Leigh Anne Wilson

April 24th, 2015

Issue Paper
LIS 770-50
Privacy Issues in Libraries: The USAPATRIOT Act and Big Data
Throughout the twentieth century and into the twenty-first, the United States government
has enacted various pieces of legislation that violate the civil rights of its citizens. Each of these
laws has had an impact on librarians and how library directors choose to serve the public.
In the 19th century, libraries in the United States were largely private, and the government played little part in their activities. Starting with World War I, libraries and the government began to interact with each other. It began benignly, with the Committee on Mobilization
and War Services Plan, later known as the Library War Services Program. The ALA worked
with the armed forces to send books and magazines to U.S. troops both at home and abroad.
A book for every man was the official slogan. (Jordan, 2012)
At the same time, Congress passed the controversial Espionage Act of 1917, which
authorized the punishment of any and all citizens who were thought to be undermining the
war effort, particularly in the areas of the draft and protesting the war in general. This led to
librarians voluntarily removing books from the shelves that could be construed as seditious
or even pro-German in sentiment. This form of self-censorship was so widespread that a newspaper article was published in the Toledo Bee in 1917 regarding a library director named
Charles E. Rush, who refused to remove violently pro-German books from the library
shelves. (Books, Lauding Germans, Stir Indiana City, 1917)
The self-censorship continued until World War II, when the ongoing violence of the Nazis
and Nazi book burnings shocked thousands of intellectuals and politicians, who took to the
streets in protest (Peiss, 2007). These actions were considered to be crimes against humanity
by many librarians and the Library Bill of Rights was drafted by the ALA in 1939, with article
III stating, Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to
Wilson, Page 1

provide information and enlightenment. (ALA Library Bill of Rights, 1939)

This stand was sorely tested during the McCarthy years. Shortly after World War II,
in 1947, the Library of Congress volunteered to place itself under the Federal Loyalty Program.
This executive order, issued by President Harry S Truman, checked the loyalty of all federal
employees by making them swear a loyalty oath. That same year, the House Un-American
Activities Committee (HUAC) attacked the Library of Congress, accusing them of harboring
aliens and foreign-minded Americans (Robbins, 1994). The ALA pushed back by strengthening
the Library Bill of Rights in 1948, but they were one of the very few organizations that did. Just
like Hollywood actors, directors, and screenwriters, librarians stood to lose their jobs and their
reputations if they did not comply with both the Loyalty Act as well as the activities of HUAC.
Even after McCarthys disgrace and the subsequent dismantling of HUAC, the government
still attempted to wield their powers against the publics right to privacy, and libraries were still
affected by their actions.
The PATRIOT Act, as we have seen, is not a new type of legislation. It is very
similar to the Smith Act of 1940 and the Internal Security Act of 1950. The Smith Act is said
to be a key predecessor of the PATRIOT Act (Thur, 2009). Congressman Howard W. Smith
sponsored the bill, which states that all foreign-born persons must register with the government. Similar to the PATRIOT Act, if anyone was accused no probable cause, but accused their home could be subject to a search and seizure. Unlike the PATRIOT Act, however, the
Smith Act decreed that a warrant must be obtained first. The Internal Security Act of 1950 had
a greater effect on libraries because it stated that one could not knowingly facilitate knowledge that could damage the United States or help any other nation (Thur, 2009). As you can
imagine, this act was a potential disaster for librarians, destroying the trust between a library
and the patron. In 1965, the Internal Securities Act was judged to be unconstitutional.
Finally, one of the most blatantly unconstitutional acts was the Library Awareness Program.
Started during the Cold War in the 1980s, the Library Awareness Program was started by the
FBI. The bureau pressured librarians to voluntarily report on the reading habits of their
Wilson, Page 2

patrons, particularly on those with Russian-sounding names.

