Effects of the Patriot Act on Librarians

Seven by QEDog · 2002-09-20 04:58 · Score: 1, Flamebait

just like in the movie Seven

--
"There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham

Terrible, Just Terrible by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-20 04:59 · Score: 1, Insightful

What would the founding fathers of a once great and free nation think?

Re:Terrible, Just Terrible by Oculus+Habent · 2002-09-20 05:17 · Score: 2

Our country was founded on civil liberty - we were unhappy with the situation our government was pressing upon us, and so we broke away.
--
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"

--
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
Re:Terrible, Just Terrible by Hrothgar+The+Great · 2002-09-20 06:58 · Score: 2

First off, pissing someone off doesn't give them the right to blow people up, and it never has.

Second, my country has been in support of Israel for LONG before Bush was in office, and this seems to be the major thorn in the side of islamic terrorists.

I don't even like Bush, but I certainly wouldn't go blaming him for the crimes of others, you creep.
Re:Terrible, Just Terrible by Zebaulon · 2002-09-20 16:14 · Score: 1

Well, we've had alot of nasty storms this evening (I'm in southeast Tennessee.) I thought that whooshing sound was a tornado outside, although there has been no damage so far ...
So I guess what I heard was our founding fathers turning over in their graves at very high speed.

without any evidence ? by MoonRider · 2002-09-20 05:00 · Score: 1

Why ?... Doesn't sound good...

Re:without any evidence ? by flirzan · 2002-09-20 05:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Re:without any evidence ? by Oculus+Habent · 2002-09-20 05:22 · 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
Re:without any evidence ? by kevin+lyda · 2002-09-20 05:28 · 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!
Re:without any evidence ? by nettdata · 2002-09-20 05:36 · Score: 2

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

Hey, sure, sounds like a good idea!

Ummm.... you first... ;)

--

$0.02 (CDN)
Re:without any evidence ? by kamasutra · 2002-09-20 05:38 · 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.
Re:without any evidence ? by flirzan · 2002-09-20 05:56 · Score: 1

Apparently my tags fell off somewhere between my typing and your reading. Next time I'll be sure to include a disclaimer for flaming morons.

--
Twinkies sure taste good for something that is 68% air.
Re:without any evidence ? by Hittite+Creosote · 2002-09-20 06:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hmm, could we get all the books out, having all first changed our name to Spartacus? Then, when they come for one of us...
...oh, we all end up crucified. Oh well.
Re:without any evidence ? by Spamlent+Green · 2002-09-20 06:10 · Score: 1

They're not tracking books.... they're tracking patrons...
Re:without any evidence ? by tumbaumba · 2002-09-20 06:25 · Score: 1

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

They are more concerned with teletubbies. :)
Re:without any evidence ? by Phroggy · 2002-09-20 06:28 · Score: 2

This happened with the Q'uran last fall. Bookstores couldn't keep it in stock, people were buying copies so quickly.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:without any evidence ? by Steve+Franklin · 2002-09-20 07:32 · Score: 1

Keep in mind that there are still doubts about who started the Reichstag fire, as there also are about the question of exactly who sank the Maine before the outbreak of the Spanish American War. There's a thin line between taking advantage of circumstances and creating those circumstances.

--
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
Re:without any evidence ? by Jacer · 2002-09-20 07:34 · Score: 2

Screw The Catcher in the Rye, let's all go borrow 1984 baby!

--
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
Re:without any evidence ? by nurightshu · 2002-09-20 19:40 · Score: 2

Actually, Marinus van der Lubbe started the Reichstag fire. He was a Dutch citizen who was actually anti-National Socialism. Sure, the Nazis capitalized well on the event, but it's been proven fairly conclusively that the Nazis just happened to exploit the opportunity effectively.

I'm at work right now so I can't credit my source authoritatively, but it was mentioned in passing in the book Legends, Lies, and Cherished Myths of World History. It'd probably have a source in the bibliography.

--
They that would sacrifice their .sig space for that cliched Franklin quote deserve neither.
Re:without any evidence ? by Steve+Franklin · 2002-09-23 07:42 · Score: 1

It's rarely taken note of, but there's a middle ground here, too; what my father used to call "grey areas" (he was a printer). Between getting lucky and fabricating events, there's the place in the continuum where you know something's being planned but choose not to do anything about it in the hope of benefiting from it. This is the variation that really scares me. By selectively acting and not acting on incoming intelligence, it would in theory be possible to shape events to one's liking--without actively planning anything, and thus a great danger of discovery. Funny how many liberals got shot during the 60s and how few conservatives. Just luck, or selective prevention?

--
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.

Librarians, throw down your yokes! by Thenomain · 2002-09-20 05:00 · 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.

Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! by Lshmael · 2002-09-20 05:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! by garcia · 2002-09-20 05:07 · Score: 2, Funny

unless there are laws to do the compelling for them.

don't give them any ideas please.
Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! by StoryMan · 2002-09-20 05:08 · Score: 2

I wondered about this, too. I mean, I can recall going to libraries as a kid and they had this little punchcard dealie where they actually punched a date onto a punchcard and inserted it into your book.

That was always pretty cool to me -- the mechanical punching and the fact that it almost always lined the date up perfectly below the last date.

But even then, I guess the libraries had records because they took the original card from the book and stored it somewhere. And somewhere along the line they someone correlated the name of the borrower with the card because they knew when to send overdue notices.

So I think the response to your question is that libraries have to keep track of lending habits. They have no other option. They can't simply lend a book out without any record of it being checked out. (Why does this seem like it might be the germ for a Borges story?)
Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! by memfree · 2002-09-20 05:11 · Score: 1

Why would they _need_ to keep records for anything other than outstanding books? Once it is returned, couldn't they wipe the record of who had borrowed it? They could track the number of times a book was lent per year (or month, or such).

This all presumes librarians could actually choose to immediately change their systems to enact the initial suggestion.

--
"The girl makes Godot look punctual." -- Buffy
Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! by Stonehand · 2002-09-20 05:15 · Score: 1

Well, the records could be used to identify serial book mutilators, but I doubt that happens very often...

--
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! by Thenomain · 2002-09-20 05:15 · Score: 1

I was talking about the marketing-level information of keeping track of habits. Keeping track of who currently has which books out is, yes, necessary. Keeping track of the names of who checked out beyond the useful scope of the information isn't.

Book stores need this spending information for the marketing which drives their very business, but their model (a library information lending vs a business product selling) is extremely different.

--
This now concludes our broadcast day.
Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! by Alpha+Prime · 2002-09-20 05:21 · Score: 5, Informative

As the spouse of a Librarian, I can assure you that *most* modern libraries do not track lending habits past the currently checked out books. The ALA (American Library Association) stance is one favoring privacy, not government intervention.

Old card systems kept the names on a card, and the FBI did not need to do much more than scan through the backs of books to get their list. It was available to everyone. Nowadays, once the book is checked in, the users name is dropped from the system, thus fouling any search for history.

I should add the disclaimer that this is true in most cases. You should check with your librarian to see if your library software follows ALA guidelines.
Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! by StoryMan · 2002-09-20 05:24 · Score: 5, Informative

I wonder if some libraries keep this information in order to know when to withdraw books and sell them at book sales.

Lately, at a lot of the 'Friends of the Library' booksales I've been to, I've noticed a lot of "Withdrawn" editions -- perfectly good books, in pretty good shape, but for whatever reason they've been pulled from the shelf.

Well, last weekend I got a copy of Milosz's 'History of Polish Literature' and was actually curious why a book like this was at a FOL sale for a quarter. Anyway, I bought the book then went upstairs to check the card catalog. I figured the book had been replaced. But there was no sign of a new edition.

Then I figured it might be from a different library -- a branch or something -- but all the markings on the spine and front cover matched with the library where it was for sale.

I should have asked the ref librarians -- because i was actually pretty curious about this -- but they were busy and I didn't feel like waiting.

Anyway, I scored a great book (if you're into the history of Polish lit, I suppose) for twenty-five cents. I figured that because it was pretty obscure was why it was pulled.

But I might be wrong. I'd hate to think libraries are driven by marketing -- what's popular, what's not -- but then I figure: well, most libraries have a finite amount of space and new space is not always forthcoming. So instead of just adding, adding, adding to the inventory, they probably have to make some hard decisions and pull stuff off the shelf.

This *might* be why libraries need records. (But they don't need to correlate the borrower records with the book check-out history, I suppose.)

*shrug*
Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! by geigertube · 2002-09-20 05:25 · 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..
Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! by Ioldanach · 2002-09-20 05:29 · Score: 2

So I think the response to your question is that libraries have to keep track of lending habits. They have no other option. They can't simply lend a book out without any record of it being checked out. (Why does this seem like it might be the germ for a Borges story?)

The library only needs to keep track of what's currently checked out, and to who. In your post, the card they took out of your book could easily be attached with a paperclip to an ID card with your name on it. Then, when you return it, the book's card goes back in the book and your ID card goes back in your file. Simple, easy to see when you're overdue, and never requires adding a record to a file.
Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! by z_gringo · 2002-09-20 05:38 · Score: 1

Good point, however, I would imagine the libraries arent funded sufficiently to create an electronic checkout system that would be able to delete the history.............

Ok, that was my first thought... (And its been a LONG time since Ive been to the library, but back then, they just used a card, and held the card with the book info (dds, etc)..

They could just throw the cards away... Or shred them.. Sure, they have to buy more cards, but thats pretty cheap....

Are libraries still that primitive? Perhaps I should visit them more often...

--
-- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! by Thenomain · 2002-09-20 05:42 · Score: 1

Yet every one of your instances of information that a library might keep about a book, the one bit of information that they don't necessarily need to keep for any length of time beyond the original loan of the book is your name.

--
This now concludes our broadcast day.
Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! by gorilla · 2002-09-20 05:46 · Score: 2, Informative

Every lending library has a record of what books are currently out on loan, and who to. That's unavoidable unless you want your books to disappear. However, once the book has been returned, it's perfectly feasable to destroy that record, and make it impossible to get a loan history of the client. This has no risk - the book has been returned.
Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! by dkh2 · 2002-09-20 05:56 · Score: 2

StoryMan spake from the ether and said:

I wonder if some libraries keep this information in order to know when to withdraw books and sell them at book sales.

Actually, information about how many times or how often any book circulates is normally associated with the item record for the book, not with the patron record.

Being that librarians are trained to organize data in meaningful ways, those who have the technical bent tend to be remarkably good DBAs and library databases tend to be completely normalized.

--
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! by yelligsc · 2002-09-20 06:00 · Score: 1

Kudos to you.

I hope more people like you and your coworkers are making similiar efforts.

Scott.
Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! by cheeseSource · 2002-09-20 06:00 · Score: 1

Either pay cash for books or avoid the library or just read the books at the library without checking them out. This country is getting pathetically silly. I just read an article at the boston globe talking about how the old nut job G. Kill 'em All Bush stated that the US considers preemptive strikes perfectly reasonable and assures the US that it will be dominant in al military aspects at whatever cost. What a gimp.

--
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! by RatBastard · 2002-09-20 06:33 · Score: 2

Most libraries use one of several specialized software packages, and they can be configured to keep or remove records when the books are returned. The library my wife works at expunges all checkout records the moment ia book is returned in good standing (no fines, etc...). They can't find out who had the book last, or even which patron reported the book damaged and in need of repair.

They do keep track of how many late fees and lost books a patron might have had, but those records are not connected to any books. They even expunge the patron's name from the hold list once they have checked out the book they put the hold on.

--
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! by Qrlx · 2002-09-20 06:41 · Score: 2

Thank you for taking the threat posed by the USA-PATRIOT act seriously.

Unaccountable Secret Agencies - Perusing Anything They Reckon Identifies Objectionable Thinkers

I would also recommend wiping the hard drives on the computers every week or so -- you probably want to reimage those boxes pretty frequently anyway since they must get filled up with a million random pieces of crap from all the various surfers at the public library.

I like the idea of paper records. They are much easier to destroy than data stored on a computer system. Burn paper, info gone. reformat a HD (despite what I said earlier) and Darwin can get the info with his SQUID brain implants. All it will cost you is a fix. (If you don't get that reference, it's William Gibson)
Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-20 08:14 · 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.
Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! by GMontag451 · 2002-09-20 08:56 · Score: 2

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.
That's what I like about my library, they don't fine for overdue, only for lost, and the fine goes away once you return the book. However, recently they have started sending fines to collections agencies if you have a lost book out for too long without paying for it.
Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! by makohund · 2002-09-20 10:19 · Score: 1

Our system (and others I've seen) simply records a "circulation" like a tick mark. The only thing retained for statistics is the ability to see how often something has circulated within a given range of time. No names or card numbers.

As far as weeding goes... it's probably one of the toughest jobs they do. Circulation stats do have an impact, but are far from the only thing evaluated. They have to determine how much space they have, and how best to serve their population with it. Which is going to be a balance between what is popular, and what should be held onto regardless of popularity as to not have "holes" or "gaps" in covered material. Covering every subject and genre as well as possible, while at the same time assuring people will come in and USE it. (Popular stuff can be a hook, but having other stuff available will always be neccessary.)

Possible reasons for discarding your book:

1. Replacement has been ordered or even arrived... just not processed yet.

2. Other reference books cover the subject sufficiently. (Duplication of subject, not exact item.)

3. Other resources cover the subject sufficiently. (Online databases, etc.)

4. No demand for material or subject, and space at a premium. Will order replacement or place interlibrary loan to fulfill need if anyone needs/asks about it.
Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! by smiff · 2002-09-20 11:05 · Score: 1

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..
Thank you! But why do patrons have to log in at all? Why can't people just use the internet anonymously?
On another note, with the FBI sniffing around, I think you're going to find a lot of controversial books 'disappearing' rather than being checked out.
Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! by autocracy · 2002-09-20 12:30 · Score: 2

The library at which I work requires that we have a card from you before we allow you to access a computer. We basically do this in case you start surfing porn (we don't allow it, don't care to allow it, and aren't willing to install filters for ANYTHING). That way we can ban you for 30 days. Other than that, nada.

--
SIG: HUP
Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! by eno2001 · 2002-09-23 01:48 · Score: 1

Only if you are backing up the db that keeps track of that info. Most libraries don't do that with this part of the db anyway. Patron records are very static and rarely have long term backups. The best anyone could hope for is a month. And in the time that it takes the FBI to get through the internal pecking order to the tape monkey, the tapes in question could be long gone...

--
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o

Freedom of Information Act by yelligsc · 2002-09-20 05:00 · 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.

Lending Details? by SanLouBlues · 2002-09-20 05:01 · Score: 1, Troll

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.

Wow by ocie · 2002-09-20 05:03 · Score: 5, Funny

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

Re:Wow by Dr.+Spork · 2002-09-20 05:25 · Score: 1

yeah... wasn't it terrible how they hopped on pop?
Re:Wow by Zork+the+Almighty · 2002-09-20 12:49 · Score: 2

yeah... wasn't it terrible how they hopped on pop?

It could be worse, they could have hopped on mom...

--

In Soviet America the banks rob you!
Re:Wow by Tablizer · 2002-09-20 18:31 · Score: 2

Makes me wish I didn't have an overdue copy of 'Hop on Pop' from 1978.

No, I think it was "Ho on Pop" that was banned. You got your titles wrong.

--
Table-ized A.I.

How far will it go? by bunyip · 2002-09-20 05:03 · Score: 1, Offtopic

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?

Re:Pay cash for books by brandorf · 2002-09-20 05:04 · 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!!

Aren't warrants still issued by judges? by loucura! · 2002-09-20 05:04 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Aren't warrants still issued by judges? by ohboy-sleep · 2002-09-20 05:39 · Score: 1

My knowledge of the judicial system pretty much begins and ends with "Law and Order" but here's my take:

The police are allowed to do certain things to obtain information, and there are certain things they can't do. The ones that they can't do require a warrant.

That would mean that if this story is correct then obtaining library information would NOT require a warrant for it to be admissable in court.

Another problem touched on though is that while the warrant system is there to prevent unlawful convictions, in this instance a law enforcement official could obtain library info for someone even if there is no case pending. That would make the warrants and "admissable in court" moot relative the privacy violations that would occur.
Re:Aren't warrants still issued by judges? by lostPackets · 2002-09-20 05:39 · Score: 3, Informative

Strait from the article:
"Unlike other search warrants, these warrants do not require the officer to show that evidence of wrongdoing is likely to be found or that the target of its investigation is involved in a crime.
A librarian who is served with a warrant must surrender records of the patron's book borrowing or Internet use and is prohibited from revealing the search to anyone -- including the patron. The Justice Department has refused to tell Congress how the law is being used, saying the information is classified. "
-- I especially like the standards for warrents. The don't need probably cause of evidence, they just need to tell the judge "it's in the interest of National Security". We all know by historical example that powers like that are never abused, right?
Re:Aren't warrants still issued by judges? by lostPackets · 2002-09-20 06:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

Please tell me you're kidding? "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" was the party line in Nazi Germany, the McKarthy Witch hunts of the 1950's and of course the good old "patriot act" of the present day.
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.
Re:Aren't warrants still issued by judges? by Pauli · 2002-09-20 06:24 · Score: 1

Then why are you posting as an Anonymous Coward, Mr. "I have nothing to hide" ?
Re:Aren't warrants still issued by judges? by Windcatcher · 2002-09-20 06:39 · Score: 1

You'd be surprised how deep the good 'ole boy network goes. I have an uncle who is an elected politician and he once bragged how he could fix friends' tickets because he knew the judges (he also knew the other towns' politicians, who controlled their cops, of course). Remember, a lot of the cops, politicians, and judges know each other, and are often of the same party in neighboring towns. What's good or bad for one will be the same for the others. If the FBI (instead of locals) came for something frivolous, the locals might not want to make any waves, especially if push comes to shove (or if the party running the county is the same one that's in the White House, like now). Unless a local politician's ego gets bruised or something, they usually cooperate.
Re:Aren't warrants still issued by judges? by lostPackets · 2002-09-20 07:23 · Score: 1

Quite possibly :-) ...the scary thing is that when people spout crap like ths I can't tell if they're joking any more.
Re:Aren't warrants still issued by judges? by lostPackets · 2002-09-20 07:28 · Score: 1

I'm probably troll bating here, but what the hell. The Declaration of Independence may outline principles but the Bill of Rights is that document that actually gurantees these freedoms. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is not addressed directly in the constitution.
You're right, loaning records are the property of the library, and forcing the library to release its private information with out a warrent is highly suspect. It trambles on the libraries right to be free from unreasonable searches.
Restricting the librarion from informing anyone that the search took place is also highly questionable.
Thanks for playing.
Re:Aren't warrants still issued by judges? by King_TJ · 2002-09-20 07:55 · Score: 3, Informative

Ok, you're painted in "naive" now, top to bottom. Like the new look?

