In this 1911 article, Arthur Bostwick, ALA President 1907-1908, examines the growing recognition of the public library's influence and how it had become a target for exploitation by various external forces. It highlights the subtle and overt ways in which commercial, religious, and political interests tried to harness the library's reputation and reach for their own gain. Bostwick warns librarians to stay vigilant against such efforts, which may come disguised as innocent partnerships or donations. He lists examples to be wary of such as businesses offering book collections with advertising conditions or lecturers using library venues to promote paid services. The article underscores how the public library's role as an impartial and trusted institution must be safeguarded.

One particularly concerning aspect discussed is the use of library circulation records and registration files. Bostwick notes that these records are valuable assets sought by advertisers, commercial entities, and even private detectives for purposes like mailing lists or tracking individuals. While some cases might seem legitimate, such as police investigations with proper authorization, he firmly asserts that libraries should resist sharing user information without a court order to protect the trust and safety of their patrons. This protection of circulation records is vital to ensuring that libraries remain places where individuals feel safe to explore information without fear of exposure or exploitation.

Below are two excerpts from the article:

...

Bostwick, Arthur E. "The Exploitation of the Public Library." Papers and Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual Meeting of the American Library Association, July 1911, pp. 60-65, https://www-jstor-org.proxy033.nclive.org/stable/25684991?seq=6.

M. Louise Hunt, an assistant city librarian in Portland, Oregon, became a figure of significant controversy during World War I for her refusal to purchase a Liberty Bond, a decision rooted in her personal opposition to the war. Her stance, which she had initially kept private, was exposed when an anonymous whistleblower sent a letter about her refusal to Liberty Loan officials, leading to a violation of her privacy. Liberty Loan officials began an immediate investigation. As part of the U.S. government’s extensive Liberty Loan campaigns, residents were urged to demonstrate their patriotism by buying bonds to fund the war effort, with non-participation seen as unpatriotic, even disloyal. Despite intense pressure, Hunt stood firm in her beliefs and argued that she should not be compelled to support the war financially, defending her stance as an exercise of her civil rights. Her refusal quickly drew the ire of local and state leaders, as well as Portland's civic organizations, who saw her decision as a betrayal of wartime loyalty and an affront to the patriotic duties expected of all-American citizens.

The intensity of the backlash Hunt faced reveals the extent of wartime pressures on individuals to conform to patriotic expectations. Portland’s Liberty Loan officials, upon learning of her dissent, branded her refusal as radical and summoned her for questioning, appealing to her sense of duty by describing the brutalities faced by European civilians at the hands of the German army. Local newspapers sensationalized her stance, with headlines suggesting that she preferred German occupation over supporting American troops. This portrayal not only led to a torrent of public condemnation who called for her dismissal. Additionally, they targeted Mary Isom, her director, who had compassionately defended the outstanding employee. As even library board members found themselves in a difficult position due to public outcry, Hunt resigned. The board and others vigorously defended Ms. Isom, who retained her position, and finally the witch hunt ceased. Both women went on to become noteworthy leaders in their field. Hunt moved East, and became chief librarian at the Wisconsin Public Library in Racine. 

Hunt's case illustrates the complex challenges that individuals, especially women, faced in balancing personal convictions with societal demands for patriotic compliance during wartime, highlighting a moment in American history when privacy and freedom of expression were deeply compromised in the name of national loyalty. 1-3

Below is an excerpt from John's article:

1

1. John, Finn J.D. “’Traitorous’ librarian’s crime: Not buying bonds.” offbeatOREGON.com, May 20, 2018, https://offbeatoregon.com/1805c.traitor-louise-hunt-wouldnt-buy-war-bonds-496.html.

2. Jensen, Kimberly. "Women's 'Positive Patriotic Duty' to Participate." Oregon Historical Quarterly, Vol. 118, No. 2, Summer 2017, pp. 199-233, https://www.ohs.org/oregon-historical-quarterly/award-winning-articles/upload/Jensen_Americanization_OHQ-118_2_Summer-2017.pdf

3. Routhier, Ray. "WAR STORY; in 1918, Portland Native M. Louise Hunt Became Notorious for Refusing to Buy World War I Liberty Bonds." Portland Press Herald, May 21, 2006, p. G1, https://login.proxy033.nclive.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/war-story-1918-portland-native-m-louise-hunt/docview/277244477/se-2.

1

This 1919 controversy is also mentioned in Steve Witt's comprehensive article on the history of privacy in libraries. Witt adds that New York State Library head librarian, Edwin Hatfield Anderson, responded publicly, pointing out that the individual was not a registered patron and defended the library's collection policies. Anderson emphasized the importance of intellectual freedom and including diverse viewpoints, in line with the American Library Association's recommendations. Witt’s article highlights how this defense set a precedent for supporting access to controversial materials and reflects early library challenges similar to modern-day issues like surveillance and concerns over access to sensitive information. The article also raises questions about the historical development of privacy as a core ethical standard within the library profession.2

1. "Anarchistic Books In Public Library, Lust Agent Testifies." New York Tribune, December 27, 1919, p.5,  https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1919-12-27/ed-1/seq-5/.

2. Witt, Steve. "The Evolution of Privacy within the American Library Association, 1906–2002." Library Trends, Vol. 65, No. 4, Spring 2017, pp. 639-657, https://login.proxy033.nclive.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/evolution-privacy-within-american-library/docview/2030917536/se-2?accountid=9994. 

Julia Learned Steiner, a dedicated Los Angeles County librarian, became a central figure in the fight for privacy and intellectual freedom during the loyalty oath controversies that foreshadowed the McCarthyism of the 1950s and the broader climate of the Second Red Scare. In 1947, amidst growing anti-Communist sentiment, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors instituted a "loyalty test" that required employees to disclose any associations with over 140 organizations deemed "subversive" by California’s Un-American Activities Committee. This extensive list, which included labor unions and political groups, aimed to root out potential Communist ties among public workers, mirroring the era’s mounting fear of Communist infiltration in American institutions. For Steiner, a staunch defender of library values and personal privacy, this oath represented an invasion of her right to hold private beliefs and associations. Her refusal to sign, echoed by nearly half the central library’s professional staff, drew public attention and placed her career at serious risk.

The Southern California branch of the ACLU took up Steiner's case, asserting that the loyalty test violated the rights of employees to free speech and association. The case ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where it became a pivotal examination of privacy and government overreach, affecting the lives of thousands of public employees. Steiner's courageous stance highlighted the critical role of librarians in defending intellectual freedom and emphasized their resistance to efforts that threatened access to diverse viewpoints. Her fight symbolized a broader struggle within the library profession against censorship and government surveillance.

Despite her determined fight, Steiner lost her case in the California courts, which upheld the loyalty oath’s validity and affirmed the county’s right to probe into employees' beliefs and associations. The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the case but did not ultimately overturn the loyalty test requirement, leaving the loyalty oath mandate intact. This decision left a chilling effect on public employees, as many felt pressured to avoid lawful associations that might appear suspicious. For librarians, in particular, the ruling underscored the vulnerabilities facing those who champion intellectual freedom, while Steiner’s defiance continued to inspire resistance to loyalty investigations that threatened privacy and the fundamental rights of inquiry and association. 1-3

Below is an excerpt from American Civil Liberties Union-News:

2

1. "ACLU Seeks to Enjoin Los Angeles 'Loyalty Test'." American Civil Liberties Union-News, Vol. 12, No. 10, October 1947, p. 2, https://digitallibrary.californiahistoricalsociety.org/object/14421?islandora_paged_content_page=2.

2. "U.S. Supreme Court Hears First Loyalty Order Case." American Civil Liberties Union-News, Vol. 14, No. 12, December 1949, p. 3, https://digitallibrary.californiahistoricalsociety.org/object/14566?islandora_paged_content_page=3.

3. Robbins, Louise S. "After Brave Words, Silence: American Librarianship Responds to Cold War Loyalty Programs, 1947-1957." Libraries & Culture, Vol. 30, No. 4, Fall 1995, pp. 345-365, https://www.jstor.org/stable/25542799.

