Privacy and Librarians: An Overview
Robert G. Weiner

Since the rise of information in digital format (e.g. the Internet, database files), an individual's right to privacy has become a key social issue. Information about a person's professional, personal, medical, and financial life is transmitted throughout the world every day. No matter who you are, there is "information about you . . . on file somewhere and available to anyone who knows how to look for it" (Lesce, 1992). Two books that document this rising threat to personal privacy in the lives of average citizens are The Privacy Poachers by Tony Lesce (1992), and Our Vanishing Privacy by Robert Ellis Smith (1993). Threats to privacy come from both public and private institutions. However, the library is one institution that has fought hard to keep patron records from snooping eyes. Librarians have traditionally been at the forefront of advocating protection of their patron's reading interests. This essay looks at some of the issues facing librarians with regard to the confidentiality and privacy of all kinds of patron records including circulation, interlibrary loan, and personal records. Librarians and library staff should view themselves as custodians of patron privacy.

A Definition of Privacy
Before the topic can be discussed intelligently, one must define what is meant by privacy. "Privacy, as a term . . . means the unavailability to others of information about oneself," Rhoda Garoogian has written in Library Trends. Increased usage of automated library systems has made possible access to one's personal reading interests. The anonymity and privacy of library patrons can be easily violated because information can now "be stored indefinitely" (Drobnicki, 1992), and the potential for misuse of this information is enormous.

In the 1930s, the American Library Association (ALA) recognized the need for librarians to take privacy issues seriously. The seventies, eighties, and nineties saw a rise in ALA's advocacy of patron confidentiality. ALA has continually encouraged librarians to keep a watchful eye on governmental and private institutions that might violate the sacred trust between the library and its users. In its Code of Ethics the ALA recognizes that patrons have a right to privacy (Seaman, 1994; Garoogian, 1991). Despite the ALA's conviction that patron confidentiality must be kept in all circumstances, the ALA is not a lawmaking institution; therefore its codes are not legally binding. The ALA recognizes that ". . . compliance with the Code of Ethics, is voluntary . . . and carries no consequence. Violation does not result in professional sanctions or fines" (Seaman, 1994). In many cases, all that is needed to examine a patron's reading interests is a court-ordered warrant.

Case Study Examples
National security is one of the major reasons that government institutions and law-enforcement agencies might want to know about someone's personal reading habits. If someone is a bomb maker, killer, mentally disturbed, or even potentially threatening, the government, journalists, and others want to know what kind of books that person reads. In 1956, when New York police were trying to find the "Mad Bomber," they "pored over New York Public Library records gathering the names of people who had checked out books on explosives and demolitions." Doing so did not help them catch the bomber, but it did cause librarians to ponder patron confidentiality and related issues (Lesce, 1992).

In 1981, the question of patron confidentiality was again raised when would-be presidential assassin John Hinckley was apprehended and a Jefferson County (Colorado) Public Library card was found in his possession. Almost immediately the library was bombarded by journalists and others who wanted to see what Hinckley had been reading. Although the librarian in charge did not comply with these requests, the county attorney held that circulation records were public and subject to viewing by anyone who wanted them (Seaman, 1994). Eventually this decision was overturned and library records remained private under law.

Another case that sent shock waves throughout the library profession occurred after the shooting rampage by Sylvia Seegrist in 1985, during which she killed and injured several innocent people. Apparently, Seegrist was very fond of the public library in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, and had visited the library a few hours before her shooting spree. Janis M. Lee, director of the Swarthmore Public Library, endured a painful ethical ordeal when called upon to disclose Seegrist's reading interests to reporters, lawyers, and detectives. Despite vehement personal attacks in the press and media, Lee remained silent until a court order required her to testify (Lee, 1988).

Analysis
These cases illustrate the dilemma librarians face in protecting patron confidentiality. Because one reads controversial literature does not necessarily mean that one is a threat to national security or society. Some of the most dangerous people in the world may favor such innocuous reading material as Mother Goose or Dr. Seuss. Regardless of whether a person's mental state can be determined by his or her reading choices, the librarian's professional ethics mandate the confidentiality of a patron's reading choices.

