Slashdot Mirror
Effects of the Patriot Act on Librarians
Quaryon writes "The Patriot Act apears to have some chilling effects with respect to libraries and booksellers. An FBI agent can get a warrant, without any evidence, in order to compel a librarian to reveal lending details on a suspect. The librarian cannot tell anyone about the search, including the target of the search, and the details of how many such searches are done are not made public. Articles at SFGate News and Common Dreams give more details." We had a related Ask Slashdot a few weeks ago.
This only just came to mind, so I hope I'm not repeating anyone, but libraries, at least, can foil the system by simply not keeping track of people's lending habits. Nothing compells a library to do this kind of marketing history, unless there are actual laws to do the compelling for them.
This now concludes our broadcast day.
I seem to remember reading something about an organization filing a freedom on information act requestion a simple count of how many such warrents have been issued.
Anyone know of a link to this?
Scott.
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
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.
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!!
One thing mentioned in the article is about secret courts. I am not sure but the idea that the FBI can go in an get information using a warrant from a secret court and not having to tell the person is mildly unconstitutional.
For those of you who have realplayer, this Ad Council clip never fails to amuse. It is not a matter of if, but when.
Yeah, right.
Does anyone else find it ironic that the certain government interest groups are currently running television ads that attempt to show what American life would be like if certain liberties were taken away?
One of these commericals shows a young man walking up to a clerk at a library and asking for a series of books. When he's told that those books are no longer available he's asked for his name. He becomes clearly upset and attempts to leave when he's taken away by a group of men in dark suits.Seems the futures a lot closer then anyone else suspected.
This is fairly old news. Similar stories were on Drudge Report back in June.
m ain513251.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/24/attack/
In the article, it shows that some libraries are resisting as much as possible. I believe the ALA has a section on their website to keep librarians aware of their rights.
The real question is why libraries need to keep track of the books you have checked out after they have been returned? Most places are past the point where you sign the little card in the back of the book, so I don't see why libraries couldn't just delete the info after the book has been returned.
If you care about this issue, you may be interested in the activities of the Freedom to Read Foundation
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
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.
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?"
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...
...it's about finding out who the dissenters are, and then silencing them.
You're using her as bait, Master!
LEAVE. When other governments impose repressive laws, people leave. They often leave everything they own behind, but they find new homes and build new lives for themselves in countries which allow them the freedoms they desire.
If people started flooding across the border into Canada and claiming refugee status, people certainly take notice.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
There was a time when people in this country said, "Give me liberty or give me death!" Too bad having liberty for so long has made people value it less.
Why aren't we told when editors moderate our posts?
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
Here is the text of the Patriot Act:/ ~c1073P4rg4
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c107:./temp
Where does it give the FBI the right to search library and bookstore records without a valid search warrants? I couldn't find library or bookstore mentioned and I could only find one unreleated reference to the work book.
I really wish when journalists mention that so-and-so law is evil they would be more specific as to which sections they are talking about. I'm not questioning whether those provisions are in there, I just want to read and judge them myself. For example, maybe the FBI is assuming authority that it really doesn't have.
or is anyone else having librarian prison-sex fantasies?
Let's see:
slashdotter: "What are you in for hot stuff?"
librarian: "Failing to comply with a federal investigation."
slashdotter: "That's cool."
librarian: "What are you in for?"
slashdotter: "port scanning."
librarian: "Guess we're both terrorists."
So it was the Feds that asked the question on /.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Here is a link to the main Ad Council website and the real player ads:
_ fr eedom/
http://www.adcouncil.org/campaigns/campaign_for
www.enthea.org
Yes, but it was only a piece of fantasy movie making at best. Remember, Brad Pitt's character said "Hey hey hey, how is this Legal!?!!".
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Don't you hate it when they write a bill that's severely detrimental to our rights and then call it "Patriot Act"? Who wants to be known as being "anti-Patriot Act" (well, I do, but I'm no politician). They should have a law saying that bills have to be named appropriately, like, in this case "One Step Closer to a Police State Act", "We Are Watching Your Reading Act", or "FBI Will Get You If You Read the Wrong Book Act". A shorter version might be "Screw Liberty Act".
---
Open Source Shirts
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
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...
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.
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
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
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.
Given those two points, I and my fellow library employees have been told the following:
All of this applies even for the most classified requests under the most extreme reading of the PATRIOT act.
