Slashdot Mirror

10 copies * 5 books * 52 weeks = 2600 reads/year

That's just 1 small library. There are 117,418 libraries in the USA. If you figure, on average, they only have 3 copies of each book, that's:

3 * 5 * 52 * 117,418 = 91,586,040 reads/year

File sharing has some serious competition. Libraries are a serious force to be reckoned with in the entertainment industry.

And yet, people want to own media they love. Whether it's movies, music or books, if the content touches them they want to have a copy they can call their own. I downloaded and read the fifth Harry Potter myself, before buying a copy. Not because I wanted to steal it, but because I couldn't wait to read it. I'm 47 years old, and fall way outside of the demographic the article is discussing. But I still love the books, I still go see the movies in the theater, and I still buy CDs. If they're good.

In large part, I see the problem being that media is sold as unreturnable. If I go to the movie, and it sucks, I can't get my money back. Likewise, if I buy a CD, DVD, or book.

I don't want to stand in the store for hours to preview, I want to take it home, and enjoy it in the environment that I will be using the media normally. The ability to download and verify the connection with the content prior to sale is the thing that I see the entertainment industry fighting so hard against. They know that the majority of their content can't stand up to that test.

Other industries seem to be moving in the opposite direction. Some car dealerships will even let you take an extended (overnight) "test drive". That's a $30,000 piece of merchandise! Yet for a $20 piece of media, the FBI patrols the net. Does this make sense to anyone with two (functioning) brain cells???

Read the ALA's opinion...

A huge problem with the law is that filters which don't tell you they're filtering are OK

No, thankfully, *not* Washington State. Try North Carolina and West Virginia, at least according to the American Library Association's web site

Follow the hyperlink to http://www.ala.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Our_Asso ciation/Offices/ALA_Washington/Issues2/Copyright1/ UCITA/States.htm that the parent post all the way back there gave to see what has happened in all 50 states. Most of the states that weren't listed here have either had either no legislative activity friend-or-foe towards UCITA, or saw it introduced briefly after it first came out only to let it die unacted upon and never brought up again. Both Illinois and California fall into the latter category.

UCITA has become law

• Maryland
• Virginia

"Bomb-shelter" has become law
What is UCITA "bomb-shelter" legislation? UCITA "bomb-shelter" legislation is defensive legislation needed to protect a state's residents from being subject to unfair and overreaching provisions in UCITA even if the act has never passed in their state. As of 2002, West Virginia, Iowa and North Carolina have passed this kind of legislation. "Bomb-shelter" legislation narrowly protect software licensees from choice of law provisions that make UCITA the governing law of the contract or from choice of forum provisions that might select another state unrelated to either the vendor or the licensee as the forum for settling a legal dispute over the contract. One proposed version (New York) stipulates that only the laws of the licensee's state (i.e. the state with the "bomb-shelter" law) will apply in determining whether the license's terms are enforceable.
See AFFECT's "bomb-shelter" section:

• North Carolina
• West Virginia

States to WATCH
This state is one to watch closely because some UCITA activity has been reported. This could mean that important pre-legislative activity has begun.
Things you can do:
Contact your state library association to find out how you can help them. Educate yourself about UCITA's effect on libraries by visiting the Impact section.

• Arizona
• Delaware
• Pennsylvania
• Texas
• Utah
• Wisconsin

No legislative activity reported
Things you can do:
Contact your state library association to find out how you can help.
Educate yourself about UCITA's effect on libraries.
Review the ALA Washington Office Online UCITA Tutorial.
Keep your eyes open for workshops in your area at ALA mid-winter and annual conferences.
Request a workshop if you don't see one listed in upcoming conferences.

• New York
• North Dakota
• Ohio
• Oregon
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Tennessee
• Washington
• Wyoming

The language is vague at this point, though. The bill hasn't actually been introduced yet.

> The problem is that they are enabling technologies for what could be very, very evil.

So are many other technologies. But I think it is less the question of what technologies you are employing, but wether you are aware of the risks and what counter-measurements are installed.

The states of the EU have enacted relatively strict privacy-laws. And those requiring a national ID are especially precaucious arbout what data is stored and can be connected with the ID. I think that is the critical part.

