Libraries Asked To Destroy Reports, Databases

unix guy writes: "Our good friends and protectors in the U.S. Gov't have decided that what we used to know we can't know any longer. This LA Times story talks about libraries being ordered to destroy existing government reports and data sources in the name of homeland security." Is it really a fair trade to give up readily-available information about "airports, water treatment plants, nuclear reactors and more"?

Comments

Sheeeeesh..... this is absurd......

[heldlikesound]

Let me get this straight, people are complaining that the Government wants to destroy Government documents. I mean, come on foks, these belong to the Government!!! Who are YOU to say what the Government does!!!! If you wanted to burn your tax records, nobody's gonna stop you, why should it be any different for the Government!?!?!?! Poor Government, they should have a live concert to raise money for it.

heldlikesound

Re:Why bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about it. These documents are, in effect, a way of saying "security weakness". By making the documents closed, we are promoting security through obscurity, which has been proved time and time again not to work.

Cool, can I have your root password?

Re:This is absurd.

[3am]

what, you read fahrenheit 451, 1984, brave new world, animal farm, and suddenly you're some sort of expert in the world of politics?

i don't even think you read 1984 if you think the world we live in vaguely resembles that book. you do orwell a disservice to suggest otherwise.

if you want to have a taste of what he was writing of, think of the khemer rouge, the USSR in the 40s-50s, PRC in the 80s, and iraq today. this was what orwell was warning us of. in cambodia, people were killed for wearing glasses - that being a sign of being a member of the intelligentsia. for control of thought and ideology, the USSR and PRC were both world ahead of where we stand in the US. you can still be jailed in China for being a part of the falung gong, loosely classifiable as a religion. the only news you would get is from the state-run media.

you spoiled, spoiled person. of course we need to be vigilante, or people will try to take away our rights for their own power. but to paint a picture where we have close to the situation in 1984 is outright nonsense. 80% of the world doesn't enjoy the rights we do in the US. and if you don't want to end up in an orwellian dystopia, then vote these people out of office. we still live in a democracy, lest you forget.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact!

[TheMonkeyDepartment]

Hold on here. Why do you need detailed information about nuclear reactors or airports? These are government installations and are currently thought to be very vulnerable to a terrorist attack.

The Constitution does not, anywhere, guarantee "freedom of information." Further, our country is not only beholden to the Constitution, it is bound by hundreds of years of precedent-setting legal cases, legislation, and military and common law. I believe there is a legally demonstrable *CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER* to allowing just anyone to have access to this kind of information.

If you're writing a paper, doing a scientific study or have some other legitimate reason to access this information, you could probably get permission to access it. Otherwise, no, you don't need to know about it right now. And yes, I think the government has the right to keep certain information secret to protect lives.

Where the fuck did anyone get the idea that the Constitution permits an absolute right to access this kind of information?

Re:The Constitution is not a suicide pact!

[TheMonkeyDepartment]

I'm so sorry that you disagree with me. But let me get right to your "sum-up":

Congress nor the Judicary, nor the Executive Branch nor anyone has any right, regardless of law, case law, or common law, to restrict ANY speech, at all in any form. Do you understand that? Its absolute. Its unending. Its unyielding. What if it leads to nuclear war? Too bad. What if it leads to more terrorism? Too bad. What if it means the end of life, the universe, everything? TOO BAD.

I just don't think this is true. I'd bet you that NONE of the sitting Supreme Court Justices would agree with you. The Constitution has a self-implied responsibility to protect ITSELF, that is, to ensure its longevity and protection from destruction. It is not "absolute." It is CONSTITUTIONALLY based on the interpretation of the Supreme Court. And look at those guys! Do you think they're going to "interpret" that, as you say, even if it leads to nuclear war or more terrorism, it's "TOO BAD"? No way. They're going to come down against terrorism every time. And they have that right -- the Supreme Court is every much a part of the Constitution as the 1st Amendment is!

This is based on the argument that

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

is sufficiently cloudy on access to information about airports, nuclear reactors and power stations. I see "freedom of speech" in there, but I don't see "freedom of access to information" present. I don't see how "Speech = access to info". Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Re:Get rid of Ashcroft

[Master_Eagle]

Plus he lost his senate election to a dead guy.

Re:This is absurd.

[sirsnork]

OK so it'll take a lot of time. A year? 2? 10? Who's saying they didn't start planning this just long enough ago that next week will be the big one?? Restricting information won't stop it. Just slow it down and give them time to think big!