LibraryLaw Blog

International Copyright Issues Claimed as Basis for Withdrawing Maps

Last December, we reported on the National Geospatial Agency's (NGA)  announced intention to withdraw maps from the public, based on a number of concerns:

• safeguarding the integrity of Department of Defense (DoD) aeronautical
  navigation data currently available on the public Internet;
• preventing unfettered access to air facility data by those intending harm to the United States, its interests or allies;
• upholding terms of bi-lateral geospatial data-sharing agreements;
• avoiding competition with commercial interests; and
• avoiding intellectual property/copyright disputes with foreign agencies that provide host-nation aeronautical data.

Unusually, the NGA solicited comments prior to making a final rule. Now Secrecy News reports that NGA's decision will be to remove databases of aeronautical information from public access next year. The NGA's press release announced it will remove Flight Information Publications (FLIP) and Digital Aeronautical Flight Information File (DAFIF) from public access.

NGA said that copyright concerns raised by foreign data sources were
the driving factor for the decision to withhold the information from
the public.

NGA's press release further states that:

    "NGA, in consultation with the Federal Aviation Agency has determined that this   action will not affect chart products for US airspace or Caribbean and South American charts and also Pacific, Australia, and Antarctica charts in areas considered part of the US Flight Information Region. NGA has decided not to withdraw paper map products to a scale of 1:250,000 to 1:500,000. These products will continue to be available to the public.

    The first phase of the product withdrawal begins in January 2006 with the removal of worldwide DAFIF from public sale. The electronic publication of DAFIF over the World Wide Web (www) and public sale of NGA FLIP outside US airspace will cease in October 2006. The remaining NGA FLIP will be removed from public access in October 2007."

An anonymous source reported to Secrecy News that "It sets "a very bad precedent" when "the introduction of any copyright-protected material renders a massive public-domain database off-limits to the public,"  "Many, many other databases are at stake." "The decision that NGA should have taken, in my view, was to have offered a redacted version of the databases for public sale.  DAFIF -- a really big database -- could easily have been stripped of its Australian-supplied [copyrighted] data and kept public and available," according to the source.

My library elf - the joy and the horror

I had to see it for myself as soon as Deborah Caldwell-Stone told me about the library elf.

It's a service that offers me email alerts and even an RSS feed when my reserved library books are ready for me to come on down and reminders when the books I have are due back. It tells me if I have fines, and I think if I'm nice enough, it'll bring my books back for me.

Oh my.  I can put in other people's library cards and get their information too - all I need is their card numbers, and if their library requires it, their PINs.  Library Elf helpfully tells me that in many libraries, it's just the last four digits of their phone number, and that some libraries don't use PINs at all.  How wonderful for parents who want to see what their teenagers are reading. Or vice versa. [clarification update: my tone here is peevish and churlish.  My Ann Arbor confidante called today to make sure you know that]

Legitimate users "opt-in," but I bet I could pretty easily get into other folks' records even if they don't live with me.  I could just paw through some libraries' user accessible hold shelves, or perhaps peer at someone's self-checkout screen or pick up their receipts.

My local libraries are on their list.  I signed up.  In less time than it took to blog this, I now have both the email and RSS service.  In a nanosecond I saw my whole library record - much more convenient than slogging through my own library's website which scatters my records on various screens

I saw three titles waiting for me, and every title I have out. I'd show you a screenshot, but frankly, I don't want the world to see what I'm reading. Here's their demo screenshot.

I don't work at a library any more ... and believe me, this is handy for those of us regular folks who don't go there every day.

Privacy? Did someone say privacy?

It's a Canadian company that says it doesn't think it's subject to PATRIOT Act orders...that part I like.  But although its FAQ says it won't give out my personal information without a court order, its privacy policy says something different.  It tells me they might give my information to respond to government investigations too .... a much broader reach. 

Did my library actually agree to this, or was it a Dynix-wide decision?  Any librarians reading this who want to chime in?  Am I putting my privacy at risk by using it, or does it matter, since the weaknesses that could compromise my privacy are in the system whether I make use of it or not?  If I choose email delivery, isn't that the same compromise I made when I signed up for unencrypted email notices from my library?  Is RSS any more or less secure?