> "what if Nazi Germany could have done a SELECT WHERE against a central citizen-unit database?"

Unless they didn't had build up a db storing "religion" and "parents" over two, or three generations back in history, it would not help them much. Not to mention, that your friendly neighbourhood "blockwart" is much more effective.

On a side-note: Stalin let execute several million people based on quota, which had to be fulfilled. The randomness of the murdering was intentional. It fueled the fear among people of each other. A national ID, would not add much to it.

Anyway, I think it boils down who stores, what kind of data, and who else has access to it.
I'd say, an ID, unless it enables one to trace your habits, is not "evil" per se.
In contrast, a database with nation wide profiling information, based on buyed or lend books, diving schools, racial or political is.

An national ID would be a "plus" for Total Information Awareness, but you don't need one to do datamining.

You should find this useful:

Web Sites for Kids from the American Library Association.

Have fun.

Just in case anyone feels that this article hightlights only what crazy Santa Cruz does ...

I know that my community library shreds their logs on a daily basis. Internet user sign-ups are discarded within 24 hours. Years of old Interlibrary loan records are now gone.

Librarians are great because they protect our rights. The ALA is a great organization that really protects free speech.

Thank your local librarian!

We're supposed to ignore this information, why?

See the Library Bill o' Rights for a more concise explanation than I could ever give.

--kotj.mf, para-professional library drone

I can't believe how much Americans are being dumped down, people what was hijacked in 911 was NOT your planes but your civil rights, freedom of speech..., and recently your government has been acting really really childish. wakeup before its too late, your grandsons will curse you for doing nothing about it.

Since we all know what the DMCA is, would be to have a link or two to the TEACH act for those of us who dont know what its about

The house...
www.ala.org/washoff/teach.html

Couldnt find a good senate one... but thats a start

The Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization (TEACH) Act This site gives a bit more background into why it was considered necessary, as well as examples of how it is to be implemented.

Does this remind anyone of Farenheit 451? You know, where they burn the books so people won't revolt against the government? This is a similar restriction placed upon our libraries and bookstores that silences any mention of a subpoena for a list of books a certain individual has purchased or borrowed.

I still don't understand how Mr. Ashcroft and his DoJ thugs got PATRIOT through Congress. Oh wait, I forgot! Our US Congress was so freaked out by September 11 and thought that somehow if they took away Americans' right to privacy and freedom from harassment that this world would somehow be a better place!

> So you slashbots should come down from your high horse.

Yeah... it's an fallacy to think that someone has to commit a crime to actually be guilty and punished.

>And "profiling" is a much better way of stopping terrorists instead of stripping down some 80 year old grandma from Kansas City all in the name of political correctness.

Instead, they deny some 74 year old catholic nun from Wisonsin from flying, based on their participation in the pacifist movement. This is, of course, much better.

Be aware of those militant pacifist.

Or those pesky tree-huggers. They cannot be allowed to fly either. Surely, they just want to fly to do some terroristic act. For what other reason should they want to fly? It is against their believe.

So, building up a list of people, who are not allowed to fly, based on their political, social and cultural background is not dubious?

By the way, book stores are also required to tell the FBI about who has bought which books and diving-schools have to inform them about their students. But they are not allowed to make this public.

This is, of course, not the slightest bit disturbing.

Especially since they are either reading books, Muslims, politically active....

Well, let's turn in around, they are not democrats or republicans or policitally uninterested, and white.

I will avoid the obligatory cites:
1,2

Show me in the Bill of Rights were you are guaranteed a right to privacy. (Hint: its not in the Bill of Rights)

From the American Library Association:

"Privacy is essential to the exercise of free speech, free thought, and free association. The courts have established a First Amendment right to receive information in a publicly funded library. Further, the courts have upheld the right to privacy based on the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. Many states provide guarantees of privacy in their constitutions and statute law. Numerous decisions in case law have defined and extended rights to privacy."

It includes references (four for that paragraph alone), if you want to argue with any specific point.

There are so many problems with your question, I'm not really sure where to start. In the interest of disclosure, I should probably state that I am trained as a librarian, but I do not work in a public library setting. So, I don't have any special concerns about filtering beyond my professional ones.