Thus, if you want to know what Sally has checked out right now, and your request makes it through all of these requirements there might be a chance that you'll find out without having to ask Sally directly.
If you want to know what Sally read last week (or possibly even this morning if the materials have already circulated) there's a good chance you're going to have to find Sally to ask her yourself.
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
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!
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?
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.
If lending records are released it create a serious breech of our freedoms. In particular, how will the records be interpreted? If I regularly check out books on a certain faith, will I be categorized as that faith? If I check out books on chemistry, will I be building a bomb? If I read too much Tom Clancy, will I be a spy? It is this sort of thing that makes me wonder if the Germans comparison of out president to Hitler may not be as far off as we first imagine. We already know that dark colored people with accents cannot drive through the south without being accused of terrorism. I do not see how violating patron confidentiality will help anything.
The saddest thing is that Laura Bush is a Librarian. The fact that such a thing could happen with her husband in office makes me wonder if there are any ethics at all in that house.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
...the borrowing of Mein Kampf went up 2000% in a month?
I would think kids had been assigned homework about the Holocaust or the History majors or Abnormal Psych students had been assigned a paper on Really Bad Ideas.
I am less concerned at this point with anti-Jewish foolishness than I am that a Sikh got shot on September 12, 2001 by some idiot who thought he was shooting a Muslim (as if all Muslims were responsible for the crimes of a few).
As H.G. Wells wrote almost a century ago, "the future will be a race between education and disaster". We need a free flow of information and ideas to prevent the "Big Lie" Hitler's propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels relied upon to permit the Holocaust to occur.
Emigrate. There's better countries to live in. They're not perfect either, but the US is definitely taking the wrong path.
Government is controlled by big business. The two big parties have very few differences between them. Even when elections do happen, they are a sham, as can be seen in the last presidential election.
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
They take a little more every day. They match up things a little more every day too.
Here's one scenario, from what I know about you already.
1) You were in the Air Force. That means you are combat trained and know how to use deadly weapons to kill people.
2) You read sci-fi. This can mean that you are open minded to fantastical tails and adventurous tails. You are also intrested in technology.
3) You have CD-Rs (probably some illegal) and go to slashdot, a known haven for digital criminals.
4) You probably have kiddie porn because as the article stated yesterday, most cyber criminals have gobs of kiddie porn on their harddrives.
Now with this info, if I were a crazy assed hard core right wing fuckhead (the type who wrote the patriot act, or would make the same assumptions I made above, or would say that the purple telletubbie is gay, or bert and ernie are gay) I could make a pretty strong case of FUD as to why you are a danger to society. Or if I were a wimpy-ass left wing freak I could say how the very fact that you know how to use a weapon makes you a potential murderer. Either way you are now open to danger from fanatics. Not muslim fanatics, but american fanatics.
For example, we could allege that you may have weapons, you know how to use them, you read anti-christian writings such as sci-fi, you are a hacker and a child pornographer. Now we can raid your house and take your shit. And because you might also be a terrorist we can hold you indefinately without any charges - thanks to the new fucking laws.
And what's more. You can't really say anything about it when we do it, because you didn't fight for your rights when you could have.
Wake the fuck up, dude. This isn't about terrorists, it's about freedom for REAL HONEST AMERICANS like yourself.
I'm willing to fight and die for my freedoms. As you were when you were in the service. the only difference is you were brainwashed to believe that the only threat to your freedom is a foreign threat, where as I know the biggest threat will be an inside job. Much like the job Bush and Asscroft are doing on us right now.
I'm willing to fight, kill and die for American freedom. The only real question is whom will I have to kill. Saddam, or Bush?
So you thought the excessive following (call it harrassment) towards Einsten, Luther King and many, many obviously peacefull folk were justified? Do you really think that the FBI/CIA etc. has changed that much that they wouldn't do now (when they have governmnet sanctioning!) as they did then (when experimenting with psychotropic substances on the general population was definitly not allowed; neither was wiretapping without probable cause)?
It's frightening how much faith Americans have in the institutions which have shown time and again how untrustworthy they are...
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
1. "The libraries are provided FREE of charge by the government. "
Using money paid by taxpayers and thus OWNED by taxpayers to be used by taxpayers
2. "Therefore why shouldn't they be able to get the information on what books you have read. "
Because a little piece of paper called the US constitution defines freedom of speech as something the "government" may NOT take away NO MATTER HOW IMPORTANT a situation is. The US Supreme court has stated that the ability to read ideas is freedom of speech and that fear of reading ideas is the silencing of speech.