The Loyalty Program initiated under President Truman’s 1947 Executive Order 9835 reflected the heightened political climate of post-WWII America, emphasizing anti-Communist sentiment and "loyalty" checks for federal employees. The program allowed for investigations by agencies such as the FBI and House Un-American Activities Committee, and employees could face dismissal based on associations with organizations deemed subversive. This extended to state and local jurisdictions, with librarians often being targeted.

Charlemae Hill Rollins, a celebrated librarian in Chicago and tireless advocate for racial equality, became a target of Cold War paranoia due to her outspoken activism and progressive affiliations. Rollins dedicated her career to breaking down racial barriers in literature and librarianship, championing diverse representation in children's books and advocating for equitable access to library resources for Black communities. Her efforts to promote racial justice and social progress drew the attention of the FBI, which surveilled her under the pretense that such advocacy might be "subversive."  This surveillance included asking her neighbors what books and magazines she read. This unwarranted intrusion into her privacy underscores the era's chilling effect on activists, intellectuals, and professionals committed to social justice. Rollins' experience highlights the clash between her unwavering fight for equality and the oppressive government overreach that sought to stifle dissent and reform.1

During the Cold War, federal loyalty programs disproportionately targeted marginalized groups, including persons of color and LGBTQ+ individuals, often scrutinizing their affiliations with progressive or community-oriented organizations as evidence of disloyalty. Activists advocating for racial equality were frequently subjected to surveillance, as their efforts for social justice were mischaracterized as subversive. LGBTQ+ individuals faced additional persecution under the pretext of being security risks, based on discriminatory assumptions about susceptibility to blackmail. These intrusive investigations violated personal privacy, undermined professional reputations, and fostered systemic discrimination, particularly in institutions like the Library of Congress, where loyalty probes became tools of oppression.2

The following transcript captures a proceeding where Ms. Rollins begins to discuss an FBI investigation involving her. The discussion centers around the wording of a "Resolution Protesting Loyalty Investigations in Libraries." However, Ms. Rollins is abruptly and rather discourteously interrupted, as the focus is redirected strictly to the document's wording, sidelining her attempt to provide a relevant example to illustrate its substance. I, personally, would have loved to hear more about the FBI investigations from her first-hand account! 1-3

Below is an excerpt from American Library Association Archives:

3

1. Robbins, Louise S. "After Brave Words, Silence: American Librarianship Responds to Cold War Loyalty Programs, 1947-1957." Libraries & Culture, Vol. 30, No. 4, Fall 1995, pp. 345-365, https://www.jstor.org/stable/25542799.

2. Robbins, Louise S. "The Library of Congress and Federal Loyalty Programs, 1947-1956: No "Communists or Cocksuckers." The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, Vol. 64, No. 4, October 1994, pp. 365-385, https://www.jstor.org/stable/4308967.

3. "Proceedings, Sixty-Seventh Annual Conference of the American Library Association: Council Meetings." American Library Association Archives, University of Illinois-Champaign-Urbana, Council Transcripts and Minutes, Record Series 1/1/1, Box 9, Transcripts, June 14-18, 1948, acquired via email from archive inquiry.

The exploration of Lee Harvey Oswald's library records offers a fascinating lens through which to examine the intersection of patron privacy and public scrutiny, especially in the context of historical investigations. Libraries, traditionally seen as bastions of privacy and intellectual freedom, faced significant challenges during the Warren Commission’s investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Oswald’s borrowing history, which included works on political theory, communism, espionage, and biographies of prominent figures like Huey Long and Mao Tse-Tung, became a focal point for investigators attempting to piece together his motivations and mental state. The inquiries into his library records, while yielding intriguing insights into his reading habits, also underscored the tension between protecting individual privacy and addressing national security concerns.

Records were requested from two libraries Oswald visited, Dallas Public Library and New Orleans Public Library.  One chose to keep patron's historical records private by not retaining them at all, the other not only kept them but gave them out without a warrant to a news reporter. Dallas Public Library’s decision not to retain patron borrowing histories exemplifies a commitment to safeguarding intellectual privacy, a principle deeply rooted in library ethics. However, the contrasting approach of the New Orleans Public Library, which provided a detailed account of Oswald’s borrowed materials, highlights the potential vulnerability of patron records under legal and governmental scrutiny. These differing policies raise enduring questions about the balance libraries must strike between their role as protectors of private intellectual exploration and their potential obligations in high-profile criminal investigations. The scrutiny of Oswald’s reading history serves as a cautionary tale, reminding us that the sanctity of library privacy can be tested when broader societal interests are at play.

The case of Lee Harvey Oswald's library records illustrates the importance of a principle championed by patrons such as Agnes H. Stein, who eloquently argued for the inviolability of a reader’s right to privacy. Stein’s letter to the New York Times following revelations about Oswald’s library borrowing history emphasized that the “Freedom to Read” must inherently include the right to read privately. She warned of the chilling effect that surveillance or even the perception of scrutiny could have on intellectual exploration, leading readers to self-censor their choices in fear of judgment or reprisal. This sentiment aligns with the core values of the Library Bill of Rights, underscoring the library's role as a sanctuary for free thought and unrestricted inquiry. Stein’s insights remind us that without privacy, the act of reading risks becoming an exercise in conformity rather than a journey toward understanding.

The Oswald case is more than a historical curiosity; it is a poignant reminder of the potential erosion of library privacy in moments of national crisis. Today’s librarians bear the responsibility of upholding these rights in an age where data is more vulnerable than ever. By championing policies that protect patron privacy, libraries ensure they remain spaces where individuals can safely explore, question, and grow without fear of external oversight. 1-3

Below is a chilling excerpt from The New York Times article, and perhaps what motivated Ms. Stein to write the ALA (see her letter below):

2

Below is a letter by Agnes Stein to the ALA's Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom about a New York Times article that was published November 28, not November 27 as stated (see link to original article in reference #2):

3

1. Selby, Mike. "BookNotes: The library habits of Lee Harvey Oswald." Cranbrook Daily Townsman, February 4, 2022,  https://www.cranbrooktownsman.com/opinion/booknotes-the-library-habits-of-lee-harvey-oswald-5365202.

2. Powledge, Fred. "Clues to Oswald Traced In Books: He Borrowed Library Texts on Kennedy, Communists and Huey Long Slaying." The New York Times, November 28, 1963, p. A1, https://www.nytimes.com/1963/11/28/archives/clues-to-oswald-traced-in-books-he-borrowed-library-texts-on.html?searchResultPosition=8.

3. Stein, Agnes H. "The Right to Read Privately." Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, January 1964, Vol. 13, No. 1, p. 1,  https://alair.ala.org/items/582d99c9-a83c-4dbd-8ed8-7f974635daf4.

At the 1970 ALA Conference in Detroit, concerns about government surveillance of library records surfaced prominently, particularly through Vivian Maddox's account of "IRS investigators." It was later revealed to be the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Unit, not the IRS, which was another department also under the Department of Treasury. They had attempted to access circulation records at the Milwaukee Public Library. The Dept. of Treasury's actions, intended to gather information related to bombings, raised national alarm and led to public outcry over the potential erosion of intellectual freedom and reader privacy. Reports of similar investigations in Atlanta, Cleveland, and Richmond further fueled fears about federal overreach into library records. In response, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., sought explanations from the Treasury Department, emphasizing that such practices challenged First Amendment protections.

David M. Kennedy, Secretary of the Treasury, clarified that the investigations were limited and not part of a systematic program. He stressed that such measures would be avoided in the future unless justified by specific criminal cases. Despite this, the ALA and Dept. of Treasury failed to reach a consensus on safeguarding reader privacy, with both sides recognizing the need for clearer guidelines.

At the same time, the Freedom to Read Foundation took significant steps to support individuals facing consequences for defending intellectual freedom and established the LeRoy C. Merritt Humanitarian Fund to offer immediate assistance. 