The whole notion of Internet filtering goes against a central librarian tenet, namely: We uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources. It's a great idea, but it has never really been put to the test until the development of the Internet and libraries providing access.

You see, in practice, librarians have always been censors. They decide which books get on the shelves, which books get weeded from the collection, etc., and this is not necessarily a bad thing. Editors edit books in order to make them more focused, lucid, and pleasurable to read. Librarians are a kind of editor - for whole collections. Due to their efforts, you can find the books you are looking for if they are in the collection. You might be able to find other books by looking nearby. Of course, libraries are no longer just about books, there are article databases, special collections, music, videos, and so forth. But for discussion, let's just talk about books.

Now, let's talk about filters. Filters are essentially limiting your collection to what's on site. It's like taking away inter-library loan for books. It means you do not have access to the material, period - if your librarian doesn't choose to select it. Think about that for a moment in the context of books. If my librarian doesn't know about Zerzan, then I would not have access to the book.

You might say that I could buy my own, assuming I had the money, but buying your own is kind of counter to the whole point of libraries - its a community collection where people can spend time educating and thinking for themselves. Ideally, they should help diversify thinking, not homogenize it.

Or how about we put it another way, let's talk about your SPAM filters. No customizing of filters, we are all going to use the same one and then people can submit new sites to add to the allow list. How effective would it be to have all incoming mail screened for SPAM only at the sysadmin level. To be effective, it would probably mean that you would not get some of the mail you would have liked to recieved. But no fear, you can always ask for a particular address to be added to the allow list. Or hopefully, someone else has submitted it already. In the mean time, you have no idea what your missing.

Would that work for you? Part of the whole idea is that you need to know what's out there, and with filters that you don't create yourself - you can't.

If you are so worried about people knowing your entertainment habits, then maybe you are watching some stuff that you shouldn't be watching...

YOU ARE AN IDIOT!

I hate to come out flaming, but you understand that is one of the stupidest statements a person can make, and it seems to be getting more popular.

Don't you understand that people do things in the privacy of their own home that the government or businesses need not know about. People have the right to enjoy whatever entertainment they want without having to worry about the social stigmas it might place upon them.

What limits do we place upon companies who sneak a peek at your CD tray? What happens when the data collected become secretly subpoenaed by the FBI*? Do we want people to go into internment camps for listening to anti-American music?

Hell, whatever happened to common decency? Would you mind me inventorying your house surreptitiously? Don't think there's anything that I shouldn't?

*I implore you to read this link. The FBI can already issue search warrants to for libraries to turn over your reading list, and the library is prohibited by law from telling you this happened. Again, this isn't some Orwellian gloom and doom future. This is our law.

Google, link 3. Sometimes it is more intelligent than Anonymous Cowards.

Which is surprising, since it's only a few million lines of code.

I have not read the book. I'm planning on it, when finances permit me to spend something on myself again that isn't required for my profession (we've all just come through the annual gift-giving frenzy).

Why not break the cycle of consumerism and get a jump on the game by using your public library card?

• http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/hea dlines/content/1998040801.html
• http://skyways.lib.ks.us/central/ebooks/firstsal e.html

...only renamed.

This is the relevant section that supposedly eliminated TIPS:

SEC. 880. PROHIBITION OF THE TERRORISM INFORMATION AND PREVENTION SYSTEM.
Any and all activities of the Federal Government to implement the proposed component program of the Citizen Corps known as Operation TIPS (Terrorism Information and Prevention System) are hereby prohibited.

All it does is prohibit the proposed program under the Citizen Corps known as TIPS. A strict reading of the language could leave a way to revive the program under a different name.

It may seem a bit legalistic and paranoid, but legalities like that are precisely how unpalatable programs are implemented anyway.

I guess the next should be CIPA, which exactly means "pussy" in Polish, i.e.:

1. Vulgar Slang. The vulva or vagina.
2. Offensive Slang. Used as a disparaging term for a woman.
3. Slang. A man regarded as weak, timid, or unmanly.

See also this comment of mine and search Google for "cipa" on .pl domains.

Because the U.S. Congress decided that libraries have to implement software like Net Nanny or else lose federal funding.
The American Library Associate is fighting the law in the U.S. Supreme Court:

Yes, and they won. Several months ago.

