Slashdot Mirror
Effects of the Patriot Act on Librarians
Quaryon writes "The Patriot Act apears to have some chilling effects with respect to libraries and booksellers. An FBI agent can get a warrant, without any evidence, in order to compel a librarian to reveal lending details on a suspect. The librarian cannot tell anyone about the search, including the target of the search, and the details of how many such searches are done are not made public. Articles at SFGate News and Common Dreams give more details." We had a related Ask Slashdot a few weeks ago.
just like in the movie Seven
"There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
What would the founding fathers of a once great and free nation think?
and wear a ski mask. Is this what the world is coming to?
Why ?... Doesn't sound good...
This only just came to mind, so I hope I'm not repeating anyone, but libraries, at least, can foil the system by simply not keeping track of people's lending habits. Nothing compells a library to do this kind of marketing history, unless there are actual laws to do the compelling for them.
This now concludes our broadcast day.
I seem to remember reading something about an organization filing a freedom on information act requestion a simple count of how many such warrents have been issued.
Anyone know of a link to this?
Scott.
Where would the librarian get my mortage info from in the first place!?
I guess they'll know now that I borrowed money from the bank to pay my fine on If You Give a Mouse Cookie.
Makes me wish I didn't have an overdue copy of 'Hop on Pop' from 1978.
Wait, that sounds like a zippy quote.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
Well, I'll tell you......
The future of libraries and information is clearly online, correct? So, by logical extension, this law would apply to Slashdot, would it not?
So, if you mod me down, the FBI might subpoena Cowboy Neal to tell them you did it and you will never know!
Are your moderation choices in accordance with the correct political views as defined by your elected representatives in Washington?
There is a project out there that aims to stop totalitarian government. www.freestateproject.com Check it out.
Colour me naive, but would a judge really authorise a warrant for something that is plainly frivolous?
Is this -really- as bad as it appears?
Black and grey are both shades of white.
One thing mentioned in the article is about secret courts. I am not sure but the idea that the FBI can go in an get information using a warrant from a secret court and not having to tell the person is mildly unconstitutional.
For those of you who have realplayer, this Ad Council clip never fails to amuse. It is not a matter of if, but when.
Yeah, right.
This is obviously some liberal muckety-muck.
Librarians are free to do as they please so long as they march in lockstep with John Ashcroft's demands.
and pay cash.
(it also helps to wear a fake mustache and/or a conspicuous hat when book shopping.)
Red, white and blue bras!
Wait a minute, we're talking about librarians.
*shiver*
Video Game News, FAQs, etc
You do mean Farenheit 451 right? Or least the prequel to it. It's a Brave New World!
Does anyone else find it ironic that the certain government interest groups are currently running television ads that attempt to show what American life would be like if certain liberties were taken away?
One of these commericals shows a young man walking up to a clerk at a library and asking for a series of books. When he's told that those books are no longer available he's asked for his name. He becomes clearly upset and attempts to leave when he's taken away by a group of men in dark suits.Seems the futures a lot closer then anyone else suspected.
This is fairly old news. Similar stories were on Drudge Report back in June.
m ain513251.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/24/attack/
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.
If you care about this issue, you may be interested in the activities of the Freedom to Read Foundation
I only use the library for fictional works - stuff to read, and entertain, for a couple of days. Anything for work or anything I actually plan to do something with, I simply purchase. And cash is always an option...
I fail to see how the fact that I like to check out CLany, Sandford, Stephen King, Koontz, Ludlum, Clavell, etc etc is "chilling".
That does help, thanks. HAND.
Would a terrorist really take the time to get a library card in the first place ? In my area, we have to fill out an application, then wait for them to mail it to us - my guess is for address verification. It seems to me that a terrorist would just buy a book anyway - but then who knows, its easier, but it costs money.
The libraries are provided FREE of charge by the government. Therefore why shouldn't they be able to get the information on what books you have read. Besides it's not like they weren't already doing this. Now that they are officially stating that they are allowed this would in essence give you more rights, since you know that your rights are not being violated. One also has to look at the cost versus the gain. By having the FBI have access to your reading habits, it could save you from being in a building that gets hit by a plane. That is a good trade off. Even if not one terrorist is busted from this whole inactment, everyone in the trade towers and on the flights would have definitely traded this for their lives. Stand up for things that matter, like P2P networks. Tracing your personal phone calls. Storing credit card numbers, and let these ones pass. Then when you speak you will be heard louder and not thought of as a whiner who whines at every single legislation that is passed. You have to know what battles to pick, and which ones not to.
Funny, the patriot act doesnt sound very patriotic.
In Seven the detective says that the FBI monitors some books in public libraries.
"There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
Here at Duke, the school newspaper The Chronicle ran a recent story about the effect of the Patriot act on librarians. I hope that word becomes more widespread about the effect of this passed-in-the-heat-of-the-moment legislation, so that we can get it off the books as soon as possible.
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
Homer : Wonders, Lisa? Or blunders?
Lisa : I think that was implied by my statement.
Homer : Implied, Lisa? Or implode?
Lisa : Mom!!!!
I recently saw an ad on TV that addresses this issue. It's part of an Ad Coucil series of PSAs put out after 9/11. Some of them are rather tame ("Freedom means a well-stocked supermarket") but others, like the Library spot, are quite effective and poignant. Hopefully, they will make people more aware of some of the frightening things that are going on nowadays that _our_ government is doing.
Although this has been rehashed a couple of times for Librarians, does anyone know of other cases/industries where this has become a problem (or even exercised)? Such as purchasing habits from Visa or cash withdrawls from your bank (yeah, I know, terrorists don't use ATMs, they do cash and carry with all of their money coming from drug related transactions). Wonder when grocery stores will start being forced to disclose heavy purchasers of ethnic foods...
DO something, instead of all the talking??
Who the hell is he?
...it's about finding out who the dissenters are, and then silencing them.
You're using her as bait, Master!
"You have no privacy; get over it."
As far as I care, the federal government is welcome to look into me and my life. They already have my spending history (credit report), job history (taxes), (lack_of_a) criminal record (DUH!), medical records (USAF), and a slew of other details I really don't need to know about.
If (and only if) the Patriot Act data given to the FBI is used soley by the investigative arms of the government, and not a business or private citizen unassociated with the feds, I have no problem with this. A friend of mine can be suboeneaed as to the two kittie cats and mass of CDRs in my apartment, and if they pick the right friend I won't ever know about it. So what if the federal government can know that I read fantasy novels and sci fi; it's their job to be snoopse, and they're welcome to it.
what the hey? what kind of slashdot reader are you? he wrote alot of geek classics, like "snow crash", "the diamond age", and "necronomicon"
LEAVE. When other governments impose repressive laws, people leave. They often leave everything they own behind, but they find new homes and build new lives for themselves in countries which allow them the freedoms they desire.
If people started flooding across the border into Canada and claiming refugee status, people certainly take notice.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
"by any means possible" includes just killing everyone on Earth to avoid future crime.
...Naaah.
How about a reasonable, constitutional and appropriate response that is reasonably and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society?
Oh, and where was Timothy McVeigh or the Unibomber's towel headwear? Thanks for the valuable insight.
Only then can we get a court case to throw out this nonsense.
That's all we get here in Oklahoma. My wife worked at the local (public) library while in school and all the librarians did was constantly get the 50 year old petafiles out of the childrens section, get the white trash off the porn sites, and occasionally help someone find reference material. Sad really.
But only in a cicle, and with big knobby tires.
-W
Here is the text of the Patriot Act:/ ~c1073P4rg4
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c107:./temp
Where does it give the FBI the right to search library and bookstore records without a valid search warrants? I couldn't find library or bookstore mentioned and I could only find one unreleated reference to the work book.
I really wish when journalists mention that so-and-so law is evil they would be more specific as to which sections they are talking about. I'm not questioning whether those provisions are in there, I just want to read and judge them myself. For example, maybe the FBI is assuming authority that it really doesn't have.
or is anyone else having librarian prison-sex fantasies?
Let's see:
slashdotter: "What are you in for hot stuff?"
librarian: "Failing to comply with a federal investigation."
slashdotter: "That's cool."
librarian: "What are you in for?"
slashdotter: "port scanning."
librarian: "Guess we're both terrorists."
So it was the Feds that asked the question on /.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Are bookstores provided free by the government? How about private libraries? College libraries? Do you really think Joe Average FBI agent will bother to check to see how much money they city government gave to the library before he gets a warent? Insightful Indeed! Bah!
Here is a link to the main Ad Council website and the real player ads:
_ fr eedom/
http://www.adcouncil.org/campaigns/campaign_for
www.enthea.org
Yes, but it was only a piece of fantasy movie making at best. Remember, Brad Pitt's character said "Hey hey hey, how is this Legal!?!!".