Seriously, you'd *hope* that judges would screen out frivolous warrants out - but I don't think it happens as often as it should.

For example, one of my uncles used to serve as a Supreme Court justice in Illinois. (I believe he's in private law practice now.) He once told me that he typically just "signed-off" on warrants when they were brought to him. They're simply too busy to spend much time looking them over, and judges tend to have an attitude of "Do whatever you need to do to bring the people in here. We'll sort out what's right and wrong in the courtroom later."

Does this bother me? Yep, sure does! This is a serious flaw in the justice system. Unfortunately, I think this isn't going to be easy to change. As someone else pointed out, there's a considerable "buddy system" in place too. The lawyers know the judges who know the cops - and everyone's doing little favors for each other.

Secret Courts by Student_Tech · 2002-09-20 05:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Secret Courts by Student_Tech · 2002-09-20 16:49 · Score: 1

6 Paragraphs into the SFGate Article:

A provision of the law allows FBI agents to obtain a warrant from a secret court for library or bookstore records of anyone connected to an investigation of terrorism or spying.

Also the SFGate article says nothing about subpeonas being served, except for the librarian around 30 years ago. Nor does the CommonDreams have anything about subpeonas.

Gentlemen, start your engines by Safety+Cap · 2002-09-20 05:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why is it that restricting or banning ideas, code, technology, etc. is ok but once someone mentions books then all hell breaks loose?

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.

Re:Gentlemen, start your engines by Mr.Sharpy · 2002-09-20 05:08 · Score: 3, Informative

Well, 50% of Americans DO afterall think that the first amendment gives them too much freedom.

That is what sickens me.
Re:Gentlemen, start your engines by beebware · 2002-09-20 05:49 · Score: 1

That clip amused you? It scared the bejesus out of me! The idea of being made to "answer a few questions" that 2 anonymous people want to ask just because you've enquired about a couple of books in a library (that just happen to be "no longer available") is spooky...
I agree it's currently looking like a case of 'when' and not 'if'.
Re:Gentlemen, start your engines by agedman · 2002-09-20 06:31 · Score: 1

50% of Americans DO afterall think that the first amendment gives them too much freedom.
I'm not trying to argue, but do you have a reference for this?
I can imagine people saying that Others have too much freedom, but it seems surprising to have a majority / plurality say that they themselves have too much freedom.
Re:Gentlemen, start your engines by Cleon · 2002-09-20 06:34 · Score: 1

Not to mention you don't always get to hear how the questions are phrased.

If it appeared as something akin to "Do you believe terrorists should be able to hide behind the First Amendment," it would probably generate more "no" responses.

Granted, that's an exaggeration, but there's an entire profession built around phrasing poll questions to "push" the numbers in the direction you want.

--
Gifts for Geeks - Stuff that really matters!
Re:Gentlemen, start your engines by Stickerboy · 2002-09-20 07:15 · Score: 2

Well, 100% of this person who likes to think for himself believes that cheap anti-American smears, using statistics probably pulled out of above poster's ass since he didn't bother to source, is bullshit.

I love the First Amendment, in fact, I love the whole damn fading, brittle piece of paper that is the Constitution, and it gets the amount of freedom given to citizens like me just about right. I also know for a fact that every American (besides a few kooks) I know of thinks about the same way, and I'm 99% positive that Mr. Sharpy's statistic, which was somehow modded up, is either a preconceived slant on a confusing and misleading poll, or just an out-and-out lie.

My two cents... flame away, but before you call me stupid, answer for me how stupidity like the above post gets modded up.l

--
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Re:Gentlemen, start your engines by jdkincad · 2002-09-20 08:29 · Score: 1

Actually that stat was mentioned in Cnet's interveiw with Sorkin (see the /. front page). I am unsure of the original source, however.

--
The great advantage of having a reputation for being stupid: People are less suspicious of you.
Re:Gentlemen, start your engines by Moofie · 2002-09-20 08:31 · Score: 3, Informative

Well, right off the top of my head,

http://www.religioustolerance.org/amend_1.htm

Or, in case you don't want to follow the link:

Current support for the First Amendment:
The First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN conducts a public opinion poll on an annual basis. The results for the year 2000 show that support for first amendment freedoms is not particularly strong in some areas. First Amendment Center director, Kenneth Paulson, said that "While Americans respect the First Amendment as an ideal, increasingly they're ambivalent when it protects offensive ideas or troubling speech or art or music." The results for their poll taken in 2000 show:

Two thirds of American adults favor the banning of hate speech. This troubles many civil rights supporters. As Ken Paulson said: "The problem with that is it's so easy to characterize what someone else says that offends you as 'hate speech.' "
53% favor the banning of speech critical of religions. [Author's note: That is particularly troubling because it would criminalize even the most innocuous criticism of racism, sexism, and homophobia policies established by religious groups.] Paulson said. "That's an astonishing number. Are we really ready to say that you can't talk about religion in the public sector because it might offend someone of another faith? "
"37% of those polled couldn't name even one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. Those freedoms are: the right to worship, speak, publish, assemble, and raise grievances with the government." 4

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:Gentlemen, start your engines by Safety+Cap · 2002-09-20 08:32 · 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.
Re:Gentlemen, start your engines by GMontag451 · 2002-09-20 09:09 · Score: 2

The government may indeed do alot that we don't know about, and shouldn't. Read "The Dead Past" by Isaac Asimov?
That was a good story, but I thought they were much better off at the end of the story than the beginning. For a good counterpoint to that story, you should read "The Light of Other Days" by Arthur C. Clarke and Stephen Baxter.
Re:Gentlemen, start your engines by Jace+of+Fuse! · 2002-09-20 10:42 · Score: 2

Who here researches candidates before voting?

I simply never vote Democrat or Republican. Together those two have fucked things up long enough.

And yes, I do do vote.

We'll be much better off when the rest of the idiots in the country stop voting for "The party mom and pop liked".

--

"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.

Re:Seven ? by Superfreaker · 2002-09-20 05:04 · Score: 1

You do mean Farenheit 451 right? Or least the prequel to it. It's a Brave New World!

Does anyone find it ironic... by jjh37997 · 2002-09-20 05:05 · 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.

Re:Does anyone find it ironic... by phantast · 2002-09-20 05:10 · Score: 4, Informative

AdCouncil is responsible for these ads... Not sure they qualify as a government interest group.

http://www.adcouncil.org/campaigns/campaign_for_ fr eedom/

has a link to the video you are speaking of.
Re:Does anyone find it ironic... by GreyWolf3000 · 2002-09-20 05:11 · Score: 1

I have seen that commercial too. These commercials are funded by the Chamber of Commerce, and are airing in about 7 states. Perhaps the big businesses that make up the CoC are afraid of further goverment infringement on their rights (which would come after the loss of ours), whatever those may be. The point I'm making is that because the government is so diverse, it's not ironic that one entity is in disagreement with the other. It is somewhat comforting that the big guns that make up the CoC are on "our side," so to speak.

--
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Re:Does anyone find it ironic... by Jobe_br · 2002-09-20 06:49 · Score: 1

What's ironic is that the ad you speak of was created before 9/11 and long before the Patriot Act was passed. Doh.
Re:Does anyone find it ironic... by k-0s · 2002-09-20 06:50 · Score: 1

I was thinking the exact same thing. Maybe our law makers aren't watching TV, then again maybe they are and thought "Wow what a good idea". Either way it's scary.

--
Visit www.seriouslythough.com
Re:Does anyone find it ironic... by scaryjohn · 2002-09-20 07:19 · Score: 1

I don't find it ironic; as stated before, the AD Council is a not-for-profit. The other commercial that really illustrates my views on a matter really well is one by AT&T, about their new flat-rate local telephone service...

I think it'll tank as business plan, but seeing the fictional family having to break a dollar bill for change to pay "The Man" for admission to their own bathroom, makes me want to jump up and say "That's what some people want your life to be like!"

--
One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
Re:Does anyone find it ironic... by zericm · 2002-09-20 08:08 · Score: 2

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?

I sure don't. Doesn't anyone around here read Geoge Orwell? Go buy a _1984_ so that you can read about the times we are living in. Of course the powers that be are going to trumpet our rights, even while they are taking them away. Can't have people thinking about what is happening. Only way to keep the proles in line...

--
The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants. - Albert Camus
Re:Does anyone find it ironic... by multimed · 2002-09-20 08:13 · Score: 1

Actually that's not true. According to the Ad Council's website, the Campaign for Freedom campain was developed following the tragedies of 9/11:
"Developed following the tragedies of September 11th, the Ad Council's Campaign for Freedom is an unprecedented volunteer effort from the advertising industry. The initiative is designed to assist Americans during the war on terrorism through the development of timely and relevant PSAs. This first round of PSAs has been created to celebrate our nation's freedom and remind Americans about the importance of freedom and the need to protect it for future generations. According to research, Americans are looking for messages that will inform, involve and inspire them during the war on terrorism. This inspirational campaign is advertising's gift to America. All of the ads conclude with the powerful tagline, "Freedom. Appreciate it. Cherish it. Protect it."

--
Vote Quimby.
Re:Does anyone find it ironic... by dissonant7 · 2002-09-20 08:18 · Score: 2, Funny

You must have misinterpreted the ad. Clearly, it was meant to show how the PATRIOT act protects red-blooded, illiterate TV watching Americans from horrible book reading terrorists.
Re:Does anyone find it ironic... by cpeterso · 2002-09-20 09:11 · Score: 2

Unfortunately, spaces in long URLs is NOT a bug. It is a Slashdot "feature" to prevent people using really looooooooong URLs to make the HTML page too wide. This mechanism has worked very well because we have NEVER seen one of those "wide" troll posts on Slashdot..

--
cpeterso
Re:Does anyone find it ironic... by Jobe_br · 2002-09-23 08:23 · Score: 1

My bad - must have been, then, that it was done before the US Patriot Act was passed. Sorry got those two facts messed up!

Cheers.

slow news day? by phantast · 2002-09-20 05:06 · Score: 3, Informative

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

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

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

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

Re:slow news day? by SquadBoy · 2002-09-20 05:42 · Score: 2

I know that here in Oregon that is exactly what they do. I suspect most other places.

This of course brings up the obvious problem with the government. That is the fact that they have no clue in life at all.

--

Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
Re:slow news day? by SirWhoopass · 2002-09-20 05:45 · Score: 2

Not that I think the current tactic is good, but in libraries with the little card anyone could see what books you had checked out.

Freedom to Read Foundation by mossmann · 2002-09-20 05:06 · Score: 2, Informative

If you care about this issue, you may be interested in the activities of the Freedom to Read Foundation

Library Card by Kylock · 2002-09-20 05:06 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Library Card by Amazing+Quantum+Man · 2002-09-20 05:30 · Score: 2

In L.A., you walk up to the desk, fill out a form, and they hand you a card (3 actually -- one CC sized card, and 2 keyring cards).

--
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Re:Library Card by mike_mgo · 2002-09-20 06:39 · Score: 1

The patriot act also applies to bookstores, not just libraaries.

"Patriot" Act? by FU_Fish · 2002-09-20 05:07 · Score: 1

Funny, the patriot act doesnt sound very patriotic.

Re:Seven ? by QEDog · 2002-09-20 05:07 · Score: 1

In Seven the detective says that the FBI monitors some books in public libraries.

--
"There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham

Hopeful sign by jvmatthe · 2002-09-20 05:07 · Score: 5, Informative

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

Re:Hopeful sign by blank_coil · 2002-09-20 05:42 · Score: 1

Many people toiled long and hard to get that piece of crap made into law. Sept 11 wasn't the reason, it was the excuse. The powers that be have wanted those powers for a long time. I doubt you'll see them repealed any time soon.

--
No sig for you.
Re:Hopeful sign by meatpopcicle · 2002-09-20 05:48 · Score: 1

How about book sellers though. I know for a fact that if you have a "club card", they definitely know what and when you bought it.

Time to start buying everything with $$$ (thats cash only)

Now that Americans have traded away all their civil liberties, I have a question for you:

Do you feel safer?

The government is treating everyone as if they are a criminal. This is percieved security folks. Pretty soon they will make it illegal to read certain books. Does that make everyone feel safer?

--
"You're on my side and the dark side, like Lando Calrissian?" --Gimpy, Undergrads
Re:Hopeful sign by Jobe_br · 2002-09-20 05:56 · Score: 1

The scary thing is this: a disturbing number of Americans would answer a resounding Yes to both of your questions.

This frightens me.
Re:Hopeful sign by nikkk · 2002-09-20 06:07 · Score: 1

[...] so that we can get it off the books as soon as possible.

I wouldn't hold my breath. Laws have this way of staying on the books, even if everyone agrees they're useless, and law enforcement agencies tend not to like the idea of giving up powers.

Somewhat off-topic: A friend tells me that there are taxes in Germany which cost more to administer than what they bring in revenue. The state is actually losing money on this, but there's no drive to get rid of these taxes. (This could be an urban myth, but it does sound plausible to me.)

As for the librarians, any hope in taking this to the Supreme Court?
Re:Hopeful sign by ChadN · 2002-09-20 06:24 · Score: 1

I believe these laws were passed with a renewal clause (put in by some crafty Democrats, believe it or not). The focus probably needs to be on showing that they do NOT need to be renewed (the renewal time is seven years, if I remember correctly)

I personally think that should be the focus. I assume the people who desire to have these laws will work hard to justify their renewal.

--
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
Re:Hopeful sign by drdanny_orig · 2002-09-20 06:29 · Score: 1

NBL (not bloody likely): it was named "PATRIOT" precisely so that no one would have the balls to vote against it. ...sigh.... Sometimes I'm just so proud to be an amurican.

--
.nosig
Re:Hopeful sign by superyooser · 2002-09-20 12:39 · Score: 1

The government is treating everyone as if they are a criminal.
Can you show me an instance of somebody being put in prison because they checked out a book from the library? With nothing more to go on, what judge or jury would convict somebody of a crime?
These articles are just partisan, alarmist Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
Use some common sense. Books written by conservative authors are primarily read by conservative readers. Books by liberal authors are primarily read by liberal readers. H4X0R FAQs are primarily read by hackers or aspiring hackers. Gaming mags are primarily read by gamers. You can look at many kinds of books and magazines and quite easily profile the kind of reader in your mind. Consider these contrasting pairs of examples: Chicken Soup for the Soul, The Anarchist's Cookbook, Rush Limbaugh: See I Told You So, Rush Is a Big Fat Idiot (that's an actual book).
It doesn't take a great leap of logic to conclude what kind of audience these books have, especially since they are philosophically polarizing. I think this would also be true of anything that might be considered "pro-terrorist" or terrorist-sympathizing literature.
I'm looking over at my bookshelf right now, and it's just amazing how much you could tell about my politics, religion, interests, profession, marital status, approximate age, nationality, income, etc.
If you think this is risky,... OK, well it is. But try it with your own bookshelf. Yeah, you'll get a false positive here and there, especially if you're sharing the bookshelf with a spouse or kids.
I trust that the Feds are smart enough to be wary of false positives and weed them out upon further investigation. On the flip-side, a failure to recognize a false negative could result in a few more thousand or million deaths. It's awfully self-centered to throw a fit about the government knowing what books you check out, possibly at the expense of thousands of your neighbors being blown to bits, gassed, diseased, or nuked.
It is tragically narrow-minded of librarians to think that they are the "losers" in this war. Please tell me what variety of books exist in libraries in Iraq? Iran? Libya? (Do they even have libraries? Does the word "library" exist in their languages?) Can I check out Thomas Paine's Common Sense? Shawn Hannity's recent book, Let Freedom Ring? How about the latest NY Times? Librarians are among the many winners of the war on terror.
If our ways do not prevail in the world, theirs (those countries') will, and there will be no libraries at all. Librarians should stop whining about a petty inconvenience. Nearly all Americans in the 1940s were chomping at the bit to make great personal sacrifices in the effort to defeat peoples that wanted to kill us.
It is in best the interest of everybody (except terrorists and their supporters, fans, and sympathizers) to get as much pertinent information as possible into the hands of top U.S. decision makers. This war is for all of us!
The kind of books you check out may not point to a definitive answer to a particular question, but at least it eliminates some options. I think that's a valuable tool, and again, nobody's going to get thrown in the slammer for reading a book. We go to war with regimes that act like that.
Now that Americans have traded away all their civil liberties
Post-Sep. 11 legislation has had ZERO effect on me or anybody I know.
Do you feel safer?
I feel safer because people who have an interest in subverting the U.S. do feel less safe.
Follow this fool-proof strategy, and you have nothing to fear from the Feds: Don't act like a traitor and you won't be treated like one. I know, it's too simple to grasp. That's how most truths are.
Re:Hopeful sign by Cplus · 2002-09-21 21:43 · Score: 1

What's wrong with you?....I don't even know where to begin, but let me just say this: Perhaps you'd be better off if you defined your ideas of what freedom is and contrasted them to the traditional concepts. Take the differences between the two and choke on it. Fascist.