I remember back in the IE 3.0 days, if you turned their very weak content rating all the way up, you couldn't get to Microsoft.com, or more importantly, the now defunct RSAC (It's now the Internet Content Rating Association (ICRA) - because neither site was rated! Unfortunately, filtering hasn't improved much, and this story is a sad testament to that. Just a few months ago our school filter not only blocked out many school web pages, including one school who had just installed it, but it also blocked many sites about protecting your kids online. The process is very clunky - you can't get to it at work, so you go home and check and find there is nothing at all wrong with the site. So you go back to work and submit to them that they should unblock it. It takes days and the interest is long gone - thus censorship happens. On one site they unblocked for me, they couldn't unblock just the one site, because many web severs have 1 IP with multiple names, so they unblocked the whole IP. I wonder how many 'inappropriate' sites they unblocked in the process?

I'm sure the ALA would be interested in this (and if you don't want censorware to become federal law, we should all bombard them with this one).

American Library Association v. United States (01-CV-1322) is the latest case to challenge mandatory internet filters at public libraries. The Library Association brief in a lower court case can be found here. The Pennsylvania court recognized the proper weight of the First Amendment issues in the case, finding that the CIPA (Children's Internet Protection Act) infringed on protected speech. The government appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Arguments are expected to take place this winter or early spring.

-R

American Library Association v. United States (01-CV-1322) is the latest case to challenge mandatory internet filters at public libraries. The Library Association brief in a lower court case can be found here. The Pennsylvania court recognized the proper weight of the First Amendment issues in the case, finding that the CIPA (Children's Internet Protection Act) infringed on protected speech. The government appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Arguments are expected to take place this winter or early spring.

-R

Because the U.S. Congress decided that libraries have to implement software like Net Nanny or else lose federal funding.

The American Library Associate is fighting the law in the U.S. Supreme Court:

http://www.ala.org/cipa/

all you're saying is that, as a parent, you are incapable or unwilling to be present when your child uses the internet
Lemme check the thread...Nope, I am not saying that. I am saying that there is no "right to publicly available porn" and that it should not be available on publicly funded computers, especially where children can see it. I'm saying I don't want to have to explain it to my kid when he sees it on your screen, and I don't want to have to punch a guy out when he touches my kid in the juvenile section after spending a few hours in the internet room.

neither of them say that the ACLU opposes libraries blocking porn
The ACLU merely puts up a better front. They have entered lawsuits against libraries that voluntarily chose to filter, as well as businesses that installed filters.

The ALA is more open in it's opposition to filters (and "adult sections"), saying that there should be no restrictions on content. By their, and your, logic, a library should carry Playboy, and put it on a low shelf so kids can reach it.

where it's impossible for other means of controlling access to be used (public terminals, librarian present, restrict access to adults) Why would you allow those methods, but be opposed to internet filtering? They carry the same "problems" you suggest: subjectivity of librarian watching screens, the embarrassment of looking up a medical site, and the fact that it restricts access to what you think should be publicly available "information". They are what the ALA terms "psychological restrictions". I too am skeptical of bills "for the children", and actually any government encroachment on rights. However, I do not view public access to porn as a "right", nor do I think porn is "speech" or "information" or "art". I readily admit that in this country, we have the right to do some things even if others think they are morally questionable. I would be oppose a law requiring ISPs to filter. That would be limiting free speech. However because this is a public place, and publicly funded, I think it is very appropriate to filter. Think of it this way: the podium at a white house press confrence is publicly funded, but not just any joe can get up there and say what he wants. That's not the place for it. By the same token, some things, like educational books and novels belong in publicly funded libraries. Some things, like chickens, motorcycles, and porn do not. It is no more of a limit on free speech to restrict access to porn than it is to require people to wear clothes when they browse the stacks.

This is exactly why an objective filter (software) cannot be relied upon
People every day write intelligent algorithms to handle vague concepts. For example, Cloudmark does a good job with "spam". Again, it need not be 100% to be effective.

Note in all this that I'm not objecting to libraries blocking porn
Then you are in direct disagreement with the ALA and ACLU.