3. "Besides it's not like they weren't already doing this. "
For the purposes of CRIMINAL activity. But in this case they don't have to prove you did anything wrong. Only that they THINK you did something wrong.
5. "Now that they are officially stating that they are allowed this would in essence give you more rights, since you know that your rights are not being violated."
How is this the case? I don't know if they are looking at my checkout records. I don't know if they are going to use this against me in court later on. I can't request what information they have. I can't question where they retrieved the information to make me a suspect to begin with. Need I go on?
6. "One also has to look at the cost versus the gain. By having the FBI have access to your reading habits, it could save you from being in a building that gets hit by a plane. That is a good trade off. "
No it's not. Maybe for you. But let's follow this twisted logic to it's end. IF an act can prove dangerous to others then the US government has the right to take away our constitutional rights on the basis of protection. Since drunk drivers kill people then perhaps the government should put all people who have been seen "walking" into a bar in jail. ON the basis that they MIGHT drink and drive. and MIGHT kill somebody. But hey, it's all for the safety of the better good
7. "Even if not one terrorist is busted from this whole inactment, everyone in the trade towers and on the flights would have definitely traded this for their lives."
Who on earth gave you the right to speak for the dead... to determine that they would give their lives for this? How about the thousands upon thousands of US lives in the US military that gave up THEIR lives to retain these same rights? Are their lives worthless?
8. "Stand up for things that matter, like P2P networks. Tracing your personal phone calls. Storing credit card numbers, and let these ones pass. "
What's the difference? If it's ok to track the books. Then why not YOUR internet usage. what's the difference? There isn't any. You can't concede one point of security and privace and allow another. Stand on the issue... not the individual sub points. We can't pick and choose which parts of a principle we wish to defend.
9. "Then when you speak you will be heard louder and not thought of as a whiner who whines at every single legislation that is passed. You have to know what battles to pick, and which ones not to."
Ohh... I get it now. Let's play the politics game. Give in to this point to make others. Fine. Then let's stop trying to stop murders because there are people out there hurting little children. Let's stop small dictators from slaughtering their people because we have larger countries that are a threat. This has to be the most obnoxious and ill thought out post I have ever seen and as being such is probably a troll.
You can mod me up or down. I don't care but somebody had to say it
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)
where do you get the idea tht Canada is the place where people still have universial human rights. Canada has its share of troubles, in part caused by being a neighbor to the powerful US. Their laws are different, but not nessicarly better. For gunowners their laws are by far worse. For other things their laws are better. Laws and courts in both countries change so even though today Canada might be better for your particular preference in rights, that doesn't mean that next year it will not be worse.
Read it more carefully.
(Note: thomas.loc.gov gives temporary links. Those looking for the bill text should do a search for HR 3162).
Relevant sections might be
Sec. 213, on when notice of a warrant can be delayed. Note that this requires "reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result", and does not include
tangible property seizure or wire interception.
Section 214, where it amends Title V of FISA, regarding the subpoena of records. FBI higher-ups (no lower than assistant SAIC) may apply for orders "requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution."
Apparently, a FISA judge or a US Magistrate Judge must approve. In addition, the records must be sought for such an authorized investigation. In addition, you can also find the non-disclosure requirements there.
Libraries aren't special, no matter how much library associations would like to pretend they are. OTOH, they can't subpoena your library records just 'coz you hang out with a street gang called the "Bin Laden Boys" (freedom of association) or you write editorials demanding the destruction of America (speech) unless they have additional non-First-Amendment evidence.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
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.
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.
"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?
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.
I don't see that either principle holds here. Would I like for my borrowing records to be private? I suppose so, but I don't have any expectation of it. How exactly is it that if this were B&N we were talking about it would be public, but because it's a library, it's not?
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
What follows is an email I sent to friends and family based on a WSJ article I read.
m ailThis ?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=2046431354&p t=Y
:
My comments follow. Please note that the quotes included are only
excerpts; I strongly advise reading the whole article.
Communications
Previously, the government had to show probable cause that a crime
had been or was about to be committed to obtain a warrant. Now, it
only needs to show that the surveillance is relevant to a current
investigation.
However, the 4th amendment to the US Constitution states quite
explicitly that "...no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause".
"The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones," said
President Bush when he signed the Patriot Act. Now, he said, "we'll
be able to better meet the technological challenges posed by this
proliferation of communications technology."
