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."
Than an angry librarian. Those books can really hurt!
Is that kinda like book burning?
Oh, librarians, not libertarians.
-Tolerate my intolerance
Even the damn librarians are against it!
You can read the story here without registering. Whenever a NY Times link gets posted, replace www with archive to avoid registration.
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.
Everyone knows that to piss off a librarian is to call down unimaginable wrath, the consequences of which are often unpredictable.
I'm glad they're on our side, as they are very tenacious, and having a dedicated, intelligent, and socially-friendly ally will do more for the cause than a hundred thousand emails to congressmen.
Clickey here, no register.
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.
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?
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
But in the same way a German Jewish sympathiser might have burned their nehibor's linage records when the Nazi party was in power.
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=
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.
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.
I hope they do this at my library... then they won't have a leg to stand on for those 5 books and 2 videos I have had out since August, 2000... since they couldn't tell me what they were, how am I to know whether or not I took them out... This could be the best policy ever!!! Any chance of Blockbuster adopting this policy?
Never argue with an idiot. They will just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
I've been thinking about how libraries could allow the anonymous borrowing of books, while still ensuring that the proper book is returned when it's due.
I would do it by using some combination of details about the book, like ISBN, page numbers, etc to create a UID for the book when it is checked out, and then when it is returned perform the same calculation to make sure it is the same book.
The important thing would be to make sure there existed nowhere a database of books and their IDs.
Is this flawed in some way? It seems like it would be pretty easy to implement, and the library themselves wouldn't know what book the borrower had.
-C
JD Salinger was a well known member in intellignce circles in his day. Like the Scientologists, the spooks like to bolster their own, so all their brainwashed MKULTRA manchurian candidates are given a compulsion to buy the book, hence inflating the sales.
I should know, since I just made this shit up!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
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
If I search for books about nuclear weapons, nuclear technology and guns, am I going to get flagged for it.
BOO! TERRO
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."
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
Hopefully this Supreme Court will not take a look at it at all! Whose side are you on?
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
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
Did you read Fahrenheit 451? (Actually the movie was pretty good too). It does have a weird irony to have librarians shredding records. Maybe we just need to have some firemen burning them, too.
Thank you.
http://wsulug.org
*** Work like a king, command like a slave, create like a dog.
It seems only librarians are able to appreciate the meaning of this:
/. who see the end in libraries and librarians forget that there are people who still *use* libraries for their reading materials, reference and enjoyment. Beware /.ers! You scream when your electronic "rights" of privacy are violated but seem far too quick to sacrifice the rights of those who don't fit in your clique of 'libraries are old school, the web is the only way'. Beware the pendulum of opinion, it swings like the sword: both ways.
.02% of all the books ever published.(Correct me if I'm wrong!) I want to go to my library (and web site) and read whatever I like without having the latest incarnation of a Cloaked Big Brother leaning over my shoulder looking for Thought Crimes.
[The United States]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Fear of prosecution for reading is the corollary to abridging the freedom of speech.
In reading the responses of some of the (probably younger) technophiles here at
Last I checked there were about 85,000 full text books on the web for free. That's less than roughly
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.
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.
This is the attitude. Come on!!
The situation you describe doesn't violate your rights, but it certainly violates the exchange student's rights.
Still, as long as you're OK, I suppose it doesn't matter how many people get deported for reading a book. Didn't I hear something about the pursuit of knowledge recently? Must've been some kind of joke.
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
I can't find a good non-kook reference on the web, though.
It appears that Hinkley may have been mimicking Chapman's MO (how'd he know it?) and that may explain this "coincidence".
I don't have any authoritave references for other lone nut gunman being connected with "A Catcher in the Rye".
It must be one of those, coincidences, you know?
Or what about the creep who uses the library's Internet connection to download pr0n, then goes into the men's room to masturbate? What do you say to the 8-year-old who walks into the men's room and discovers him? What do you say to the kid's mother when little Johnny tells her about it?
Actually, that sort of thing is happening even with logs not being deleted. Not helping much.
Seems a library is being sued by the librarians for sexual harrassment because they have to see perverts looking at porn and even masturbating right there at the computers. It's not even a matter of it happening in the washrooms. I'd post the link, but I don't remember where I saw it. Either slashdot, fark, or wired last week.
Seems to me that a better method of preventing this sort of thing is to ARREST the guys for public indecency rather than banning them and using week-old log files for proof.
The death threats to the whitehouse is different. But chances are that the fbi is going to trace it that day. They probably won't wait a week. Deleting old logs isn't going to impact that much.