--
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
Re:Hopeful sign by superyooser · 2002-09-22 11:32 · Score: 1

There is a wide middle ground between fascism (typically from totalitarianism) and anarchy. Democracy stands within that ground. It is a balancing act between the somewhat-paradoxical goals of freedom and order.
A government, without the means to enforce its laws and protect its sovereignty, is worthless. Increased threats require increased protection efforts. This is not fascism; it's necessary and reasonable means to fulfilling the duties of our representative government. These actions are for us, and I, for one, am thankful.
One of the fundamental purposes of government is stop people who are disrupting order. This is nothing new in our country. Our enemies have devised new tactics of offense, so we must devise new tactics of defense. The objective remains the same as it always has. The government isn't doing anything fundamentally different than it always has.
The way I see it, there are only three types of people who would proactively oppose the measures being taken: (1) partisan Democrats opposing the measures only until a Democrat is elected president, (2) excessively secretive people (like many libertarians who often appear indistinguishable from paranoid schizophrenics), and (3) people supportive or sympathetic to those who want to destroy us.
If you are personally scared of the tactics used in the war on terrorism (categories 2 & 3), I have to wonder what aspects of your life would appear suspicious or incriminating. Assuming that you are innocent, you can simply let your life prove your innocence. In other words, if you have goodwill for your fellow citizens, then it will be manifested by your conduct and activities. You will be living so that others can easily attest to your good name and corroborate your assertion of innocence. Just follow the sage advice you've probably heard since childhood. Love your neighbors, forgive those who commit offenses against you (don't hold grudges), and help the needy. Support only positive, community-building institutions and organizations. Live blamelessly so that your accusers will become ashamed when they examine your life. May your reputable conduct repudiate their slanderous accusations and decisively prove your innocence.
If you don't want to be a good neighbor and citizen, you're free to pack up and move out. Our "fascist" government is not trapping you here. I don't mean to provoke offense -- just pointing out what should be an obvious option. If you have reason to fear the Feds, it might be in your best interest (and everybody else's) for you to move to another country.
Re:Hopeful sign by Cplus · 2002-10-02 18:41 · Score: 2

It is not your place to wonder what aspects of my life would appear suspicious and incriminating. Nor is it the governments place to wonder such things. Charge me with a crime when I commit one, then prove it...I should not feel the need to defend myself ever if I live a righteous life, particularly before accusation.

Also, note that I was not calling the US government fascist, merely the poster to which I was replying. Also, I don't have to leave the US because thankfully I am not a citizen of a country which the rest of the world generally looks upon with disdain at this point. All the rest of your tripe has been ignored.

This from a guy with jesus in his .sig, can you say right-wing.

--
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
Re:Hopeful sign by superyooser · 2002-10-02 22:25 · Score: 1

It is not your place to wonder what aspects of my life would appear suspicious and incriminating. Nor is it the governments place to wonder such things.
All I'm saying is: If you don't want to be accused of being a duck, don't quack like one. If this statement makes you angry, maybe it's because you're quacking.
I am not a citizen of a country which the rest of the world generally looks upon with disdain at this point.
Well, I'm not from Iraq either. I guess we have that in common. ;-)
Seriously, given the context, I assume you mean the US. Yes, a lot of coutries have disdain for us. How could I forget the HUGE international protest in front of the White House? ;-)
In fact, quite a lot of folks like the US. Maybe you didn't get the memo. Or the updated memo.
The only people expressing disdain for the US are socialists/communists in Europe and Canada, Neo-Nazis, militant Islamists, Saddam Hussein, and assorted terrorist groups around the world. The day that America is adored by these people is the day that America ceases to exist.
This from a guy with jesus in his .sig, can you say right-wing.
What's your point? (seriously)

Look at the wonders of the Patriot Act now. by Geeyzus · 2002-09-20 05:07 · Score: 1

Homer : Wonders, Lisa? Or blunders?
Lisa : I think that was implied by my statement.
Homer : Implied, Lisa? Or implode?
Lisa : Mom!!!!

Kudos to the Ad Council by Chris+Pimlott · 2002-09-20 05:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Kudos to the Ad Council by Black_Macrame · 2002-09-20 05:49 · Score: 1

Yup and they made that *before* the legislation. Freaked them out a little, needless to say. Money well spent.
Re:Kudos to the Ad Council by bracher · 2002-09-20 07:16 · Score: 1

my favorite is the car search.

you've got a guy stopped by the police; up against the car while they search it. they finally find a stack of newspapers and take him away in handcuffs.

ouch!

Re:Pay cash for books by Kenja · 2002-09-20 05:08 · Score: 2, Funny

"Now the FBI knows I read Terry Pratchett"

And for that you'll be thrown off the world inside a bronze fish.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"

Scope of Act? by JJ22 · 2002-09-20 05:08 · 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...

Re:Scope of Act? by 198348726583297634 · 2002-09-20 06:16 · Score: 1

Something like that..
Re:Scope of Act? by spickus · 2002-09-20 06:25 · Score: 1

I'm not sure if you're serious or sarcastic when you say that terrorist don't use ATM's. Here's a link proving they do....

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/ph ot os/atm.htm

Just for the record, I am NOT supporting or defending the Patriot Act.

--
Indecision is the key to flexibility.
Re:Scope of Act? by Reziac · 2002-09-20 17:45 · Score: 2

Somewhat similar in its logic:

There was a case locally involving a guy who slipped, fell, and injured himself in a grocery store, due to a wet floor or some such. He tried to sue the store for his injuries. The store used his "shopper's card" records to "prove" that he was a heavy drinker and therefore was probably soused and fell down without their floor's help.

Seems this fellow only used his shopper's card for items where it gives you a big discount -- one of those being booze. So booze was just about all that was on in his records.

You can see that if the records exist, how easy it is to skew the results to "prove" anything. Back to libraries -- let's say when I read fluff magazines, I sit in the library to do so, hence these items are never checked out and don't appear on my record. But when I read "subversive" materials, I check them out for longer perusal. So all my checkout records are for Bad Books! Ooh, I must be a terrorist!

Of course, a sensible terrorist would read his subversives in the library, and only check out innocent materials like People and Reader's Digest.

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?

This isn't about terrorism... by Robber+Baron · 2002-09-20 05:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

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

--

You're using her as bait, Master!

Re:This isn't about terrorism... by Stonehand · 2002-09-20 05:43 · Score: 2

Read the act again.

If all they've got on you is evidence regarding activities permitted by the First Amendment, the changes to Sec. 501 (which would appear to be what the librarians are most likely whining about, as they cover the subpoena of records. There are other sections covering financial libraries, but they don't apply here.) do not apply.

Go ahead and keep burning flags and writing anti-AmeriKKKa screeds to the NY Times if you like.

--
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Re:This isn't about terrorism... by Aexia · 2002-09-20 06:41 · Score: 2

Read the act again.

Read the act yourself. Terrorism is so broadly defined that it could easily be applied to rival political groups.

I don't expect it to be used that way in the next couple years, but once the "War on Terrorism" has died down and lost urgency, new and enterprising applications of the PATRIOT Act will be found. That's when the problems begin.

If you don't like it... by cperciva · 2002-09-20 05:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Re:If you don't like it... by IvyMike · 2002-09-20 05:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

If people started flooding across the border into Canada

Canada? That's no beter; those hosers don't even have freedom of speech. (Just teasing, my buddies to the north. Props to ya, eh?)

Look, if you're in a modern democracy and you don't like the laws, you try to make things better and get the laws changed, not just give up and move away. This is fundamental to the health of the democracy, and although it may at sometimes might seem like an uphill fight, it's a battle worth fighting.
Re:If you don't like it... by Marx_Mrvelous · 2002-09-20 05:39 · Score: 2

I can't believe that this was moderated Insightful. It should have been moderated -1, cowardly and -1, ignorant. Aside from the obvious fact that most people can't just "get upand leave" without totally destroying their lives (the government might as well have put them to death!) by leaving, you're only allowing other people to be taken advantage of. It's the coward's way out: Run. I suggest staying, and fighting for your rights.

--

Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
Re:If you don't like it... by RobinH · 2002-09-20 05:49 · Score: 2

If people started flooding across the border into Canada and claiming refugee status, people certainly take notice.

While you're welcome to come and visit us in Canada, you'll find it very hard to claim refugee status here. To qualify as a refugee, you would pretty much need to prove that you face death upon returning home. The only way to do this is if you're going to be tried for a capital offense in the U.S., and in that case, the U.S. just has to promise not to give you the death penalty if they find you guilty, and then you'll be extradited.

However, all you really need to do is find a job in Canada, and then you can apply to immigrate here. I've met a lot of American immigrants, but no American refugees that I can remember. ;^)

I suppose, if the U.S. acts unilaterally against Iraq, and then the U.S. starts drafting soldiers, then as long as Canada doesn't go to war with Iraq, you could probably dodge your draft up here. I don't know if that's considered refugee status or not. It probably is. Americans draft dodgers did come to Canada during the Vietnam war because Canada never fought in Vietnam, but we did fight in Korea, so you couldn't do it back then.

--
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Re:If you don't like it... by Black_Macrame · 2002-09-20 05:52 · Score: 1

I totally agree. But I'm willing to give 'Merica one last chance. If Bush wins 2004, I think that is enough. It will take a decade or two just to beat-back all the P.A. Laws now on the books. But to be honest, I've been looking for out of country employment for the last two years anyways.
Re:If you don't like it... by RobinH · 2002-09-20 05:57 · Score: 2

That's no beter; those hosers don't even have freedom of speech.

All I know is, my American friends keep asking me to tape the TV show "Wild On..." for them because it's censored in the U.S., but fully uncensored in Canada. If you're not familiar, it's a travel show that plays on the E! network, where they go all around the world and show you the really hot places to party. The last show I saw had naked bungie jumping... apparently it was free if you jumped naked.

Plus, this year, "The Ozborne's" is apparently being broadcast in Canada on CTV uncensored. That will be interesting!

--
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Re:If you don't like it... by cperciva · 2002-09-20 06:14 · Score: 2

Unfortunately, another 'anti-terrorist' measure taken recently disallows claiming refugee status in Canada when entering from the U.S.

Not quite: It disallows claiming refugee status *from a third nation* when entering from the U.S. You can't enter from the U.S. and claim you're a refugee fleeing from Iraq, but you could still claim you're fleeing from the U.S.

--
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Re:If you don't like it... by Hatter · 2002-09-20 06:20 · Score: 2

There should really be an "-1 ignorant" moderation option.
Re:If you don't like it... by Quixadhal · 2002-09-20 06:26 · Score: 2

Yup, but alas I live in a representative democracy, so I don't get an opportunity to vote on most things before they've become laws and are already being used. It's much harder to repeal an established law than to defeat a pending bill.

Out of curiosity, how many people got a chance to offer any input on the Patriot Act before it became a law? When the government decides to push something through quickly, most people don't have an opportunity to voice their opinions to their congressmen before it's already too late.
Re:If you don't like it... by MoneyT · 2002-09-20 06:26 · Score: 2

But I can't play paintball in canada.

--
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Re:If you don't like it... by Jobe_br · 2002-09-20 06:27 · Score: 1

Amen to that ... both CA and IRL are looking quite promising, actually. CA because of Toronto & Vancouver - two very cool towns, IRL because my fiancee is Irish and we both like it there. Not to mention that, last I heard, they're hard-up for workers in the tech-sector. Can't beat that :)

Cheers.
Re:If you don't like it... by Windcatcher · 2002-09-20 06:52 · Score: 1

The problem is, we're too comfortable in this country. We have Starbucks coffee, 500 TV channels, and you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a supermarket or strip mall. Simply put, COMFORT TRUMPS RIGHTS. As long as people feel comfortable, they don't care if they lose their rights. People won't do anything to change things here until enough of them have nothing to lose by trying. If I had to guess on people who might actually care about freedom, I'd bet on Central and South America. Any posters from there care to weigh in?
Re:If you don't like it... by L2 · 2002-09-20 07:02 · Score: 1

Where did you get that idea?
Paintball fields in Canada
Re:If you don't like it... by VoiceOfRaisin · 2002-09-20 07:26 · Score: 1

Plus, this year, "The Ozborne's" is apparently being broadcast in Canada on CTV uncensored. That will be interesting!

its already been on, and its funnier, cause mtv censored more than just the swear words. like when ozzy was messing with the tv remote he asked his son where the blow job button was.
Re:If you don't like it... by VoiceOfRaisin · 2002-09-20 07:34 · Score: 1

But I can't play paintball in canada.

ok you got me, why not? its very popular here
Re:If you don't like it... by akuzi · 2002-09-20 07:46 · Score: 1

> LEAVE.
People often say a variant of this to me. "If you don't like X why do you live here?". Because I have my friends and my life here, and other things that make up for X!

It seems to me a huge portion of the Americans have been brainwashed into thinking that criticizing any aspect of the country makes you 'anti-American' and not deserving to live here. It is so ironic because wouldn't someone who really loves their country want to fix what is wrong instead of abandoning it?

Someone once told me that Americans love their country in a blind unquestioning way that people love their mother - the more I live here the more I am inclined to agree.
Re:If you don't like it... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-20 07:58 · Score: 1, Insightful

So, if I were to "fight" for my freedoms, I must find a very narrow issue, because my money, time, and scope of effect is so very limited, and then start a small group to help me fight Big Brother. Then we continually hammer our congress-critters into reinstating that small freedom as they totally trash the rest of our Constitutional rights.

I can speak out, and they will not hear me.
I can protest, and they will label me a traitor.
I can lobby for a day, and they will prefer the company of their continually available lobbying friends.
I can get active in a political party, and they will allow the radicals to rule.

I seems so hopeless. Our Federal, State, and Local governments are so outta touch with our world, it is tradegically funny. They think Wal-Mart is some rural store in Arkansas, that everyone has good access to healthcare, that everyone in a grocery store has to be checked out by a human cashier, that having 2 jobs at $6/hr is a good wage (it was in 1965), that every house only has one two-parent family living in it, and that PCs are only for the hobbist and the "young people".

We are faced with three choices, stage a citizen revolt in the system, stage a citizen revolt outside the system, or leave. I have often thought about leaving here for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Netherlands, or Costa Rica. But none of them can equal the opportunity to make a difference this country gives us (even though it is slowly turning into the Ashcroft Police State of America).

Re:PUBLIC Libraries by zmokhtar · 2002-09-20 05:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

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?

Re:PUBLIC Libraries by Choco-man · 2002-09-20 05:18 · Score: 1

erm, not exactly free of charge. that's what that little thing called 'taxes' that you and i and everyone besides the amish and large portions of montana pay helps to fund. therefore, *we* are providing *ourselves* with this service. lest we forget, the government was founded on a premise of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Librarians: fight by hacksoncode · 2002-09-20 05:18 · Score: 1

What we really need now is for a librarian to stand up to this nonsense and refuse to comply.

Only then can we get a court case to throw out this nonsense.

Re:Librarians: fight by Tha_Big_Guy23 · 2002-09-20 05:26 · Score: 1

"What we really need now is for a librarian to stand up to this nonsense and refuse to comply."

I have another solution, how about the librarians just distract the FBI with flashy attire, and a good sense of style...

--
If you're looking here for something insightful or thought provoking, you're probably looking in the wrong place.

White trash surfing the internet. by BoomerSooner · 2002-09-20 05:18 · Score: 1

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.

Re:White trash surfing the internet. by StoryMan · 2002-09-20 05:28 · Score: 2

Oklahoma must have a serious morality crisis.

I know Oklahoma officials also tried to ban a video of the 'Tin Drum' (a great movie and an even better book) and arrest a guy who had it checked out from Blockbuster.

What the hell is going on in Oklahoma?
Re:White trash surfing the internet. by KelsoLundeen · 2002-09-20 05:53 · Score: 2

Black ops. Hush hush.

Here's the secret:

PETA.

People for the Ethical Treatment of ALIENS.

Remember Roswell? Project Blue Book?

Those National Socialists were working on some wacky shit at the tail end of WWII -- anti-grav, antimatter. You think we just blasted away those factories along the Rhine?

No sir. We *moved* those secret factories -- the machines, the dies, the workers, you name it -- to the deserts of America.

PETA was some wicked shit 50 years ago. PETA today is just a cover to make sure folks don't catch on.
Re:White trash surfing the internet. by DEBEDb · 2002-09-20 10:10 · Score: 2

No, these are really big-ass files.
1000 terafiles, or 10^15 files.

--

Considered harmful.

Where in the Patriot Act does it mention this???? by Brian_Ellenberger · 2002-09-20 05:19 · Score: 2

Here is the text of the Patriot Act:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c107:./temp/ ~c1073P4rg4

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.

Is it just me... by 2boundless · 2002-09-20 05:19 · Score: 2, Funny

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."

Re:Is it just me... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · 2002-09-20 05:33 · Score: 2

Unfortunately for the librarian, the slashdotter is CowboyNeal.

--
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.

We had a related Ask Slashdot a few weeks ago. by Teun · 2002-09-20 05:20 · Score: 2

Quote: We had a related Ask Slashdot a few weeks ago.

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."

Ad Council by cosmosis · 2002-09-20 05:20 · Score: 2

Here is a link to the main Ad Council website and the real player ads:

http://www.adcouncil.org/campaigns/campaign_for_ fr eedom/

--
www.enthea.org

Re:Ad Council by seer · 2002-09-20 07:47 · 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!

Re:Seven ? by Ubergrendle · 2002-09-20 05:20 · Score: 2

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?"

patriot? by ryochiji · 2002-09-20 05:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:patriot? by Aexia · 2002-09-20 06:17 · Score: 1

Bill names should be like ballot titles for initiatives; they have to reflect what it actually does.

For example, your initiative to legalize pot can't say "Should taxes be reduced by 90%?"
Re:patriot? by Dutchmaan · 2002-09-20 06:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

Personally, I think that NO bills should have names.. only numbers, and basic subject classifications for storage purposes..

This way if there is much ado about bill-1384343-3434 of U.S. tax law then the *only way* to figure out what you want to know about the bill is to actually *learn* about it!

Government and business are ***relying too much*** on the ***ignorance and apathy*** of the people, to be beneficial to the people.
Re:patriot? by BrookHarty · 2002-09-20 06:58 · Score: 2

Same goes with government offices, DEA, IRS, Child Protection, Child Support Enforcement, etc.