I'm rather curious what the "existing law" Bush refers to is,
considering that the probable cause requirement was written in the
days before the telegraph, let alone telephones, rotary or touch-tone.
It's also rather troubling that new technology is always assumed to
create a situation where existing principles do not apply. While I am
not one to rabidly and unthinkingly defend American superiority, it
must be acknowledged that the founding fathers were not utter fools.
The sheer volume of their writing evidences the fact that much thought
was spent first determining the effects of their initial regulations,
as well as laying out their reasoning for establishing them.
I find it difficult to imagine a situation where the existing rules
are unworkable. The only reason not to show probable cause is to cast
a dragnet, the catch of which can later be data-mined at leisure. Of
course, it is well-known that one can find evidence of nearly any
conspiracy if he is looking for it, and it's important that suspicion
of a crime be established before investigation is begun.
It is not difficult to obtain a warrant; a judge's signature is all
that is required. But the judge must first be satisfied that the
constitutional requirements have been met, lest the evidence later be
thrown out. This is a process which takes some time and
consideration, and I am not overly concerned by this. Better that one
piece of "crucial evidence" be occasionally lost than that the specter
of random searches begins to frighten every citizen. If a deluge of
warrants should be required, appoint more judges and set up more
efficient pipelines for obtaining one. However, this situation should
ideally act more as a warning flag than anything else.
I would also like to point out that, for better or for worse, the
demand for probable cause is not absolute and inflexible. The
doctrine of exigent circumstances has been established for some time
now.
Libraries
The FBI can demand from bookstores and libraries the names of books
bought or borrowed by anyone suspected of terrorism. Librarians may
be prosecuted if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed
information related to a terror investigation. [...] Library and
book records were previously only available to prosecutors if a
judge issued a subpoena for the records.
Once again, this is a clear violation of the 4th amendment. In
addition, courts have previously held that this sort of action creates
a chilling effect on activities protected by the 1st amendment; see
the Colorado Supreme Court's decision on the Tattered Cover issue:
Search warrants directed to bookstores, demanding information about
the reading history of customers, intrude upon the First Amendment
rights of customers and bookstores because compelled disclosure of
book-buying records threatens to destroy the anonymity upon which
many customers depend.
Detention
The Immigration and Naturalization Service can now detain aliens
suspected of terrorism for a week before bringing criminal
charges. The INS can hold terrorist suspects for up to six months
without bringing charges if their country of origin won't take them
back.
Writ of habeas corpus, anyone?
The accumulation of these civil rights violations, including others
not discussed in the article, coupled with the secret police/informers
John Ashcroft wishes to set up across the country (see
http://news.com.com/2102-1023-944555.html, for example), creates an
environment where not only terrorists need fear for their rights. It
is reminiscent of Orwell's 1984, where the faade of the
war with Eurasia/Eastasia is used to mask the totalitarian actions of
the government. Reminiscent of the empires of Commodus, Hitler,
Stalin, Mao, and others, for that matter.
This needs to be fought.
----
Permission is given to redistribute this commentary verbatim,
as long as credit is given to Tim Howe (vsync@quadium.net).
Quotations are from the "A Look at the Patriot Act, Nearly One Year
Later", Stephanie Miles, The Wall Street Journal Online, 6 September
2002.
********************
If you are having trouble with any of the links in this message, or if the URL's are not appearing as links, please follow the instructions at the bottom of this email.
Title: WSJ.com - A Look at the Patriot Act, Nearly One Year Later
Copy and paste the following into your Web browser to access the sent link:
http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/e
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
You are trying to take them away. THis is a direct violation of the bill of rights that governs behaveior in this country. You leave. Go to some country where there is no bill of rights ad make THEM into your serfs, asshole.
;)
Hell, im not even sure if this is a troll or not, im just pissed off. Ill give you mods a free pass on this one.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Usurping and
Subjugating
America by
Providing
All the
Tools
Required to
Implement
Orwellian
Tyranny
www.wavefront-av.com
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).
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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
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)
sPh
Due process is important.
What does this have to do with taking away life, liberty, or property?
...oh, we all end up crucified. Oh well.
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.
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).
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.)
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.
Another has a person trying to check a book out from the library. He is told that that particular book is no longer available. When he goes to leave, he is apprehended by two suits.
