http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/03/10/MN14634.DTL <font size=4><B>Libraries post Patriot Act warnings Santa Cruz branches tell patrons that FBI may spy on them </B></font> <I>Along with the usual reminders to hold the noise down and pay overdue fines, library patrons in Santa Cruz are seeing a new type of sign these days: a warning that records of the books they borrow may wind up in the hands of federal agents. The signs, posted in the 10 county branches last week and on the library's Web site, also inform the reader that the USA Patriot Act "prohibits library workers from informing you if federal agents have obtained records about you." "Questions about this policy," patrons are told, "should be directed to Attorney General John Ashcroft, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530." Library goers were swift to denounce the act's provisions. "It's none of their business what anybody's reading," said Cathy Simmons of Boulder Creek. "It's counterproductive to what libraries are all about." "I'm not reading anything they'd be particularly interested in, but that's not the point," said Ari Avraham of Santa Cruz. "This makes me think of Big Brother." The Justice Department says libraries have become a logical target of surveillance in light of evidence that some Sept. 11 hijackers used library computers to communicate with each other. But the signs ordered by the Santa Cruz library board -- a more elaborate version of warnings posted in several libraries around the nation -- are adding to the heat now being generated by a once-obscure provision of the Patriot Act. Section 215 of the act allows FBI agents to obtain a warrant from a secret federal court for library or bookstore records of anyone connected to an investigation of international terrorism or spying. Unlike conventional search warrants, there is no need for agents to show that the target is suspected of a crime or possesses evidence of a crime. As the Santa Cruz signs indicate, the law prohibits libraries and bookstores from telling their patrons, or anyone else, that the FBI has sought the records. The provision was virtually unnoticed when the Patriot Act, a major expansion of government search and surveillance authority, was passed by Congress six weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. But in the last year, Section 215 has roused organizations of librarians and booksellers into a burst of political activity, and is being cited increasingly by critics as an example of the new law's intrusiveness. SANDERS' REPEAL BILL Even as a leaked copy of a Bush administration proposal to expand the Patriot Act was circulating, Rep. Bernie Sanders, Ind-Vt., introduced a bill last week to repeal the library and bookstore provisions -- the first bill in the House, and the second in Congress, seeking to roll back any part of the Patriot Act. Sanders, who voted against the Patriot Act, said he decided to target a "particularly onerous" provision that affects large numbers of people. His Freedom to Read Protection Act would allow library and bookstore searches only if federal agents first showed they were likely to find evidence of a crime. The bill's 23 co-sponsors include four Bay Area Democrats -- Reps. Barbara Lee of Oakland, Lynn Woolsey of Petaluma, Sam Farr of Carmel and Pete Stark of Fremont. The Bush administration has refused to say how it has used Section 215 -- prompting a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by library and bookseller organizations -- and has made few public comments on the issue. One statement by a high-ranking Justice Department official, however, may have inadvertently helped to fuel the rollback efforts. In a letter to an inquiring senator, Assistant Attorney General Daniel Bryant said Americans who borrow or buy books surrender their right of privacy. A patron who turns over information to the library or bookstore "assumes the risk that the entity may disclose it to another," Bryant, the Justice Department's chief of legislative affairs, said in a letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. 'INHERENTLY LIMITED' RIGHT He said an individual's right of privacy in such records is "inherently limited" and is outweighed by the government's need for the information, if the FBI can show it is relevant to an "investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." Bryant's letter, dated Dec. 23, was slow to surface publicly but is now being held up by library and bookstore associations as evidence of the menace of government surveillance. "Bookstore customers buy books with the expectation that their privacy will be protected," said the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, which represents independent bookstores. "If (Bryant) is in any doubt about this, he can ask Kenneth Starr, who outraged the nation by trying to subpoena Monica Lewinsky's book purchases." "I find it profoundly disturbing that an assistant attorney general asserts that we have lost the right to privacy in that kind of information," said Deborah Stone, deputy director of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom. "The republic was founded on the premise that you don't have to share your thoughts." Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said Bryant was merely pointing out that patrons voluntarily turn over information to libraries and bookstores and shouldn't be surprised if others learn about it. Corallo also said the provisions pose no threat to ordinary Americans, only to would-be terrorists. Before demanding records from a library or bookstore under the Patriot Act, he said, "one has to convince a judge that the person for whom you're seeking a warrant is a spy or a member of a terrorist organization. The idea that any American citizen can have their records checked by the FBI, that's not true." U.S. DECIDES WHO IS TERRORIST Once the government decides someone is a terrorist, Corallo said, "We would want to know what they're reading. They may be trying to get information on infrastructure. They may be looking in the public library for information that would allow them to plan operations." Responding to such positions, the leaders of the 64,000-member American Library Association passed a resolution in January calling the Patriot Act provisions "a present danger to the constitutional rights and privacy rights of library users" and urging Congress to change the law. And while the views of individual librarians are apparently more varied than those of their association, a recent nationwide survey found that most felt the Patriot Act went too far. Nearly 60 percent of the 906 librarians who replied to a University of Illinois questionnaire between October and January believed that the law's so- called gag order -- which prohibits libraries from disclosing that the FBI has requested their records -- was unconstitutional. Asked if they would defy an agent's nondisclosure order, 5.5 percent said they definitely would, and another 16.1 percent said they probably would -- even though the law makes such defiance a crime. In Santa Cruz, where library officials are trying to stir up patrons about the Patriot Act, chief librarian Anne Turner has found a more subtle way to sidestep the gag order, if she ever faces one. "At each board meeting I tell them we have not been served by any (search warrants)," she said. "In any months that I don't tell them that, they'll know. " E-mail the writers at begelko@sfchronicle.com and mgaura@sfchronicle.com. </I>
Sorry, I was worried I shouldn't read that post, what with the Patriot Act. Is it a scary article? Is your sister reading a bunch of anarchist books in the Santa Cruz library? Can she really make time for that between drum circle practice and homemade jewelry making?
When you read about this, it makes you wonder if the real reason that Bush is making so much noise about Iraq is to divert attention from this. I'm not quite that paranoid, but I will say that Ashcroft is enjoying the anonymity provided by Iraq a little too much.
I haven't seen or talked to my sister in three months ever since she checked out <I>Divine Secrets of the Ya Ya Sisterhood</I>. I'm guessing Ashcroft thought it was a guide for women to band together and take over the government. However, I am coming out there to rummage through her things around the first weekend of August, maybe we can grab a beer.
Yeah, Ashcroft has long been the most disturbing official to me by far. The other guys (and gals -- sorry, Condi) I all think are sane and mostly intelligent even if I disagree with them. But Ashcroft may prove to be a real loon when all the dust settles. RM95, make it a wheatgrass juice and you're on. I'll send you an email.
This disturbs me very much...however.... I also feel that the administration (actually the government in general) is between a rock and a hard place. One the one hand we all want to maintain the freedoms and privacies that we've enjoyed as U.S. citizens all these years (more or less as they've waxed and waned over time). At the same time we don't want to end up blown up or sick with Anthrax. The only weapon the government really has against terrorism is information. It's the reason why we've not suffered another direct attack since 9-11. Guards and tanks and guns won't stop people who have infiltrated our society and want to cause us harm. So, what do they do? Maintain our privacy and therefore keep an environment that makes it easy for terrorists to do their job? Or do they increase survailence (at the expence of privacy) and, hopefull, prevent future attacks? If they do the former and we get attacked they administration has failed. If they do the latter and we don't get attacked they are bad for invading our privacy. Can we have it both ways? It's sincere question as I would really like to know. It's really easy to sit on the sidelines and complain or say what should be done but it's much harder to be in the hot seat. Just ask Rudy T. right now.
111chase111, I totally agree with you. For what it's worth, I appreciate the delima, but I am still worried about Ashcroft being in the center of it all. Hopefully, I am totally misguided, and he's just a little kooky around the edges.
I think the article says that they can check your library and bookstore records if you are being actively connected in a terrorist investigation. They aren't going to get a warrant unless your name comes up in a terrorist investigation...so moral of the story, don't be a terrorist or hang out with them.
Mmm...wheatgrass. Will do, Major and I used to drink the stuff everyday (for about a week). I'll buy you a shot of wheatgrass <B>and</B> clam chowder in a sourdough bread bowl. Yum.
Sure, they won't look you up unless you are a terrorist. But, the government will decide who they will deem to be a terrorist and, what's more, will do so in a secret court. Also, you don't even have to be a suspect in any actual crime. So, it really could be anybody. And, since you're not allowed to know you're being investigated, there's no way to defend yourself.
Another consideration is that we could do the latter (rape everybody's privacy) and still get attacked. I think we are facing an impossible task, stopping terrorists. Much of what has been done since 9/11 has made it harder for terrorists to operate, but not impossible. The next generation of terrorists will just have to be smarter. Pointing out that we have not been attacked since 9/11 and attributing that to the measures since enacted is an empty argument. The 9/11 terrorists took advantage of our "system" as it existed then. I suspect that the next generation of terorists will look for holes to exploit in our system when they attack. In general, I find the lack of terrorist's attacks since 9/11 as meaningful as the lack of attacks prior to 9/11.