Would you want to be labeled Anti Child Protection? No politician will touch reform on these abusive agencies. I really think it comes down to having only 2 main political parties. You only get persons who fight fires, pass "pacify the public" type laws, stay in the spotlight, never work at true change.

BTW, I wonder what First Lady Laura Bush (former librarian) thoughts are on this subject.
Re:patriot? by Dannon · 2002-09-20 07:09 · Score: 5, Informative

Many bills cross the floors of Congress with deliberately misleading names. For example, ask someone if they'll favor a Medical Privacy Act, and they'll say yes in a heartbeat. Unless you elabroate that this Act will require all doctors to surrender medical records of their patients to the Federal Government upon request, while making it a crime for your doctor to tell you that your information has been reported.

Or, take the Florida Wetlands Protection Bills, so heavily favored by the Eco-Crowd... which propose to seize privately-owned lands and flood these areas beyond their natural levels, threatening the natural ecological balances.

I do wish we had a rule requiring appropriate naming of legislation. I also wish we had a rule that all sponsors of any legislation at the State or Federal level would have to sign a certain document. This document would state their belief that the legislation is more important than any other use the taxpayers may have for the money it would require, including food, bills, transportation, home repair, personal investment towards retirement, personal investment in education, etc.

But then, I can't see any bill with either of those proposals getting very far.

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
Re:patriot? by Steve+Franklin · 2002-09-20 07:11 · Score: 2, Funny

Do you really expect them to call it the Jingoism Act? ;-)

And people actually have the nerve to complain about my sig!

--
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
Re:patriot? by kfg · 2002-09-20 08:53 · Score: 2

http://www.davehitt.com/july02/no-tipping.html

KFG
Re:patriot? by AnotherBrian · 2002-09-20 17:53 · Score: 1

The real title if the bill is
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism = USA PATRIOT ACT
I'm sure that acronym was *Cough* totally accidental *Cough* so techincly the bill's name does reflect what it does (I won't get into weather or not the new government powers will accualy prevent terrorism). I definitely agree with the post by Dutchmaan about bills having numbers instead of names.
Re:patriot? by voidware · 2002-09-21 05:45 · Score: 1

Dannon, thank God we have people like you in our country. It gives me hope for American Politics after all.

Brandon
Memeber, Libertarian Party of North Carolina

Grow Up. by DAldredge · 2002-09-20 05:21 · Score: 1

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 by account_deleted · 2002-09-20 05:21 · Score: 5, Informative

Comment removed based on user account deletion

How not to Hunt Taliban in America by linuxislandsucks · 2002-09-20 05:22 · Score: 1, Flamebait

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

Re:How not to Hunt Taliban in America by Master+of+Transhuman · 2002-09-21 16:32 · Score: 1

Correct. Foreign terrorists do not use American libraries to learn how to build bombs - they are trained in this by foreign intelligence agencies, specifically Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc.

However, they COULD use American libraries and any other open source avenues to gain information on potential targets for those bombs. I think this is more what the FBI is interested in...

And of course the FBI is interested in hassling anybody else they don't like - for instance, the American Indian Movement, which IIRC won a case in Federal Court and a Federal judge's decision was that the FBI conducted illegal black bag jobs, illegal wiretapping, illegal this and that against the AIM group solely for the purpose of harassing them out of existence...

In the 60's, the FBI printed up posters with Abby Hoffman and other radical faces on it proclaiming that these "Jews" were against black people and spread the posters around black neighborhoods...

This is the true FBI in action...

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!

Re:yup by GreyWolf3000 · 2002-09-20 05:23 · Score: 1

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.

Re:PUBLIC Libraries by Scrameustache · 2002-09-20 05:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

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...

tv commercial by zrodney · 2002-09-20 05:24 · Score: 1

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?

Re:tv commercial by GigsVT · 2002-09-20 05:28 · Score: 2

It begins with a teenager who approaches the help counter at a library. He tells the librarian that he can't find the books he has on a list, which he hands her. She looks them up in the computer, and replies, "These books are no longer available... may I have your name, please?" When the kid walks away from the counter without giving his name, he's approached by two men in suits (one of whom takes his arm) appearing from behind some shelves, who "just have a couple of questions" for him. Meanwhile, the librarian is watching with a look of sadness and concern.

A tagline appears: "What if America wasn't America?

Freedom. Appreciate it. Cherish it. Protect it." Definitely one of the most chilling (and unfortunately appropriate) ads I've ever seen.

Ripped off from boingboing.net

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Re:tv commercial by anthony_dipierro · 2002-09-20 06:07 · Score: 2

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.

No, it's actually nothing like that. No books are banned, and no warrants shall issue except upon probable cause.

Re:Pay cash for books by cscx · 2002-09-20 05:25 · Score: 1, Flamebait

What makes me curious is how the hell this fits in "Your Rights Online..." This is Slashdot, not the ACLU discussion forum. Or has this become a pedistal for michael to spew his liberal propaganda. God damn they need to fire his ass.

Patriot act doesn't change much by tutal · 2002-09-20 05:25 · Score: 1

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.

Re:So what? by reflector · 2002-09-20 05:26 · Score: 2, Informative

mass of CDRs in my apartment,

so, just what do you need all those CDRs for? you don't happen to use them to violate copyright laws, do you? explain yourself, please speak in to the microphone.

Spies in Libraries by z_gringo · 2002-09-20 05:27 · Score: 1

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.

Re:PUBLIC Libraries by Grunschev · 2002-09-20 05:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Libraries are public by Syncdata · 2002-09-20 05:28 · Score: 2, Informative

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

Re:Libraries are public by anthony_dipierro · 2002-09-20 06:09 · Score: 2

When you go to a library, you are visiting a public place, stocked with public property.

What if the library isn't owned by the public?
Re:Libraries are public by zm · 2002-09-20 06:42 · Score: 1

There can be no expectation of privacy when the resource one is using is not private.
Now, lets assume that the resource in question is a washroom, and repeat the excersise.
zm

--
Sig ?

A few words of sanity by dkh2 · 2002-09-20 05:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

As a university library employee I can tell you this.

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.
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.

Re:A few words of sanity by DaytonCIM · 2002-09-20 06:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:A few words of sanity by namespan · 2002-09-20 06:03 · 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.
Re:A few words of sanity by jmu1 · 2002-09-20 06:04 · Score: 2

We have been told the same thing. "I can't tell you. However, if you would like to speak to the Dean and the Legal Department, I would be glad to give you their number."
Basically, a great big finger to the man... even if we work for him ;)
Re:A few words of sanity by jroos · 2002-09-20 06:12 · Score: 1

Do you keep any backups? The library I work at keeps extensive backups because we once had a massive failure. If you have backups, chances are you'll also have at least some historical data on what patrons have checked out.
Re:A few words of sanity by John+Jorsett · 2002-09-20 06:26 · Score: 2

Nice in theory, but if a librarian is confronted by an agent who threatens to arrest him/her on the spot for obstruction if the records aren't forthcoming, I'm betting that there's a good chance that s/he'll buckle. I'm generally in favor of the Bush administration, but a lot of what's being done in the name of fighting terror (like people disappearing into the system and not being heard from again, or being picked up as 'material witnesses' to unspecified crimes) is concerning me. In such a climate, it might be more pressure than an ordinary human can be expected to stand up to.
Re:A few words of sanity by Jobe_br · 2002-09-20 06:30 · Score: 1

Thanks for this very, very informational and enlightening comment. Makes me sleep a little better, at least. I had a sense that this was pretty much the case, from questions I've asked at the circulation desk, here in Madison, WI. They were pretty confident that no records were kept on past checkouts or anything like that ... too much data, they said.
Re:A few words of sanity by stewby18 · 2002-09-20 08:06 · Score: 1

Not only do many libraries not have an interest in tracking what you read, quite a few are actively doing everything they can NOT to track what you read. Libraries are very strong supporters of freedom of information, and something like the PATRIOT Act implicitly reduces freedom of information.

I know someone who works in a library, and on 9/12, a memo went to all the employees reminding everyone that library policy was not to store any information that is not absolutley necessary. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of libraries made very sure that their systems kept as little info as humanly possible once the PATRIOT Act was introduced.
Re:A few words of sanity by Quaryon · 2002-09-20 08:48 · Score: 1

(I posted the original link) - I also worked as a library computing officer in a university library for a number of years and I still work in a related industry. I can tell you that records of all borrowing are indeed kept, even if you don't have access to them as a normal member of library staff.

We regularly had to dig out records going back 20 years for people who had asked us under the UK data protection act for all information stored under their name.

Q.
Re:A few words of sanity by makohund · 2002-09-20 10:49 · Score: 1

Ditto for the ones I'm familiar with.

Inlex
Taos
DRA
Sirsi (Unicorn)

Between those and Dynix, that covers a LOT of systems. All this talk of law enforcement trying to subpeona "patron history" might be wishful thinking. We just don't track that data, and neither do most everyone else. :)
Re:A few words of sanity by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2002-09-20 12:45 · Score: 2

You're right. And because of the Patriot act, things are changing. Somewhat. A lot of librarians are realizing that they shouldn't keep info for very long.

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.

Re:PUBLIC Libraries by Mac+Degger · 2002-09-20 05:29 · Score: 1

Because it's no bussiness of theirs what I read. By your argument, you have a President who is in public service, so he can do what he wants! And do you really think that with this system in place 9-11 wouldn't have happened? If so, you're deluding yourself. Bigtime. No efforts the US gov. have since taken would have stopped 9-11. Except for a simple blast door to the cockpits...and have those been installed yet? No. And how is tracing personal phone calls any different from tracing your reading habbits? I'd actually say that the former is more usefull in tracking down 'terrorists', but I'm sure as hell against that, without probable cause. Don't you get it? Freedoms are erroded one at a time, so you have to scream and shout every time one is taken away, or else you'll soon find yourself without any freedoms at all. "They took away the gay's, but I wasn't gay so I didn't care. They took away the Jews, but I was no Jew so I didn't care. Then they came for me, but when I yelled for help, I found there was no-one there to help me".

--
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?

USA a free country? by hatchet · 2002-09-20 05:30 · Score: 1

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...

Historical records? by paranoic · 2002-09-20 05:30 · Score: 1

Does anyone know for a fact if libraries actually keep historical records? Another article (don't remember where) stated that they didn't.

replace librarians with NSA agents! by fermion · 2002-09-20 05:30 · 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

What would I think if... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-20 05:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

...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.

Re:What would I think if... by Tackhead · 2002-09-20 06:12 · 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?
Re:What would I think if... by Qrlx · 2002-09-20 06:24 · Score: 2

(This post is not for the sarcasm impaired.)

We need a free flow of information and ideas to prevent the "Big Lie"

Fortunately, Michael Powell (whose daddy is on the board of huge media company AOL-Time Warner) is going to completely deregulate the mass media. The coming consolidation of radio, television, and print media into the hands of five or six old white men will surely lead to the free flow of diverse opinion and information necessary for an educated, enlightened citizenry.

One thing about the Nazi seizure of power: it was all completely legal. The German government voted to "give it up to Hitler" in 1933, if I'm not mistaken.

Sig for today: "He who casts the votes decides nothing. He who counts the votes decides everything." -- J. Stalin
Re:What would I think if... by Qrlx · 2002-09-20 07:08 · Score: 1

On a lighter note:
http://www.denounce.com/nsaol.html
Re:What would I think if... by Steve+Franklin · 2002-09-20 07:44 · Score: 1

"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."

The problem is that without the benefit of hindsight you never really know just exactly WHAT the big lie is. Take your rational blinders off for a moment and ask yourself just exactly what event allowed George to launch his little campaign of world conquest. And then ask yourself just exactly what Chandra Levy could have learned from FBI committee member Condit that could have cost her her life. Paranoia? Or just a good nose for political rot?

--
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
Re:What would I think if... by Sylver+Dragon · 2002-09-20 07:44 · Score: 2

One thing about the Nazi seizure of power: it was all completely legal. The German government voted to "give it up to Hitler" in 1933, if I'm not mistaken.

Just to have some more phun with parallels..
Hitler instituted 'Hitler's Youth' in order to indoctrinate children into the beliefs of the Nazi party. They would march an shout "Heil Hitler".
In the US we have the now constant Pro-US propaganda streamed into our lives on the TV and Radio. And we have our children saying the pledge of alligence in school.

Hitler began instituting programs to fight the economic ression in post WWI Germany. Many of which killed personal freedoms.
The current US government is instituting programs to fight terrorism. Many of which are killing personal freedom.

Hitler made the trains run on time.
The US government is making us "safe" from terrorism.

Going a bit further along in history...
Post WWII East Germany set up the Stazi, which spied on the population for anyone who didn't tow the party line. They used secrecy and brutal tactics to keep the people in line.
We have the FBI.

The only saving grace was that the Berlin Wall fell and Germany was re-united under a free-er (compared to the east) government.
Maybe with some luck the US people will put a stop to this thing.

Though I have to admit, one thing that will suck if something breaks loose in the next 18 years, I had $100 bucks saying that the US people are too apathetic (or was it pathetic) to do anything until, at least, 2020.

--
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
Re:What would I think if... by GMontag451 · 2002-09-20 08:48 · 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.
Re:What would I think if... by GMontag451 · 2002-09-20 08:50 · Score: 2

Your post was going along fine until this line:
The only saving grace was that the Berlin Wall fell and Germany was re-united under a free-er (compared to the east) government. Maybe with some luck the US people will put a stop to this thing.
The Berlin Wall was the product of the *Soviets*, not Hitler. It wasn't even built until the late 60's.
Re:What would I think if... by Windcatcher · 2002-09-20 09:17 · Score: 1

Um, what's the problem with his statement? In the last paragraph he had already transitioned to EAST Germany and the Stasi, i.e. the Communists, not the Nazis. He even parenthetically said in his above statement, "compared to the east". He's talking about EAST Germany, you know, the part behind Churchill's Iron Curtain.

Ok, go back your argument. I'm just keeping you honest :)
Re:What would I think if... by Sylver+Dragon · 2002-09-20 09:26 · Score: 2

The Berlin Wall was the product of the *Soviets*, not Hitler. It wasn't even built until the late 60's.

I think you missed the following line in my post, about mid-way down, before the time period jump.

Going a bit further along in history...

--
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
Re:What would I think if... by pianophile · 2002-09-20 13:34 · Score: 1

The Berlin wall was built in 1961.

--

'Your brain is God.' -- Dr. Timothy Leary
Re:What would I think if... by eno2001 · 2002-09-20 17:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

> 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.

Yes... You are. But, consider this: "religious freedom" seem to only count for certain religions. It's all a crock. The fools who want prayer in schools and are crying out for "religious freedom" are never going to allow Bhuddists, Muslims (especially now) or even Wiccans to practice THEIR religions in school.

And "economic freedom" is only leading us down the garden path to corporate fascism. Vivendi, RIAA, MPAA, "privatization of water by Monsanto, etc... the list goes on and on... Face it, capitalism (if that's what you want to call this monkey house) is failing. Witness Enron and the big mega-merger communications scandals.

So, regardless of whether imposing our crappy western views on the rest of the world can be seen as cultural imperialism, all you are doing is assuring that the rest of the world goes down in flames with you by foisting them on others.

Overall, it seems some people are more equal than others... Maybe that's why so many other countries hate us. And "Dim Son" GW isn't making it any better. Which leads me back to a basic point fools like you seem to forget: humans are greedy, selfish and scared animals. Until someone finds a way to evolve those flawed traits out of us, all systems will continue to fail. Including ours.

I welcome the dissolution of the current Captialist/Western systems as what comes after is bound to improve on things in the same way that the current one improved on past systems.

--
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Re:What would I think if... by Qrlx · 2002-09-20 20:12 · Score: 2

Fuck all you all. Here is the shit. Berlin Airlift. East Germinay ()sp coorety cosuthamuhcas() was under coocupatopn from the Soviets. Like tanks and shit. So, berlin said "that's fudcking bullshit" and so did the U.S> troops there. And for 18 months (some assholve will corrext me) they dropped shit (VVietnam/Khe san stilye, ecxpet this waw 1950...) into berlin so that they could WITHSTAND THE SIEGE.

(nobody understands me. sighj...)

You know, like in Medieval Madness or whatever. There was this big wall, and planes dropped food and stuff... A lot like afghanistan, except the food packets wrere'nt so clearly labeled as to look like bombs. ((And the bombing didn't COINCIDE with the food being dropped))) because back in 9243, or something like that, bombs mostly blew up when they atcually made contact wtih the "groudn" instead of resemb,ing food packets. Well, that's progress I guess. Does anyone remember the little crates fromn that freaky animation movei "Forbidden Planet?" eveutnaulally the "ohms" blasted off and formed a new world. If only the world were so big. Thanx a fuzznucking lot, Disney.
Re:What would I think if... by einTier · 2002-09-21 17:51 · Score: 2

And how did you do on the playground at school?

Did you ever "make friends" with someone you didn't particularly like because it kept you from getting your lunch money stolen? Or maybe because it got you a preferencial table at lunch. Or maybe because you got to sit in the backseat of the bus on the way to school. Or because you felt bad for someone. Or because your friends liked them. Or your enemies did. Or didn't. Or because you got to have your homework done for free. Or whatever the reason, underhanded or not. Noble or not. You probably made friends with more than a few people knowing that you eventually wouldn't be able to be friends with them anymore. Or maybe you woke up one day and realized they weren't the person you thought they were or could be. Who knows, but I can guaruntee there was at least one person you wished you didn't make friends with and at least one person you made friends with against your better judgement. Sometimes you make friends with someone because there isn't anybody else.

Sure, we could demolish every non-democratic regime in all of the world. I have no doubt that we could do just that, if that was our goal. However, wars and regime changes cost lives on both sides. It becomes unpopular, and makes you unpopular. We also really cannot afford to be in every non-democratic country without some compelling issue. However, we can be in a few select countries when the cause and time is right. You can't eat a cake in one sitting, and you can't reform in the Middle East in one day -- if that's your goal.

