librarian.net

Seth links to an ACLU-WA press release which states that they are helping three patrons and a non-profit bring a lawsuit against the North Central Regional Library System in Eastern Washington for not allowing adult patrons to disable the SmartFilter filtering software that the library places on its public access computers. No statement from the library in the ACLU press release, or on their own website at this point. I hope they can resolve this in some amicable way that involves a whole new tough look at CIPA and the overfiltering that often happens in the name of compliance. From the press release:

Bess blocks a very broad array of lawful information, and the NCRL has refused to unblock sites for patrons.

The lawsuit contends that the library system’s policy of refusing to disable its Internet filters at the request of adults who wish to conduct bona fide research or to access the Web for other lawful purposes violates the United States and Washington State constitutions. The suit seeks an order directing the NCRL to provide unblocked access to the Internet when adults request it.

As you may recall, CIPA mandates that libraries who get E-rate money “have the ability to block minors from seeing “visual depictions” of sexual activity” which usually involves installing filters.

However, the Supreme Court decision also made it clear that if these filters wound up blocking constitutionally protected speech from adults, there might be trouble. That is to say, the law was judged to be constitutional on its face, but it was undetermined whether the law was also constitutional as it is applied. This lawsuit may help untangle some of that

In the meantime, according to the Public Libraries and the Internet report issued by the Information Use Management and Policy Institute at the College of Information, Florida State University (at around p. 100 but read the whole thing) “15.3% (+/- 3.6%) of libraries [surveyed] said [t]he library has applied for E-rate in the past, but because of the need to comply with CIPA, our library decided not to apply in 2006.” This is a damned shame. The Institute surveyed almost 5,000 libraries, a pretty large group of libraries. To hear that over 700 libraries decided to forego E-rate money to avoid the burden of filtering… well what does that tell you?

This news came down while I was at ALA, but I was running around too much to write it down. The government has closed their investigation in the now-infamous case in Connecticut where librarians who work at Library Connection, Inc [a library ISP] challenged the constitutionality of the gag order involved with a National Security Letter, saying “[I]t had determined through other means that the case was meritless.” National Security Letters are a part of the USA PATRIOT Act worth knowing about.

The NSL is a legal oddity of the Patriot Act, and it allows the FBI to make a unilateral demand which would usually require court oversight. In effect, an NSL requires the FBI to police itself, making it similar to asking the fox to watch a mirror. Although exact figures are impossible to come by, it is estimated that some 30,000 NSLs are now sent out each year. An NSL also comes with the added bonus onus of never allowing the recipient to publicly discuss its contents, topic, or even existence. In other words, the recipient is supposed to get the NSL, comply with it, and pretend nothing ever happened.

The librarians had already seen the gag order lifted, so the closing of the investigation doesn’t add legal weight to this issue, but it does wrap up the incident somewhat nicely. If you read all the way through the article, please check out the discussion on this page containing my favorite “go go librarian” quote of the week.

Librarians have long been the unsung defenders of our (US) privacy and open access. Publicly funded libraries are nearly as important as free education IMO.

Astonishing most people still don’t know they can call their library and ask for answers to most any question. Are there monkeys in Borneo? What is that goop on scratch tickets? Who owned my building in 1881? The reference librarian predates the web and the ‘net and is still sometimes better because he or she is trained specifically for the task: masters degrees in finding and sorting information AND privacy. Want to read that obscure 1938 SF title? Interlibrary Loan for the win.

Girl librarians are also hot. Recommended for geek dating: smart, techy goodness. I speak from experience, lived with one for seven years.

Plaintiffs in Doe v. Ashcroft — the lawsuit that questioned the gag order provision of the USA PATRIOT Act, the one that the government decided not to appeal — tell their story at an ACLU press conference. They are employees of the Library Connection. Here are the official statements of George Christian, Janet Nocek, Barbara Bailey and Peter Chase.

It was galling for me to see the government’s attorney in Connecticut, Kevin O’Connor, travel around the state telling people that their library records were safe, while at the same time he was enforcing a gag order preventing me from telling people that their library records were not safe. On one occasion, we were both invited to speak at the same event in Hartford, sponsored by the Women’s League of Voters. Mr. O’Connor accepted his invitation, but I had to refuse mine because of the gag order.

The US Government has abandoned its pursuit of an appeal to a struck-down gag order against the Connecticut librarian who had received a demand for library records by the FBI. In short, the gag order is lifted and this is good news.

The case, Doe vs Gonzales, concerned a librarian who was served with a National Security Letter (NSL). The librarian [identified as George Christian in other newspapers], who appears to already have been an outspoken advocate of intellectual freedom, objected to the gag order [biggish pdf, a few screenshots here] disallowing him from speaking to his own library, the CT Library Assocation or the American Library Association about this issue. He argues that the gag order prevented him from creating effective policies should such a thing happen again, and prevented him from educating other libraries about the existence and specifics of NSLs.

The Washington Post has an article about the USA PATRIOT Act case from Connecticut, now with details and a long discussion about National Security Letters. Please note the software angle in this article.

[The FBI] gave George Christian the letter, which warned him to tell no one, ever, what it said.