This program was ushered in by bureau chief J. Edgar Hoover, who ironically worked for
the Library of Congress from 1913-1917 (Stielow, 1993). The Library Awareness Program was
met with strong pushback from librarians and library directors, particularly those on the East
coast, where the fledgling program was trying to take off. Library directors went public with
the plan. This was met with such public resistance and disapproval that the program was
scrapped.
Whenever there is a threat, either real or perceived, knee-jerk politics come into play and
our civil liberties come under attack. This has a very real impact on libraries and how they are
run. The right to privacy of United States citizens is tested and each time, library directors must
decide what they should do to protect the rights of their patrons.
All of these 20th century policies led to the USAPATRIOT Act of 2001. The groundwork
had been laid throughout legislation in the 20th century, and just days after the terrorist attacks
on the World Trade Centers in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C.,
legislators used the uproar and confusion to usher in the PATRIOT Act.
The USAPATRIOT Act stands for Unifying and Strengthening American by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. The Department of Justice,
under the direction of then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, received much more power, along
with government law enforcement and intelligence agencies, to gather information by monitoring
communications. The PATRIOT Act was ratified and signed into law by President George W.
Bush in just 45 days (Matz, 2008). When you consider that it usually takes two years for
Congress to ratify a bill, it is obvious that the government rushed the bill into action, thus
exploiting the culture of fear that had sprung up in the United States. The bill passed the house
by a 357-66 vote and the Senate by a 98-1 vote, with only Senator Russ Feingold dissenting
(Hudson, 2004). Feingold continued to oppose sections of the PATRIOT Act, and released a
statement saying that before we decide whether and in what form to extend these authorities,
Congress and the American people deserve to know at least basic information about how they
Wilson, Page 3

have been used (Feingold, 2009).

The PATRIOT Act combines three different areas of law criminal, foreign intelligence,
and immigration, and combines them into one big murky stew of Bill of Rights violations.
Prior to the PATRIOT Act, federal authorities had to have probable cause prior to an investigation of a citizen, and then had to obtain a warrant if they wanted to conduct a search and
seizure of a persons home and personal belongings. The PATRIOT Act dissolved those
protections, directly violating the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits
illegal searches and seizures.
The act amends 15 different federal laws, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act of 1978 (FISA). Originally written to protect U.S. citizens from foreign agents and foreign
governments, the PATRIOT Act rewrote it to allow the CIA to investigate American nationals.
The law also permits roving wiretaps, sneak and peek warrants, PEN trap and trace calls, and
dissolves the wall between foreign and domestic intelligence (Hudson, 2004).
Law enforcement and intelligence officials no longer have to be specific about who and
what they are searching for, needing neither probable cause nor proof of illegal activity. Even
worse, the individual who is under investigation no longer has the right to know they are being
investigated. If, for some reason, they are told they are under investigation, a gag order is put
into place, forbidding them from telling anyone about it, even their spouses or legal counsel.
A particular problem of the PATRIOT Act, one that Senator Feingold highlighted in his
concerns, was Section 215, which amended FISA to allow streamlined acquisition of
surveillance orders protecting against international crime and terrorism (Matz, 2008). Any
institution could be ordered, at any time, to produce any tangible thing considered relevant
to an anti-terrorism investigation. Library directors, naturally, have realized this section applies
to libraries, and they can be required to turn over records of their own patrons reading habits
as well as allow monitoring of particular patrons use of the computers. They are not allowed,
per the gag order, to tell the public that the FBI is investigating or has visited the library.
Wilson, Page 4

The library has a unique place in the hearts of American citizens it is a government
building that people both like and trust. All are welcome in the library to seek out and access
any information they choose, for whatever reason. The ALA Code of Ethics states that this is
our right as citizens, and with the right to free inquiry also comes the assumed right to privacy.
Article III of the ALA Code of Ethics stipulates We protect each librarys users right to
privacy and confidentiality with respect to information sought of received and resources
consulted, borrowed, acquired, or transmitted (ALA Code of Ethics, 1939)
If a person believes that his or her information or reading habits are being monitored by
the library in conjunction with a government agency, then the trust between the library and the
patron will most likely be broken and the patron will no longer seek out the librarys services.
In the PATRIOT Act, Sections 215 and 505 are the most relevant and troubling to
libraries. In section 215, FISA is amended to expand the range of material objects that can be
legally obtained in a search by federal agents (Drabinski, 2006), Section 215 allows for the
seizure of any tangible thing, including library records of book borrowing as well as
monitoring internet activity and computer use.
In 2006, this part of the PATRIOT Act was supposed to sunset, or no longer be applicable.
Instead, the law has been changed to state that there must be probable cause, and the materials
seized must be relevant to the investigation. Although this is a change for the better, it doesnt
really go far enough in restoring the civil liberties of a librarys patrons.
Section 505 of the PATRIOT Act also intrudes on privacy and forces library staff and
administrators to be complicit. This section regards the use of National Security Letters.
National Security Letters are used to subpoena information without requiring the agent to bring
said information before a judge. There is also a mandate in place that the library director is
subject to a gag order preventing him or her from telling anyone that the library and its patrons
are under surveillance. Originally, the library director was not even allowed to consult legal
counsel or discuss the situation with their staff and colleagues. The law has since been rewritten
to allow legal counsel, but it is still very difficult for library directors to communicate with
Wilson, Page 5

each other and still comply with the law.

