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.

45 of 455 comments (clear)

  1. It's about time! by L.+VeGas · · Score: 4, Funny

    Those cranky librarians have been shushing people for years. About time someone shushed them back!

    --
    Best Windows Freeware
    1. Re:It's about time! by gowen · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
  2. Universities Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

  3. Now you tell me! by drxenos · · Score: 4, Funny

    Time to return by copy of "Catcher in the Rye!"

    --


    Anonymous Cowards suck.
  4. 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!

  5. 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 MoneyT · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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
    2. 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)
    3. 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

    4. 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.

    5. 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 --------
    6. 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!
    7. 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
    8. Re:I can already see ... by thelexx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "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
    9. 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.
    10. Re:I can already see ... by Dannon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.
    11. 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
    12. 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?

    13. Re:I can already see ... by EllisDees · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > A Bunch of Fliers? All Over Town?! Oh, Boy!

      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. ...and anonymously.

      >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!
  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. One solution... by Yoda2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is easy enough to fix - just burn all the books with questionable content. Might help to cut down on all of the mischief caused by those evil Harry Potter books.

  9. Ashcroft is the reincarnation of McArthy? by afidel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  10. Reminds me of a scene... by dachshund · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I recall a scene in David Fincher's Se7en in which the investigators surreptitiously visit a friend at the FBI in order to obtain library records. The scene sticks out in my mind because I remember how much trouble they had to go to: even the FBI was scared to admit that they had access to such information, and as a result the whole process is conducted on the sly-- the FBI man is clearly terrified that someone'll find out what he's up to.

    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.

  11. universities track logins by jazzbotley · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    1. Re:universities track logins by SideshowBob · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  12. Libraries? by wolf- · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  13. Mass Monitoring for "Security" made simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    > 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*

    1. 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.

  14. Re:Wuh? by McFly69 · · Score: 5, Funny

    No sure, but once I walked into a build named Boston Public LIBRARY, to take a piss. When I was inside, I became scared. There were lunatics sitting in chairs, very quiet, just starting at table tops with a neat stack of papers. Soem were even chantign soemthign without making a soudn but their lips were moving! I was so scared, I pissed all over my shoes and ran out. Never went back in there since then.

    --



    NO! NO! Please don't mod me, I'm too young to die a troll. *click* Oh the pain, the pain...
  15. 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!
  16. 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
  17. 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
    1. Re:Fake ID anyone? by macdaddy357 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In America, they are called internment camps, or Indian reservations, not concentration camps.

      --
      How ya like dat?
  18. 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

  19. Lay off McCarthy by rizzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    We in Wisconsin have so little going for us, any publicity, good or bad, is needed.

    Of course we do have Jeffrey Dahmer and Ed Gein. Oh wait.

    --

    "More organs means more human." - Zim

  20. it's christmas for con men! by shren · · Score: 5, Funny
    Wow. This is begging - begging! - for a big fat stack of social engineering. You can fake being an FBI man and get into the library records of anyone you want. They're under gag order and they know it, so they won't look into it at all. Just run a line on the librarian about the Patriot Act and federal felony charges if they do anything to breach the secrecy of the inquiry, including looking into it. Even casual checking might reveal to the librarian that they're getting conned, but they can't check, or if they do check they have to do all the checking themselves without telling anyone why! Throw in some bullshit about how open phone lines arn't regarded as secure, and you can convince them that they can't even call the FBI to check your id!

    Christmas comes early this year for the black hats! How many other gag orders like this exist under the patriot act? How many people are hindered in finding out if inquiries are coming from a valid source? How many shady groups are already using this enviornment of secrecy to reach thier nefarious ends?

    --
    Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
  21. The spot itself [Re:The Irony Is...] by aaandre · · Score: 5, Informative

    The spot itself is available at
    http://www.adcouncil.org/campaigns/campaign_for_ fr eedom/

    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?

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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
  25. Re:Amendments 9 and 10 really don't exist... by Stonehand · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    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-help -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.)

    --
    Only the dead have seen the end of war.
  26. 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