Slashdot Log In
Effects of the Patriot Act on Librarians
Posted by
michael
on Fri Sep 20, 2002 11:56 AM
from the fbi-in-your-library dept.
from the fbi-in-your-library dept.
Quaryon writes "The Patriot Act apears to have some chilling effects with respect to libraries and booksellers. An FBI agent can get a warrant, without any evidence, in order to compel a librarian to reveal lending details on a suspect. The librarian cannot tell anyone about the search, including the target of the search, and the details of how many such searches are done are not made public. Articles at SFGate News and Common Dreams give more details." We had a related Ask Slashdot a few weeks ago.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Librarians, throw down your yokes! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! (Score:5, Interesting)
However, a while back the police were able to retrieve past patron check out data from another local library system.. I think they used some sort of data recovery techinique to access the deleted records.. so there is that.
However, due to the PATRIOT act, and the fact that we are pissed off about it, we are now shredding the patron internet login sheets every night. So at least they won't get access to that. I think other library systems are doing this as well..
Parent
Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! (Score:5, Informative)
Old card systems kept the names on a card, and the FBI did not need to do much more than scan through the backs of books to get their list. It was available to everyone. Nowadays, once the book is checked in, the users name is dropped from the system, thus fouling any search for history.
I should add the disclaimer that this is true in most cases. You should check with your librarian to see if your library software follows ALA guidelines.
Parent
Re:Librarians, throw down your yokes! (Score:5, Informative)
Lately, at a lot of the 'Friends of the Library' booksales I've been to, I've noticed a lot of "Withdrawn" editions -- perfectly good books, in pretty good shape, but for whatever reason they've been pulled from the shelf.
Well, last weekend I got a copy of Milosz's 'History of Polish Literature' and was actually curious why a book like this was at a FOL sale for a quarter. Anyway, I bought the book then went upstairs to check the card catalog. I figured the book had been replaced. But there was no sign of a new edition.
Then I figured it might be from a different library -- a branch or something -- but all the markings on the spine and front cover matched with the library where it was for sale.
I should have asked the ref librarians -- because i was actually pretty curious about this -- but they were busy and I didn't feel like waiting.
Anyway, I scored a great book (if you're into the history of Polish lit, I suppose) for twenty-five cents. I figured that because it was pretty obscure was why it was pulled.
But I might be wrong. I'd hate to think libraries are driven by marketing -- what's popular, what's not -- but then I figure: well, most libraries have a finite amount of space and new space is not always forthcoming. So instead of just adding, adding, adding to the inventory, they probably have to make some hard decisions and pull stuff off the shelf.
This *might* be why libraries need records. (But they don't need to correlate the borrower records with the book check-out history, I suppose.)
*shrug*
Parent
Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, that sounds like a zippy quote.
Gentlemen, start your engines (Score:5, Insightful)
For those of you who have realplayer, this Ad Council clip [streamos.com] never fails to amuse. It is not a matter of if, but when.
Re:Gentlemen, start your engines (Score:3, Informative)
That is what sickens me.
Does anyone find it ironic... (Score:5, Interesting)
One of these commericals shows a young man walking up to a clerk at a library and asking for a series of books. When he's told that those books are no longer available he's asked for his name. He becomes clearly upset and attempts to leave when he's taken away by a group of men in dark suits.Seems the futures a lot closer then anyone else suspected.
Re:Does anyone find it ironic... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.adcouncil.org/campaigns/campaign_for
has a link to the video you are speaking of.
Parent
slow news day? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/24/attack/
In the article, it shows that some libraries are resisting as much as possible. I believe the ALA [ala.org] has a section on their website to keep librarians aware of their rights.
The real question is why libraries need to keep track of the books you have checked out after they have been returned? Most places are past the point where you sign the little card in the back of the book, so I don't see why libraries couldn't just delete the info after the book has been returned.
