Slashdot Mirror

Or so the DOJ claims. The American Library Association disagrees, and will advise any library recieving such a request to take it to court.

Until there's more case law established in this area (and note that at least one provision of the Patriot Act involved was found to be unconstitutional, as mentioned in the linked article), I'd say whether the library "has to" comply is unclear.

For those who are so inclined, there's a substantial community of people interested in the geeky mechanics of antiquarian books. See, for instance, Rare Book School.

Also, you should not underestimate the l337ness of librarians -- they are all over the database world, fans of the semantic web, and friends of freedom of speech and even open source.

There's even a library webcomic.

For those who are so inclined, there's a substantial community of people interested in the geeky mechanics of antiquarian books. See, for instance, Rare Book School.

Also, you should not underestimate the l337ness of librarians -- they are all over the database world, fans of the semantic web, and friends of freedom of speech and even open source.

There's even a library webcomic.

And how is this not being done as is. For anyone who goes into a library, records of what books you check out are kept since you have to submit your library card. Most public libaries are known/thought to share this information with government as it stands.

I don't know where you get this idea, but currently most public libraries make it a point to destroy the record of you checking out a book after you return it, just so that they don't have this information available if/when the government comes around asking for it. Here is some relevant reading material: http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/usapatriotact. htm

Sera

For the most part, yes. IANAL however. Some examples: http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/firstamendment/courtcas es/courtcases.htm#fes

Depending on your viewpoint, it's rather creepy to "check in" with someone when you want to access "inappropriate" content at all. On the plus side, librarians, and the ALA in particular, are generally quite opposed to censorship of any kind. You can bet that they'll have something to say about this. Libraries already have all sorts of trouble being compliant with the very vague law that is CIPA, and this will only muddy the water further.

I found a very interesting article (linked to from the ALA website) that goes over the problems that libraries face with internet filtering. Make no mistake; they hate it. Particularly alarming is the librarian from Singapore that wasn't that concerned about censorship:

She casually replied, "Oh yes, we get overblocking all the time. Last week I was helping a patron look for motor vehicle forms but they were blocked, probably because it has a box to check for SEX 'Male/Female.'"

There was something about her casual tone that tripped me up. I usually hear librarians give overblocking examples in tones alternating between outrage, bitterness and amusement. I heard none of that in her voice. Just a relaxed answer, perhaps befitting our tranquil setting.

Nevertheless, I prodded, "As a librarian, doesn't that bother you?"

"No, not really," she said. Noticing the surprised look on my face, she continued, "You don't understand. Everything in Singapore is censored ... our books, our movies. You get used to it. Internet filters are nothing special."

This is purely redundant legislation to collect mindshare for an election year, and will only be used to restrict us further. Once people get used to it, they cease to care. It must be fought.

Depending on your viewpoint, it's rather creepy to "check in" with someone when you want to access "inappropriate" content at all. On the plus side, librarians, and the ALA in particular, are generally quite opposed to censorship of any kind. You can bet that they'll have something to say about this. Libraries already have all sorts of trouble being compliant with the very vague law that is CIPA, and this will only muddy the water further.

I found a very interesting article (linked to from the ALA website) that goes over the problems that libraries face with internet filtering. Make no mistake; they hate it. Particularly alarming is the librarian from Singapore that wasn't that concerned about censorship:

She casually replied, "Oh yes, we get overblocking all the time. Last week I was helping a patron look for motor vehicle forms but they were blocked, probably because it has a box to check for SEX 'Male/Female.'"

There was something about her casual tone that tripped me up. I usually hear librarians give overblocking examples in tones alternating between outrage, bitterness and amusement. I heard none of that in her voice. Just a relaxed answer, perhaps befitting our tranquil setting.

Nevertheless, I prodded, "As a librarian, doesn't that bother you?"

"No, not really," she said. Noticing the surprised look on my face, she continued, "You don't understand. Everything in Singapore is censored ... our books, our movies. You get used to it. Internet filters are nothing special."

This is purely redundant legislation to collect mindshare for an election year, and will only be used to restrict us further. Once people get used to it, they cease to care. It must be fought.

This would provide the most amazing trolling database ever. Can you imagine the glee within the govt at being able to freely scan every file "owned" by every member of the public.

And dont think it wont happen because the Patriot act permits data trolling without telling the user (go and talk to you public library - they have to hand over data about you and they are not allowed to tell you).

