Thursday, March 23, 2006
Librarian Is Still John Doe, Despite Patriot Act Revision
The hotel ballroom was packed as a sensibly dressed, well-read crowd from around the country gathered in San Antonio on Jan. 21 to celebrate one of their own.
Yet, as many expected, the guest of honor was a no-show, despite the $500 intellectual freedom prize that awaited.
Attendees at an American Library Association gathering blamed Washington for the empty chair. Lawmakers may be giving themselves credit for having improved safeguards on civil liberties when they reauthorized the nation's antiterrorism law, otherwise known as the USA Patriot Act, earlier this month.
But many librarians and civil liberties lawyers say the revisions did nothing to enable the guest of honor to take the stage and discuss the Patriot Act without risk of prosecution.
Known as John Doe in court filings, the guest of honor was the Connecticut librarian who was visited by the Federal Bureau of Investigation last year and presented with what is known as a national security letter demanding patron records.
The subpoena, issued as part of a counterterrorism investigation, not only barred him from disclosing the target of the inquiry, but also forbade him and others at his place of work to ever discuss the letter or even to acknowledge its receipt.
Though some 30,000 national security letters are issued a year without arousing public protest, the librarian was reluctant to comply because of professional ethics aimed at keeping library records confidential.
On the advice of the American Civil Liberties Union, his employer went to court to challenge the constitutionality of the subpoena, the provisions of the Patriot Act that broadened the use of national security letters after Sept. 11, 2001, and the order permanently forbidding discussion of the F.B.I.'s demand.
As the Bush administration pushed for the act to be reauthorized, a handful of Democratic and Republican lawmakers argued that it went too far in encroaching on civil liberties. In the end, they persuaded the White House to accept a compromise that placed library records beyond the reach of a national security letter if they were gathered by libraries operating in what many people understand to be their traditional roles.
The final bill also gave recipients of national security letters the explicit right to consult lawyers.
While those concessions have allowed lawmakers to say that new safeguards on civil liberties have been put in place, another powerful provision in the Patriot Act, known as Section 215, remains on the books. It gives law enforcement another confidential way to demand information but has seldom been used because it requires judicial approval. National security letters, in contrast, require merely the signature of an F.B.I. official.
Between Section 215 and the new language governing national security letters, some opponents of the new version of the Patriot Act are skeptical that the revisions will provide much protection against unwanted invasions of privacy or infringements on free speech.
"The revised law provides almost no protection whatsoever for libraries," said Ann Beeson, the civil liberties union lawyer representing the organization that brought the suit in Connecticut. "It's virtually meaningless."
The section of the new law that addresses "privacy protection for library patrons" states that library records are beyond the reach of national security letters so long as the library is not operating as an "electronic communication service." Elsewhere, that term is defined as "any service which provides to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications."
But much of what a modern library does courses through its computers. Patrons can research topics on the Web. They can even reserve books from home. "A national security letter can be used to get any library record that is maintained via an electronic communication service," Ms. Beeson said. "That definitely includes Internet access and e-mail records and can also include patron borrowing records."
The new law does establish the recipient's right to challenge the nondisclosure orders that typically accompany national security letters and Section 215 requests. But the recipient would have to wait a year before raising the question anew if the government continued to assert the need for secrecy.
...
{Rest of story at link}
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
