Slashdot Mirror
House Limits Patriot Act Rules on Library Records
xerid writes "From CNN.COM: "WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House voted Wednesday to block the FBI and the Justice Department from using the Patriot Act to search library and book store records. Despite a veto threat from President Bush, lawmakers voted 238-187 to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to investigate the reading habits of terror suspects.""
but they should man up and throw the whole damn thing out
This is good news, but I'll still be buying 2600 with cash, thank you very much!
Err, not that I read that, that is...uh yeah...
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Thank you!!!!!
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
I wonder when the government will require everyone to have a bank account, ban bank notes, and require all purchases to be made by card.
All in the interests of removing profits by terrorists through counterfeiting, and of course to keep track of terrorists purchasing habits.
PS (OT) -- is anyone else having trouble with IP bans on slashdot? I get 2 downmods on apost and suddenly I'm IP banned! I only got this posted through Tor, but that's not that much better as slashdot blocks most of the nodes there too. Any help?
Making the moon less necessary since 1998.
Shhhh!
It's only a matter of time until the Al Quaeda uses our public library system against us. Learning the hidden secrets of the atom bomb and building one, the end result will be campaign of terror against freedom loving people like myself. It's time to take a stand against socialist librarians across america. Who's with me? Go to your local library and steal any books relating the construction of atom bombs, chemical weapons and sheep loving. Please.
Those who dare to replace some security with freedom do not deserve security at all.
(I think George Washington said that...)
Well, it's a start. How about we require a warrant for EVERY goddamned search so that the RIGHT of the people to be secure in their homes, papers and posessions is not abridged? It's only in the freaking Constitution for Christ's sake. At the very least they should eliminate the sneaky trick that they don't even have to TELL you you're a target of an investigation. When will these bozos realize that terrorists are CRIMINALS, not "foreign combatants" who need to be locked up without any rights at all in some gulag for years under military supervision? If this goes on much longer it will be a simple matter to apply the "T" label to anyone for any reason at all under the strictest secrecy possible and they won't even have to tell you about it until it's too late.
I'm not saying I like the Patriot Act, but I really think that we should be rational in our removal of this disturbance, as we weren't rational with our creation of it in the first place.
The Patriot Act was a fast acting, country sweeping bill that made it to law simply because the governing agencies that wanted it, wanted it now, and nobody was going to stand in their way in the wake of what had just happened in our country.
That being said, if we act too strongly and remove the whole thing at once, we are setting ourselves up to the whole situation again, perhaps worse; next time they will have access to our bank statements, our cars (onboard nav computers telling the government where we are going, where we've been, etc), our schools, our whole livelihood could be changed.
That being said, if we are slow about pulling this law back out, and amending our laws so that such a catastrophy like 9/11 and the Patriot Act won't happen again, we will be more prepared for the next government incursion into privacy.
The whole thing needs to go. But we need to be able to explicitly say why each piece of it should go, and until we are unable to do that legally, the Patriot Act must stand as to keep what freedoms we still have. I have full confidence in our government to restore our constitution to its former glory, but we can't do that by making hair-triggered decisions like the Patriot Act, or its repeal.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
...So my plans on becoming galactic president, stealing an awesome space ship and finding the ultimate machine to run Linux on are still safe then?
Oh wait... I just let the cat out of the bag!
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
What the Patriot Act ought to do is act as a signal that something has gone dreadfully wrong in the American system--and therefore must be changed. For one thing, the fact that so many Americans did not oppose it, and were so easily led into accepting a complete contravention of the constitution through a manipulation of irrational fear (what if the terrorists attack my house??) shows us that there is a deeper problem in American culture. No kind of democracy can really work if people are that uncritical and deferential.
... and again.
Removing the Patriot Act is going to be incredibly difficult. Any process that does so, whether it is gradual or sudden, is going to first require a change in the whole political and cultural atmosphere, because there are so many people who genuinely believe measures like the Patriot Act are rational. So anything that removes the Patriot Act is going to do more than just remove the Patriot Act (it's not going to just be scrapped by a Democratic administration)
Whether you do it gradually or suddenly, if the Patriot Act were to be removed by representatives with little cultural change happening, then the deeper causal problems would still be there. But I think we can just as effectively remove it suddenly as we can slowly, if that process is carried out by just that--'We'. Because you're right--until the underlying factors are addressed, there is always the danger of this happening again
But I'm not sure how much that has to do with the *speed* of removing it.
who cares. Now I can go back to buying "The Catcher in the Rye" without worrying about silent black helicopters.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
And with that, the Patriot Act II will pass with flying colors.
