The heavy double doors of the local public library are forced open. A young woman enters the main lobby. She waves to the librarian behind the reference desk, as she has done once a week since her grammar school days. The librarian, from her central perch at the heart of the library, has watched this being grow from a child into a young lady; she returns the wave and offers a greeting, using the young womanís name. The young woman moves on to one of her favorite studying location before settling into her research. In the past, she would have run straight into the childrenís room to gaze at the picture books. As she grew, the young adult fiction section was her refuge. Now, enrolled in a nearby college, she spends many of her weekly visits at a window table in close proximity to the main collection in order to carry out assignments. The reference librarian once asked why the young woman did not utilize the college library right on campus. The answer received was that it was not ëherí library. The librarian was deeply moved by that response.The reason behind this weekís library excursion is an impending final paper for a Middle Eastern studies course. The young woman uses the automated card catalog to locate texts on the history of the people, land, and politics of several Middle Eastern countries. After checking the books out at the circulation desk and perusing them for a few moments, she realizes that they give historical content but do not offer more current information within them. On her own, she again tries to locate materials that would fill this void, but is having difficulty. She approaches the reference librarian with this dilemma. Together, through an brief reference interview, it is decided that the young woman will log on to the Internet at one of the library terminals while the librarian performs a search for other tools. After about thirty minutes, the librarian goes to the patron with the results of the search. The young woman thanks her and informs her that with the texts, the data she found from the Internet, and the search results, she has more than enough information upon which to formulate her paper. She gathers her belongings, stops at the reference desk once more to say thanks and that she will see the librarian next week, and makes her way to the exit.
Laden down with her knapsack, library books, and several printouts, she begins her struggle with the heavy doors to leave the library; at the same moment, a man in a very official looking suit and a briefcase is entering. Their elbows bump as they both try to fit through the opening and hold on to their belongings. Brief apologies are exchanged; the young woman gives the man a quick smile before making her final exit. Unbeknownst to her, the man is an agent for the F.B.I., and their paths may not have crossed for the last time with that doorway encounter.
The agent approaches the reference desk to explain his reason for being at the library. Under the jurisdiction of the U.S.A. Patriot Act, he is to obtain the patron files for anyone who had been looking into topics that could link them to terrorist activities. He has a list of such topics, which he hands over to the librarian. He asks that she pull up the relevant files from her computer at once. As she skims the paper, she realizes that the countries she and the young woman were just looking up moments ago are listed. She is shaken by this discovery, as well as by the visitor and his intent, and now is uncertain of what action to take. Does she hand over the files and infringe the privacy of the patrons, or does she deny access, and in doing so, go against the government?
The U.S.A. Patriot Act is fairly new, as far as legislation goes, and many librarians do not know how to respond to it, since obligations of librarians are still undefined within the act. The librarian in the scenario could be any librarian across the United States, left to wonder ìwhat to do before, during, and after a ëknock on the dooríî (Bradley 129). At any moment, a government agent could walk into a library, demanding to see private patron files. Librarians have a choice to make: support the act, or uphold the principles of librarianship as laid out by the American Library Association. In the eyes of most librarians, the decision is clear-cut; protect the privacy of the patrons. There are several facets to examine to jump right to that conclusion. All the while, however, this question is still hovering in peoples minds - is protecting the rights of library patrons the same as harboring terrorists? One should think not.
The catalysts that launched the U.S.A. Patriot Act and the governmentís fervent quest to unearth terrorists in the United States into existence were the events that occurred on September 11, 2001. On the Tuesday morning of September 11th, terrorists hijacked four airplanes and began their assault against the United States, resulting in death and mass destruction at the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and a field in Pennsylvania. The strikes were the work of the known terrorist group al-Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, operating out of Afghanistan. With a nation in shock and disbelief that such an attack could take place on American soil, and the impending threat of other such occurrences, action from the government had to be taken. Safety and homeland security were the number one priority. Therefore, President George W. Bush and his administration began taking measures to wipe out terrorism, setting ìhis sights on ... terrorism itself and on the countries that fostered and facilitated itî (Bruni 155).
ìThe attack on the twin towers and the Pentagon, which resulted in approximately 3,000 deaths, was understood by the United States as an act of war. Within a few days, President Bush announced the U.S. intention to fight its own war against terrorism worldwideî (Lalley 7). The ëwar on terror,í as it has come to be known, has many tactics, directing ìevery resource at our command ... to the disruption and defeat of the global terror networkî (Lalley 7). Among the strategies employed have been a war that has been waging in the Middle East, ìhundreds of Middle Eastern men in the United States were being detained and ... sometimes even prosecuted on minor violationsî (Bruni 266), and the U.S.A. Patriot Act was passed. Most of these actions were passed quickly in the heat of the moment with little thought or foresight as to their implications. The grand scheme of a worldwide attack on terrorism is a noble idea, but perhaps it is a futile endeavor. It has ìan almost impossible goal - the elimination of terrorists with a global reach - and no conceivable timetableî (Bruni 265). However well intended these decisions were, more thought should have been given to them. This also pertains to the U.S.A. Patriot Act.