Hopeful sign (Score:5, Informative)
Kudos to the Ad Council (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about terrorism... (Score:3, Interesting)
A warrant? Without any evidence? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're arguing the more subtle difference between probable cause and evidence, then you're right, but your point is without merit.
What you seem to be reaching for is a scenario where an FBI agent can search without restraint, i.e., commit unreasonable search and seizure. That's just not the case...not that there aren't other bigtime problems with this circumstance, but unreasonable S&S is not one of them.
A few words of sanity (Score:5, Interesting)
Given those two points, I and my fellow library employees have been told the following:
All of this applies even for the most classified requests under the most extreme reading of the PATRIOT act.
Thus, if you want to know what Sally has checked out right now, and your request makes it through all of these requirements there might be a chance that you'll find out without having to ask Sally directly.
If you want to know what Sally read last week (or possibly even this morning if the materials have already circulated) there's a good chance you're going to have to find Sally to ask her yourself.
Re:A few words of sanity (Score:3, Insightful)
Good to see that the 4th Amendment is still valid. However, over the last 34 years the 4th Amendment has been slowly eroded of most of its power. Beginning with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 ('68) the Supreme Court has supported the notion that "even in the law enforcement context, the State may interfere with an individual's Fourth Amendment interests with less than probable cause and without a warrant if the intrusion is only minimal and is justified by law enforcement purposes.
2) Before any search for information begins the library has the right to have an attorney examine any/all warrants and/or court orders to determine their validity, jurisdiction, and all other aspects of legal standing.
This is really one of those grey areas of the law. On the one hand, you are absolutely correct: you have every right to have an attorney examine any/all warrants and/or court orders to determine their validity, jurisdiction, and all other aspects of legal standing. And more than likely the FBI won't be serving subpoenas personally.
On the other hand, if they do serve the subpoena personally and you try and stop or hinder in any way a legal search, they'll more than likely arrest you for obstruction of justice.
3) The library, through its attorney has the right to additional judicial ruling on potentially suspect or questionable documentation before any search begins. (Right of appeal)
This will most likely be true in Patriot Act cases. More than likely the FBI will send you a subpoena requesting specific records. I really don't see them knocking on your door personally.
4) The library has the right to have its attorney present at all times when any search activities are carried out.
This is true. Hope you have him/her on speed dial.
Re:A few words of sanity (Score:5, Interesting)
I worked as a developer in a major university library for about two years. The system I worked on only tracked requests made to borrow books through other universities, but it kept ALL of them. Your whole history. This system was used at a whole host of other libraries, including NYU, ASU, Berkely, and more.
The main system that kept track of circulation for the whole library also kept all requests to a certain point... but even after it purged, every time something was overdue, THOSE records were kept indefinitely. And it gets worse. I shouldn't have known any of this: it was outside my employee privileges, but several reference librarians kept the username and password posted on post-it notes, and being able to look up my own circulation records via telnet (or tnvt3270 or whatever it was) was way too convenient. From that point, looking up someone else's circ records was often way too interesting.... oh, and did I mention that the library used your SSN as a unique ID?
Anyway, the point is, the system saved lots of your information, and it was fairly easy to get to it. If we were counting on practices of libraries to preserve anonyminity, I wouldn't feel all that secure....
(disclaimer: I made slightly different version of this comment [slashdot.org] weeks ago, but it seemed like it bears repeating....)
Parent
replace librarians with NSA agents! (Score:3, Interesting)
If lending records are released it create a serious breech of our freedoms. In particular, how will the records be interpreted? If I regularly check out books on a certain faith, will I be categorized as that faith? If I check out books on chemistry, will I be building a bomb? If I read too much Tom Clancy, will I be a spy? It is this sort of thing that makes me wonder if the Germans comparison of out president to Hitler may not be as far off as we first imagine. We already know that dark colored people with accents cannot drive through the south without being accused of terrorism. I do not see how violating patron confidentiality will help anything.