Sort of like globalization, the overwhelming majority of people who get their panties in a bunch about how evil the Patriot Act is really don't have a bloody clue about what the Patriot Act actually does. The 'Library Statute,' while hardly ever used, happens to be one of the most easily lambasted portions of the legislation because the academics and intellectuals on the left hold libraries to be sacred places of privacy.
The fact of the matter is, the Patriot act was hardly ever used to collect library records and the Patriot act supporters know it. Any prospective terrorist is far better served by looking up public records and using the internet. Seriously, if you are a well financed terrorist who poses an actual threat to this country, would you have EVER gone to the library?
By removing the Library bit from the Patriot act, Congress can look like they actually care while still allowing the meat of the Patriot act to be renewed, if not even adding a bit more to it.
What does the proposed repeal of term limits and the shocking fact that you've been modded down have to do with the Patriot Act?
People introduce wacko amendments all the time.
Take off your hat once in a while.
As much as we dislike the ugly provisions of the Patriot Act, its proponents are well-intentioned people who are trying to keep us safe. They are not out to destroy democracy. They just don't realize that loss of freedom is too high a price to pay for safety.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
I have read the Patriot Act and it says nothing specific about Libraries. It says a LOT about searching ANY records of small entities. This could included libraries, video rental, and even dry cleaning.
All in secret.
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
The CNN story is accompanied by a "Quickvote" poll, which asks "Should the FBI be able to look at the library records of people they suspect of terrorism?" Perhaps not surprisingly, almost half of the replies favor this idea. Of course, the point under dispute is if the FBI (or anyone else) should be able to sift through library records of people they don't (yet) suspect of terrorism.
In Soviet Russia, YOU know everything the GOVERNMENT does! .. kinda makes you think, doesn't it?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
If that is a really scare for you answer this question.
Why are you not upset that some government agency(library) or some private agency(bookstore) is recording your purchases, keeping them linked to your information, and not destroying them after they have ensure you have returned the book or your payment has been approved?
There is no library section of the US PATRIOT act there is only an area that allows the FBI to request from a business records under certain circumstations and only after approved by a judge, and that was an extention of when the same thing could be done with the same records, just not under thoses circumstances.
You say there's no evidence this has ever happened? Of course not! Remember that the "Patriot Act" makes it illegal to tell anyone you've seen this kind of thing happen.
We're not supposed to worry, though, since this kind of treatment is reserved for "terrorists". Who is a "terrorist"?, you ask? Why, anyone the government calls a "terrorist", of course!
OK, back to our regularly scheduled paranoid rants...
-----
Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.
It's not like any of the 9/11 hijackers used library computers to do anything after all...
oops
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Checks ceased to be a valid form of payment here in the early 1990s (IIRC) and these days all salaries must be paid as bank transfers. Nothing to complain about it, though. Heck, I get a pre-filled tax form every year because the tax office knows exactly how much money I make, what kind of loans I have and so on. I check it, correct it, sign it and that's the tax report.
The owls are not what they seem
Apparently, since Bush is threatening to veto (although he has never used his veto to date) this legislation unless they put the provision in question back in the bill, they will do exactly that in conference committee.
A poster on the Daily Kos made mention about it, but I can't find a direct link.
Not everyone. My Representative, John Lewis (Georgia 5th district), has his head screwed on straight. He voted against the PATRIOT Act, and I've been watching him (via his Plogress feed) come down on the right side of every major issue.
I'm sure there are others like him. Don't throw out any babies with the bath water.
I learned a long time ago to buy all my copies of "Catcher in the Rye" with cash..
Not that it matters anyway. The whole system of the 'Executive Order' renders the entire U.S. system of democratic government null & void should the administration ever decide to act on those powers. The patriot act just a bit of warming water, (as in the boiling frog analogy), and arguing over it is redundant when Bush, or any president, can legally become dictator for life at any time.
The U.S. system needs some purging and major restructuring if it can be taken seriously. Right now the whole thing is a big, stupid distraction to keep people occupied for years on end while the real game goes down, as it currently is.
-FL
Section 215 is dangerous, unnecessary, and violates the highest law of the land.
