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.
When I called my representative about the Zoe Lofgren bill (the one that restores some fair-use and civil liberties to individuals taken away by the DMCA) I got a response that he didn't support her bill. As a representative, shouldn't that be exactly what he supports? Restoring civil liberties to those he represents?
Soon enough, when enough of these freedoms are taken away, like the public unmonitored use of public libraries, then all of the so-called "public" institutions will be used less and less frequently by people who are concious about these things.
In the movie Seven, there was a great hubbub about tracking the use of library card-holders' reading habits. Now it seems that it doesn't need to be kept a secret, that they can and will do it, and that you can't find out about it. That's troubling.
Well now you have a point there though. Remeber, free speech et al was written in a time when there wasn't true anonmity. If you spoke or said something, you had every right to say it, but people could also identify you. Even things like newpapers and pamphlets could be tracked back to you. Anonmity and Freedom are not one in the same.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
In all the news about the USA PATRIOT Act, I had no idea it was an acronym for:
the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act" (USA PATRIOT Act.) until I read the librarian guidelines. Call me s-l-o-w. I bet there is a full-time job to come up with those catchy titles. (I wonder what it pays)
I wonder why everyone is always so worried about what someone might see them doing? Are you that morally degraded that you can't do what's right when nobody is looking? And then you have the gall to complain when someone does? Come on now...grow up!
Yep, pretty much seems that way. Back to the FBI's old tricks like illegally monitoring the communciations of anyone they care to target. Back in McArthy's day it actually cost time and manpower so it was limited to famous,dangerous, or radical people. Today information tracking is so rediculously cheap that they can feasibly monitor some large percentage of the populations communications and even if they don't have the bandwidth to process it all they can store it for future use. I'm really not a conspiracy nut, but I do like to raise my voice when I see our liberties being needlessly trampled. I don't see my life becoming any more secure because the government can more easily monitor citizens conversations, they have and always will have the power to target criminals, now they are just grabbing for the power to use their tools against anyone. Maybe I should move to Canada, a federal judge there just threw out the evidence against 9 defendants that were caught importing 49Kg of heroin because he thought the RCMP had played too loose with their wiretap applications.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
We don't have no the FBI... We have the RCMP, and its unfortunate, but they waste time tracking who borrows certain books when they SHOULD BE investigating our Prime Minister and the millions of tax dollars that got funnelled to friendly Liberal supporters.
The legacy of our PM is broken promises... Case and point... GST and Free Trade...
NAPMFQ
Tournament Management Online &
That movie came out only a few years ago, and yet the scene would probably be meaningless today. It's funny how things change, and not necessarily for the better.
When I was young, it was a great thing to go to the library once a week, get a stack of books, and read them through in the next 7 days. The star wars fiction series, Hardy Boys, Star Trek, The Odessey...
College libraries were awesome places. Places to hang out, maybe study a bit, meet young ladies.
Then I moved to Fayetteville, Georgia. Where the publicly funded library is run by the white hair Gestapo. The collection of books there is lacking. So you say, donate some? I did! I offered to donate 8 cases of books. Computer programming manuals, CS theory, even some copies of books I'v written or edited. Not 30 year old books, but fresh books. Books that a young teenager may not be able to afford to buy, but interested in reading. The offer was refused. No strings attached, just take them. No.
Would the old bags in Fayetteville let you know whats going on? No. Odds are THEY'LL call the FBI first.
Ok, thats my rant. If you are in the atlanta area, its worth the drive to the Georgia Tech library downtown if you really are looking for information. Georgia State's isn't too bad off either.
----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
If they want to monitor, lets give them something to monitor. Find out what books would trigger the watchful eyes, and go check out ALL of them, frequently. Have everyone else do the same. Overwhelm them with useless information. When everyone is on the list, there's no point in having a list.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
The funny thing about this is that there is currently a public service announcement being aired now (I'm not sure which networks are carrying it. I do know, however, that the television station here at my school has been airing it every now and then) produced by a group that has some involvement with our government, that shows just this sort of thing happening, implied by context that it's "fictional". A sort of what-if scenario, reminding us of our supposed freedom.
What it involves is a kid asking a librarian for help finding some books. She explains that they don't have those books anymore, then guys in suits appear and presumably bust his inquisitive ass.
What's my point? I don't know. I just think it's a little bit creepy, with them saying that we should be glad to be American because shit like that doesn't happen, when in fact it clearly can and most likely does happen! The content of the ad does seem absurd: a kid getting hassled for just trying to read some books. But, it also seems like it's happening, so the fact that this ad lies to us about that is probably more absurd.
> 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.
I'd expect that they run your reading list against the following algorithm:
* If you read at least two "radical" books like "Blueprint for Black Power"
* And you read the Koran
* Then you are likely are guilty of the thought crime of "Thought Terrorist" so you need to be watched.
