Only children's books read

The American Public Library, recording a new reader, undertakes not to disclose private information. No one concerns that a person reads, the benefit in the USA does not have any censorship restrictions of an ideological nature. The rules for handling such information is by no means a question of the goodwill of the library authorities. They are contained in the legislation of 48 out of 50 states. The laws carefully describe the procedure, subject to which the authorities can access confidential data. For this, first of all, a court order or a subpoena of the court is needed. Of course, the document must indicate the name of the suspect and the essence of suspicion against him. If the information is obtained in violation of the law, it must be removed from the case file.

In order not to introduce themselves to the temptation and police authorities, libraries, when returning the book, usually simply erase any mention of the name of the last reader. This is what the association of American libraries recommends to its members. However, while the book is on hand, it is technically easy to establish the reader’s name. The patriotic law adopted shortly after September 11 greatly facilitates the FBI access to this information. The warrant is still required, but it is now incomparably easier to get it in a special secret court: the lawyers of the Ministry of Justice do not need to justify their suspicions, it is not even required that the criminal case has already been instituted. The law does not distinguish between foreigners and citizens of the United States. Finally, libraries strictly forbidden the disclosure of the fact of visiting the library by agents of the FBI - they do not have the right to report this to the advice of the trustees, nor their congressman, and even more so the reader who was tested.

I must say that the historical precedent has already been. In 1986, the director of the University of Maryland University, Herbert Fersstel, learned from his subordinates that they were addressed by FBI agents with questions that foreign students were reading. Subsequently, Fermstel found out that the FBI has been carrying out the US scientific libraries for 13 years, paying special attention to readers - immigrants from communist countries. In public libraries, surveillance began much earlier. It was after this story that in most states special laws were adopted on the confidentiality of private information to which the library gained access. However, the patriotic law, being federal, enjoys priority in relation to the laws of the States. According to some reports, in January and February of this year, FBI agents visited 85 out of 1020 public libraries in search of information about terrorists. We also visited bookstores.

But what exactly are they looking for? And how will they interpret the results of their searches? What books did I buy and took in the library, say, me? The list looks just ominous. Proceedings on the history of national socialism, Gimmler biography, memoirs of Gross Admiral Denitsa, “Hitler's Great Conversations”, “Spandau Diary” by Speer; books about "Taliban", "al-Qaeda" and biological weapons; Particularly interested in the anthrax and pesticide-sprayed aircraft; James Bamford’s “Secrets Department of Secrets” is about the US National Security Agency, “Langley Borch Silia” Jeffrey Richelson, “The Secret History of the CIA” by Joseph Trento ...

What should the agent think, faced with such a list? He will turn to me with questions - I will explain that I read all this by virtue of my professional interests, I will present publications. But he will not turn. And why should I make excuses? Is it necessary to be a professional to read books about the CIA and Hitler? Maybe agents think that by means of library books, terrorists exchange messages like political prisoners in the Vladimir Central, pricking the letter with a pin? The prosecutors of the US Department of Justice have just excluded information about his special interest in the agricultural factory from the indictment in the case of Zakarias Musavi, making sure that this interest is criminal off. What will add to the criminal case of the accused of terrorism library form?

American human rights activists are sure that the collection of private information in libraries is contrary to the Constitution and that the US Supreme Court would probably stop this practice. The fact that it is admitted by the patriotic law does not matter - you never know the highest court. However, the subtlety is that the Supreme Court does not consider hypothetical situations: in order for the case to be consideration, a plaintiff is necessary, who will prove that the application of the law caused him personally significant damage. But where does this plaintiff come from if the FBI conducts library checks secretly?

It only seems that the law enforcement agencies themselves that the more right they have, the more efficient their work. Until September 11, there was no patriotic law, and terrorists were caught and judged, including imperfect terrorist attacks, and not one, despite the constitutional guarantees of a fair procedure, was still justified.

Americans respond to the expansion of the powers of the FBI with growing skepticism. According to the last survey of the Gallup service, conducted by the CNN television company and USA Today, 56 percent of voters believe that the government should fight terrorism without violating civil freedoms, and only 40 percent agree with individual violations. In May, opinions were divided exactly in half.