Here are excerpts from Ervin's questioning of Kennedy:

Krug, Judith F. and Harvey, James A. “Intellectual Freedom,” American Libraries, Vol. 1, no. 9, October 1970, pp. 843-844,  https://www.jstor.org/stable/25618054.

Zoia Horn, the first U.S. librarian jailed for her defense of privacy and intellectual freedom, faced imprisonment in 1972 after refusing to testify in the Harrisburg Seven trial, where seven peace activists were accused of plotting against the government. Horn’s objection was not to the individuals involved but to the government’s surveillance practices, particularly the use of an FBI informant who operated within the Bucknell University library, where she was chief reference librarian. Horn’s protest stemmed from her commitment to the privacy of library users and her belief that surveillance in libraries threatened the freedom of information. She argued that spying in libraries, like in schools, was an infringement on intellectual freedom and the relationship between librarians and patrons, which she believed should be as protected as the academic freedom afforded to faculty.

Horn’s stand came during a period of intense governmental crackdown on anti-war activism, and her decision to prioritize privacy over compliance with the court marked her as a pioneer in library ethics. Her advocacy was a forerunner to later privacy policies, such as the American Library Association’s statements against surveillance in libraries. Horn’s case highlights the ongoing tension between national security measures and individual freedoms, an issue that resurfaced under the Patriot Act decades later. Her legacy, commemorated through California Library Association's Zoia Horn Intellectual Freedom Award, continues to influence discussions about privacy and intellectual freedom in libraries, underscoring the need to protect users’ rights to access information without fear of surveillance.1

Below is an excerpt from Berry's obituary of Horn. Subtle point of clarification from the article: Ms. Horn was released when the case against the defendants, the Harrisburg Seven, ended in a mistrial due to the premiere witness being unreliable. Ms. Horn was not on trial. She was held in contempt for refusing to testify, and that order was rescinded when the trial ended. The case was not retried:

2

1. Tibbetts, John. "The Outlaw."  Bucknell Magazine, Fall 2022, https://magazine.bucknell.edu/issue/fall-2022/the-outlaw/.

2. Berry, John N., III. "Activist Zoia Horn remembered: once jailed for refusing to divulge patron records." Library Journal, Vol. 139, No. 15, Sept. 15, 2014, pp. 15-16. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A382279131/AONE?u=nclivececc&sid=summon&xid=e84295d7. 

The Library Awareness Program, launched by the FBI during the Cold War, is a significant chapter in the history of U.S. surveillance and civil liberties. The program sought to monitor individuals, especially foreign nationals, using library resources for information that could pose a national security threat. FBI agents approached librarians, requesting cooperation to observe patrons who accessed publicly available and unclassified technical or scientific materials, particularly anyone from adversarial countries like the Soviet Union.

One notable case tied to the Library Awareness Program involved Gennadi Zakharov, a Soviet physicist arrested in 1986 after reportedly frequenting New York libraries in search of student recruits and unclassified technical materials. The FBI cited Zakharov’s library activity as justification for their program, arguing that foreign agents used libraries to gather valuable information.  Some alleged Zakharav was framed as he never asked for "classified" material, and that material was provided by an undercover, FBI-recruited operative during a sting operation. Zakharov’s arrest ultimately led to a high-profile spy exchange when he was traded for American journalist Nicholas Daniloff, who had been arrested by the KGB in retaliation for Zakharov's arrest. 

The library community, led by the ALA, pushed back against FBI surveillance, arguing that the FBI’s activities in libraries contradicted intellectual freedom and privacy rights. In response, the ALA reminded librarians of their ethical duty to protect user confidentiality and noted that surveillance conflicted with privacy laws in several states. The public became aware of the program in 1987, sparking nationwide concerns over government overreach. Congressional hearings in 1988 investigated the program, and under public scrutiny, it was reportedly curtailed.

This culminated in a trial before the House Judiciary Subcommittee in 1988, where the ALA and civil liberties advocates challenged the program's legality and ethics. However, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) records revealed that the Library Awareness Program continued until at least 1989, suggesting that government surveillance in libraries was more enduring than initially believed. The program serves as a stark reminder of the vital role librarians play in protecting intellectual freedom and the ongoing need to balance national security with individual privacy rights.

Although the Library Awareness Program is no longer active, its legacy echoes in the post-9/11 era, particularly with the USA PATRIOT Act's Section 215, which allowed the FBI to access library records without traditional judicial oversight. The Library Awareness Program is a reminder of the vital role librarians play in protecting intellectual freedom and the importance of resisting governmental overreach. 1-3

Below is a list of confirmed FBI intrusions into libraries:

4

In congressional testimony, Judith Krug and C. James Schmidt went beyond the known FBI intrusions and listed the following additional intrusions:

1,5

1. Foerstel, Herbert N. Surveillance in the Stacks: The FBI's Library Awareness Program. Greenwood Press, 1991.

2. "Surveillance in the Stacks: How the FBI Spied on Library Users." Spyscape.com, https://spyscape.com/article/surveillance-in-the-stacks-how-the-fbi-spied-on-library-users-in-the-cold-war.

3. Linn, Amy. "FBI Wants U.S. Librarians to Keep Eye Out for Spies: [FINAL Edition]." The Ottawa Citizen, Feb 27, 1988, p. D24, https://login.proxy033.nclive.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/fbi-wants-u-s-librarians-keep-eye-out-spies/docview/239208770/se-2.

4. Congress of the U.S., Washington, DC. House Committee on the Judiciary. “FBI Counterintelligence Visits to Libraries. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary. House of Representatives, One Hundredth Congress, Second Session, June 20 and July 13, 1988.” ERIC.ed.gov, 1989, pp. 45-46, https://eric.ed.gov/?q=%22FBI+counterintelligence+visits+to+libraries%22&id=ED318475.

5. Congress of the U.S., Washington, DC. House Committee on the Judiciary.; Congress of the U.S., Washington, DC. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. “Video and Library Privacy Protection Act of 1988. Joint Hearing before the Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the House Committee on the Judiciary and the Subcommittee on Technology and the Law of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. One Hundredth Congress, Second Session on H.R. 4947 and S. 2361.” ERIC.ed.gov, 1988, pp. 48-50, http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED314081.pdf.

6. House Judiciary Subcommittee. "FBI Library Awareness Program." C-SPAN, June 20, 1988, https://www.c-span.org/video/?3074-1/fbi-library-awareness-program.

Krug, Judith F. and Funk, Roger L. (co-editors). "Libraries." Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, Volume XXVII, No.3, May 1978, p. 56, https://alair.ala.org/items/130a0c26-e1b9-463c-98be-edc3fdc23418. 

Krug, Judith F. (Director) and Funk, Roger L. (Assistant Director). "Success Stories." Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, Volume XXVIII, No.5, September 1979, p. 111, https://alair.ala.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/43865190-cd8d-44b6-820f-a33dcb6d1a2f/content 

In 1979, during an investigation into cattle mutilations, the Polk County Attorney subpoenaed the Des Moines Public Library for records of patrons who had borrowed books on witchcraft and the occult believing the cattle mutilations were satanic activity. The library contested the overly broad and far-reaching subpoena, citing Iowa's confidentiality statute for library records and constitutional protections under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. However, both the county district court and the Iowa Supreme Court ruled against the library, determining that the need to investigate the crimes took precedence over privacy rights. The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and they declined to review the case, leaving the Iowa Supreme Court's decision intact. 

By this time, however, the request for records had been dropped, so the records were never handed over.  But the legal outcome remained and set a precedent allowing access to library circulation records under certain circumstances, raising concerns about the balance between investigative needs and individual privacy rights.1-3

Below is a excerpt from American Libraries:

1

1. "News in Brief." American Libraries, Vol. 14, No. 7, Jul.- Aug. 1983, p. 446, https://www.jstor.org/stable/25626393.

2. "Brown V. Johnston." v/lex, January 1983, https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/brown-v-johnston-no-888309061.

