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."

14 of 344 comments (clear)

  1. Patriot Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are lot of privacy concerns ever since the "war on terror". It seems to be the "war on privacy", and coupled with the governments ability to hold anyone for as long as they want without charging them, this is quickly becoming a place where you are guilty until proven innocent, and even then it doesn't necessarily mean you will not be prosecuted.

  2. Re:A library destroying data? by altp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No. not anything like it.

    Libraries are trying to protect their patrons rights so that people will feel safe using what ever material is in the building.

    Without having to worry about big brother. If we don't have the material to give when the feds come knocking, we can't violate a persons right to privacy.

    Altp.

  3. Re:Somebody please explain this to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful


    So basically the Patriot Act says that library records can be used in terrorist investigations. Is that it, or is there something more sinister I'm missing? Honestly, I'm not trying to troll here.


    Go to the library and read some history, before the books are edited. Then you'll understand the problems. I imagine reading Marx's works in the 50's, no, not Groucho - would get you a visit, put on lists, and maybe even thrown in the pokey for awhile. These are not good times for freedom.

  4. Re:NYT by NeoOokami · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not a matter of destroying public information. It's a matter of destroying what was private information. This has absolutely nothing to do with fascism at all. The Patriot Act makes a lot of what would be private information availible to the government, something that is quite possibly unconstituional (Hopefully the Supreme Court will take a look at it soon..). The librarians want to uphold that kind of privacy and so they're choosing to destroy the information rather than leave it to be confiscated by someone in the government. They're taking a risk for what has always been until recently an American freedom.

  5. Checked out the koran lately? by Unknown+Poltroon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Terrorist.
    Looked at a chemistry book?
    Terrorist.
    Read Mein Kampft(sp)?
    Terorist
    Read a physics book?
    Dirty bomber
    Che Guveras biography?
    Terrorist
    picke up a copy of 2600?
    terrorist

    When they control what you can read and see, they controll your mind. Of course it wont be illegal to read any of these(probably) but how many people will check them out to read once they realize that this will automaticaly get a record started on them with the FBI. I odnt know about you, but i buy my copy of 2600 with cash. How much longer will that be possible?

    --
    All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
    1. Re:Checked out the koran lately? by Mr+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem, I think, is that they are not allowed to tell you they are using your records in this way.

      This means there is little to no control even if the FBI walked into the library and asked for EVERYONE who checked out "Catcher In the Rye".

      Very few people have problems with them specifically requesting information in connections to actual crimes, with oversight and proper paper trails indicating they are doing this. It's harassment for potential crimes that they collect data on without letting you know that makes people concerned.

  6. Re:Somebody please explain this to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every book the library has was selected to be shared with the public. So there should be nothing wrong with borrowing anything, since it's public knowledge. Additionally, people who are serious about doing bad things know that library logs are checked; they will simply not check books out, and read or copy them instead.

    So this is useless against people who are serious about committing crimes, just like a lot of the rest of the Patriot Act. What's it good for? Finding people who the government doesn't like.

    I'm sure I know the answer to this question, but do you not care that someone might be sitting in a room somewhere some day, looking at a list of books you've borrowed, and using their judgement to decide if your interest one weekend in Nuclear Engineering means you should be flagged for checks every time you try to fly? Right right, you have nothing to hide.

  7. Librarians - keepers of the faith by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As anyone who studies political science will tell you, a democracy only works well when you have an educated public. Those who visit a library are obviously seeking knowledge, and so any attempt by the staff of said library to provide them with knowledge should be applauded.

    This, however, goes above and beyond simply providing their patrons with knowledge. This is an example of a group of people with a very subtle power using that power to advance the principles of freedom and democracy. By actively protecting the right to privacy of their patrons and seeking to educate them about laws that have a very real and chilling effect on their lives, they truly are making this country greater by the day.

    You won't see major media protesting this law; only showing how great it is that our wonderful government is protecting us so that we may feel warm and fuzzy all over. To see a group of people standing up in defense of the rights of citizens at the risk of being denied their own rights is both comforting and encouraging.

    If any of you notices a librarian tearing up a checkout card, handing out fliers or putting up posters on this subject, thank them; they deserve that much if not more. They're risking their safety and freedom to try and protect your's.

