Whose records? Why? Is there a specific target? Or just anyone who happens to search a particular set of databases? Or uses a particular search vocabulary? Or be researching a particular set of issues?

Suppose a dead newborn were found in a large community, and there were no leads. Does that entitle law enforcement to the names of all the women who have had pregnancy tests 9 months ago or checked out books on pregnancy or childbirth for the last 9 months? Does that entitle them to go through the community systematically and question every woman on the list? Does that invasion of privacy even net them a genuine suspect?

Or, to put it another way: in the Oklahoma City bombing, we all know that a substance used in fertilizer was used to manufacture the explosive. Does that mean that everyone who picked up print materials or did an internet search at a public library seeking to find out about that compound should have been tracked down, taken to interrogation, and questioned until the investigators are satisfied? Would this lead to the perpetrator?

Does law enforcement have a target? Let them get a sub poena. Let them convince a judge.

Does law enforcement have a strategy that requires a broader range of data? Let them get a search warrant. Let them convince a judge.

Does law enforcement want me not to say that the reason the computers are gone is because the FBI came in and took them? Why? Because they said so? As if no one will notice?

The US Patriot Act requires no substantive proof in order to initate a search of any individual's or groups of individuals' personal borrowing or computer use histories. A hunch? A whim? Let's see who's been researching, say, "+smallpox +anthrax"?

Collecting records is worse than book censorship, which is repulsive enough. It's developing a central database on citizens of a free nation. It means that no one can pursue a line of inquiry without wondering what some faceless suit will make of it in their "permanent record". Censorship of materials makes the materials very difficult to find to read; collecting records makes people afraid to read things because of the possible conclusions drawn by strangers with suspicious minds.

Am I suicidally depressed? Do I dare read about it, or will someone find out and use it against me one day? Am I an amateur munitions scholar? Well, I had better stop studying now, for that kind of information might inspire a law enforcement raid in which I may be killed. Am I researching my first novel, an espionage thriller? How much more realistic, if my research vectors pull me into a federal dragnet inspired by some agent's urge to go "fishing"! And if I have a swarthy complexion, how much more exciting for everyone involved!

The story about the newborn is here. This is what wholesale rummaging through peoples' personal records is all about. This is what we face.

With the proper legal documents and the advice of counsel as to their proper execution, of course I would cooperate with a criminal investigation. "Proper" means that the burden of proof has been satisfied. The so-called "security investigation" doesn't have those kinds of legs. If it did, it would be a criminal investigation, and no problem. I'd have to think about it. Maybe I'd rather go to jail after papering the landscape with photocopies of the US Patriot Act.

As it is, libraries all over the country are dumping their records to only what's essential for their operations. We can't turn over what we don't have.

If that means the library closes because the circulation computers are taken away by Men In Black for a little forensic discussion, well, that's awfully hard to hide from the community. Reporter to librarian: "Were the computers stolen?" Librarian to reporter: "I could not possibly comment." Reporter to librarian: "Were they taken as part of an investigation?" Librarian to reporter: "I could not possibly comment."

Regards--
Mary Anne