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.
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
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.
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.
...it's about finding out who the dissenters are, and then silencing them.
You're using her as bait, Master!
There was a time when people in this country said, "Give me liberty or give me death!" Too bad having liberty for so long has made people value it less.
Why aren't we told when editors moderate our posts?
Don't you hate it when they write a bill that's severely detrimental to our rights and then call it "Patriot Act"? Who wants to be known as being "anti-Patriot Act" (well, I do, but I'm no politician). They should have a law saying that bills have to be named appropriately, like, in this case "One Step Closer to a Police State Act", "We Are Watching Your Reading Act", or "FBI Will Get You If You Read the Wrong Book Act". A shorter version might be "Screw Liberty Act".
---
Open Source Shirts
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...
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!
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.
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
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.
"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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
Lots of posts below this one displaying some ignorance of how modern libraries operate.
1) Most all libraries these days have computerized inventory systems using barcodes or RFID tags to track books and patrons. These systems make it LESS possible to track reading histories. In the old days with the 3 x 5 cards and date stamp machines one COULD track reading histories, though the logistics of such an operation would be daunting.
2) Libraries erase lending history upon return of items. In fact, librarians insist the systems keep no history as part of the RFP process.
3) It is potentially possible to retrieve lending history via backup tapes. These are usually recycled in a typical father-grandfather scheme. Restoring data from these tapes would mean the library system would be shut down during the process. It would be a massive operation and very visible.
4) Librarians are generally liberally educated left-wing leaning social and humanities graduates who are well aware of the first amendment and often the only people in the community willing to stand up for it. With recent polls shoing 49% of Americans believe the 1st amendment goes too far, you better go hug your local librarian. Because you know what? Nobody else is helping.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
TIPS as well as the prevailing attitude held by the general public of the USA is only causing things to get worse.
A recent example is how a woman could report three medical students as suspected terrorists, have them locked up, their possessions molested, and their jobs lost... simply because they looked like Muslims, Arabs, Pakastanis, Iranians, or in many people's minds "like them terrorists". This sparked paranoid delusions, not just within her mind, but within the minds of the general public.
If such horrible things can be inflicted upon you because of your ethnicity makes you a target of the current administration's programs, then how hard is it to imagine your reading habits making you a target of the current administration's programs?
If I read a book about "Islam", "Jihad", "American is Evil", or, hell, any book written by Noam Chomsky... will I be locked up, my possessions molested, my name defaced, and my job lost?
The land of the free? Are you serious? I feel like my nation has become a suicide bomber - ready to self destruct out of shear desperation and hate.
Seems to me that the various things mentioned in
the article represent a conspiracy to or a deprivation of our God-given, Constitutionally-protected rights. Maybe the following sections of laws from the US Code should be enforced against anyone who passed, signed off or attempts to enforce it.
* United States Code
* TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
* CHAPTER 21 - CIVIL RIGHTS
* SUBCHAPTER I - GENERALLY
U.S. Code as of: 01/05/99
Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such of
ficer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
U.S. Code as of: 01/05/99
Section 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
(1) Preventing officer from performing duties
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;
(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in
any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;
(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
U.S. Code as of: 01/05/99
Section 1986. Action for neglect to prevent
Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.
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.
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??
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.