Should we go in and change the regime in Saudi Arabia. Perhaps. In light of Sept. 11, I think there's possibly a better argument for it than for Iraq. However, the Saudi leadership as a general rule is fairly agreeable to our country. Certainly, it's not what the people want, but then again, the government isn't nessessarily working against us either. It's a lot less hostile, certainly, than Iraq or even Iran. Granted, their citizens don't seem to be targeting us, but would you feel safer with Saddam Hussein holding a nuclear weapon or the Saudi Royal family?

Also, sometimes there just isn't anyone better. We certainly could overthrow the Saudi royals, but do you really think that the regime that replaces them would be any better? I'd bet dollars to doughnuts we'd get another Taliban government within a few years, especially if we put up a "democratic" government. It's not like a democracy, especially a new one, can't just decide to vote itself back into a dictatorship. Of course, we could station men over there, and rebuild, but that's going to further aggrivate the locals and make our lives a living hell. Look at the problems we're having in Afghanistan -- we routed the Taliban, but we're still not exactly popular, nor can we really impose the rule of law anywhere but inside the major cities. Just because we overthrow a corrupt regime does not mean the people will get a better one or even that we'll get one more aligned with our beliefs.

The citizens are certainly better off, but the only reason it was in our best interest to do so was because it was obvious that Afghanistan had turned violently hostile towards us. We had to take the risk, and we had to install a new government, and we had to make sure it didn't turn out liek the last one. I have no doubt we'll do just that.

But, we can't do it everywhere. Eventually, we'll get down to the Saudi Arabias and we'll free them too. But, it would be suicide to do it now.

--
-------------------------------------------------- $665.95 -- retail price of the beast.

It's about time by stratjakt · 2002-09-20 05:32 · Score: 1, Troll

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!!!!

The US is no longer free. by The+Fanta+Menace · 2002-09-20 05:32 · 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?

Re:The US is no longer free. by /dev/trash · 2002-09-20 06:10 · Score: 1

such as where? Argentina? Saudi Arabia? How bout South Africa?
Re:The US is no longer free. by nizo · 2002-09-20 06:18 · Score: 2

What concerns me is that we all live on the same planet, and no matter where you go, presumably the US will, either directly or indirectly, effect your life. Short of immigrating to Mars (not an option yet) sooner or later many things the US does could still make your life miserable (think pollution/economic choices/military intervention/whatever). For example, once Afghanistan/Iraq/ has been emptied of all terrorist threats to the US, what then? I can think of lots of ways the US can adversely effect the world, it seems to me my chances of improving things are higher if I remain a voting US citizen.

--
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
Re:The US is no longer free. by hatchet · 2002-09-20 06:56 · Score: 1

US goverment is cotnrolled by oil! USA bought alaska from russia in 1867 because of oil. USA struck Afganistan, so they can make pipelines through it. They will strike iraq for oil, because reserves in alaska are running out.

Better countries? Plenty of them.. finnland, sweden, netherlands, ... and other -social- countries. The only problem is.. Americans are frightened of high taxes.

You're assuming that's where it stops by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-20 05:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?

Re:You're assuming that's where it stops by geekoid · 2002-09-20 07:18 · Score: 2

I as in the Air Force, the only 'combat' training I got was the chance to fire 10 rounds out of a scaled down m-16.

Also, there is surprisingly little brain washing going on.
You point is valid, but if you want the people that matter to take you seriously, Don't cuss, don't Misspell names.
Sure you have a right to do those things, but the reality is, you won't be taken seriously.
And don't threaten peoples lives.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:You're assuming that's where it stops by hyperturbopete · 2002-09-20 07:48 · Score: 1

...And because you might also be a terrorist we can hold you indefinately without any charges - thanks to the new fucking laws.

What new laws? they're just doing it, the legal justification will come later.

--
SUV's support terrorism !
Re:You're assuming that's where it stops by hyperturbopete · 2002-09-21 05:39 · Score: 1

what about the "american taliban"?? he's supposed to be a US citizen, no?

--
SUV's support terrorism !

Re:PUBLIC Libraries by Casualposter · 2002-09-20 05:34 · Score: 1

They can and they do. I drive a lot (>100K mi/yr) and I've been doing the speed limit (cruise control), with no defects on my car (like a tail light being out), nothing expired (inspection sticker, liscence plate), and have been stopped, questioned, and let go. Various reasons for pulling me over (I usually ask.) Most of them lame, like: "You were driving to straight." what ever that meant. And yeah a few times I WAS speeding, but those are nicely documented with tickets, fines, court dates, etc. I've no idea what the cops did with the answers to all of the questions they asked when the just let me go after a 20 minute break on the side of the road.

--
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons

Re:So what? by Mac+Degger · 2002-09-20 05:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

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?

Point by Point breakdown by sdjunky · 2002-09-20 05:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:Point by Point breakdown by User+956 · 2002-09-20 05:48 · Score: 1

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.

Well, unless you shout fire in a crowded theater.

Or, they classify what you say (or write) as obscenity, which is illegal.

Or, maybe they'll just convict you of conspiracy, though you've committed no actual crime.

Or, they'll hold you and your friends for 12 hours and search your car, because of what someone thought they heard you say.

Yeah, God bless America. Land of the free^H^H^H^H.

--
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.

Re:So what? by flirzan · 2002-09-20 05:37 · Score: 1

I have nothing to hide, but it still saddens me when civil liberties are taken away. I read "Mein Kampf" in high school because I was curious, and it got me labeled a skinhead. Later the same year I read "The Story of My Experiments With Truth", Ghandi's autobiography, and was labeled a hippie. So I'm a skinhead hippie, based only on the book I happened to have in my bag at the time. Now what if I had checked those books out from the local library? Sure it's a farfetched scenario, but history is full of farfetched scenarios.....

--
Twinkies sure taste good for something that is 68% air.

To where? by bluGill · 2002-09-20 05:37 · Score: 2

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.

Re:To where? by KelsoLundeen · 2002-09-20 05:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:To where? by mr+i+want+to+go+home · 2002-09-20 06:35 · Score: 1

errrr....maybe no-one told you, but your great buddies in democracy, the French, gave you that thing.
maybe they kind of did it to like, celebrate you joining them in democratic bliss.
Or maybe it was to celebrate another nation with great chicks!
Hard to tell with those jokers the french sometimes.
and those english, man, where do they get off inventing things like a parliment!?
p.s. I like finishing every sentance with 'p' tags too!
Re:To where? by StoryMan · 2002-09-20 06:54 · Score: 2

Please.

KelsoLundeen is mostly right.

America -- up until recently maybe -- has always been a destination for many people seeking freedom. One archetypical image (taken by many different photographers) in early 20th century photography is the immigrant family standing on the dock of the ship -- presumably just having come up from steerage -- to gaze at the Statue of Liberty in New York harbor.

(Coppola scored his own version of this in 'Godfather II' with little Vito staring out a lead-glass window in Ellis Island and gazing at the statue. It's a great image in a great movie. But I digress...)

The history of Jewish-American literature, for example, is dotted with narratives that deal with immigrants (German and Russian Jews) coming to America, going through Ellis Island, and settling down on the lower-east side of New York City to start their new lives. (Henry Roth's masterful 'Call it Sleep', Abraham Cahan's 'Rise of David Levinky' are but two examples.)

True, these are -- for the most part, at least -- idealized notions and narratives (although Cahan's description of early 20th century New York is mostly devoid of sentimentality) but the fact remains that America has always been considered -- at least in theory -- 'The Promised Land.' (I suspect these days that notion is met with jeers around the globe.)

Now one could argue -- and one most certainly would argue these days -- that America is not exactly a Promised Land for most folks. But traditionally, America has been the place to go if you've been persecuted and are seeking a better life. That's not to say that France or Britain aren't viable places, certainly -- and that's not to say that these days maybe France or Britain *are* the places to go.

But in the early part of the 20th century, the notion of 'Promised Land' combined with the Statue of Liberty standing in New York harbor was a powerful intoxicant for many soon-to-become-Americans. I suspect this is what the original poster is alluding to.

Idealized, yes. But, as I say, at one point in the history of our little planet, America was, indeed, the destination for all the so-called 'oppressed' peoples. (Personally, I believe it still is, although it's not too fashionable to say that these days.)
Re:To where? by mr+i+want+to+go+home · 2002-09-20 07:24 · Score: 1

Please yourself!
The facts are right, but the Americocentric view point is a touch melodramatic, especially when you consider the literary figures you reference.
Any cursory glance through new agency archives will tell stories of large ethnic emigrations to Australia, France, England, Holland, etc etc. Many many more than you might first think, being American and all, and having the 'image' of liberty firmly rooted in your culture (and yes, a powerful one it is).
The fact is you are wrong and this was not the spirit of the post. The post was suggesting that America is the last bastion of all hope for those interested in personal freedom, which I find slightly disturbing. Many countries, even yes, Germany, with all its WW2 and imperialistic baggage, have very strong democratic processes and belief in personal liberty. They may not have the statue, but they do have the resettled peoples and mulit-cultural populations to speak instead. They have the constitutions, the laws and the will, but no - not the image. By your emphasis on the image, you are very close to insinuating that the French hand out Liberty as a prize to those deemed worthy, my friend! And ofcourse, there are only two....;)
The point being that there are other paths to freedom than the American one....
...please!
Re:To where? by VoiceOfRaisin · 2002-09-20 07:31 · Score: 1

go to canada if you want freedom. go to the usa if you want less freedom but more money/less taxes.
Re:To where? by StoryMan · 2002-09-20 07:33 · Score: 2

Please.

I agree with you. Of course there are other paths to freedom and liberty. I don't deny it. And I think I said as much (several times, in fact) in my post.

But I'm not sure there are *better* paths.

But I think the original question is a powerful one: where do Americans go if they seek greater --or better -- freedoms?

Now, it depends on what you mean by "better".

Certainly an American concerned about the ominous and recent loss of his or her freedoms has a different idea of "better" than a German teenager concerned about the hegemony of America and its recent "strike first" doctrine and what this is going to mean to, say, the German economy and the overall global power balance.

But there is an undeniable irony -- and perhaps this, finally, is what the poster meant -- in the symbol -- symbol! -- of Americans (of all people) *seeking* freedom.
Re:To where? by KelsoLundeen · 2002-09-20 08:23 · Score: 2

Whatever happened to Bob and Doug MacKenzie.

They were from Canada, had freedom, and lots of beer.
Re:To where? by ZigMonty · 2002-09-20 19:29 · Score: 1

but the fact remains that America has always been considered -- at least in theory -- 'The Promised Land.' (I suspect these days that notion is met with jeers around the globe.)

From an Australian: YEP.

Re:Where in the Patriot Act does it mention this?? by Stonehand · 2002-09-20 05:37 · 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.

Re:PUBLIC Libraries by haa...jesus+christ · 2002-09-20 05:37 · Score: 1

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.

Um, if by 'free of charge' you mean 'paid for by tax payers', then yes, libraries are 'free of charge'.

Patriot Act and Libraries by EggMan2000 · 2002-09-20 05:39 · Score: 1

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 i would do to combat this: anonymous cards by Unknown+Poltroon · 2002-09-20 05:39 · Score: 2

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.

Re:So what? by CaffeineAddict2001 · 2002-09-20 05:40 · Score: 2

Besides, you're a christian. You have no secrets from God.

The eye in the sky is always watching you.

Who needs big brother, you got big daddy.

Librarians: chiefs of the pointy-heads by Zhe+Mappel · 2002-09-20 05:40 · Score: 1

If you want to cripple the instincts for thought and debate in society, there are a number of ways to do so.

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!

Re:So what? by Grunschev · 2002-09-20 05:42 · Score: 1

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.

First, this isn't just about you, it's about me too, and I do care.

Next, the government doesn't have your credit report unless you gave it to them or somebody you do business with gave it to them with your consent. The FBI doesn't know anything about your taxes, that's the IRS. By law the two are kept separate. For example, you can claim on your tax return the proceeds from your bank robbery under "other income" and the IRS by law cannot share that info with the FBI, unless there is a warrant or subpoena.

Why are people so willing to give up the rights that so many people have sacrificed their lives for? You say you were in the USAF. I thought you took an oath to protect our freedoms. Weren't you paying attention?

Igor

Re:As Inigo Montoya would say.... by AWhistler · 2002-09-20 05:42 · Score: 1

It's, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means hhhhwhat you think it means."

Churn up the karma furnace... by CommieLib · 2002-09-20 05:43 · Score: 2

This whole "sanctity of librarians" thing is just ridiculous! There are several recognized principles of confidentiality, such as doctor / patient, legal representation, confessional, etc. It seems to me (IANAL) that the rationale for these confidentialities is as follows:

The person has a reasonable expectation of privacy,
There is a public good that would be abgrogated by violating the confidence, e.g., folks won't talk to their doctors and die more often, folks won't talk to their lawyers and the search for the truth is impeded.

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.

Re:Churn up the karma furnace... by geekoid · 2002-09-20 06:27 · Score: 2

People should have the ability to read what they want without fear of government intervention.
If you make people too afraid to read something, that is the same as saying you can't read something.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Churn up the karma furnace... by SN74S181 · 2002-09-20 07:19 · Score: 1

I own copies of books that I don't expect to ever find in any library.

I'm not afraid to read them. Nobody prevents me from reading them.

I think it's ridiculous to pretend that libraries should have copies of them.

Re:PUBLIC Libraries by flirzan · 2002-09-20 05:43 · Score: 1

somebody mod this guy up, he's hit the nail on the head!

--
Twinkies sure taste good for something that is 68% air.

Some commentary I wrote on this by vsync64 · 2002-09-20 05:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

What follows is an email I sent to friends and family based on a WSJ article I read.

:

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/em ailThis ?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=2046431354&p t=Y

--
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.

Re:Some commentary I wrote on this by revery · 2002-09-20 07:52 · Score: 1

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.

The law he is referring to, as far as I know, was referring not to probable cause but to the requirement that a wiretap for an indvidual be requested in each district that the indvidual owned a phone. The requirement for probable cause to issue a warrant did not change in this case, but now only a single Federal judge has to approve the wiretap order and it applies to all phones the individual has in their name.

Previously, criminals could cross districts and acquire a new cell phone, and a new wiretap order would be required. When the law was written it was very uncommon for individuals to have multiple phones in multiple districts, or for it to be so easy to acquire a new one. That, as far as I know, is what he was referring to with his "in the era of rotary telephones" comment.

Fuck you. I am a US citizen, with rights. by Unknown+Poltroon · 2002-09-20 05:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

What they really mean by Phreakiture · 2002-09-20 05:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

--
www.wavefront-av.com

Re:PUBLIC Libraries by Ioldanach · 2002-09-20 05:45 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Those libraries which are public are provided to all and funded primarily by the local taxpayer. Access to records, if kept, of who checked out which books should follow due process procedures. Prior to the patriot act, law enforcement would need to get a warrant (U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV) detailing what they were looking for on a basis of probable cause. The patriot act circumvents that. In addition, we are guaranteed a freedom of speech (U.S. Constitution, Amendment I) which would appear to be curtailed by these subpoenas, since people should now fear to check out books which the government might identify as somehow "subversive". Note also, "For the First Amendment does not speak equivocally. . . . It must be taken as a command of the broadest scope that explicit language, read in the context of a liberty-loving society, will allow." Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 263 (1941), which is to say, "Free speech carries with it some freedom to listen." Richmond Newspapers, Inc., et al. v. Virginia et al., 448 U.S. 555, 79-243 (1980).

Choose between French and Fascist? by owlmeat · 2002-09-20 05:45 · Score: 1

No thanks. Besides, it's cold up there.

--
They stab it with their steely knives,

But they just can't kill the beast.

Re:PUBLIC Libraries by MoneyT · 2002-09-20 05:46 · Score: 2

A few notes, technicaly they can't, they need probable cause to search you. Being pulled over is not being searched. If you truely felt wronged, you could take it to court.

On the driving too straight, perhaps they ment driving to deliberately, which is a legitimate reason to pull you over. They have found that drunk drivers don't weave arround like a house fly, they very deliberately shift from one side of the lane to the other, usualy very slowly. This is often considered a tell tale sign of a drunk driver,and thus is a reasonto pull you over.

--
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984

Re:Pay cash for books by EggMan2000 · 2002-09-20 05:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

I don't understand. by budalite · 2002-09-20 05:47 · Score: 1

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?!

Re:PUBLIC Libraries by Casualposter · 2002-09-20 05:48 · 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

Ironic isn't it? by PaddyM · 2002-09-20 05:54 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

Re:Kevin, your browser is malfunctioning... by kevin+lyda · 2002-09-20 05:58 · Score: 2

what tag? and the book is hitler: hubris. i'm thinking a us website posting a story drawing any kind of comparison between the current us administration and the rise of hitler is just not going to fly. and just to be clear, i'm not saying bush is hitler, i'm saying democracy is fragile and the current american political environment is running rather roughshod over it.

--
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!

Much worse than just library records... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-20 05:58 · 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.

Re:PUBLIC Libraries by timeOday · 2002-09-20 05:58 · Score: 2

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.

1) "Goverment" is not a person with rights. It is a tool made by people for their own benefit. It we (collectively) don't want to pay people to snoop on us, we don't have to.

2) Govt. services are not free. In fact, you pay for them even if you don't want them, and even if you're ineligible for them.

Re:Seven ? by Tackhead · 2002-09-20 05:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

> 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!?!!"

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?

Re:PUBLIC Libraries by MoneyT · 2002-09-20 06:00 · Score: 5, Informative

You obviously have never taken a political science course have you? The biggest impact of any federal ruling or court decision or action is not the immediate impact but the precident it sets further down the road. For example, the creation of a national bank was not provided for in the constitution, and when the idea first came up, it was a heavy legal battle fought all the way to the supreme court. There, the decision was made based on a 3 part test.
1) Does the law explicitly violate the constitution?
2) Is the purpose bennificial to the people as individuals, the states as entities and the US as a whole?
3) Is there a better way to reach the same ends?

