Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FBI Bugging Public Libraries

Posted by michael on from the liberty-is-just-a-brand-of-jeep dept.

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.

24 of 455 comments (clear)

  1. I don't trust them. by dnoyeb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Everything will be used against you if they need someone to blame. Just pick the one with the most "X"s.

    I have several books that might raise an eyebrow. One is "Blueprint for Black Power" Amazon inserted a small paper saying it was below their standards when I ordered it from them. But I couldn't find any visible damage...

    This book is primarily about cultural phychology and has nothing to do with any radical movements or any such violence or the like. But I could easily be marked by one of the various government "plans" if they feelt the need over books like this.

    This is garbage and we shouldn't allow this in a 'free as in beer' society.

    What do they really expect to find? They already have shown they have enough information, but their problem is a lack of digestion and comprehention. Perhaps some of the Arabs and muslims they so actively alienate could be of assistance...Only if they really cared about security would that happen!

  2. I can already see ... by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... the barage of posts talking about constitional rights, the Bush Administration and, of course, the 569 jokes about the "terrorists already winnning". But seriously, does anyone thing they have an absolute Constitional Right to anonymity when they use the internet or check out books in the library?

    I know that even posing the question is going to be seriously unpopular, but it should be asked.

    --
    Forget the whales - save the babies.
    1. Re:I can already see ... by slow_flight · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe not, but we do have a constitutionally protected right to free speech. That right is infringed upon when the speaker (or listener) is concerned about repercussions from an oppressive government. It is not a stretch to expect this constitutional protection to extend to what we read, whether in books or on the internet.

      --

      Karma: Professionally Doomed (mostly affected by inability to keep opinions to self)
    2. Re:I can already see ... by interiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IMHO, it's not about the right to anonymity so much, it's that we can't really have much public debate over this if it's absotelutely illegal for the librarians to mention it at all. Here I thought it was only heavy-handed non-democractic countries who 1) spied on citizens, and then 2) resolutely deny that any spying activity is taking place

    3. Re:I can already see ... by irregular_hero · · Score: 5, Insightful
      A right to anonymity is not the point.

      The question you should be asking is whether you have the freedom from pervasive government oversight as a result of Constitutional statute. Anonymity has never been a right of every citizen (that's the American way, just ask the advertising and marketing industry). However, there is a reasonable expectation to freedom from having our actions _overseen_ by our own government. It's one of the core distinctions of democracy itself, that the citizenry are the government's overseers, not the other way around.

    4. Re:I can already see ... by puppet10 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Remeber, free speech et al was written in a time when there wasn't true anonmity.

      It was also a time of anonymous pamphleteering of political opinions unpopular with the established government which was part of the forsce behind the first amendment (speech and press) and has been held by the Supreme Court including a case of an Ohio law being struck down as unconstitutional because it wouldn't allow anonymous political speech through pamphleteering.

      --
      -------- This space intentionally left blank --------
    5. Re:I can already see ... by EllisDees · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >Remeber, free speech et al was written in a time when there wasn't true anonmity

      Yes there was. Even more than there is now. Anyone could make up a bunch of fliers and post them all over town in the middle of the night and there would be no way of knowing who did it. It's not like they could even check them for fingerprints...

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    6. Re:I can already see ... by thelexx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unpopular due to being so wrong:

      Amendment IX

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      Amendment X

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      Goddamn right I don't expect the government to be snooping on library records. And no I don't give a fuck if Bin Laden himself had checked out 'How to Fly but not Land an Airliner for Dummies' the day before last Sept. 11.

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    7. Re:I can already see ... by DarkSkiesAhead · · Score: 5, Insightful

      free speech et al was written in a time when there wasn't true anonmity. ... Even things like newpapers and pamphlets could be tracked back to you.
      How exactly could pamphlets be tracked to you 200 years ago? The point of pamphlets was that you didn't need to give your name to the printer and you could take them far away to distribute and simply post or drop them. You didn't need to show your government issued ID. There were no credit cards to track down. They wouldn't even be able to track your fingerprints down.

      What anonymity gives us is the ability to disagree even when we fear retaliation for our words. While this may not be a basic right listed in the Constitution it's certainly a valuable tool and worth fighting to keep.
    8. Re:I can already see ... by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 5, Insightful
      But seriously, does anyone thing they have an absolute Constitional Right to anonymity when they use the internet or check out books in the library?

