Slashdot Mirror
FBI Bugging Public Libraries
zamiel writes "Bill Olds writes in the Hartford Courant: 'I know my librarian, and I believe she would tell me if the government were tracking my computer use at the library. Don't you agree? No way. There's a gag order. When the FBI uses a court order or a subpoena to gain access to library computers or a list of the names of people who have borrowed certain books, librarians can't tell anyone - not even other librarians or you. They face a stiff federal penalty if they do. It's unfair that librarians should be placed in such a position.'" The American Library Association has a page with advice to librarians and links to previous news stories on the subject.
The same thing goes for Universities too. They used to have to tell you by law, now they can't. They also don't need a subpoena to monitor your computer use any more. I believe a court order will work which is easier to get than a subpoena. So add computer labs and dorms to list.
Thanks Patriot Act.
Hey! Don't diss librarians. Sometimes they're your last line of defence in protecting your First Amendment Rights.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
I work at a University computer department. A lot of my work goes into writing/maintaining the software that provides a three-way cross between client IP address, username, and timestamp for every use of our computer facilities (except staff and faculty workstations). These logs are regularly used as evidence in court and in pre-trial proceedings. IANAL, and I don't actually interface with the lawyers, but my buddies in the security group are constantly reviewing the login records at the behest of xxAA or FBI or whatever (they always play the cloak and dagger routine -- "need to know only!" *rolls the eyes*). Every login is preceded by "By clicking the button you agree to these policies" with a URL to the pages and pages of dos and don'ts, or else published everywhere around these workstations as dead tree reminders of "acceptable use". I can't speak for public libraries, but here at University we try to be lenient and let the students off with a "never do that again!" If they cower and tremble and repent of their evil filesharing ways, we let them off. Otherwise, they get a permanent "incident report" filed on their student record and get to take their song and dance to the VP of student affairs.
Which brings me to the point of, where's the right to privacy? Waived at the door, I guess, since apparently the presupposition is that by using your authentication to log in to these systems, you've agreed that you've read all these policies and have agreed to all these potential remedies against your violation of these policies. Any lawyers out there know if that holds water?
--
"Limited government" will always exceed its bounds
The spot itself is available at_ fr eedom/
http://www.adcouncil.org/campaigns/campaign_for
Click on Library (links on the right).
If security experts believe that a determined criminal's last resort for information would be the public library... too bad for all of us.
Our society is built on the trust that most of its members lead lives based on "acceptable" line of behavior. There is no way to enforce high security against determined individuals without changing the environment, at a high cost, both monetary and human rights wise. Such environments are prisons, banks, airports, etc.
The choice of a government to create conflicts and conditions which encourage the appearance of such "determined individuals" is a conscious decision to turn its citizens into hostages.
Unfortunately, I don't see a quick solution.
Maybe treat others with respect and/or leave them alone? Even that might not be a solution as it might be exploited as a sign of fear. I am not a politician and do not understand the rules in the battle for power. What I see is that a structure which was invented to support the best interests of "all people" is changing its function to support other entities by _exploiting_ "all people".
Now what?
How about "US v. Morrison" -- in May 15, 2000 SCOTUS affirmed an US Court of Appeals ruling striking down 42 USC 13981 on the basis that the Constitution did /not/ give Congress the ability to legislate on the matter covered, and explicitly stating that the Commerce Clause could /not/ be stretched as ludicrously far as Congress and the President had wanted.
p -Bush whiners -- Florida did /not/ apply its own law evenly to its counties; hence, the 14th Amendment violation. SCOTUS got jurisdiction as an appellate court. Ergo, no states-rights problem, as the states do not have a right to apply their own laws unevenly and thus violate equal-protection.)
The ruling even states, "Every law enacted by Congress must be based on one or more of its powers enumerated in the Constitution", and specifically cites Marbury v. Madison in rejecting arbitrary extensions of federal power.
Incidentally, it was the four liberal justices who dissented in order to promote federal power over every little bit of American society (and likewise in striking down the Gun Free School Zone law, where again Congress tried to buy votes by grossly exceeding its limits).
(And for the but-the-Conservatives-screwd-States-Rights-to-hel
Only the dead have seen the end of war.