All this ruling did was create a national bank, but the precident for deciding how to rule on controversial laws is still in use today. Those same 3 steps, established in one of the first supreme court cases is a method that is used for many many laws today.

Likewise, there was a ruling which established that there is no such thing as an absoulte right to free speech (can't yell fire in a theater). This ruling allows for the supression of anti government propaganda durring a war. That is a scary precident.

SO is this one. If they can read your borrowing logs today, why shouldn't they be able to read your credit history tomorrow? And read your phone logs the next day? What's the difference? It's all part of the better good to save your life. Better to die young and free than old and opressed.

--
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984

Re:And when that doesn't work, you revolt by Zelet · 2002-09-20 06:00 · Score: 2

I would fight with you... if it gets worse. This is nothing to fight (physically) against. We still have voting and legal options to go through. Plus we would all be annihilated if we revolted because we wouldn't have the army's support. The freedom to bear arms thing ends at tanks and nuclear weapons. We really couldn't put up much of a struggle.

--
...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)

Re:PUBLIC Libraries by sphealey · 2002-09-20 06:04 · Score: 2

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.

The people who had their lives, fortunes, and sacred honors destroyed as a result of being placed on Richard Nixon's Enemies List might disagree with you just a bit there. James Madison (whose life was in considerable danger every day during the Revolutionary period) might disagree also.

sPh

Due process? by anthony_dipierro · 2002-09-20 06:04 · Score: 2

Due process is important.

What does this have to do with taking away life, liberty, or property?

Re:Due process? by Aexia · 2002-09-20 06:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:Due process? by anthony_dipierro · 2002-09-20 06:59 · Score: 1

No they can't.
Re:Due process? by Aexia · 2002-09-20 07:16 · Score: 1

No they can't.

If there's no due process, then *what* exactly is going to stop them from taking away your life, liberty and property on a whim?
Re:Due process? by anthony_dipierro · 2002-09-20 07:59 · Score: 1

The constitution, the federal laws, the judicial system.
Re:Due process? by Aexia · 2002-09-20 08:27 · Score: 1

The constitution, the federal laws, the judicial system.

THAT'S WHAT DUE PROCESS IS!
Re:Due process? by anthony_dipierro · 2002-09-20 09:04 · Score: 1

And it's working.

Patriot Act Posters by khill3210 · 2002-09-20 06:08 · Score: 1

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.

Re:PUBLIC Libraries by kookbox · 2002-09-20 06:08 · Score: 2, Informative

The parent has got to be a troll, but anyway: "The libraries are provided FREE of charge by the government."

PATRIOT Act legislation applies not only to public libraries, but also to school libraries (elementary through graduate school--public, private and parochial) and what librarians call special libraries--historical societies, corporate libraries, etc. Whether a library receives government funds or not (many of them don't, and the ones that do still mostly have to scrimp and hustle), they're still required to comply with the new legislation.

For some increasingly-outdated PATRIOT-ACT-related links, try this links page I put up in late July (I'm a library school student).

Re:Where in the Patriot Act does it mention this?? by Ioldanach · 2002-09-20 06:11 · Score: 2

Where does it give the FBI the right to ...

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.)

The Movie Seven... by Xiver · 2002-09-20 06:13 · Score: 1

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

"Re:PUBLIC Libraries" or "Why I'm for 1984" by mr+i+want+to+go+home · 2002-09-20 06:15 · Score: 1

What I found most distressing about this topic is the number of people who agree with measures such as the patriot act.

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

(1 : a course of formal proceedings (as legal proceedings) carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules and principles -- called also procedural due process
2 : a judicial requirement that enacted laws may not contain provisions that result in the unfair, arbitrary, or unreasonable treatment of an individual -- called also substantive due process )
www.m-w.com

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.

Re:"Re:PUBLIC Libraries" or "Why I'm for 1984" by jsonmez · 2002-09-20 06:25 · Score: 1

That's exactly the information we need our government to have, who can make bombs, and who's the most likely to based on race, knowledge, and religion. Statistics can greatly help making good guesses at who we should keep an eye on.
Re:"Re:PUBLIC Libraries" or "Why I'm for 1984" by mr+i+want+to+go+home · 2002-09-20 06:53 · Score: 1

I tried to answer this, but after a few attemps it seems futile. Maybe you're right, and government agencies should keep detailed records of every chemistry student that can be stored and used without their knowledge.
But that's actually another argument, and not really the point.
The point is the little issue of due process. This law can be used in ways that are arbitary and unreasonable, and so violate due process.
Keeping that in mind, you never answered my question - which was do you trust the authorities that have access to these powers not to use them in arbitary and unreasonable ways?
Re:"Re:PUBLIC Libraries" or "Why I'm for 1984" by jsonmez · 2002-09-20 07:03 · Score: 1

I am going to have to answer that question with a half ass answer... I say no and yes. The reason I say this is, because yes I believe in the system, so I will trust them until the it becomes so ridiculous to do so, that the trust must be revoked. And no, personally I don't trust every single person in office or power to act correctly, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt to help make the system work. I hope that answers you question. You ask a good question, and I think to live in the United States we have to trust them, at least act as if we do, because without that trust we'd be in a sorry state.
Re:"Re:PUBLIC Libraries" or "Why I'm for 1984" by mr+i+want+to+go+home · 2002-09-20 07:29 · Score: 1

I think you made a good attempt at a hard question. Much karma to you.
My only issue is, that under this law it is unlikely that you'd find out when or where or even who had broken your enviable trust!
cheers,
a.
Re:"Re:PUBLIC Libraries" or "Why I'm for 1984" by Windcatcher · 2002-09-20 09:21 · Score: 1

Words to live by:
THE ENDS NEVER JUSTIFY THE MEANS.
Never, never, never.
Learn it, live it, love it.

What If America Wasn't America? by White+Roses · 2002-09-20 06:17 · Score: 2, Redundant

Anyone else seen these commercials? They are being put on by the Ad Council, presumably praising our freedoms and so on. One has a group of people worshipping in a basement and then sneaking off home. The commercial then poses the question, "What if America wasn't America?"

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

Statue of Liberty by fantomas · 2002-09-20 06:17 · Score: 2

Actually I think there is one on the Seine in Paris... ;-)

I'm not worried... yet. by io333 · 2002-09-20 06:18 · Score: 2

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).

What about photocopiers? by Phil+Karn · 2002-09-20 06:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:What about photocopiers? by Arcturax · 2002-09-20 07:33 · Score: 2

You could also sit in the library and read and take notes on good old fashioned notebook paper, just like any student or someone doing reasearch on a topic would do.

I certainly doubt they are going to try to search every single person leaving for suspicious note taking. I suppose they could focus on Arab looking people, but aside from being wrong, it would create a huge stink with Arab-Americans and probably with many other types of American citizens as well.

--

--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs

Sew buttons! by lostboy2 · 2002-09-20 06:20 · Score: 1

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.

Re:And when that doesn't work, you revolt by MoneyT · 2002-09-20 06:22 · Score: 2

But you don't have the right to revolt! It's actualy a rather interesting bit of history but look at the constitution, there is no provision in there for the right of the people to revolt. It is in the delaration of independence, but nor in the constitution.

--
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984

is something missing here? by io333 · 2002-09-20 06:24 · 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?

Re:is something missing here? by JohnCub · 2002-09-20 06:51 · Score: 1

Right, and to expand on this idea, what about the ability of the government to scan emails for words... who is to say they aren't archiving in the process?

Sure, I know pgp and they say they aren't doing this and all that, but who's to say really?

--
-= Why can't I add 'Anonymous Coward' to my list of Foes? =-
Re:is something missing here? by Dirtside · 2002-09-20 07:35 · Score: 2

Elaborate. What specifically are you talking about? If you're talking about DoubleClick tracking my browsing via cookies, then no, because DoubleClick is not the government. If you're talking about Carnivore or [INSERT SPY-ON-OUR-OWN-CITIZENS-PROGRAM HERE], then that's potentially another story.

And, yes, we're freaked out about the government monitoring us for no good damn reason, no matter what aspect they're monitoring.

--
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased

Re:A few words of sanity (not quite) by gosand · 2002-09-20 06:25 · Score: 2

- 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.

My Local Library by RatBastard · 2002-09-20 06:26 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

What's on the form? by phriedom · 2002-09-20 06:28 · Score: 2

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.

Re:What's on the form? by Amazing+Quantum+Man · 2002-09-20 06:40 · Score: 2

Pretty much.

--
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Re:What's on the form? by balloonpup · 2002-09-21 12:19 · Score: 1

It varies everywhere I'm sure. Alas, where I live, they require a driver's license or "liquor ID".

--
I sing the doggie electric!

Rutgers University Stance: by op00to · 2002-09-20 06:30 · Score: 2, Informative

I attend and work for Rutgers University in New Jersey. I E-mailed a colleague over in the library and here was her reply:

Here is an excerpt from the a policy memo titled:
Library Circulation Records: Definition and Confidentiality
"When library materials are returned and no fine or fee is owed in connection with the loan, no record other than statistical, of that transaction is retained."

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.

mildly ammusing thing... by incrustwetrust · 2002-09-20 06:31 · Score: 1

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.

Re:vanilla by Quixadhal · 2002-09-20 06:32 · Score: 2

> 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. :)

Library record keeping by mschuyler · 2002-09-20 06:33 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Re:Library record keeping by Arcturax · 2002-09-20 07:29 · Score: 2

You could also do your reading IN the library. Just never check the book out and read it in a study corner.

Granted not saying anyone should HAVE to do that at all. But a terrorist could do that and leave no traces as to what he read while there unless someone was physically following him around the library, something that might attract notice eventually.

That shows just why this law is useless in tracking terrorists by library reading history, even if it actually WAS kept. They would have to force you to have each book scanned before you even read it there and I don't think that would be practical or acceptable to the American public.

As for this poll you mentioned, I don't know who they were surveying, but it was almost certainly a biased group.

--

--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
Re:Library record keeping by algorithm_x · 2002-09-20 07:40 · Score: 1

...that works, or we could /. the authorities and go check all the books out on subject like bombs, Israel, Jihad, Boeing 747, Avionics, etc. Of course this could be considered interfearing with law enforement. Just a thought, almost like the idea of flooding carnivore with sig lines full of propeganda.

Perhaps a better solution than inaction.

--
People usually don't say what they will do, and rarely do what they say.
Re:Library record keeping by mschuyler · 2002-09-20 09:53 · Score: 1

I heard it on NPR this morning. I believe it was the Center for the First Amendment. Yeah, they're biased. They believe in preserving the first amendment. Their survey has asked the same questions over the years and tracks changes in the publics' attitude. They are showing more people questioning first amendment rights lately. The information is in the variation in attitudes.

--
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
Re:Library record keeping by makohund · 2002-09-20 12:23 · Score: 1

Even if so...

To get single (accurate) patrons history going back a year they'd have to do a restore for EVERY SINGLE DAY (or close to it) and look at the results each time.

365 restorations of a large database snapshot file with a single query on patron holdings after each one (most of which will come up empty) would be a pretty major undertaking. And an insane waste of time considering the non-usefulness (and ambiguous nature) of the information compared to the work required to extract it.

The Failure of TIPS: Three Medical Students by Jagasian · 2002-09-20 06:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:The Failure of TIPS: Three Medical Students by Timinithis · 2002-09-20 07:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Neither of us were, there, so we only have what has ben reported to go by. Now, if you were sitting somewhere -- bus, train, Denny's -- and you overheard someone say "I'm gonna go out and kill [insert group here]." You now have a choice. Ignore it, and then live with the choice if someone from [group] was killed; or report it as this lady did. One action will certainly save a life, the other is a 50/50 shot. If you are the target, I should hope that someone errs on the side of caution for you. If not, we will all get to see your face on the news along with the person that heard the threat as your relatives ask why it wasn't reported.

Perhaps it was only someone blowing off some steam and didn't really mean it or intend to follow through with it. In today's US culture, yes Arab-looking individuals bear closer scrutiny in regards to certain actions due to the actions of a radical few. Thanks to the actions of a few, whites are labled as racist, blacks as common criminals, hispanics as illegals and now, rather than the 'rich oil magnates' Arabs are attached to terrorists.

Where does this leave us? The actions of the terrorists are meant to whittle away our freedoms, and bring fear into the country. We have a choice, report suspicious behaviour or ignore it and hope that it really is nothing to worry about. All TIPS does, is provide a means to report suspoicous activity, and I would think that "If they were saddened by 9/11, wait until 9/13" would certianly set off some alarm bells for you.

The land of the free does not come without it price: The price of blood to establish it and keep it against foreign aggressors, the price of eternal vigilance to be ready for an agressor, and lastly, the price of *RESPONSIBILITY*. Yes, responsibility is a price. You are responsible for you actions, and that means that you can not say and do what ever you feel like.

These men were irresponsible in that they were acting like they were knowledgable of some event that is about to happen. They got what they deserved. They did not lose their jobs, they were on their way to do residency and they have been placed into a different hospital, hopefully a little wiser.

--
Sig? What's a Sig?
Re:The Failure of TIPS: Three Medical Students by 5KVGhost · 2002-09-20 07:38 · Score: 2

This has absolutely nothing to do with the TIPS program. It was a citizen who saw a group of suspicious people having a conversation that suggested a possible threat, and she reported it.

Buy a scanner and listen to the police broadcasts in any sizable city or town and you'll probably hear a dozen "suspicious behaviour" or "suspicious vehicle" reports each day. The police investigate them routinely. Most of the time it's nothing; sometimes it's a domestic violence situation or a drug dealer; and sometimes (like happened a mile from my house last year) it's an armed robber hanging around waiting for the right moment to rob the convenience store. Citizen watch groups are a good thing, but the police have to be trained to act appropriately with limited or possibly inaccurate information.

For that matter, the article you link to is very clear that in this case that the police did pretty much what they should have done and acted with proper discretion. It was irresponsible and sensationalistic pseudo-journalists that spread false information and did the real damage.

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?

No. That's not going to happen. And, amazingly enough, posting to Slashdot won't get you arrested either.

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.

Then maybe you should take a deep breath and lie down for a bit. A waitress reports three men of Middle-Eastern appearance who are possibly discussing mass murder and they're stopped, searched, and questioned. So clearly that means you're going to be arrested and thrown in the gulag for reading the wrong book or having a tan. Right-o.
Re:The Failure of TIPS: Three Medical Students by eaddict · 2002-09-20 08:11 · Score: 2

simply because they looked like Muslims, Arabs, Pakastanis, Iranians, or in many people's minds "like them terrorists".

Not all all what she said. She was interviewed by a radio staion BEFORE the rest of the world got a hold of her. Check out the facts.

--
"If you are on fire you can just stop, drop, and roll. If you fall into Lava you are just dead." - my 5yr old daughter
Re:The Failure of TIPS: Three Medical Students by poot_rootbeer · 2002-09-20 08:28 · Score: 2

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 IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED.

1. She believed she heard them talking about something that could be construed as terrorist activity.
2. All she did was notify the proper authorities. After that, she had no involvement -- it was the police, not her, that chose to pull the men over, handcuff them, shut down a huge stretch of the highway, etc.

You're speaking as if the woman personally authorized military action against them solely because of their ethnicity... preposterous.

Did the police overreact? Did the media pick up on the story and blow it way out of proportion with speculation and erroneous facts? Sure. But the woman herself DID NOTHING WRONG.
Re:The Failure of TIPS: Three Medical Students by Storm+Damage · 2002-09-20 08:33 · Score: 2

Nope. The woman (in my opinion a self-righteous, nosy old biddy hungry for her 15 minutes) eavesdropped on these guys conversation and heard the following snippet, which could be construed as threatening:

''Do you think we have enough to bring it down?''
``If we don't have enough, I have contacts. We can get enough to bring it down.''

What was going on, of course, was that one of the three, who didn't have a car, was considering buying one back home, and they were discussing their options to transport it back down to Miami, where they were attending school.
Re:The Failure of TIPS: Three Medical Students by cpeterso · 2002-09-20 09:21 · Score: 2

plus the woman's report of the men's 9/11 comment seemed to change in each news article I read. Everytime she was quoted, the wording of the supposed 9/11 comment was different.

It's her word against their word. These men are innocent until proven guilty.

--
cpeterso

Re:Pay cash for books by sulli · 2002-09-20 06:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

Some geeks go to libraries, you know.

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.

Re:PUBLIC Libraries by Aexia · 2002-09-20 06:34 · Score: 2

Freedom means, doing what is best for the majority.

There is so much wrong with this statement I don't even know where to begin.

Re:And when that doesn't work, you revolt by MindStalker · 2002-09-20 06:35 · Score: 2

How do you know we wouldn't have the armys support. Its a volunteer army and while there are many top brass who don't give a damn about the average american. Most of your common soldiers, and even many of the pilots and tank drivers would quickly turn their guns on their superiors if ordered to kill american citizens for no good reason. Believe it or not our military men and women arn't brainwashed. Now the FBI I woulnd't nessearly trust to do the same. You would definatly have muscle on both sides. If it came down to that.

Remedies by jsgrahamus · 2002-09-20 06:36 · Score: 3, Informative

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 you guys. Really. by RatBastard · 2002-09-20 06:39 · Score: 2

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.

Re:PUBLIC Libraries by Ashyukun · 2002-09-20 06:40 · Score: 1

Wrong. Dead wrong, on so many points and levels.

"libraries are paid for by taxes.... Yes, duh. Of course, and that makes them free. "

No, that is what makes them exist. They're only 'free' to people who don't pay taxes. If our tax dollars didn't go to them, they would have to charge for membership.

"When you checked out a book and what books you checked out should be public information, because my tax dollars pay for you to be able to check out books"

My tax dollars (presumably) pay for the roads that you drive on- thus, I (or anyone else) should be able to search your car at will. Sound unreasonable? Of course. But it's the exact same principle.

"Also, I have to mention this, people did not die defending their rights to not have their library records seen"

People didn't die defending your rights to P2P either- they died for their country and for what they believed in. I don't know what those who died thought, but from what I've seen as an Army brat, they probably would have prefered that any freedom not be taken away so lightly.