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  8. Pre-crime... by Theaetetus · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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? I'm sorry, but what books someone has borrowed certainly seems like it could be relevant to me. We're supposed to ignore this information, why?

    Yes, it could be relevant to terrorist investigations... And it can help find potential terrorists, too! For instance, if you see someone has checked out books on flying planes and September 11th, then they're probably a terrorist (or maybe a pilot); if you see someone has looked at books on chemistry and physics, they're probably a suicide bomber (or maybe a high-school teacher); if you see someone has read 1984, they're obviously a subversive commie-lovin' bastard (or maybe a student); if you've read anything on crypto, codes, Engima machines, numbers theory, you're obviously a cracker (or maybe a mathematician)... In any case, these potential terrorists, bombers, subversives, and crackers will likely commit crimes in the future, so for the safety of the little children, we MUST lock them up now!

    This has been a message from the Ashcroft Bureau of Pre-Crime.

    ;)

    -T

  9. Lived through the McCarthy Era? by rknop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the article:

    "There are people, especially older people who lived through the McCarthy era, who might be intimidated by this," he said.

    All I can say is, GOOD! I'm sure many of these same older people (whose sensibilities that some libraries are trying to protect) voted for the president and members of congress we have that gave us this act. All the better if they are made to realize just what they are voting for, and what is being done in the name of "protecting us from terrorsim."

    Scare tactics, spreading baseless FUD, and all that aren't good. Stating the facts and allowing people to be informed about what the government is giving itself the right to do, however, is a different matter altogether. Those who lived through the McCarthy era may have the perspective to realize that they should be intimidated by this, while those of us who are younger can shrug off based on the rest of that quote (that the probability that any one person will have their records searched is low, since there are so many people).

    -Rob

  10. Re:Somebody please explain this to me... by ray-auch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Libraries have always been about public access to information, if reading some of that information gets you arrested then people will be afraid to read it and the library is not doing its job.

    It's basically censorship at the reader end - if you can't stop it being written you can harrass everyone who reads it instead.

    You think you have a free press right ? Do you still think you have a free press if reading a certain newspaper means you get questioned as part of a terrorist investigation ?

  11. McCarthy-era fears by nano-second · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Someone in the article is quoted as saying they didn't want to hand out pamphlets and so forth for fear of scaring elderly people who lived during the McCarthy era. However, that's exactly what they should be doing. People need to see the parallel and need to be afraid that their rights have been eroded to do anything.

    There has been fear in the past about using people's book preferences for profiling on a larger scale. Took out a book on gay relationships? maybe you're gay. Took out a book about religion X? Maybe you practice religion X. Took out a book on living with disease X? maybe you have disease X. This becomes a lot more insidious if records of specialized bookstores are being examined. I seem to recall a case recently about a gay/lesbian focused bookstore refusing to release their customer records.

    --
    I hope you're not pretending to be evil while secretly being good. That would be dishonest.
  12. Check out interesting books by darthtuttle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe we should create a list of "books of interest" and everyone goes and checks one of them out each month. One way to really screw with information systems is to throw useless data at it. If the government is collecting this information in legal or non legal ways, let's throw a wrench in it. After they find the 1000th person they have investigated for checking out "Leaving the 21st Century", "Lipstick Traces", "Days of War, Nights of Love", or any of the thousands of other subversive books out there, they will have to get more creative with things and stop looking at what I read as an idicator.

    --
    Darthtuttle
    Thought Architect
  13. Best quote from the article by EZmagz · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From the article:
    "There are people, especially older people who lived through the McCarthy era, who might be intimidated by this," he said. "As of right now, the odds are very great that there will be no search made of a person's records at public libraries, so I don't want to scare people away."

    Good. Those people SHOULD be intimidated, because they've lived through an era where absolute bullshit such as this went unchecked and they saw the results. And I don't CARE if it's unlikely that the public records will be unchecked. It's unlikely that someone will win the $300 million Powerball on Sunday, but that doesn't mean some guy won't be $300 million richer come Monday. It's also unlikely that my local library will run a check to see who's checked out "The Art Of War" and "1984", but that doesn't mean that it won't happen.

    It's at times like these that you realize how blind the general public really is.

    --

    "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA. ..."