Librarians and USSR

[rwguinn]

Back when, Nikita Kruschev stated that the USSR would conquer us.
Some thought it meant "by force", but even in the 70's and 80's it was beecoming apparent that many folk were slipping toward a USSR "Big brother" attitude. It has gotten moreso lately, especially since we got Homeland Security into the act following events of 2001, what with "no fly lists" and the like.
Now librarians are getting into the act (see first article):
From "This is True" (http://www.thisistrue.com/currentissue.html)
...
So who turned him in? The Pelham Public Library.
"It is not our procedure to notify somebody" about patrons' book
choices, said library Director Patricia Perito, but she "had to" look
into the matter by informing the school. (White Plains Journal News)
...In other news, Perito has set up a security camera on the library's
copy of the Constitution, so she can catch anyone who wants to research
their rights as a citizen.
Professional ethics, anyone?

[Lonewulf]

Uhmmmmmm....

Okay, I see a lot in there that, if true, are definitely worth heavy amounts of criticism. But... "Big Brother"? Really?

This seems more like one librarian that got zealous and broke professional guidelines. Bad, to be sure, but there's no need to make any more of it than that.

[GreNME]

Uhmmmmmm....

Okay, I see a lot in there that, if true, are definitely worth heavy amounts of criticism. But... "Big Brother"? Really?

This seems more like one librarian that got zealous and broke professional guidelines. Bad, to be sure, but there's no need to make any more of it than that.

Actually, you're wrong here. Your library card and the record of your activity in a library is probably one of the most easy things for an agency who has decided to watch you (FBI, police, IRS) to get access to without much resistance. On top of that, people working for or at the library are under no professional or ethical obligation to you as an individual to protect you from being reported for "suspicious activity." I'm not saying that checking out Catcher in the Rye is going to put you on a government watch list or anything, but the reality is that public libraries are one of the least public places you can be.

[INRM]

The librarian has a camera turned on the copy of the Constitution so they can identify anyone who wants to know their rights?

How is that not totally unethical?

[Yalius]

The librarian has a camera turned on the copy of the Constitution so they can identify anyone who wants to know their rights?

How is that not totally unethical?

Because it's not true. "This is True" ends every item with a facetious jab at the subject of the story. Read the rest of the page and ask yourself if it's in the same vein as all the other ending jokes.

[Lonewulf]

Actually, you're wrong here. Your library card and the record of your activity in a library is probably one of the most easy things for an agency who has decided to watch you (FBI, police, IRS) to get access to without much resistance. On top of that, people working for or at the library are under no professional or ethical obligation to you as an individual to protect you from being reported for "suspicious activity." I'm not saying that checking out Catcher in the Rye is going to put you on a government watch list or anything, but the reality is that public libraries are one of the least public places you can be.

There's a lot more to "Big Brother" or the USSR than surveillance or privacy. That's all I'll say.

[LibraryLady]

Library Bill of Rights (http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillrights.cfm)

[rwguinn]

Library Bill of Rights (http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillrights.cfm)
I was actually hoping you'd contribute, here, LibraryLady.
As an engineer, violating professional ethics can get my registration pulled, as it is with many professions--Teacher, MD, lawyer, even Hairdressers (at least in theory--too often excuses and slaps on the wrist are issue by the powerful associations). What is the penalty for a librarian? Is ALA membership truly that important and/or prestigious?

[GreNME]

There's a lot more to "Big Brother" or the USSR than surveillance or privacy. That's all I'll say.

So? There's no lack of political hyperbole to go around. I just turn my signal-to-noise sensitivity down and focus as much as possible on the concept being presented.

-----

Library Bill of Rights (http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillrights.cfm)

Not sure I follow what you're saying...

[theprestige]

I'm not saying that checking out Catcher in the Rye is going to put you on a government watch list or anything, but the reality is that public libraries are one of the least public places you can be.
I'm not sure I follow the bolded part. Are you saying that public libraries are one of the most private places you can be? Or are you using a different definition of "public" in this context?

[GreNME]

I'm not sure I follow the bolded part. Are you saying that public libraries are one of the most private places you can be? Or are you using a different definition of "public" in this context?