But it sure makes for good campaign fodder.
So your theory is that politicians are doing this for votes. Well, I'm not a politician, and I hold these views. I know plenty of others that do, including librarians who say it IS a problem- or was before they added filtering software. You dismiss our opinion based on your speculation that filtering software isn't good enough, speculation that it's not a problem, and speculation that it's a campaign ploy. The facts are, though, that it is a problem, there is a reasonable solution, and that those truely opposed believe children have a right to view pornography.

1. although the librarians were required to turn it off they may not want to.
2. this would force everyone to get clearence from a librarian and basically announce to the world at large what they are looking at before they do so, opening them up to censure.
3. Many systems block sites "invisibly" or in ways that will prevent legitimate adults from ever knowing that they exist and thus being unable to ask for the provision to be turned off.

1. If it can be turned off all the time, it can be accidentally left off, hacked or spoofed thus making the system even less effective in the face of determined teenagers.
2. In the face of recent USA Patriot rulings on librarians being forced to divulge recently secret information this is one more thing that librarians can be forced to log and then divulge.

• BMI Declare that all their future music CDs will be copy protected
• While EMI Germany do likewise, they also insult the complainant. (I'm informed it is even harsher than the translation)
• And soon you won't be able to return the CD if it doesn't work (UK)
• And beware of innovations (this article, beat you to it slashdot - nyah nyah!), as they may be slipping DRM in the back door
• Web radio was getting very popular, everyone was getting in on the act. Not any more. Only the big radio stations still broadcast.
• Microsoft joined the party with their "Trusted Computing" initiative, meaning *you* can trust MS software, Which in reality is a DRM thing (MS software can't trust you)
• Oh, and extending copyright. Courts admit that it can't be extended indefinately, but how long is a piece of string?

• Reuters sued for linking to a URL
• They haven't been the first to be sued for deeplinking. Check out This particularly fine example.
• How a single sniper is more dangerous than all the world's hackers combined

• Getting sued for silence
• Thanks to the CBDTPA, nearly everything *must* embed DRM. This includes cockpit voice recorders, digital speed cameras, hearing aids, and big mouth billy bass
• Even phoning a friend can breach copyright, 2 musicians copyright 100,000 phone numbers (dial tones).

• A review of the technologies shows that it is futile to protect CDs, (based on the assumption that new devices will more likely circumvent protection rather than enforce it)
• Richard Stallman (Free Software advocate) jumps in with a cautionary tale
• And a felt tip pen can bypass some protections

It's true that the USA-PATRIOT Act has a number of provisions that are of questionable Constitutionality and dubious value to the War Against Terror (TM, Pat. Pending). However, this article (gratuitous link)is nothing more than gross conjecture without evidence. As we say down here in Texas, he's sellin' a whole lotta bull and not much steak.

It is illegal for a wiretap or datatap to be undertaken without judicial oversight and authorization (see United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972), holding "Fourth Amendment freedoms cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances may be conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch."). The expanded tap provisions of USA-PATRIOT allow for a greater level of secrecy to surround specific wire- or datataps (specifically, those approved by the special FISA court for national security issues), but federal law enforcement does not have carte blanche to go around randomly listening in to our conversations. In order for a tap to pass Constitutional muster, it has to be narrowly drawn. Setting up a general-purpose dragnet to pull in data from all library patrons, the vast majority of whom cannot legally be targeted by a FISA tap order, would get drop-kicked out of the most deferential judge's chambers. (Orrin Hatch's statement on FISA taps under USA-PATRIOT is here, and the ALA's interpretation of the Act is here).

The FBI does have expanded powers to grab library records, for purposes of domestic law enforcement as well as international espionage and terror investigations, but that's very different -- if no less disturbing -- than ongoing monitoring, and would be sufficient to trigger the librarians' circumspection. It certainly doesn't mean that the Feds slapped a Carnivore underneath the public terminal carousel.

Here's what the American Library Association has to say about all this. I seem to remember reading about a situation about 20-30 years ago in which a librarian would not give up information and went to jail for a short while either for obstruction of justice or contempt of court. I can't find the article at the moment, though.

Details from the ALA. FBI agents no longer have to show probable cause to spy on your reading list, which means people now have every reason to be afraid of reading the "wrong" books.