So, who is putting these commercials on television anyway? Do they have any idea that their commercials are coming to pass? Clearly, we're approaching the point where it's not a "what if" any more.
Their tagline: "Freedom. Appreciate it. Cherish it. Protect it."
They're taking away our first amendment rights. Maybe it's time to exercise our second amendment ones.
Do not touch -Willie
Actually I think there is one on the Seine in Paris... ;-)
All governments, including ours, try this cr*p all the time. "Laws" like this are why the founders created a Constitution and enshrined the common law court system. It's up to a library (or other affected indivudals & interested parties) to push this thing up to the Supreme Court & get the law smacked down hard. I trust that more learned & more reasoned Judical decisionmakers will give this "law" all the consideration it deserves and slap it silly (based upon free speech, due process, and prohibition against warrantless searches). I've never, as yet, seen any reason to doubt that our common law system will eventually do the right thing & return the system to one that is just.
It is, however, a PITA for the parties affected since the process moves so slowly (though the process was intended to move slowly to give everyone more than enough time to react based upon reason, rather than the emotion of the day).
So let's say you're a terrorist interested in information about bombs. And you know the government can easily read your library records. What do you do?
You do what nearly every other library user does these days. You go to the photocopier, drop in a few coins, and copy just the few pages you want. No records are kept, and there's no need to return anything when you're done.
So what's next? A law mandating libraries to require ID for photocopier use, and to keep copies of every copy a machine makes? Before you laugh, consider that many newer copiers already consist of scanners connected to laser printers, so quietly keeping a copy of everything passed through the machine wouldn't be hard at all.
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
One comment that I havn't seen here yet (though I'm not browsing below 1 so I might have missed it):
Everyone is freaked out about them tracking our library browsing habits.
Isn't the same thing being done right now, without warrant, with regard to our *web* browsing habits?
- All inquiries regarding patron records are to be referred to library administration.
- No information will be provided without appropriate warrants and/or court orders.
- Before any search for information begins the library has the right to have an attorney examine any/all warrants and/or court orders to determine their validity, jurisdiction, and all other aspects of legal standing.
- The library, through its attorney has the right to additional judicial ruling on potentially suspect or questionable documentation before any search begins. (Right of appeal)
- The library has the right to have its attorney present at all times when any search activities are carried out.
This all sounds well and good, and may have a nice appearance. However, "having the right" to have an attorney do all these things and actually doing it are two different things.
Administration takes care of all issues, and if they so choose, may have an attorney step in. But that doesn't mean they will. If you were an administrator, and the FBI showed up with a warrant, what would you do? It takes some balls to stand up to them and say "No, I am going to have to contact an attorney". Good for you if you could do it, but I doubt most would.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
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.
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;
Can you fill in "John Doe" with a bogus address and get a card?
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
I'm not so worried about the library aspect of this. What I >AM worried about is my neighbors, mailmen, and meter readers spying on me. That sucks.
> I don't like butterscotch, but I do like vanilla. You don't see friggin holy wars over pudding, though, do you?
:)
Bah! Vanilla is a weakling neutral flavor that smacks of Switzerland! Now tapioca is a REAL pudding, one that you can FEEL going down. When the tanks roll in to clense away the vanilla pudding factory, you know where I'll be standing!
Sorry, couldn't help it... the image was just too funny.
Lots of posts below this one displaying some ignorance of how modern libraries operate.
1) Most all libraries these days have computerized inventory systems using barcodes or RFID tags to track books and patrons. These systems make it LESS possible to track reading histories. In the old days with the 3 x 5 cards and date stamp machines one COULD track reading histories, though the logistics of such an operation would be daunting.
2) Libraries erase lending history upon return of items. In fact, librarians insist the systems keep no history as part of the RFP process.
3) It is potentially possible to retrieve lending history via backup tapes. These are usually recycled in a typical father-grandfather scheme. Restoring data from these tapes would mean the library system would be shut down during the process. It would be a massive operation and very visible.
4) Librarians are generally liberally educated left-wing leaning social and humanities graduates who are well aware of the first amendment and often the only people in the community willing to stand up for it. With recent polls shoing 49% of Americans believe the 1st amendment goes too far, you better go hug your local librarian. Because you know what? Nobody else is helping.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
TIPS as well as the prevailing attitude held by the general public of the USA is only causing things to get worse.