* If you are found to consort with others who have committed "Thought Terrorism"
* Then you and your consorts must be brought in for "questioning" until you confess your guilt or "prove" your innocense. It's not "innocent 'till proven guilty" since they already have "proof" that you and your consorts have engaged in "Thought Terrorism".
It's quite an effective strategy to deal with "underable elements". The "beauty" of it is that much of it can be automated and using Bayesian Filtering it can be made more accurate over time. There may be some false positives, but who cares? It's "for the greater good" and "we all have to make sacrifices to stop 'Terrorism'".
*shiver*
Is it not reasonable that the FBI, if it gets a court order, can bug a computer or a telephone? Is ./ really against bugging in any situation?
If such power is misused then it is cause of great convern, but the article provides no evidence that this is the case.
The author also seems upset that the library staff is not telling him. Well, it is pretty obvious that if you are going to bug something you can't tell the world what you are doing.
Tor
every society on earth has had to deal with terrorists at some time or another. There is no easy way to stop the threat that someone could unleash some plague, detonate some bomb or shoot unarmed people. The solution that the US has decided on seems to be surveilance of its own citizens and of anyone new comming into the country. For right or wrong this seems to be a decision that was reached by the people that were elected in the US by the people. The American people have become used to having alot of freedoms that most other nations on earth don't give to the ir citizens, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to due process of law, the right to have privacy in your home. These rights are granted to all in the US, unfortunatly this also means that they get granted to people who would attack the US from within.
Saying that your not a terrorist and that the FBI should not be monitering you doesn't work, how are the authorities supposed to know what you are thinking? What you are planning to do? Investigation seems to be a way that this can be accomplished but it means throwing away all the rights that the American people have lived so long with and have fought so hard to preserve, 2 wars and innumerable conflicts have been fought by the US to "preserve and maintain our way of life", you can't get rid of that and still call yourself an American.
Its a dicey issue to be certian, balancing rights with the need for the authorities to protect Americans from their enemies.
Think about it.
I really disagree with most forms of patriotism, as they tend to be excuses to descriminate against some people for some silly reason. If the US banned everything with a bias against the US, the US would be no different than any other freedom restricting regime, like China. china seems nice, I'm sure they have less crime and they have plenty of cheap movies and software, but I prefer to have freedom
I'm curious about how notable librarian Laura Bush would weigh in on the matters of the Patriot Act and such.
And I bet your Uni charges every student a few hundred bucks per year "computing resources fee" to pay for those computer labs, so there is no way to opt out of the system.
I am a network specialist at a very large public library system in the midwest with nearly 700 public PC's. We have had cases with law enforcement asking us for our proxy logs but have never been asked to actively monitor all PC's. There have been stalking cases, and death threats sent from our PC's and in those cases the only thing that we have been able to tell law enforcement is that they were sent from "this branch".
We definitely do not log peoples traffic nor do we have the storage space to do so. We have a snort box for intrusion detection that does only logging. We had logging enabled for http for a day and we used up all 200gb of space.
"Even things like newpapers and pamphlets could be tracked back to you."
Where the hell did you get that idea? Ever hear of the Federalist Papers? Signed 'Publius', the authorship of some of them are still debated.
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
Thomas Paine's Common Sense, commonly regarded as one of the most influential writings of its time, was first published anonymously. The publisher knew who the author was, and people of his time found out if they really wanted to, but Paine didn't claim any credit up front.
I've been reading it lately, as part of a compiled volume of Paine's best writings. I find it really interesting to read some of the thoughts that were influential in the forming of my government. And, in the process, I'm learning a few things about the history of British government that I didn't know, either....
I've been taking my time reading through it, though. Some very deep words to think about. So it's probably a good thing I didn't borrow this book from the library.
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
I know all of this is stemming from the Gov'ts attempts at providing a 'Sense' of security, which we all know is next to impossible without erecting a 10 mile high wall around the US and shooting down any plane that comes over the wall (or anyone that tunnels underneath. These attempts at spying on the citizenry of the US is a serious afront to our freedom as a whole, at the expense of an ILLUSION of security.
All of these safeguards are merely illusions. The real indication that a terrorist cannot bring in a nuke into the country will be the day that illegal drugs can't get into the country. I don't see that happening anytime soon. Think about it, if I were a terrorist and had a large nuclear device i wanted smuggled into the US, I would contact a drug smuggler, they get literally 1,000's of tons of drugs into the US every year.
The day heroine is 1,000$/gram is the day we can expect a reasonable sense of security (from a nuke detonating in DC atleast).
--
In America, they are called internment camps, or Indian reservations, not concentration camps.
How ya like dat?