Can you imagine the conversation...

GW: I need access you your Live Drive for anyone named 'ahmed' or 'abbus' or 'abdul' or ... hell just give me it all!
BillG: sure - if you can call off your anti-trust watchdogs
GW: consider it done. What is anti-trust anyway??

Why do you think they call America the Great Experiment?

Newspaper sales are declining, Internet use is rising. As a future librarian (got my MLS this December 2005) I've had to look over the steadfastness of print on the onslaught of information explosion that's occuring.
Pros: portable, readable, accessible, and as long as no serious floods occur it has a greater chance of surviving than most digital media storage formats. of course someone had a comment on the quality of paper now a days and it's fairly true. But this mainly applies to print in general.
Cons: limited search capabilities, prone to damage, and very difficult to store (which is why a majority of papers are stored on to microfiche at your local public library)

truth is we're just waiting around till technology catches up with the pros.

http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/selectedarticles/1 0reasonswhy.htm
while the arguments here do not necessarily translate over to this argument, they do contain several valid points about print versus digital works.

This guy is blowing smoke, there's no huge impending rush in even the next decade for newspapers to significantly change their business models. readership is down because there are far more distractions; tv, internet, games, etc...

Even IF they change, it's possible people will have so many distractions it won't make a difference. I see things becoming really bad in terms of our future's intellectual capabilities if we as the next generation don't set some serious examples for future generations to come.

A relative of mine insists there's no need for newspapers (and of course scoffs at the need for public libraries) while he can find everything he needs online. Naturally he's not a reader because the last time he wrote me something was about the "OS X" hack contest which turned out to be a farce in bad reporting.
Having worked in the public library for a little while, there is a huge need for both Internet terminals AND periodicals.
While I'm an Internet savvy person(I was an IT person before deciding to go the librarian route which required going back to school for a Master's in Library Science) I am a voracious reader of both print and digital works. (I even listen to books on cds while driving). I'd have to say I STILL read more things in print than I ever could of digital, because the very fact remains, I like reading a newspaper. You'll find others do too if you venture out of your circles.

Google may think they are being philanthropic, but they haven't thought this one through.

There is a distinct possibility it may be the result of a competitive intelligence operation by Googles competitors.

Lets analyze the political forces involved.

Google is planning to offer, free, various library material that American taxpayers have spent billions of dollars collecting, producing and organizing. This money comes from federal, state, and local public funds as well as various private contributions, all of them usually with some sort of encumbrances.

There is always less funding for libraries than is needed, but this year represents a major shortfall. http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/WOissues/washfundin g/funding.htm

Its an election year, and funding for schools and libraries are LOCAL politics, sure to be major issues in what promises to be many highly contested elections.

Google has lots of enemies http://wired.com/wired/archive/13.12/google.html who won't hesitate to take advantage of a situation like this; and they have plenty of lobbyists.

Here is my prediction.

Google goes ahead with their plans. Shortly after the elections, the GAO, various federal, state and local governments announce that they sueing to recover the costs of the material Google made available that was not within the encombrances posed by the original donations of funds. For bonus points, they may include the various penalties imposed by intellectual property acts as various parties assert rights to specific items in the distributed material.

*Poof* no more shortfall in library funding in the US, though Google shareholders might be a tad upset. There probably won't be a Sarbanes Oxley prosecution, and, who knows, a hostile takeover due to a cash flow crisis might be good for Google

I LIKE it... The empire strikes back with a competitive intelligence operation at it's finest. This is so much more fun than, say, a chair being thrown by a CEO or getting some congresspeople to complain about censorship. I can't wait to see if this plays out the way it looks.

Google is normally not this naive; they have competant legal staff who should have pointed all this out. I wonder what else is going on?

Who wants to take bets on how many morons miss the knee deep sarcasim of the above post and think it is the real thing?

Sad to say, there's no idea so dumb that some folks haven't tried it.

Librarians are some of the most under appreciated people in our society. They're far more than just curators of large book collections, many of them care deeply about issues related to privacy, copyright, freedom of access to reading material, and so on, - basically, many of the issues the likes of the EFF deal with a lot.

The American Library Association, the largest library association in the world, takes a particularly strong stand on civil liberties, intellectual freedom and privacy, and those who really want to show they care can even order themselves an 'Radical Militant Librarian' badge. Hell, kinda makes me wish I was a librarian :)

Finally, on the general subject of librarian appreciation, his seems like a good place to link to Unshelved, a great webcomic about life inside a library.

