It’s been a while since I written anything about the Patriot Act and its provision allowing the FBI and other law enforcement agents to demand sales records from libraries and booksellers — in other words, the government wants to know what you’re reading, or at least be able to find out. Seeing as how I’m sitting in a bookstore cafe as I write this, it seems appropriate to note that the battle over reader privacy is still going on, and libraries are putting up a fight.
A member of the American Library Association has sued the Justice Department to challenge an FBI demand for records, but the USA Patriot Act prohibits the plaintiff from publicly disclosing its identity or other details of the dispute, according to court documents released yesterday.
The lawsuit comes as Congress prepares to enter final talks over renewal of the Patriot Act, a counterterrorism law that was overwhelmingly approved after Sept. 11, 2001. But parts of the law, including provisions that could have an impact on libraries, have since come under fire.
Justice Department and FBI officials have repeatedly declined to identify how many times Patriot Act-related powers have been used to seek or obtain information from libraries, but they have strongly urged Congress not to limit their ability to do so.
The suit, originally filed under seal in Connecticut on Aug. 9, focuses on the FBI’s use of a document called a “national security letter” (NSL), which allows investigators to demand records without the approval of a judge and to prohibit companies or institutions from disclosing the request. Restrictions on the FBI’s use of NSLs were loosened under the Patriot Act.
Of course, I make it no secret what I’m reading. I often write about my reading and post reviews on this blog. Anyone who wants to know what I’m reading now can check out the Currently Consuming page, powered by AllConsuming.Net. But that’s because I choose to make it known, but the idea that the government has the right to override tha tchoice, and find out what someone’s reading even if it’s not public knowledge ought to send a chill down the spine of anyone who’s ever cracked the sping of a book; especially if you’re reading books that an unreasonable person might consider subversive.
But here’s the beauty part, as KipEsquire points out. While undermining readers’ expectation privacy, the government preserves its own expectation of privacy.
The identity of the institution, the records being sought and numerous other details are edited out of the public version of the complaint released by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is a party to the lawsuit. [Emphasis added.]
In other words, redacted by the government. They want to know what people are reading, but don’t want anyone to know what they’re looking for or who they’re looking at. KipEsquire points out some other interesting things on the case.
To me, it boils down to this. If the government wins the right to read over your shoulder, have the terrorists won?