Archivists are also affected, particularly those with collections in the physical sciences
or who deal with terrorist targets, such as reservoirs. The director could be served with a
request for user information that repositories retain (Trinkhaus-Randall, 2005).
Although then-Attorney General John Ashcroft assured the ALA and the American
public that no libraries had come under surveillance, accusing the ALA of baseless hysteria
and mockingly stating that libraries were concerned that the FBI wants to know how far
youve gotten on the latest Tom Clancy novel (Lichtblau, 2003), research done by the
University of Illinois proved this was not true. In fact, a large number of libraries had
indeed been contacted in 2002 with a request for patrons borrowing records and computer
usage records. This number may even be higher than the survey indicates because of the gag
order that was in place at the time (Trinkhaus-Randall, 2005).
Another worrisome aspect of the PATRIOT Act is the issue of surveillance, especially
with libraries that have CCTV. Intended for protection of patrons against altercations and,
to be fair, for the protection of materials from patrons, these videos are now considered any
tangible thing that can be swept up along with everything else by federal law enforcement
and intelligence agencies. Now library directors must decide how long they wish to keep the
tapes or if they want to have CCTV at all.
The passage of the PATRIOT Act directly violates many aspects of the ALA and its
members. It is viewed as an attack on civil liberties, violating the First Amendment to freedom
of inquiry and expression, the Fourth Amendment regarding illegal searches and seizures, the
Fifth Amendment, which covers due process, and the Sixth Amendment, which gives the
accused the right to be informed of the facts of the accusation and have the assistance of legal
counsel. While the call has always been for the safety of the United States and its citizens,
library directors are citizens, too, and most realize that the PATRIOT Act must be scaled back
dramatically to protect our and our patrons civil rights.
The impact it has had on libraries can be summed up as:
Wilson, Page 6

-No procedural obstacles to prevent investigation of library records and computer records
-Removal of privacy protection for personally identifiable histories maintained by educational
establishments
-Internet providers are required to cooperate with law enforcement authorities requests for
communications records of suspected persons and can be gathered without a warrant
-Rules were rewritten to expand the FBIs ability to issue National Security Letters and
prohibit the served institution from disclosing receipt of such letters.
So what can library directors do to protect themselves and their patrons from the
overreaching aspects of the PATRIOT Act? The ALA believes that the best way that library
directors can protect themselves, their staff, and their patrons is to have a plan in place before
an FBI visit ever occurs. Because the issues are so complex, the ALA recommends that legal
counsel be consulted to make sure that the policies of your particular library are legal. These
policies must be reviewed by the library director to check on the librarys policies regarding
retention of records and access to all types of information. Because anyone on staff can be
approached by law enforcement officials, every staff member should be familiar with the
policies put into place regarding their actions should this occur.
During an investigation, the librarys policies should be reviewed and followed. It is
imperative that the policies be thoroughly understood. Because the library is now allowed
access to legal counsel during an investigation, the ALA strongly recommends that counsel
be consulted. Also the PATRIOT Act provides for reimbursement in certain cases if the library
is asked to perform certain types of data collection. All costs and activities must therefore be
documented (ALA Advocacy, 2002).
After the visit, the library director must make sure he or she and the staff behaved within
legal parameters, and another advisement to consult their legal team is recommended.
Some libraries are being even more proactive. Library patrons in Santa Cruz can see
signs up at the librarys ten branches informing them about the PATRIOT Act and warning
them that the PATRIOT Act prohibits library workers from informing you if federal agents
Wilson, Page 7

have obtained records about you (Egelko & Gaura, 2003). The public library in Skokie,
Illinois, also has a similar sign.
In addition to the advice given by the ALA, the Illinois Library Association (ILA)
also recommends that every library should have a dedicated staff member to deal with law
enforcement officials generally the library director would be the most appropriate person
(Hill & Delaney, 2013).
It is important to remember that library directors can face jail time if they refuse to
comply with the laws in the Patriot Act. Four Connecticut librarians risked such jail time
when they received a request from the FBI for patrons records. All four librarians were
members of leadership at a small consortium called Library Connection in Windsor,
Connecticut. They had been ordered not to talk about the request with anyone, under the gag
ruling. The librarians decided to fight back rather than comply, and sued then-Attorney
General Alberto Gonzalez. The group won their fight in court when a three-judge panel of
the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan dismissed the governments
appeal, and Gonzalez decided not to appeal to a higher court. The gag order was lifted, and
for the first time the librarians were allowed to speak out.
The fact that the government can and is eavesdropping on patrons in libraries has a
chilling effect, because they really dont know if Big Brother is looking over their shoulder,
said George Christian, Library Connections Executive Director. All four librarians expressed
concerns that this could keep patrons away from the library (Cowan, 2006).
Finally, one of the most common measures taken in libraries is that the reading records
of patrons is no longer kept. Library directors must weigh the publics desire to have a record
of what they have read in the past for their own informational needs and the desire of the
library to protect their privacy by not keeping the records in the first place. If there are no
records to be kept, then there is nothing for the FBI to ask for.
Protecting peoples privacy over the internet is another story, however, and in this
case the PATRIOT Act is not the only competitor for a patrons information. Big Data also
Wilson, Page 8