Federal Bureau of Investigation
During the 1980s, government agencies like the FBI became interested in the reading habits of the public. Using national security as a basis for prying into the library stacks and records throughout the country, the FBI instigated a program known as The Library Awareness Program. The FBI tried to enlist librarians and others to spy on citizens' reading habits, especially those believed to be reading subversive materials. Foerstal (1991) documents such efforts, which were largely unsuccessful, due to the tremendous outrage and resistance from those in the library profession. As one disgruntled librarian put it, "The FBI's asking us to become vigilantes" and contribute to "promoting an atmosphere of suspicion among co-workers" (Anderson, 1989). What is ironic about this program is that, historically, the FBI has respected (albeit reluctantly) the library's rights to uphold patron confidentiality (Stielow, 1993).

Patron Confidentiality and the Law
Patron confidentiality is perhaps one of the most sacred of all trusts of the library profession. Even though computerized databases have the problematic potential to keep all records indefinitely, they also offer ways to ensure patron privacy. Both Drobnicki (1992) and Harrison (1991) point out that automated systems in use by libraries should automatically purge a patron's borrowing history once materials have been returned. Although many libraries are financed through public, state, and sometimes federal funds, they are not considered to be governmental institutions in the traditional sense. Under the Freedom of Information Act, both governmental and state institutions must disclose records of their activities and finances.

The library is different from other public institutions, because the records it keeps do not "contain information about the affairs of government but . . . only about the reading habits and propensities of individual citizens" (Drobnicki, 1992). Libraries, thus, do not provide the same function as traditional government and state institutions. Although some forty-one states have enacted laws that protect patron privacy, there are still states which as of 1993, have laws against the purging of library circulation records (Nolan 1993). Twenty-two states have penalties for destruction of library records because library records are viewed as "public."

Although, at the federal level, there may not be an onus upon librarians to disclose records, individual states may pass laws requiring certain information to be retained indefinitely. Whether this would apply in all cases to circulation records remains at the state's discretion. "Even if certain records are deemed 'confidential' by the state's law, those records cannot be destroyed . . . [and] widespread destruction of library records has the potential . . . [to turn] ordinary law abiding librarians into lawbreakers . . ." (Wiegand, 1994).

Texas' 1993 Open Records Act requires that Texas libraries keep patron use records confidential. According to the act, patron records or records that are confidential under state or federal law are not considered public. However, records can be disclosed to a law enforcement agency or prosecutor under a court order or subpoena, and individuals can have access to their own protected records.

Since 1993, several situations have arisen in Texas libraries to test the law. In one case, a librarian was approached by her city manager and asked for patron information. The Attorney General's office advised the librarian to request that the city manager complete the requisite steps outlined in the law to get a warrant to search the records even though he would have access to them directly on the city's computer. Elsewhere, librarians have questioned whether adults have access to their children's records. The confidentiality law specifically indicates that adults are legally responsible for records of children under the age of 18.

In other cases, common summer reading club practices have come into question, prompting an interpretation from the Attorney General's office that libraries are free to post children's names and photographs on the wall as part of a summer reading club program without first obtaining the parent's permission since this is a promotional activity designed to stimulate reading. On the other hand, the AG's office has determined that summer reading logs are confidential and, as such, cannot be displayed or made available in a public area.

ILL Records
In addition to circulation records, librarians are concerned about interlibrary loan (ILL) records. In many cases there are no laws or precedents to prevent prying eyes from reviewing the reading habits of patrons who request items via ILL. Many libraries keep ILL records indefinitely. Lending libraries usually ask for a patron's name and address before sending out materials. Therefore, there are several records documenting what patrons are reading or studying. Nearly any interested party can look at these records. Nolan argues that the confidentiality of ILL records is just as important as that of circulation records. Although there have not been many cases where ILL records were used to invade a patron's privacy, the potential for misuse is tremendous (Nolan, 1993). He argues that there are four basic ways libraries can keep ILL records confidential: (1) minimize information gathered about a patron; (2) retain information about a user briefly and then discard it; (3) restrict access to patron information to appropriate personnel; and (4) instruct professional and clerical staff on policies of confidentiality concerning patrons' ILL requests.

Children's and Adolescents' Library Records
Librarians also must deal with issues regarding patron confidentiality for children and adolescents. They seem to agree that privacy should be extended to children and adolescents even in the face of parental questioning. The library card holder is the only one who should have access to her library activities. "The library's role is to provide access to materials for all and to ensure absolute privacy" regardless of age. (Hildebrand, 1991; Vandergrift, 1991).