3. "The Supreme Court today refused to consider whether Iowa...." UPI.com Archives, June 27,1983,  https://www.upi.com/Archives/1983/06/27/The-Supreme-Court-today-refused-to-consider-whether-Iowa/2320425534400/.

A controversy arose in Abingdon, Virginia, when Baptist minister Rev. Tom Williams demanded the removal of three best-selling books — Bloodline by Sidney Sheldon, The Lonely Lady by Harold Robbins, and Goodbye, Columbus by Philip Roth — from the local public library. Williams claimed the books were "hard-core pornography" and argued that tax dollars should not have been used to fund such materials. His stance received support from Bobby Sproles, chairman of the Washington County Board of Supervisors, who threatened to withhold county funding unless the books were removed. Librarian Kathy Russell, however, defended the library’s acquisition process, emphasizing that the books had been purchased in response to patron demand and denouncing censorship efforts.

Beyond the book ban request, Williams also sought the names of individuals who had checked out the books to determine if any were under 18, raising serious concerns about patron privacy. Russell firmly refused, citing confidentiality policies that protected library users' records. This demand highlighted the broader issue of intellectual freedom and privacy in libraries, as granting such a request could have set a dangerous precedent for surveillance of reading habits. The conflict underscored the ongoing tension between community standards, censorship, and the right to privacy in public libraries.1-3

2

1. "Minister wants three books banned from library." UPI Archives, November 17, 1980,  https://www.upi.com/Archives/1980/11/17/Minister-wants-three-books-banned-from-library/8587343285200/.

2. "Moralists want 'improper' books out of libraries." The Michigan Daily, December 11, 1980, vol. 91, iss. 81, p.3,  https://digital.bentley.umich.edu/midaily/mdp.39015071754688/1045.

3. Wiegand, Wayne A. Part of our Lives: A People's History of the American Public Library. Oxford University Press, 2015.

1

The State refused to comply and the lawsuit was dropped.2

1. Krug, Judith F. (Director) and Reichman, Henry F. (Assistant Director). "Libraries." Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, Volume XXX, No.2, March 1983, p. 40, https://alair.ala.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/6376b0bf-1ace-4ca7-912c-89684764c605/content

2. "'Immoral Minority' warns schools on sex ed disclosures." UPI.com Archives, March 12, 1981,  https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/03/12/Immoral-Minority-warns-schools-on-sex-ed-disclosures/6860353221200/. 

The 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan by John W. Hinckley Jr. underscored complex intersections between media influence, individual psychology, and library confidentiality. Prior to the incident, Hinckley borrowed numerous books from the Jefferson County Public Library in Colorado, including works about political figures, violent acts, and The Fan, a novel about a man’s deadly obsession with an actress that mirrored Hinckley’s own fixation on Jodie Foster. The discovery of these records, along with letters found in Hinckley’s hotel room, illustrated how deeply he was influenced by media and fictional narratives. After the shooting, FBI agents subpoenaed the library for Hinckley’s records, and Library Director William Knott complied, despite initial concerns about the ethics of disclosing patron information.

Hinckley’s obsession with media was a significant part of his profile. Described as a “media freak,” he spent countless hours watching television, which fostered an intense fantasy life. He was particularly influenced by the film Taxi Driver, where he identified with Travis Bickle, a character who attempted to assassinate a politician. This media-fueled fantasy drove Hinckley to believe that committing a high-profile act, such as assassinating the president, would secure his identity and earn the admiration of Foster. His fixation on creating a "media event" revealed how television and violent narratives played a role in shaping his motivations.

This case not only raised awareness about the influence of media on vulnerable individuals but also sparked debates about library privacy laws. The Jefferson County Public Library’s compliance with the subpoena led to criticism and prompted the Colorado Library Association to push for stronger protections for library users. This culminated in the passage of a state law in 1983 that safeguarded the confidentiality of library records, ensuring that patron privacy would be respected except under legally defined conditions. This incident, combined with Hinckley’s media-driven motivations, highlighted the importance of balancing user privacy with the needs of law enforcement and the broader implications of media influence on behavior. 1-3

Below is an excerpt from The New York Times article:

3

1. Kawasaki, Yoshitaka. "Historical Development of Confidentiality of Library Records in the United States." Kurenai Kyoto University Research Information Repository, No. 11, November 2011, pp. 13-24, http://hdl.handle.net/2433/152095.

2. Hinckley's literary tastes revealed." UPI.com Archives, May 14, 1981, https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/05/14/Hinckleys-literary-tastes-revealed/6178358660800/.

3. Schorr, Daniel. "Hinckley: A 'Media Freak.'" The New York Times, May 10, 1982, p. A21,  https://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/10/opinion/hinckley-a-media-freak.html.

Krug, Judith F. (Director) and Liebman, Sheldon W. (Assistant Director). “Confidentiality.” Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, Volume XXXI, no. 1, January 1982,  p. 18, https://alair.ala.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/837a00b7-a13a-4feb-8d68-e3e46cd77e1e/content.

The Pico v. Island Trees Union Free School District case represents a pivotal moment in the battle for intellectual freedom and library rights in the United States. The case arose when a school board sought to remove nine books from the high school library, citing content they deemed "anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy." This landmark legal battle culminated in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that public school boards cannot ban books solely based on ideological disagreements, as doing so would suppress diverse opinions and restrict free thought.

The books were returned, but they were returned only under restricted conditions that required notifying parents when their children accessed the contested titles. This compromised the students' right to privacy. The New York Civil Liberties Union argued that this stipulation would violate New York's library confidentiality laws, which safeguard patrons' privacy.  The NYCLU appealed to the state attorney general for a ruling on the confidentiality statute, and the library board was informed that the procedure did violate the law. Faced with this ruling, the board agreed to remove all restrictions on the books.

This intersection of censorship and privacy highlights a key issue: restrictions on access to materials, paired with monitoring or disclosure of patrons’ reading habits, can create a chilling effect that undermines the right to read freely. The final resolution, removing all restrictions on the books, was not just a victory for the plaintiffs but also for intellectual freedom and privacy advocates. The resolution reinforced the principles that the right to access information must be protected from unwarranted oversight and censorship.

Below is an excerpt from North's article:

North, William D. (President) and Krug, Judith F. (Executive Director). "Settlement in Island Trees Case." Freedom to Read Foundation News, Volume 11, No. 4, 1983, pp. 2-3, https://alair.ala.org/items/42acde9f-144c-4a45-aef8-f0a8f42ebe88.

The case study “The Threat to Library Circulation Records” examines a significant challenge to library confidentiality policies in 1983, involving the Akron-Summit County Public Library. At issue was a request from the Summit County Prosecutor's Office for the circulation records of an inmate in custody, citing their potential relevance to a criminal investigation. The library initially resisted, invoking its 1981 “Confidentiality of Circulation Records Policy.” However, the legal landscape shifted rapidly, as the prosecutor escalated the matter by subpoenaing the Assistant Director and Librarian-Director, threatening jail time for non-compliance. This placed the library in a precarious position, pitting its commitment to patron privacy against the legal authority of the county prosecutor, who typically served as its legal defender.

Ultimately, the library opted to comply with the subpoena. This decision was influenced by several factors, including the prosecutor's assurance that the request was narrowly tailored to materials directly relevant to the investigation, as well as the potential harm to the broader principle of confidentiality had the matter escalated further. The individual at the center of the investigation, whose reading habits were disclosed, was later convicted of multiple serious offenses, including aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and rape. He was sentenced to 385 years in prison. However, ten years later, a federal court ordered a retrial due to irregularities in the original proceedings, though the individual was convicted again.  This time the library played no role in the subsequent case.

