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.
What would the founding fathers of a once great and free nation think?
Because They Can. They rushed the patriot act through under the guise of "Fighting Terrorism!", and wound up taking away your rights. I don't know about anybody else, but it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside to know that my government is looking out for my best interests, no matter what the cost to my personal freedom.
Twinkies sure taste good for something that is 68% air.
Well, they have to keep track of lending habits until at least the books are returned. If your library has lending periods of 3-4 weeks, that could be enough time for Mr. FBI to get your current outstanding books.
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.
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.
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
There was a time when people in this country said, "Give me liberty or give me death!" Too bad having liberty for so long has made people value it less.
Why aren't we told when editors moderate our posts?
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
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.
How?
Really, how exactly would the FBI spying on me protect me from random terrorism? Really, lets see.
step 1-Make profile of someone.
step 2-???
step 3-Safety!
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.
This sentence made no sense at all.
What they are doing is using fear of terrorism to gain powers that have nothing to do with protecting you from terrorism! And for some reason you seem to think that's the best idea ever...is your daddy a special agent by any chance?
You can't take the sky from me...
The libraries are provided FREE of charge by the government.
Well, not exactly. My property tax bill breaks out the amount that goes towards paying for the county libraries. In this way, nothing the government does for me is free.
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.
No, it can't. Giving law enforcement access to my reading habits won't save me from being in a building that gets hit by a plane.
everyone in the trade towers and on the flights would have definitely traded this for their lives.
How many of my rights are you willing to give away? These are my rights we're talking about. What gives you the right to decide which of my rights are to be lost? I really don't care how many of your rights you don't care about, but it's wrong of you to be so cavalier about mine. You don't see me going around saying, "Let's take some rights away from jsonmez, he won't care. It's for his own good anyway." That's just wrong.
You have to know what battles to pick, and which ones not to.
I'm a big fan of freedom of speech. Maybe you haven't thought this one through, though. Do you realize the freedom of speech is meaningless if there's no freedom to listen?
Igor
...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.
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?
So you thought the excessive following (call it harrassment) towards Einsten, Luther King and many, many obviously peacefull folk were justified? Do you really think that the FBI/CIA etc. has changed that much that they wouldn't do now (when they have governmnet sanctioning!) as they did then (when experimenting with psychotropic substances on the general population was definitly not allowed; neither was wiretapping without probable cause)?
It's frightening how much faith Americans have in the institutions which have shown time and again how untrustworthy they are...
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
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
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.
That's interesting reponse: the idea of leaving.
And the answer is equally interesting: to where?
Times really *have* changed when *Americans* might soon face the choice of having freedoms curtailed or lighting out for better shores.
But the question remains: where?
Where do Americans go when they want freedom?
I mean, I don't see the Statue of Liberty standing in any other harbor.
That blows my mind.
Because we are geeks, we read, and we don't want to explain to anybody why we read what we do.
what? what I thought we were in the trust tree in the nest, were we not?
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?
1) No information will be provided without appropriate warrants and/or court orders.
Good to see that the 4th Amendment is still valid. However, over the last 34 years the 4th Amendment has been slowly eroded of most of its power. Beginning with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 ('68) the Supreme Court has supported the notion that "even in the law enforcement context, the State may interfere with an individual's Fourth Amendment interests with less than probable cause and without a warrant if the intrusion is only minimal and is justified by law enforcement purposes.
2) 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.
This is really one of those grey areas of the law. On the one hand, you are absolutely correct: you have every 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. And more than likely the FBI won't be serving subpoenas personally.
On the other hand, if they do serve the subpoena personally and you try and stop or hinder in any way a legal search, they'll more than likely arrest you for obstruction of justice.
3) 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)
This will most likely be true in Patriot Act cases. More than likely the FBI will send you a subpoena requesting specific records. I really don't see them knocking on your door personally.
4) The library has the right to have its attorney present at all times when any search activities are carried out.
This is true. Hope you have him/her on speed dial.
...oh, we all end up crucified. Oh well.
What "us guys" are so concerned about it both the invasion of our unalienable right (you'll notice that they are rights, not privledges) and the fact that this circumvents the checks and balences specified in the constitution.
People almost always abuse power, the constitution was drafted with that in mind, hence the three branches of gov't that monitor each others actions.
The current administrations explansion of executive authority is of very questionable legal standing.
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.
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.
If you don't like Michael you can always exclude him from the homepage. Just go to slashdot.org/my and select "Homepage."
sulli
RTFJ.
Without due process, the government can take away your life, liberty and property on a whim or suspicion and without the slightest bit of evidence.
Is this what the world is coming to?
No, it's what the United States has come to.
And somewhere in this topic some American will post "America is the freest country in the world..."
In the country I live in, not only are my reading habits unchecked, but get this: I can go to the airport, buy a ticket to a destination outside the country, and pay cash for it, without being harassed by "law enforcement".
It's a long time since you had that freedom in the United States. Elsewhere it's pretty common.
The really sad thing is that for a few years in the 70s and 80s, after the worst racial discrimination ended but before the drug war started, the United States actually was one of the freest countries in the world.
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.