And in the US, those guns have stopped your government passing laws that threaten your freedoms, right?

Oh... wait

I've always respected librarians. They dedicate their lives to sharing information with people as freely as possible. I cheer the American Library Associationprotect individual's privacy and confidentiality, and fight against free limiting legislation like the Children's Internet Protection Act, the DMCA (PDF), and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998. They've been fighting to keep information free longer than the internet has been around. Democracy requires an educated citizenry, and libraries make it their mission to spread knowledge to everyone, regardless of race, social status, or wealth. Library's are a geek's best friend.

I've always respected librarians. They dedicate their lives to sharing information with people as freely as possible. I cheer the American Library Associationprotect individual's privacy and confidentiality, and fight against free limiting legislation like the Children's Internet Protection Act, the DMCA (PDF), and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998. They've been fighting to keep information free longer than the internet has been around. Democracy requires an educated citizenry, and libraries make it their mission to spread knowledge to everyone, regardless of race, social status, or wealth. Library's are a geek's best friend.

It is clear that just as computer geeks naturally select themselves as computer people, librarians do the same. They like books, research, and then tend to be very rigid in their outlook on work and life.

In addition to their natural tendancies, the American Library Association has not helped matters. It is controlled by a bunch of introspective, vision-less, and rigid nay-sayers. Go to the ALA web site and see what kinds of literature they are currently offering! See anything about how to design cataloging systems? See much about information management? nope. Then, beyond that, ALA's been very successful locking up big chunks of their corner of the world with locking up job descriptions to ALA accreditation which requires a visionless curriculum.

I think it is hopeless until most current library managers a retired and a new crop that is not afraid of innovation and change come to the fore front.

So do I wish Librarians would come to the information party in a contemporary way? Absolutely! Alas I have very little hope that it will happen anytime in the near future.

-- Multics

P.S. at a recent conference I attended, one of the speakers argued "partner with a librarian!" (for research projects, not p0rn) Several of us talked with him after his presentation and said that we'd tried, but they were too far out-of-touch and he replied that his experience was clearly the exception.

It is clear that just as computer geeks naturally select themselves as computer people, librarians do the same. They like books, research, and then tend to be very rigid in their outlook on work and life.

In addition to their natural tendancies, the American Library Association has not helped matters. It is controlled by a bunch of introspective, vision-less, and rigid nay-sayers. Go to the ALA web site and see what kinds of literature they are currently offering! See anything about how to design cataloging systems? See much about information management? nope. Then, beyond that, ALA's been very successful locking up big chunks of their corner of the world with locking up job descriptions to ALA accreditation which requires a visionless curriculum.

I think it is hopeless until most current library managers a retired and a new crop that is not afraid of innovation and change come to the fore front.

So do I wish Librarians would come to the information party in a contemporary way? Absolutely! Alas I have very little hope that it will happen anytime in the near future.

-- Multics

P.S. at a recent conference I attended, one of the speakers argued "partner with a librarian!" (for research projects, not p0rn) Several of us talked with him after his presentation and said that we'd tried, but they were too far out-of-touch and he replied that his experience was clearly the exception.

It is clear that just as computer geeks naturally select themselves as computer people, librarians do the same. They like books, research, and then tend to be very rigid in their outlook on work and life.

In addition to their natural tendancies, the American Library Association has not helped matters. It is controlled by a bunch of introspective, vision-less, and rigid nay-sayers. Go to the ALA web site and see what kinds of literature they are currently offering! See anything about how to design cataloging systems? See much about information management? nope. Then, beyond that, ALA's been very successful locking up big chunks of their corner of the world with locking up job descriptions to ALA accreditation which requires a visionless curriculum.

I think it is hopeless until most current library managers a retired and a new crop that is not afraid of innovation and change come to the fore front.

So do I wish Librarians would come to the information party in a contemporary way? Absolutely! Alas I have very little hope that it will happen anytime in the near future.

-- Multics

P.S. at a recent conference I attended, one of the speakers argued "partner with a librarian!" (for research projects, not p0rn) Several of us talked with him after his presentation and said that we'd tried, but they were too far out-of-touch and he replied that his experience was clearly the exception.