While I'm on this topic, is there someone who can tell me an easy way to encrypt email for sender and receiver? I tried ziplip years ago without success.

Charts to Understand Patriot Act Reauthorization

Thanks to Patrice McDermott of the American Library Association, via Anne Reuland, we now have up-to-date side-by-side comparison charts to explain the Patriot Act reauthorization bill's impact on library records, at least as of today.

PATRIOT Act "library records" Sect. 215 Reauthorization - handy chart

PATRIOT Act "national security letters" Sect. 505 Reauthorization - handy chart

To bloggers: do you have to cough up your anonymous sources when you get a subpoena?

I just spoke with Barbara Fullerton who is in the PhD program at the University of North Texas in Denton, TX.  She is writing an article on the effect the Free Flow of Information Act (federal shield law) proposed by Rep. Mike Pence would have on bloggers.  Feel free to send her your thoughts at [email protected].

If you have a blog, do you consider yourself a journalist or a blogger? That is, if you use an anonymous source (and don't we all?), and you get a subpoena to reveal your source, are you protected as a blogger?  Can you claim protection as a journalist?  Can and should "journalist" be defined?

Good news for bloggers as far as campaign finance law - the Federal Election Commission just unanimously said that the Fired Up! network of blogs qualifies for the press exception to federal finance law. More at Media Law blog by Robert Ambrogi, Nov 17 post.

I mentioned to Barbara that I began my blog with the question of whether public libraries are exposed to lawsuits when they allow public comment as part of the library blog.  I think libraries should think long and hard before they enable comments.  A censored commentator could try to claim that the blog is like the library's bulletin board or giveaway table. If so, the library cannot remove a comment based on its content or viewpoint without triggering a First Amendment problem - quite possible at the near-impossible-to-meet legal standard of strict scrutiny.

Since I didn't have actual readers back in the ancient times when I wrote my first blog entry, (April 2004), Barbara suggested I bring it back up for debate.  (Notable exception - Infozo the Moron Librarian found me back at my very first post - impressive).

One possible workaround - keep official library blogs as one-way communication.  Let the Friends group sponsor a blog that allows library user comments.  Private groups can generally remove comments without triggering First Amendment liability.

Update: I see that Eugene Volokh is working on an article about whether bloggers should be entitled to various protections that mainstream media writers get ... see discussion at The Volokh Conspiracy Nov 17

Full Protection for Libraries & Booksellers Doesn't Make It Into the Compromise Final Version of the Patriot Act Reauthorization Legislation

Hot off the press from the Campaign for Reader Privacy, is news from the joint conference committee whose mandate was to reconcile the House (H.R. 3199) and Senate (S. 1266) versions of the Patriot Act re-authorization legislation. The joint committee version did not include some of the key protections the library and bookseller communities had requested and which were included in the Senate version of the bill, including requirements that:

• the FBI must show that the individual whose records are being sought is suspected of involvement in terrorism or other criminal activity;
• that booksellers and librarians who receive PATRIOT Act orders be allowed to challenge their validity in court;
• that the current permanent and generalized gag order that accompanies PATRIOT Act warrants be replaced by temporary orders in specific circumstances.

The Senate version of the legislation included a requirement of individual specific suspicion; this was dropped in the joint version of the bill. The new version only allows challenges to a Section 215 order in the FISA court, whose proceedings (and rules) are secret. The joint version of the bill has Section 215 sunset in seven years.

According to the Campaign for Reader Privacy, the House of Representatives rules require that a conference report be published for three days before a final vote on the legislation.  However, House leaders say they will waive this requirement. The vote could happen Thursday or Friday.

It's time once again to contact your Senators and Representatives and request them to vote against this bill.

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?

11th hour to act on Patriot Act

Full information at readerprivacy.org

Tapping our email

Email from a colleague. Readers, please comment.

Mary –

This has been floating around in the back of my mind for a while – but a recent editorial in the SF Chronicle saying “Institutions of higher education and other providers of Internet connections such as libraries…are under orders to upgrade their systems by spring of 2007 – so the federal cops can more readily tap email…” brought it to the forefront.

How concerned should public libraries be with this?

Jean Hofacket

Acting County Librarian

Alameda County Library

Email reprinted with permission.