At what point can library materials used by patrons and information about patrons be released to the government? Well, first of all, the FCPL has quickly learned that a confidentiality policy needs to be placed. As for the release of the computers by Darrell Batson, the library director and the president elect of the Maryland Library Association (MLA), it was the appropriate action. Mr. Baston has received the support of the MLA's Intellectual Freedom Officer and the library released a statement saying:
FCPL provides public-access computers as a service to the community, and access is provided to anybody, regardless of whether they possess a library card.
This provision would allow the FBI to come in and use the computers. However, and more importantly, the library is funded by taxpayer money making the computer publicly held property. The FBI should have the jurisdiction to take the computers and use the information for their investigation. It is similar to the current close to home investigation of Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick; text messages are being released and used in criminal investigations because they were sent on taxpayer funded cell phones.
Mr. Batson should be supported for his actions as well as the MLA for acting appropriately.
12 comments:
Since the computers are considered for public use, and they can be accessed by any member of the community, than the statement released by the MLA’s intellectual Fredom officer and FCPL is fair, even though it was made for a special purpose, which is giving FBI the right to access the computers by policy. However, in my opinion, since the computers were used by a suspect person, they can be considered as affidavit to support the case, and since there is no library policy concerning securing a warrant before accessing the computers, the police have the right to use the computers as evidences. It is the case of bank accounts, when someone is suspected in a crime; the police have the right to investigate its bank account, even if bank accounts are considered very private. However, from an ethical point of view, since these computers are used by other persons, the FBI should release a statement that it will not use or publish any other information on the computers not related to the case. Also, a more efficient policy concerning ethics and public property should be developed from the library side. Ethical issue are very important in our profession as Librarians deals sometimes with users’ private issues, the Librarian is sometimes the secret keeper for many users, information like search history of users should not be released since it deals with the privacy of the patron. Therefore, a very strict Code of Ethics should be developed by the Library Associations to be followed by Librarians around the World. The Code of Ethics should state clearly the way Librarians have to behave in different situations related to ethical concerns.
I agree with the way that this was handled both on the side of the librarian who gave the computers over to the FBI and also by the FBI agents who asked for the computers. I think however, that there should be a particular law or order created that will provide the proper procedure for acquiring things of this nature in the future. The article says that this has only happened a few times in the last decade which could account for the seemingly more relaxed rules on how to go about obtaining such information. I think that there should be rules put in place that are more like acquiring information from a person's therapist or doctor. In those cases there are strict rules that are followed to be granted the information that is shared between the two. Not that I think that taking public computers and doctor patient confidentiality are exactly the same but the procedure for getting information from either should both be carefully constructed and executed. This standardization of information collecting would minimize the amount of controversy that was stirred up, like in this case for instance.
If they had a warrant or special documents to collect the computer in the first place ( I do realize they obtained them later to search the files) the perimeters of the search would have been explicitly defined to what they were looking for and would have let other know that the information that was not in those specifications would be left out of their investigation.
In this case being that the computers where publicly funded if there were illegal activity happening on them, or information about illegal/life threatening activities, I don't see any problem in collecting that information and using it against the person who misused these tools in the first place.
I think there are some important distinctions to be made here. FCPL itself is trying to distinguish between public internet computers and the computers library staff uses to handle circulation functions. FCPL is aware that they have an obligation to keep patrons’ reading habits private. The question is, why does this not extend to patrons’ internet reading habits?
Whether we think the FBI had a good reason to seize the computers, now that we are judging after the fact, is irrelevant. The point of requiring a warrant for searches like this is that government agencies have to prove to a hopefully judicious party that there is just cause for the search. Our rights to privacy are protected in large part by constitutional protections against unjust search and seizure. The arbiter of this should be a judge, not a library official who may or may not have a rigorous understanding of legal procedures. The FBI wisely took a “CYA” approach and got warrants just in case. I worry about a library official who takes it on him or herself to turn records over without oversight of a board or committee, or without a warrant. After all, law enforcement agencies get warrants procedurally all the time, and since the FBI had already let the computers sit for a week after Ivins used them, taking another few hours to get a warrant should not have been onerous.
