AOH :: PT-1109.HTM

Patriot Act used by FBI to secretly take library records

Patriot Act used by FBI to secretly take library records
Patriot Act used by FBI to secretly take library records

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	NEWS RELEASE: FBI Uses Patriot Act to Demand Information with 
No Judicial Approval From Organization with Library Records
Date: 	Thu, 25 Aug 2005 13:43:40 -0400

FBI Uses Patriot Act to Demand Information with No Judicial Approval 
 >From Organization with Library Records


ACLU Seeks Emergency Court Order to Lift Gag As Congress Prepares to 
Make Patriot Act Permanent


August 25, 2005

Contact: Erica Pelletreau, 212-519-7829; 549-2666; 

NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union today disclosed that the 
FBI has used a controversial Patriot Act power to demand records from an 
organization that possesses "a wide array of sensitive information about 
library patrons, including information about the reading materials 
borrowed by library patrons and about Internet usage by library 
patrons."  The FBI demand was disclosed in a new lawsuit filed in 
Connecticut, which remains under a heavy FBI gag order.

The ACLU is seeking an emergency court order to lift the gag so that its 
client can participate in the public debate about the Patriot Act as 
Congress prepares to reauthorize or amend it in September.

"Our client wants to tell the American public about the dangers of 
allowing the FBI to demand library records without court approval," said 
ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson, the lead lawyer in the case. 
"If our client could speak, he could explain why Congress should adopt 
additional safeguards that would limit Patriot Act powers."

Papers reveal that the client, whose identity must remain a secret under 
the gag, "strictly guards the confidentiality and privacy of its library 
and Internet records."  The client is a member of the American Library 

The lawsuit challenges the National Security Letter (NSL) provision of 
the Patriot Act, which authorizes the FBI to demand a range of personal 
records without court approval, such as the identity of a person who has 
visited a particular Web site on a library computer, or who has engaged 
in anonymous speech on the Internet.  The Patriot Act dramatically 
expands the NSL power by permitting the FBI to demand records of people 
who are not suspected of any wrongdoing.

The lawsuit, ACLU v. Gonzales, was filed on August 9, and is pending 
before Judge Janet Hall of the U.S. District Court in Bridgeport, 
Connecticut.  It names as defendants Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, 
FBI Director Robert Mueller, and an FBI official whose identity remains 
under seal.  Both the national ACLU and its Connecticut branch said they 
were forced to file the lawsuit initially under seal to avoid penalties 
for violating the gag provision, which they are challenging on First 
Amendment grounds.

The court has set an emergency hearing for Wednesday, August 31, 2005 on 
the ACLU's request to lift the gag.

Whether the Patriot Act has been used to obtain information about 
library patrons has been a flashpoint in the Patriot Act debate.  The 
government has repeatedly dismissed the concerns of librarians that the 
act could force them to violate their ethical responsibility to protect 
the privacy of library users.   Former Attorney General John Ashcroft 
even called these concerns about the Patriot Act "baseless hysteria."

Congress is currently undertaking efforts to reauthorize the Patriot 
Act, with both the House and Senate having passed different versions of 
legislation before adjourning for the August recess.  While the ACLU has 
not endorsed either bill, it has said the Senate bill takes steps in the 
right direction.

"As Congress comes back to work out the differences in the House and 
Senate bills to reauthorize the Patriot Act, a commitment to freedom 
must prevail," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU 
Washington Legislative Office.  "The more we learn about the Patriot 
Act, the clearer it is that too much power was granted to the 
government, with too few safeguards against abuse.  While neither 
reauthorization bill is perfect, we call on Congress to use the Senate 
bill as its guide as it reconsiders the Patriot Act."

In an earlier ACLU lawsuit challenging the NSL power, a federal court 
issued a landmark decision in September 2004 striking down the NSL 
statute, saying that "democracy abhors undue secrecy."  The court held 
that the NSL law violates the First and Fourth Amendments, but allowed 
the law to stand while the government is appealing the decision.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is expected to 
hear the government's appeal of that lawsuit this fall.  The government 
recently asked the court to delay the appeal while Congress debates 
reauthorization of the Patriot Act.  However, the ACLU opposes any 
delay, citing the need for urgent court action so that its John Doe 
client in the first lawsuit can also participate in the public debate.

"Judicial review is a key part to our system of checks and balances," 
said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU.  "As we consider 
expanding and extending the Patriot Act, this case shows us what might 
become routine if we don't fix the law."

The ACLU has created a special Web page on its National Security Letter 
litigation, which includes links to today's legal papers, online at 

Attorneys in the case are Beeson, Jameel Jaffer and Melissa Goodman of 
the national ACLU and Annette M. Lamoreaux of the ACLU of Connecticut.

The redacted version of the ACLU's complaint is available online at: 

Politech mailing list
Archived at 
Moderated by Declan McCullagh ( 

Make REAL money with your website!

The entire AOH site is optimized to look best in Firefox® 2.0 on a widescreen monitor (1440x900 or better).
Site design & layout copyright © 1986-2014 AOH
We do not send spam. If you have received spam bearing an email address, please forward it with full headers to