Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Effects of the Patriot Act on Librarians

Posted by michael on from the fbi-in-your-library dept.

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.

28 of 552 comments (clear)

  1. Librarians, throw down your yokes! by Thenomain · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! by geigertube · · Score: 5, Interesting

      At the library I work at, your loan record is kept until your books are returned. At least from the clerks end, its impossible to retrieve that data.

      However, a while back the police were able to retrieve past patron check out data from another local library system.. I think they used some sort of data recovery techinique to access the deleted records.. so there is that. :/

      However, due to the PATRIOT act, and the fact that we are pissed off about it, we are now shredding the patron internet login sheets every night. So at least they won't get access to that. I think other library systems are doing this as well..

    2. Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Most library computer systems do wipe all circulations after you return a book. However, if you are overdue the record will stay on your account until the fine is paid. If you check a book out and never return it, the record will stay on your account forever. I heard somewhere that a librarian who was asked about that with regards to the Patriot act said "just return your books on time," and was roundly lambasted for it. Still, we have to have some record of what is still checked out so I don't know what people expect us to do in those cases.

      Another problem is with back ups. I attended a workshop on the Patriot Act at an ALA conference and they told us that if we are supposed to record over our backups within a certain time frame to make absolutely sure we do it. The same goes for destroying internet use logs. One library got a Patriot Act subpeona and hadn't kept up with recording over their backups so the goverment was able to access old circulation information. You should ask your local library board what their policy is on retaining and destroying records and nag them to keep up with it.

      As far as taking books out of the collection for sale at book sales, circulation is a big factor in it. Generally, though, they just look at how many times it was checked out and how recently. For that they don't need to know who reads it. My rule of thumb for most of my collections is whether it has checked out in the last 5 years. On the bookmobile, however, where my space is really limited I cut that down to about 3 years. For instance, if someone reads the same book once a year and they are the only one who reads it, all I see is that it checks out once a year and I should keep it, not that there is only one person who likes it.

      Sometimes, especially with best sellers, libraries have to buy several copies, sometimes a dozen or more, to keep up with immediate demand and then they are stuck with all the extra copies. Those get removed fairly quickly and are often in good condition when they are sold. If a library has more than one copy of a book and it isn't checking out well it's an easy decision to remove all but one copy. If you bought a book from their sale it would have been removed from the computer system before it was put in the sale. The fact that you still found it on the computer tells me that there was another copy of the book that they kept.

  2. Freedom of Information Act by yelligsc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  3. Re:Pay cash for books by brandorf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hell, I think the last time I went to a booksore they wanted to know my name and address and such. I always thought it was for demographics and so they could mail me coupons, but go figure. Now the FBI knows I read Terry Pratchett.

    --


    Bork Bork Bork!!
  4. Does anyone find it ironic... by jjh37997 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  5. Scope of Act? by JJ22 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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...

  6. This isn't about terrorism... by Robber+Baron · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...it's about finding out who the dissenters are, and then silencing them.

    --

    You're using her as bait, Master!

  7. Re:without any evidence ? by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We should all go borrow a copies of various books that the government might have interest in tracking...

    What would you think if you watched the stats and the borrowing of Mein Kampf went up 2000% in a month?

    Of course, maybe their more concerned with The Catcher in the Rye...

    --
    That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
  8. A few words of sanity by dkh2 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    As a university library employee I can tell you this.
    1. Most libraries today use an online catalog (read: "database") for just about everything regarding their collections. This means that very few libraries have those old hard copy circulation records any more.
    2. Libraries in general have no interest in tracking what you, I, or anybody else reads. They are interested in what people (in general) are reading, who currently has their books but, not what books each person has read in the past. Therefore, they typically have knowledge of who has the book right now, and possibly who had it last (in case Johnny cuts out all the pretty pictures and nobody notices until the next reader opens the book).

    Given those two points, I and my fellow library employees have been told the following:

    • 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.