Librarians are some of the most under appreciated people in our society. They're far more than just curators of large book collections, many of them care deeply about issues related to privacy, copyright, freedom of access to reading material, and so on, - basically, many of the issues the likes of the EFF deal with a lot.

The American Library Association, the largest library association in the world, takes a particularly strong stand on civil liberties, intellectual freedom and privacy, and those who really want to show they care can even order themselves an 'Radical Militant Librarian' badge. Hell, kinda makes me wish I was a librarian :)

Finally, on the general subject of librarian appreciation, his seems like a good place to link to Unshelved, a great webcomic about life inside a library.

Librarians are some of the most under appreciated people in our society. They're far more than just curators of large book collections, many of them care deeply about issues related to privacy, copyright, freedom of access to reading material, and so on, - basically, many of the issues the likes of the EFF deal with a lot.

The American Library Association, the largest library association in the world, takes a particularly strong stand on civil liberties, intellectual freedom and privacy, and those who really want to show they care can even order themselves an 'Radical Militant Librarian' badge. Hell, kinda makes me wish I was a librarian :)

Finally, on the general subject of librarian appreciation, his seems like a good place to link to Unshelved, a great webcomic about life inside a library.

You should all take a look at the following page:
https://www.ala.org/ala/oif/basics/basicrelatedlin ks/radicalbutton.htm
with more details at:
http://www.librarian.net/stax/1575
The gist is that the parent is right on. We should learn from our librarians how to be better protectors of our civil liberties.
JGG

Are you a librarian in Massachusetts? If not, you may want to do some research before you start spouting off like you did ... it's not as cut and dry as you made it seem. If you are, well ...

Here's what I found:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/78-7.htm

CHAPTER 78. LIBRARIES

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Chapter 78: Section 7. Establishment by cities and towns; records

Section 7. A town may establish and maintain public libraries for its inhabitants under regulations prescribed by the city council or by the town, and may receive, hold and manage any gift, bequest or devise therefor. The city council of a city or the selectmen of a town may place in such library the books, reports and laws which may be received from the commonwealth. That part of the records of a public library which reveals the identity and intellectual pursuits of a person using such library shall not be a public record as defined by clause Twenty-sixth of section seven of chapter four. Library authorities may disclose or exchange information relating to library users for the purposes of inter-library cooperation and coordination, including but not limited to, the purposes of facilitating the sharing of resources among library jurisdictions as authorized by clause (1) of section nineteen E or enforcing the provisions of sections ninety-nine and one hundred of chapter two hundred and sixty-six.

So the question becomes, is a public computer in a Massachusetts public library that any person can use considered part of the records of a public library? You see, it's not specified here and IMHO, I don't think it is ...

Even the American Library Association site that discusses this directs folks to the MA statute above and says for them to "adopt a policy that specifically recognizes the confidentiality of information sought or received, and materials consulted borrowed or acquired by a library user." Does emailing a bomb threat count as "materials consulted borrowed or acquired"?

I'm just talking about laws concerning this in MA, not your state. I'm sure your state has its stuff together.

Be careful what you ask for. The ALA reports on books that are chalenged. Tom Sawyer is on the list. Although it doesn't list the reason, I recall hearing that it was for racist views.

Radical Militant Librarians

I am a librarian. If this story is true, I am very concerned about how the Dept. of Homeland Security obtained a library patron's records. It is a violation of principle III of the American Library Association Code of Ethics to provide a library patron's records to anyone without the patron's consent. If the story is true, I would like to see the American Library Association take disciplinary action against librarians responsible for the release of these records.

Especially considering there are less than 120,000 libraries in the US...and that's including the ones in elementary and middle schools, which wouldn't have any need to carry it. There are less than twenty thousand actual "public libraries".

The is not a (mod) funny post. Please visit the web site of the ALA: http://www.ala.org/ Our parody image of the typical little old woman with powered bun saying "shooooosh" is wrong. They are closer to being real time action heros, that are doing more to defend our freedoms than our elected leaders. Do check out their web site and see they work they are doing with the ACLU to protect your privacy.

My point in posting my comment was not to say "this is the way things should be" (although see below), but to point out that logging IPs is not, even remotely, any guarantee of being able to identify the wrongdoer.

However, since you took it a different way ...