The U.S.A. Patriot Act, which stands for ìUniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorismî (ìPreserving Life...î par. 2), was ìsigned ... into law on October 26, 2001î (Minow par. 1), just over a month after the September 11th attacks. According to the Department of Justice, the act serves to preserve life and liberty. ìThe act improves our counter-terrorism efforts in several significant waysî (ìPreserving Life...î par. 3). It allows investigators to utilize the tools that have worked in the fight against organized crime for years in the arena of terrorism. The act promotes and facilitates the sharing of information among government agencies. The act encompasses new technologies, allowing officials to probe into Internet use and computer hacking that may have terrorist links. Also, ìthe Patriot Act increased the penalties for those who commit terrorist crimesî (ìPreserving Life...î par. 13). In general terms, ìthe authorities Congress provided have substantially enhanced our ability to prevent, investigate, and prosecute acts of terrorî (ìPreserving Life...î par. 17). At the time the act was passed, few government officials thought about the implications the act would have upon society in general; the focus was primarily on finding the swiftest, most effective means of rooting out terrorists and bringing about justice. The impact on libraries was not even a consideration.
To librarians across the nation, along with other groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the impact the act has on society is great and more than reason enough to speak and act out against the legislation. Due to this adverse reaction, enforcement of the act has not been carried out to fruition, as declared in ìthe September 18 admission by Attorney General John Ashcroftî (Whelan. ìPatriot Act Still...î 21). The government is currently re-examining the act and its ramifications and even looking into creating a revised Patriot Act II. However, the act does still stand. While the government deliberates over whether to retain the original document, adopt a new version, or completely do away with it, librarians and other factions are also evaluating the act, proposing alternatives, and simply acting out in defiance of it.
Should the original act begin to be fully enforced, the field of librarianship will face serious changes. Traditionally, librarians serve as information service providers and promoters of intellectual freedom. They assist patrons on a number of different levels, from finding reading materials to executing complex electronic searches on obscure subject matter to creating opportunities of access to information. Aside from assisting patrons, librarians also build a rapport with their patrons. They learn the needs of specific patrons and how to meet those needs. The librarians are able to make recommendations based on the interests and reading patterns of the patron, as well as how to protect personal selections from becoming public knowledge. Perhaps most importantly, librarians begin to see the individuals as people, not just ëpatrons.í
Aside from these traits, the American Library Association also defines some of the particular characteristics librarians are required to exemplify. The ALA Code of Ethics explains that librarians have a certain commitment to the individuals that they serve. They are to protect their privacy and maintain the personal integrity of the individual. Librarians are also expected to make reasonable efforts to protect the individual from conditions harmful to health and safety. With these statements ingrained into the minds of librarians, an act like the U.S.A. Patriot Act impedes on the librarians carrying out their duties and responsibilities to their patrons. One could also say that allowing librarians to conduct themselves according to the guidelines established by the ALA eliminates the need for such an act, since the librarians would serve as a safeguard, protecting patrons and the community from possible dangers that can be accessed through a library.
Many changes will be in store for libraries and librarians should the act as it stands be upheld, especially in the area of dealing with electronic access to information, since this is where most of the investigations would focus their attention, rather than circulation logs. Librarians will have to turn their backs on the code that they swore to uphold when entering the field. Rather than protect the privacy of library users, they will have to surrender documents, such as Internet sign-in logs, to the government. The image of libraries will no longer be that of a safe environment where people can entertain their intellectual fancies or escape reality through books for a few hours; it will be a place where one is always wondering who is watching, the librarians or the government? No longer will librarians be servicing the public; they will be an agent of the administration, a holding house for potential government documents once known as patron files.
The effects of the act will not only be felt by the librarians. Patrons will also feel the strain that the act will cause. Once they realize that their files are no longer secure, many will stop frequenting the library altogether. They will find other means of gathering information or will just do without. Those that still chose to utilize branches will make their visits brief and will be warned ìthat due to national security concerns, their Internet surfing habits, passwords and e-mail content might be monitored by federal agentsî (Kronholz par. 7). Patrons will be sure to conduct online searches or check out materials that will not raise questions or suspicions about them. ëControversialí topics will be avoided, regardless of the reason for looking into it, such as for a report or to be better informed about a subject. If one looks into such information, they could potentially be dubbed a terrorist or a threat to society, so they save themselves the trouble by avoiding those materials.
