Hartford Libraries Watch as U.S. Makes Demands Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 216.155.201.68 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0 X-Yahoo-Post-IP: 68.98.145.15 From: "David Bier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Yahoo-Profile: bafsllc Sender: osint@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list osint@yahoogroups.com; contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: mailing list osint@yahoogroups.com List-Id: <osint.yahoogroups.com> Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 02:44:24 -0000 Subject: [osint] Reply-To: osint@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
"Ms. Knapp said the case provided some validation for librarians who had been complaining that the library provisions in the Patriot Act were a breach of privacy and could be invoked too easily. She said it rebutted comments by some supporters of the Patriot Act, who have said that librarians and their customers have little to fear from the act. "Here, we have a case where it is, in fact, being used," she said, "and all of the things we were concerned about, about the right of our patrons to have privacy, are justified." "Careful reading of court records released on Wednesday in the Bridgeport case, with large sections heavily blacked out, indicate that the recipient of the national security letter was a library consortium based in Connecticut, not a public library." "The recipient has remained unidentified, though it has gone into court to lift the order of silence so it can speak out against the Patriot Act before Congress, which is considering whether to extend important elements of the act after this year." Many public libraries have established policies for fast destruction of customer records so that Patriot Act requests need not be honored and the privacy rights of library members are protected from unwarranted (national security letters are not court warrants) exposure. It would appear that the FBI is now going to the consortiums that support groups of libraries to get the records (processed by the consortiums) that the individual libraries have destroyed. Now, in order to achieve non-compliance with the Patriot Act and protect their patrons' individual privacy rights, it appears libraries might have to stop low cost out-sourced back office processing by organizations like the Library Connection. David Bier http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/02/nyregion/02library.html September 2, 2005 Hartford Libraries Watch as U.S. Makes Demands By ALISON LEIGH COWAN Librarians in Connecticut say they are closely following a federal case in a Bridgeport courthouse involving a demand for library records, both to learn more about the identity of the people at the center of the case and to underscore their concerns about such orders. Weeks earlier, the Federal Bureau of Investigation had quietly demanded that one of their peers turn over library records under the USA Patriot Act. The case became public after the subject of the demand retained the American Civil Liberties Union to challenge the constitutionality of the request, as well as the order of silence that accompanied it. Librarians from Stamford, Westport and Bridgeport were observers in the courtroom during an emergency hearing on Wednesday before Judge Janet C. Hall in Federal District Court in downtown Bridgeport as lawyers discussed objections to the nondisclosure order. There, Carlton Greene, a lawyer for the Justice Department in Washington, and Kevin J. O'Connor, the United States attorney for the district of Connecticut, defended the need for secrecy and other powers granted under the Patriot Act to aid in the investigation of terrorism. Challenging every assertion was Ann Beeson, a lawyer for the civil liberties union. The judge is expected to issue her ruling on the order of silence within the next week. Among the spectators that day was Alice Knapp, the president of the Connecticut Library Association; she is the director of public services for Stamford's Ferguson Library. Ms. Knapp said the case provided some validation for librarians who had been complaining that the library provisions in the Patriot Act were a breach of privacy and could be invoked too easily. She said it rebutted comments by some supporters of the Patriot Act, who have said that librarians and their customers have little to fear from the act. "Here, we have a case where it is, in fact, being used," she said, "and all of the things we were concerned about, about the right of our patrons to have privacy, are justified." In the case being heard in the Bridgeport courtroom, authorities issued a document called a national security letter to request information, asserting that the information was needed in an investigation of terrorism. The subject of the investigation and the circumstances were not disclosed. In addition, the recipient of the letter is permanently barred from disclosing the request. In the Bridgeport case, the civil liberties union has argued that the recipient of the letter did not even know if he had the right to consult a lawyer or others in his organization - a concern that the lawyer for the government said was unfounded. The recipient has remained unidentified, though it has gone into court to lift the order of silence so it can speak out against the Patriot Act before Congress, which is considering whether to extend important elements of the act after this year. Careful reading of court records released on Wednesday in the Bridgeport case, with large sections heavily blacked out, indicate that the recipient of the national security letter was a library consortium based in Connecticut, not a public library. One affidavit by the recipient says that such consortiums provide back-office services to libraries as well as "staff expertise, training, consultation, troubleshooting and customization services to its customers." The language is identical to that found in the "about us" section of the Web site of Library Connection in Windsor, Conn., a nonprofit consortium that serves 26 libraries in the Hartford area. Other details in the court record about the recipient organization's governing structure and the executive who agreed to accept the letter also bolster the growing impression within library circles that it may be the Windsor consortium. For instance, the affidavit relates how the executive was initially unsure whom he was allowed to consult and ultimately told the executive committee members on his board. Of the four consortiums in Connecticut, "Library Connection is the only one that has an executive committee," said Michael Simonds, the chief executive of Bibliomation Inc. of Middlebury, Conn., the largest of the four. The executive director of Library Connection did not answer messages left over three days on his office phone and e-mail seeking comment. A member of the Library Connection board referred a reporter to the American Civil Liberties Union. "I'd really discourage anyone from making guesses because obviously this whole issue is under a gag order," the board member said. Asked about Library Connection, an A.C.L.U. lawyer said she would call back. The call was not returned by deadline on Thursday. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back! http://us.click.yahoo.com/VpgUKB/pzNLAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
