This post provides a short list of resources for public libraries to consider when dealing with privacy policies and cases.

A survey was conducted of the laws of the thirteen states encompassing the Southeastern Library Association. The survey covers what constitutes a library, what indeed is a library record, and differences in the laws of the thirteen states.[1]  According to the survey, all of these states’ library record laws deal with circulation records, but some laws address other items like the use of computers, email, and chat.

A serious law protecting these records was enacted in Michigan; a librarian cannot reveal a child’s reading to a parent or third party[2], and the librarian can be fined if he/she does so; other libraries privacy policies in other states say they will if required.[3] ALA’s book, Fundamentals of Children’s Services discusses the very real conflicts between privacy law, library programs, and parents’ interest and need to know of their child’s reading habits. A discussion of the conflict between parent rights and children’s rights can be found here.

Some libraries are struggling with policies because of the National Rifle Association, FBI, Freedom of Information Act, and other probing by the courts. Others are deleting records so they won’t be available.[4] A source for some privacy information can be found at the Privacy Library of Morrison Foerster (The library indicates they may not have the most current information, and do not include all information related to libraries).

Most states have privacy laws relating to libraries, not just dealing with social, court records and other activities. The succinct rendering of these state laws can be found here: State and Territorial Library Privacy Laws.

References:

[1] Bryan M. Carson, “Surveying Privacy: Library Privacy Laws in the Southeastern United States,” The Southeastern Librarian 49, no. 3 (2001): 18–28, accessed online March 10, 2016.

[2] State of Michigan Legislative Council, “397.604: Violation of MCL 397.603; liability; civil action; damages; attorney fees and costs,” The Library Privacy Act, MI Act 455 (1982), § 397.604, sec. 4, accessed March 10, 2016.

[3] “Privacy and confidentiality of library records: Parents and children,” Multnomah County Library, May 7, 2015.

[4] Sam Thielman, “You are not what you read: librarians purge user data to protect privacy,” Guardian (Manchester), January 13, 2016.

Further Reading:

Lucy Kelly, “Library Records, Patron Privacy, and Library Policies,” Public Libraries Online.

The post Privacy Laws, Libraries, and Librarians first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

The confidentiality of patron records is a long-standing issue, particularly since the Patriot Act spurred concerns about patrons’ reading histories, who has access to these records, and under what circumstances the records might be disclosed to authorities. These questions are still being explored, as very few cases on the exact issue of library patron records and privacy have been brought before the courts (though it is also worth considering that other recent library litigation cases have addressed related issues in the broader sense, such as computer use in libraries and censorship; both are matters that could conceivably tie into the patron record).

Obviously, the ILL record is just one aspect of the patron’s information resource accessing experience; as librarians observe, many patrons check out books from their local branch and/or use library Internet connections, electronic research resources and library software programs. Each one of these activities arguably necessitates separate discussion in the portions of a library policy that cover topics such as data use and procedures for responding to requests from law enforcement authorities.

Another notable feature of the recent article is the librarian’s observation that no specific event precipitated the decision to purge user data from ILL records; instead, the general intention to protect patron privacy apparently motivated this action.[1] A library is also responsible for safeguarding patron information so it does not get disclosed to outside sources, both because the reading history is private and because a patron record has personal information that could make an individual susceptible to identity theft or other intrusions into their personal domains.

One reason for these protections is that a library is a place of free exploration, and if privacy is compromised, then it could have “chilling effects” on information-seeking behavior; for example, a patron might decide not to request controversial material due to fears for their privacy, which would be an unfortunate situation that a library is advised to take steps to avoid by making patrons aware of the library’s policies on data privacy and protection.

As I read this article, the conclusion I reached was this: it is a good idea to keep informed on the latest developments in library patron privacy laws and policies. Each state has its own laws on library environments, and state law libraries provide excellent resources on recent state-level legislation and court cases. In addition, it appears that patron privacy correlates with a library’s central mission of encouraging reading and library use. That said, while patron records are generally protected and confidential, there may be certain, very rare exceptions where a library does need to disclose information to authorities, but again, it is important to remember that these occasions are very much the exception and not a frequent occurrence.

Seeking Counsel

Library directors may wish to seek counsel from municipal attorneys or attorneys who serve on their boards in order to prepare for these situations, educate their staff, and update policies. Here are some suggestions:

• Contact your local bar association and request a free or low-cost consultation with an attorney who has experience in library policies and data privacy.
• Seek out a law professor who researches data privacy and might be interested in speaking to the library community.
• Request that a local judge address the library so that patrons and library staff are able to learn important information on the legal process.
• Contact federal and state representatives and request listening sessions for staff and/or patrons. This representative could educate staff and the public on the latest developments in data privacy laws as they relate to public libraries.

