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.
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.
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.
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
As the spouse of a Librarian, I can assure you that *most* modern libraries do not track lending habits past the currently checked out books. The ALA (American Library Association) stance is one favoring privacy, not government intervention.
Old card systems kept the names on a card, and the FBI did not need to do much more than scan through the backs of books to get their list. It was available to everyone. Nowadays, once the book is checked in, the users name is dropped from the system, thus fouling any search for history.
I should add the disclaimer that this is true in most cases. You should check with your librarian to see if your library software follows ALA guidelines.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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...
I wonder if some libraries keep this information in order to know when to withdraw books and sell them at book sales.
Lately, at a lot of the 'Friends of the Library' booksales I've been to, I've noticed a lot of "Withdrawn" editions -- perfectly good books, in pretty good shape, but for whatever reason they've been pulled from the shelf.
Well, last weekend I got a copy of Milosz's 'History of Polish Literature' and was actually curious why a book like this was at a FOL sale for a quarter. Anyway, I bought the book then went upstairs to check the card catalog. I figured the book had been replaced. But there was no sign of a new edition.
Then I figured it might be from a different library -- a branch or something -- but all the markings on the spine and front cover matched with the library where it was for sale.
I should have asked the ref librarians -- because i was actually pretty curious about this -- but they were busy and I didn't feel like waiting.
Anyway, I scored a great book (if you're into the history of Polish lit, I suppose) for twenty-five cents. I figured that because it was pretty obscure was why it was pulled.
But I might be wrong. I'd hate to think libraries are driven by marketing -- what's popular, what's not -- but then I figure: well, most libraries have a finite amount of space and new space is not always forthcoming. So instead of just adding, adding, adding to the inventory, they probably have to make some hard decisions and pull stuff off the shelf.
This *might* be why libraries need records. (But they don't need to correlate the borrower records with the book check-out history, I suppose.)
*shrug*
At the library I work at, your loan record is kept until your books are returned. At least from the clerks end, its impossible to retrieve that data.
:/
However, a while back the police were able to retrieve past patron check out data from another local library system.. I think they used some sort of data recovery techinique to access the deleted records.. so there is that.
However, due to the PATRIOT act, and the fact that we are pissed off about it, we are now shredding the patron internet login sheets every night. So at least they won't get access to that. I think other library systems are doing this as well..
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.
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?
1. "The libraries are provided FREE of charge by the government. "
Using money paid by taxpayers and thus OWNED by taxpayers to be used by taxpayers
2. "Therefore why shouldn't they be able to get the information on what books you have read. "
Because a little piece of paper called the US constitution defines freedom of speech as something the "government" may NOT take away NO MATTER HOW IMPORTANT a situation is. The US Supreme court has stated that the ability to read ideas is freedom of speech and that fear of reading ideas is the silencing of speech.
3. "Besides it's not like they weren't already doing this. "
For the purposes of CRIMINAL activity. But in this case they don't have to prove you did anything wrong. Only that they THINK you did something wrong.
5. "Now that they are officially stating that they are allowed this would in essence give you more rights, since you know that your rights are not being violated."
How is this the case? I don't know if they are looking at my checkout records. I don't know if they are going to use this against me in court later on. I can't request what information they have. I can't question where they retrieved the information to make me a suspect to begin with. Need I go on?
6. "One also has to look at the cost versus the gain. By having the FBI have access to your reading habits, it could save you from being in a building that gets hit by a plane. That is a good trade off. "
No it's not. Maybe for you. But let's follow this twisted logic to it's end. IF an act can prove dangerous to others then the US government has the right to take away our constitutional rights on the basis of protection. Since drunk drivers kill people then perhaps the government should put all people who have been seen "walking" into a bar in jail. ON the basis that they MIGHT drink and drive. and MIGHT kill somebody. But hey, it's all for the safety of the better good
7. "Even if not one terrorist is busted from this whole inactment, everyone in the trade towers and on the flights would have definitely traded this for their lives."
Who on earth gave you the right to speak for the dead... to determine that they would give their lives for this? How about the thousands upon thousands of US lives in the US military that gave up THEIR lives to retain these same rights? Are their lives worthless?
8. "Stand up for things that matter, like P2P networks. Tracing your personal phone calls. Storing credit card numbers, and let these ones pass. "
What's the difference? If it's ok to track the books. Then why not YOUR internet usage. what's the difference? There isn't any. You can't concede one point of security and privace and allow another. Stand on the issue... not the individual sub points. We can't pick and choose which parts of a principle we wish to defend.
9. "Then when you speak you will be heard louder and not thought of as a whiner who whines at every single legislation that is passed. You have to know what battles to pick, and which ones not to."