A Bunch of Fliers? All Over Town?! Oh, Boy!!
The Rascals! The... The Anarchists!!
And if they wanted to put some in the next town, they went to their corner Kinko's?
There was no anonymity, no over-educated under-worked "Anonymous Cowards" when your Constitutional rights were framed. You had a gripe, you got up on your soapbox in the Town Square and you made it, loud and clear. The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure you couldn't be legally shot or carried off later that night, so they protected your right to speak freely. The Constitution does not, was not meant to, protect your anonymity as you take snivelling globally distributed pot shots at the government or corporations or the media or soccer Moms or Britney Spears all from the safety of a firewalled computer terminal on your employer's time.
Want to really make a difference, be heard, get your point across? Find a large group of like-minded people and have a rally. The Founding Fathers knew that took guts, too (it was the age of Napolean's "whiffs of grapeshot," after all), and so they protected your Right to Assemble. In public, where people live, not in a virtual "chatroom," or (saints and martyrs preserve us!) a "Blog."
Got something to say? That's great, let's hear it. But be prepared to take personal responsibility for it. I may not agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your freedom to say it. But just have the balls to own up to your words, and don't expect to hide behind the Internet or your Mom.
In short, the Founding Fathers did not work to protect your right to be an Anonymous Coward... maybe because they knew that cowards already die a thousand deaths and there was not much anybody could do to improve their lot.
All this is not to say that I don't respect your privacy, or respect others who respect their privacy. It's just not a God-given or Constitutional right, then or now.
We can debate it publicly just fine. The librarians are allowed to complain about the law. They just aren't allowed to tell you you're being monitored. We know the law is in place. That's in the public record. There's no secret about what's going on.
The problem is Americans don't care about their freedoms any more. Hell, how many slashdotters didn't know about this law 'till they read it here today?
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Think I am joking? Try to find an opinion of the court (not a dissent) that rested its argument upon either amendment... It may be the case that most cases based upon retained or reserved rights never get cert, but in practical terms these amendments are about as important to the current court as the third amendment. I have heard reasonable arguments made that the 13th and 14th amendments effectively gutted 9 and 10 when combined with the commerce clause after the various civil rights cases.
It seem that phrase should be rephrased to home of the enslaved, land of the silenced..
here in canada we are prepairing for Rememberance day, and i think this year i will be reflecting of the fact that thousands of brave men & women gave up their lives fighting aganst facisim, and for my freedom. and in that in the end it was all for not, because we allowed the facists to take over our government. and allowed those that same government to take away our freedoms in the name of security..
something to reflect upon. and i sincerely hope people do on rememberance day..
> A Bunch of Fliers? All Over Town?! Oh, Boy!
...and anonymously.
Yep. Completely anonymously. How scandalous! As one of the other posters pointed out, even whole books could be published anonymously. How did the country ever survive?!?
>There was no anonymity, no over-educated under-worked "Anonymous Cowards" when your Constitutional rights were framed. You had a gripe, you got up on your soapbox in the Town Square and you made it, loud and clear.
You could even ride your horse to another town and get up on a soapbox there, and guess what - nobody knew you! That's right, you were anonymous and were allowed to speak!
>The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure you couldn't be legally shot or carried off later that night, so they protected your right to speak freely.
>The Constitution does not, was not meant to, protect your anonymity as you take snivelling globally distributed pot shots at the government or corporations or the media or soccer Moms or Britney Spears all from the safety of a firewalled computer terminal on your employer's time.
Of course not. They didn't have any concept of firewalls or Britney Spears. They didn't need to spell out the right to be anonymous because everyone already was effectively anonymous. They had no way of knowing that some day the government would have to power to track everything you do, and would have been horrified at the idea.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
According to a piece I heard on NPR's Morning Edition a few months ago, the library spot was made before the Patriot Act came fruition. It was discussed how ironic it was that the spot predicted the future instead of warning against the future. See my other post on sponsorship of the ad.
Beware, Nugget is watching... See?
There is a balance between free speech and responsible speech. In an oppressive government, there is certainly an interest in having anonymous speech be protected.
:)
There probably isn't any such thing as a non-oppressive government. Just about any government has something they'd rather was kept secret. Also governments are made up of people, there might be things these individuals do not want known or investigated.
But in most western governments, IMO the potential for abuse of anonymous speech (e.g., false accusations) outweighs the value of anonymous speech.
False accusations can be made without anonymity. All anonymity does is prevent the person making the accusation from being cross examined. If the accusation is false and you have freedom of speach then it can be refuted.
In other words, you have very little fear in the United States for being prosecuted by the government for your beliefs.
Probably best not to hold Islamic religious beliefs, Russian citizenship and visit the US to give a speach of computer security then