Could a vendor be the "library" in the recent ACLU lawsuit?

From Raizel:

As previously mentioned, a recent lawsuit was filed about FBI access to library records (see also press release by the ACLU). 

I believe it is quite possible that the organization was not a library, but a library-related service, such as an internet service provider or other vendor.

The lawsuit itself is under a seal, forbidding release of identifying information. Interestingly, neither the press release nor the redacted lawsuit filing specifically states that library records have been obtained by the FBI -- only that this member of the American Library Association was

"hereby directed to provide to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) any and all subscriber information, billing information, and access logs of any person or entity relating to the following: [redacted]"

Considering that the requested materials include subscriber and billing information, terms not generally used by individual libraries in reference to their patrons, I believe the organization involved could be library vendor. The library vendor here could be, for example: a library system; a non-profit organization offering technological and automation for libraries; or a traditional library vendor.

What difference does this make? The movement protesting the use of the Patriot Act in libraries has focused on confronting the FBI and Justice Department regarding library records from libraries. If the Justice Department has been disingenuous regarding statements that they are not interested in the library records of Americans as the ACLU is asserting, then the library community's protests need to be wider in scope. Unfortunately, due to the redacted complaint, it is impossible to know the scope of information being sought by the FBI.

Comments

[Raizel]

The librarians at Library Connection are finally speaking publicly about their experience as John Doe. For example, see Alison Leigh Cowan, Four Librarians Finally Break Silence in Records Case, New York Times, May 31, 2006, found at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/31/nyregion/31library.html

[Jack Stephens]

Further indication, via Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy, that Raizel was right.

[Raizel]

As Mary just informed me,
this article argues the recipient of the NSL request is the same library consortium I suggested:

"Careful reading of court records released Wednesday, with large sections heavily blacked out, indicates that the recipient of the national security letter was a library consortium based in Connecticut, not a public library.

One affidavit by the recipient states that such consortiums provide back-office services to libraries as well as "staff expertise, training, consultation, troubleshooting and customization services to its customers."

The language is identical to that found in the "about us" section of the Web site of Library Connection in Windsor, Conn., a nonprofit consortium that serves 26 libraries in the Hartford area."