The public property angle here is a red herring. The whole library is public property, yet FCPL distinguished between some computers and not others. And who is the public, but citizens, including Ivins, who, if still alive, would be entitled to the same constitutional protections as the rest of the public, including the presumption of innocence? (Detroit law says specifically that communications on its equipment by public employers are not to be considered private; court orders were still required.)
My last comment is about the conduct of FCPL librarians as professionals. When the USA Patriot Act was signed, many librarians were immediately concerned about privacy and “chilling” effects on intellectual freedom from law enforcement “fishing expeditions.” They took immediate steps to make sure that they did not keep unnecessary records, to develop clear policies regarding about all aspect of confidentiality, and to notify patrons of the limits in the steps they could take to protect privacy. Why didn’t FCPL do so while librarians across the land were doing so over the course of the last seven years? (And did anyone read the ALA policy documents I posted for this week?) If I were an FCPL patron, I would be up in that library board’s grill until they took appropriate steps to develop a policy that would protect my right to privacy, including requiring a subpoena for any information handed over to law enforcement agencies. The whole point of that process is to ensure that a third party arbitrates to determine if there is a real and pressing need for the government to have access to data about people’s private reading habits.
I wasn't trying to mislead anyone. I agree that if FCPL recognizes that patrons' viewing habits should be kept private, that policy should apply to internet viewing habits as well. However, I disagree with how private viewing habits are or should be. Whether the FBI sought information on the print form of the literature Ivins was reading or the digital form, the information should have been passed on to the FBI. Library materials are held in public ownership and records should be made available regarding those records especially to federal law enforcement agencies. Also, the founders wrote the Fourth Amendment based on an understanding of private property. The library is public property. Also, when courts look at privacy cases they look at whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. When one uses a public good, there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Kwame was a paid public official using a city paid phone to text. If he had used email at the library he would have possibly been protected! Patron records and internet usage should be kept private as long as they're not cruising a porn site. This reminds me of when I checked out the Green Day cd "American Idiot" and the checkout clerk became very offended by the title. "I'm American. I'm not an idiot!" she said. It was really awkward.
I think that if library book records are considered private, so to should any library internet usage. And while the librarian may have legally been right to hand over the computers in question, it seems to me that he or she should have needed some convincing. It is our job to protect the privacy of patrons.
This is interesting. First, I am surprised that there was no policy in place regarding internet usage.
Second, I'm surprised that the FBI agents involved did not procure an order when there was a precendent involved from two prior incidents. It is also odd that they subsequently got an orde post facto, presumably to cover their asses. It would seem agents would be a little more careful with a case with this magnitude. C'mon guys, get a court order!
I feel that the FCPL should have created a confidentiality policy long before they were thrust in the spotlight for how they handled this situation. I agree with Scout that the patron's reading habits should be kept confidential regardless of whether it's a book located at the library or a site on the internet. Who's to say that the FBI might have found information about other patrons that could be considered questionable? Then what? In this sort of case, where the private information of others is at stake because of another, there should be certain procedures that are taken to protect all others that could be inadvertently affected. Being publicly funded, it's the libraries responsibility to protect the public.
Another point of interest, since the FCPL had no qualms or responsibility as they later claimed, with handing over public resources to the FBI, I wonder if they'd feel the same way if the FBI blamed them because of certain reading materials that they have. Even though the Library Bill of Rights states, "Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation", what's stopping the FBI for accusing FCPL of purchasing potentially dangerous material? This is why there are rules and regulations that are put in place to protect the public as well as the public goods.
