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."

28 of 469 comments (clear)

  1. Law Enforcement by jlrowe · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Why don't we just enforce the law in the USA. And the premier first set is the US Consitution and the amendments.

    Vote some decent congressmen in and maybe we can win the country back!

    1. Re:Law Enforcement by elmegil · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem is most of us have given up on finding any decent politicians. Quite honestly I can't think of any where I'm from.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    2. Re:Law Enforcement by Poeir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The late Douglas Adams put it rather well: "Those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job." And he's right. Just look at Bush.

      --
      Sigs are like bumper stickers.
    3. Re:Law Enforcement by rppp01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And, damn it, pick people other than Old, Rich, White Lifetime politicians.

      I have been thinking of Cincinattus of late, how he was called upon by the people of Rome to leave his farm, become the dictator and lead the Romans to war against the Truscans (I think). He does so, leads his people, defeats his enemies, and then returns to his farm after the war has ended.

      I want a leader like that! Well, multiple leaders. I agree here, select people who at least have some education. President Cletus may get us into a war with Alabama simply because his sister's name has been desicrated on a water tower.

      At the same time, get the hell rid of those people who are lifetime people in government. Those that serve who ever is in power, and help with the status quo.

      --
      They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
  2. Farenheit 451 anyone? by DarwinDan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does this remind anyone of Farenheit 451? You know, where they burn the books so people won't revolt against the government? This is a similar restriction placed upon our libraries and bookstores that silences any mention of a subpoena for a list of books a certain individual has purchased or borrowed.

    I still don't understand how Mr. Ashcroft and his DoJ thugs got PATRIOT through Congress. Oh wait, I forgot! Our US Congress was so freaked out by September 11 and thought that somehow if they took away Americans' right to privacy and freedom from harassment that this world would somehow be a better place!

    --
    $DEITY bless $NATION
    1. Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? by BFaucet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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
  3. This deserves more than a comment by blair1q · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Where's a HERO tag when you need one?

    1. Re:This deserves more than a comment by bdesham · · Score: 5, Funny
      Where's a HERO tag when you need one?
      Why, that's a farking good idea!
      --
      Alcohol and Calculus don't mix. Don't drink and derive.
  4. Good way to go. by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Patriot Act is a violation of what my father fought for in Korea and Vietnam, and what I stood for while in the military.

    I am upset that people are associating the Patriot Act with conservatism. Violation of my rights isn't conservative, its facism. Fellow conservatives need to speak up. We DO need some stronger laws and enforcement tools, and I do believe this is a passing problem, but only if we speak up.

    Some may compare our current situation to that during the Civil War (oxymoron if there ever was one) when Lincoln suspended Habius Corpus, but I don't feel the two events can be compared in this way. The threat is real, more real than that era, but not as localized.

    Until then, destroying sales records is a legal way to not comply with this over reaching Act. Hopefully, others will follow their lead.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  5. Except for one minor problem... by benevold · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Except for one minor problem... by Wingnut64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That was 'fixed' by the USPA.. Key quote:
      "Section 901 of the USA PATRIOT Act would empower the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency ("DCI"), to establish the priorities for the collection and dissemination of intelligence information gathered in the U.S."

      And I highly doubt they would be interested in what books a person reads, but that's just me.
      Uh, they want to know if people entering the US asked for meals without pork...

      This could be a subtle atempt to outlaw certain books. People would be scared away from 'subversive' material if they knew that the Gov't was watching their every move.

      --
      echo 'Header append X-HD-DVD "0x09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0"' >> /etc/apache2/httpd.conf
  6. an added clause here, a lost right, there by dandelion_wine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It wouldn't take much to add a provision (were it passed) to make retention of such records mandatory. Rather like walking in to see a psychologist here (Canada) and asking him/her not to keep records, knowing that they could be subject to subpoena -- they'll tell you they must by law keep records, with certain minimum information.

    On another sobering note, in 1983 the Supreme Court of Canada allowed evidence of a newspaper clipping found in an accused's home as sufficiently probative to admit, despite the potential prejudice of propensity evidence -- aka: "See? He's the kind of person who would do this." He had been charged with heroin smuggling from Hong Kong. The article was titled: "The heroin trade moves to Pakistan." This flew in the face of all caselaw on that point, but has been followed since. The lesson being: what you read can be held against you! The case is R. v. Morris [1983] 2 S.C.R. 190, if anyone is interested.