I don't trust government. I think they are liars. They distract the public, to make everyone think they are doing the work of ALL people. Well, not even all, but those who work and have families.
How about this for an idea? Members of Congress hear the outrage of people, about big brother in the library keeping tabs on what you read. So in a public showdown, congress repeals the provision of the patriot act which allows government to obtain your reading list.
Act II. People forget about the other provisions of the patriot act where the FBI can search records without a court warrent, records like your bank accounts, or even your home. And even after the search, they don't tell you!!
Act III. The Education Bill is passed. What is in the Education Bill? A provision which requires libraries to keep tabs on what people read, "to better spend tax dollars".
Act IV. People disappear. Kinda like Guantanamo bay, but Americans this time. Of course, no lawyers allowed. Okay, government will cave, we'll give you a military lawyer.
Act V. Hell folks, if it gets to Act V, we're all doomed. Some say we already are.
SOLUTIONS
#1) We take all money out of politics.
As long as public office can be purchased, we are screwed. Money is being concentrated in the hands of a small minority. If it takes $7 million per Senate seat, and some believe that the NY seat will be a multiple of that amount, then who can run? Even congressional seats are over $1 million each.
If all money was removed from political contests, then it would be a level playing field for ideas. The people own the airways, we could order 10 hours for each candidate to recieve public airtime. But we don't even get ideas, we get marketing.
I think the USA is doomed. The sad part is we are causing war in every other part of the world. We want to bring to them capitalism, so the same system of buying elections can become possible.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Damn, you can subpoena library records in a private law suit. No terrorist activity needs to be involved.
From ACLU's page:
Note the emphasized parts. ANY person or entity. ANY tangible thing. If Section 215 is so damn dangerous then why are we only worried about libraries?
(Oh and today's challenge is to actually find the word library in the text of Section 215.)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Funny you say that. In some jurisdictions it's actually illegal to be anonymous anymore. Sure, you can pay cash, but there's a camera watching the checkout line so if *they* want to know who is buying 2600 just look it up on the tape. That's why I "contract" to a random kid at the bookstore to buy it for me for $10 bucks. More expensive, but at least *they* don't know I'm buying 2600.
Seriously though, there was a recent case in West Virginia where a guy was arrested for wearing a Grinch mask. There's a law there prohibiting a person from disguising themselves in public. What aggravates me more than the mere existence and enforcement of such a law is that when I was talking about it with my coworkers they pretty much all said "Good -- I have nothing to fear/hide..."
The point is that this is supposed to be a FREE country. How is freedom supposed to continue when nobody has the balls to stand up and point out that we have laws on the books, namely the Patriot Act, that suppress portions of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments? If *they* can get away with this now then there's probably nothing *they* won't get away with!
"we are setting ourselves up to the whole situation again"
Baloney.
There have been no convictions of terrorist because of this law.
None.
Zero.
The Washingtonpost just had a fascinating article about this last week. Despite all the crap that comes out of the administration, this law has had zero effect on terrorism.
It has been used extensively against U.S. citizens. However, if we need specific laws, lets enact them and stop pretending everything is about "terrorism".
Its bullshit and its just a way to remove all of our civil rights because government hates admitting that they are the employee of the citizens.
The only factor that is different from when the Patriot Act was originally passed is that the power of the President has begun to wane. He is a lame duck President whose Vice President isn't going to run for the top spot. The voices of the people who vote is as loud as it was then but now that voice attaches itself to votes for the next election cycle and money to campaign chests. A change in moral compasses on the part of your congressmen isn't what is happening here. They haven't suddenly decided that it's morally wrong to throw the Constitution aside along with yor rights. Nope, nothing like that. It's that your local Congressmen has to listen to you for a while again - to be reelected. So make noise now and let him know what you think of the Patriot Act. Tell him that you actually like the Bill of Rights and won't vote for someone who lets the President take it away piece by piece. This might be a good time to let your Congressman know what you think of the Guantanamo Bay Prison as well. After all, the weakness of the President in this matter is like blood in the water and those who have problems with these issues need to speak now when their voices will mean the most.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
They were a staple of Russian life. Keep the [others] fearing for their lives by killing a few (or more). Other is in brackets because they weren't killing just Jews.
The Nazis were not particarly secretive about what they were doing. They just had more propaganda about it. (The parts they didn't want you focusing on.)
As for the patriot act... Imagine a world where you CANT get away with anything, on any side. Oh the horror. The HORROR!