The saddest thing is that Laura Bush is a Librarian. The fact that such a thing could happen with her husband in office makes me wonder if there are any ethics at all in that house.
The US is no longer free. (Score:3, Interesting)
Emigrate. There's better countries to live in. They're not perfect either, but the US is definitely taking the wrong path.
Government is controlled by big business. The two big parties have very few differences between them. Even when elections do happen, they are a sham, as can be seen in the last presidential election.
On a related note: (Score:3, Interesting)
It was "all cleared up" shortly after, yet, they still managed to remove his website from the internet for an exceptionally long time. Even now his service is still canceled and he can't get back online until he finds another provider.
Everything's on his front page, being hosted by a friend, which you can read about here:
http://www.peachkin.com/tt/
Some commentary I wrote on this (Score:5, Insightful)
:
My comments follow. Please note that the quotes included are only
excerpts; I strongly advise reading the whole article.
Communications
Previously, the government had to show probable cause that a crime
had been or was about to be committed to obtain a warrant. Now, it
only needs to show that the surveillance is relevant to a current
investigation.
However, the 4th amendment to the US Constitution states quite
explicitly that "...no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause".
"The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones," said
President Bush when he signed the Patriot Act. Now, he said, "we'll
be able to better meet the technological challenges posed by this
proliferation of communications technology."
I'm rather curious what the "existing law" Bush refers to is,
considering that the probable cause requirement was written in the
days before the telegraph, let alone telephones, rotary or touch-tone.
It's also rather troubling that new technology is always assumed to
create a situation where existing principles do not apply. While I am
not one to rabidly and unthinkingly defend American superiority, it
must be acknowledged that the founding fathers were not utter fools.
The sheer volume of their writing evidences the fact that much thought
was spent first determining the effects of their initial regulations,
as well as laying out their reasoning for establishing them.
I find it difficult to imagine a situation where the existing rules
are unworkable. The only reason not to show probable cause is to cast
a dragnet, the catch of which can later be data-mined at leisure. Of
course, it is well-known that one can find evidence of nearly any
conspiracy if he is looking for it, and it's important that suspicion
of a crime be established before investigation is begun.
It is not difficult to obtain a warrant; a judge's signature is all
that is required. But the judge must first be satisfied that the
constitutional requirements have been met, lest the evidence later be
thrown out. This is a process which takes some time and
consideration, and I am not overly concerned by this. Better that one
piece of "crucial evidence" be occasionally lost than that the specter
of random searches begins to frighten every citizen. If a deluge of
warrants should be required, appoint more judges and set up more
efficient pipelines for obtaining one. However, this situation should
ideally act more as a warning flag than anything else.
I would also like to point out that, for better or for worse, the
demand for probable cause is not absolute and inflexible. The
doctrine of exigent circumstances has been established for some time
now.
Libraries
The FBI can demand from bookstores and libraries the names of books
bought or borrowed by anyone suspected of terrorism. Librarians may
be prosecuted if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed
information related to a terror investigation. [...] Library and
book records were previously only available to prosecutors if a
judge issued a subpoena for the records.
Once again, this is a clear violation of the 4th amendment. In
addition, courts have previously held that this sort of action creates
a chilling effect on activities protected by the 1st amendment; see
the Colorado Supreme Court's decision on the Tattered Cover issue:
Search warrants directed to bookstores, demanding information about
the reading history of customers, intrude upon the First Amendment
rights of customers and bookstores because compelled disclosure of
book-buying records threatens to destroy the anonymity upon which
many customers depend.
Detention
The Immigration and Naturalization Service can now detain aliens
suspected of terrorism for a week before bringing criminal
charges. The INS can hold terrorist suspects for up to six months
without bringing charges if their country of origin won't take them
back.
Writ of habeas corpus, anyone?