  7. Amazon Lists by n0tqu1tesane · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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]

  8. That would be nice but... by ewhenn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the problem is finding decent congressman. Remember, these people come from the population. The politicians don't suck, the population sucks if this is the best we have to offer. An ignorant population is easy to control. I bet the people who ran out and bought duct tape and plastic think the PATRIOT act is a great idea. Considering what it is the name, "PATRIOT act", makes me want to vomit.

    I have com to the the conclusion that in general us Americans give up lots of our rights (think freedom) without a fight for the illusion of protection. We are no better protected than we were before this abomination to our freedom, American politics at its finest.

    Think about that while you eat your red, white, and blue cake.

  9. Re:Right to privacy by jonman_d · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    ==

    Just because you're not specifically guaranteed the right to privacy anywhere, doesn't mean you don't have it. The only way you _wouldn't_ have it would be if the constitution specifically said, "the federal government shall have the right to invade the private lives of citizens."

  10. Support your local retailer by NineNine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yet another reason to support your local retailer, instead of some monstrous mega-billion dollar international conglomerate that pays people minimum wages and operates nothing more consumer friendly than giant warehouses wherever rent is cheap. There's no "community" when you buy from these giants. Stroll down to your local bookstore (or any small retail establishment). You'll be surprised at pricing, selection, and customer service.

  11. Buy local by FattMattP · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about buying from your local bookseller and paying cash?

    --
    Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
  12. Re:Tinfoil Hat Syndrome by Flamerule · · Score: 4, Interesting
    John Ashcroft could care less what you read
    Oh, he doesn't care. That must be why he inserted this provision into the PATRIOT act, giving him the ability to get bookstore records without authorization from a judge. Because he doesn't care.
    Now, you can bet your ass that when they arrested the buffalo 6 they tried to find out what books they checked out from their local library or bought from a local book store. Why? The answer is of course, DUH.
    I like how your tortured, laughable explanation for this law -- which I'll demolish immediately below -- is so obvious it merits a "DUH".
    If they bought a bunch of books on chemistry that had information that could be used to make bombs, then they had better start busting their asses to figure ot if any had been made and where they went.
    Really? So, the police/FBI, having gathered enough evidence to arrest those 6 men, interrogate them, search their apartments, work, etc., will then go to their neighborhood bookstore to find out what they've been buying? Bullshit. How about they look at the fucking books in their fucking houses. The only reason to have unhindered access to bookstore records is to use them to form opinions on the suspect, or clarify to the ones they already have.
    Meanwhile, you and I have not had our civil liberties infringed one single bit.
    Good god, what do you think "infringe" means? "Look up my bookstore records, FBI guy! It's all fine by me!" "Put a tail on me 24/7! Take plenty of pictures!" "Feel free to bug my house, feds! Be sure to get a camera in the bedroom!" "I'm jeramybsmith, and I don't want any civil liberties!"
    Ponder this, you have expose a terror cell and don't capture one of them. You find out at the local book store they were buying books on flying small aircraft. Ah ha! You have a lead!
    As I said above, this is FINE! Because if you've fucking arrested them, then you got a warrant, and you can go to the bookstore with that. Not that you'd need to, since you collected all their fucking books when you tossed their place.
    However, I feel government should be able to access the records that are there if there is an imperative national security interest.
    If national security is at stake, then I imagine they won't have much trouble getting a warrant from a judge.

    Lastly: get a clue and toss in some fucking line breaks.

  13. GAAAAA! use the fourth! by Erris · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Just because you're not specifically guaranteed the right to privacy anywhere, doesn't mean you don't have it.

    Why not quote the 4th amendment? It's very clear about what circumstances are required for the government to invade your personal life:

    Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Indeed, the bookstore records should be considered "papers" and protected, so this whole business of "knocking down stovepipes" between government and private databases is FUCKING UNAMERICAN!

    The language of the constitution is so clear and the intentions are so obvious, that it is equally obvious that it has been broken. You have the right to assemble, to say, pray, and publish what you will. You have the right to bear arms. You will not be put upon by the military. The government can't harrass you without real evidence you are a criminal. The court system will not be used to abuse you. You will have a jury if you are sued. Bail will not be used instead of a conviction. You will not be abused in jail. All of these things have been violated recently with perhaps the exception of the 3rd. I'm not aware of any involuntary quartering of troops, unless eminent domain aquisitions for military bases are considered.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
  14. Don't blame the people, blame the two parties by ShatteredDream · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Both parties together represent the ideal combination of ideologies needed to create a system ripe for mass-control of the populace. The Democrats don't really represent the better parts of the left, they represent the worst and same for the Republicans on the Right. IMO our system would be a lot more (Classical) Liberal if it were a 3 way control by the Libertarian, Green and Reform parties.