I have to say, I wonder if "state law" here is really not just an excuse to avoid responsible management of the network which includes logging and identifying patrons with some kind of sign-in system (Of course it's cheaper to have no sign in system at all, but that doesn't make it a responsible thing to do.)

::shrugs:: The attorneys & the retired judge on the library board, licensed with the state bar, are the ones who decided that our practice best complies with the applicable laws, including the state's law regarding confidentiality of library records. I happen to agree with them, but if you want to take our policy to task, then you really need to address the Ohio state legislature and bar. Your own state's requirements, of course, may differ. Even within Ohio, different libraries have interpreted the law differently in terms of day-to-day practice (although in my experience, most of them that have consulted attorneys have devised systems roughly as anonymous as ours; the ones still keeping name logs or other patron-identifying records are generally the ones who think they need to consult an attorney only after they have gotten into hot water). Many states have no library confidentiality law at all.

Before Ohio passed the confidentiality law, my library used to keep a sign-in sheet at the desk where patrons signed in to use the computers. We had one particularly chilling example of the dangers of this when a stalker would come to sign up for the computers just as an excuse to look at the logs and see if his "ex-girlfriend" had been in the library that day. Luckily, no direct harm came to the ex-girlfriend through the library's disregard of her confidentiality. But the potential for such harm is one good reason not to keep logs.

As jahudabudy says, The library is there to provide tools. The people in charge decided that more good could come of providing free research access to anyone and everyone than harm.

You can scoff at it as irresponsible if you choose. Perhaps you're not aware that, quite independent of the legality of the issue, patron confidentiality is one of the core (although sadly, not universally practiced) professional ethics of librarianship, developed through a long collective process of debate and discussion among librarians worldwide. If you're interested in the topic, you might want to read what the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom has to say about Privacy and Confidentiality.

"But it's a library" may not carry the same weight as "but I'm his doctor" or "but I'm his attorney", but it does carry some weight (yes, even with the courts in some cases) insofar as it is a core ethic of the profession -- one of the practices, like doctor-patient confidentiality, or the seal of the confessional, that best enables the profession to fulfill its duties.

Finally, in light of the USA PATRIOT Act's granting of broad powers to the federal government to investigate your library records without your knowledge -- without a subpoena -- without the library staff even being allowed to tell each other, much less anyone in the general public, that there is even an investigation going on -- I rest much easier knowing that we keep no library records any longer than absolutely necessary for us to conduct the business of the library. This way there is no chance that a federal agency might abuse information about an innocent library patron's use of the library.

My point in posting my comment was not to say "this is the way things should be" (although see below), but to point out that logging IPs is not, even remotely, any guarantee of being able to identify the wrongdoer.

However, since you took it a different way ...

I have to say, I wonder if "state law" here is really not just an excuse to avoid responsible management of the network which includes logging and identifying patrons with some kind of sign-in system (Of course it's cheaper to have no sign in system at all, but that doesn't make it a responsible thing to do.)

::shrugs:: The attorneys & the retired judge on the library board, licensed with the state bar, are the ones who decided that our practice best complies with the applicable laws, including the state's law regarding confidentiality of library records. I happen to agree with them, but if you want to take our policy to task, then you really need to address the Ohio state legislature and bar. Your own state's requirements, of course, may differ. Even within Ohio, different libraries have interpreted the law differently in terms of day-to-day practice (although in my experience, most of them that have consulted attorneys have devised systems roughly as anonymous as ours; the ones still keeping name logs or other patron-identifying records are generally the ones who think they need to consult an attorney only after they have gotten into hot water). Many states have no library confidentiality law at all.

Before Ohio passed the confidentiality law, my library used to keep a sign-in sheet at the desk where patrons signed in to use the computers. We had one particularly chilling example of the dangers of this when a stalker would come to sign up for the computers just as an excuse to look at the logs and see if his "ex-girlfriend" had been in the library that day. Luckily, no direct harm came to the ex-girlfriend through the library's disregard of her confidentiality. But the potential for such harm is one good reason not to keep logs.

As jahudabudy says, The library is there to provide tools. The people in charge decided that more good could come of providing free research access to anyone and everyone than harm.

You can scoff at it as irresponsible if you choose. Perhaps you're not aware that, quite independent of the legality of the issue, patron confidentiality is one of the core (although sadly, not universally practiced) professional ethics of librarianship, developed through a long collective process of debate and discussion among librarians worldwide. If you're interested in the topic, you might want to read what the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom has to say about Privacy and Confidentiality.

