I like having money. I'm not a millionaire, but by the standards of most of the world, I am rich. It affords me many options.

Who's seriously looking for privacy at a public library?! The librarians and the library know what you checked out and what aisles you're perusing. That's not private at all! If one wanted privacy one would buy a book through Alibris, Abe Books, Amazon or ebay.

First, you confuse anonymity with privacy. I can identify a lot of people by face and by name. I can access their addresses and phone numbers, but may not distribute them for any non-library purpose whatsoever. Their records of past borrowings are obliterated as soon as they return their items. Their personal information is kept in a protected database. And we don't talk about patrons' borrowing habits or other inhouse behavior outside of the staff. That is "privacy". If you buy online, you leave a trail that doesn't include your face, but includes your address, phone number, email address, and at least one credit card account. A record of your purchases is kept by the seller as a way of profiling you for purposes of selling you more things. (Whenever I log on to amazon as myself, I get a bunch of "suggestions" that are obviously based on my past purchases.) The online agency will tell you about their "privacy policy", but what you actually have is a form of anonymity. You think that, because no one can see your face, your identity and your habits are protected. This assumption is false.

Also, "the library" doesn't know anything. The administration and circulation staff does. Volunteers (except those who have been deputized and trained as circulation staff), office support staff, members of any affiliated Friends groups, and Board members have no access to patron records. Any library whose policies reflect an alternate reality had better take a good look at its policies, both administrative and insurance, because it runs the risk of being sued.

Now, let's follow the money:

In my daily life at work, I meet other people with money. Some of them have a lot more than me. Most of them use the library for their children, or their children use it for homework. Sometimes they will use specialized non-fiction books that they have no interest in owning. They often buy books instead of borrowing them, as they don't want to wait, and then contribute those books to the library once they have finished them. They usually decline to sign the internet use contract with the library because they have home access, and thus no need to use public terminals.

I meet other people in my daily life at work who have no other connection to the internet, and no other realistic access to print materials except the public library. This is usually because they're POOR, though sometimes it's because they're dislocated because they're travelling, in the throes of divorce or have become uprooted for some other reason. They come in to get help on job searches, assistance in seeking protection from abusive partners or authority figures in their lives, and information pertinent to their health or the health of a family member. Oh, and help with homework. Some of them come to learn English through exposure to the free materials available. (Migrant Mexican agricultural workers are almost uniformly floored to learn that they can borrow materials for free.)

What you are saying, above, is that the POOR and DISLOCATED haven't the same right to privacy as people with money because public library staffs ought not to be allowed to provide what privacy protections they can. So, in addition to dealing with the effects of their poverty or dislocation, their lives and hardships are to be an open book. They have a choice, of which they may not even be aware: either to submit to that humiliation, or not to seek the information they need in order to improve their lives, so as not to expose themselves to government scrutiny. Those with money can put at least one more barrier between themselves and the data-collectors: they can pay cash. This is the American Dream, Patriot Act style.

Also: The librarians I know are indeed aware of people's borrowing habits. Doctors are aware of people's health habits, too. Neither group is in the business of transmitting this information to anyone else. There have been narrow legal areas for each group in which we are compelled to disclose information to law enforcement without consent of the individual client. We comply with all such requests, as they are very specific in nature and satisfy Fourth Amendment protections. The Patriot Act allows law enforcement to act so precipitously in pursuit of suspects that they are permitted to gather information on the world and sift, rather than do careful investigations and specify who and why. We as citizens and as professionals have the obligation to require them, our agents, to be more deliberate in their work and respectful of the Law they are attempting to defend.

The whole reason for that provision was to scare terrorists and criminals away from library computers. The librarians should be thankful that patrons with genuine research interest will get more time at their terminals instead of Scarface Jr. directing the next drug shipment or some terrorists coordinating an attack.

Oh, really? So you admit that a chilling effect on the public's use of the internet was the objective? Thank you.

Tell me, please, how one distinguishes someone with "genuine research" or even casual interest from "Scarface Jr." based on library records alone? Does one not need to have some idea whom, specifically, one is looking for? Does that not require more precise investigating than a fishing expedition into patron records?

As an example: Suppose a community has several colleges and also active chapters of the Klan and Aryan Nation. How do you distinguish between the people coming in to read Klan and AN websites, and placing reserves on Mein Kampf, for academic purposes vs. organizational purposes vs. personal curiosity? If there is an act of violence associated with either the Klan or AN, does one do a sweep based on library records and haul in professors, skinheads and Jewish kids who had grandparents in the camps all indiscriminantly? How is either justice or efficiency served by having the police tied up reviewing all those records and interviewing all those people?

(Hint: The people who want "privacy" for criminal reasons probably stole Mein Kampf instead of borrowing it, thus leaving no personal record at all. We have 10 copies in our library system. Currently, only 2 can be accounted for. Of course, some of these thefts may have been committed by censorship vigilantes, who come in various ideological flavors.)

The librarians get all bent out of shape and start dumping their data files - almost inviting terrorists, criminals to come spend the day at their terminals.

First of all, you imply we as a society must presume guilt until innocence is proven. This turns the law on its head. No.

Second, to refuse to cooperate with a bad law is not the same thing as to act as an accomplice to people misusing our facilities. We are not dumb, and we are not shriking violets. There are other ways to intimidate people who are violating the usage agreement. We use them. It's a little staff-intensive, but only for a few minutes at a time. And it doesn't mess with people who are not violating the usage agreement.

Third, it's not law enforcement's job to preempt possible violations of the law through the overall application of intimidation to the entire populace. It's their job to detect wrongdoing and prosecute it while allowing the rest of us to go about our business unmolested and unspied-upon. It's not an easy job, but liberty is hard work. We are doing our part to make sure that everyone remembers this, even the people whom God has annointed and the President has appointed.

Regards--
Mary Anne