This is fairly old news. Similar stories were on Drudge Report back in June.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/24/attack/m ain513251.shtml

In the article, it shows that some libraries are resisting as much as possible. I believe the ALA has a section on their website to keep librarians aware of their rights.

The real question is why libraries need to keep track of the books you have checked out after they have been returned? Most places are past the point where you sign the little card in the back of the book, so I don't see why libraries couldn't just delete the info after the book has been returned.

Besides that, I consider the enslavement of intelligent beings to be immoral. Besides, we'll probably still end up with Fondly Fahrenheit. o/~ All reet, all reet, be cool and discreet, baby! o/~

Just as doctors, lawyers and priests have an implied confidentiality between them, so the ALA believes the same should exist between librarians and their customers.

Plus it's kinda neat to think of an absolutely neutral 3rd party for information; it excites the scifi/fantasy fan in me (imagine a monestary where the monks provide information to anyone, Evil Warlords and Scholars equally) and makes me less nervous about the direction our country (USA) is heading.

• Anyone from the UK here? You guys are saps for government intrusion. You don't even live in a democracy, but you think you do

I'll bite. I (the poster you're responding to) am a UK citizen. Now, let's see. We can be sued for contributory copyright infringement for bypassing DRM, but we didn't make it criminal offence. We don't already habitually hand over book purchase records to law enforcement. We don't have banned book lists. We have exactly the same fucked up first-past-the post electoral system as the US, but we have five parties that regularly win seats in parliament, and we don't return 90% of incumbents, nor did we choose to re-invent the idea of a near-absolute head of state appointed not by democratic process, but by a council of picked power brokers (if you know your history, the 2000 Presidential election was fascinatingly similar to the Anglo Saxon selection of a monarch by the witan, a council of aethelings and eoldermen appointed, influenced by and loyal to various factions in contention for the throne).

There never has been a country, state or city run as a democracy. Athens came close - if you were a free man of property (the premise that both US and UK systems were also based on) - but they got sick of governing themselves and executing advocates of free speech and more or less acquiesed in their own transformation to a dictatorship. The US system is heavily influenced by Athens, and even more so by Rome and it's wacky dagger-in-the-back machinations. Hurrah!

Given your .sig, I'll infer that your primary argument is that in the US, you're allowed to own guns. I'm using that wording advisedly. You are allowed to own guns. As long as you haven't been convicted of a crime, and you don't want a concealed weapon, or a fully automatic weapon, or a handgun with a clip in excess of ten rounds, or live in New York and aren't (de facto) employed in government or the legal system, or in any way want arms (not guns specifically) that could actually be used for the explicitely intended purpose, which is "A well regulated Militia". You've already lost the gun argument, they're just being taken away (from honest men and women) one shell at a time by men and women with heavily armed bodyguards, until only criminals will have guns.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that the UK is much better than the US. The UK is a nasty, mean little country, but in practical terms, i.e. in practicing what we preach - we are still a little better, although I freely concede that we get worse every day under the auspices of Mr President-Elect Tony Blair.

New Zealand knocks us both into a cocked hat, of course. But let's not go there, it's always embarrasing when you think you're on the high ground only to find someone dropping moral rocks on your swollen head.

• Anyone from the UK here? You guys are saps for government intrusion. You don't even live in a democracy, but you think you do

I'll bite. I (the poster you're responding to) am a UK citizen. Now, let's see. We can be sued for contributory copyright infringement for bypassing DRM, but we didn't make it criminal offence. We don't already habitually hand over book purchase records to law enforcement. We don't have banned book lists. We have exactly the same fucked up first-past-the post electoral system as the US, but we have five parties that regularly win seats in parliament, and we don't return 90% of incumbents, nor did we choose to re-invent the idea of a near-absolute head of state appointed not by democratic process, but by a council of picked power brokers (if you know your history, the 2000 Presidential election was fascinatingly similar to the Anglo Saxon selection of a monarch by the witan, a council of aethelings and eoldermen appointed, influenced by and loyal to various factions in contention for the throne).