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Don't you hate it when they write a bill that's severely detrimental to our rights and then call it "Patriot Act"? Who wants to be known as being "anti-Patriot Act" (well, I do, but I'm no politician). They should have a law saying that bills have to be named appropriately, like, in this case "One Step Closer to a Police State Act", "We Are Watching Your Reading Act", or "FBI Will Get You If You Read the Wrong Book Act". A shorter version might be "Screw Liberty Act".
---
Open Source Shirts
He wrote the "Cryptonomicon", you fucking idiot.
They are not 'FREE' they are payed for via taxes.
Now, if you desire to pay my property taxes this year, I will quit bitching.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...."I am not sure that you know what that word means".
I think you have confused "plutocracy" (rule by, for and of the rich) with "capitalism".
This is just one example of the ineptniess of the Bush administration in tracking down terrorist cells in America..
If I am Taliban I will not go to the library to get infrokmation on explosives, airplanes, airports, and such things..
I wil use a proxy adn get it off the web while at a coffe shop within a barnes and nobles or borders book store..
Or I could use kinkos in fact..
Ashcroft is real stupid idiot!
Please undesrtand this is not to asy that I am not for some action on thepart of Aashcroft and the Bush administration..I just wish they would actually go to use who are skilled and sk us to educate them on how to do this rather than act like stumbling fools..
Well aashcroft and Bush are you listening.. I can sertve in this manner if you guys get your heads out of your asses and ask..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
The Chamber of Commerce funded the commercials that criticize the Patriot Act and ask Americans to protect their liberties more diligently.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
isn't this a lot like the tv commerical public
service announcement where a student asks the
librarian for some books, she says 'Oh! These
are not allowed anymore.' and someone in dark
glasses and a dark coat comes up behind the
student and helps escort him away to be interviewed.
The end of the psa says something like 'what if you
weren't in America?'
anyone know more details about this (rather poorly
described) commercial?
We're going to read all sorts of postings here about "my first amendment rights this" and "my first amendment rights that". Unfortunately, the posters do not understand that the first ten amendments were intended as restrictions on the federal government -- that is all -- they are NOT rights created by the federal government. The Citizen's rights were recognized as inherent.
The so-called constitutional "rights" created by the federals didn't come along until after the Civil War, and were contractual franchises given to a particular group of franchisees. Over the years, we were conditioned to value this artificial "citizenship" over the original. Anyone wondering where we lost control of government should look carefully here. Our rights were lost because we contracted them away.
http://come.to/foundation/
The FBI, and local authorities for that matter, have always been able to request library patron records with a warrant. Its not like the FBI can issue a warrant, a judge (federal in the case of the FBI I believe) only has the power to issue a warrant. Its still the same system of checks and balances. And frankly, if the feds were to look at my library record the only thing that they would find is that I'm a Geek interested in philosophy and political science.
If you want to read "The Anarchists Cookbook" but you don't want the FBI snooping into your records. Don't get a library card, don't check out books, don't use library internet access. Most libraries allow you to walk right in and start reading -- they even provide tables and chairs (perhaps this is contributing to terrorism :) ). You can always photocopy the most interesting information and walk right out with the pages -- no record. If you want interent access go to a coffee shop and pay by the minute. In fact go to several shops and keep moving around. Find open WiFi access points.
This is so easy to defeat any "terrorist" with the intelligence to secretly put together a plan to crash fully fueled planes into the WTC buildings can figure this out.
The PATRIOT act is just another example of congressional grandstanding for the voters that will be repealed or over turned by the Supreme Court in 10-15 years. It's a blatant power grab by Lord Protector "Johnny Boy" Ashcroft and his team of l337 G-men to stick their noses where the Constitution tells them to keep their noses out.
This type of activity will not stop a single criminal act, it will not save a single life. All it will do is drag innocent people through the mud of public humility and create a society spies.
Excuse me now, I hear "jack boots" kicking at my front door...
From the article:
However, she said, it comes down to the same thing: Government spies don't belong in libraries.
Her not want wanting to participate is admirable, and respectable, which was her whole point. However, "public libraries", which, I assume, is what she meant to say are open to everyone, whether they are spies, anti-war activist, or students..
Although, I do totally agree that turning librarians into government spies is a bad thing... Although, that would be the perfect cover....
-- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
While I am indeed concerned about some of the infringments to liberties post 9-11, I must say that this particular isue is pretty much open and shut. When you go to a library, you are visiting a public place, stocked with public property. The computers you use are not your own privately held property, nor are books/periodicals/music that you check out. There can be no expectation of privacy when the resource one is using is not private.
"Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
Given those two points, I and my fellow library employees have been told the following:
All of this applies even for the most classified requests under the most extreme reading of the PATRIOT act.
Thus, if you want to know what Sally has checked out right now, and your request makes it through all of these requirements there might be a chance that you'll find out without having to ask Sally directly.
If you want to know what Sally read last week (or possibly even this morning if the materials have already circulated) there's a good chance you're going to have to find Sally to ask her yourself.
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
Freedom anywhere is utopia, we are always restricted by something, let it be concience, law or physics. (if we're not restricted by gravity, we are by distance) But, i think americans are having their freedom restricted for cause of safety. Alive slave, or dead but free? There is very nice quote which would fit the topic:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin Franklin, 1759"
And i would have to agree...
Does anyone know for a fact if libraries actually keep historical records? Another article (don't remember where) stated that they didn't.
If lending records are released it create a serious breech of our freedoms. In particular, how will the records be interpreted? If I regularly check out books on a certain faith, will I be categorized as that faith? If I check out books on chemistry, will I be building a bomb? If I read too much Tom Clancy, will I be a spy? It is this sort of thing that makes me wonder if the Germans comparison of out president to Hitler may not be as far off as we first imagine. We already know that dark colored people with accents cannot drive through the south without being accused of terrorism. I do not see how violating patron confidentiality will help anything.
The saddest thing is that Laura Bush is a Librarian. The fact that such a thing could happen with her husband in office makes me wonder if there are any ethics at all in that house.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
...the borrowing of Mein Kampf went up 2000% in a month?
I would think kids had been assigned homework about the Holocaust or the History majors or Abnormal Psych students had been assigned a paper on Really Bad Ideas.
I am less concerned at this point with anti-Jewish foolishness than I am that a Sikh got shot on September 12, 2001 by some idiot who thought he was shooting a Muslim (as if all Muslims were responsible for the crimes of a few).
As H.G. Wells wrote almost a century ago, "the future will be a race between education and disaster". We need a free flow of information and ideas to prevent the "Big Lie" Hitler's propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels relied upon to permit the Holocaust to occur.
Librarians have been running wild in this country for too long.
It's about time someone had the courage to say ENOUGH. We've had enough of you librarians.
For too long they've been blantantly stealing money from the hands of hard working authors, like the repeatedly deceased Stephen King, by allowing people to READ BOOKS they haven't even PAYED FOR.
A simple 'Shhh.. This is a library' from one of these liberty-devouring monsters is all it takes to silence free speech in buildings that we all pay for.
And who granted them the power to arbitrarily decide which portions of human knowledge are FICTION and which are NON-FICTION.
They hide truths as make-believe, and make-believe as truth, by use of the dewey decimal system.
I applaud our brave president for standing up to these monsters who would rob us of our precious ignorance.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Emigrate. There's better countries to live in. They're not perfect either, but the US is definitely taking the wrong path.
Government is controlled by big business. The two big parties have very few differences between them. Even when elections do happen, they are a sham, as can be seen in the last presidential election.
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
They take a little more every day. They match up things a little more every day too.
Here's one scenario, from what I know about you already.
1) You were in the Air Force. That means you are combat trained and know how to use deadly weapons to kill people.
2) You read sci-fi. This can mean that you are open minded to fantastical tails and adventurous tails. You are also intrested in technology.
3) You have CD-Rs (probably some illegal) and go to slashdot, a known haven for digital criminals.
4) You probably have kiddie porn because as the article stated yesterday, most cyber criminals have gobs of kiddie porn on their harddrives.
Now with this info, if I were a crazy assed hard core right wing fuckhead (the type who wrote the patriot act, or would make the same assumptions I made above, or would say that the purple telletubbie is gay, or bert and ernie are gay) I could make a pretty strong case of FUD as to why you are a danger to society. Or if I were a wimpy-ass left wing freak I could say how the very fact that you know how to use a weapon makes you a potential murderer. Either way you are now open to danger from fanatics. Not muslim fanatics, but american fanatics.
For example, we could allege that you may have weapons, you know how to use them, you read anti-christian writings such as sci-fi, you are a hacker and a child pornographer. Now we can raid your house and take your shit. And because you might also be a terrorist we can hold you indefinately without any charges - thanks to the new fucking laws.
And what's more. You can't really say anything about it when we do it, because you didn't fight for your rights when you could have.
Wake the fuck up, dude. This isn't about terrorists, it's about freedom for REAL HONEST AMERICANS like yourself.
I'm willing to fight and die for my freedoms. As you were when you were in the service. the only difference is you were brainwashed to believe that the only threat to your freedom is a foreign threat, where as I know the biggest threat will be an inside job. Much like the job Bush and Asscroft are doing on us right now.
