden of proof is less rigorous than the tougher legal standards of probable cause, which is required for traditional search warrants, or reasonable doubt, which is required for convictions.

According to the ALA, increased visits to libraries by law enforcement agents, including FBI agents and officers of police departments and other agencies, are raising considerable concern among the public and library community.

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 September 11. The libraries that reported FBI contacts were mostly in large urban areas.

In January, the ALA Council adopted guidelines to assist libraries and their staff in dealing with law enforcement inquiries. The guidelines rely upon the ALA’s Policy on the Confidentiality of Library Records, its Policy Concerning Confidentiality of Personally Identifiable Information about Library Users, and the Code of Ethics.

It advised the nation’s librarians to “avoid creating unnecessary records” and to record information identifying patrons only “when necessary for the efficient operation of the library.”

How confidential are records kept by Newtown’s C.H. Booth Library and what records do they retain on patrons that might be of interest to the FBI?

According to C.H. Booth Library Director Janet Woycik, confidentiality of library records is protected under Connecticut General Statute sections 11-25.

 A search warrant is required for law enforcement officials to obtain personally identifiable information in circulation records, reference interviews, and Internet information, Mrs Woycik said.

“A court order is required for release of any information,” she said. “If they have a warrant, they can get anything they want.”

Telephone records can be requested without a warrant, she noted.

The act allowed a variety of new federal surveillance measures, including clandestine searches of homes and expanded monitoring of telephones and the Internet.

A search warrant issued under the USA Patriot Act amendment contains a “gag order” that means no person or institution served with the warrant can disclose that the warrant has been served or that records have been produced pursuant to the warrant.

The library and its staff must comply with this order. No information can be disclosed to any other party, including the patron whose records are the subject of the search warrant, according to the ALA.

The gag order does not change a library’s right to legal representation during the search. The library can still seek legal advice concerning the warrant and request that the library’s legal counsel be present during the actual search and execution of the warrant.

Mrs Woycik said, “I would definitely consult a library attorney before the person came back with a search warrant.”

The ALA advised librarians that they have the right to have library counsel present before the search begins to allow library counsel an opportunity to examine the search warrant and to assure that the search conforms to the terms of the warrant.

The library has specific laws on record retention and what should be retained.

 “No unnecessary records are kept on our patrons,” Mrs Woycik said. “We just keep things that must be kept under state regulations, such as financial records.” A listing of patrons who have paid for lost books would be one record retained.

“To simplify our lives, we get away from keeping extra records,” Reference Librarian Beryl Harrison said.

Circulation records display all books that are out and when they are due. These records are covered under confidentiality rules, and the list shows only what is currently in circulation, Mrs Woycik said. Library records do not include, for example, a list of all the books a patron has read in recent months, she said

If someone armed with a warrant requests information on a patron, only information specific to that person would be made available, such as name, address, and library card number. The material would be provided in such a way as to protect the privacy of all other patrons.

While sign up is required for use of computers at the library, it is for time purposes only, and only initials are required, Mrs Woycik explained. These records are kept for a year, she said.

Computer sign-up sheets are not circulation records, according to a letter from Ralph E. Urban, assistant attorney general, to Sharon Breittschneider of the Connecticut State Library that Mrs Harrison obtained during a Connecticut Library Association annual conference in April. The conference included a panel discussion on the new laws.

“We do not believe that a computer sign-up sheet that a public library may maintain indicating which patrons used a library computer terminal during a particular period of time would constitute a circulation record since it offers no indication of the content of the information or materials the patron accessed via the computer during that period,” Mr Urban wrote.

“There is backup on the library server, but there is no Internet backup,” Mrs Harrison said, so there is no history of what information was sought by a patron.

“The computers are set to clear when they are closed out,” she added.

A court order may require removal of a computer workstation or other computer device. “My concern is when they take things away, you’re not sure when you will get them back, especially computers,” Mrs Harrison said. “They could have them for up to a year.”

Mrs Woycik said the library is in the process of writing a policy concerning confidentiality that would need approval by its 18-member board of trustees. Its staff is already covered under a town Code of Ethics.

In light of the new amendment regarding library searches, Mrs Woycik said the library staff is becoming more familiar with confidentiality issues. “We’re getting there,” she said. “We’ve had meetings and discussed it, and further meetings are planned.”

When patrons are called regarding a book they have requested, the name of the book is not mentioned, Mrs Woycik said. “We only say the book you have asked for is now available at the library.”

Mrs Woycik said she would be responsible for handling law enforcement requests for information. “That’s me, that’s my job,” she said. “If I’m not here, it’s Beryl.”

Mrs Harrison said a FBI representative at the conference said officials would not ask for anything without a warrant. “They don’t want to taint their investigation,” she noted.

Do Mrs Woycik and Mrs Harrison see the recent changes as an assault on constitutional freedoms?

“Not locally,” Mrs Harrison said. “I understand why they did it. But I do find it daunting they’ve invaded private citizens’ first amendment rights.”

Mrs Woycik said only once in her memory has anyone come to the C.H. Booth Library regarding patron information. It was in 1989.

“The police came and asked for records regarding the wood chipper murder. They wanted to know what books he [Richard Crafts] had taken out.”