This case underscored the vulnerability of library confidentiality policies under legal pressure and highlighted the difficult balance between protecting patron privacy and complying with the demands of law enforcement. While the library’s actions reflected a pragmatic approach to a contentious situation, the episode revealed the complexities of safeguarding intellectual freedom when intersecting with the justice system. It also set a precedent, raising awareness within the library profession about the critical need for robust policies and legal strategies to defend privacy rights against external threats. 1-2

Below is an excerpt from Dietz's article

1

1. Rubin, Richard. “The Threat to Library Circulation Records: A Case Study.” Library Journal, vol. 109, no. 14, September 1, 1984, pp. 1602-1606, https://login.proxy033.nclive.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=7450060&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

2. Dietz, Margaret Neumann. “Akron’s Library: Commemorating Twenty-five Years on Main Street.” Akron-Summit County Public Library, October 1994, p. 35, https://www.akronlibrary.org/images/SpecCol/AkronLibrary25Yrs.pdf.

Krug, Judith F. (Editor). "In Support of Confidentiality." Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, Volume XXXIII, No.1, January 1987, pp. 5, 27-28, https://alair.ala.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/91954d59-3567-4af5-8945-fcf054eccc5a/content.

The tragic case of Sylvia Seegrist's 1985 shooting spree at a Delaware County shopping mall, which left three dead and seven injured, brought intense scrutiny to the Swarthmore Public Library. Seegrist, who had frequented the library as a "problem patron" and visited just hours before the incident, was known to be agitated and difficult. Library director Janis M. Lee, aware of her ethical and legal obligations under Pennsylvania State Act 1984-90, faced immense pressure from reporters, law enforcement, and legal teams to disclose Seegrist’s library records. The act protected the confidentiality of library patrons' records, requiring a court order for disclosure. Lee's steadfast commitment to upholding this law was tested as she resisted relentless demands, accusations, and invasive questioning over three months.

When a court order was finally obtained in February 1986, Lee disclosed the records to both prosecution and defense teams. The district attorney argued that Seegrist’s library activity suggested premeditation, while the defense claimed it pointed to her severe mental distress. Lee's testimony in June 1986 highlighted the ethical dilemma she faced: balancing the legal duty to maintain patron confidentiality with the emotional and communal impacts of a tragedy involving one of her patrons. Despite the legal support she had, Lee grappled with the emotional toll of upholding the privacy rights of a person who had caused such harm, underscoring the weight of library ethics in the face of public and legal pressure.1&2

Below is an excerpt from Lee's article that is her letter to her staff after the incident:

Below is another excerpt from Lee's article, showing the behavior a librarian may have to face to stand up for a patron's privacy:

1

Interesting fact: Ms. Lee was acutely aware of privacy in libraries because she had attended a workshop by Marie Bruce from Oneonta Public Library speaking about her 1983 experience with the FBI and death threats scribbled in a recently returned book against Ronald Reagan described in this website's previous tab titled: 1983 Reagan Assassination Attempt #2.

1. Lee, Janis M. "Confidentiality: From the Stacks to the Witness Stand." American Libraries, Vol. 19, No. 6, June 1988, pp. 444-448, 450, 453, https://www.jstor.org/stable/25631226.

2. Kawasaki, Yoshitaka. "Historical Development of Confidentiality of Library Records in the United States." Kurenai Kyoto University Research Information Repository, No. 11, November 2011, pp. 13-24, http://hdl.handle.net/2433/152095.

3. Ramsland, Katherine. "Sylvia Seegrist: Guilty But Insane." Crimelibrary.org,  https://www.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/mass/sylvia_seegrist/index.html.

In 1986, the small town of Lebanon, Indiana, found itself at the center of an unusual library controversy. Library director Fern Miner, frustrated with the number of overdue books, implemented a bold strategy: she published a list of delinquent borrowers in The Lebanon Reporter, complete with their names and the specific books, records, and tapes they had failed to return. The results were immediate — people rushed to return materials, some slipping books into the return drop under the cover of darkness, while others sent family or friends to do it for them. The community, meanwhile, found unexpected entertainment in the lists, gossiping about their neighbors’ reading choices and speculating on what the selections might reveal about them. While this approach proved highly effective in restocking the library’s shelves, it also sparked an ethical dilemma regarding patron privacy.

By publicly exposing the reading habits of library patrons, Miner violated a fundamental principle of library ethics: the confidentiality of patron records. Libraries are built on the idea that individuals should be free to explore information without fear of judgment, scrutiny, or public embarrassment. The humorous reaction from the town masked a deeper issue — publicly revealing what people were reading could have real consequences. A schoolteacher’s choice of books might raise eyebrows, a doctor’s reading list could create doubts about their competence, and a local politician’s selections might lead to suspicions about their intentions. In a town as small as Lebanon, where everyone knew each other, this breach of privacy turned a routine library transaction into a source of public speculation and gossip.

While Miner’s method successfully recovered many overdue books, it came at the cost of patron trust. The role of a library is not just to collect and circulate books but to protect the intellectual freedom of its users. Public shaming may have been an amusing spectacle for the town, but it risked discouraging people from using the library in the future, fearing exposure of their reading habits. Instead of resorting to such an invasive tactic, the library could have explored other methods — such as private overdue notices, amnesty programs, or fine forgiveness days — that align with ethical standards while still encouraging book returns. This case serves as a reminder that even well-intentioned policies must respect the privacy and dignity of library patrons.1

Judith Krug, Director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom, said, "Privacy protection does not apply to delinquent borrowers.... (Naming names) does what they want it to do... it brings the books back." Do you agree with her stance?2

1

1. "List Brings Books Back in Volumes." Sun-Sentinel.com (South Florida), March 31, 1986, https://www.sun-sentinel.com/1986/03/31/list-brings-books-back-in-volumes/.

2.  Wiegand, Wayne A. Part of our Lives: A People's History of the American Public Library. Oxford University Press, 2015.

Krug, Judith F. (Director). "Library." Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, Volume XXXIX, No. 5, September 1990, pp. 167-168, https://alair.ala.org/items/11b19acb-38ea-482f-8b5d-98bdac3590cf. 

In 1990, New York City faced a chilling terror as a copycat Zodiac Killer emulated the infamous Californian Zodiac Killer’s cryptic methods. This new assailant, later identified as Heriberto Seda, targeted individuals based on their astrological signs, claiming his actions aligned with celestial constellations. Investigators faced a unique challenge as the killer left cryptic notes referencing occult themes and astrological patterns. In their pursuit, the NYPD subpoenaed the New York Public Library for records of patrons who had requested books by Aleister Crowley, an occult figure whose writings investigators believed might have inspired the killer. This move raised critical concerns about patron privacy and intellectual freedom, as the library had to balance legal compliance with its commitment to safeguarding users' rights.

The library complied with the subpoena, following proper legal procedures, but reluctantly handed over circulation records. Library Director Paul Fasana emphasized the institution’s discomfort with the decision, underscoring the gravity of breaching patron confidentiality even in the context of public safety. The request reflected the tension between upholding privacy in libraries and law enforcement’s demands during high-stakes investigations. Despite the library’s cooperation, the killer continued his violent spree, leaving a trail of victims and cryptic notes. Investigators ultimately caught Seda after he shot his sister and took her boyfriend hostage. The detective on the case de-escalated the situation and Seda surrendered. Once Seda wrote his confession for that shooting, the detective, who had been studying the Zodiac’s handwriting for years, immediately recognized it as Seda’s.  After briefly refusing the accusation, Seda eventually confessed he was The Zodiac.  By this time, 3 people had been murdered and 5 people had been attempted murdered.

The NYPD's request, though legally justified, highlighted the vulnerability of library principles under external pressures. Ultimately, Seda’s apprehension in 1996 came through diligent police work unrelated to the library records, leaving lingering questions about the efficacy and ethical implications of compromising library patron privacy in the face of criminal investigations. 1 & 2

Below is an excerpt from The New York Times article:

3

1. Cheatham, Bertha M., and Andrew Cohen. "NYPD Examines Circulation Records." School Library Journal, vol. 36, no. 8, 1990, p. 17, https://login.proxy033.nclive.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=10600324&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

2. Flynn, Sheila. "A copycat Zodiac Killer terrorised New York years after the California original. This is how he got caught." The-Independent.com, July 03, 2023, https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/zodiac-killer-new-york-caught-b2368470.html.