      The general case is that you have a right to anonymously publish or read. Without this right, our right to free speech is shallow and nearly meaningless. The right to anonymously read ensures that if you're curious about the principles of Communism, you won't be dragged in front of the House Unamerican Activities Comission or any similar modern witch hunt. It ensures that your teenage fling with Anarchism isn't going to taint your job record twenty years later. Without anonymity, you put yourself at risk of future loss for what you read today, or you limit what you read to official sanctioned materials.

      The right to anonymously publish ensures that you can get your work out even if powerful forces attempt to silence you. Sure, in the long run the First Amendment should protect you, but in the short run your life can be destroyed. Our founding fathers (assert(reader.nationality==AMERICAN)) used anonymous publications to raise public support against the British and for the new Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of anonymous speech (repeatedly).

      Given that anonymous speech and reading is essential to free speech, it's only natural that the same rules would apply to the internet and libraries. The internet is simply a new way to express yourself. Allowing anonymous pamphlettering, publishing, and speech, but prohibiting anonymous speech on the internet is silly. Similarly, public libraries exist in part to support an educated citizenry. If citizens are afraid to check out "dangerous" books to educate themselves, we're stifling the democratic process which requires free access to information.

      --
      Search 2010 Gen Con events
    9. Re:I can already see ... by mjolnir_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The right to free speech isn't at issue here -- it's the freedom from unwarranted search and seizure (Amend. IV of the Bill of Rights) that has, in the modern age, been widely (and often inbcorrectly) interpreted as granting some notion of privacy. And it has nothing to do with democracy per se, rather the tyranny of powerful states that the framers were trying to avoid.

      Of course, we seem to be heading in that very direction now anyway.

      Did you vote today?

  3. Re:USA-PATRIOT by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Proof again that you can get anything passed if it has a snazzy acronym.

    That and a president who implies that by challenging him or his cabinet you are voluntarily helping terrorists.

  4. Re:Universities Too by Fembot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fortunatly here in the UK AFAK this doesnt happen (yet) or is very hush hush still.. It strikes me as remarkably ironic that on the one hand there is all this anti-communist/anti-china propoganda and yet we're heading towards an orwellian future more than they are.

  5. That's why by CaffeineAddict2001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What library's need to do is allow for anonymous checkout of books - providing the person leaves collateral of course.

    When you return the books, you get the money back - just don't forget your receipt with matching barcode.

  6. Re:Universities Too by susano_otter · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...we're heading towards an orwellian future more than they are.

    Yeah, because they're already there.

    --

    Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  7. The Irony Is... by NeuroManson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Ad Council spot with the tagline "Freedom. Love it. Respect it. Cherish it." or some such, where a college age guy walks into a library and asks about the book he requested. "We don't carry that book anymore." is the librarian's curt reply, "But would you mind filling out this form, with your name, address, social security number?". Said college age dude backs out cautiously, "Um, no, that's okay, thanks-", turning around to find himself facing a couple of "agents". The spot ends with "What if you didn't have the freedoms you do now?".

    And the same government that financed that Ad Council spot (naturally, who else would pay for such drivel, or require networks to air them), is doing exactly the same thing.

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  8. Re:So what? I'll Tell You What! by JLucien · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a quote that is much bandied about in this day and age, but people like you should actually give it some thought if you can. Winston Churchill gave us this gem in 1940:

    "Those who would trade a little freedom for a little security will soon find they have neither".

    That one's for you, Sunshine.

    -- Jude
    (Not a coward, and not anonymous)

    --
    Audere est Facere
  9. Fake ID anyone? by eyeball · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The terrorists were able to falsify documents to get fake passports and drivers licenses. Library cards are by far the easiest piece of identity thing to fake. Do you really think that a terrorist that is here on an expired visa is going use his real ID (which either doesn't exist or isn't valid)?

    "Oh, looks like Chuck U. Farly checked out another copy of 'How to bow up big buildings with farm chemicals.' Where does he live? 110 Up-Yours Infidel St., New York, NY? Book him, dan-o"

    Meanwhile, somewhere on the other side of the country, little 4th grader Joey checks out 'How Power Plants Work" for a school project, and 10 minutes later the S.W.A.T. team is busting down his parent's door...

    I wonder where our government will put the concentration camps.

    -----

    --

    _______
    2B1ASK1
  10. Election Day... by bemis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well -- I'm more than a little disapointed to see that (as of 2:30p CDT) There hasn't been a front page article reminding American Slashdotters to get out and vote today. With all of the politics that buzz around this site I *really* expected to log onto slashdot this morning to not only a "Hey USers, remember to vote today!" story, but also some tips about certain candidates -- etc ...