I'm willing to fight, kill and die for American freedom. The only real question is whom will I have to kill. Saddam, or Bush?
...as it failed to pick up the tag in the last sentence of the previous post.
BTW, what are the conclusions from the book you are reading, and have you considered posting a review?
It's time to make librarians do more than just sit there and read!!!
(Just kidding. I used to date a librarian.)
1. "The libraries are provided FREE of charge by the government. "
Using money paid by taxpayers and thus OWNED by taxpayers to be used by taxpayers
2. "Therefore why shouldn't they be able to get the information on what books you have read. "
Because a little piece of paper called the US constitution defines freedom of speech as something the "government" may NOT take away NO MATTER HOW IMPORTANT a situation is. The US Supreme court has stated that the ability to read ideas is freedom of speech and that fear of reading ideas is the silencing of speech.
3. "Besides it's not like they weren't already doing this. "
For the purposes of CRIMINAL activity. But in this case they don't have to prove you did anything wrong. Only that they THINK you did something wrong.
5. "Now that they are officially stating that they are allowed this would in essence give you more rights, since you know that your rights are not being violated."
How is this the case? I don't know if they are looking at my checkout records. I don't know if they are going to use this against me in court later on. I can't request what information they have. I can't question where they retrieved the information to make me a suspect to begin with. Need I go on?
6. "One also has to look at the cost versus the gain. By having the FBI have access to your reading habits, it could save you from being in a building that gets hit by a plane. That is a good trade off. "
No it's not. Maybe for you. But let's follow this twisted logic to it's end. IF an act can prove dangerous to others then the US government has the right to take away our constitutional rights on the basis of protection. Since drunk drivers kill people then perhaps the government should put all people who have been seen "walking" into a bar in jail. ON the basis that they MIGHT drink and drive. and MIGHT kill somebody. But hey, it's all for the safety of the better good
7. "Even if not one terrorist is busted from this whole inactment, everyone in the trade towers and on the flights would have definitely traded this for their lives."
Who on earth gave you the right to speak for the dead... to determine that they would give their lives for this? How about the thousands upon thousands of US lives in the US military that gave up THEIR lives to retain these same rights? Are their lives worthless?
8. "Stand up for things that matter, like P2P networks. Tracing your personal phone calls. Storing credit card numbers, and let these ones pass. "
What's the difference? If it's ok to track the books. Then why not YOUR internet usage. what's the difference? There isn't any. You can't concede one point of security and privace and allow another. Stand on the issue... not the individual sub points. We can't pick and choose which parts of a principle we wish to defend.
9. "Then when you speak you will be heard louder and not thought of as a whiner who whines at every single legislation that is passed. You have to know what battles to pick, and which ones not to."
Ohh... I get it now. Let's play the politics game. Give in to this point to make others. Fine. Then let's stop trying to stop murders because there are people out there hurting little children. Let's stop small dictators from slaughtering their people because we have larger countries that are a threat. This has to be the most obnoxious and ill thought out post I have ever seen and as being such is probably a troll.
You can mod me up or down. I don't care but somebody had to say it
where do you get the idea tht Canada is the place where people still have universial human rights. Canada has its share of troubles, in part caused by being a neighbor to the powerful US. Their laws are different, but not nessicarly better. For gunowners their laws are by far worse. For other things their laws are better. Laws and courts in both countries change so even though today Canada might be better for your particular preference in rights, that doesn't mean that next year it will not be worse.
Read it more carefully.
(Note: thomas.loc.gov gives temporary links. Those looking for the bill text should do a search for HR 3162).
Relevant sections might be
Sec. 213, on when notice of a warrant can be delayed. Note that this requires "reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result", and does not include
tangible property seizure or wire interception.
Section 214, where it amends Title V of FISA, regarding the subpoena of records. FBI higher-ups (no lower than assistant SAIC) may apply for orders "requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution."
Apparently, a FISA judge or a US Magistrate Judge must approve. In addition, the records must be sought for such an authorized investigation. In addition, you can also find the non-disclosure requirements there.
Libraries aren't special, no matter how much library associations would like to pretend they are. OTOH, they can't subpoena your library records just 'coz you hang out with a street gang called the "Bin Laden Boys" (freedom of association) or you write editorials demanding the destruction of America (speech) unless they have additional non-First-Amendment evidence.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
First of privacy is important, and I agree with most of the posters here, that there is the *potential* for a chilling effect.
However, a point I am more concerned with is knowing what my government is doing, and being able to "keep tabs" on agencies, elected officals, etc.
Here is the stuff that keeps me wondering:
A lot of libraries, especially university libraries participate in the Federal Government Depository Program, which means they receive documents from the government and house them in their library systems. After Sept. 11, certain publications were recalled from depository program participants because they contained what government agencies believed to be sensitive material.
These are the documents that the public uses to see what is really going on in Washington. If there is a confrence on the environment and the EPA decides to roll back some law after meeting with Exxon, we would find out in these documents. Now many are being recalled.
Why? In the interest of national security. The government has being reduciong the amount of materials it sends to Depository Program for years, but now it's really dwindeling.
Is it in the interest of national security for the government to keep us in the dark about where my city's water supply comes from?
Our government has been steadily enabling big business to ruin the environment, and now in the interest of national secufrity, we can't even access the information to determine what the heck is goning on.
what? what I thought we were in the trust tree in the nest, were we not?
What's a "library"?
Anyone have the URL?
To set it up, you get a card with a unique identifier. Hand the nice librarian 5,10,15 100 dollars, cash. You now have a credit to take out books up to the value on the card, that way replacemt is simple. If you dont bring the books back before some reasonable amount of time, say, double the lending period, the amount buys the library a new book, and you are SOL. You agree to this at the time of getting the card, end of story. If the book is the only copy the library has, and it is impossible to replace, too bad, have a seat and start reading, or hit the nice xerox machine. Yeah, there would be a lot of problems, but it think it might be worth it.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Dispatch your press secretary to warn Americans to watch what they say...
Allow your loose cannon of an Attorney General to go to Congress and smear political opponents as stooges who give aid and comfort to the enemy...
Multiply your powers of domestic surveillance, treating the least private nook and cranny as the government's reserve, every technology its appendage...
Demand carte blanche for the executive through expanded powers and reduced congressional oversight...
Marshal the seemingly endless hordes of white conservative male talking heads who overpopulate the TV screens with their ideology, until it seems surely everyone must think in this constipated Father Knows Best manner...
And last, but not least, bring to heel the librarians, those snooty know-it-alls who looked down on you the one or two occasions at Yale when you bothered to check out a book. You didn't read it, anyway -- showed them!
American's don't leave. We fight.
If we can't win this fight legally, we'll have to revolt. It wouldn't be the first time. A little revolution is good every now and then. I'm willing to do it, with the same conviction of my fore fathers. So are many others. Our government will have to decide whether to support the bush family, or the constitution and the american people. Every soldier will have to decide if he is fighting for his country, or against his country.
It's a civil war and a revolution all at the same time. I don't think America would nuke itself. I don't think america could afford to win this war either. Then the world would know that America isn't a real democracy (republic for you anal fucks). America will have to hear the people, as they did in the 60s. Else it will be like it was in the 1880s.
Either way, the bill of rights is the only politics I care about. I'm willing to kill for them.
I don't know where you've been all this time, but the taliban are not terrorists. They are a religious sect, who were accused by the USA of harbouring Bin Laden. While they are a bunch of jerks who like to treat women like slaves and destroy ancient artifiacts just because they disagree with their world view, it is their right to be that way in their own country. At least, until the big bully came along and took that right away from them. But i digress. My point is, you are thinking of al queda, the terrorist organization, not Taliban, the religious sect. Please don't confuse the two.
I don't see that either principle holds here. Would I like for my borrowing records to be private? I suppose so, but I don't have any expectation of it. How exactly is it that if this were B&N we were talking about it would be public, but because it's a library, it's not?
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
What follows is an email I sent to friends and family based on a WSJ article I read.
m ailThis ?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=2046431354&p t=Y
:
My comments follow. Please note that the quotes included are only
excerpts; I strongly advise reading the whole article.
Communications
Previously, the government had to show probable cause that a crime
had been or was about to be committed to obtain a warrant. Now, it
only needs to show that the surveillance is relevant to a current
investigation.
However, the 4th amendment to the US Constitution states quite
explicitly that "...no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause".
"The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones," said
President Bush when he signed the Patriot Act. Now, he said, "we'll
be able to better meet the technological challenges posed by this
proliferation of communications technology."
I'm rather curious what the "existing law" Bush refers to is,
considering that the probable cause requirement was written in the
days before the telegraph, let alone telephones, rotary or touch-tone.
It's also rather troubling that new technology is always assumed to
create a situation where existing principles do not apply. While I am
not one to rabidly and unthinkingly defend American superiority, it
must be acknowledged that the founding fathers were not utter fools.
