csua.org/u/a83 -> www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/03/10/MN14634.DTL
But the signs ordered by the Santa Cruz library board -- a more elaborate version of warnings posted in several libraries around the nation -- are adding to the heat now being generated by a once-obscure provision of the Patriot Act. Section 215 of the act allows FBI agents to obtain a warrant from a secret federal court for library or bookstore records of anyone connected to an investigation of international terrorism or spying. Unlike conventional search warrants, there is no need for agents to show that the target is suspected of a crime or possesses evidence of a crime. As the Santa Cruz signs indicate, the law prohibits libraries and bookstores from telling their patrons, or anyone else, that the FBI has sought the records. The provision was virtually unnoticed when the Patriot Act, a major expansion of government search and surveillance authority, was passed by Congress six weeks after the Sept. But in the last year, Section 215 has roused organizations of librarians and booksellers into a burst of political activity, and is being cited increasingly by critics as an example of the new law's intrusiveness. SANDERS' REPEAL BILL Even as a leaked copy of a Bush administration proposal to expand the Patriot Act was circulating, Rep. Sanders, who voted against the Patriot Act, said he decided to target a "particularly onerous" provision that affects large numbers of people. His Freedom to Read Protection Act would allow library and bookstore searches only if federal agents first showed they were likely to find evidence of a crime. The bill's 23 co-sponsors include four Bay Area Democrats -- Reps. Barbara Lee of Oakland, Lynn Woolsey of Petaluma, Sam Farr of Carmel and Pete Stark of Fremont. The Bush administration has refused to say how it has used Section 215 -- prompting a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by library and bookseller organizations -- and has made few public comments on the issue. One statement by a high-ranking Justice Department official, however, may have inadvertently helped to fuel the rollback efforts. In a letter to an inquiring senator, Assistant Attorney General Daniel Bryant said Americans who borrow or buy books surrender their right of privacy. A patron who turns over information to the library or bookstore "assumes the risk that the entity may disclose it to another," Bryant, the Justice Department's chief of legislative affairs, said in a letter to Sen. Corallo also said the provisions pose no threat to ordinary Americans, only to would-be terrorists. Before demanding records from a library or bookstore under the Patriot Act, he said, "one has to convince a judge that the person for whom you're seeking a warrant is a spy or a member of a terrorist organization. DECIDES WHO IS TERRORIST Once the government decides someone is a terrorist, Corallo said, "We would want to know what they're reading. They may be trying to get information on infrastructure. And while the views of individual librarians are apparently more varied than those of their association, a recent nationwide survey found that most felt the Patriot Act went too far. Nearly 60 percent of the 906 librarians who replied to a University of Illinois questionnaire between October and January believed that the law's so- called gag order -- which prohibits libraries from disclosing that the FBI has requested their records -- was unconstitutional. In Santa Cruz, where library officials are trying to stir up patrons about the Patriot Act, chief librarian Anne Turner has found a more subtle way to sidestep the gag order, if she ever faces one.
|
http://csua.com/feed/