Slashdot Mirror
Bookseller Purges Records to Avoid PATRIOT Act
Skyshadow writes "Vermont Bookseller Bear Pond Books has announced that they will purge their sales records at the request of customers . This would effectively sidestep typically insideous a provision of the PATRIOT Act which allows government agencies to secretly seize sales records. The store's co-owner, Michael Katzenberg, put it this way: 'When the CIA comes and asks what you've read because they're suspicious of you, we can't tell them because we don't have it... That's just a basic right, to be able to read what you want without fear that somebody is looking over your shoulder to see what you're reading.' Now if only certain other booksellers would show that same conscience, we might have something here."
I'm with ya! How about first getting people to actually VOTE in our elections, huh? Then we can focus on getting the decent politicians back where they belong -- in power.
$DEITY bless $NATION
They shouldn't be keeping records about who buys what books in the first place. I know what I buy, and I have the ability to look for new reading material in catalogs, libraries or via social contacts. Why is a bookseller keeping track of my book purchases any better than a government keeping track?
The CIA does not, and is not allowed, to opperate within the borders of the united states. It may be the FBI or NSA that comes looking but CIA is strictly for international matters.
And I highly doubt they would be interested in what books a person reads, but that's just me.
I was, as a result of this post, going to create a list on Amazon cataloging a number of books that might make the government look at me a little closer. Little did I know, someone had already done just that :\
Here.[amazon.com]
Anybody remembers that AD that shows how america would have been if everybody was not free? The one that takes place in a library... Where a guy is gonna get arrested...
Remember that???
that some are opposing such horrible violations of our rights. I only hope that they do not pay a terrible price for fighting against this.
The truely sad part of this, is that this is not the worse. This admin has been not only stealing so many of our rights, but also taking away our ability to know what is going on. Public scrutiny of all processes (check and balances) is just as important to prevent abuses.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I'm sorry about our government... It's the 1950's all over again and it sucks ass. Everyone is freaked out about all the terrorists that must be living next door, or down the street. Everyone watches CNN and FOX news for their information, and the 6 news agencies in the US are all for these horrible things as it will mean bigger sales in the near future. The government is being run by corporations at the moment, but I think another uprising of protest (ala early 70's) will put the government back in somewhat close to what could kind of be called balance.
The american people are starting to get pissed off and the movements against these insanities are growing as more people are being educated.
-Derick
Also, wouldn't a bookworm terrorist just purchase books in cash and give a false name and zip code? Kind of defeats the whole tracking thing.
That is why the USA PATRIOT act is so stupid... it does very little (if anything at all) to increase security and everything to limit the rights of everyday citizens.
Governments who attempt to have complete control over it's citizens never work out. They fall. I believe America will fall unless Bush 'n pals are taken out of office and we congress gets it's act together.
Real US patriots would never put the USA PATRIOT act into place.
-Derick
We should:
I'm as mimsy as the next borogove but your mome raths are completely outgrabe.
Lastly: get a clue and toss in some fucking line breaks.
Which politician is man or woman enough to lead the fight to undo these un-American powers? We know that in the Senate only Feingold resisted, although colleagues have become braver since. And yet the nation remains enthralled to right wing fantasies, driven hysterical by an irresponsible administration and its cynical Democratic allies who use fear to control the public as ranchers use cattle prods.
The hour demands a Lincoln; all we have is a Bush! Is there no one in office with love great enough for our freedom to save it?
longer than 3 months. It it's demanded for legal reasons, we don't have it. The deal is that for this to be legally solid, you must maintain the same policy for all users without exception. This means no .pst or .ost (offline outlook folders -oh god now you know I use MS). What's nice is: this forces people to maintain their email, and thus their jobs a little better. Of course, it's not the most popular policy my IT dept offers.
Arthur C. Clarke, \i{Imperial Earth}. Anyone who wants an office was, by definition, unqualified for it. Officeholders had to be dragged kicking and screaming into office.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No", said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd", said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did", said Ford. "It is."
"So", said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them", said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes", said Ford with a shrug, "of course".
"But", said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said", said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them." he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it." - Douglas Adams, So long, and thanks for all the fish, chapter 36.
"It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it." - Eugene V. Debs
I've got an idea. The public is generally considered very bad at governing itself right? (In terms of making logical descions) Masses of people tend to act on whims, emotions, and whatever the "group" feels at the moment. Mob mentality on a grand scale if you will. I suppose that this is because people don't tend to think logically in these kinds of situation, whether because they don't want to think for themselves out of laziness, lack of time, or lack of resources to educate themselves. I don't know. What if a public service was started that during elections, say maybe.. the whole week before the election, every TV station has a voter education segment that reviews each canditate and issue in a non-partisian fashion. And I don't mean just a half hour election primer sitcom deal. I'm talking every channel, several hours worth of information. Does anyone think this might help?
"I murder kittens, robot. Whats it to 'ya?" - Badguy
I agree. It is interesting to note that only third parties generate ANY change in the political arena. Socialists, Communists, Populists, etc. all had more influence on society than Republicans and Democrats -- working conditions (40hr week), freedom of speech (IWW), unionization, etc. I'm sure that some would argue differently, of course.
Another problem is that third parties have a hard time getting on state ballots. Here in North Carolina it is almost impossible for candidates to get on the ballot. For example, there was a Write-In candidate for Senator last election, but he wasn't able to get his name on the ballot. They had a blank for you to write his name on. How hard would it have been to put his name as a choice, rather than printing "Write In _________"? I wrote his name on my hand before voting so I wouldn't misspell it...
help fill in hidden movie endings @ End of the Credits
"Winner takes all" only applies in presidential elections. There are a number of other problems which apply in all elections. The plurality voting system is chief among them.
Bad idea. Learn about the problem with Instant Runoff Voting. The same problem applies in any runoff, instant or not. Sometimes the best "compromise" candidate may get eliminated first, and you're stuck voting between two bad choices - exactly what we have now. Yes, plurality voting is bad, but IRV isn't really any better (even though it seems to be). The system you want is Condorcet voting. Same ranking method, but you consider all preferences simultaneously rather than sequentially.
Not really. True proportional representation by popular vote forgets that the states, as political entities, should be represented in the federal government too. (That's what federal government means, the federation of individual states.) In Congress we have one house that represents the states (at least we did until that lousy 17th Amendment) and one that represents the people. The EC is an attempt to unify the interests of the states and the people when voting for a singular office (president). That's why the number of EC votes a state has is the total number of Senators and Representatives from that state.
I do agree that "winner takes all" is a broken system. The legislators that put it in place were very short-sighted - in giving more power to "their state's party" in presidential elections, they didn't think that the balance of power in their state might swing another way in the future and end up hurting "their party". NE and ME allocate their EC votes (less two) proportionally by congressional district to the plurality winner of that district. That's a good attempt at compromise. I think it would be better if we used Condorcet, better still if the last two EC votes were decided in the state legislature (if they are supposed to represent the state's interest) and we scrapped the 17th Am. while we're at it. Remember, these issues are decided by your state legislators, not DC. This gives you much greater ability to make a change to the system. It's closer to you, and hence more responsive.
I've also heard people say that we don't have enough representatives in Congress. With only 435, each has far too many constituents to respond to. The Constitution originally called for a 1:30k ratio. Maybe several thousand would be a tad excessive, but with modern technology I don't see why the number couldn't be increased without hampering the ability to debate. This means you'd have more chance of your view being represented in Congress, and combined with the idea of allocating EC votes by CD, a better chance of picking the president too.
Constitutionally Correct