The sheer volume of their writing evidences the fact that much thought
was spent first determining the effects of their initial regulations,
as well as laying out their reasoning for establishing them.
I find it difficult to imagine a situation where the existing rules
are unworkable. The only reason not to show probable cause is to cast
a dragnet, the catch of which can later be data-mined at leisure. Of
course, it is well-known that one can find evidence of nearly any
conspiracy if he is looking for it, and it's important that suspicion
of a crime be established before investigation is begun.
It is not difficult to obtain a warrant; a judge's signature is all
that is required. But the judge must first be satisfied that the
constitutional requirements have been met, lest the evidence later be
thrown out. This is a process which takes some time and
consideration, and I am not overly concerned by this. Better that one
piece of "crucial evidence" be occasionally lost than that the specter
of random searches begins to frighten every citizen. If a deluge of
warrants should be required, appoint more judges and set up more
efficient pipelines for obtaining one. However, this situation should
ideally act more as a warning flag than anything else.
I would also like to point out that, for better or for worse, the
demand for probable cause is not absolute and inflexible. The
doctrine of exigent circumstances has been established for some time
now.
Libraries
The FBI can demand from bookstores and libraries the names of books
bought or borrowed by anyone suspected of terrorism. Librarians may
be prosecuted if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed
information related to a terror investigation. [...] Library and
book records were previously only available to prosecutors if a
judge issued a subpoena for the records.
Once again, this is a clear violation of the 4th amendment. In
addition, courts have previously held that this sort of action creates
a chilling effect on activities protected by the 1st amendment; see
the Colorado Supreme Court's decision on the Tattered Cover issue:
Search warrants directed to bookstores, demanding information about
the reading history of customers, intrude upon the First Amendment
rights of customers and bookstores because compelled disclosure of
book-buying records threatens to destroy the anonymity upon which
many customers depend.
Detention
The Immigration and Naturalization Service can now detain aliens
suspected of terrorism for a week before bringing criminal
charges. The INS can hold terrorist suspects for up to six months
without bringing charges if their country of origin won't take them
back.
Writ of habeas corpus, anyone?
The accumulation of these civil rights violations, including others
not discussed in the article, coupled with the secret police/informers
John Ashcroft wishes to set up across the country (see
http://news.com.com/2102-1023-944555.html, for example), creates an
environment where not only terrorists need fear for their rights. It
is reminiscent of Orwell's 1984, where the faade of the
war with Eurasia/Eastasia is used to mask the totalitarian actions of
the government. Reminiscent of the empires of Commodus, Hitler,
Stalin, Mao, and others, for that matter.
This needs to be fought.
----
Permission is given to redistribute this commentary verbatim,
as long as credit is given to Tim Howe (vsync@quadium.net).
Quotations are from the "A Look at the Patriot Act, Nearly One Year
Later", Stephanie Miles, The Wall Street Journal Online, 6 September
2002.
********************
If you are having trouble with any of the links in this message, or if the URL's are not appearing as links, please follow the instructions at the bottom of this email.
Title: WSJ.com - A Look at the Patriot Act, Nearly One Year Later
Copy and paste the following into your Web browser to access the sent link:
http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/e
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
You are trying to take them away. THis is a direct violation of the bill of rights that governs behaveior in this country. You leave. Go to some country where there is no bill of rights ad make THEM into your serfs, asshole.
;)
Hell, im not even sure if this is a troll or not, im just pissed off. Ill give you mods a free pass on this one.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Usurping and
Subjugating
America by
Providing
All the
Tools
Required to
Implement
Orwellian
Tyranny
www.wavefront-av.com
No thanks. Besides, it's cold up there.
They stab it with their steely knives,
But they just can't kill the beast.
..."irony tag", not "tag". Sorry. I'll use preview, God, I promise.
YES, I'm a Christian. Got a problem with that?
Only when jackasses like you feel the need to advertise it to everyone.
A Republican federal government, champions of States Rights, tramples individual rights with impunity. Leftist Anarchists, and White-Supremists have become conservative Republicans. Democrats, in peacetime, funnel federal projects to their biggest supporters and claim to cut federal spending. Republicans shovel pork faster than our taxes can refill the barrel. I am getting so-o-o confused. Will everyone get back to their assigned places, please?!
Does that invalidate his reference? "Just like in the movie Seven" he says, and he is correct.
He does not claim the FBI actually did that previously, so what's your complaint?
...as it's been way too long since I've seen "The Princess Bride", and I was going from memory. BTW, that's the only performance of Mandy Patinkin that doesn't make me break out in hives.
Considering that Congress revealed how much the FBI knew about the possible attack, without having to use any of the new capabilities granted to them by the Patriot Act.
I don't suspect that most Slashdotters are checking out their Pr0n from the local public library.
This part of the USA PATRIOT Act is far more dangerous than the article implies.
Section 215 of the bill is not limited to libraries in any way:
The law effectively allows the FBI to view any record - from any source. It applies to any "tangible" record of any type. And in every case,
The entire USA PATRIOT Act is filled with things like this; it's probably the worst piece of jingoist legislation since the communist scare of the 50s.
...not a descriptive label.
Well, now it is!
Truth be told, I kinda like the PATRIOT Act. It brought a lot of stuff that was probably going on anyways into the open.
Now that it's officially legal and above-board, it's up to the courts to decide whether it'll remain legal, and the last the I checked the Constitution, that's where the decision's supposed to be being made.
Or would you prefer the old system, wherein the cops couldn't tell the court how they'd gotten the evidence, and the court had to pretend they didn't know, and as a result, the hard questions were never asked?
We all know that the FBI is a bunch of bungling incompetents. Withess the ATF/FBI Waco disaster with the Branch Davidians. The power and water had been shut off, the Davidians were in a boarded-up building and ABSOLUTELY had to be using kerosene/oil lamps for lighting. Then the moron/criminal ATF/FBI pumps flamable tear gas through a hole in the wall. Guess what happened? Blinded by the tear gas the Davidians choked and knocked over lamps, only to cause a fire that killed all the people inside. These supposed experts in whatever they are CLAIMING to be expert at, have no clue at all. They are a blight upon the American scene. How about that "expert" sniper at Ruby Ridge? The poor blind fool could not tell a woman carrying a child from a gun toting desperado. The list goes on and on. Only the brainwashed masses see nothing wrong with actions like secret warrants. They are the same people who make TV advertising a functioning phenom. America deserves the leaders it elects.
Several of my friends claim they have been pulled over for DWB: "Driving While Black". In Canada, a native friend of mine with an unusual haircut gets more than his fair share of police attention. I'm dull, boring and Caucasian, and I've never been stopped for anything without cause in my life. Could this be profiling?
Due process is important.
What does this have to do with taking away life, liberty, or property?
Here's a fun way to spread the word about the Patriot Act and its impact on our freedoms. Check out these propaganda posters updated to comment on the war on terrorism.
and more apparent every day.
Skinhead hippy or Hippy skinhead? Please speak slowly and clearly as you look into the camera.
On the THOMAS website, within Bill Number HR.3162.ENR, SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT, all replacement text for Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.
All of the charges leveled against the PATRIOT Act in this case should be easily found within this section, my reading indicates they're present, and reports are doing an exceptional job of not blowing thing out of proportion. (All interest groups blow things out of proportion, but in this case reports are suprisingly accurate.)
Hollywood has been prepairing us for this for some time. Afterall if they think its ok for our protection it must be good for us.
SOMERSET: For a long time, the FBI has been hooked into the city's library systems, keeping very accurate records.
MILLS: They're assessing fines now?
SOMERSET: They keep lists of who takes out what books. They monitor our reading habits.
MILLS: What?
SOMERSET: Not every person is monitored. Certain books are flagged...books about, let's say, how to build a nuclear bomb, or even Mein Kampf. Whoever takes out a flagged book has their library records fed to the FBI computer from then on.
MILLS: You got to be kidding.
SOMERSET: The flagged books cover every topic the Bureau deems questionable. From communism to violent crime.
MILLS: How is this legal?
SOMERSET: Legal...illegal. These terms do not apply. I don't applaud it, but it is exactly the type of activity the public wants the FBI and the CIA to engage in. Until they find out it's actually happening, then they scream bloody murder.
Somerset takes a bite of pizza.
SOMERSET: The FBI can't use this information directly, but, it is a useful guide. It might sound silly, but you can't get a library card without I.D. and a current phone bill.
Mills is starting to warm up to it.
MILLS: So they'll run our list.
SOMERSET: If you want to know who's been reading Paradise Lost, Purgatory, and say, The Life and Times of Charlie Manson, the Bureau's computer can probably tell you. It can give us a name.
MILLS: Yeah, a college student who's taking English 101 and just happens to be writing a paper on Twentieth Century
Crime.
SOMERSET: Yes, well, at least we're out of the office now. We've got pizza.
MILLS: How do you know about all this?
SOMERSET: I don't. And now, neither do you.
10: PRINT "Everything old is new again."