From yesterday's hearings... Ashcroft pretty much blows off Feingold when asked about Patriot II. The text below is the verbatim from the Federal Document Clearing House that does transcription services for congressional hearings. (sorry for the spacing) _______________ ASHCROFT: Senator, with your permission, I'd like to respond to the suggestion that there is a PATRIOT Act II. When individuals indicate to you that if there is a proposal, we'll confer with you, I believe they are right. There is not a proposed Terrorist Act II from the Justice Department. No final discussion has been made with the attorney general about proposals. No final discussion has been made with the administration about proposals. Now, let me just say that we constantly are thinking of things that ought to be considered. And we believe that it's in the interest of the country that we think expansively and that we have a thorough and clear debate about them considering the pluses and the minuses. And we don't believe that it's appropriate to never mention anything unless it's already been decided that it's totally OK. You can't do that; consideration requires that. So if someone leaks the fact that there are items under consideration, that does not mean -- or that there is a matter of discussion -- that doesn't mean anything out of the ordinary. I hope that characterizes the fact that we are constantly considering how to improve. I want to assure you that there has been no bill, no proposal decided on. I am keenly aware that the administration cannot pass legislation. Only members of the Congress can pass legislation. It would be the height of absurdity for me to have a secret matter that I hope to make a law without telling Congress. I mean, I simply don't understand that. So we will confer. But I will prefer, if I can, to weed out things that I believe are inappropriate before I come to the Congress with an idea. FEINGOLD: General, I really urge you to do that. And let me just say that you know my view that the last time we had a USA PATRIOT Act that the kind of discussion and airing of the issues certainly did not happen. It's a debate about whether it could have happened. I appreciate your commitment to it happening in this case. And the fact is, there are some specific proposals or possible proposals out there. I don't think it's too early for people, like you and me and others, to start discussion whether they're a good idea. And I'm wondering if you could respond to my specific question, in the seconds I have, which is can you cite an example of a terrorist plot that went undetected because local police had their hands tied by consent decree of placing limits on their domestic spying capabilities? ASHCROFT: I cannot. FEINGOLD: Thank you, General. And of course, I look forward to discussing these provisions and, perhaps, we could follow up with a conversation about the items that we saw, at least in this draft, whatever this draft is. There's enough items there that people are raising concerns about that the conversations and consultations should begin now, in my view. ASHCROFT: Well, I don't believe that I should start to consult and defend things which I believe are indefensible or not a part of something that I would seek to propose. I guess that's my view. Until I have something that I think is appropriate, I don't know that I should engage in some discussion about something that we don't believe is appropriate. We could agree on a lot of these things that, hey, those don't belong in our discussion.
Rimrocker, that's actually the most even-keeled thing I've heard come out of Ashcroft. He doesn't want to discuss the proposal until it is actually proposed. Sounds fair.
Dear Mr Ashcroft, I'll save you the trouble of pulling my records. I have been buying Terry Pratchett's Discworld series, the last 3 Harry Potter books, some Icewind Dale books from R.A. Salvatore... and Catcher in the Rye oops...I shouldn't have admitted that one...
Many folks suspect he doesn't want to discuss it now because he's waiting on some event that would limit debate and make passage much easier. And how can a proposal not be proposed? It's been drafted in the Justice Department... clearly this is not some make-work assignment for the environmental law guys who have nothing to do lately. It's a serious piece of draft legislation that will affect everyone in this country should it be enacted. Why not discuss it now? I remember when Alice Rivlin prepared an economic paper for Clinton during his first term outlining possible courses. The last of many suggestions was massive tax raises. Cons jumped on that without putting it in perspective saying Clinton wanted to raise taxes. No reference was made to the other possible actions outlined in the paper. But here we have a draft law without any alternatives, drawn up not as a group of choices to address a looming problem, but as the only solution to a non-identified problem. Of course we should discuss it now.
Like I stated above, preventing all homeland acts of terorism may be impossible. I do not have the answer. I only wanted to point out that the cost of reducing privacy may outweigh the benefits.
The easiest answer, (probably adopted by an ever increasing % of our populace), is to simply quit reading. We could even start closing libraries. I mean, really, what wholesome character ever hangs out in a library? It's all just a bunch of anarchists, freaks, and perverts, right?
As soon as somebody on this board is negatively impacted by this library thing...let me know...and I'll protest right along with you.