Under the shield and stars of the FBI crest, the letter directed Christian to surrender “all subscriber information, billing information and access logs of any person” who used a specific computer at a library branch some distance away. Christian, who manages digital records for three dozen Connecticut libraries, said in an affidavit that he configures his system for privacy. But the vendors of the software he operates said their databases can reveal the Web sites that visitors browse, the e-mail accounts they open and the books they borrow. [emphasis mine]

So you can configure a system to be as private as you can make it, but it may not be private enough.

Remember that report the Rhode Island ACLU wrote about how libraries were overfiltering or erratically filtering the Internet access they were providing? The ACLU claimed that the libraries were blocking access to constitutionally protected material. The Rhode Island library consortium Cooperating Libraries Automated Network, which most RI public libraries belong to, has made its filtering policy less restrictive. Public library directors have been emailed instructions on how to turn off the Internet filters. The ACLU said in their press release that they are still monitoring the situation

[T]he ACLU is concerned that some libraries have independently chosen to block categories beyond CLAN’s minimum option. Four libraries reported such additional blocks on the ACLU’s most recent survey, while 18 libraries failed to respond to the survey, leaving the extent of over-blocking unclear. ACLU officials say that libraries that block these additional categories, which range from “gambling” to “illegal,” are creating a serious impediment to free speech.

Sabrina points to some disturbing news from the ACLU about a PATRIOT Act related attempt to demand library records. Thanks to the gag order, the actual ACLU lawsuit has been heavily redacted but it’s summarized in news reports. Note that this is NOT a Section 215 challenge as near as we can tell, though the case in question does seem to pertain to a library or an entity holding library records.

ALA President Carol Brey-Casiano met with the new US Attorney General today to talk about — what else? — the USA PATRIOT Act.

The American Library Association believes that government powers should be focused and subject to clear standards and judicial review and oversight. Brey-Casiano said, “portions of the USA PATRIOT Act abridge people’s First Amendment right to read and think freely. In this country, we are entitled to read and research a topic or opinion without the fear that the government is looking over our shoulder.”

A little over a month ago, the Montana State Legislature passed a bill with strong bipartisan support critical of the USA PATRIOT Act and encouraging Congress to let parts of it sunset,

That the 59th Montana Legislature supports the government of the United States in its campaign against terrorism and affirms the commitment of the United States that the campaign not be waged at the expense of essential civil rights and liberties of citizens of this country that are protected in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that it is the policy of the citizens of Montana to oppose any portion of the USA PATRIOT Act that violates the rights and liberties guaranteed under the Montana Constitution or the United States Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.

Sethf called the ACLU, sadly they are not planning an “as applied” challenge with the data they have gathered. Nuts.

One of the very interesting things about CIPA was the way the Supremes analyzed the law as written but did not rule on the law as applied. Requiring libraries who take federal funds to filter computers in the interests of protecting children was, as written, acccording to them, not unconstitutional. However, if that law as it was applied wound up blocking protected speech, especially for adults who have free speech rights, then it might still be unconstitutional. So, if a library has filters it can’t disable for adult patrons who request it, for example, that might be unconstitutional. Many censorware activists have been waiting for this other shoe to drop, to see if an “as applied” challenge to the law might be forthcoming. A recent press release from the Rhode Island ACLU [full pdf report here] seems to imply that this might be in the works. It outlines a survey done of Rhode Island libraries who filter as part of a consortium, so they share software and expenses, to see how they were handling CIPA-compliance and the filtering it mandated.

Of interest to me especially are their descriptions of what libraries are or are not doing to inform patrons that they have rights to view blocked or filtered information that the software may be keeping them from viewing.

[At Providence Public Library] a librarian responded to a deactivation request – for a blocked Google search on nudism – with questions about subject matter, judgmental comments, and ultimately a refusal to disable the filter for viewing of what she wrongly characterized as “pornography.” When asked about the Providence library’s policy, the librarian said that it was to block viewing of pornographic matter, and that lifting the filter was not an option, even for adults.

Eleven libraries said they use no notification method beyond the blocking screen. This is problematic because the information provided by the Websense message is virtually useless. Patrons have no way of knowing that deactivation is readily available. To the contrary, the message seems to imply that deactivation is an administrative process requiring special authorization. In the absence of additional signage, nothing suggests that accessing the site is as simple as asking a librarian for help.

You might remember I had a little something to say about a library’s responsibility towards their patrons in a post-CIPA world.

The report itself is really grim. Many public library directors surveyed do not know how the blocking software works and have been given little or no training in how to use it. Many libraries are using the functionality of the blocking software to block additional categories [such as gambling, games and keyword filtering] that are not under the very narrow definition of what CIPA requires. This is their right [update: or is a fight for another day, on a separate topic] but the law does not legislate blocking gambling sites. Library patrons, in preparing this report, were met with probing and embarassing questions when they asked to have the filters disabled to view certain sites, including one library supervisor who asked a parent why her son would want to “cheat” at games by accessing a site on the Internet. This looks bad. It would be distressing if the only way we could get CIPA overturned is by having to admit that we’re unable to legally enforce it. On the other hand, perhaps this is just a deliciously sublime case of civil disobedience on behalf of Rhode Island’s librarians, in which case, bravo! [thanks kate]