A recent example is how a woman could report three medical students as suspected terrorists, have them locked up, their possessions molested, and their jobs lost... simply because they looked like Muslims, Arabs, Pakastanis, Iranians, or in many people's minds "like them terrorists". This sparked paranoid delusions, not just within her mind, but within the minds of the general public.
If such horrible things can be inflicted upon you because of your ethnicity makes you a target of the current administration's programs, then how hard is it to imagine your reading habits making you a target of the current administration's programs?
If I read a book about "Islam", "Jihad", "American is Evil", or, hell, any book written by Noam Chomsky... will I be locked up, my possessions molested, my name defaced, and my job lost?
The land of the free? Are you serious? I feel like my nation has become a suicide bomber - ready to self destruct out of shear desperation and hate.
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.
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.
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.
Seems to me that the various things mentioned in
the article represent a conspiracy to or a deprivation of our God-given, Constitutionally-protected rights. Maybe the following sections of laws from the US Code should be enforced against anyone who passed, signed off or attempts to enforce it.
* United States Code
* TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
* CHAPTER 21 - CIVIL RIGHTS
* SUBCHAPTER I - GENERALLY
U.S. Code as of: 01/05/99
Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such of
ficer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
U.S. Code as of: 01/05/99
Section 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
(1) Preventing officer from performing duties
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;
(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in
any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;
(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
U.S. Code as of: 01/05/99
Section 1986. Action for neglect to prevent
Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.
I love guy like you. Really, I do. Because you are either monumentally niave or stupid. The whole "it doesn't affect me, so it's a non-issue" mentality is just so wonderful. It's exactly what the powers that would abuse you wish everyone had.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
This could be a government plot to get people to stop reading books. You have to remember that it is easier to control an illiterate sociaty, then it is to control a literate and informed sociaty. A lot of the new laws are designed to stop the flow of information mainly within the acedemic community, R&D, etc. I a lot of ways being an overly PC culture is really hurting us in our freedoms.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
The Patriot Act allows them tio compell the libraries to give up the evidence with a subpeana (sp?), not a warrant. Which is easier to get and harder to fight? The warrant? No.
A warrant requires some probable cause that a crime is actually being committed. A subpeana (sp?) does not.
Here's the problem: They decise to investigate Joebob Abdula because he fits whatever profile de Jur they want to harras. Now, under the old rules they'd need some sort of probable cause to get a warant to get the records of his library and bookstoor usage. Now, all they need is a subpeana. So they find that Joebon Abdula hasn't read anything more subversive than "Ethyl The Aardvark Gioes Quantity Surveying"? The point is that they are fishing for "suspects" with no probable cause that that person has don anything wrong.
But you live in your fantasy world until the laws get changed in such a way as they directly affect your life for the worse. Bury your head in the sand like a good little consumer and ignore American Brownshirts until it's too late.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
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.
GACK! Did I type that mess? My fingers must be on strike or something.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
... 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."
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?
One, Very few people know about it and undoubtedly, innocent people will get dragged into the mess. Honestly, I mean what is going to happen if some HS student gets an assignment for a report on '20th century dictators' and goes to the library to research on the likes of Hitler, Saddam, Stalin, etc? Will THEY be labeled as a 'terrorist'?
Two: Everyone knows about it, and people stop going to libraries to protect their reading habits from being snooped on, Which is clearly more chilling in that if people slowly stop going to libraries, no more of that 'dangerous knowledge' will make it to the minds of the public. Which, in all honesty, is probably what Ashcroft et al. were after in the first place, a dumb society that beleives whatever they are told. "Yes, terrorists ARE going to destroy the starbucks on your corner, report anyone reading a newspaper to the proper authorities!"
Doesnt it just figure that the person clearly putting more of our freedom in jeapardy than any before him is someone that wasnt elected, but appointed? How can we get this lunatic removed?
"See, we plan ahead! That way, we never have to do anything now."
Last time I checked, judicial review wasn't in the Constitution. It's one of those things that started and has just continued because everyone thinks its a good idea (like 2 term presidents until the 1950s.. Washington did it, so everyone else followed suit). The Constitution is purposefully vague when it comes to HOW Congress should write laws, HOW the President should execute laws (look at the number of executive orders over history, or tell me where the power for executive orders comes from in Article II), and HOW the judiciary should review laws. If you read Article III, you'll see it actually says very little about the Supreme Court and judicial power.. mostly about jurisdiction.