plays a part in collecting patrons information, although what their plans are is quite different, it
is also a violation of privacy that we have not yet figured out quite how to deal with.
Big data and data analytics became huge in the 21st century. Its intention is to customize
the service experience and is now commonly accepted. Of course, the intention of big data is
also to harvest as much personal information as possible from the user in order to better market
to him or her. Big data is commonly characterized by the three Vs volume, velocity, and
variety. (Bieraugel, n.d.)
In order to illustrate exactly how much raw data is collected, one petabyte is equal to
the amount of text in twenty million file cabinets. In fifteen minutes, humans will have
created twenty petabytes of data. As of 2012, ninety percent of the worlds data has been
collected (Reinhalter & Wittman, 2015).
Recently, learning analytics have been used increasingly in schools as well. They
have been searching students computer use to see how they have been using their time
and what they are researching, in an effort to better assist the students meet their academic
goals. It could be argued that pulling this abstract data is also a privacy concern to students.
Libraries will be called on to support the use and preservation of data, but will also need to
decide how or if this use can be reconciled with privacy.
Although it seems like, in the age of selfies, blogs, and Facebook, the public does not care
about privacy, quite the opposite is true if you view privacy as being about choice (Payton,
2014). When you have no control over what it monitored and what isnt, you have less freedom
of choice. This can affect how the library patrons use the library. Similar to how the PATRIOT
Act can have a deleterious effect on a patrons reading habits, Big Data can similarly affect what
a patron views online, if they are aware that their personal information is being recorded and
used. There are two aspects of Big Data data mining, which gathers a patrons personal
information, and Big Data itself, which predicts trends based on the data mining. The trends are
then used to better market to the patron. Since the advent of the Internet, we have gone from the
ability to live our lives in relative obscurity to having every detail of our lives, no matter how
Wilson, Page 9

mundane, tracked and examined.

In addition to businesses tracking our data, we also know, thanks to Edward Snowden,
that the government is tracking our data as well. The NSA has gotten private Internet
companies to provide search data and emails from millions of people (Payton, 2014).
Even though many users understand that they are trading information
about their research topic for information about themselves, many believe this is just the
cost of doing business. I recently had a discussion with someone who believed that
libraries should all be privatized in order to keep financially solvent. When I argued that
this would compromise the integrity of the library, that not only could the information
we are giving to our patrons be considered skewed toward whichever corporation was
sponsoring the library or materials could be censored that may reflect negatively upon the
company, but also the company that was sponsoring the library, or owned the library, could
and would take their personal information and use it for marketing purposes, he shrugged.
Everybody expects that now, he said.
Possibly everyone expects it, but does everyone welcome it? At the library where I
work, there is a woman who comes in to use the computers and puts a paper bag over her head
and the computer monitor she is using, in order to protect her privacy. Obviously, people rarely
go to such extremes to protect their personal privacy, but I do not believe she is the only one
who is concerned with protecting her identity and what she is researching, and why.
According to Barbara Fister (2015), there are browsers that are privacy-friendly, such
as Tor (torproject.org), and alternatives to Google such as Duck Duck Go (duckduckgo.com)
and Startpage (startpage.com), but they are not as popular and arguably less effective as
Googles search engine.
However, since librarians are poised to become data curators as well as information
specialists, perhaps educating the public about alternatives to search engines and browsers
that mine data would be a good place to start to help uphold the ethics of privacy in the
library. Jeanette Woodward suggests that something as simple as desktop wallpaper on
Wilson, Page 10