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
And so we get: September 16, 2003: John Ashcroft accused librarians of fueling "baseless hysteria," and of having been "duped" by liberals. "Ashcroft mocked and condemned the ALA and other Justice Department critics for believing that the FBI wants to know 'how far you have gotten on the latest Tom Clancy novel.'"
Gee, how does The National Review feel about this? It advocates explicitly adding libraries to the list of organizations subject to the law, justifying that by listing the libraries the 9/11 hijackers used in Germany... I'm having trouble making out the argument there. It's pretty breathless: "Atta used computers at the public library and worked out at a Delray Beach health club." Health clubs are scaaaary! It too belittles librarians' concerns, of course:
Google this one up and you'll come across a motherload of library organizations who are very seriously tackling the issues of intellectual freedom involved in this law. Dismissing those librarians as hysterical dupes of terrorists is not exactly calling them pinko commie fellow travelers... but we're already on our way. When does someone use the senior Bush's "card carrying" epithet?
Do another Google and you'll be able to easily find stuff like "The Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries." Book number 4 on the list: The Kinsey Report, because it tried to "normalize deviant behaviors." Yep, those Patriot Act supporters are true believers in intellectual freedoms... They'd never abuse surveillance powers, no ma'am.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
The first thing that needs to be done is to pass a law preventing bills or acts from being given acronyms, or at least misleading ones.
I think most supporters of the act would mainly support it solely because it is titled the "PATRIOT" Act.
If it were called the SUPPRESSION Act, it wouldn't have had anywhere near as much support, because legislators would have been more inclined to read it before passing it.
I'm gonna need a spec.
The article said:
Despite a veto threat from President Bush, lawmakers voted 238-187 to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to investigate the reading habits of terror suspects.
Possibly my own bias, but I read it as:
Despite a veto threat from President Bush, lawmakers voted 238-187 to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to investigate the reading habits of citizens.
Aren't U.S. citizens supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? It's not that I'm worried about them using these powers against terrorists; it's that there is no strong oversight to see that it isn't used by less scrupulous agents against ordinary citizens.
Now with 10% less Fascism and 15% fewer calories! As always, 0g of Trans Fats
But I really shouldn't be laughing at all. Every loss of rights for people in the US or the UK probably has the effect of justifying, at least in their own eyes, the actions of repressive governments everywhere else in the world, including each other's governments.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
I agree. It allows anyone in the enforcement departments to invade your privacy, based on a suspicion. They do not need to prove that you have participated in a crime, only that they believe your activities indicate that you could possibly be aligned in a manner to be able to participate in a crime. You lose your right to any privacy based on someone elses suspicions.
McCarthy would have been so proud of the Patriot Act. That alone scares me to near death.
I suspected the article of half-truth when it referred to the USA PATRIOT Act as an "Anti-Terrorism Act". It takes about 2 minutes of reading the USA PATRIOT Act on Wikipedia to realize that terrorism is only a small part of it. So, I went to house.gov and did a little research.
The bill that it is referring to is:
An amendment numbered 15 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit funds in the bill from being used to implement provisions of Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act which permits searches of library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, or book customer lists under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
There are some key points to mention here. First, this is limiting a section of FISA, which was absorbed by the USA PATRIOT Act. FISA was passed in 1978. So, all that stuff in the article about the "terrorism bill" being passed in 2001 is garbage. This is referring to a law passed in 1978.
Second, this isn't ammending FISA or the USA PATRIOT Act. This is ammending a funding bill to ensure that the funds provided by the bill cannot be used by this one section of FISA. So, it is still legal, you just can't use those special funds for it.
Third, who is paying this writer to write articles designed specifically to fan the anti-patriot act flames? If he had written what the vote was really about, it would have been news. As it is, it is propoganda.
The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
Republican Representatives vote against Patriot Act.
Read the vote results.
To put it simply, 186 Republicans voted in favor of the Patriot Act, with only 38 voting against. 199 Democrats voted against the Patriot Act, with only one in favor. 83% of Republicans voted pro-Patriot Act. 99.5% of Democrats voted anti-patriot act.
Must reach Slashdot Liberal spinner
The reason you perceive an anti-Republican sentiment is that most people have correctly concluded that legislation like the Patriot Act is supported strongly and almost exclusively by Republicans.
It's all on house.gov.
Voting record for roll call 258.