References:

[1] Sam Thielman. “You are not what you read: librarians purge user data to protect privacy,” Guardian, January 13, 2016.

Resources:

Library Freedom Project

Developing or Revising a Library Privacy Policy

Questions and Answers on Privacy and Confidentiality

The post Library Records, Patron Privacy, and Library Policies first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

I live in Michigan, the only state where it is illegal for libraries, schools, or any municipality to share vital voting information with their patrons sixty days before an election. If a reference librarian performs their duty of providing a patron with information, it could now be viewed as a criminal act. Senate Bill 571 was passed by legislators that did not consider the weight of its terms.

Governor Rick Snyder’s stated intent was to disallow municipalities to spend taxpayer money on political propaganda, stop officials from sharing their personal opinions with others, and prevent the use of public facilities as debating centers.[1] Many people, though, including legislators, are confused about what the bill actually entails. Although Senator Margaret O’Brien and Republican Representatives David Maturen and Brant Iden all voted “yes” on Bill 571, Maturen told the Kalamazoo Gazette,”For something this big and with these kinds of ramifications, I think we need to discuss it more, I really do.”[2] It is frightening to think that our lawmakers are voting on bills without understanding the ramifications that it will have on its taxpayers. In addition to the bill being a “last-minute vote,” it also gave lawmakers little time to review the bill which grew from fourteen pages to fifty-three. [3]

Now, Governor Snyder has requested that legislators clarify the diction of Senate Bill 571 in time for the March 2016 election. But even after the language in the bill has been explained, I am sure it will still embody a clear infringement on not just our vocational obligations as librarians, but also our First Amendment rights. Patrons go to the library to obtain information, and with the passing of this bill, the law will prohibit librarians from performing one of their most important vocational duties: providing our community with information.

I contacted our local branch of League of Women Voters to see if they have any plans on publishing candidate information before the sixty-day window so that we can make it available to patrons, and they informed me that it would be accessible about the time absentee ballots go out to voters. If I give the “League of Women Voters” publication to a requesting patron 59 days before the election, though, my library could be fined $20,000. In my experience working the reference desk, many patrons will inquire about the candidates a few days before an election occurs.  Is it not their right to know for whom they are voting and the candidates’ principles? How can an uninformed person exercise their right to vote?

We must fight and protect our vocation and what it represents. It is our job as librarians and information professionals to provide our communities with reliable and unbiased information. We cannot allow our government to enact an aimless means of voting in complete darkness. Update: The bill referred to in this article is currently on hold via a federal court injunction. Read more here. (Editor, February 24, 2016).

References:

^[1] Christopher A. Wigent. “Senate Bill 571 censors factual election information,” The Detroit News, December 23, 2015.

[2] Julie Mack. “Kalamazoo County GOP lawmakers rethink votes on ‘gag order’ election bill,” M Live, January 5, 2016.

[3] Lisa Peet. “Bill in MI would limit info to voters; Librarians protest,” Library Journal, January 12, 2016.

The post The Library and Michigan Senate Bill 571 first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

With something in the neighborhood of 40 million pages of legal decisions dating back to the Colonial period, the Harvard Law Library is rivaled only by the Library of Congress in its scope. While most of the cases contained therein are also public domain, they are also either accessible only in hard-copy or by paying for a digital copy. Harvard’s Free the Law project aims to make all 40 million pages of its library available for free on the internet.

The possibility of such access is in keeping with the spirit of the law. The law is defined as a set of rules and regulations established in a community and applicable to its people. It is meant to help bring order to the community without doing it harm. When access to the letter of the law is no longer free, this contravenes the law itself. Yet, the access this project creates may cost more than those working on it intend. In partnership with legal startup Ravel Law, Harvard wishes to have the project done in just two years, at the cost of its physical library. There will also be other hiccups this unfettered access will create.

Sacrifices to Scanners

For eight years, I worked as an electronic content manager and records analyst for the planning and development arm of a mid-sized municipality. My main duties were to digitize records and conduct research. My colleagues and I digitized everything from permits for homes to large-scale commercial planning projects.

There were days, however, where we worked on historical projects like Free the Law, scanning historical documents for research for other departments in the organization. This is why I shed imaginary tears for Harvard Law’s physical library. No matter the precautions you take when disassembling a book, the older it is, the more likely it will not survive the scanning process. The article in The N.Y. Times admits that all but the rarest books are being digitized, and spines are being reattached by Harvard’s book surgeons, their archivists.