20: GOTO 10
On the surface, legislation like this is made to reduce the time it takes to gather information to go to prosecution (like not having to wade through pesky notions like due process
but is also used very easily to establish things like a list of people who, say, can make illigal drugs (a chemistry student), or explosives (a chemistry student), or biological agents (a chemistry student), or be a terrorist (an ethnic minority chemistry student). It could also be used to make lists of people from particular relious faiths (Jews maybe...?). Think about it.
Reading this simple definition, can you see why laws like this are evil, and of the type you may expect to find in societies like that depicted in 1984?
This legislation provides no guarentee that the people who use them will only act to benifit you and those you love. To condone it, you must have absolute faith in not only the authorities that you elect, but also those you don't .
For your own sake, please tell me this is not the case.
On first quick reading, I read it as Libertarians
;-)
Though given the Patriot act, I doubt you'll have many liberties left
Another has a person trying to check a book out from the library. He is told that that particular book is no longer available. When he goes to leave, he is apprehended by two suits.
So, who is putting these commercials on television anyway? Do they have any idea that their commercials are coming to pass? Clearly, we're approaching the point where it's not a "what if" any more.
Their tagline: "Freedom. Appreciate it. Cherish it. Protect it."
They're taking away our first amendment rights. Maybe it's time to exercise our second amendment ones.
Do not touch -Willie
Actually I think there is one on the Seine in Paris... ;-)
All governments, including ours, try this cr*p all the time. "Laws" like this are why the founders created a Constitution and enshrined the common law court system. It's up to a library (or other affected indivudals & interested parties) to push this thing up to the Supreme Court & get the law smacked down hard. I trust that more learned & more reasoned Judical decisionmakers will give this "law" all the consideration it deserves and slap it silly (based upon free speech, due process, and prohibition against warrantless searches). I've never, as yet, seen any reason to doubt that our common law system will eventually do the right thing & return the system to one that is just.
It is, however, a PITA for the parties affected since the process moves so slowly (though the process was intended to move slowly to give everyone more than enough time to react based upon reason, rather than the emotion of the day).
So let's say you're a terrorist interested in information about bombs. And you know the government can easily read your library records. What do you do?
You do what nearly every other library user does these days. You go to the photocopier, drop in a few coins, and copy just the few pages you want. No records are kept, and there's no need to return anything when you're done.
So what's next? A law mandating libraries to require ID for photocopier use, and to keep copies of every copy a machine makes? Before you laugh, consider that many newer copiers already consist of scanners connected to laser printers, so quietly keeping a copy of everything passed through the machine wouldn't be hard at all.
I think the main concern is that there is no due process and no means for disclosure built into the Act. Among other things, this makes it impossible to detect any misuse or abuse of the process.
It may be hard to imagine what kind of misuse/abuse there could be from gathering library lending habits. But, if we don't protect our rights now, then we leave ourselves open for all the abuses that we haven't thought of.
To an extent, this is like trying to protect your computer system from viruses: You don't just protect yourself from the viruses that you know about; instead, you set up processes and standards to protect yourself from the ones that you don't know about as well (that's why you don't open every e-mail attachment you get and expect your anti-virus software to cope with the fallout).
Just my 55 pesos.
Lister: 'Knowledge is Power' -- who said that?
Rimmer: I don't know.
sorry, couldn't resist.
One comment that I havn't seen here yet (though I'm not browsing below 1 so I might have missed it):
Everyone is freaked out about them tracking our library browsing habits.
Isn't the same thing being done right now, without warrant, with regard to our *web* browsing habits?
- All inquiries regarding patron records are to be referred to library administration.
- No information will be provided without appropriate warrants and/or court orders.
- Before any search for information begins the library has the right to have an attorney examine any/all warrants and/or court orders to determine their validity, jurisdiction, and all other aspects of legal standing.
- The library, through its attorney has the right to additional judicial ruling on potentially suspect or questionable documentation before any search begins. (Right of appeal)
- The library has the right to have its attorney present at all times when any search activities are carried out.
This all sounds well and good, and may have a nice appearance. However, "having the right" to have an attorney do all these things and actually doing it are two different things.
Administration takes care of all issues, and if they so choose, may have an attorney step in. But that doesn't mean they will. If you were an administrator, and the FBI showed up with a warrant, what would you do? It takes some balls to stand up to them and say "No, I am going to have to contact an attorney". Good for you if you could do it, but I doubt most would.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
What a broad statement. Am I a librarian because other people read my web pages? Could they without asking (magic lantern) find out who goes to my page and reads it?
My ;ocal library doies nto keep track of who checked out any books. Once a book is returned, and there are no unpaid fines for said book, or any other unfinshed transactions regarding said book, the record is expunged. This has always been their policy. Alaska is a very pro-privacy state. Personal privacy is built into our state constitution and we take it rather seriously.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Can you fill in "John Doe" with a bogus address and get a card?
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
I'm not so worried about the library aspect of this. What I >AM worried about is my neighbors, mailmen, and meter readers spying on me. That sucks.
although this act highly annoys me, and scares me as i don't want to even further destroy all progress this nation has made since the sixties... i just realized that just the day after this act was put into place... i got these books from the library: can't remember who the author(s) were/was..."ecodefence" mikhail bakunin's "god and the state" abbie hoffman's "steal this book" two books on explosives, one specifically on making homemade explosives... and a pamphlet of stuff on local government buildings' architecture. haha.... got the ecodefence one because my friend wanted me to read it... "god and the state" because i never finished it.. "steal this book" for a few of the specific "recipes"(not the bomb/molotov ones, mind you...)... the two on explosives as explosives are just an interest of mine(no interest in blowing off a limb though, so i don't plan on making any)... and the architectural one because i was interested in how much area of a few local gov buildings you weren't allowed in, and how possible it would be to sneak into them just to figure out what's there.
> I don't like butterscotch, but I do like vanilla. You don't see friggin holy wars over pudding, though, do you?
:)
Bah! Vanilla is a weakling neutral flavor that smacks of Switzerland! Now tapioca is a REAL pudding, one that you can FEEL going down. When the tanks roll in to clense away the vanilla pudding factory, you know where I'll be standing!
Sorry, couldn't help it... the image was just too funny.
Lots of posts below this one displaying some ignorance of how modern libraries operate.
1) Most all libraries these days have computerized inventory systems using barcodes or RFID tags to track books and patrons. These systems make it LESS possible to track reading histories. In the old days with the 3 x 5 cards and date stamp machines one COULD track reading histories, though the logistics of such an operation would be daunting.
2) Libraries erase lending history upon return of items. In fact, librarians insist the systems keep no history as part of the RFP process.
3) It is potentially possible to retrieve lending history via backup tapes. These are usually recycled in a typical father-grandfather scheme. Restoring data from these tapes would mean the library system would be shut down during the process. It would be a massive operation and very visible.
4) Librarians are generally liberally educated left-wing leaning social and humanities graduates who are well aware of the first amendment and often the only people in the community willing to stand up for it. With recent polls shoing 49% of Americans believe the 1st amendment goes too far, you better go hug your local librarian. Because you know what? Nobody else is helping.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
TIPS as well as the prevailing attitude held by the general public of the USA is only causing things to get worse.
A recent example is how a woman could report three medical students as suspected terrorists, have them locked up, their possessions molested, and their jobs lost... simply because they looked like Muslims, Arabs, Pakastanis, Iranians, or in many people's minds "like them terrorists". This sparked paranoid delusions, not just within her mind, but within the minds of the general public.
If such horrible things can be inflicted upon you because of your ethnicity makes you a target of the current administration's programs, then how hard is it to imagine your reading habits making you a target of the current administration's programs?
If I read a book about "Islam", "Jihad", "American is Evil", or, hell, any book written by Noam Chomsky... will I be locked up, my possessions molested, my name defaced, and my job lost?
The land of the free? Are you serious? I feel like my nation has become a suicide bomber - ready to self destruct out of shear desperation and hate.
Seems to me that the various things mentioned in
the article represent a conspiracy to or a deprivation of our God-given, Constitutionally-protected rights. Maybe the following sections of laws from the US Code should be enforced against anyone who passed, signed off or attempts to enforce it.
* United States Code
* TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
* CHAPTER 21 - CIVIL RIGHTS
* SUBCHAPTER I - GENERALLY
U.S. Code as of: 01/05/99
Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such of
ficer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
U.S. Code as of: 01/05/99
Section 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
(1) Preventing officer from performing duties
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;
(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in
any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;
(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
U.S. Code as of: 01/05/99
Section 1986. Action for neglect to prevent
Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.
I love guy like you. Really, I do. Because you are either monumentally niave or stupid. The whole "it doesn't affect me, so it's a non-issue" mentality is just so wonderful. It's exactly what the powers that would abuse you wish everyone had.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
This could be a government plot to get people to stop reading books. You have to remember that it is easier to control an illiterate sociaty, then it is to control a literate and informed sociaty. A lot of the new laws are designed to stop the flow of information mainly within the acedemic community, R&D, etc. I a lot of ways being an overly PC culture is really hurting us in our freedoms.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
The Patriot Act allows them tio compell the libraries to give up the evidence with a subpeana (sp?), not a warrant. Which is easier to get and harder to fight? The warrant? No.