I’m not as fully “brushed up” on my Patriot Act as I used to be, but as obvious as it may sound I would hope that the library administration was at least proficient in what is contained in that document, and what the government expects out of them. While I do not agree with some of the "things" in that document, that is the document that the government is using to facilitate “its needs” and library administration must be able to anticipate situations like this.
Perhaps this is a digression … but I would hope that library professionals would do more to advocate responsible measures that can facilitate both patron privacy and access to “‘da man”. I’m sure that as technology continues to change libraries will have access to software that can run in the background that could identify certain words, or word strings that would be logged, in addition to alerting “proper persons”. Big Brother? Presently, I think we’re light-years beyond that now.
Libraries not only facilitate the information exchange with the local citizenry, but I feel that libraries do/should have a civil duty to help facilitate safety of the general citizenry they serve. I don’t think it is a good idea for libraries to be passive about safety. I think that a public area is just that: public. Anyone can take your picture without your consent, the government can legally monitor you (either directly or remotely) in public; and there are certain laws, rules, regulations and social norms that apply in public that do not apply in private. I think that both patrons and libraries should facilitate awareness on this very important point: libraries are not private and subject to the same type of monitoring as the camera at the intersection. I do not like this important point, but I think it is important to observe that “this is where we are now”.
I feel that presently this country is caught in a “limbo” mode in this supposed “post-9/11 world”. 7 years after the event this country is still trying to figure it out. Thomas Hobbes nailed it so very long ago in “Leviathan” (1651B.C.E.) when he stated (paraphrase) “the citizenry can be feared by the government into giving up freedoms in order to feel safe. Citizens would rather feel safe than to be free." While there are many thing Hobbes said in “Leviathan”, I think he would be congratulate our current government administration for such a well-rounded example.
It’s no joking matter that contemporary libraries are caught between a rock and a hard place on many issues; however, I do see this as opportunity for the emerging information professional. As we have talked about in class: things change. This change is good because it keeps the profession “on its toes” and developing ways of dealing with a 21st century world. There needs to be challenges; what good would there be for us to spend all of this money in school only to go out and take on the world in a stale employment context? Isn’t that why some of us are here in the first place?
I think everyone has done a good job showing that this is a tricky issue. In the ALA article, “Libraries: An American Value,” one of the things promised to the public is "protection of each individual's privacy and confidentiality in the use of library resources and services." Even without having to develop their own policy, the FCPL could use this simple contract available to any library. "The Freedom to View" statement contains similar wording related to the use of "film, video, and other audiovisual materials."
On the other hand, who decides when it is appropriate to forego the basic rights of confidentiality for the greater good? And who decides what that greater good is? "The Freedom to Read" article refers to the fact that one person or group's freedoms will sometimes encroach upon the freedoms of another group. Who decides which group’s freedoms are more important?
I do think that, official policy or not, there is an expectation of at least some measure of privacy, even in a public library. I think that a librarian should not come to the decision to release information without a court order or at least consulting with others first.
I am concerned that the FCPL librarian just gave up the computers without a fight. Procedure is procedure, but if the librarian will simply give up items, in violation of the ALA statement “to protect each individual’s privacy and confidentiality in the use of library resources and services,” he or she is unprofessional.
While the computers were owned by the library, a public institution, the web pages (except, obviously, the ones the library creates) are not owned by it. They are in the public domain, accessible to everyone worldwide. Perhaps guidelines need to be established, but they should be accompanied by some privacy measures.
The FCPL’s incompetence may have even cost them some users. I know if my public librarian was so quick to give up information like the FCPL’s, I’d be finding another place to research. I believe users rightly expect some semblance of privacy at a library.
I'm pretty skeptical of law enforcement in general, particularly during national security investigations.
The FBI has routinely overstepped its authority, even with the expansive powers granted to it under the USA PATRIOT Act.
As a librarian, I would demand a warrant before any search-and-seizure law enforcement activity in a library, whether it is on patron-accessible computers or not. (Excepting perhaps the "ticking time bomb" scenario.)
Post a Comment