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!
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.
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.
Is that kinda like book burning?
No, it's kind of like letting you read a book, and then not running to the FBI to inform them that since you read "Catcher in the Rye" you must be a suicide bomber.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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. ..."
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)
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.
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.