3. "Library Files Checked In Zodiac Investigation." The New York Times, July 18, 1990, p. B4, https://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/18/nyregion/library-files-checked-in-zodiac-investigation.html?searchResultPosition=38.

Theodore J. Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber, was a former mathematics professor turned domestic terrorist who carried out a series of bombings between 1978 and 1995. His campaign targeted individuals and institutions he believed represented the harms of modern technology, resulting in the deaths of three people and injuries to 23 others. His eventual capture was linked to his 35,000-word anti-technology manifesto, which offered investigators crucial insights into his ideology and led to one of the largest manhunts in U.S. history. Libraries played an unexpected role in this case, both as tools for investigation and as focal points for public discourse on privacy and intellectual freedom.

The Unabomber investigation relied heavily on analyzing Kaczynski's intellectual influences, which brought libraries into the spotlight. Federal agents subpoenaed library circulation records from institutions such as Northwestern University and Brigham Young University to identify who had accessed books referenced in the manifesto. While these efforts were part of a legitimate investigation, they sparked concerns about the erosion of library patrons' privacy — a cornerstone of library ethics. The case underscored the delicate balance between supporting law enforcement efforts and upholding the confidentiality of library users, a tension that remains relevant in discussions of privacy and intellectual freedom.

A particularly troubling example of privacy breaches arose with the actions of a former substitute shelver, Bev Coleman, who disclosed Theodore Kaczynski’s reading habits to the media. Her revelations not only violated the ethos of library confidentiality but also cast libraries in a negative light, portraying them as potential hubs for suspicious activities. The American Library Association (ALA) and local librarians condemned these actions, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding patron records and trust. This incident underlined the risks posed when individuals outside the professional framework of librarianship handle sensitive patron information, potentially undermining public confidence in libraries as safe spaces for intellectual exploration.

Additionally, media narratives often highlighted Kaczynski’s frequent library use and intellectual pursuits, reinforcing harmful stereotypes about intellectualism. This incident emphasized the need for libraries to safeguard privacy rigorously, educate staff about ethical practices, and actively counter damaging misconceptions to maintain public trust. 1-3

Below is an excerpt from Kniffel's article:

1

1. Kniffel, Leonard. "With patrons like the Unabomber, what's a librarian to do?" American Libraries, vol. 27, no. 5, May 1996, p. 36, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A18289419/AONE?u=nclivececc&sid=summon&xid=0d1d6374.

2. Marx, Gary, et al. "Unabomber Path Leads Back to Utah." Chicago Tribune, Sep 25, 1995, p. 1, https://login.proxy033.nclive.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/unabomber-path-leads-back-utah/docview/283981226/se-2?accountid=9994.

3. Marx, Gary, et al. "Unabomber Probe at Dead End: Probers Return to Square 1." Chicago Tribune, Nov 17, 1995, p. 1, https://login.proxy033.nclive.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/unabomber-probe-at-dead-end-probers-return-square/docview/291077828/se-2?accountid=9994.

In the wake of the September 11 attacks, librarian Kathleen Hensman in Delray Beach, Florida, recognized some of the suspected hijackers as patrons who had previously used her library’s computers. Despite a Florida law that guarantees library users' confidentiality, Hensman contacted the police immediately, leading to a broader debate about privacy principles in the library profession. While librarians are typically steadfast in protecting patrons' privacy and only disclose information under a court order, Hensman’s decision underscored a conflict between these established ethical standards and her perceived duty to public safety. By alerting authorities, Hensman broke with professional norms, sparking discussions about whether exceptions to privacy are justified in extreme circumstances.

The library community’s response to Hensman’s actions was divided. Some, like Judith Krug of the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, expressed discomfort with Hensman’s disregard for the law, emphasizing the importance of upholding privacy protections. Others, however, supported Hensman, arguing that the scale of the tragedy justified her decision. Figures like Mary Wegner, Iowa’s chief librarian, acknowledged the difficulty of the choice but ultimately agreed with Hensman’s prioritization of public safety over confidentiality, suggesting that the duty to protect others could, at times, override the principle of privacy. This case highlighted an ethical struggle within the profession, questioning whether librarians’ commitment to privacy could or should adapt in times of crisis.

Below are excerpts from The New York Times article:

"A Nation Challenged: Questions of Confidentiality; Competing Principles Leave Some Professionals Debating Responsibility to Government." The New York Times, November 23, 2001, https://login.proxy033.nclive.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/blogs-podcasts-websites/nation-challenged-questions-confidentiality/docview/2231610845/se-2?accountid=9994.

The USA PATRIOT Act passed in October 2001. A nationwide survey of 1,020 public libraries conducted by the University of Illinois revealed that between October 2001 and February 2002, federal or local law enforcement visited public libraries 85 times. These visits requested patron information under Section 215. Section 215 is a provision that grants broad surveillance powers without traditional legal safeguards. This little-known aspect of the Act, passed quickly by Congress just six weeks after the September 11 attacks, allows law enforcement to obtain library records or “any tangible thing” during terrorism or intelligence investigations. Unlike standard search warrants, the FBI does not need to demonstrate that an individual is involved in criminal activity, making U.S. citizens and foreigners alike subject to surveillance based solely on suspicion. This provision was supposed to sundown after 4 years in 2005, but has been renewed repetitively since. The last time, as of this writing, was April 2024.

Civil liberties advocates, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that this provision threatens the First Amendment freedoms of privacy and thought, given its secrecy and lack of judicial oversight. The American Library Association (ALA) and other organizations have advised libraries to reduce unnecessary record-keeping, adopting guidelines that encourage libraries to limit documentation on patrons. This response stems from a belief that fewer records may protect patrons’ privacy in the face of increased federal scrutiny. Librarian Anne M. Turner of the California Library Association, said, “They can’t find what we don’t have,” reflecting a practical approach to safeguarding individual rights.

The use of Section 215 has drawn comparisons to past FBI initiatives, such as the Cold War-era Library Awareness Program, which similarly targeted library patrons, especially foreigners. Federal law now overrides state-level confidentiality protections that were established to prevent such invasions of privacy. The 85 library visits since the Act’s passage reveal the extent to which the FBI is willing to exercise its new powers, underscoring the ongoing tension between national security interests and the preservation of individual freedoms in the United States.

Below is an excerpt from Egelko's article:

Egelko, Bob. " FBI checking out Americans' reading habits; Bookstores, libraries can't do much to fend off search warrants." SFGATE.com, June 23, 2002, https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/FBI-checking-out-Americans-reading-habits-2826830.php.

In early 2004, federal investigators subpoenaed the Scottsdale Public Library for reader account information as part of their investigation into a mail bomb attack targeting Don Logan, the city's diversity director. The bombing, which occurred on February 26, 2004, severely injured Logan, a Black man, and a secretary who was also in his office at the time. Investigators were attempting to trace the source of the bomb, which had been routed through Scottsdale's intraoffice mail system. The subpoenas sought access to library records, potentially to identify individuals using the library during a certain timeframe as the package was found in the city library and routed to Logan – not sent in the mail. The incident highlighted tensions between law enforcement's investigative authority and the privacy rights of library patrons. Scottsdale Library Director Rita Hamilton complied with the subpoenas under Arizona law, which mandates the release of records when presented with a court order, though the city later disclosed the subpoenas publicly.

The investigation revealed that identical twin brothers Dennis and Daniel Mahon, known members of the White Aryan Resistance, were suspects in the bombing. Prosecutors alleged the Mahons targeted Logan because of his race and role as diversity director. Jurors in the 2012 trial heard recordings of the brothers using racial epithets and advocating violence against non-white individuals. Defense attorneys argued that someone within the city government, familiar with the intraoffice mail system, could have been a more likely suspect. However, prosecutors presented substantial evidence, including hundreds of hours of video and audio surveillance, to link the Mahons to the crime. The brothers were living in the Phoenix area at the time of the attack but left shortly afterward, adding to the suspicion surrounding them. Dennis Mahon was convicted and sentenced to 40 years in federal prison. Daniel Mahon was acquitted.