The accumulation of these civil rights violations, including others
not discussed in the article, coupled with the secret police/informers
John Ashcroft wishes to set up across the country (see
http://news.com.com/2102-1023-944555.html, for example), creates an
environment where not only terrorists need fear for their rights. It
is reminiscent of Orwell's 1984, where the faade of the
war with Eurasia/Eastasia is used to mask the totalitarian actions of
the government. Reminiscent of the empires of Commodus, Hitler,
Stalin, Mao, and others, for that matter.
This needs to be fought.
----
Permission is given to redistribute this commentary verbatim,
as long as credit is given to Tim Howe (vsync@quadium.net).
Quotations are from the "A Look at the Patriot Act, Nearly One Year
Later", Stephanie Miles, The Wall Street Journal Online, 6 September
2002.
********************
If you are having trouble with any of the links in this message, or if the URL's are not appearing as links, please follow the instructions at the bottom of this email.
Title: WSJ.com - A Look at the Patriot Act, Nearly One Year Later
Copy and paste the following into your Web browser to access the sent link:
http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/e
Ironic isn't it? (Score:3, Informative)
is something missing here? (Score:3, Interesting)
Everyone is freaked out about them tracking our library browsing habits.
Isn't the same thing being done right now, without warrant, with regard to our *web* browsing habits?
My Local Library (Score:3, Informative)
Library record keeping (Score:4, Informative)
1) Most all libraries these days have computerized inventory systems using barcodes or RFID tags to track books and patrons. These systems make it LESS possible to track reading histories. In the old days with the 3 x 5 cards and date stamp machines one COULD track reading histories, though the logistics of such an operation would be daunting.
2) Libraries erase lending history upon return of items. In fact, librarians insist the systems keep no history as part of the RFP process.
3) It is potentially possible to retrieve lending history via backup tapes. These are usually recycled in a typical father-grandfather scheme. Restoring data from these tapes would mean the library system would be shut down during the process. It would be a massive operation and very visible.
4) Librarians are generally liberally educated left-wing leaning social and humanities graduates who are well aware of the first amendment and often the only people in the community willing to stand up for it. With recent polls shoing 49% of Americans believe the 1st amendment goes too far, you better go hug your local librarian. Because you know what? Nobody else is helping.
The Failure of TIPS: Three Medical Students (Score:5, Insightful)
A recent example is how a woman could report three medical students as suspected terrorists, have them locked up, their possessions molested, and their jobs lost... simply because they looked like Muslims, Arabs, Pakastanis, Iranians, or in many people's minds "like them terrorists". This sparked paranoid delusions, not just within her mind, but within the minds of the general public [miami.com].
If such horrible things can be inflicted upon you because of your ethnicity makes you a target of the current administration's programs, then how hard is it to imagine your reading habits making you a target of the current administration's programs?
If I read a book about "Islam", "Jihad", "American is Evil", or, hell, any book written by Noam Chomsky... will I be locked up, my possessions molested, my name defaced, and my job lost?
The land of the free? Are you serious? I feel like my nation has become a suicide bomber - ready to self destruct out of shear desperation and hate.
Remedies (Score:3, Informative)
the article represent a conspiracy to or a deprivation of our God-given, Constitutionally-protected rights. Maybe the following sections of laws from the US Code should be enforced against anyone who passed, signed off or attempts to enforce it.
* United States Code
* TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
* CHAPTER 21 - CIVIL RIGHTS
* SUBCHAPTER I - GENERALLY
U.S. Code as of: 01/05/99
Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such of
ficer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
U.S. Code as of: 01/05/99
Section 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
(1) Preventing officer from performing duties
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;
(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in
any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;
(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
U.S. Code as of: 01/05/99
Section 1986. Action for neglect to prevent
Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.
Warrants are ABOUT collecting evidence? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now - it maybe that the level needed to get a warrant has decreased under the Patriot act (IAMAL) so I'm not sure, but there STILL MUST BE some level of probably cause to get such a warrant. The original poster said that you could get a warrant without evidence...Uhm..HELLO - where do you think the government get's permission to gather personal evidence??? It's through the warrant mechanism. That means a judge has to be pursuaded that the adequate cause under whatever standard the law establishes to allow a search to occur.
