Online privacy infractions threaten civil liberties
Thursday, April 30th, 2009Remember the first time you saw Barack Obama?
If you’re like most Americans, it was roughly four and a half years ago at the Democratic National Convention. I refer you now to one line in particular of that historic speech:
“We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States.”
There is a reason the confidentiality of library records is sacrosanct: it is because the use of them for government intelligence virtually guarantees an imposition on civil liberties.
When we think about going to the library and checking out a John Grisham or a Stephen King, it’s hard to imagine what all the fuss is about. But imagine instead that you’re interested in religion and you check out a Bible or a religious reference book. Now imagine that instead of a Bible, you check out the Koran.
There are millions of versions of this scenario. You love planes and you check out a book to see how jetliners work — now imagine you’re of Middle Eastern descent. You’re fascinated with serial killers. Your friend David recommends Devil in the White City. You’re a student of human behavior and pick up a copy of The Lucifer Effect. Any one of these situations could imply suspicious activity — and, in more than 99% of cases, that suspicion would be dead wrong.
In the book Free Expression and Censorship In America, Herbert Foerstel describes the FBI’s attempts to monitor communist activity through the library system:
At [the University of Maryland, College Park], the agents asked librarians to report on anyone with a “foreign-sounding name or foreign accent” who used the libraries. Such a characterization would fit the majority of students and faculty on most American campuses, yet librarians were asked to monitor reference questions and on-line literature searches, including searches of [the National Technical Information Service], in order to establish the subject interests of these suspicious foreigners. All of this surveillance was conducted despite the fact that the UMCP libraries contained no classified materials, and their collections were presumably open to anyone. When the university complained about the surveillance, an FBI representative claimed that the libraries should feel no obligation to protect the access and privacy rights of noncitizens.
This backstory is why I was glad to see that a court is allowing a lawsuit against Blockbuster to proceed. The lawsuit is backlash from Blockbuster’s participation in Facebook’s ill-conceived Beacon program, which shared user purchase activity across the social network.
Just like libraries, it may seem that the potential harm from this program is minimal. You rent a copy of Wild Things, and the next thing you know your out-of-town girlfriend spots it on your News Feed and you’re having to explain yourself. But just like library books, movies can be an indication of who we are. Unfortunately, they are symptoms that point in a million different directions — symptoms that carry with them a potential for misinterpretation as tempting as a serpent’s apple.
We are eternally trying to find the right balance between freedom and security. Thankfully, books and other media coexist with speech firmly on the ‘freedom’ side of the line. Let’s keep it that way.
What do you think?