This case underscores the delicate balance between ensuring public safety and protecting individual privacy rights. Libraries, as defenders of intellectual freedom, have long opposed surveillance practices that infringe upon patrons' ability to read or research freely. The subpoenas in Scottsdale, while not issued under the USA Patriot Act, raised alarm among civil liberties advocates, who worried about the government's expanded reach in accessing private information. Michael Gorman, then-president of the American Library Association, emphasized the fundamental right to privacy, stating that Americans should be able to read without fear of government scrutiny. The Scottsdale case brought these issues into sharp focus, showing how major investigations can intersect with privacy rights and institutional obligations.

1

1. Gabrielson, Ryan. "Library readers' records seized in Scottsdale." EastValley.com, July 17, 2005,  https://www.eastvalleytribune.com/news/library-readers-records-seized-in-scottsdale/article_166be77c-04c0-54bd-b192-ead674010158.html.

2. Myers, Amanda Lee. "'Trailer park Mata Hari' case: White surpremacist twins' bomb trial wrapping up." NBCnews.com, February 21, 2012, https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna46462126.

3. "White supremacist Dennis Mahon gets 40 years for Az. bombing." CBSnews.com, May 22, 2012,  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-supremacist-dennis-mahon-gets-40-years-for-az-bombing/. 

In "Librarian's Brush with FBI Shapes Her View of the USA Patriot Act," Joan Airoldi recounts her confrontation at the Whatcom County Library System in Washington state with the FBI in 2004. After a patron found a concerning statement written in the book’s margin of a biography of Osama bin Laden, an FBI agent requested the borrowing records of individuals who had checked out that book. The library, valuing patrons' right to privacy, refused to release this information without legal justification. After consulting an attorney and conducting research that revealed the marginal note mirrored a known bin Laden quote, the library insisted on a formal subpoena from the FBI. Committed to safeguarding intellectual freedom, the library board unanimously decided to contest the subpoena in court, ultimately prompting the FBI to withdraw its request.

Airoldi underscores the broader implications of this encounter, illustrating how the USA PATRIOT Act, enacted after the 9/11 attacks, expanded the government's ability to access library records without the traditional safeguards of probable cause or judicial review. The act enabled the FBI to request such information through secret courts without the need to prove that the individuals under investigation were involved in criminal activities. For Airoldi and her colleagues, this situation illuminated the serious risks the act posed to reader privacy and intellectual freedom, potentially discouraging patrons from exploring ideas freely.

Below is an excerpt from Airoldi's article:

Airoldi, Joan. "Librarian's brush with FBI shapes her view of the USA Patriot Act." USA Today, 18 May 2005, p. 11A, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A132547492/CSIC?u=nclivececc&sid=summon&xid=6f0a497c.

In 2005, the American Library Association (ALA) commissioned a study of the impact of law enforcement activity in academic and public libraries. They sampled 1404 libraries out of 8974 libraries available at the time. Their study revealed that from October 2001 to Spring 2005, sampled libraries had received "a total of 137 instances" of requests for information from law enforcement agencies. These inquiries ranged from formal subpoenas to informal requests for information on patrons' reading habits. The pressure on libraries to comply with surveillance efforts was intensified by gag order provisions, which prevented librarians from disclosing these demands, leaving the public unaware of potential intrusions into their information consumption. These gag orders also lent credibility to government denials of library records inquiries — such as the denial by the Justice Department and Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2003 — despite evidence from a similar survey conducted in 2002 (see previous tab titled: 2002 "85 Times") .

This environment created a "chilling effect" among library users, with nearly 40% of libraries reporting that patrons were concerned about the PATRIOT Act's implications for their privacy. In response, librarians reassessed their practices, reviewing how they retained patron records and reconsidering the materials they purchased.

The public's growing unease, amplified by the ALA study, spurred legislative and public debates over the scope of the PATRIOT Act. Critics argued that government powers overreached, threatening intellectual freedom and fostering mistrust among citizens. While federal officials asserted that library inquiries were rare and essential for legitimate investigations, the ALA and its allies emphasized the risks to civil liberties posed by the increasing number of formal and informal information demands. This ongoing debate underscores the need for transparency and accountability, highlighting the vital role libraries play in safeguarding intellectual privacy amid expanding surveillance powers.1-3

Below are excerpts from the study:

3

1. Lichtblau, Eric. "U.S. Says It Has Not Used New Library Records Law." The New York Times, September 19, 2003, p. A20,  https://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/19/us/us-says-it-has-not-used-new-library-records-law.html?searchResultPosition=59.

2. Lichtblau, Eric. "Libraries Say Yes, Officials Do Quiz Them About Users." The New York Times, June 20, 2005, p. A11,  https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/20/politics/libraries-say-yes-officials-do-quiz-them-about-users.html?searchResultPosition=90.

3. Goodrum, Abby. "Impact and Analysis of Law Enforcement Activity in Academic and Public Libraries." American Library Association Institutional Repository, August 25, 2005, https://alair.ala.org/items/b73c4acb-d7e1-4757-9e5a-6b8e8bdefece.

In 2005, a Gainesville mother, Shirley White-Satcher, reported that her 12-year-old son had accidentally viewed explicit content on a VHS tape borrowed from the Alachua County Headquarters Library. The tape, labeled as Disney's "Home on the Range," instead contained a graphic pornographic film, which led White-Satcher to contact the media and police, although she did not file a formal report. Library Director Sol Hirsch, who learned about the incident through the media, expressed his concern over this misuse of library materials, stating that the library would investigate if the tape was returned. The local State Attorney’s office subsequently began an investigation, and the library later received a subpoena for the circulation records associated with the altered videotape, hoping to identify who tampered with the movie.

Under Florida’s Section 257.261, patron records are protected from release without a court order, and although the state’s Attorney General opinion (94-86) suggested that a subpoena might be sufficient, the library took a cautious approach given the sensitive nature of this prospective criminal case. To ensure compliance, Hirsch worked with the County Attorney’s Office to request a court order. After a brief court hearing, a judge granted the order, allowing the library to provide the records without breaching confidentiality statutes. This careful response enabled the library to support the investigation while honoring its legal obligations to patron privacy, balancing the need for confidentiality with the necessity of cooperating in a criminal investigation. 1,2

Below is an excerpt from Ball's article:

1

1. Ball, Deborah. "Porn replaces Disney from county library." The Gainesville Sun, April 21, 2005, https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/2005/04/21/porn-replaces-disney-from-county-library/31690844007/.

2. "Subpoena for Confidential Library Records - A Friendly Motion to Quash." LibraryLaw Blog, October 2006,  https://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2006/10/subpoena_for_co_1.html. 

In 2005, four librarians from Connecticut, later known as the "Connecticut Four," challenged a National Security Letter (NSL) under the Patriot Act that demanded patron records from their library consortium, Library Connection. Forced to act under a gag order, they filed the case anonymously as "John Doe" against the U.S. Attorney General, with the support of the ACLU, fighting the FBI's authority to demand library records without judicial review. Their frustration with the sweeping and unchecked surveillance powers granted by the Patriot Act drove them to oppose both the secrecy mandate and the potential of government overreach into library users’ privacy. The Connecticut Four won part of their case in 2006, when an appeals court upheld the revocation of the gag order, allowing them to speak publicly about the case and criticize the chilling effect such surveillance could have on library patrons.  The Connecticut Four were George Christian, executive director of Library Connection; Peter Chase, VP of Library Connection; Barbara Bailey, President of Library Connection; and Jan Nocek, Secretary of Library Connection.1 & 2

Below are excerpts from Cowan's article:

1

1. Cowan, Alison L. "Four librarians finally break silence in records case." The New York Times, May 31, 2006, p. B3,  https://login.proxy033.nclive.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/four-librarians-finally-break-silence-records/docview/433341004/se-2.

2. "Connecticut Four Reunite Against FBI Overreach." American Libraries Magazine, September 28, 2016,  https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/blogs/the-scoop/connecticut-four-librarians-fbi-overreach/. 