"Freedom means, doing what is best for the majority."

This is where I most strongly object. Freedom does NOT mean "doing what is best for the majority." Following that logic, Hitler was a champion of freedom, because he was doing what was best for the majority of Germans. If anything, freedom is doing, or at least attempting to do, what is best for everyone. Does this mean that the majority will not always get their way? Yes. But it also means that the minorities won't get neglected, trampled on, or 'cleansed' (in a perfect situation).

"There is no due process in a time of war, and we are at war right now."

I believe that Congress (who, according to the Constitution, if my memory serves, is the only body capable of legally declaring war...) would beg to differ with you. Due process was not (and has not been) suspended during the 'war on drugs'. :p

"And yes, you do have to pick your battles, you do have to play the game. People who do not believe this and still hold fast to their "library rights" will never win the game and never make any impact on the world or their own freedom."

I would rather fight every battle there is rather than sit back and say "Nope, not important. Not important either. Not yet... What? What do you mean the game is over?!?!" Besides, there is no way of knowing whether this will be an 'important' or 'impactful' battle. The only time it is possible to see that is after the 'war'...

Being Americans means (or at least I feel it should mean) holding what we do to a higher standard. If we decide that due process isn't important during a 'time of war', what will be next? How much due process existed in all of the regimes that we have fought in the past? If you take away due process and accountability by the government, the U.S. is that much closer to the Third Reich.

Re:PUBLIC Libraries by AcidBomb · 2002-09-20 06:43 · Score: 1

Nothing but an obvious troll. The tripe you spout here about "Freedom means, doing what is best for the majority" is ludicrous. Are you joking? This is not a socialist country.

Re:So what? by Windcatcher · 2002-09-20 06:43 · Score: 1

Good Lord. I wonder how many "patriotic" Germans were saying things like this in 1937. "Oh, stop worrying, it's HARMLESS!" There are so many things wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin.

Re:And when that doesn't work, you revolt by makohund · 2002-09-20 06:45 · Score: 1

>Plus we would all be annihilated if we revolted >because we wouldn't have the army's support.

Former Marine speaking here...

That is (thankfully) complete bull. Loyalty to ones country and the people in it (as opposed to current leadership and orders) is even more ingrained in the military population than obedience to orders is.

In fact the UCMJ specifically allows disobedience of direct orders that a reasonable person would determine as unlawful, completely wrong, or insane. (My words, not the UCMJ.) I can't think of anything more likely to evoke a response of "No freaking way... and I'm holding the gun here" than being ordered to fire on AMERICAN CIVILIANS.

>The freedom to bear arms thing ends at tanks and >nuclear weapons. We really couldn't put up much >of a struggle.

As if the people driving the tanks and pushing the buttons aren't human beings that would refuse. (Those are politicians, not soldiers. There may not be much distinction at the multi-star general level, but there's a hell of a big difference below that.)

Hell, even the Chineese military often has a hard time with stuff like that. (Remember that tank in the square? It stopped, didn't it? And tried to go around the guy. Because a human being was driving it. And to do otherwise just wouldn't be fair or right.)

I'm not saying that these kinds of morals always hold. Or that there aren't scumbags without them. Or even how one can have a sense of morality killing a person in one situation but not another. (Since war does in fact kill people. They know it better than anyone else, in fact.)

I'm saying that our military is not just some big freaking robotic machine of death and destruction. All of that crap is useless without people to run it. Do you think Johnny Smith is going to lead a charge through a cornfield in Nebraska to kill some farmers?

Questionable police paramilitary action on individuals and small groups happens. But full-scale war against the American populus? That is insane. (Civil wars happen, but the causes and mechanics are different... and I don't see this stuff coming close to anything like that.)

Bottom line... the army is not going to come marching in against American people to kill them. If ordered to, you'd see mass refusal.

There's even enough examples of this sort of thing happening in history that we have specific words for them:

insurrection n. The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.

(Note: The military is NOT a civil authority.)

And even more specifically:

mutiny n. Open rebellion against constituted authority, especially rebellion of sailors against superior officers.

(Note: Not restricted to sailors by any means.)

government Plot,...maybe? by SphynxSR · 2002-09-20 06:45 · 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.

Read for comprehension, please. by RatBastard · 2002-09-20 06:55 · Score: 2

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.

Re:Read for comprehension, please. by tutal · 2002-09-20 21:43 · Score: 1

You pose a nice scenario of the typical "conspiracy theory" crowd that get their undies all in a bundle over supposed "loss of personal freedoms." Frankly I don't buy it. Having talked to librarians about this, they have told me that in fact the justice department (and the law enforcement agencies) have not gained ANY additional power to look at patron records. Frankly though, if it were the case that pre 9/11 law enforcement agencies were less empowered to find possible terrorists, I still would support this provision on the basis that anything done in public cannot have a reasonable air of privacy. If you have ever tried to get security clearance you would know what I am talking about. Granted getting security clearance and being investigated for terrorism are two completely different things (I digress).

Now on the subject of "personal liberties." Our society has changed much in the 60 some odd years of the computer revolution, and subsequently the society we live in is no where near what it was in the 20s or 30s. Additionally, the primary function of the government of the United States of America is to protect Life, Liberty, and the persuit of Happiness. Now, if that means that Big Brother watches bits and pieces of my life, fine, if that means that I can continue to live, pursue happiness, and yes have my liberties, then be it so. But one must be careful as to defining what our liberties are, to that look to the constitution. In the case of libraries, there is no such protection, for it is not a search or siezure of out property, a restriction on my freedom to speak, worship, etc.

Now to your point of the subpoena, it still requires a court order. And in actuality a warrant is much easier to obtain than a subpoena (look at the number of denied warrants compared to denied subpoenas in your local government). Yet still this small technicality is not the point. It is the fact that we live in a new world with new and more dangerous threats. If you don't believe me, even experts believe that a massive terrorist action could be committed soon, whether it be some kind of biological scare like the Anthrax ordeal (or something much worse like nerve or vx gas), suicide bombings like those that have plagued Israel, or some kind of nuclear detonation. I feel it is only time, unless the intelligence community can be correct 100% of the time. Rember, a terrorist only need be successful one time and we have a disaster.

I refuse to be a kool-aid drinker. I will not be spoon-fed my opinions by the national media, or even slashdot for that matter. The question I have for you is what have you done about it? While you may say "there's nothing I can do," you are misleading yourself. Unless you were one of the 12% who voted recently (yes I'm talking about your local primaries) then you do not even deserve to be complaining or even having a damn opinion on this subject.

If you have any humanity, you will care at minimum, about the lives that are close to you. If you have any humanity left over, take up a cause that actually matters in life, billions of people would dream of the day that they could live in the kind of lifestyle that we live in.

Re:PUBLIC Libraries by jsonmez · 2002-09-20 06:58 · Score: 1

Checking out books and driving on roads is a privilage, not a right. You waste time arguing about trivial things. Freedom is doing what is best for the majority, there is no other real way to define freedom. When I am most free is when I am most dependant on others for my welfare, but I don't have to worry about if I can trust them or where my help comes from. You are always free to make choices, have thoughts, and express yourself in this country, but you will never own anything. The land you live on does not belong to you, but to the government, (you pay taxes on it), the library you visit does not either, nor the roads, but... thankfully we are privilaged enough to be able to use these things. Innocent people have nothing to hide. Only the guilty need to hide things, therefore, no one should be opposed to having all information about themselves made available to the government, unless they are the ones who deserve it to be so. I think you will find that you will lose this battle, perhaps not to me, but to the world. When nuclear weapons, (and even more powerful weapons) become as easy to make as pipe bombs (and someday they will) you will have to give up certain freedoms for the human race to continue to exist. Those times are near, things like this, and other initiatives will slow this down, and help deter people in the future, who are really capable of doing damage from doing so.

Re:PUBLIC Libraries by gid-goo · 2002-09-20 07:02 · Score: 1

Tyranny of the majority is basically mob rule. And as any good Black Sabbath fan knows: When you listen to Fools the mob rules.

Someday I will earn to type by RatBastard · 2002-09-20 07:02 · Score: 2

GACK! Did I type that mess? My fingers must be on strike or something.

--
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.

Effect on Libertarians? by SlipJig · 2002-09-20 07:04 · Score: 1

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.

Speaking of privacy by nurb432 · 2002-09-20 07:05 · Score: 1

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 ----

Darn, guess I shouldn't borrow.... by kaladorn · 2002-09-20 07:15 · Score: 2

... 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."

Re:Darn, guess I shouldn't borrow.... by Beliskner · 2002-09-20 09:36 · Score: 2

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
Why doesn't Bush just burn all the books like Hitler^H^H^H^H^H^H any ptriotic American would.
This law would also allow the Government to easiy "manufacture" false evidence Nixon-style. Together with detainment of people belonging to certain religions without the right to a lawyer, this means Bush -> Hitler. I always knew that the US Presidential system would explode in America's face one day, but I would never have expected it to turn into a fascist state like it is now.
All other democracies in Europe have so much red tape the Governments can't do anything even if they want to, but America thinks its current pseudo-dictatorial system is best. Memo to America: Eternal vigilance must be changed to eternal and prompt vigilance when the new Constitution is written after the imminent American civil war of 2003-2010.

--
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?

Re:PUBLIC Libraries by Raven15 · 2002-09-20 07:18 · Score: 1

Loopy bastard.

Re:PUBLIC Libraries by gid-goo · 2002-09-20 07:18 · Score: 1

Holy shit. You're an American citizen? I hope that there aren't very many like you because that would be terrible for this nation. I value my freedoms and I feel that is what makes America great. Not that we're free, but that some portion of the population strives for an ideal and doesn't seek compromise. You're definition of free is basically a short distance from fascism. You are justifying the removal of all freedom in the name of a safety which doesn't exist and is impossible to attain. I'm not a big anti-communist but you are espousing the worst of Soviet communism. Please, we have enough quasi-fascists in our government and society turning our country into a police state. Don't be one of them.

Re:PUBLIC Libraries by Aexia · 2002-09-20 07:21 · Score: 2

Freedom is doing what is best for the majority, there is no other real way to define freedom.

You don't know what the f*ck freedom is, you half-wit troll.

Checking out books [...] is a privilage, not a right.

Bzzz. Thanks for playing. Come back when you're current on constitutional law.

Innocent people have nothing to hide. Only the guilty need to hide things, therefore, no one should be opposed to having all information about themselves made available to the government, unless they are the ones who deserve it to be so.

Please post your real name, home address, phone number, social security number, birth date and credit card information. After all, what do you have to hide?

Ashcroft. by SupahVee · 2002-09-20 07:21 · Score: 2

Obviously, as the patriot act was his baby, and assuming he did his homework, I can see two outcomes from putting this provision in that evil piece of legslation:

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."

Re:Ashcroft. by eaddict · 2002-09-20 08:07 · Score: 1

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?

Need to get rid of his boss.

--
"If you are on fire you can just stop, drop, and roll. If you fall into Lava you are just dead." - my 5yr old daughter

Re:Seven ? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-09-20 07:23 · 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.

Data Mining by adb · 2002-09-20 07:25 · Score: 1

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.

It's not the librarians, it's the software by r_barchetta · 2002-09-20 07:25 · Score: 1

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.

Doublespeak by bkh26 · 2002-09-20 07:40 · Score: 1

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"

Re:So what? by Wiwi+Jumbo · 2002-09-20 07:45 · Score: 1

Um... Troll +1?

No I mean it... the above is neither Insightful, Informative or really that Interesting yet I want to mod it up for more people to see. (and I really can't say it's Underrated)

What do you do in such a situation?

I for one post a message so that such decisions are past to others. :-)

--
Wiwi
"I trust in my abilities,
but I want more then they offer"

Simple solution to retention of checkout data by nneul · 2002-09-20 07:46 · Score: 2

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.

Re:Simple solution to retention of checkout data by andrewirwin · 2002-09-20 09:21 · Score: 1

So what happens if you return the library book, but the library forgets to record the fact? Then you've got to cough up the money for the book you returned.

On more than one occasion, at more than one library, I've had to go down into the stacks, find the book I still had "charged out", and show it to the person at the checkout desk.

And another point: what's worse, someone being able to find out what I read or the very idea that knowing what someone reads could be used as evidence against them somehow? What about freedom to associate with ideas?

(Note, I still think that library records should be secret, but it worries me that secrecy is so important.)

Warrants are ABOUT collecting evidence? by stevew · 2002-09-20 07:48 · 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??

Re:Warrants are ABOUT collecting evidence? by jsdkl · 2002-09-21 08:47 · Score: 1

First of all, we are NOT at war with anyone but ourselves. And an interesting note, since you seem to not remember (or research) any history related to current events - the United States has played major roles in Afghan politics and especially in their civil war starting in the late 1970s, where we did some not-exactly-ethical things in the name of democracy.
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq2.html provides some basic information, if you should care to look farther before posting YOUR knee-jerk reaction.
Ryan
PS: They're my rights and I'm going to defend them. Too many have been taken away in just the past year. Do the research.
Re:Warrants are ABOUT collecting evidence? by stevew · 2002-09-22 02:54 · Score: 2

We are not at war with Afghanistan - nor did I say that. We are at war
with Al Qaeda. Afghanistan happens to be the first
place we had to take military action.

The scale of the attack on the
WTC slightly exceeds that of Pearl Harbor. A state
of war does exist. We haven't formally declared such
a thing for many years (which I think is a mistake) but
if it walks like a duck..it's a duck/war.

So - your "knee-jerk" reaction was to talk about something
I didn't mention, i.e. Aghanistan, to change the
topic of the discussion. However, that won't work here
because I wasn't talking about ANYTHING to do with
Afghanistan, or Yemen, or Iraq. I was talking about
the FACT that these searches are still required to
have warrants and that a judge has to approve them.

Try replying to that issue instead of waving your arms in
other directions spewing your favorite drivel!

--
Have you compiled your kernel today??
Re:Warrants are ABOUT collecting evidence? by jsdkl · 2002-09-22 11:15 · Score: 1

Aparently you didn't bother reading. The US was probably the biggest factor in Al Qaeda coming to power. All I have to say is that we've deserved far worse for far longer.

Also, the scale of the WTC attacks was puny compared to Pearl Harbor. PH was well planned and executed by a large military force, not some nuts in stolen jets.

Ryan

Interesting PSA on TV by Kaz+Riprock · 2002-09-20 07:53 · Score: 2

There's an interesting PSA on TV if you happen to be watching late at night along the same ilk.

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

Only libraries? by k-0s · 2002-09-20 07:54 · Score: 1

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

Re:So what? by fenix+down · 2002-09-20 07:57 · Score: 1

Do christians seriously think like that? How can you do anything? Just thinking about the concept creeps the shit out of me. I'm gonna be paranoid the rest of the day here.

Re:PUBLIC Libraries by jsonmez · 2002-09-20 08:02 · Score: 1

The fact that the librarian can be jailed for telling that this happened is total BS! I don't agree with that part, that I would fight for. That is not acceptable, but knowing what I read is.

Re:PUBLIC Libraries by Ashyukun · 2002-09-20 08:02 · Score: 1

I would most definitely beg to differ... ;p

freedom n.

The condition of being free of restraints.
Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.
1. Political independence.
2. Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.
Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want.
The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon.
Ease or facility of movement: loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom.
Frankness or boldness; lack of modesty or reserve: the new freedom in movies and novels.
1. The right to unrestricted use; full access: was given the freedom of their research facilities.
2. The right of enjoying all of the privileges of membership or citizenship: the freedom of the city.
A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the seductive freedoms and excesses of the picaresque form (John W. Aldridge).

[Middle English fredom, from Old English frodm: fro, free; see free + -dm, -dom.]

Synonyms: freedom, liberty, license
These nouns refer to the power to act, speak, or think without externally imposed restraints. Freedom is the most general term: In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free (Abraham Lincoln). Liberty stresses the power of free choice: liberty, perfect liberty, to think, feel, do just as one pleases (William Hazlitt). License sometimes denotes deliberate deviation from normally applicable rules or practices to achieve a desired effect: poetic license. Frequently, though, it denotes undue freedom: the intolerable license with which the newspapers break... the rules of decorum (Edmund Burke).

You are quite right, we are free to make choices, have thoughts, and express ourselves but not because every human has the God-given right to do so (even if everyone should), but because we stand up for attempts to take those rights away from us.

How exactly did property and land come into this? Sorry, but this discussion isn't about property ownership and taxes on it, it's about freedom from unreasonable persecution (which I hope I can spell properly today :p) by the government side-stepping around due process in the name of 'safety'.

Everybody has things that they want to hide. Are they things that should get them in trouble with the law? In most cases, probably not. Unfortunately, 'innocence' is a very relative term. By our and definition of 'innocence', all the girls running around in belly shirts and painted-on shorts are not generally guilty of anything besides (occasionally) bad taste. In most fundamental Arab countries, they are guilty of a number of things. Depending on whose definition of 'innocent' you're using, everyong is guilty of something. That's where the government knowing everything about everyone is dangerous. What happens when, say, a new President and Congress are elected, and happen to agree that, say, Japanese Anime corrupts people and undermines the American way. Since they already (in your world, where I sure as Hell hope to never live) know everything about everyone, they can (without having to justify it or explain why) round up anyone who has ever bought, rented, or borrowed, etc., any Anime and lock them up as Enemies of the State. Replace Anime with just about anything. From the news the last few years, violent FPS games. We could lock up anyone who has ever bought Quake, UT, Doom, GTA, etc. for being prone to violence. Granted, these are extremes, but those are what have to be guarded against.

I personally don't happen to be as fatalistic as to believe that nearly as drastic measures are necessary to ensure the continuation of the human race. I do believe that giving away our freedoms at the drop of a hat isn't fighting or preventing terrorism, especially when all it will likely do is cause problems for more innocent (by our current laws and my opinion) people.

The software logs charges by r_barchetta · 2002-09-20 08:04 · Score: 1

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.