Yet not all the tomes will make it. High-speed scanners are notorious for what I like to call “eating pages.”  Every day I scanned, even the hardiest of documents would shred through the wheels of my equipment.

Too Much Information

Because of my experiences with high-speed document scanners, I may be thinking a tad overdramatically regarding the losses of Harvard Law’s case library. As a content manager, the potential access certainly outweighs the possibility of a few hundred shredded book pages.

Having access to records like Harvard’s law library can assist in crime mapping on more than one level. Once digitized and indexed, scholars, lawyers, and researchers will be able to search the databases for an endless amount of terms, including locations. This will allow for crime analysis on a much grander scale than Ravel Law already allows with its own search visualization tool.

The case law database will also give the public and those with non-legal backgrounds the ability to search United States case law. Without a legal background, Free the Law might turn into a case of too much information.

Users who do not have training in either legal or database research may be overwhelmed by the technical aspects of using the resource. According to Harvard Law and Ravel, research on the database will involve search strings, and knowing Boolean modifiers and advanced search operators may come in handy.

The database will also be so comprehensive that it will include case law that has likely outlived their relevance. Cases are typically only helpful in setting precedent for around twenty years. After they are settled, their value depreciates about 85 percent during those twenty years.

Providing access to case law as old as 200 or 300 years old may end up muddying the legal waters rather than clearing them.

A Little Education

In order for Free the Law to be truly free, Harvard Law and Ravel will need to begin educating potential users on a variety of topics. The public, who may be curious about case law in a particular state, will need to learn legal terms such as abeyance and privileged will.

Since Free the Law is meant for the layperson as well as the legal professional, terms such as these, which pertain to everyday things like businesses and wills, must be understandable at the start. To do the research, users will also have to learn advanced electronic research techniques. Because the books will no longer be accessible, flipping pages for a glossary or an index will no longer be so simple.

Without this kind of preparation, I fear that the work going into Free the Law will go to waste. Otherwise, the law will continue to be accessed only by the privileged few.

Sources:

“Harvard Law School launches ‘Free the Law’ project with Ravel Law to digitize US case law, provide free access.” Harvard Law Today, October 29, 2015.

Echholm, Erik. “Harvard Law Library Readies Trove of Decisions for Digital Age.” The New York Times, October 28, 2015.

Sheppard, Brian. “Why Digitizing Harvard’s Law Library May Not Improve Access to Justice.” Bloomberg BNA, November 12, 2015.

Resources:

Ravel Law

Searching with a Search Engine

Crime Mapping, Demographics of Illegal Activity

Legal Terms and Meanings

The post More Access to the Law, But at What Cost? first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

In a landmark legal case involving handguns in public libraries, Capital Area District Library (CADL) v. Michigan Open Carry (2012), the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that state law preempted the library’s weapons policy prohibiting firearms in the library. The case stemmed from an incident at the CADL downtown branch in Lansing, Mich., in which a man carried “what appeared to be a rifle or shotgun over his shoulder” and was thus required to leave the library. The library policy at that time stated that “all weapons are banned from Library premises to the fullest extent permitted by law.” Members of Michigan Open Carry appealed after a trial court upheld CADL’s weapons policy.

The Michigan Court of Appeals concluded that the library’s weapons policy was contrary to the restrictions set forth in the preemption statute found in Michigan Compiled Laws. That particular statute states that “a local unit of government” cannot have an ordinance or regulation of “pistols or other firearms.”

Michigan is far from the only state whose state law forbids public libraries from enforcing their own weapons policies. Gleason’s survey results found that gun laws in the fifty states range from strict gun control to limited gun control (and everything in between). The states in which state law precludes library policy on handguns and thus patrons may be able to carry their weapon in the building are as follows: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

Take a look at Gleason’s full report to find out where your state stands with firearms restrictions. Is your library enforcing a weapons policy?

Source:

Gleason, Diana, 2015 Update: Can I Bring My Gun? A Fifty State Survey of Firearm Laws Impacting Policies Prohibiting Handguns in Public Libraries (May 13, 2015). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2605937 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2605937

Correction:

The last paragraph was changed (third line). Originally stated can carry their weapons; now states may be able to carry. Also, Maryland was removed from the list in the same paragraph. 8/3/15.

The post Can I Bring My Gun to the Library? first appeared on Public Libraries Online.