    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.
    1. Re:A few words of sanity by namespan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A contrasting view:

      I worked as a developer in a major university library for about two years. The system I worked on only tracked requests made to borrow books through other universities, but it kept ALL of them. Your whole history. This system was used at a whole host of other libraries, including NYU, ASU, Berkely, and more.

      The main system that kept track of circulation for the whole library also kept all requests to a certain point... but even after it purged, every time something was overdue, THOSE records were kept indefinitely. And it gets worse. I shouldn't have known any of this: it was outside my employee privileges, but several reference librarians kept the username and password posted on post-it notes, and being able to look up my own circulation records via telnet (or tnvt3270 or whatever it was) was way too convenient. From that point, looking up someone else's circ records was often way too interesting.... oh, and did I mention that the library used your SSN as a unique ID?

      Anyway, the point is, the system saved lots of your information, and it was fairly easy to get to it. If we were counting on practices of libraries to preserve anonyminity, I wouldn't feel all that secure....

      (disclaimer: I made slightly different version of this comment weeks ago, but it seemed like it bears repeating....)

      --
      Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
  9. Re:without any evidence ? by kevin+lyda · · Score: 3, Interesting

    it's interesting, i've been reading a book off and on for the past several months about hitler's rise to power. my main interest in the book is to understand how a democracy could devolve into a dictatorship with such low respect for civil liberties.

    attitudes like yours were a key ingredient in that transition.

    --
    US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
  10. replace librarians with NSA agents! by fermion · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Librarians exist to help patrons find information. If the relatioship is reversed, the libraries should be staffed with NSA agenst. A librarian is a highly professional, highly skilled position. Information protection is serious matter. Librarians can get into serious trouble, including termination, for release of lending records to anyone other than the patron. I think this policy is critical in a Democracy, as it protects the citizens right to the free access of information. This fact in drummed into every librarian.

    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
  11. The US is no longer free. by The+Fanta+Menace · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?
  12. Re:Where in the Patriot Act does it mention this?? by Stonehand · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  13. Re:without any evidence ? by kamasutra · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And achieve what? That people who are interested in it can't actually get it? Or will you return it so quickly, it will be obvious you haven't read it? Will you borrow just one such book or you'll prepare a list and go through it?

    I seriously doubt that anyone doing serious profiling would get stuck on just one book, so you'd have to borrow more.

    And which books would you check out? How do you know which are interesting? If you were a neonazi, you'd probably OWN a copy Mein Kampf, not borrow it from library.

    It's the usage pattern that is interesting, not individual selections and it's pretty hard to fake that if you are not seriously interested in the subject.

  14. What they really mean by Phreakiture · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Usurping and
    Subjugating
    America by
    Providing
    All the
    Tools
    Required to
    Implement
    Orwellian
    Tyranny

    --
    www.wavefront-av.com
  15. Re:PUBLIC Libraries by Casualposter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Gaping hole: The libraries I patronize, at major universities, do not check on the patron's reading habits.

    SO a terrorist goes to a library and reads all about murder/death/kill and related techniques, and then copies the relevant sections of the book on a coin operated copy machine. The FBI could search all the library records and never have a sniff that the terrorist had been reading that book.

    Or: steal the book.
    Or: Steal a library card and check the book out and never return it. Thus blaming someone else who has to both pay for it and explain it to the FBI.

    Only a stupid terrorist would actually borrow the book with an honestly obtained library card. This is dumb crook news, and from what I've heard about how good the security was on the 9.11.01 attack, these were not stupid terrorists.

    This law is for other purposes--mostly to harrass legitimate and honest citizens and visitors.

    --
    Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
  16. Much worse than just library records... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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:
    ... 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 ...

    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,
    No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

    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.
  17. Re:What would I think if... by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Interesting
    > 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).

    And I am less concerned at this point with anti-Muslim foolishness than I am that 3000+ civilians were incinerated or ground into pulp on September 11, 2001 by 19 idiots who thought that Allah ordered the murder of all Americans (as if all Americans 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.