A warrant requires some probable cause that a crime is actually being committed. A subpeana (sp?) does not.
Here's the problem: They decise to investigate Joebob Abdula because he fits whatever profile de Jur they want to harras. Now, under the old rules they'd need some sort of probable cause to get a warant to get the records of his library and bookstoor usage. Now, all they need is a subpeana. So they find that Joebon Abdula hasn't read anything more subversive than "Ethyl The Aardvark Gioes Quantity Surveying"? The point is that they are fishing for "suspects" with no probable cause that that person has don anything wrong.
But you live in your fantasy world until the laws get changed in such a way as they directly affect your life for the worse. Bury your head in the sand like a good little consumer and ignore American Brownshirts until it's too late.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
GACK! Did I type that mess? My fingers must be on strike or something.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Reading this quickly, I thought it was asking about the effect of the Patriot Act on libertarians... but then I thought, "this is Slashdot...everyone already knows the answer to that!" ;)
Read my keyboard review.
Sort of ironic that i get a cookie request from doubleclick when reading this...
This reduction in rights/privacy/etc is only going ot get worse, until *we* stop it..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
... a copy of Expedient Hand Grenades from my local library. Guess that and the Poor Man's James Bond, stuff by Ho Chi Minh, Hitler, etc. should probably all be eschewed.
If you're borrowing something controversial enough to interest the government from your local LIBRARY, then you probably deserve to be in jail for stupidity. (Assuming you plan to do anything abhorrent).
So who will this law catch? Some innocent people with odd interests. Some guilty people who are pretty dumb. So it offers potential for false hits while essentially weeding the criminal groups to leave only the smarter/tougher criminals. Lovely.
(In this case, smart is defined as not signing out books on bomb making from the public library - order them at amazon.com or somewhere instead...)
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
All the more reason to support your local NRA chapter. The day may yet come when we have to bear arms against our own subversive government.
One, Very few people know about it and undoubtedly, innocent people will get dragged into the mess. Honestly, I mean what is going to happen if some HS student gets an assignment for a report on '20th century dictators' and goes to the library to research on the likes of Hitler, Saddam, Stalin, etc? Will THEY be labeled as a 'terrorist'?
Two: Everyone knows about it, and people stop going to libraries to protect their reading habits from being snooped on, Which is clearly more chilling in that if people slowly stop going to libraries, no more of that 'dangerous knowledge' will make it to the minds of the public. Which, in all honesty, is probably what Ashcroft et al. were after in the first place, a dumb society that beleives whatever they are told. "Yes, terrorists ARE going to destroy the starbucks on your corner, report anyone reading a newspaper to the proper authorities!"
Doesnt it just figure that the person clearly putting more of our freedom in jeapardy than any before him is someone that wasnt elected, but appointed? How can we get this lunatic removed?
"See, we plan ahead! That way, we never have to do anything now."
Last time I checked, judicial review wasn't in the Constitution. It's one of those things that started and has just continued because everyone thinks its a good idea (like 2 term presidents until the 1950s.. Washington did it, so everyone else followed suit). The Constitution is purposefully vague when it comes to HOW Congress should write laws, HOW the President should execute laws (look at the number of executive orders over history, or tell me where the power for executive orders comes from in Article II), and HOW the judiciary should review laws. If you read Article III, you'll see it actually says very little about the Supreme Court and judicial power.. mostly about jurisdiction.
The odd thing about the Constitution is that several of the authors thought that it would be constantly rewritten approximately every 20 years to deal with new issues as they arose. Little did they think that it would last 200+ years with just about no changes, the most drastic of which are the changes to elections in the 12th amendment, and the official introduction of a 2 term limit in the 22nd amendment. While there are vastly more important amendments, they do not really alter the inner workings of the government and the original direction of the constitution.
The line between enough statistics for usable market research and enough to pick out an individual can be fine, especially when the books in question are "suspicious" books, only likely to be picked out by people with an interest in a particular topic.
This only applies to libraries using automated systems.
That said, librarians don't keep track of lending habits. The software they use logs all charges made every day. This is done in case something terrible happens (like a system crash) and they need to restore all the charges that were lost. While menial, it is not a difficult task to determine everything that has been charged out to a particular library patron. (Assuming patron barcodes are not re-used.) Most librarians won't be able to do this themselves (though I am sure some could). But their systems people can.
-r
Just because something is free does not mean you have to take it.
I still can't decide if this is a troll, but I wanted to point out the excellent example of doublespeak: "Now that they are officially stating that they are allowed this would in essence give you more rights, since you know that your rights are not being violated"
As stated in many other posts, there's no reason to retain checkout data beyond the return of the book.
However, I believe there even maintaining it at all can be eliminated.
It's real simple:
Two cards/records - one for the book, stating it was checked out on MM/DD/YYYY and that it is valued at $X.00.
Second record - per patron, record the fact that on MM/DD/YYYY, the user checked out a book valued at $X.00.
The _ONLY_ shortcoming, when sending out 'overdue' notices, you lose the ability to list what specific book was checked out.
When a book is returned, credit the account of the person returning it, and note the return on the book itself.
Now - it maybe that the level needed to get a warrant has decreased under the Patriot act (IAMAL) so I'm not sure, but there STILL MUST BE some level of probably cause to get such a warrant. The original poster said that you could get a warrant without evidence...Uhm..HELLO - where do you think the government get's permission to gather personal evidence??? It's through the warrant mechanism. That means a judge has to be pursuaded that the adequate cause under whatever standard the law establishes to allow a search to occur.
So there has to be due process before ANY search can take place.
So - if a Judge says - "Yeah, give them your records" after the Judge is convinced there is a reasonable expectation that something will turn up, then the legal hurdle has been overcome to allow a search of personal property, or some business records. So how is this that different than ANY legal search of personal property or personal records?
Next comes the issue that we are actually at war. I'm not talking Sadam, but OBL who unquestionably hit us first. What I hear from the librarians amongst us is that that they would rather shred documents instead of possibly helping catch a terrorist? Is that what you really mean here? Don't forget that it is a FACT that that Al-Qaeda has used the internet from public locations like libraries and cyber-cafes to communicate. Seems like talking to librarians is a perfectly understandable place to begin such investigations?!?
Instead of having a complete knee-jerk reaction to this like "they are stepping on my rights," try looking at the reasons behind such investingations. You might find the government still has to get warrants just like they always have, and that your rights are still being observed!
Have you compiled your kernel today??
The irony is that the librarian motions to two plain-clothes agents who then apprehend a guy who had asked about finding a few books. Afterwards, the message of "Freedom is a wonderful thing. Thank goodness we don't live in a world like this" comes up...
Um, yeah...thank goodness..huh...
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
I mean in reality how many people REALLY go to a library anymore? Don't most people go to say Amazon.com, Barnes & Nobles /.com, Borders, etc., and buy thier books or in some cases read them there? Isn't it more realistic to think that they might request records from these establishments under this law and label them as something akin to libraries, or target these next if there isn't some kind of public outcry about this library monitoring? Just some things to ponder for the day, care on...;D
Visit www.seriouslythough.com
I could be wrong (I only know about the systems I've worked with), but I think most, if not all, automated systems log the charges made in that library system. It's done so that circulation history (read: statistics) can be recovered when there is a failure in the computer system.
Yes, I meant to say 'when.'
It would be a chore, but you can figure out who checked out what pretty much from the time the library went live with that system. Unless the library deletes their history logs. That may or may not be a good thing to do.
-r
Just because something is free does not mean you have to take it.
is that you are assuming that Bush would need the cooperation of uniformed soldiers in order to put down a revolution. I'm not sure that's the case. If there was an imminent revolt about to happen, he could frighten the population into submission by atomizing one major population center (probably on the West Coast... my bet would be on either San Francisco or Seattle, homes to large numbers of left-of-center thinkers) and then threatening to launch more ICBMs if the rest of the country didn't fall in line.
I fully believe you when you say that the average uniform soldier would not engage in brutal acts of violence against his or her own countrymen. Unfortunately, we live in an era where uniformed soldiers are not a prerequisite for enacting brutal acts of violence. All that some nameless person has to do is push a button and in the blink of an eye, millions of "potential problems" can be dealt with. If one man won't push that button, you can guarantee that the administration will find somebody who will.
//Or would you prefer the old system, wherein the cops couldn't tell the court how they'd gotten the evidence, and the court had to pretend they didn't know, and as a result, the hard questions were never asked? //
Hell, yes, I prefer the old system. 9-11 never would've happened, if that were the current system.
I've nothing to hide, unlike most criminals.
You can pay in cash at bookstores, and you don't have to give your name or show id..
Unless you want to order something "special", I guess.
It's sad and ironic that the Government of Canada took in refugees (aka Draft Dodgers) fleeing an unjust war in Vietnam, but took no action against Canadian corporations making millions selling arms to the US armed forces.
