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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
See the Library Bill o' Rights for a more concise explanation than I could ever give.
--kotj.mf, para-professional library drone
hang brain.
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.
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 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.
And remember to never ever call him a monkey.
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
well im guessing that they wouldn't destroy checkout records of books that were not returned.
So a note to terrorists... if your checking out books on making weapons, make sure to return the book. J/K
Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
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
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 ?
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
The Patriotic Act says a lot more than just "the feds can see what books you read", but thats a story for another day.
No, today, I'll tell you the story about Jim. Jim was a fine young man, he just graduated with a degree in criminology. He was an honest and caring individual, who was selfless and brave. He would have been an outstanding police officer some day.
Well, would have been, except that Jim's freshman year, his roommate Steve was arrested. He didn't know the guy too well, Steve always hung out with the "tough crowd" and usually didn't use the room at all, preferring to stay out all night or crash at his girlfriend's place. Anyway, Jim went home for summer break to see his old friends, and when he came back, he had a different roommate. He hadn't heard much about it, and nobody was too keen on talking about it, so he figured he'd just let it slide.
So, after graduating, Jim applied to join the police force. He passed the civil service exams, and waited to hear the good news. And waited. And waited.
Then one day, there was a knock on the door. He got up, to answer it, and suddenly there was a loud bang and the door splintered, then collapsed inwards. 5 armed FBI agents rushed him and threw him to the ground then pinned him down. That was the last anyone heard from Jim. His neighbors thought it was sad that he'd be hauled away, since he seemed like such a nice quiet boy.
The End.
So, what happened?
Well, Jim's life started on the quick road to Hell when the university's random housing lottery placed him with Steve. Except Steve wasn't named Steve. He was just using that name while he was illegally in the US to study piloting airplanes. Then, Jim started checking out books on famous murders, criminology, DNA testing, and the like. His final mistake was applying for a position on the police force, thats when they ran the background check on him.
They punched his name into the database, and out popped the following:
Warning lived with "steve" for one year. Possible terrorist connection.
Well, this was enough for the FBI to get involved, so they went and looked up the list of books Jim had checked out and read. The list certainly was eye-opening. They fed this data into their database (which incidentially had Jim's major incorrectly listed as "English". But that was OK, since it wasn't important for the information to be correct)
The database churned for a few minutes and spat out the following:
Warning subject lived with "steve" for one year. Possible terrorist connection.
Warning subject has extensive interest in criminal behavior and violent crimes.
Conclusion: HE'S A TERRIST! GET HIM!
So now, Jim's sitting in a cell (if you can call those chain link things in Cuba "cells"). Been there for a few years. They still haven't told him why though. Every now and then they beat him or make him kneel with his head back and his arms straight out for hours on end, but they let up a little after a couple of other guys died. On the up side though, he's gotten to be good friends with this Ali guy in the next cell over, who seems like someone he knew his freshman year.
Moral (if you're still reading):
If you think this kind of thing is bullshit, you seriously underestimate the ability of the US justice system to be perverted. Take a look at the current mess the Houston Police Department is in, using shoddy lab work and practically lying through their teeth to get the conviction. Its not about justice here, no, its about having the big conviction numbers, whether or not the criminals are still roaming the streets. And now the FBI wants to maintain a database on everyone (oops, did I say "maintain"? That kind of suggests some effort in upkeep and keeping it correct) and is using terrorist arrests and secret trials which always end in conviction to convince everyone that they need even more power to catch every last terrorist out there.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
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. ..."
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