    The people have on paper usually two choices. Two choices isn't a choice, it's a coin flip and a mockery of representative republican values. Both parties have tried for years to convince the public that having 10-190 people officially registered on the ballot is irresponsible because it creates chaos somehow. Having two people on the ballot is akin to having only one choice in most races. Hell in my last congressional election, we had literally only one choice for the House.

    The average slashdotter is too sheltered or politically and socially immature to see most of those points. Who here thinks a lot of the Right loves the PATRIOT Act? FreeRepublic is a very right wing website and when the PATRIOT part deux was discussed, no less than 85% of the posts were calling for Bush and Ashcroft's heads on pikes out on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue if they seriously pushed it.

    1. Re:Don't blame the people, blame the two parties by ChristTrekker · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Because the most states have a "winner take all" system, any candidate that doesn't have enormous numbers of backers to begin with isn't going to win anyways.

      "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.

      So, if no candidate gets a majority, you have a run-off among the top contenders.

      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.

      Now that I think about it, getting rid of the electoral college would have the same effect as insisting on proportional represntation of electoral college seats.

      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.

  15. Nice, but purge the Patriot Act, too by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This cancer on the Constitution is the real problem. And the harm has yet to spread. Wait until the prosecutions start, or private data is leaked to discredit opponents, or blacklisting begins; all this happened half a century ago and can happen again.

    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?

  16. Nice, but old concept... by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 4, Informative

    Companies have had this concept for years. Typical document retention policy is "useful life" - for contracts, it'd be life of contract + 6.5 years. For crap records, it's as long is it's relevent, then whack it immediately.

    And the reason is simple - all this junk needs to be stored, which costs money, and managed - which costs more money. Then, if someone wants it (and you have it), you have to find it - that's a ton of money... then the lawyers etc. get to review it, and that's a fortune, over a freakin post-it note that would never be used in your favor, meaning at best it won't be used against you in a suit... more often than not, it'll simply provide the cause needed for them to request more documents.

    Yick.

    --

    help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

  17. Coming soon on Amazon.com by Mantorp · · Score: 5, Funny

    People whom we help get arrested also bought...

  18. Re:Right to privacy by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Amendment XI should have been, "Any leader caught violating any of the first 10 amendments shall be set afire as to cause unimaginably painful death."

    Perhaps then we wouldn't continuously get ourselves into cycles of Constitution shredding/rebuilding. What's missing from the US Constitution is, quite frankly, consequences. There's no provision for punishing a bad, or abusive sitting government. What's worse, in today's surveillance society, a good old fashion revolution is downright impossible. Since when is it treasonous to save your country from your government?

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  19. That's a cheap shot at Amazon by 31+Flavas · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Now if only certain other booksellers would show that same conscience, we might have something here.
    What keeps me coming back to Amazon.com (and countless more people) is their record keeping.

    Every order is organized by year newest to oldest. Every order is clickable to bring up the exact specifics of what was ordered: the number of shipments, the tracking numbers, what was order, it's price, and totals (shipping, tax, subtotal, grand total).

    Attack the source problem *cough* Patriot Act *cough* not Amazon.com, BarnesandNoble.com, or whoever you want to smear because of some hivemind mentality.

    If you don't want even record of the sale you need not shop at all, online or offline.

    There is always going to be some paper trail; no matter if its a reciept, a CC statment, or the cashier remembering you.

  20. Protecting Peggy's privacy. by I+am+Jack's+username · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "Peggy Bresee was in Bear Pond Books recently to buy " War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" and "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" as birthday gifts for a son who lives in Utah. She had the store purge the purchase records." - Vt. bookseller purges files to avoid potential `Patriot Act' searches
    Searching google now not only reveals what books Peggy has bought her son, but also her home address, telephone number, job description, and a recent anti-war petition she signed.
    1. Re:Protecting Peggy's privacy. by privacyt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Most government agents may not be smart enough to do a basic google search. Sort of like how antiwar activists in the early 1970s would get knocks on the door by FBI agents to confirm where they live, when all the Famous But Incompetent folks would have had to do was look in the phonebook.