Liberty in the balance: Libraries were focus of dubious Cold War probe

By Emily Bazar -- Bee Capitol Bureau - (Published September 22, 2003)

As long as people have sought information at libraries and bookstores, the government has sought information about what they're reading.

History is filled with instances in which politicians and law enforcement officials have monitored the public's reading habits, often in secret.

Perhaps the most well-known example, the Library Awareness Program, debuted 30 years ago and lasted well into the 1980s.

Beginning in 1973, FBI agents visited libraries to track the reading habits of people from communist countries, people with foreign-sounding names and people with foreign accents.

"Really, it's the classic standoff between national security interests and individual privacy interests," said Karen Schneider, chairwoman of the Intellectual Freedom Committee of the California Library Association. "As long as there are going to be national security agencies, they're going to be very interested in what library users do."

Since passage of the Patriot Act and the campaign by librarians across the country to oppose portions of it, there has been renewed interest in the Library Awareness Program and its legacy.

As part of the program, the FBI asked library staff members to report the use of unclassified scientific reading materials by people from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

Often, agents who didn't have subpoenas or search warrants would approach lower-level workers for information.

The counterintelligence program targeted scientific and technical libraries, including some public and university libraries, because of suspicions that Soviet agents were searching the stacks for valuable technical data.

The program ended in the late 1980s after a massive public outcry. In response, 48 states passed library confidentiality laws.

Matthew Battles, coordinating editor for the Harvard Library Bulletin, believes the Patriot Act so far has proved less extreme than the Library Awareness Program.

But he said there is the potential for abuse.

"It (the Library Awareness Program) is a real model for the kinds of things people are afraid will happen now in the context of the Patriot Act," said Battles, whose new book, "Library: An Unquiet History," probes the history and role of libraries over hundreds of years.

For bookstores, the government's attempts to obtain customers' purchase records is a more recent phenomenon.

According to Chris Finan, president of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, there has been a growing tendency in the past five years for police to seek people's book-buying records in criminal cases.

The trend began in 1998, when independent counsel Kenneth Starr subpoenaed former White House intern Monica Lewinsky's book-buying records. Starr reportedly was looking for evidence she had purchased a novel about phone sex as a gift for President Clinton. Ultimately, Lewinsky's decision to testify rendered the issue moot.

In another high-profile case, police in Denver subpoenaed the records of a popular independent bookstore called the Tattered Cover in 2000, and later obtained a search warrant.

They were looking for information that could tie books about making illegal drugs to a suspected methamphetamine lab operator.

Last year, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled against the police in that case, saying the state's constitution protects the privacy of bookstore owners and their customers.

The decision was a victory for booksellers and First Amendment advocates in Colorado. But the ruling applies only to investigations conducted under Colorado state law, and does not affect federal inquiries.

The Patriot Act is of particular concern, Finan and others say, because law enforcement can force bookstores to turn over records immediately, without giving them an opportunity to consult attorneys or contest the orders.

In the past, Finan said, booksellers could challenge the subpoenas in court before turning over the contested information.

"When we became aware of demands for records, we've taken the position of challenging them and making government prove that it truly needs these records, and that the needs outweigh the First Amendment interests involved," Finan said. "But that was pre-Patriot Act."