No, I made a mistake in my wording. They're one of the least protected in terms of privacy for places open to the general public. Your activity is recorded by default, though not for any malicious purposes.

[Blackadder]

My thoughts in this topic:

Eddie Hungtington or the Beatles? hmmm

Well the Ukraine girls really knock me out
They leave the west behind
And Moscow girls make me sing and shout
That Georgia's always on my my my my my my my my my mind

I'm back in the USSR
Hey, You don't know how lucky you are, boy
Back in the USSR
Oh, let me tell you honey

vs

Time can go by
But the Russian girls dont ever seem to leave my mind
Fine, dont see why
I should even try to leave my heart behind

U.S.S.R.
Im back into the U.S.S.R.
U.S.S.R.
Im back into the U.S.S.R.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Your library card and the record of your activity in a library is probably one of the most easy things for an agency who has decided to watch you (FBI, police, IRS) to get access to without much resistance. No. Most states have passed privacy laws making library records confidential. In these states you need a subpoena or warrant to access these records. (You can check out a compendium of these laws here (http://library-privacy.wikispaces.com/).)

This is one of the reasons an FBI agent complained in an internal memo about "radical militant librarians."

At F.B.I., Frustration Over Limits on an Antiterror Law (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/national/nationalspecial3/11patriot.html?_r=1)
New York Times, December 11, 2005
But the newly disclosed e-mail messages offer a competing view, showing that, privately, some F.B.I. agents have felt hamstrung by their inability to get approval for using new powers under the Patriot Act, which was passed weeks after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

...

"While radical militant librarians kick us around, true terrorists benefit from OIPR's failure to let us use the tools given to us," read the e-mail message, which was sent by an unidentified F.B.I. official. "This should be an OIPR priority!!!"
Furthermore, a great number of libraries (can't tell you how many) no longer keep a historical record of items a patron has previously checked out. So the "record of your activity" only contains items currently checked out (and past items with unpaid fines).

On top of that, people working for or at the library are under no professional or ethical obligation to you as an individual to protect you from being reported for "suspicious activity." Well, that depends on what you mean by obligation. The Library Bill of Rights is widely interpreted among librarians as protecting patron privacy (http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/statementspols/statementsif/interpretations/privacy.cfm). While there are no official sanctions (from the ALA) for breaching patron privacy, your career could take a hit when word got out.

[GreNME]

What do you want me to say? I already said that one won't get flagged for checking out Catcher in the Rye. Getting a warrant for the library is simple, far simpler than getting a phone tap (which is simple enough with a persuasive request). As for the FBI complaints, well, that's just another example if overzealous idiots expecting results to fall into their outstretched hands.

Compared to many other public places, the library is not going to be a bastion of privacy for the average citizen. Sure, walking into a courthouse is going to be less private, but the fact remains that you're still walking into a public place. I still think comparing it to the USSR is ridiculously extreme.

[Lonewulf]

I still think comparing it to the USSR is ridiculously extreme.

As I recall, you criticized me for doing much the same.

[fuelair]

Library Bill of Rights (http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillrights.cfm)
I sent them an e-mail and checked their Trustee's statement and mission statement and, although neither mentions the Library Bill of Rights, both acknowledge points from it as being followed in the library.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Getting a warrant for the library is simple, far simpler than getting a phone tap (which is simple enough with a persuasive request). After your post I felt the need to clarify what was needed to access these records. Our disagreement seems to be merely what constitutes easy or simple.

I still think comparing it to the USSR is ridiculously extreme. I agree.

[rwguinn]

After your post I felt the need to clarify what was needed to access these records. Our disagreement seems to be merely what constitutes easy or simple.

I agree.
Extreme? Sure.
But, for you children out there, (born after the heyday) one of the hallmarks of that society was reporting neighbors/friends/family members for what seemed to be suspicious activities.
This idiot didn't wait for a warrant/subpoena--it struck her as suspicious, so she reported it.

[GreNME]

As I recall, you criticized me for doing much the same.

No, I disagreed that it was a "one librarian" thing. I've got nothing against libraries, but they're neither bastions of personal privacy nor 'Big Brother with Books®'.