"But it's a library" may not carry the same weight as "but I'm his doctor" or "but I'm his attorney", but it does carry some weight (yes, even with the courts in some cases) insofar as it is a core ethic of the profession -- one of the practices, like doctor-patient confidentiality, or the seal of the confessional, that best enables the profession to fulfill its duties.

Finally, in light of the USA PATRIOT Act's granting of broad powers to the federal government to investigate your library records without your knowledge -- without a subpoena -- without the library staff even being allowed to tell each other, much less anyone in the general public, that there is even an investigation going on -- I rest much easier knowing that we keep no library records any longer than absolutely necessary for us to conduct the business of the library. This way there is no chance that a federal agency might abuse information about an innocent library patron's use of the library.

My point in posting my comment was not to say "this is the way things should be" (although see below), but to point out that logging IPs is not, even remotely, any guarantee of being able to identify the wrongdoer.

However, since you took it a different way ...

I have to say, I wonder if "state law" here is really not just an excuse to avoid responsible management of the network which includes logging and identifying patrons with some kind of sign-in system (Of course it's cheaper to have no sign in system at all, but that doesn't make it a responsible thing to do.)

::shrugs:: The attorneys & the retired judge on the library board, licensed with the state bar, are the ones who decided that our practice best complies with the applicable laws, including the state's law regarding confidentiality of library records. I happen to agree with them, but if you want to take our policy to task, then you really need to address the Ohio state legislature and bar. Your own state's requirements, of course, may differ. Even within Ohio, different libraries have interpreted the law differently in terms of day-to-day practice (although in my experience, most of them that have consulted attorneys have devised systems roughly as anonymous as ours; the ones still keeping name logs or other patron-identifying records are generally the ones who think they need to consult an attorney only after they have gotten into hot water). Many states have no library confidentiality law at all.

Before Ohio passed the confidentiality law, my library used to keep a sign-in sheet at the desk where patrons signed in to use the computers. We had one particularly chilling example of the dangers of this when a stalker would come to sign up for the computers just as an excuse to look at the logs and see if his "ex-girlfriend" had been in the library that day. Luckily, no direct harm came to the ex-girlfriend through the library's disregard of her confidentiality. But the potential for such harm is one good reason not to keep logs.

As jahudabudy says, The library is there to provide tools. The people in charge decided that more good could come of providing free research access to anyone and everyone than harm.

You can scoff at it as irresponsible if you choose. Perhaps you're not aware that, quite independent of the legality of the issue, patron confidentiality is one of the core (although sadly, not universally practiced) professional ethics of librarianship, developed through a long collective process of debate and discussion among librarians worldwide. If you're interested in the topic, you might want to read what the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom has to say about Privacy and Confidentiality.

"But it's a library" may not carry the same weight as "but I'm his doctor" or "but I'm his attorney", but it does carry some weight (yes, even with the courts in some cases) insofar as it is a core ethic of the profession -- one of the practices, like doctor-patient confidentiality, or the seal of the confessional, that best enables the profession to fulfill its duties.

Finally, in light of the USA PATRIOT Act's granting of broad powers to the federal government to investigate your library records without your knowledge -- without a subpoena -- without the library staff even being allowed to tell each other, much less anyone in the general public, that there is even an investigation going on -- I rest much easier knowing that we keep no library records any longer than absolutely necessary for us to conduct the business of the library. This way there is no chance that a federal agency might abuse information about an innocent library patron's use of the library.

My point in posting my comment was not to say "this is the way things should be" (although see below), but to point out that logging IPs is not, even remotely, any guarantee of being able to identify the wrongdoer.

However, since you took it a different way ...

I have to say, I wonder if "state law" here is really not just an excuse to avoid responsible management of the network which includes logging and identifying patrons with some kind of sign-in system (Of course it's cheaper to have no sign in system at all, but that doesn't make it a responsible thing to do.)

::shrugs:: The attorneys & the retired judge on the library board, licensed with the state bar, are the ones who decided that our practice best complies with the applicable laws, including the state's law regarding confidentiality of library records. I happen to agree with them, but if you want to take our policy to task, then you really need to address the Ohio state legislature and bar. Your own state's requirements, of course, may differ. Even within Ohio, different libraries have interpreted the law differently in terms of day-to-day practice (although in my experience, most of them that have consulted attorneys have devised systems roughly as anonymous as ours; the ones still keeping name logs or other patron-identifying records are generally the ones who think they need to consult an attorney only after they have gotten into hot water). Many states have no library confidentiality law at all.

