Edrie

Here's the respons from the ALA

For Immediate Release
September 16, 2003


American Library Association responds to Attorney General
remarks on librarians and USA PATRIOT Act: A statement
by
ALA President Carla Hayden

(Chicago) The American Library Association (ALA) has worked
diligently for the past two years to increase awareness of a very
complicated law * the USA PATRIOT Act * that was pushed through
the legislative process at breakneck speed in the wake
of a national tragedy. Because the Department of Justice has
refused our requests for information about how many libraries have been
visited by law nforcement officials using these new powers, we have
focused on hat the law allows. The PATRIOT Act gives law
enforcement nprecedented powers of surveillance * including easy
access to library records with minimal judicial oversight.

Among the many changes in U.S. law and practice enabled by
the act is the federal government's ability to override the historical
protections of library reading records that exist in every state. States
created these confidentiality laws to protect the privacy and freedoms
Americans hold dear. These laws provide a clear framework for
responding to national security concerns while safeguarding against
random searches, fishing expeditions or invasions of privacy.

Librarians are committed to ensuring the highest quality library
service and protection of our patrons' records from random searches,
fishing expeditions or other inappropriate invasions of privacy. This
commitment is why we are among the most trusted members of our
communities, from Maine to California. We take great pains to be
educated about the federal and state laws that govern our ability to
serve our communities * which is why we're so concerned.

Over the past two years, Americans have been
told that only individuals directly involved in terrorism need be
concerned. This is not what the law says. The act lowers the legal standard to "simple
relevance" rather than the higher standard of "probable cause"
required by the Fourth Amendment.

In March 2003, the Justice Department said that libraries had
become a logical target of surveillance. Which assurance by Mark
Carallo are we to believe?

We also have been told that the law only affects non-U.S.
citizens. This is not what the law says. In fact, the act amended the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in such a way that U.S.
citizens may now be investigated under the loweredlegal standards
applied to foreign agents.

And now Attorney General John Ashcroft says the FBI has no
interest in Americans' reading records. While this may be true,
librarians have a history with law enforcement dating back to the
McCarthy era that gives us pause. For decades, and as late as the
1980s, the FBI's Library Awareness Program sought information on
the reading habits of people from "hostile foreign countries," as well
as U.S. citizens who held unpopular political views.

We are deeply concerned that the Attorney General should be
so openly contemptuous of those who seek to defend our
Constitution. Rather than ask the nations' librarians and Americans
nationwide to "just trust him," Ashcroft could allay concerns by
releasing aggregate information about the number of libraries visited
using the expanded powers created by the USA PATRIOT Act.

Or, better yet, federal elected officials could vote * as several
U.S. senators and representatives from across the political spectrum
have proposed * to restore the historical protection of library records.