Description of The Sanders Amendment:
An amendment numbered 15 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit funds in the bill from being used to implement provisions of Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act which permits searches of library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, or book customer lists under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Actually, militant Muslims seem to do a pretty good job of that themselves. Google for Daniel Pearl, Theo Van Gogh, Armenious murder, etc. Not to mention the racist bile spewing from the mouths of Islamic clerics in the middle east, Europe, and America. They are in collaboration with oppresive regimes like those found in Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia to direct criticism from their own failed leadership to the West. Face it - attempting to live according to the Quran has left your people in the dark ages. For example, while the rest of the civilized world has embraced women's rights, you insist on forcing them to cover themselves, walk behind you in public, forbid them to talk to other men, and even surgically remove their clitorises because you're not man enough to take care of business in the bedroom and keep them from going elsewhere for satisfaction.
Vader is Dutch for "father."
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
"...to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to investigate the reading habits of terror suspects."
Ah, yes, but who are the 'terror suspects'? Everyone reading books the state deems dangerous?
Eroding ones' privacy and other rights because one is merely 'suspected' is the right way to go, if you want to end up in a policestate.
But, we ALL know the state will ONLY use its powers for the purposes it is meant, without ever abusing it. History has shown this already numerous times in the past, no?
Besides, 'if you have nothing to hide, why care that your private life is being intruded', right?
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
I was wondering about the "Jihadist training" and "flag burning" sections that popped up recently in my local library. And here I thought we were safe! We'd better renew that Patriot Act pronto!
What would Richard Feynman do, if he were here right now? He'd do some math and he'd follow through!
All I can say to that person, who imo is a very sad individual that hasn't read the constitution, is read the first 10 amendments to the constitution if you want to know what rights you have.
This is something that keeps coming up, and I have to keep emphasizing the wrongness of it because it is the root of all of the problems with our government today.
"You", a citizen, have the right to do anything not expressly prohibited to you. "They", the government, have no rights, only certain powers expressly granted to them.
The Bill of Rights is a list of SPECIALLY PROTECTED rights, which the government expressly may not create laws infringing upon, if they somehow (*cough*Article 8, Section 18*cough*) find a way to go about expanding their own powers at will. But the Bill of Rights is NOT a list of your total rights, and many of the founding fathers were opposed to its inclusion (hence why it was added afterward), because they feared that people would think that, since some rights were enumerated, that was an encompassing list of all rights. The compromise was the 10th Amendment, which is the clearest bit of language in the constitution that hammers home my point:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In other words, if the federal constitution doesn't say No, and your state constitution doesn't say No, then you can do it. It's your right unless otherwise stated.
The (Federal) government, on the other hand, is supposed to have a very select set of powers, explicitly enumerated in Article 8 of the Constitution. The catch there is, the last clause of Article 8 grants Congress the power...
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
So basically, every law Congress has passed, aside from Constitutional amendments, is supposed to trace back in some way shape or form to the enforcement of one of these powers explicitly granted to Congress, or to help the other branches to exercise their (also explicitly enumerated and limited) powers.
And the lawmakers have really stretched things. The one you see abused most often is the "interstate commerce" clause. Drug control laws, for example, derive entirely from that - nevermind that the same laws are applied if someone produces a drug like pot entirely in their back yard and uses it it all by themselves, never involving other states or even other people in the process. The lawbooks are full of stretches like that - some law links back to the supposed enforcement of an apparently unrelated power of Congress, and then applies equally well in situations unrelated to the exercise of that specific power, effectively growing the powers of the Federal government.
And since such Article 8 abuses supersede the 10th Amendment protections of your universal human rights (because such abuses 'legitimately' grant Congress further powers, as far as the 10th Amendment is concerned), it seems they can get away with it.
The system is broken.
(Not to mention, even if it weren't broken in just this way... the Constitution still allows individual states to wield whatever powers they please except these, and a few others added in later amendments. Even if the feds weren't able to be draconian... chances are the states still would).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
It's pissed me off, for one. I can handle not being able to moderate, and being called to metamoderate all the time, but
1) being banned from posting under any circumstances from certain places because of actions of other people and
2) watching my fan/friendlist slowly becoming 'unpopular opinion' and being unable to post more than once or twice a day is lunacy.
Vote with your feet.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
The PATRIOT act is the legislative branch giving the executive branch more power than it previously had, which in my opinion is rampant abuse of federal power. A library is a public service.