Re:The software logs charges by makohund · 2002-09-20 12:45 · Score: 1

>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.

Yep. They do log everything. But with a backup system/rotation in place, the length of time neccessary to keep the log for disaster recovery isn't very large. (In fact, would only be neccessary to keep the log since the latest backup... usually daily.) So in theory you could chuck it after a day. Of course, no one does that. :)

>Yes, I meant to say 'when.' :)

Geez, what are you running? :)

In the 10+ year history of this system, I can pretty much count up all of the downtime... even scheduled downtime... none required any recovery.

3 1 1 1 8
1 2

I think three times to upgrade hardware for more capacity or horsepower. Once to install a network card. One to replace a dead tape drive. Twice during power failures that lasted longer than the UPS. Once to change platforms/automation systems. Once for a major wiring/physical layout overhaul. About 4 times for OS and 4 more for application upgrades. I guess that makes about 14 planned and 3 unplanned downtimes in 10 years... not too shabby if you ask me. :)

Of course for most of that history it was an HP 3000 running MPE. Twas a beautiful old tank!

>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.

I've known a few that don't but most do. I rotate them out on a regular frequent basis, but retentio n beyond that is totally random. So they're either gone, or I may have just happened to clean them up just then... what a coincidence! Better just try our backups and see whatcha can do with them!

Either way, that's a lot of trouble to get a reading history which is of pretty dubious usefulness IMHO. I doubt they'd bother. :)
Re:The software logs charges by r_barchetta · 2002-09-21 04:55 · Score: 1

First, let me get the answer to the hardware question out of the way. It wouldn't matter what I was running - I don't trust hardware to not fail. :) Now, you have to put your trust somewhere so I guess I would rather trust the ability to recover the data. I am completely happy to be wrong about the hardware failure issue, but I still think being prepared for the worst is not a bad idea.

So, on to logs and backups. Yes, you could delete your history logs daily. But I think you'd have some very unhappy librarians to deal with if you did. It would probably come up just about the time they tried to generate their monthly circulation statistics. No automation software history logs, no stats. Every library system I have worked in has reported circulation and other types of stats. Usually monthly, quarterly and yearly. (Weekly and daily is probably going overboard - even for libraries...) You're more likely to need to keep those logs around for a year, rather than a day. It all depends on how far back the system wants to be able to generate those numbers.

Of course, that assumes that you include the automation software history logs as part of your system backups. You know, on the off-chance that you'd need to reload everything. (There's my paranoia sneaking in again. :) )

And don't be fooled. I doubt seriously that the FBI would weed through your backups to find the info they wanted. It's more likely that they would approach the library and say "we need the circulation history for person xyz" and make the library come up with the data.

Like I said, it would be a chore, but it is possible. What I really wanted to do was point out that just because you returned the book does not mean that no one could ever find out you checked it out. How possible that is depends on the policies of the library system.

Nonetheless, this is very chilling. What would be interesting would be if libraries started to protest this by not keeping their history logs past what they'd need to recover the system. Stats would go out the window but that would be quite a statement.

As for the value of someone's reading history I'm with you all the way. I never meant to imply that they're on the right track by demanding reading that information. I just wanted people to know that the demands they make are not always impossible.

-r

--
Just because something is free does not mean you have to take it.
Re:The software logs charges by makohund · 2002-09-23 08:00 · Score: 1

>I don't trust hardware to not fail. :)

Of course not... but it's sure a pleasure to work with hardware that consistently doesn't fail. :)

>So, on to logs and backups. Yes, you could delete >your history logs daily. But I think you'd have >some very unhappy librarians to deal with if you >did. It would probably come up just about the >time they tried to generate their monthly >circulation statistics. No automation software >history logs, no stats.

Not neccessarily. Depends on how your system tracks statistics. All of the ones I've worked with so far either have dedicated statistics tracking in the database or ticker data (count/date) actually stored with item or patron records. The only purpose of the log is as a log... what is going on and when... and as a way to roll in transactions occuring since the latest backup if neccessary.

>Every library system I have worked in has >reported circulation and other types of stats.

Definitely.

>Usually monthly, quarterly and yearly. (Weekly >and daily is probably going overboard - even for >libraries...)

Actually, not overkill at all. Our last system had not only daily stats, but hourlies... in a nice standard report. It was found to be very valuable for scheduling... both staffing and open hours. (When you are very busy, you want more staff in the building. And if no patrons are ever in the building after 7pm on a tuesday, perhaps the hours should be changed to shorten that day and lengthen another. And so on.) The one we have now doesn't give that much detail in the database. But we still get daily stats from (you guessed it) the log files. A script parses the log every night to get/print stats from the previous open day. Then it is rotated out and held onto (just in case) until I feel like cleaning out the archived logs. And if I don't get around to it myself, they get dumped after a month anyway.

--But they are in the backups!--

> You're more likely to need to keep those logs >around for a year, rather than a day. It all >depends on how far back the system wants to be >able to generate those numbers.

In addition to the daily stats we get from the logfiles, the system itself tracks all other stats we need. (Without matching patrons to items.) There are both monthly and yearly counters, which are reset every month/year by a script that resets the counters.

Every month we generate a full range of reports and statistics... everything we'll ever need. These are kept forever. We've got them clear back as far as one wants to check. But they're just numbers. :)

>Of course, that assumes that you include the >automation software history logs as part of your >system backups. You know, on the off-chance that >you'd need to reload everything. (There's my >paranoia sneaking in again. :) )

Yes they're on the backups. But the daily snapshot of the database means only a day's worth of logs is neccessary for reloading transactions.

The rotation is monthly... the primary purpose is for a current system restore, so that's as far back as we need. The last full backup would restore the system... each incremental includes a db snapshot from the night before, and then you'd need the logs from that day.

So even with logfiles and db snapshots they'd only get back a month here, if they wanted to bother. :)

>It's more likely that they would approach the >library and say "we need the circulation history >for person xyz" and make the library come up with >the data.

Which to our knowledge does not exist beyond what they currently have out. "Maybe our vendor will know how to get it out of the system. Talk to them and get your data. Oh... you want us to do it? Excuse me while I call our local media to inform them of our closure until we are finished assisting with an FBI investigation."

>Like I said, it would be a chore, but it is >possible. What I really wanted to do was point >out that just because you returned the book does >not mean that no one could ever find out you >checked it out. How possible that is depends on >the policies of the library system.

Exactly... I just want to point out that vulnerability of ones privacy in this regard is up to your library. It is perfectly possible to limit information retention as much as possible while still maintaining disaster recovery procedures and proper statistics and reporting.

>Nonetheless, this is very chilling. What would be >interesting would be if libraries started to >protest this by not keeping their history logs >past what they'd need to recover the system.

Exactly.

>Stats would go out the window but that would be >quite a statement.

Again, depends on how/when they are generated, and how the system retains the information neccessary to generate them. Not all rely on the logs for that.

>As for the value of someone's reading history I'm >with you all the way. I never meant to imply that >they're on the right track by demanding reading >that information. I just wanted people to know >that the demands they make are not always >impossible.

Agreed. And I feel it is part of my job to make sure that it is as close to impossible as possible. We don't want that info for ourselves, and our patrons certainly don't want it kept. So we don't. We'd comply fully with any serious investigation, but we honestly wouldn't have much info to give them. And I think there are better avenues of investigating then coming to us to snoop on their reading habits. They can go to someone's residence with a proper warrant, and look at the bookshelfs themselves if they want that.

Re:Pay cash for books by njdj · 2002-09-20 08:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Pay cash for books by brandorf · 2002-09-20 08:30 · Score: 1

Loke I said, It never bothered me to give out this information, because usually already had it (Waldenbooks/Borders discount card) It always bothered me when Radio Shack did this because they never seemed to do anything with this information, so they know I stop by every so often to buy some of their overpriced parts, the least they could do is mail me a damn coupon or something. A friend of mine told me it was related to how radio shack employees get their commission. Whatever, this is off topic now.

--

Bork Bork Bork!!

bookstores.. by Barbarian · 2002-09-20 08:37 · Score: 2

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.

Re:Too bad Canada doesn't care... by legojenn · 2002-09-20 09:04 · Score: 1

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.

Re:So what? by Planesdragon · 2002-09-20 09:06 · Score: 2

You say you were in the USAF. I thought you took an oath to protect our freedoms. Weren't you paying attention??

Actually, my father was in the USAF. I was just born and raised under their care.

And, in any rate, who died for the freedom to hide from your actions?

I would rather it be the norm of everyone knowning everything about everyone than the current state, where no one can be questioned about their actions because of "privacy."

Re:So what? by Planesdragon · 2002-09-20 09:09 · Score: 2

Who needs big brother, you got big daddy.

Exactly. As a matter of faith, nothing I do is private. It helps to keep me from straying when I know that, eventually, someone will ask me what I was doing on that website at 3:12 a.m....

Plus it lets me play devil's advocate on an apparantly undebatable issue like this one.

Re:So what? by Planesdragon · 2002-09-20 09:13 · Score: 1

So you thought the excessive following (call it harrassment) towards Einsten, Luther King and many, many obviously peacefull folk were justified?

Yes and no.

It makes sense to keep tabs on a german national who has conceptualized the deadliest weapon ever known, or the leader of a revolutionarly movement.

It crosses the line when obsevance goes over to harassment, which the FBI did all too often under Hoover.

But just because sex is sometime rape doesn't mean that all sex is bad; the FBI is supposed to keep a thousand eyes open, and if they can watch invisiblity, harassment can't happen in the regular course of investigation.

Considering that there are terrorist cells operating in the US, and just over a year ago they killed 3,000 american citizens + (and sparked a war), I'm willing to lean towards the Big Brother side for a few years. If the FBI abuses the power again, we can take it away again.

Idiot by RatBastard · 2002-09-20 09:20 · Score: 2

Innocent people have nothing to hide.

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.

Re:PUBLIC Libraries by cpeterso · 2002-09-20 09:24 · Score: 1

actually, the FBI's real plan is:

1. Make profile of someone
2. ???
3. PROFIT!!!!!!!

--
cpeterso

tecnology != freedom != capitalism by Kyusaku+Natsume · 2002-09-20 09:27 · Score: 1

subject says it all

--
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!

Re:Seven ? by Ian+Bicking · 2002-09-20 09:43 · Score: 2

Except that it seems like most parts of the PATRIOT Act also involve secrecy, and a general denial of any citizen participation. As in this case with libraries -- we have no idea how often this is being used. We cannot have any idea, because it is illegal for the librarians to tell anyone that this is happening.

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?

This affects librarians right to legal cousel? by Blaede · 2002-09-20 09:44 · Score: 1

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.

Re:This affects librarians right to legal cousel? by lemkebeth · 2002-09-20 10:28 · Score: 1

If they can't talk to a lawyer then this law will be shot down the moment that that issue goes to the Supreme Court.

The so-called USA PATRIOT Act by scott-thomason · 2002-09-20 09:45 · 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

Ephiphany by Windcatcher · 2002-09-20 10:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

Let me preface the following statement by saying that I'm a registered Republican. Both of my parents are Republicans as well, and we all voted for GWB.

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.

Re:Ephiphany by metachimp · 2002-09-20 10:58 · Score: 1

Then, you, as a conservative in the Rockefeller vein, need to take back your party from the people that GWB had to pander to by appointing Ashcroft, namely the so-called "Christians" who arrogantly assume that this country is for them and them only. These are the people that (wrongly) argue that the U.S. was originally intended to be a theocracy, that there's no constitutional basis for a seperation of church and state. They look at the Taliban and think "Great idea, but the wrong religion".

I'm not a member of any political party, I tend to vote either Democrat or Green, but I have, and probably will again, vote for a Republican if I think they can do the best job.

Your party has been hijacked by people who at best are a minor segment of the Republican party, but somehow, every Republican in office or running for office feels like he has to throw them a bone, failing to realize that by telling them to get stuffed, they might be able to pick up more votes than they would have if every single one of those "Christians" voted.

Next time Ashcroft visits your home town (I don't have to worry, because Ashcroft would never, ever set foot in the SF Bay Area...) I suggest you go to see him speak, and be sure to dress up like a calico cat. (Ashcroft apparently believes that they are agents of Satan. Yes, he is the Attorney General.)

--
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg

Turn-about by DoctorPepper · 2002-09-20 10:17 · Score: 1

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.

a source for the above, unfortunately by disenfranchised · 2002-09-20 10:24 · Score: 2, Informative

"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?

speaking of... by commodoresloat · 2002-09-20 10:43 · Score: 2

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.

Re:Where in the Patriot Act does it mention this?? by muleboy · 2002-09-20 11:28 · Score: 1

What about those guys being charged right now with
aiding bin Laden by going to his summer camp?

I do volunteer work for a local by Archfeld · 2002-09-20 11:39 · Score: 2

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 ?

How about nickname it Pee act, or apply acronym by Air-Op · 2002-09-20 11:56 · Score: 1

Privacy
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.. ... well I can't think of it..

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)

OT: about 278 ppl arrested pleading guilty by gnovos · 2002-09-20 15:59 · Score: 2

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!"

Re:OT: about 278 ppl arrested pleading guilty by Safety+Cap · 2002-09-21 02:43 · Score: 2

holding pen for up to two months
What about that that pesky 6th amendment?
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Oh wait, we're holding "terrorists," er "unlawful combatants," er... uh... whatever, in Camp X-Ray, without access to lawyers, and we're planning on haveing some non-public (i.e., secret) trials, and not inform them of the charges, and deny witnesses, and laywers....
Um. Right. Bill of rights? What bill of rights?
Yes, I DID sign my loyalty oath! Here it is! I'm not a threat! NO!!! HEEEELLLLPPPP!!!!~#$&#@*( NO CARRIER

--
Yeah, right.

no warrant by maggots+are+protein · 2002-09-20 16:46 · Score: 1

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.

Libraries are NOT provided "free" by Reziac · 2002-09-20 17:34 · Score: 2

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?

Re:PUBLIC Libraries by This+Is+Ridiculous · 2002-09-20 18:09 · Score: 1

Freedom is doing what is best for the majority, there is no other real way to define freedom.

Checking out books and driving on roads is a privilage, not a right.

Innocent people have nothing to hide. Only the guilty need to hide things

If this guy isn't a troll, we should just surrender to bin Laden now--America is completely f*cked.

--
Hey, you try to find an open nick these days!

My favorite is gone! by Tablizer · 2002-09-20 18:39 · Score: 2

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.

Why do many people think that judges will fix this by ronabop · 2002-09-20 22:09 · Score: 1

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"?

Re:Too bad Canada doesn't care... by RobinH · 2002-09-21 00:28 · Score: 2

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

Ok So Now It's Bad to Disenfranchise People.... by Pooquey · 2002-09-21 02:54 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Pay cash for books by fishbowls · 2002-09-21 02:56 · Score: 1

Noone should have to tell anyone what they read. As a high school librarian, I NEVER reveal what patrons have checked out. Teachers in elementary school would ask me who had a title out. I would tell them that I couldn't reveal that information but that the book was coming in on such and such a date.

I don't like this Act. I do realize there is a fine line between protecing privacy and protecting the general public. I can hear the question, "What if you had a student who checked out books about sabatoge and guns and the like on a consistent basis?". In a school my size, I can make an individual judgement call whether to quietly refer the matter to the mental health counselor, talk to the student myself, or involve the administration. But, in a large high school or public library, your options are more limited because you don't know your patrons. That would be a hard decision, and I can't say now which choice I would make. Report or keep silent? If I report, then I am violating that person's privacy. If I don't, and the patron blows up a bus or a building, then I am guilty because there was evidence that this person was going to commit a violent act.

I am going to have to sit down and think about this one for awhile....

--
Susan
Librarian in Chesnee, SC
The Land Where All Sentences End in a Preposition
The Bun Lady Cometh

Re:PUBLIC Libraries by fishbowls · 2002-09-21 03:25 · Score: 1

Please tell me you are NOT a librarian!!!
I would NEVER tell what my students were reading.

--
Susan
Librarian in Chesnee, SC
The Land Where All Sentences End in a Preposition
The Bun Lady Cometh

sigh by Perky_Goth · 2002-09-21 03:39 · Score: 1

now i understand why not killing Bush is a terrorrist act...

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?

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZ ZZ ZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!

And On More Thing... by Pooquey · 2002-09-21 03:53 · Score: 1

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.

Reverend Jim for Secret Judge! by jefu · 2002-09-21 13:11 · Score: 1

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.

Some user data *is* retained by SgtChaireBourne · 2002-09-22 18:52 · Score: 2

One library system I checked in detail last year did accumulate records on both catalog searches (web based) and check out. Part of this appears that it could be as the result of ineptitude or lack of foresight. For the catalog searches, many user could log in and search and the logins were not seperate from the rest of the log, additionally the web logs were not rotated -- ever. There were two SQL tables that handle checked out items, one for active items, one for completed transactions. Upon completion, the active item appeared to be copied to the other table, which did not seem to be rotated -- ever. The new machine itself came with mistakes like open mail relays, telnet, ftp, and NFS, so theoretically it would be possible to just crack it and get the records. This is one of the bigger and more reputable companies.

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.

Just don't do it. by Pig+Hogger · 2002-09-23 04:22 · Score: 2

Just don't do it.

Don't keep lending records.

If required, scramble them.

Re:So what? by CaffeineAddict2001 · 2002-09-24 01:35 · Score: 2

If god is offended by what is on those 3:12am web sites I will simply tell him:
"Don't complain to me, complain to the manufacturer."

Re:So what? by Planesdragon · 2002-09-24 05:25 · Score: 2

(nitpick: It's "God" and "Him." Proper english grammar is to alwyas capitalize a name or pronoun used to refer to the Allmighty.)

I highly doubt that God really hates those 3:12 a.m. sites. But the simple embarassment of having to answer for going to those is a great check on the hypocricy that is otherwise prevalent in my religion.

To wit: Both Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrish were Christians.

Slashdot Mirror

Effects of the Patriot Act on Librarians

391 of 552 comments (clear)