Miranda warning to library users

Connecticut attorney and rare bookshop owner Norman A. Pattis asks if we need something akin to Miranda warnings "to folks brave enough to check a book out from a library, or to use a database"

"You have the right to enter this library and to use its contents, but understand that by doing so, you are waiving your right to privacy, and your right to consult with an attorney should the government decide your taste in reading is relevant to the national security."

-Crime and Federalism blog entry November 7, 2005

Read the whole entry.  It's vivid writing for an attorney:

No judge authorizes the request for information. No prosecutor even reviews the request. No grand jury asks for it. We are told simply to bend and to spread because a G-man in heat wants to poke and prowl. What became of the Fourth Amendment?

Comments

[Norm Pattis]

Vivid writing for an attorney? Heh??????

[Mary]

Laughing out loud! Your response shows one of the big differences between newsletters and blogs - the person you write about can easily and quickly write back!

Reminds me of Woody Allen's fantasy in Annie Hall. Allen and Diane Keaton are stuck in line in front of a moviegoer who gives (at length) his interpretation of Marshall McLuhan's works. The twist is that McLuhan appears and responds on-the-spot.

Keep up the vivid writing, Norm - it helps bridge our understanding between arcane lawmaking and the very-real-world implications.

Best,
Mary

[Karen Coyle]

I'm a bit late, but this brings up the un-ease I have felt with PATRIOT Act warnings in libraries, albeit well-meant. Having warnings in libraries, but not in every store, every government office, along city streets, implies that those environments do provide privacy, and libraries don't. In fact, libraries still do more to protect privacy than just about any other institution (even hospitals). We should tell people that good news, and include the bad news about non-library spaces.