Before Ohio passed the confidentiality law, my library used to keep a sign-in sheet at the desk where patrons signed in to use the computers. We had one particularly chilling example of the dangers of this when a stalker would come to sign up for the computers just as an excuse to look at the logs and see if his "ex-girlfriend" had been in the library that day. Luckily, no direct harm came to the ex-girlfriend through the library's disregard of her confidentiality. But the potential for such harm is one good reason not to keep logs.

As jahudabudy says, The library is there to provide tools. The people in charge decided that more good could come of providing free research access to anyone and everyone than harm.

You can scoff at it as irresponsible if you choose. Perhaps you're not aware that, quite independent of the legality of the issue, patron confidentiality is one of the core (although sadly, not universally practiced) professional ethics of librarianship, developed through a long collective process of debate and discussion among librarians worldwide. If you're interested in the topic, you might want to read what the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom has to say about Privacy and Confidentiality.

"But it's a library" may not carry the same weight as "but I'm his doctor" or "but I'm his attorney", but it does carry some weight (yes, even with the courts in some cases) insofar as it is a core ethic of the profession -- one of the practices, like doctor-patient confidentiality, or the seal of the confessional, that best enables the profession to fulfill its duties.

Finally, in light of the USA PATRIOT Act's granting of broad powers to the federal government to investigate your library records without your knowledge -- without a subpoena -- without the library staff even being allowed to tell each other, much less anyone in the general public, that there is even an investigation going on -- I rest much easier knowing that we keep no library records any longer than absolutely necessary for us to conduct the business of the library. This way there is no chance that a federal agency might abuse information about an innocent library patron's use of the library.

Going to START banning books? I take it you've not heard of the US' banned books list.

http://www.banned-books.com/bblista-i.html

J.K Rowling, R.L Stein and Stephen King are some of the most challenged authors, according to the ALA's website.

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/challen gedbanned/challengedbanned.htm

Some past results may be, but even without fires I often heard stories about people losing years of work when their hard disk crashed or laptop was stolen.

Edinburgh University had their Cybernetic Library consumed in a nightclub fire in 2002 (They were located in a city centre office block which had student flats, nightclubs and offices built up together). Around 17 years of papers and books were lost - A good incentive to scan and store everything digitally on separate sites.

At least in Soton, the facility was in a custom built building. Hopefully it will have been something electrical that failed due to old age, rather than someone who left some equipment switched on or overcooked their dinner.

While it's fun to bash the liberals for political-correctness, you're very wrong about the roots of censorship.

I said only that censorship efforts also come from the left, which even by your sources, is demonstrably true. You'll note that item number 5 on the ALA Most Frequently Challenged Books list is Huckleberry Finn, which in recent years has generally been challenged from the left.

I agree that the majority of censorship efforts currently come from the political right, but no political group should pretend that it's only *other* people who would ever try to suppress information. Inappropriate use of power is a *human* problem, not a conservative or liberal problem.

Unfortunately, as I stated earlier, to ignore him may be to simply put our heads in the sand.

If we're lucky, this "game law" he claims he's been comissioned to create will be his downfall into absolute crackpottery, but what if it turns out that he hasn't just been pulling this story out of his ass? What then?

If this were Canada, I'd be worried since there restrictiosn can be passed.

However, this is US law, which already had the first amendment passed since the dawn of the nation. If it's powerful enough to prevent children from being forced to pledge alliegance, then that's half the problem eliminated. Various other stuff here: http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/firstamendment/courtcas es/courtcases.htm#mfar

The first amendment doesn't seem to cover obsecne material - but if violence were obscene, then the Little Red Riding Hood (classical or bedtime version) is obscene since it has a man violently kill the wolf.

IANAL, and I don't have to be. There no need to worry until it survives a first amendment test. Even if it does, it will do nothing aside from encourage piracy (since minors can't buy the games now, nor can they even come close to finding them in a few months/years, they resort to piracy.)

oh snap, you're wrong! http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/firstamendment/courtcas es/courtcases.htm#mfar

But, by our traditional and very libertarian American standards, it's getting worse. The most dramatic example is the arbitrary placing of left-wing activists, including a nun, who have nothing to do with terrorism on no-fly lists. There is also good old Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act (the infamous "library clause"), which despite reports otherwise has been used. There have been the expected right-wing media attempts, aided by John Ashcroft, to equate dissent with terrorism. And, finally, there is the renewed effort by Bush's Justice Department to crack down on anything it deems pornographic using whatever means occur to it.