I make a reasonable middle-class wage by going to work and not spamming blogs with scams.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! God damn, but you are funny as hell! If I'm innocent why does anyone care what I'm reading? Or does the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty" mean anything to you?
I really hope that you are a troll and not as stupid as you sound.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
subject says it all
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
And no, Bush is not Hitler, he's just a puppet for the elites (please that moron has a hard enough time saying his own name, let alone writing a book), but the FBI is the Stasi. Secret police making perceived enemies of the state disappear. Digging through libraries will not identify terrorists, but it will identify people not in ideological lockstep with our current regime. I thought somewhere along the way of becoming law enforcement officers they swear to uphold the Constitution, not subvert it. And all you so called White Hats who work for these thugs, you're lower than they are, because you know better. What is your answer? Can you equate being a snitch with being a patriot? Yeah, they thought that in East Germany too.
This isn't getting anything out into the open. Sure, the government was doing bad things before -- all well documented, almost never with reprocusions -- but now that documentation itself is becoming illegal. We can inform on each other, but now it's becoming illegal to inform on the government.
This is a huge step in the wrong direction. The old system wasn't good -- police perjured themselves constantly -- but now that isn't the case, because the police are no longer being asked questions, so they can't lie. How is this possibly better?
If the librarian cannot tell anyone about this request, does this apply to legal counsel? The librarian cannot seek advice on this? What if the librarian is compelled to testify about a certain request in court one day? Seems like a Catch-22, if they discuss it, they are breaking the law, if they don't they are in contempt. This opens up interesting questions about the librarians right to actually consult the law.
As soon as the USA PATRIOT Act was passed, I was left with a sinking feeling. A thorough reading of the text of the law confirmed my worst suspicions, and I aired them via several LUGS (see http://www.mlug.net/mlug-list/2001_Frames/msg01413 .html).
m _militias/)?
... the search warrant can be granted after the fact.
Here's the original text of my post:
The so-called USA PATRIOT Act
---
Q: How much would it cost to abolish the Fourth Amendment?
A: About $3.3 billion.
Pardon my typical sarcasm, but the recent "anti-terrorism" legislation has me feeling a little cranky. I've reviewed the actual text of the
Bill that was signed into law, and it inspired me to write the following to a friend... By the way, this friend had her souvenir belt buckle confiscated by airport security. I suppose she could have rapped someone on the knuckles with it...
---scott
My advice is to buy guns while it is still legal to do so, because at this rate there is going to be a revolution to return the US of A to its former constitutional-abiding self. Have you looked at the details of the new law that got passed (http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terroris
It's supposed to be for anti-terrorism, except when rational people discuss it they realize it won't help much for that, but guess what, it can be used like crazy against citizens. Sigh. Orwell's 1984 was just 17 years early, I guess. To summarize the parts of the Bill I find offensive:
- Increased provisions for the President and members of the Dept of Justice to ask the military to intervene in emergencies (who defines emergencies, and do you want the military acting against its own citizens?).
- The Secret Service has been directed to develop a national network of task forces for the purpose of detecting electronic crimes (which will require invasive monitoring).
- The President, and anyone he designates, has broader powers to seize the property of a foreign person, and by claiming that the reasons are "classified", avoid judicial review.
- The Bill marries the concept "terrorism" to the concept "computer fraud and abuse", giving similar monitoring powers and punishments for two very different categories of crime. (The two are not the same; computer fraud/abuse isn't anything near terrorism. People don't die. Buildings don't explode. Lives aren't shattered forever. Plus, as far as I know, no act of terrorism has yet employed any form of sophisticated computer use; the Gov't simply wants the ability to eavesdrop on whomever they wish under the guise of "looking for terrorists".)
- The foreign intelligence agencies can now share evidence with domestic law enforcement (intelligence agencies gather evidence using techniques that would not normally be admissible in court).
- Cable operators are now required to give records to the Gov't upon request. Strangely, it can't include information on what videos you watched (which presumably leaves just Internet activity).
- The Bill introduces many changes that more or less mandate that businesses turn over whatever info they have on your communication to the Gov't upon request.
- The Bill now allows search and seizure of any property without having a search warrant
- The Bill now explicitly allows wiretapping (phone or computer) of a US Citizen for the purpose of protecting against "clandestine intelligence". The only restriction is that they can't monitor you based solely on what you have said or written (specifically, acts that would be protected under the first amendment); they are supposed to have some other tangible reason to wiretap you.
- Businesses are now required to turn over any records the FBI feels are necessary to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence, and it's against the law to tell anyone about it.
- Any Federal court can issue a search warrant for electronic evidence without needing geographic jurisdiction. Pick your favorite judge.
- The Bill goes out of its way to absolve any electronic provider of wrongdoing. They want to make it as easy as possible for businesses to divulge information to them without fear of violating any laws. If they violate your rights while investigating someone else, too bad for you.
- The Secretary of Defense, Director of the CIA, and the Attorney General all enjoy the privilege of not needing to submit their intelligence reports to the Congressional committees that normally oversee such things until Feb, 2002, or later if they say it will impede their activities. There goes Congressional oversight, not that it mattered much after passing a bill like this.
- Just to make sure our civil rights haven't been violated, the Bill provides for ***one*** individual in the DOJ to track, record, and publish such abuses.
- Members of the law-abiding Sikh religion, whom to many look like members of the Islamic religion, have their own heartwarming (but meaningless) section in this Bill. I guess this is Congress's way of saying (by omission) "screw the law-abiding Moslems".
All that, and it only costs ***us taxpayers*** about 3.3 billion dollars to have these rights removed for us. Specifically, over the next five years:
$600,000,000: Tech support at FBI
$100,000,000: INS and Customs tech improvements
$200,000,000: Overtime for INS staff up to $30K/year. Let's just use this as a guess.
$2,000,000: Feasibility study for fingerprint identification system
$37,000,000: DOJ Illegal Immigrant Reform
$150,000,000: Regional systems to share info between Fed, State, and local authorities.
$250,000,000: Attorney General's "Cybersecurity Forensic Centers"
$175,000,000: Aid to first responders
$5,000,000: DEA training funds for police in Turkey and South & Central Asia
$250,000 (yes, that's under a million): Airline access to the FBI's list of suspected terrorists
$1,750,000,000: Various anti-terrorism grants
$20,000,000: Critical infrastructure protection
BAAA BAAAAA
I had a talk with my father not too long ago and we were talking about Ashcroft. I told him that, as much as it terrified me to say it, I was actually beginning to understand why people voted for a dead man instead of him. My father agreed.
I think we've created a monster here. A Republican Ashcroft may be, but to classify him as a Conservative begs a stricter definition od Conservative--what KIND of conservative is he?
I believe he is a SOCIAL conservative, but not a CONSTITUTIONAL one. Otherwise he would realize just how badly he's running roughshod over not only the first and fourth amendments, but the ninth and tenth as well. It's this type of "Conservative" that scares the hell out of me. I think he's applying his religious views instead of thinking about freedom.
I can't stress this enough. When people call themselves or others "Conservatives", we all--on the left, right, or middle--need to call them on it and ask them to clarify it, because the (I think intentional) blurriness is getting this country into trouble. As for myself, I'll be voting LP in the future.
It's amazing that we (the United States) fought the "cold war" with the Soviet Union for almost four decades.
Our weapons against them were "freedom" and "liberty".
Now that the Soviet Union has crumbled, the United States is becoming more and more like them every day.
I just wonder how long it will be before people are stopped on the street by agents, pushed into cars with darkened windows, and are never seen or heard from again.
No matter where you go... there you are.
"The poll released Thursday found that 49 percent think the First Amendment goes too far, a total about 10 points higher than in 2001."
The source for the quote above is an AP story on CBS newsabout a poll by the "First Amendment Center" of Arlington VA. Don't know anything about this group, but both the AP and CBS found it worth repeating.
I can't argue the slant of the poll, not having looked any further. And as a strong civil libertarian, statistics like the number above scare me. But I fear I can't dismiss it as easily as you did.
Wait... you mean you still haven't joined the ACLU?
Whatever happened to the Zippy filter from metahtml.com? The whole domain seems down now. Anybody ever mirror the code for that wonderful tool? My internet surfing has been dreary without it.
They don't even know how to pour a decent drink! No thanks; I'll fight it out here in America before running to Canada....
What about those guys being charged right now with
aiding bin Laden by going to his summer camp?
public library, and after a long discussion with the county DA it was determined that the keeping of check-out history records was at the bottom of this issue and doing away with the existing records and the ability to keep them beyond the returning of the book was both legal and prudent. Now a librarian can only show what you have currently out and has no records to refer to in the event of F(airly)B(enign)I(diot) intervention.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Privacy
... ... well I can't think of it..
All
To be
Removed (without letting you know)
In
Order to
Tyrant
Act
That is a great point that there should not be names on the bills...