So there has to be due process before ANY search can take place.
So - if a Judge says - "Yeah, give them your records" after the Judge is convinced there is a reasonable expectation that something will turn up, then the legal hurdle has been overcome to allow a search of personal property, or some business records. So how is this that different than ANY legal search of personal property or personal records?
Next comes the issue that we are actually at war. I'm not talking Sadam, but OBL who unquestionably hit us first. What I hear from the librarians amongst us is that that they would rather shred documents instead of possibly helping catch a terrorist? Is that what you really mean here? Don't forget that it is a FACT that that Al-Qaeda has used the internet from public locations like libraries and cyber-cafes to communicate. Seems like talking to librarians is a perfectly understandable place to begin such investigations?!?
Instead of having a complete knee-jerk reaction to this like "they are stepping on my rights," try looking at the reasons behind such investingations. You might find the government still has to get warrants just like they always have, and that your rights are still being observed!
Re:PUBLIC Libraries (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:PUBLIC Libraries (Score:5, Informative)
They of course should, but not untill due process has been followed. The Patriot Act has now circumvented that due process. That's the problem.
Due process is important. That's why this is important.
Parent
Re:Due process? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:PUBLIC Libraries (Score:5, Insightful)
How?
Really, how exactly would the FBI spying on me protect me from random terrorism? Really, lets see.
step 1-Make profile of someone.
step 2-???
step 3-Safety!
That is a good trade off. Even if not one terrorist is busted from this whole inactment, everyone in the trade towers and on the flights would have definitely traded this for their lives.
This sentence made no sense at all.
What they are doing is using fear of terrorism to gain powers that have nothing to do with protecting you from terrorism! And for some reason you seem to think that's the best idea ever...is your daddy a special agent by any chance?
Parent
Point by Point breakdown (Score:5, Insightful)
Using money paid by taxpayers and thus OWNED by taxpayers to be used by taxpayers
2. "Therefore why shouldn't they be able to get the information on what books you have read. "
Because a little piece of paper called the US constitution defines freedom of speech as something the "government" may NOT take away NO MATTER HOW IMPORTANT a situation is. The US Supreme court has stated that the ability to read ideas is freedom of speech and that fear of reading ideas is the silencing of speech.
3. "Besides it's not like they weren't already doing this. "
For the purposes of CRIMINAL activity. But in this case they don't have to prove you did anything wrong. Only that they THINK you did something wrong.
5. "Now that they are officially stating that they are allowed this would in essence give you more rights, since you know that your rights are not being violated."
How is this the case? I don't know if they are looking at my checkout records. I don't know if they are going to use this against me in court later on. I can't request what information they have. I can't question where they retrieved the information to make me a suspect to begin with. Need I go on?
6. "One also has to look at the cost versus the gain. By having the FBI have access to your reading habits, it could save you from being in a building that gets hit by a plane. That is a good trade off. "
No it's not. Maybe for you. But let's follow this twisted logic to it's end. IF an act can prove dangerous to others then the US government has the right to take away our constitutional rights on the basis of protection. Since drunk drivers kill people then perhaps the government should put all people who have been seen "walking" into a bar in jail. ON the basis that they MIGHT drink and drive. and MIGHT kill somebody. But hey, it's all for the safety of the better good
7. "Even if not one terrorist is busted from this whole inactment, everyone in the trade towers and on the flights would have definitely traded this for their lives."
Who on earth gave you the right to speak for the dead... to determine that they would give their lives for this? How about the thousands upon thousands of US lives in the US military that gave up THEIR lives to retain these same rights? Are their lives worthless?
8. "Stand up for things that matter, like P2P networks. Tracing your personal phone calls. Storing credit card numbers, and let these ones pass. "
What's the difference? If it's ok to track the books. Then why not YOUR internet usage. what's the difference? There isn't any. You can't concede one point of security and privace and allow another. Stand on the issue... not the individual sub points. We can't pick and choose which parts of a principle we wish to defend.
