The denial from the Justice Department came almost immediately. Its spokesman was unhappy that a story about the Calais Free Library suggested the FBI would have access to library patrons’ reading records. “Completely wrong,” said the spokesman. But “completely” overstates the department’s limitations; and “wrong” is also less than accurate. Otherwise the comment was fine.

At issue is the application of the USA Patriot Act, the 2001 anti-terrorism legislation that gives the federal government expanded power to monitor, with a court’s agreement, the habits of Americans and others. The act says the FBI “may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.”

The Calais Free Library drew attention by being supportive of a bill by Vermont Rep. Bernie Sanders to limit the Patriot Act by exempting libraries and booksellers. But Calais was hardly alone – 60 members of Congress have supported Rep. Sanders’ bill. More than a dozen state library associations, including Maine’s, nearly 100 communities and uncounted grass-roots groups have passed resolves or otherwise protested against the surveillance provisions in the Patriot Act.

The Justice Department spokesman, Mark Corallo, says the assertions about the act are completely wrong because, for the FBI to check on a citizen’s reading habits, it must get a search warrant. And to get a warrant, it must convince a judge “there is probable cause that the person you are seeking the information for is a terrorist or a foreign spy.” Louise Roback, executive director of the Maine Civil Liberties Union, says the probable-cause standard isn’t required in these cases.

But the more important question is how often those federal judges – they sit on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court – turn down FBI requests for warrants. Do most get approved? The vast majority? You can’t know the answer because it’s a federal secret. All the public knows is that last summer the court was so outraged by FBI behavior that it took the unprecedented step of announcing more than 75 instances in which the FBI had misled it with false information in attempts to obtain permission for electronic surveillance.

Librarians and many others are concerned that the act will make readers fearful to pick up any book that seems interesting, especially if the books are about, for instance, geographical regions near restricted government areas or Islam or are anti-government or just plain nutty. And simply saying to wait to see how the FBI handles its new powers doesn’t solve the problem because all the information the FBI collects from libraries or bookstores is classified – no one is allowed to see anything.

Supporters of the Sanders legislation and those generally suspicious of anything that interferes with free enquiry are worried that the public will not know about the effects of the Patriot Act until it is too late. They are right to strongly question the potential abuse of the act and right to make their concerns known publicly.