Also, patrons will no longer rely on the librarians to give them guidance or assistance; it is best to keep them at bay and not let them start to formulate a relationship, simply conduct transactions in an extremely formal manner. Only provide the essential information to the clerk; do not add any personal background when talking to the librarians. The librarian could turn their private information over at any time, so why offer more than necessary? The concept of trust will no longer exist in the eyes of the patrons, thus making visits to the library a mere need, a last resort, rather than a desire, a place to go and freely explore. Should this happen, it will be an unfortunate turn of events, with both the patrons and libraries on the losing side. The only ëwinnerí will be the government, should their invasion of patron files through seizures that go against the Constitution yield any real threats to society.
Individuals within communities have slowly begun to take stands against the U.S.A. Patriot Act, but the main forerunner in opposition to the act is the American Library Association. The ALA deems that the act goes against much of what the organization stands for. The ALA Bill of Rights clearly states that librarians will not censor materials or access to them based on a variance in beliefs, origin, or background. Above that, the association will challenge those who do wish to construct such barriers. The U.S.A. Patriot Act can be seen as a preventative agent in the quest for intellectual freedom. Just as ìthe backbone of the United States of America is her Constitutionî (Fink iv), so too is the ALA and the field of librarianship supported by its Bill of Rights. Therefore, librarians should stay true to their organization and work together to rectify the problems presented by this act.
With this in mind, the organization as a whole had taken a stand against the U.S.A. Patriot Act with a resolution stating its case. The ALA is proactively supporting democracy and the liberties that come with it. The organizations sees the Patriot Act as a threat to ìcivil rights and liberties guaranteed under the United States Constitution and Bill of Rightsî (ìUSA PATRIOT... ). They portray libraries as centers for the free-flowing exchange of and distribution of information. ìThe American Library Association holds that suppression of ideas undermines a democratic societyî (ìUSA PATRIOT... ) and that ìprivacy is essential to the exercise of free speech, free thought, and free associationî (ìUSA PATRIOT... ). The resolution states:
ìThat the American Library Association opposes any use of governmental power to suppress the free and open exchange of knowledge and information or to intimidate individuals exercising free inquiry; and, be it further RESOLVED, That the American Library Association encourages all librarians, library administrators, library governing bodies, and library advocates to educate their users, staff, and communities about the process for compliance with the USA PATRIOT Act and other related measures and about the dangers to individual privacy and the confidentiality of library records resulting from those measures; and, be it further RESOLVED, That the American Library Association urges librarians everywhere to defend and support user privacy and free and open access to knowledge and information; and, be it further RESOLVED, That the American Library Association will work with other organizations, as appropriate, to protect the rights of inquiry and free expression; and, be it further RESOLVED, That the American Library Association will take actions as appropriate to obtain and publicize information about the surveillance of libraries and library users by law enforcement agencies and to assess the impact on library users and their communities; and, be it further RESOLVED, That the American Library Association urges all libraries to adopt and implement patron privacy and record retention policies that affirm that the collection of personally identifiable information should only be a matter of routine or policy when necessary for the fulfillment of the mission of the library; and, be it further RESOLVED, That the American Library Association considers sections of the USA PATRIOT Act are a present danger to the constitutional rights and privacy rights of library usersî (ìUSA PATRIOT... ).Aside from stating the observances of the ALA and the courses of action that will be employed by the organization, the resolution is also a call to arms for Congress, among others. The ALA:
ìurges the United States Congress to: provide active oversight of the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act and other related measures, and the revised Attorney General Guidelines to the Federal Bureau of Investigation; hold hearings to determine the extent of the surveillance on library users and their communities; and amend or change the sections of these laws and the guidelines that threaten or abridge the rights of inquiry and free expression; and, be it further RESOLVED, That this resolution be forwarded to the President of the United States, to the Attorney General of the United States, to Members of both Houses of Congress, to the library community, and to others as appropriateî (ìUSA PATRIOT... ).Through this resolution, the ALA will combat the U.S.A. Patriot in a peaceful, albeit strongly stated, manner.