    In this, we're in agreement.

    The future is a race between education and disaster. But every time we try to replace a backward-looking theocracy with one promoting freedom, capitalism, and high technology, someone (not you - you didn't raise this point, but many who oppose the War on Terror have) comes back with the "Big Lie" propaganda technique that smears this effort as cultural imperialism.

    If spreading the Western value of individual rights - from which come the twin values of religious freedom and economic freedom, and from the latter of which comes an advanced industrialized economy that generates a higher standard of living for all who live in it - is cultural imperialism, I'm guilty as charged.

    I know whose side I'm on in the race between education and catastrophe. (And I suspect that despite our initial disagreement on which particular sort of bigoted religious foolishness is more worrisome, you and I are, for the most part, on the same side.) But do technology/freedom/capitalism's detractors know?

  18. is something missing here? by io333 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

  19. government Plot,...maybe? by SphynxSR · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  20. Re:Seven ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  21. Re:Ad Council by seer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Also notice that the Ad Council also has an add about three guys talking in a Diner, and one of them is bad mouthing Taxes and how they are always taken out of _his_ paycheck, while the other two try to "calm him down" and ask him, "Do you want to ruin your life? They can do that, ya know!"

    Isn't it funny that this SAME THING happened in Florida just recently? Someone over hearing just _something_ they didn't like or understand and then they end up getting detained for 17 hours!

    We need to stand up now and fight for our rights before the right to stand up for our rights is taken away for good!

  22. Warrants are ABOUT collecting evidence? by stevew · · Score: 3, Interesting


    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??
  23. Re:Gentlemen, start your engines by Safety+Cap · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I also know for a fact that every American...I know of thinks about the same way
    That may be true, if you only know a few Americans. A quick poll around the office revealed about 2% having ever read the Constitution. I doubt most people know or care about laws in this country until directly confronted by an abuse.

    Winess what happened in Houston when the cops arrested 278 people because they happened to be eating at a burger joint or going to KMart at the wrong time... and several of them pleaded GUILTY to the charge of tresspass charges, even though none of the businesses there even asked the police to clear the parking lot. That's why the real axis of evil (AOE) will win - because they have the ability to make laws and most people can't be bothered to watch or understand what they are doing.

    Who here researches candidates before voting? Don't lie, you know you don't. Barely 1 out of 5 can even bother to get to the polls, so I seriously doubt there's more than one person in the entire country that checks up on his or her representatives.

    --
    Yeah, right.
  24. Re:What would I think if... by GMontag451 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    But every time we try to replace a backward-looking theocracy with one promoting freedom, capitalism, and high technology, someone (not you - you didn't raise this point, but many who oppose the War on Terror have) comes back with the "Big Lie" propaganda technique that smears this effort as cultural imperialism.

    The promoting freedom bit is the propaganda, not the cultural imperialism. If you look at America's track record for the governments we set up, you will see that we have absolutely no interest in promoting freedom, but rather only have interest in promoting stability so we can have our cheap oil. We have supported some of the worst civil rights violating governments in the Middle East, and its coming back to bite us in the ass.

    Who was it that put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan? We did, in order to curb the threat of Soviet invasion. Who supplied Iraq with arms even though we knew that they had used chemical weapons on their own civilians? We did, in an attempt to curb the threat of Iran. Who still supports the corrupt Saudi Arabian dictatorship? We do, so we can have a convient place to pick up oil.

    Do you know which Middle Eastern country had the only spontaneous memorials for the Americans who died on September 11? Iran. The reason is that even though Iran blames us for a lot of things, they don't blame us for their government like all the other countries in that area.

    Lets face it. We suck at deposing dictators, we suck at setting up governments, and we need to stop thinking that we can manipulate global politics for our own gain.

  25. The so-called USA PATRIOT Act by scott-thomason · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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).

    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/Terrorism _militias/)?
    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 search warrant can be granted after the fact.

    - 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