The odd thing about the Constitution is that several of the authors thought that it would be constantly rewritten approximately every 20 years to deal with new issues as they arose. Little did they think that it would last 200+ years with just about no changes, the most drastic of which are the changes to elections in the 12th amendment, and the official introduction of a 2 term limit in the 22nd amendment. While there are vastly more important amendments, they do not really alter the inner workings of the government and the original direction of the constitution.
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
As stated in many other posts, there's no reason to retain checkout data beyond the return of the book.
However, I believe there even maintaining it at all can be eliminated.
It's real simple:
Two cards/records - one for the book, stating it was checked out on MM/DD/YYYY and that it is valued at $X.00.
Second record - per patron, record the fact that on MM/DD/YYYY, the user checked out a book valued at $X.00.
The _ONLY_ shortcoming, when sending out 'overdue' notices, you lose the ability to list what specific book was checked out.
When a book is returned, credit the account of the person returning it, and note the return on the book itself.
Now - it maybe that the level needed to get a warrant has decreased under the Patriot act (IAMAL) so I'm not sure, but there STILL MUST BE some level of probably cause to get such a warrant. The original poster said that you could get a warrant without evidence...Uhm..HELLO - where do you think the government get's permission to gather personal evidence??? It's through the warrant mechanism. That means a judge has to be pursuaded that the adequate cause under whatever standard the law establishes to allow a search to occur.
So there has to be due process before ANY search can take place.
So - if a Judge says - "Yeah, give them your records" after the Judge is convinced there is a reasonable expectation that something will turn up, then the legal hurdle has been overcome to allow a search of personal property, or some business records. So how is this that different than ANY legal search of personal property or personal records?
Next comes the issue that we are actually at war. I'm not talking Sadam, but OBL who unquestionably hit us first. What I hear from the librarians amongst us is that that they would rather shred documents instead of possibly helping catch a terrorist? Is that what you really mean here? Don't forget that it is a FACT that that Al-Qaeda has used the internet from public locations like libraries and cyber-cafes to communicate. Seems like talking to librarians is a perfectly understandable place to begin such investigations?!?
Instead of having a complete knee-jerk reaction to this like "they are stepping on my rights," try looking at the reasons behind such investingations. You might find the government still has to get warrants just like they always have, and that your rights are still being observed!
Have you compiled your kernel today??
The irony is that the librarian motions to two plain-clothes agents who then apprehend a guy who had asked about finding a few books. Afterwards, the message of "Freedom is a wonderful thing. Thank goodness we don't live in a world like this" comes up...
Um, yeah...thank goodness..huh...
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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?
As soon as the USA PATRIOT Act was passed, I was left with a sinking feeling. A thorough reading of the text of the law confirmed my worst suspicions, and I aired them via several LUGS (see http://www.mlug.net/mlug-list/2001_Frames/msg01413 .html).
m _militias/)?
... the search warrant can be granted after the fact.
Here's the original text of my post:
The so-called USA PATRIOT Act
---
Q: How much would it cost to abolish the Fourth Amendment?
A: About $3.3 billion.
Pardon my typical sarcasm, but the recent "anti-terrorism" legislation has me feeling a little cranky. I've reviewed the actual text of the
Bill that was signed into law, and it inspired me to write the following to a friend... By the way, this friend had her souvenir belt buckle confiscated by airport security. I suppose she could have rapped someone on the knuckles with it...
---scott
My advice is to buy guns while it is still legal to do so, because at this rate there is going to be a revolution to return the US of A to its former constitutional-abiding self. Have you looked at the details of the new law that got passed (http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terroris
It's supposed to be for anti-terrorism, except when rational people discuss it they realize it won't help much for that, but guess what, it can be used like crazy against citizens. Sigh. Orwell's 1984 was just 17 years early, I guess. To summarize the parts of the Bill I find offensive:
- Increased provisions for the President and members of the Dept of Justice to ask the military to intervene in emergencies (who defines emergencies, and do you want the military acting against its own citizens?).
- The Secret Service has been directed to develop a national network of task forces for the purpose of detecting electronic crimes (which will require invasive monitoring).
- The President, and anyone he designates, has broader powers to seize the property of a foreign person, and by claiming that the reasons are "classified", avoid judicial review.
- The Bill marries the concept "terrorism" to the concept "computer fraud and abuse", giving similar monitoring powers and punishments for two very different categories of crime. (The two are not the same; computer fraud/abuse isn't anything near terrorism. People don't die. Buildings don't explode. Lives aren't shattered forever. Plus, as far as I know, no act of terrorism has yet employed any form of sophisticated computer use; the Gov't simply wants the ability to eavesdrop on whomever they wish under the guise of "looking for terrorists".)