3. Vermont Library Association. “Gagged by the Government - Two Librarians Tell How They Resisted the USA Patriot Act.” C-SPAN, March 20, 2007, https://www.c-span.org/video/?197231-1/usa-patriot-act-libraries.

On January 18, 2006, law enforcement officials, including FBI agents, visited the Newton Free Library in Massachusetts after determining that an email threatening Brandeis University had been sent from one of the library's public computers. They requested access to the computer without a warrant, but Library Director Kathy Glick-Weil and Newton Mayor David Cohen refused, citing Massachusetts privacy laws and the Fourth Amendment. After consulting with U.S. attorneys, the FBI returned later that night with a warrant, allowing them to legally seize three computers. The threat had prompted evacuations at Brandeis University and a nearby elementary school, but no explosives were found.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts praised Glick-Weil and the mayor for upholding constitutional rights. ACLU Executive Director Carol Rose emphasized the importance of complying with legal requirements, even in the face of security concerns. She called for streamlined procedures for obtaining warrants in emergency situations, rather than bypassing constitutional safeguards. Library privacy laws in Massachusetts prohibit exposing the intellectual pursuits and identities of library users without proper authorization, underscoring the legal complexities involved.

This incident highlights the balance between privacy rights and public safety. Glick-Weil noted that she would have allowed immediate access if there had been an imminent danger, but this was not the case. Both the library and law enforcement handled the situation responsibly, demonstrating that security concerns can be addressed without compromising constitutional protections. The library’s insistence on due process serves as a reminder of the critical role libraries play in safeguarding intellectual freedom and pr1,2ivacy.1,2

3

1. "ACLU of Massachusetts Applauds Librarian for Standing Up to Warrantless Seizure of Library Computers." ACLU.org, January 25, 2006, https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-massachusetts-applauds-librarian-standing-warrantless-seizure-library-computers?utm_source=chatgpt.com.

2. American Library Association. "Library Insists FBI Provides Warrant in Alleged Terror Threat." American Libraries, Vol. 37, No. 3, March 2006, p. 13, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27770668.

3. Moore, Galen. "FBI won't seize library records." Milforddailynews.com, January 25, 2006,  https://www.milforddailynews.com/story/news/2006/01/26/fbi-won-t-seize-library/41247181007/.

The Internet Archive, a nonprofit digital library, successfully resisted an FBI attempt to obtain a patron’s records through a national security letter (NSL). These letters, issued without judicial oversight, prohibit recipients from disclosing their existence, raising significant concerns about free speech and privacy. In response to the FBI's demand, the Internet Archive filed a lawsuit, arguing that the request violated First Amendment rights. The case was ultimately settled when the FBI agreed to withdraw the letter, allowing the lawsuit to become public, though key details regarding the investigation remained redacted.

National security letters allow government agencies to compel businesses, including libraries and internet service providers, to surrender customer records without a court order. The FBI defended its use of NSLs, stating they are essential for national security investigations, particularly in counterterrorism and counterintelligence efforts. However, civil liberties advocates argue that these letters are prone to abuse, as they lack judicial oversight. The FBI has issued nearly 200,000 NSLs between 2003 and 2006 but has faced legal challenges in only three cases — losing all of them. A prior federal court ruling even deemed NSLs unconstitutional due to their secretive and unchecked nature.

Despite the FBI’s claims of improved safeguards, concerns persist about the misuse of NSLs in non-emergency situations. The Internet Archive, which collects minimal private data, only provided publicly available records in response to the request. This case highlights broader issues of government overreach, particularly regarding patron privacy in libraries and online archives. The Internet Archive’s victory sets a precedent for other institutions to challenge similar demands, reinforcing the importance of judicial oversight in protecting users’ rights to privacy and free access to information.

"Digital library beats back FBI inquiry." NBCnews.com, May 8, 2008, https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna24525751.

In 2012, Gawker Journalist John Cook filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking documentation on what materials Bush and Cheney accessed for private research or memoir preparation. Cook's request aimed “to gain insight into the way in which the former President and Vice President have chosen to shape the public’s perception of their time in office, and to provide this insight to the public through online news stories”

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which oversees presidential libraries, and subsequent court rulings denied Cook's request. NARA and the courts invoked privacy protections under FOIA Exemption 6, which prevents the disclosure of records that would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The courts emphasized the longstanding professional norms of librarians and archivists to maintain confidentiality regarding library patrons' requests.

This denial was notable given the context of the PATRIOT Act, which under Bush and Cheney’s administration allowed the FBI to access library records without warrants, undermining library users' privacy rights. Cook and other critics found it ironic that Bush and Cheney now sought to leverage the same privacy norms to shield their records from public scrutiny.

Ultimately, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision, asserting that Bush and Cheney were entitled to privacy in their library use just like any other person, particularly since the materials could reflect preliminary thoughts or personal matters. Despite this setback, the case underscores the tension between privacy rights and transparency, especially when applied to powerful public figures.1-3

Below is an excerpt from Cook's article:

1

1. Cook, John. "Bush and Cheney Are for Snooping In Everyone's Library Records But Theirs." Gawkerarchives.com, March 28, 2012, https://www.gawkerarchives.com/5897168%2Fbush-and-cheney-are-for-snooping-in-everyones-library-records-but-theirs.

2. "29 November 2011, Cryptome: USDC: SDNY: Cook V. NARA (FOIA complaint re. Bush-Cheney records." goodtimesweb.org, Documentation, 2009-2016, https://goodtimesweb.org/documentation/cook-v-nara.pdf.

3. "PandoDaily: Denied! Appeals Court Rejects Former Gawker Editor's Demand for Bush-Cheney Library Records." Newstex, Newstex Entrepreneurship Blogs, July 8, 2014, https://login.proxy033.nclive.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/blogs-podcasts-websites/pandodaily-denied-appeals-court-rejects-former/docview/1641730844/se-2.

"Picking Up the Pieces: Library processes and the Theft of Rare Materials" details a significant case of book theft at Brigham Young University’s Harold B. Lee Library (HBLL) and L. Tom Perry Special Collections, focusing on the complexities of maintaining patron privacy while handling circulation records in the context of criminal investigation. The thief, a rare bookseller who joined as a Friend of the Library for borrowing privileges, checked out valuable rare books and manuscripts. He carefully removed and switched barcodes and checkout slips to obscure his actions, making the stolen books appear returned. This manipulation exploited the library’s standard circulation processes, which rely on trust, adherence to professional standards, and security protocols that prioritize user confidentiality.

The incident underlines the challenge libraries face in balancing patron privacy and security, especially when circulation records can be key to resolving theft cases. The Harold B. Lee Library, adhering to ALA, SAA, and ACRL standards, typically maintains robust privacy protections. However, identifying the suspect’s fraudulent activities required examining these records, a decision made only after the theft was revealed.

The stolen items were discovered when a local rare book collector purchased some of the stolen materials and subsequently reached out to the Harold B. Lee Library to verify their origins. The collector had unknowingly bought the Poetical Writings of Orson F. Whitney (1889), an original photograph of Orrin Porter Rockwell, an 1850 New Testament, and The Life of David P. Kimball and Other Sketches (1918). This proactive inquiry by the collector alerted the library to the missing items, as they were still listed as available in the catalog but not found on the shelves. Additionally, the returned items were identified through meticulous checks of the library’s digitized records and catalog entries, helping to confirm their connection to BYU’s collection. The involvement of local booksellers and collectors was crucial, as they aided in the return of several missing books after discovering their true origin.

The case demonstrates the intricate relationship between privacy policies and the need for flexible, yet ethically guided, access to patron records during investigations, while maintaining safeguards to protect the broader principle of user confidentiality.

Below is an excerpt from the article:

Seppi, Gregory and Skeem, Dainan. "Picking Up the Pieces: Library processes and the Theft of Rare Materials." RBM: A Journal of Rare Books, Manuscripts, and Cultural Heritage, Volume 21, Number 2, Fall 2020, pp. 98-118,  https://rbm.acrl.org/index.php/rbm/article/view/24708/32535.