I would not be surprised if Cindy Sheehan is never able to get on an airplane again.

Nice long rambling explanation there, but I can find used cd's for half the price of new. Used cd stores have overhead. I commonly find cds at CDBaby for $5-8 a pop. Certainly those guys have overhead and salaries to pay too. Downloads could certainly be cheaper. Of the 99 cents Apple charges at the iTMS, about 30 goes to the credit card processor, 10 goes to apple 10 goes to the artist and the other 50 goes to the record company, who by the way, have done squat diddly other than authorize Apple to sell the tune. (In contrast, unsigned Indies keep the lion's share of the 99 cents for their tracks.)

In short, I call bullshit. Explain it with gross/net margin, shipping, returns, price protection or whatever. We all know better. The prices 'the industry' charges are too high and the extra is going to the RIAA's Adolescents Litigation fund, the 'lobby congress for infinite copyrights' fund, the 'lobby congress for higher blank media levies' fund, and of course, payola.

Yet you sit there and tell me they aren't over charging even in the face of rock solid evidence to the contrary. Either you are badly misinformed or deliberately spreading lies. They are the thieves. They steal from me with blank CD levies. They steal from their customers with price fixing. They steal from the public domain with copyright extensions. I will never willingly give them another dime of my money. EVER.

Free & Legal Music
Boycott the RIAA
The shit list. Do no business with these labels.

but Apple's research appears to indicate that there more consumers like me than you.

CUSTOMERS

SALES TO END USERS ONLY
The iTunes Music Store sells products to end user customers only.

You will not find the word "consumer" anywhere in that agreement. The word consumer implies that I will somehow deplete my supply of music after it is purchased and therefore be compelled to buy more. Customers on the other hand have the prerogative to buy something else entirely or buy nothing at all. If you do not provide value to your customers, they will go elsewhere. The RIAA is simply witnessing that.

I don't know about other countries, but the US congress passed a law against virtual child porn and the Supreme Court threw it out as unconstitutional. In fact the damn idiots in congress have been passing an endless series of unconstitutional laws "to protect the children".
CDA: Comunication Decency Act
CPPA: Child Pornography Prevention Act
COPA: Children's Online Protection Act
CIPA: Children's Internet Protection Act

All struck down as unconstitutional. I think CPPA may have been the only one addressing virtual porn, the rest were mostly attempting to restrict the internet. The American Library Association has a good page covering these laws and the legal battles.

As for Slashdot, yes there have been several stories here addressing computer generated child porn.

-

Oh, and not providing access to the Internet would usually be against the ALA library guidelines, goal #1.13.

Oh, and running censorware would be against the ALA Ethics Guidelines, point III.

Eivind.

Oh, and not providing access to the Internet would usually be against the ALA library guidelines, goal #1.13.

Oh, and running censorware would be against the ALA Ethics Guidelines, point III.

Eivind.

Unfortunately, even though it runs Cold Fusion, and uses numbers in its URL, surprisingly the http://www.ala.org/ site is not vulnerable to SQL injection... :-(

Would have been a nice irony if it was (hardcore gay porn on URL which minutes before only contained an article about a librarian dismissed because of a porn-surfing patron...)

btw. the US has a banned books list too, as I found when googling writing this post... surprised me.

The US banned books list is a list compiled by the ALA. The books are not banned by the US Gov't. Instead, they are typically books that some local yocal (think of the children!) found offensive and persuaded their local public library or school to ban.

btw. the US has a banned books list too, as I found when googling writing this post... surprised me.

The US banned books list is a list compiled by the ALA. The books are not banned by the US Gov't. Instead, they are typically books that some local yocal (think of the children!) found offensive and persuaded their local public library or school to ban.

btw. the US has a banned books list too, as I found when googling writing this post... surprised me.

The US banned books list is a list compiled by the ALA. The books are not banned by the US Gov't. Instead, they are typically books that some local yocal (think of the children!) found offensive and persuaded their local public library or school to ban.

You forgot the ALA Conference! You forgot the ALA Conference!!

You forgot the ALA Conference! You forgot the ALA Conference!!