- The foreign intelligence agencies can now share evidence with domestic law enforcement (intelligence agencies gather evidence using techniques that would not normally be admissible in court).
- Cable operators are now required to give records to the Gov't upon request. Strangely, it can't include information on what videos you watched (which presumably leaves just Internet activity).
- The Bill introduces many changes that more or less mandate that businesses turn over whatever info they have on your communication to the Gov't upon request.
- The Bill now allows search and seizure of any property without having a search warrant
- The Bill now explicitly allows wiretapping (phone or computer) of a US Citizen for the purpose of protecting against "clandestine intelligence". The only restriction is that they can't monitor you based solely on what you have said or written (specifically, acts that would be protected under the first amendment); they are supposed to have some other tangible reason to wiretap you.
- Businesses are now required to turn over any records the FBI feels are necessary to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence, and it's against the law to tell anyone about it.
- Any Federal court can issue a search warrant for electronic evidence without needing geographic jurisdiction. Pick your favorite judge.
- The Bill goes out of its way to absolve any electronic provider of wrongdoing. They want to make it as easy as possible for businesses to divulge information to them without fear of violating any laws. If they violate your rights while investigating someone else, too bad for you.
- The Secretary of Defense, Director of the CIA, and the Attorney General all enjoy the privilege of not needing to submit their intelligence reports to the Congressional committees that normally oversee such things until Feb, 2002, or later if they say it will impede their activities. There goes Congressional oversight, not that it mattered much after passing a bill like this.
- Just to make sure our civil rights haven't been violated, the Bill provides for ***one*** individual in the DOJ to track, record, and publish such abuses.
- Members of the law-abiding Sikh religion, whom to many look like members of the Islamic religion, have their own heartwarming (but meaningless) section in this Bill. I guess this is Congress's way of saying (by omission) "screw the law-abiding Moslems".
All that, and it only costs ***us taxpayers*** about 3.3 billion dollars to have these rights removed for us. Specifically, over the next five years:
$600,000,000: Tech support at FBI
$100,000,000: INS and Customs tech improvements
$200,000,000: Overtime for INS staff up to $30K/year. Let's just use this as a guess.
$2,000,000: Feasibility study for fingerprint identification system
$37,000,000: DOJ Illegal Immigrant Reform
$150,000,000: Regional systems to share info between Fed, State, and local authorities.
$250,000,000: Attorney General's "Cybersecurity Forensic Centers"
$175,000,000: Aid to first responders
$5,000,000: DEA training funds for police in Turkey and South & Central Asia
$250,000 (yes, that's under a million): Airline access to the FBI's list of suspected terrorists
$1,750,000,000: Various anti-terrorism grants
$20,000,000: Critical infrastructure protection
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.
No, these are really big-ass files.
1000 terafiles, or 10^15 files.
Considered harmful.
"The poll released Thursday found that 49 percent think the First Amendment goes too far, a total about 10 points higher than in 2001."
The source for the quote above is an AP story on CBS newsabout a poll by the "First Amendment Center" of Arlington VA. Don't know anything about this group, but both the AP and CBS found it worth repeating.
I can't argue the slant of the poll, not having looked any further. And as a strong civil libertarian, statistics like the number above scare me. But I fear I can't dismiss it as easily as you did.
Wait... you mean you still haven't joined the ACLU?
Whatever happened to the Zippy filter from metahtml.com? The whole domain seems down now. Anybody ever mirror the code for that wonderful tool? My internet surfing has been dreary without it.
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 ?
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!"
Free my ass. I pay some $250/year in property tax riders (about 12% of my total property tax) that are *specifically* marked as tax to support the Los Angeles County library system. (Which I don't even use, because frankly it's not a very good system.)
Next time you visit your local public library, take a moment to thank the TAXPAYERS who made it possible, whether they wanted to or not.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Dammit, they pulled "Build a Thermonuclear Weapon with Java and XML in 21 Days"
And I was almost finished, on day 18.
Bat Rastards!
Table-ized A.I.
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
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
Doing the Ol' Ollie North to your paper records is fine in the short term, but only as long as there are no laws or court orders requiring retention.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Don't keep lending records.
If required, scramble them.
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."
(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.