Slashdot Mirror
Librarians Join the Fight Against The Patriot Act
An anonymous reader writes "This article at the New York Times (free reg.) shows how lots of libraries are moving to destroy privacy related data as quickly as possible and still others have gone as far as posting signs and handing out leaflets to scare / educate their patrons."
You can read the story here without registering. Whenever a NY Times link gets posted, replace www with archive to avoid registration.
Clickey here, no register.
I'm still not interested in registering at NYT.. so I'll not be able to read the article and flame here instead...
0 7L IBR.html
Simply replace the www with archive. eg:
http://archive.nytimes.com/2003/04/07/national/
Presto! At least until they fix the hole...
And now that you can RTFM, you'll notice that the librarians aren't burning books, they're cleaning out their old paperwork so the gov' can't collect the info under the patriot act.
=Smidge=
If that is it...then good grief, what are we talking about here?
Courts have ruled in several instances that if something is to be considered available, it must be available anonymously. Freedom of speech implies freedom of anonymous speech, because otherwise people will self-censor out of fear of retribution; access to abortions implies anonymous access to abortions, because otherwise the social stigma could stop people seeking abortions; access to public libraries implies anonymous access to public libraries, because otherwise people will avoid reading "subversive" material.
You're right, it is unlikely that the ability to access these records would be abused; but it has been abused in the past, so many people are very wary of giving law enforcement that ability again.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
If that is it...then good grief, what are we talking about here? What is there about borrowing a book that should make it a sacrosanct activity like confessional, or attorney-client privelege?...
We are not talking about borrowing a book, we are talking about unfettered access, by the government, to records that we should reasonably expect to remain private. They want access to all personal data, in the name of national security, but there is no control over how that data is actually used. This can put a chilling effect on what we may or may not do just by association and the fear of being targeted for said associations.
How long until you are stopped driving and asked for your 'papers', where are you going, why? Sounds far fetched, it probably is, but where it the line that once the governemnt crosses it is no longer OK for them to have unfettered access to our personal lives?
If the government wants to know that I have read "such and such author", they should be required to tell me that they want to know, and further they should show a good reason for neededing the information.
If you're checking books on crypto from the library, you're obviously a terrorist and a danger to the status quo!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
You won't see major media protesting this law
One Al-Jazeera reporter died in a U.S. airstrike on a building housing Arab media.
Of course they won't protest. This could happen to them!!
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
*** Work like a king, command like a slave, create like a dog.
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.
On the March 13 Diane Rehm show on NPR, I remember hearing the president of the American Library Association, Mitch Freedman, interviewed. He talked about many things, the woefully inadequate funding of our library system, his distaste for government mandated censorship of library internet connections, and his anger at the Patriot Act's impact on the library system.
You can find the real audio stream of his interview at http://www.wamu.org/ram/2003/r2030313.ram
I never appreciated librarians like I should before hearing this interview.
Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
If books in libraries were distributed via network or if the libraries also offered community WiFi, wouldn't that be more useful, less costly?
No.
First, it would only serve the people who already had computers. Or would you have the libraries lend out computers for people to take home and read books? Or are people who can't afford computers to be required to do all their reading during library hours, at the library, on a computer furnished by the library?
Second, bandwidth isn't cheap and is a recurrent cost. Keep in mind libraries not only have books, they have music and video as well. (note: if you want to check out a music CD, its usually faster and more reliable to go to the local public library and actually check it out than to try to do the same via peer-to-peer networking).
Third, how are you going to handle royalties and payments? Libraries can loan out the books/CDs/videos based on the fact that they have purchased them. Your method puts all libraries at the mercy of the publisher's licensing terms.
In short, your view is pie-in-the-sky. Maybe some day, but not any time soon.
Allow the Attourney General to:
o deport permanent residents
o revoke citizenship
Allow the government to:
o Create DNA databases
o grant immunity to police and businesses
http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=15541
Holland
Providing
Appropriate
Tools
Required to
Intercept and
Obstruct
Terrorism
Just wanted to clear that up