However, there is a name already associated with this anti-patriot act...
Lets call it the Anti Patriot act
yes, thats kinda mind boggling...
Maybe we can call it the Poopriot act, or,
i'm struggling here..
maybe pissonpeople act, or
SpyonU act..
or something in L33T speek like..
or an acronym..
like
Actually, I am not a privacy advocate... I want all of my records to be COMPLETELY PUBLIC.
There are huge problems when one organization controls the data. If it's all out there... we can actually do some good.
Privacy will probably go away... but our choice is to Big Brother, or Everyone.. (well it still might not go away...)
I believe that the Freedom of Information act is a good thing, and it should be applied to this stupid Big Brother Act.
yes... I'll call it BigBrother Act... aka
Privacy All To be Removed In Order to Tyrant
act if somebody wants to keep calling it PATRIOT act... witch is now officially an acronym!
(because I say so)
"Do you think we have enough (money) to bring it down?"
"If we don't have enough, I have contacts. We can get enough (money) to bring it down."
Uh, no one talks like that.
We for money? What is this, a commune? Generally, a person brings their own car, they don't get a general fund to bring it to them.
Contacts to mean sources of money? Uh, how many of your "contacts" are the type to give you money?
"You think they were unhappy on 9/11, wait until 9/13."
No, it's pretty clear these three were having a joke on the people at the restaurant. And they got what they deserved for that stupid joke. They didn't get thrown it the Gulag, this isn't the USSR. But instead of the joke being on someone else, it was on them.
A person would be remiss not to report overhearing a conversation like that.
And as for the woman's words changing when she repeats the conversation, well, memory is like that. She is a person, not a tape recorder.
last post
Most of these people who plead guilty really had no choice. They could no pay bail, so if they plead innocent they would have found themselves in the holding pen for up to two months, with fees on thier impounded automobiles compunding DAILY (something like $50-$100 a day)... It really is a tradegy. Imagine losing two months of your life (and probably losing your job) and finding a $30,000 fee to get your car out of the impond lot... just for shopping at K-Mart. Sick.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
I am suprised they even need a warrant. If "public safety" is at risk or police feel they are in danger of losing evidence, they can search without a warrant. I would chalk this one up to "public safety." It's actually decent of law enforcement to even have a warrant in this case.
Free my ass. I pay some $250/year in property tax riders (about 12% of my total property tax) that are *specifically* marked as tax to support the Los Angeles County library system. (Which I don't even use, because frankly it's not a very good system.)
Next time you visit your local public library, take a moment to thank the TAXPAYERS who made it possible, whether they wanted to or not.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Dammit, they pulled "Build a Thermonuclear Weapon with Java and XML in 21 Days"
And I was almost finished, on day 18.
Bat Rastards!
Table-ized A.I.
Lets hear it for the constitution .... Lets hear it for geeks for guns.... fuck that pinko chomsky I wanna be just like eirc s raymond and whip out my 'piece' at linux conventions , why ? Because it is my constitutional right to do so.... yay
Dude!...please. I thought your post was well spoken and on the point. The end of the last sentence though!...I know you were trying to illustrate your point but man you gotta be careful about mentioning the president. The Secret Service takes that shit seriously. Always have and probably more now.
For the love of Pete please stay away from that.
I know this belongs as a reply, but there are some 15-20 posters who insist that a judicial review will save basic rights...
Some problems with that:
1. The judge only hears one side, because the prospective "defendant" doesn't know that they're being probed.
2. Check the statistics on judicial decisions and wiretaps/cell taps for terrorism. if you can find a *single* one that was ever turned down, I'd be mightily surprised.
3. Who wants to be the judge that lets another supposed Mohammed Atta through, even at the cost of millions of conversations like "I'm late, on the road, be there in ten minutes"?
Just like the U.S. arms both the Israelis and the Palestinians? I agree.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
I find it absolutely amazing that only after the minority population (if you check the last census that is what you are) is THREATENED to be disenfranchised, does everyone decide that the government is doing, has the power to do, and has done for quite some time, horrible things as it pertains to human rights. When the rights of various other so-called "minority groups" (i.e. immigrans, blacks, indigenous peoples) have been abused for CENTURIES, and the most prevalent response was, has been, and will always be, what's the big deal?
People have to realize that those so-called inalienable rights only apply to those who are the most greedy (i.e. corporate citizens, and government agencies). Anyone who doesn't have enough clout or money, as many recently publicized court cases have confirmed, do not have the ability to protect or even assert their "inalienable rights". The justice system DOES NOT work.
This country may have been founded on the basis of freedom, but is has been perpetuated by greed since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. If we don't wake up soon, we will continue to move away from that foundation, even if the present uproar is about the POTENTIAL loss of human rights and freedoms. As long as there is some group to attempt to dominate, the US will make such an attempt. It's ironic that people are only JUST NOW realizing that the capability to dominate can and has also apply to the American People.
It won't stop at your library record. Do you honestly believe that they aren't also using those department/grocery store discount cards to track your habits as well? The movement towards more electronically inclined processes only gives the government more power to abuse. I'm not suggesting that we technologically regress, but I do think that people should pay more attention to the information they share. Sure, I don't really care that CompUSA asks me for my zip code everytime I buy something...hell I shop with my debit card so they can track me if they want right there. I am concerned, however, by the fact that it is becoming far easier for the government and other parties to obtain information about the common man than it is for the common man to obtain information regarding the practices and habits of same...think about it...
The english language is in beta. It's evolving but has not yet reached a level of usability.
now i understand why not killing Bush is a terrorrist act...
Z ZZ ZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!
seriously... How the hell can all this fascits ascend to power? WWII was not that long ago... are people still that dumb-founded?
Maybe they do deserve it.
Maybe it's time the rest of us move to Mars and live in a TRUE democracy, not a capitalistic-totalitarian regime.
It's SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO sick!
Here in Portugal we have an asshole who used to be the director of a newspaper and criticized every other politician... Now he's the minister of defence, and there is a possibility of him being involved in a scam involving laundring money from a university. And the asshole hasn't the dignancy to resign, he even says that those who sugest it are creating instability!
WTF?!?
I'm buying the first ticket to Mars, definitly!
What's with all this right wing fascist crap that everyone tolerates?!? Does everyone like Hitler now, is that it?
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZ
The principal issue at hand is that anyone who is determined enough will find a way to circumvent the law. Pulling the draw strings on our little baggie of freedoms to close the ever widening gap between the effectiveness of such laws and the people who choose to circumvent them (which is one of those little freedoms) serves no purpose. Legislature needs to be focusing more on educating the people about the laws and their purpose. If we knew how to behave from the beginning, this wouldn't be a problem...
The english language is in beta. It's evolving but has not yet reached a level of usability.
By that logic we should make forcing confessions and police brutality legal as well, so that they can be contested in court. Never mind the damage that could be caused in the mean time, or the dubious nature of the notion that the courts will actually bother to amend the laws. Don't you think giving up your freedoms in the hope that some other equally corrupt government agency will give them back to you is a little bit misguided?
Most judges issue warrants when the law enforcement/DAs and the like ensure them that things are all hunky dory. Naturally enough that gives them a certain legal clout in court - "this was a legal warrant, the judge signed off on it" - and the warrant can be as broad and inclusive as the constabulary and their friends wish. Not quite what the constitution IMPLIES is the goal. Since the goal is not stated, the courts are free to do whatever they like.
With secret courts, its even more fun, the government could potentially appoint judges in secret, with no review to screen out the loonies, those who have been bought off, or those permanently biased one way or another. (Even review of the candidates may not help substantially if the folks appointing them only appoint judges with the "correct" viewpoints). And it is far from impossible to belive that someone might appoint ANYONE - I think of Reverend Jim from "Taxi". Or Homer Simpson.
These judges can make decisions in secret, including warrants (picture the local cop going in and saying "hey, I need warrants for all the people who've been passing out leaflets in favor of electing "person x" - the cop has nothing to lose, neither does the judge - its all secret).
Then the trial can be secret so the accused has no right to the kind of scrutiny that is assumed to help ensure fair trials. Probably with no juries. Pprobably with no evidence presented (can you guarantee that evidence WAS presented - nope, its all secret).
Keep it up and the government has the right to put anyone in jail at any time for doing pretty much anything. (This isn't all bad, the prison industry would benefit immensely.)
Just to keep this all real, the unversity (not a spelling error - Eastern Oregon Unversity for those who might want to avoid the place) I used to work for wanted to pass a rule that would allow a female (the gender was very specific) to accuse any male (again specific in gender) of sexual harassment. The male could be tried and expelled by a committee which only heard the female side of the story. He did not need to be informed of the person pressing the charges, or even the precise charges (as that could enable him to determine who was pressing charges) and the hearings and committee decisions were private. I don't think the rule passed, but I'm sure it will be tried again and again until it is.
Doing the Ol' Ollie North to your paper records is fine in the short term, but only as long as there are no laws or court orders requiring retention.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Don't keep lending records.
If required, scramble them.