I'm not sure what you mean by "immediate harm can be done via the internet". Death threats by email aren't really immediate harm. There really isn't much difference between emailed death threats and snail-mail death threats. Emailed threats are just faster.
You say what people read is no one's business. Is that not true for what you read on the 'net too?
My Grandpa died in WWII. Which all history will remember as a JUST war. We got in that one before the States and lost more men. Get over yourselves. You won't be the last superpower but you act as if you are the first and only...ever. You're not. Brush up on your hisory champ, instead of just flag waving.
I went to battle MC Escher but drew a blank
Even the damn librarians are against it!
Probably the proponents of privacy invasion were those kids that in grade school that talked loudly, joked, farted, scraped chairs, cut up with each other, and generally made all kinds of obnoxious noises in the library and ticked off the librarians.
Come to think of it, those kids, now grown up and in positions of authority, are still making all kinds of obnoxious noises!
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Libraries have become nothing more than monuments to the community prominent.
Do you really need multimillion dollar facilities to house books?
I am the first to agree a book is better than a monitor screen, but it's time to get current and cut government costs. If books in libraries were distributed via network or if the libraries also offered community WiFi, wouldn't that be more useful, less costly?
Yeah, great idea. Lets shut down public libraries and tie them up in technologies that no poor person can possibly afford, because they're too busy spending what little money they have buying food. Then, when they try to educate themselves, they'll be unable to find any information, because it will be all but unavailable to them. Friggin' brilliant.
Why is it that technophiles have such a hard time realizing that there are people who are a) less computer literate than them and/or b) don't have as much money. It's great how people in the cushy middle-class can so easily forget about the massive poverty which exists in their own country. And don't get me started on this Utopian ideal that, somehow, computers are the solution to (and cause of?) all of life's problems.
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.
After the September 11, 2001, the Ad Council ran Campaign for Freedom consisting of several ads of what it would be like if we didn't have our freedoms. My two favorites would have to be the Diner and the Library ads.
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. ..."
> Borrow books from the state, and then get
> suprised when they pay attention to what you are
> borrowing?
The government isn't like a private or corporation; its powers are clearly defined in our Constitution. Our system of government is based on the idea that the citizens have certain unalienable rights -- you know, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government's powers on the other hand are derived from the consent of the governed -- us. Therefore, one can clearly be "cranky" if the government steps out of those bounds.
As for other administrations, well, it's silly to argue about the hypothetical. That's like saying that an embezzler shouldn't be arrested because well, who wouldn't steal millions of dollars if given the chance?
We can only argue about what has actually happened. The Bush Administration asked for the Patriot Act and they've demonstrated they're not afraid to use it. The Bush Administration has also been steadily undoing the Watergate-era reforms that were designed to reign in the Executive branch and now they're running amuck.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
No, public libraries are typically owned by the citizens of the counties and municipalities in which they operate. Obviously I don't know about all states, but the libraries I've seen have not been owned by them.
Anyhow, governments don't own things in the way that an individual or business owns things. Public libraries belong to us, not to the state or county that created it. We merely entrust their operation to them. It is their responsiblity and duty to operate them in the manner that best suits the citizens that they are sworn to serve.
So, yeah, I get pretty angry when the state wants to violate my 4th Ammendment rights at the local library. That's my library, not theirs, and they don't have the right to search my records without a clear, legal search warrant obtained with probable cause.
(Score: -1, Stupid)
Just in case anyone feels that this article hightlights only what crazy Santa Cruz does ...
I know that my community library shreds their logs on a daily basis. Internet user sign-ups are discarded within 24 hours. Years of old Interlibrary loan records are now gone.
Librarians are great because they protect our rights. The ALA is a great organization that really protects free speech.
Thank your local librarian!
I live in Santa Cruz, and I am glad that this controversy has resulted in the libraries destroying old records. I am more concerned about Santa Cruz misusing the old data than about the FBI misusing its subpoenas. The best solution to privacy invading databases is to purge the unnecessary info from the database, and not to rely on controls on who can access the database. If the data is there, then it can be had by low-level workers who can be persuaded, bribed, or coerced.
The place mentioned in the article, Santa Cruz, seems to me like the ideal place to live:
;)
* Their librarians don't like the Patriot Act
* "The City Council also passed a resolution condemning the Patriot Act"
* "Santa Cruz is a community well known for its leftward leanings and progressive politics"
And as if that wasn't enough:
* "City officials allowed marijuana for medicinal purposes to be distributed from the steps of City Hall"
Sounds like a utopia.