9. "Then when you speak you will be heard louder and not thought of as a whiner who whines at every single legislation that is passed. You have to know what battles to pick, and which ones not to."
Ohh... I get it now. Let's play the politics game. Give in to this point to make others. Fine. Then let's stop trying to stop murders because there are people out there hurting little children. Let's stop small dictators from slaughtering their people because we have larger countries that are a threat. This has to be the most obnoxious and ill thought out post I have ever seen and as being such is probably a troll.
You can mod me up or down. I don't care but somebody had to say it
Parent
Re:PUBLIC Libraries (Score:4, Informative)
Those libraries which are public are provided to all and funded primarily by the local taxpayer. Access to records, if kept, of who checked out which books should follow due process procedures. Prior to the patriot act, law enforcement would need to get a warrant (U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV) detailing what they were looking for on a basis of probable cause. The patriot act circumvents that. In addition, we are guaranteed a freedom of speech (U.S. Constitution, Amendment I) which would appear to be curtailed by these subpoenas, since people should now fear to check out books which the government might identify as somehow "subversive". Note also, "For the First Amendment does not speak equivocally. . . . It must be taken as a command of the broadest scope that explicit language, read in the context of a liberty-loving society, will allow." Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 263 (1941), which is to say, "Free speech carries with it some freedom to listen." Richmond Newspapers, Inc., et al. v. Virginia et al., 448 U.S. 555, 79-243 (1980).
Parent
Re:PUBLIC Libraries (Score:5, Informative)
1) Does the law explicitly violate the constitution?
2) Is the purpose bennificial to the people as individuals, the states as entities and the US as a whole?
3) Is there a better way to reach the same ends?
All this ruling did was create a national bank, but the precident for deciding how to rule on controversial laws is still in use today. Those same 3 steps, established in one of the first supreme court cases is a method that is used for many many laws today.
Likewise, there was a ruling which established that there is no such thing as an absoulte right to free speech (can't yell fire in a theater). This ruling allows for the supression of anti government propaganda durring a war. That is a scary precident.
SO is this one. If they can read your borrowing logs today, why shouldn't they be able to read your credit history tomorrow? And read your phone logs the next day? What's the difference? It's all part of the better good to save your life. Better to die young and free than old and opressed.
Parent
patriot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:patriot? (Score:5, Informative)
Or, take the Florida Wetlands Protection Bills, so heavily favored by the Eco-Crowd... which propose to seize privately-owned lands and flood these areas beyond their natural levels, threatening the natural ecological balances.
I do wish we had a rule requiring appropriate naming of legislation. I also wish we had a rule that all sponsors of any legislation at the State or Federal level would have to sign a certain document. This document would state their belief that the legislation is more important than any other use the taxpayers may have for the money it would require, including food, bills, transportation, home repair, personal investment towards retirement, personal investment in education, etc.
But then, I can't see any bill with either of those proposals getting very far.
Parent
Re:patriot? (Score:3, Insightful)
This way if there is much ado about bill-1384343-3434 of U.S. tax law then the *only way* to figure out what you want to know about the bill is to actually *learn* about it!
Government and business are ***relying too much*** on the ***ignorance and apathy*** of the people, to be beneficial to the people.
Re:without any evidence ? (Score:3, Interesting)
What would you think if you watched the stats and the borrowing of Mein Kampf went up 2000% in a month?
Of course, maybe their more concerned with The Catcher in the Rye...
What would I think if... (Score:3, Insightful)
I would think kids had been assigned homework about the Holocaust or the History majors or Abnormal Psych students had been assigned a paper on Really Bad Ideas.
I am less concerned at this point with anti-Jewish foolishness than I am that a Sikh got shot on September 12, 2001 by some idiot who thought he was shooting a Muslim (as if all Muslims were responsible for the crimes of a few).
