SACRAMENTO – Today, the California State Senate unanimously approved the Reader Privacy Act of 2011 – legislation that would require government agencies to seek a warrant in order to access consumers’ reading records from bookstores and online retailers. The bill – SB 602 authored by Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) – would establish consumer protections for book purchases similar to long-established privacy laws for library records. 

“I am very pleased that both Democrats and Republicans agree that current law is completely inadequate when it comes to protecting one’s privacy for book purchases, especially for online shopping and electronic books,” said Yee. “Individuals should be free to buy books without fear of government intrusion and witch hunts. If law enforcement has reason to suspect wrongdoing, they can obtain a warrant for such information.”

Many bookstores already collect information about readers and their purchases. Digital book services can collect even more detailed information including which books are browsed, how long each page is viewed, and even digital notes made in the margins.

Historically, sensitive reader information has come under fire. During the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s, Americans were questioned about whether they had read Marx or Lenin. In the years following September 11, 2001, the FBI sought patron information from more than 200 libraries.

Just this past year, Amazon was asked by the North Carolina Department of Revenue to turn over 50 million purchase records including books, videos, and other expressive material. 

SB 602 will update California state law to ensure that government and third parties cannot demand access to Californians’ reading records without proper justification.

Yee’s law is supported by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Google, Consumer Federation of California, and Californians Aware, among others

Supporters say that it is essential for state law to keep pace and safeguard readers in the digital age.  Electronic or digital books now outsell paperbacks on Amazon.com and over 18 million e-readers are expected to be sold in 2012.

“California should be a leader in ensuring that upgraded technology does not mean downgraded privacy,” said Valerie Small Navarro, Legislative Advocate with the ACLU’s California Affiliates. “We should be able to read about anything from politics, to religion to health without worrying that the government might be looking over our shoulder.”

“In a recent Google Books decision, the court noted the importance of the privacy concerns with digital books,” said Cindy Cohn, Legal Director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “This law will ensure that the enhanced reader tracking that is possible through digital books and book services doesn’t create a honey pot for government investigators and other lawyers seeking to snoop on what we search for, browse and read in digital bookstores and libraries.” 

SB 602 will next be considered by the State Assembly.

ACLU of Southern California, Disability Rights California, Disability Rights Legal Center, and Winston & Strawn filed an application for a temporary restraining order against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department on behalf of an inmate with a mobility impairment, who needs a wheelchair, but is being punished by the Sheriff’s Department for refusing an order from the Sheriff’s Department to give it up.
Terry Alexander is a class member in the class action lawsuit Johnson v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, which was filed in 2008 against the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, Los Angeles County and Sheriff Baca on behalf of inmates with mobility impairments.
The plaintiffs argue that the jails are not wheelchair accessible, and that inmates are denied mobility devices such as wheelchairs, crutches, walkers or canes, even though they need them.  Inmates with mobility impairments also suffer discrimination because they are denied access to jail programs and services, including those that may reduce time served.  The inmates are also placed in cells that are not wheelchair accessible, which means that men have fallen because there are no grab bars to help transfer them to the toilet, and some of them are denied equal access to shower facilities.  This is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, California and federal statutes, and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
“We need the court to step in immediately to protect Mr. Alexander, who is in “the hole” for refusing to give up the wheelchair that is absolutely essential to his basic functioning,” said Jessica Price, staff attorney for the ACLU/SC. “Doctors in the jail have decided that Mr. Alexander needs a wheelchair, and now the deputies are punishing him for failing to get out of his wheelchair.”
“This is among the worst disability discrimination that we’ve seen in a long time,” says Shawna Parks, Legal Director for the Disability Rights Legal Center. “To not only deny a necessary accommodation, but also discipline someone for disputing that denial, flies in the face of every disability nondiscrimination statute on the books.”
Mr. Alexander has a history of paraplegia. He has needed a wheelchair since 2003 after a number of his spinal discs were crushed by a forklift at his job.  In 2010 he was arrested.  He has had multiple doctors determine that he needs a wheelchair. Deputies put him in “the hole” – solitary confinement in disciplinary housing that is physically inaccessible with no accommodations for persons with disabilities --  on April 14, 2011 for failing to get out of the wheelchair.  While in “the hole” Mr. Alexander has fallen because there are no grab bars and he has difficulty transferring to the toilet.  He is also barred from using the telephone and therefore is unable to call his mother who had a stroke last year.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to order the defendants not to punish Alexander until he can have an independent medical exam to determine the medical necessity of his wheelchair.

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California recently granted preliminary approval to a proposed class-action settlement in Casey A. v. Gundry, a lawsuit about deficient educational and rehabilitation services for youth detained at Challenger Memorial Youth Center in Lancaster, CA. Youth detained at Challenger between January 8, 2008 and November 8, 2010 will be affected by the settlement.