And so we get: September 16, 2003: John Ashcroft accused librarians of fueling "baseless hysteria," and of having been "duped" by liberals. "Ashcroft mocked and condemned the ALA and other Justice Department critics for believing that the FBI wants to know 'how far you have gotten on the latest Tom Clancy novel.'"

Gee, how does The National Review feel about this? It advocates explicitly adding libraries to the list of organizations subject to the law, justifying that by listing the libraries the 9/11 hijackers used in Germany... I'm having trouble making out the argument there. It's pretty breathless: "Atta used computers at the public library and worked out at a Delray Beach health club." Health clubs are scaaaary! It too belittles librarians' concerns, of course:

"'I am dismayed by librarians' uninformed opposition to the Patriot Act,' says Maria Vagianos... 'Librarians commit a disservice to society and to their profession when they succumb to the ignorance that they are charged to dispel.'"

"These dangerously naïve or clandestinely seditious librarians are beyond foolish. They potentially jeopardize the lives of American citizens."

Google this one up and you'll come across a motherload of library organizations who are very seriously tackling the issues of intellectual freedom involved in this law. Dismissing those librarians as hysterical dupes of terrorists is not exactly calling them pinko commie fellow travelers... but we're already on our way. When does someone use the senior Bush's "card carrying" epithet?

Do another Google and you'll be able to easily find stuff like "The Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries." Book number 4 on the list: The Kinsey Report, because it tried to "normalize deviant behaviors." Yep, those Patriot Act supporters are true believers in intellectual freedoms... They'd never abuse surveillance powers, no ma'am.

Librarians as a profession (http://ala.org/) are privacy conscious. That doesn't necessarily mean that the policies of an individual public library, funded and run by the local political system, will be.

Librarians as a profession (http://ala.org/) are privacy conscious. That doesn't necessarily mean that the policies of an individual public library, funded and run by the local political system, will be.

Public libraries operate under a code of ethics. The third principle of this code is

"We protect each library user's right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information sought or received and resources consulted, borrowed, acquired or transmitted."

This isn't something secret, it's right out there on the ALA web site, and I'm sure it's available on paper in most libraries. This is what you're paying for. Violations of this code are violations of your rights as a taxpayer.

If you disagree with this principle, I suppose you could lobby the ALA to change it, or you could lobby your government to stop funding public libraries, but saying that the libraries should violate this principle because they are publicly funded is just plain wrong.

Libraries are a milleniums old tradition as a depository and index of knowledge.

The "massive copyright industry", or at least parts of it, would undoubtedly like to see libraries go away. However, since they are still regarded as important civic institutions at a grassroots level, it will be difficult for industry to make them go away. The most successful approach is to provide ubiquitous access to materials for a small fee. (If I can get DVDs delivered to my door for a small fee to NetFlix, I don't have to travel the whole mile over to the library to check them out from a much smaller collection).

Promoting the free exchange of information is not, in most contexts, illegal. Libraries (and individuals) are generally allowed to lend materials and/or resell materials under the concept of the "right of first sale". Libraries are not (generally) making copies of any of their materials, so they cannot be in violation of copyright law.

Many libraries do have collections of software and/or video games. This is perfectly legal.

Many libraries also make ebooks available, often through NetLibrary.com.

As to whether information that is freely available to everyone in physical form in a library should be available over the web, well, there are some legal issues there, as copyright protects against the _copying_ of information, and it is inherent in the act of web publishing that copies are made.
Services such as NetLibrary have agreements with the publishers of the ebooks that they distribute.

Thus, the physical act of visiting a library is not built into the library mandate, but is an artifact of copyright law. Since when you visit a library you are accessing physical instantiations of (potentially) copyrighted works that have been paid for by the library, no copies are being made, and you cannot run afoul of copyright law. If remote access were possible without generating (at least transitory) copies, a physical presence should not be required.

Libraries exist as a time honored institution, in accordance with concepts of intellectual property that were established when it was still clear to legislators that copyright was a compromise against free speech, necessary to promote the progress of the sciences and arts.

What risks do you want librarians to take? The American Library Association already is one of the most progressive proponents of individual rights (vs. corporate rights) in terms of intellectual property law. See http://www.ala.org/ala/issues/issuesadvocacy.htm

Librarians as a profession (http://ala.org/) are privacy conscious. That doesn't necessarily mean that the policies of an individual public library, funded and run by the local political system, will be.

Is there really a need to keep everything so secretive? damn, wheres my tin foil hat.