There never has been a country, state or city run as a democracy. Athens came close - if you were a free man of property (the premise that both US and UK systems were also based on) - but they got sick of governing themselves and executing advocates of free speech and more or less acquiesed in their own transformation to a dictatorship. The US system is heavily influenced by Athens, and even more so by Rome and it's wacky dagger-in-the-back machinations. Hurrah!

Given your .sig, I'll infer that your primary argument is that in the US, you're allowed to own guns. I'm using that wording advisedly. You are allowed to own guns. As long as you haven't been convicted of a crime, and you don't want a concealed weapon, or a fully automatic weapon, or a handgun with a clip in excess of ten rounds, or live in New York and aren't (de facto) employed in government or the legal system, or in any way want arms (not guns specifically) that could actually be used for the explicitely intended purpose, which is "A well regulated Militia". You've already lost the gun argument, they're just being taken away (from honest men and women) one shell at a time by men and women with heavily armed bodyguards, until only criminals will have guns.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that the UK is much better than the US. The UK is a nasty, mean little country, but in practical terms, i.e. in practicing what we preach - we are still a little better, although I freely concede that we get worse every day under the auspices of Mr President-Elect Tony Blair.

New Zealand knocks us both into a cocked hat, of course. But let's not go there, it's always embarrasing when you think you're on the high ground only to find someone dropping moral rocks on your swollen head.

• Who on gods earh steals books

People who cant punctuate or spel?

Don't assume that because you wouldn't do it, it isn't done. Bookshops (and libraries) are full of small, portable items that are so easy to just slip into your jacket. The value is low enough that a significant minority of people might not even view it as "real" theft. Before you gasp in outraged horror, ask any office worker how they feel about liberating office supplies.

Unrelated to this story, I heard an anecdote from a friend last week about casual bookstore theft: the mother of an errant child brought it back in to the bookstore to hand over a book that it had just slipped into its jacket. The child was about eight, and seemed utterly unrepentant, and the mother slammed the book down with a curt "Here's your book," then stormed off, as though it was the bookshop's fault that her offspring had taken it.

The part that surprised my friend was that the mother had even brought it back. He says that most of the people they get browsing their books are the sort who have to follow the words with their fingers, and they lose a lot of stock to casual - sometimes very casual - theft. People often don't even bother hiding the books, they just calmly walk out of the shop with them.

Now, tagging won't help to catch the most casual thieves, but if they do it once too often, it will help to convict them. Perhaps you think that this is a bad thing? Or perhaps you're confused about whether the purchases that you make on a credit/debit card are already logged and tagged to you. They are, and that information is already available to law enforcement.

Tagging of books (or any retail object) doesn't breach any privacy that you already have (which is almost none). It is targetted exactly and only at actual thieves.

Regarding your argument buying Karl Marx, it's very clever and sinister sounding, but considering that the USA already ban books it's overly hypothetical. How about finding out how few rights you have now rather than imagining lesser evils in the future?

• • Nobody is going to care - ever - that you bought the latest Pratchett, then sold it to your friend, who donated it to a charity shop, who then sold it to a guy who gets drug conviction.
  Then why record which book I have bought and who has bought it later

Sigh. So that when it's stolen, it can be uniquely identified so that the thief can be prosecuted, and so that it can be returned to you. It's quite clear from the article that this is the intent, and really, it's the only practical use. It can't be used to track goods moving from one retail purchaser to the next. It's not invasive, or sinister, it's for your protection.

• Perhaps somebody might care that I have a copy of the Koran and the Los Alamos Primer?

Are you aware of the definition of clinical paranoia? It's not specifically "they're out to get me!", it's generally seeing patterns that aren't there, attributing significance to insignificant things, particularly with regard to yourself. That's a pretty solipsistic attitude you've got there, buddy. Nobody cares about you. Nobody will ever care.

That aside, how exactly does this identify you any more than it already does? If you buy a book with a card, the purchase (against the book code) is already recorded (gasps of horror!). If you buy with cash, you're anonymous in either case. You think that we're going to ban anonymous cash purchases? OK, then say that, and we'll debate that.

• A word and a number, Farenheit 451.

Yes, that's a very nice work of fiction. Rather than worrying about speculative censorship and information control, why not worry about the books that are banned in the USA right now?

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
--Samuel Johnson

At least give a good karma whoring link if you are going to qoute something like that.