News
Garber Announces Advisory Committee for Harvard Law School Dean Search
News
First Harvard Prize Book in Kosovo Established by Harvard Alumni
News
Ryan Murdock ’25 Remembered as Dedicated Advocate and Caring Friend
News
Harvard Faculty Appeal Temporary Suspensions From Widener Library
News
Man Who Managed Clients for High-End Cambridge Brothel Network Pleads Guilty
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) will still be able to access
Harvard patron borrowing records—a power Harvard officials argue may
have a chilling effect on academic freedom—if Congress renews the
Patriot Act now that lawmakers and the White House have reached a
compromise on controversial aspects of the legislation.
Harvard’s long-standing concerns about the Patriot Act have
not been adequately addressed by the three proposed changes to the
revised Patriot Act legislation announced last week, according to
Director of the Harvard University Library Sidney Verba ’53.
These compromises would specify that the FBI cannot demand
internet records from libraries under normal circumstances and adjust
the level of judicial review of these requests.
Even with these changes, the legislation still does not
strike the proper balance between national security and civil
liberties, Verba said in an interview with The Crimson yesterday.
Four Republican critics of the act and some influential
Democratic senators announced Thursday that they had worked out three
changes to the current legislation that they said satisfied their civil
liberties concerns.
The FBI’s ability to demand a patron’s borrowing record was
not changed by the compromises. But, under current law, libraries who
receive this kind of request are prohibited from ever discussing it.
The compromise would set a time limit on this controversial ban by
specifying that libraries can challenge this “gag rule” in court after
a year has passed, according to a statement released by the Republican
senators who voted against long-term Patriot Act renewal in December.
The legislation still specifies that, in such a case, a
high-ranking federal official’s testimony that the secrecy is crucial
to national security must be accepted by the judge as conclusive.
This provision makes the right to challenge the gag order in
court meaningless, national security policy counsel for the American
Civil Liberties Union Timothy H. Edgar told The Crimson in December.
The compromises also specify that the FBI will no longer be
able to use National Security Letters (NSLs) to request records of
internet and e-mail usage from libraries “functioning in their
traditional roles,” according to the statement.
But the FBI could still access the same records by sending an
NSL to a library’s internet service provider, a Justice department
official said, and libraries functioning as internet service providers
would still be subject to NSLs.
As the third part of the compromise, a provision of the
Patriot Act revision—which specifies that NSL recipients can consult
with an attorney but must identify that attorney to the FBI—would be
removed so that recipients have access to legal counsel without FBI
notification.
Verba said that the details of the compromise are still
unclear, and that a final evaluation of the legislation’s impact on
Harvard will have to wait until Congress votes on the renewal sometime
before March 10, when key sections of the Patriot Act are due to
expire.
Congress has already temporarily extended the legislation
twice in order to allow time for a bipartisan group of senators who
have blocked the passage of the act to negotiate with the Bush
administration about the library provisions and other measures that
have sparked concern.
The FBI’s access to library patron borrowing records and
internet usage and the perceived lack of sufficient judicial review
over these powers have been central points of contention in the long
debate over the Patriot Act renewal.
Verba, who is also the Pforzheimer University Professor of
Government, said he thought the Patriot Act compromises seemed to be
more an example of bipartisan political posturing than a substantive
reworking of the issues at hand.
“You very often come to circumstances where both parties want
to be able to look like they’re doing the right thing,” Verba said.
“It didn’t sound to me like they had solved the problems that we have been worried about,” he added.
—Staff writer Lois E. Beckett can be reached at lbeckett@fas.harvard.edu.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.