    Perhaps this isn't the right topic for this gripe, but I guess if you're going to complain about an America-centric problem like the FBI tapping your library's computer, you should at least *try* to do something about it.

    Just my two cents.
    bemis

  11. Re:Mass Monitoring for "Security" made simple. by dnoyeb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Considering I live in Detroit and have many friends from that side of the world I suppose I get another "X".

    Does my christianity vindicate me?

    Its just that people are not legallay prosecuted so much anymore as they are prosecuted in a marketing fashion.

    For instance, so may people still think OJ was "obviously" guilty, but fail to point out any legitimate evidence to support that claim. He is basically culturally guilty at this point. Regardless to his guilt or not I like to make sensical arguements. This is not the way of the times.

    I am concerned.

  12. Re:So what? I'll Tell You What! by Aleatoric · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bad analogy.

    And a misquote from the grandparent post: "Those who would sacrifice an *essential* liberty for temporary safety, deserves neither", the key words here being essential, for liberty, and temporary, for safety.

    There is no such thing as permanent safety, no matter what the nanny state would have us believe.

    And the context of essential liberty is intended to refer to those liberties that do not infringe upon the liberties of others, it is not intended to promote or justify anarchy.

    A common misconception in most societies is the idea that we are granted our freedoms by law, when in fact, the opposite is true. Our essential freedoms have *always* existed, it is in the scope of law merely to protect them from those that would abuse them, and those abusers can (and often do) include the government and institutions we have in place to protect those freedoms.

    I'd rather keep EVERY ONE of my *essential* liberties, even at the risk of a little less certainty in the public safety arena, for the very simple reason that those who would threaten that safety will not be hampered, IN THE LEAST, by any of the restrictions on my freedoms.

    --

    Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus.

  13. David Brin's Accountability Matrix by PineHall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1 2
    3 4

    1. Tools that help me see what others are up to.
    2. Tools that prevent others from seeing what I am up to.
    3. Tools that help others see what I am up to.
    4. Tools that prevent me from seeing what others are up to.

    Maybe we should promote laws that make everyone's activities transparent. We like 1 and 2, but reality is that it is either 1 and 3, or 2 and 4. And 1 and 3 promotes accountability while 2 and 4 is an "arms race" to see if one can remain hidden. If we could check and make certain the FBI was doing its job properly, it would reign in any questionable activities.

  14. Re:USA-PATRIOT by zericm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dudes, it's turning into "1984". Unelect the current occupants of office, it's our only hope.

    That means one has to believe that the current occupant of the White House was elected in the first place. I, for one, don't. And if one accepts the fact that El Presidente came to power in a coup worthy of any third world dictator, then his current governments attacks on our constitutional rights are not all that surprising.

    Turning into 1984? 9/11 was the day that 1984 became a reality. Bush got his Reichstag fire, and he has used it to his advantage.

    --
    The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants. - Albert Camus
  15. From the perspective of a Librarian by Subgroove · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am a librarian, and nothing pisses myself and my fellow librarians off more than the government, religious action groups, or any other group of ignorant fools trying to stomp on the very ideals that have made this country what it is. The problem is that over the past decade these groups have only increased in numbers. The Patriot Act (as if enforcing or acquiescing to such assinine acts is a show true patriotism...) is just the latest (and most visible) in a long line of such infingments upon our civil liberties. As you can see in the link to the American Library Association website, the ALA has numerous lawsuits pending against the FBI regarding such draconian acts. All of the librarians I know are violently opposed to this act. Those who aren't; how dare they call themselves librarians! WE are commited to the preservation of knowledge and making said knowledge available to the masses. Any attempt to censor what a person may choose to read or persecution (and that is exactly what this is) of a person for their choice of reading goes against everything we stand for. There are countless librarians out there who are fighting this tooth and nail, often at the risk of our own jobs, to protect the civil liberties these acts attempt to toss in the gutter. I for one can not believe the librarians mentioned in this article are not screaming bloody murder at this heinous act. If you are opposed to these "patriotic" acts which "protect" our nation from unsubstantiated threats (and I know most of us /.ers do) talk to your local libraian about what you can do to FIGHT, contact the ALA and see how you can help, write your local newspaper, and most of all CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE and tell them how YOU were NOT represented when this was passed. This MUST be fought! This MUST be beaten! Otherwise we will lose much more than we have already lost. "Librarians are the secret masters of the world. They control information. Don't ever piss one off." -Spider Robinson