More dangerous reading

We've all probably heard about the FBI's recent warnings about terrorists using almanacs as Tools of Terror. But that's not all they're looking for....

Robert Mueller III, director of the FBI, explains in the current issue of American Libraries that "I am personally committed to fighting the war on terrorism without violating the principles of civil liberty and privacy that make this country great...." He says also that "We must recognize, however, that libraries and their services occasionally attract individuals involved in criminal conduct, including terrorism and espionage." Ted Kaczynski, the good ol' Unabomber, is trotted out as an example:

"Included within the [Unabomber's] manifesto were references to an obscure book, The Ancient Engineers, by L. Sprague De Camp. A librarian in Montana near Kaczynski's home told FBI agents that Kaczynski had ordered 'tons of stuff' on L. Sprague de Camp. Kaczynski was subsequently arrested and convicted for his role in a string of bombings."

Huh? Am I missing something, or are there a few gaps in his logic here?

It's a little odd to characterize de Camp's The Ancient Engineers as "obscure". De Camp was an extremely prolific writer of science fiction, fantasy, and nonfiction, and the winner of several science fiction and fantasy award, most notably the Hugo Award in 1997. At one time or another, I've seen copies of that particular book on the bargain-books rack of just about every Barnes & Noble store I've been to, as well as in numerous used-bookstores. OCLC WorldCat reports that 1028 libraries own the 1963 original edition, with hundreds more owning copies of subsequent editions that came out in 1966, 1970, 1974, 1976, 1977, 1986, and 1990. Does the FBI really think that reading, owning, or requesting a copy of this book, or 'tons of stuff' about its author, is a "terrorist" characteristic? If so, we've got an awful lot of terrorists out there. Enough to make de Camp a bestselling author in his heyday, and enough to vote a Hugo Award to him in 1997. If this is the case, considering that I like to read about old technology, read science fiction, and lived in the same city as de Camp, I have no idea how I managed to avoid becoming a Terrorist.

I note that Mr. Mueller is rather vague about just what connection there is between Kaczynski's reading of de Camp, FBI's snooping into his library records, and his "subsequent" arrest. Does he mean to say that the references to de Camp's book in the Unabomber's manuscript, and some kind of mass trawling through library records for "people who read L. Sprague de Camp", were the critical evidence that allowed the FBI to identify and arrest Kaczynski?

My recollection of the events is that the FBI and other police agencies actually identified and arrested Kaczynski only after his brother recognized his writing style in the published manifesto and turned him in. (See Wikipedia's entry on Kaczynski.) If the FBI inquired into Kaczynski's library records after that point, it was (1) after the case had effectively been broken, and (2) with critical evidence identifying a suspect already in hand -- evidence that evidently met the existing requirements for library disclosure, pre-"PATRIOT" ACT.

Does Mr. Mueller intend to say that if the FBI had had "PATRIOT"-style powers of inquisition at that time, they would have conducted a massive, nationwide fishing expedition through library and bookstore records for the names of everybody who had read best-selling authors like de Camp, Joseph Conrad, Eric Hoffer and other authors cited by the Unabomber? And then somehow magically identified the "right" one from that massive list? What of all those who read de Camp, Hoffer, et al in pure, unblemished innocence? 'Fraid yours truly is "guilty" of reading all three. Although I may be more bookish than most of the population, it seems likely that there are thousands of others who fit the same definition.

In any event, this example is, if anything, an example of why the so-called "Patriot" Act was unneeded. Evidently the FBI got the necessary information about Kaczynski under the pre-existing system. The claim that this supports the "need" for at-will and unsupervised surveillance of all American citizens' reading and researching habits is unjustified.