"I filter at +6, and have yet to miss out on an important comment." (#822545)
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.
Not everyone agrees with Nicholson Baker though, not even the Society of American Archivists, but it sure is fascinating. Even more so than the current trendy paranoia about privacy.
Ironically, Baker's Vox is probably one of those books most of you are afraid of getting caught with. It's so naughty, Monica gave it to Bill, and we all found out, thanks to the pre-existing police state (but of course we had a benevolent dictator for 8 years).
If you're a perv, be a perv. If you're into homemade bombs, be into homemade bombs. If you still read Beverly Cleary even though you're a 45 year old single man... okay, I want you locked up!!
Teacher: Did you complete your library research assignments?
Class (in unison): We couldn't - the library was Slashdotted again.You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford
That is an excellent idea. It is impossible (and probably undesirable unless one advocates total anarchy) to dispense entirely with monitoring, but this method of community behavior can provide a modicum of intelligently-targeted cover for activities that ought not be infringed upon. It's not a great and sustainable solution, but it's probably an effective measure in a pinch: If you can't stop the monitoring, increase the noise level.
I was witness to a moment of beauty, which (though slightly OT) demonstrates this method:
One fine morning at a large telco I used to work for, I noticed that a couple of the senior network operations crew were dressed in crisp business finery. Ths usual uniform for this crew was a t-shirt, and jeans or shorts. Over the course of the next few hours (flextime), every single member of the group showed up in either a suit & tie or a business-formal dress.
No one said a word. About fifteen of them were in by 10am, each shrugging off the few inquiries about dressing up.
Finally, just before lunch, one of the project managers from a nearby group approached one of the senior ops team members.
Project Manager: "OK, I give. What's the deal?"
Staff Member: "One of us has a job interview today."
Project Manager: "Oh. OooOOoh."
Ouch. But what a great example of teamwork! Just as the management in this case had its own principles turned against it, it is entirely possible to use the methods of monitoring and analysis allowed by the Patriot Act/TIA against themselves. Inasmuch as it protects and preserves our constitutional rights, it's probably a moral duty to do so. Isn't fighting bad laws the sign of a good citizen? (But I digress...)
-Jon
I think not...(*poof*)
Can someone remind me what we are protecting again?
Maybe if our kids played better hockey, Canadians would take us more seriously, eh?
On another totally off topic, when you Canadians finally get around to applying for Statehood, please have each Province apply separately. Fifty-one stars on the flag would suck.You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford
It is our duty as Americans to constantly and aggressively keep the bureacracy in check, to hold our rights as precious treasures, and to always assume the worst of government. Our forefathers knew this hundreds of years ago. Why do you think the founders of this country put those laws into place? They put it into place hundreds of years ago, because they knew the American people, or any people, would have to fight tooth and nail to hold onto the rights that were only won with the loss of American lives. For hundreds of years, people have known that the government, any government, every government, has, does, and will abuse the power you give it if you allow it to.
What would you do differently if someone was staring over your shoulder every minute of every day? What would you not read, what would you not write, if someone with the power to lock you away indefinitely, without a trial, was watching you every minute? If you'd do anything differently (and who wouldn't) then you must know that you are being violated with these laws.
Why distrust the government? Because we stayed awake in history class. Because we read what our founders wrote. Because we love our country. Because we love our liberty.
Don't think those rights you are giving up are yours. That's your daughter's liberty, that's your grandchildren's freedom. And they wont be able to buy it back with that US Savings Bond, liberty is bought with flesh and blood and suffering, it always has and always will be.
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
A few years ago, I read a book by Neil Postman called: Amusing Ourselves to Death. In the first chapter, he compared the books 1984, and A Brave New World. The conclusion he came to is that it is much easier to control people through what they love, rather than through what they fear. A distopia like in 1984 can never last long (on a historical time span) because people will try to destroy it, either covertly, or overtly. On the other hand, we have already accomplished 90% of the distopia presented in A Brave New World, and no one is worried about it, no one rallies against it. People openly embrace it. The funny thing is I'm not too worried about our government ruling through fear. I'm more worried about how our government currently rules: through apathy. How do you think it was that we were presented with the Hobson's choice of Al Gore, or George Bush.
If you're really paranoid about the FBI reviewing your circulation record, I suggest reading the book within the library or photocopying it; perhaps over several days time. Copyright infringement? Maybe. Expensive? Possibly. Anonymous? Absolutely.
rob