Another group spearheading the revolt against the Patriot Act is the American Civil Liberties Union; the group filed the ìfirst Patriot act challengeî (Jordan 14). The ACLU is concerned about the act impeding upon a personís right to freedom of speech as well as to privacy. ìThe U.S.A. Patriot Act ... curtails some of the most precious rights of the First Amendmentî (Sanders 32). The ACLU cites and expands upon the First Amendment of the Constitution, stating that people are allowed freedom of speech and intellectual freedom. The act in question attempts to deny that right to the public by giving certain materials an negative stigma, thus involuntarily censoring resources and urging people to avoid such matter. ìThe government may not censor or review booksî (Meltzer 56). In terms of access to patron files, the files are not the sole possession of the library in which they are stored; they are also seen as the property of the patron. Therefore, when the government wishes to see these files without a court-issued warrant and without informing the patron of their intent, it is a direct violation of the search and seizure aspect of the Fourth Amendment.
The unconstitutionality of the Patriot Act that the ACLU has brought forth is reason enough to send it back to the drawing table. The organization has another reason to object to the act. The ACLU claims that the act targets particular groups of people, primarily those of the ethnic background of the people with which the government is at odds. The government does not examine all patron files; they select exactly which ones they wish to look at. Therefore, they are using the act as a scapegoat to unearth potential evidence against individuals they already have suspicions about. One would like to think that this was not the primary reason for the act, but it does provide for easy access to possible evidence on the part of the government. With these topics in mind, the ACLU will continue to rally against the Patriot Act until a reasonable solution is found.
A final sector is also looking to change the Patriot Act. The individuals who are looking for other alternatives are members of Congress, spanning across bipartisan lines. Realizing that ìCongress had no time to consider the bill carefullyî (Oder, ìPatriot...î 16), congressmen from both sides have been working to remedy what the Act has caused. Several ìnew bills in Congress would scale back the USA Patriot actî (Oder, ìNew...î 16). Senator Russ Feingold, a Democrat from Wisconsin, has proposed one alternative route. ìFeingoldís Library, Bookseller, and Personal Records Privacy Act wants to restore a pre-Patriot Act mandate requiring that the F.B.I. have reasonable documented information about a suspected terrorist before subpoenaing library and bookseller recordsî (Whelan 19). Another possibility is the proposal of Senators Linda Murkowski, a Republican from Arkansas, and Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon. ìThe Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act ... seeks to extend those limits to include medical and other private recordsî (Whelan 19). Finally, two other bills, almost identical to each other, take a strong stand. ìThe Freedom to Read Protection Act sponsored by Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and the Library and Bookseller Protection Act by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), go even further by saying that under no circumstances can the F.B.I. gain access to library or bookseller patron records under the Actís rulesî (Whelan 19). With the knowledge that members of Congress have their concerns about the act, it provides a comfort in knowing that changes in the near future are likely. ìWhat makes the matter particularly pressing ... is that critics ... span the political spectrumî (Carlson par. 1).
As a future librarian, it makes one uneasy to think that they are entering a field in which betrayal of patron trust will be the norm. Should the U.S.A. Patriot Act remain in existence as is, that will be the case. Therefore, ramifications must be made to the act in order to preserve the integrity of librarianship and allow patrons to continue to flock to libraries for pleasure and research and escape. In the meantime, however, what are librarians to do concerning the act? Are organized protests and demonstrations against the act the answer? Are librarians harboring criminals by not releasing patron information, so handing over all private files without hesitation would be the best choice? Do they continue to run their courses as normal and simply hope that an official agent asking for files does not approach them? In an attempt to ìcope creatively with the Patriot Actî (Eberhart 20), for some libraries, ìthe shredder starts up at the end of every day, destroying records of reference requests and Internet usageî (Blackstone par. 6). Is that the right thing to do, though? Unfortunately, there is no saying which of these solutions, if any, are the right action to take. There simply is no easy solution to this problem at the moment.
For the time being, there are a few particulars that librarians can execute in order to deal with the problem at hand. Librarians should continue to uphold the tenets of American Library Association as they apply to their library. However, if they are asked to cooperate with a law enforcement agency, they should, ìbut advisedly with a court orderî (Minow par. 10). Librarians ìshould have a clearly marked, highly visible ... privacy policyî (Coyle 16) and promote ìprivacy literacyî (Coyle 17). As it stands, ìmost states have policies (already in effect) that ensure confidentiality of patron recordsî (Fialkoff 4); be aware of the policy and introduce it to patrons. ìLibraries need to be forthright with patrons about the potential for seizure of confidential information related to their activity; tell patrons just what you do with the data you collect about them, so they can then decide whether to log on at the library or go elsewhereî (Schneider 86). Librarians ought to support those who are attempting to rectify the act. Hopefully, an acceptable form of the act for all parties involved will make its way into existence in short order. Most importantly, librarians must strive to provide the best service possible to their patrons. In doing that, they will have done no wrong.
Back to top