each computer, reminding the user of data mining and offering alternative websites would
be a good start to protecting privacy, if that is what the patron wishes. Additionally, many
public libraries offer a series of workshops that cover basic internet and computer skills.
Possibly a brief class on how to protect patron privacy would also be welcomed.
(Woodward, 2007)
Because Big Data is so new and its potential for privacy invasion is so pervasive as
to seem normal, it is not seen as the affront that the PATRIOT Act is by many. However,
simply because something is pervasive does not mean it is benign or has to be accepted. It
seems that the best course of action with Big Data, as with the PATRIOT Act, is to be
proactive and educate the public and library staff about this technological issue.
Most of the articles regarding Big Data encourage librarians to focus on becoming digital
curators. Very few, if any, mention the risks to privacy and the conflict of interest in the
ALA Code of Ethics. However, there is no reason why librarians cannot both be curators
of Big Data and issue warnings about its collection at the same time. That way, the public
can be informed of all their options, and best choose for themselves how many information
footprints they wish to leave behind. As with librarians actions toward the PATRIOT Act
indicate, they can only be viewed with having the patrons best interests at heart.

Wilson, Page 11

References
ALA Library Bill of Rights. (n.d.) Retrieved from www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill
ALA Washington Office (2002, January 19). Guidelines for librarians about the Patriot
Act: What to do before, during, and after a knock at the door? Retrieved from
www.ala.org/advocacy/sites/ala.org.advocacy/files/content/adleg/federallegislation
theusapatriotact/patstep.pdf
Bieraugel, M. (n.d.). Keeping up withBig data. Retrieved from www.ala.org/acrl/
publications/keeping_up_with/big-data
Books, lauding Germans, stir Indiana city. (1917, November 14) The Toledo News Bee. p. 2
Cowan, A.L. (2006, May 31). Four librarians finally break silence in records case. The
New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2006/05/31/nyregion/31library
Drabinski, E. (2006). Librarians and the Patriot Act. Radical Teacher. 77, pp. 12-14.
Egelko, B., & Gaura, M.A. (2003, March 10). Libraries post Patriot Act warnings/Santa Cruz
branches tell patrons that FBI may spy on them. SFGate. Retrieved from
www.sfgate.com/news/article/libraries-post-patriot-act-warnings-santa-cruz-2664869.php
Feingold, R. (2009) Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold at a hearing reauthorizing
the USAPATRIOT Act. Retrieved from webarchive.org/web/20100731044425/
http://feingold.senate.gov/record.cm?id=318130
Fister, B. (2015) Big data or big brother? Data, ethics, and academic libraries. Library Issues:
Briefings for Faculty and Administrators. 35.4. Retrieved from
www.barbarafister.com/Llbigdata.pdf
Hill, J., & Delaney, J. (2013). The USA PATRIOT Act in 2013: What it currently means for
libraries. Illinois Library Association. Retrieved from www.ila.org/the-usa-patriot-act
in-2012-what-is-currently-means-for-libraries
Hudson Jr., D.L. (2004, May 25). Patriot Act. Retrieved from www.firstamendmentcenter.
org/patriotact

Jordan, A. (2012, October 10). A book for every man. Retrieved from archives.library.illinois.
edu/ala/a-book-for-every-man
Lichtblau, E. (2003, September 16). Ashcroft mocks librarians and others who oppose parts
of counterterrorism. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2003/09/
16/us/Ashcroft-mocks-librarians-and-others-who-oppose-parts-of-counterterrorism.html

Matz, C. (2008). Librarians and the USAPATRIOT Act: Values in conflict. Journal of
Library Administration, Vol. 47, 3-4, pp.69-87.
Payton, T.M., Claypoole, T., & Schmidt, H.A. (2014). Privacy in the age of Big Data:
Recognizing threats, defending your rights, and protecting your family. Lanham,
MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Peiss, K.L. (2007). Cultural policy in a time of war: The American response to endangered
books in World War II. Library Trends, 55.3, pp. 370-386.
Reinhalter, L., & Wittman, R.J. (2015) The library: Big datas boomtown. The Serials
Librarian: From the Printed Age to the Digital Age. 67.4, pp. 363-372.
Robbins, L.S. (1994). The Library of Congress and federal loyalty programs, 1947-1956: No
communists or cocksuckers. The Library Quarterly, 64.4, pp. 365-385.
Stielow, F.J. (1993) The FBI and library spying: A World War II precedent. American Libraries,
24.8, pp. 709-711.
Thur, V. (2009). War, law, and the librarian: The creation, precedence, and passage of the
USAPATRIOT Act and its effect on libraries. Journal of Access Services, 6.4, pp. 437445.
Trinkhaus-Randall, G. (2005, October 1) The USA PATRIOT Act: Archival implications.
Journal of Archival Organization, 3.4, pp. 7-23.
Woodward, J. (2007). What every librarian should know about electronic privacy. Westport,
CT: Libraries Unlimited.