Re: FBI's reading list worries librarians

[David Goodman <dgoodman@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>]

For books, there is the obvious solution mentioned in the article of not
keeping records of what a patron has borrowed after it has been returned.
On the assumption that most library books get returned eventually, and
that the cost for collection of fines is usually about the same as the
revenue generated by them, I would even be prepared to consider not
keeping records of what books a patron has currently on loan.

For computer terminals, there is no reason for a library to keep any
records of what patron is using a terminal. For material that cannot be
read without entering identification, the library staff can enter the
information for the patron in the same manner it would provide reference
for a patron, but keep no record of what patron this service is being
provided for, just as none of us keep records of what patron our reference
work is for.

If a patron chooses to send identification over the internet, it is of
course not secure against public and private interception regardless of
what measures a library takes. Patrons need be reminded of that, even if
we had no such legislation.

Presumably it would be possible for the government to prohibit anonymous
library service. Soviet Russia had that policy. I would not have been a
librarian there, any more than I would have joined their secret police.

Dr. David Goodman
Princeton University Library
and
Palmer School of Library and Information Service, LIU

dgoodman@princeton.edu