Ohh... I get it now. Let's play the politics game. Give in to this point to make others. Fine. Then let's stop trying to stop murders because there are people out there hurting little children. Let's stop small dictators from slaughtering their people because we have larger countries that are a threat. This has to be the most obnoxious and ill thought out post I have ever seen and as being such is probably a troll.
You can mod me up or down. I don't care but somebody had to say it
What follows is an email I sent to friends and family based on a WSJ article I read.
m ailThis ?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=2046431354&p t=Y
:
My comments follow. Please note that the quotes included are only
excerpts; I strongly advise reading the whole article.
Communications
Previously, the government had to show probable cause that a crime
had been or was about to be committed to obtain a warrant. Now, it
only needs to show that the surveillance is relevant to a current
investigation.
However, the 4th amendment to the US Constitution states quite
explicitly that "...no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause".
"The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones," said
President Bush when he signed the Patriot Act. Now, he said, "we'll
be able to better meet the technological challenges posed by this
proliferation of communications technology."
I'm rather curious what the "existing law" Bush refers to is,
considering that the probable cause requirement was written in the
days before the telegraph, let alone telephones, rotary or touch-tone.
It's also rather troubling that new technology is always assumed to
create a situation where existing principles do not apply. While I am
not one to rabidly and unthinkingly defend American superiority, it
must be acknowledged that the founding fathers were not utter fools.
The sheer volume of their writing evidences the fact that much thought
was spent first determining the effects of their initial regulations,
as well as laying out their reasoning for establishing them.
I find it difficult to imagine a situation where the existing rules
are unworkable. The only reason not to show probable cause is to cast
a dragnet, the catch of which can later be data-mined at leisure. Of
course, it is well-known that one can find evidence of nearly any
conspiracy if he is looking for it, and it's important that suspicion
of a crime be established before investigation is begun.
It is not difficult to obtain a warrant; a judge's signature is all
that is required. But the judge must first be satisfied that the
constitutional requirements have been met, lest the evidence later be
thrown out. This is a process which takes some time and
consideration, and I am not overly concerned by this. Better that one
piece of "crucial evidence" be occasionally lost than that the specter
of random searches begins to frighten every citizen. If a deluge of
warrants should be required, appoint more judges and set up more
efficient pipelines for obtaining one. However, this situation should
ideally act more as a warning flag than anything else.
I would also like to point out that, for better or for worse, the
demand for probable cause is not absolute and inflexible. The
doctrine of exigent circumstances has been established for some time
now.
Libraries
The FBI can demand from bookstores and libraries the names of books
bought or borrowed by anyone suspected of terrorism. Librarians may
be prosecuted if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed
information related to a terror investigation. [...] Library and
book records were previously only available to prosecutors if a
judge issued a subpoena for the records.
Once again, this is a clear violation of the 4th amendment. In
addition, courts have previously held that this sort of action creates
a chilling effect on activities protected by the 1st amendment; see
the Colorado Supreme Court's decision on the Tattered Cover issue:
Search warrants directed to bookstores, demanding information about
the reading history of customers, intrude upon the First Amendment
rights of customers and bookstores because compelled disclosure of
book-buying records threatens to destroy the anonymity upon which
many customers depend.
Detention
The Immigration and Naturalization Service can now detain aliens
suspected of terrorism for a week before bringing criminal
charges. The INS can hold terrorist suspects for up to six months
without bringing charges if their country of origin won't take them
back.
Writ of habeas corpus, anyone?
The accumulation of these civil rights violations, including others
not discussed in the article, coupled with the secret police/informers
John Ashcroft wishes to set up across the country (see
http://news.com.com/2102-1023-944555.html, for example), creates an
environment where not only terrorists need fear for their rights. It
is reminiscent of Orwell's 1984, where the faade of the
war with Eurasia/Eastasia is used to mask the totalitarian actions of
the government. Reminiscent of the empires of Commodus, Hitler,
Stalin, Mao, and others, for that matter.
This needs to be fought.
----
Permission is given to redistribute this commentary verbatim,
as long as credit is given to Tim Howe (vsync@quadium.net).
Quotations are from the "A Look at the Patriot Act, Nearly One Year
Later", Stephanie Miles, The Wall Street Journal Online, 6 September
2002.
********************
If you are having trouble with any of the links in this message, or if the URL's are not appearing as links, please follow the instructions at the bottom of this email.
Title: WSJ.com - A Look at the Patriot Act, Nearly One Year Later
Copy and paste the following into your Web browser to access the sent link:
http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/e
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
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
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.