Ethical Concerns
Librarians tend to view the issue of patron confidentially with grave ethical convictions, sometimes even passion, but what about the greater good of society versus the individual's rights to privacy? Do librarians have an ethical obligation to reveal the reading choices of a "suspicious" or "subversive" individual? If a person borrows a library book which describes how to build a bomb, then builds a bomb and destroys an elementary school, is the library obligated to report this individual's reading selection? Should it, therefore, be held accountable?

Certainly, legal precedents exist to support such a case. A bar that lets someone drive home drunk may, in some jurisdictions, be held liable for any damage the drunk might do. The library profession, however, does not view its obligation as protecting the greater good above the individual. An individual's right to privacy should take precedence "over the rights of society" (Garoogian, 1991). Libraries are a place where a relationship of trust is to be maintained and held sacred. Even reference questions must remain private and confidential. If any organization, either public or private, were to have access to patron records, such information could be used to blackmail, embarrass, or harass the patron (Drobnicki, 1992). Just because a patron reads alternative literature does not mean that the patron agrees with or will be negatively influenced by it. It is never "safe to assume anything from a library user's records" (Drobnicki, 1992). As Rhoda Garoogian puts it, "Morally and legally what individuals read or what information they seek is nobody else's business."

Conclusion — Other Dangers
The library profession is at the forefront of the movement to protect the patron's right to enjoy reading materials safe from "prying eyes." Ethically, it is the librarian's responsibility to hold the sanctity of patron confidentiality above all else. The greatest danger to a person's privacy comes, not from libraries or other public institutions, but from the private sector. There are a variety of companies whose sole purpose is to sell personal information about the average citizen, which is all perfectly legal (Spinello, 1997; Reynolds, 1991). Although libraries may not be permitted to disclose patrons' reading and information preferences, bookstore chains can. Many bookstores now have computer databases which can keep information on book orders and purchases on file indefinitely. Librarians and other concerned citizens may well keep these other, potentially more serious, abuses by the private sector in mind when considering the matter of confidentiality of library records.

References
Anderson, A. J. "The FBI Wants You To Spy." Library Journal 114 (June 15, 1989): 37–9.
Drobnicki, John A. "The Confidentiality of Library Users' Records." (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED358846, 1992).
Foerstal, Herbert N. Surveillance in the Stacks: The FBI's Library Awareness Program. (Contributions in Political Science, No. 266.) New York: Greenwood, 1991.
Garoogian, Rhoda. "Librarian/Patron Confidentiality: An Ethical Challenge." Library Trends 40 (Fall 1991): 216–33.
Harrison, Susan. "A Bill of Rights of an Electronic Society: A Public Library Perspective." In Dennis Reynolds (Ed.) Citizen Rights and Access to Electronic Information. Chicago: Library and Information Technology Association, 1991: 33–5.
Hildebrand, Janet. "Is Privacy Reserved for Adults? Children's Rights at the Public Library." School Library Journal 37 (January 1991): 21–5.
Lee, Janis M. "Confidentiality: From the Stacks to the Witness Stand." American Libraries 19 (June 1998): 444–53.
Lesce, Tony. The Privacy Poachers: How the Government and Big Corporations Use and Sell Information About You. Port Townsend, WA: Loompanics, 1992.
Nolan, Christopher W. "The Confidentiality of Interlibrary Loan Records." Journal of Academic Librarianship 19 (May 1993): 81–6.
Reynolds, Dennis J. "The Bill of Rights and Beyond: Citizen Entitlement and Information Access in the Information Age." In Dennis J. Reynolds (Ed.) Citizen Rights and Access to Electronic Information. Chicago: Library and Information Technology Association, 1991: 1–17.
Seaman, Scott. "Confidentiality of Patron Records in Electronic Library Circulation Systems." (Boulder, CO: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED371723, April 1994).
Smith, Robert Ellis. Our Vanishing Privacy: and What You Can Do to Protect Yours. Port Townsend, WA: Loompanics Unlimited, 1993.
Spinello, Richard A. "The End of Privacy." America 176 (January 4–11, 1997): 9–13.
Stielow, Frederick J. "The FBI and Library Spying: A World War II Precedent." American Libraries. 24 (September 1993): 709–11.
Vandergrift, Kay E. "Privacy, Schooling and Minors." School Library Journal. 37 (January 1991): 26-30.
Wiegand, Shirley A. "Lawmakers, Lawbreakers: The Problem with Library Record Destruction." American Libraries 25 (January 1994): 102–6.