As H.G. Wells wrote almost a century ago, "the future will be a race between education and disaster". We need a free flow of information and ideas to prevent the "Big Lie" Hitler's propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels relied upon to permit the Holocaust to occur.
Re:What would I think if... (Score:4, Interesting)
The promoting freedom bit is the propaganda, not the cultural imperialism. If you look at America's track record for the governments we set up, you will see that we have absolutely no interest in promoting freedom, but rather only have interest in promoting stability so we can have our cheap oil. We have supported some of the worst civil rights violating governments in the Middle East, and its coming back to bite us in the ass.
Who was it that put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan? We did, in order to curb the threat of Soviet invasion. Who supplied Iraq with arms even though we knew that they had used chemical weapons on their own civilians? We did, in an attempt to curb the threat of Iran. Who still supports the corrupt Saudi Arabian dictatorship? We do, so we can have a convient place to pick up oil.
Do you know which Middle Eastern country had the only spontaneous memorials for the Americans who died on September 11? Iran. The reason is that even though Iran blames us for a lot of things, they don't blame us for their government like all the other countries in that area.
Lets face it. We suck at deposing dictators, we suck at setting up governments, and we need to stop thinking that we can manipulate global politics for our own gain.
Parent
Re:without any evidence ? (Score:3, Interesting)
attitudes like yours were a key ingredient in that transition.
Re:If you don't like it... (Score:4, Insightful)
If people started flooding across the border into Canada
Canada? That's no beter; those hosers don't even have freedom of speech [mcmaster.ca]. (Just teasing, my buddies to the north. Props to ya, eh?)
Look, if you're in a modern democracy and you don't like the laws, you try to make things better and get the laws changed, not just give up and move away. This is fundamental to the health of the democracy, and although it may at sometimes might seem like an uphill fight, it's a battle worth fighting.
Parent
Fuck you. I am a US citizen, with rights. (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell, im not even sure if this is a troll or not, im just pissed off. Ill give you mods a free pass on this one.
Re:To where? (Score:3, Insightful)
And the answer is equally interesting: to where?
Times really *have* changed when *Americans* might soon face the choice of having freedoms curtailed or lighting out for better shores.
But the question remains: where?
Where do Americans go when they want freedom?
I mean, I don't see the Statue of Liberty standing in any other harbor.
That blows my mind.
You're assuming that's where it stops (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's one scenario, from what I know about you already.
1) You were in the Air Force. That means you are combat trained and know how to use deadly weapons to kill people.
2) You read sci-fi. This can mean that you are open minded to fantastical tails and adventurous tails. You are also intrested in technology.
3) You have CD-Rs (probably some illegal) and go to slashdot, a known haven for digital criminals.
4) You probably have kiddie porn because as the article stated yesterday, most cyber criminals have gobs of kiddie porn on their harddrives.
Now with this info, if I were a crazy assed hard core right wing fuckhead (the type who wrote the patriot act, or would make the same assumptions I made above, or would say that the purple telletubbie is gay, or bert and ernie are gay) I could make a pretty strong case of FUD as to why you are a danger to society. Or if I were a wimpy-ass left wing freak I could say how the very fact that you know how to use a weapon makes you a potential murderer. Either way you are now open to danger from fanatics. Not muslim fanatics, but american fanatics.
For example, we could allege that you may have weapons, you know how to use them, you read anti-christian writings such as sci-fi, you are a hacker and a child pornographer. Now we can raid your house and take your shit. And because you might also be a terrorist we can hold you indefinately without any charges - thanks to the new fucking laws.
And what's more. You can't really say anything about it when we do it, because you didn't fight for your rights when you could have.
Wake the fuck up, dude. This isn't about terrorists, it's about freedom for REAL HONEST AMERICANS like yourself.
I'm willing to fight and die for my freedoms. As you were when you were in the service. the only difference is you were brainwashed to believe that the only threat to your freedom is a foreign threat, where as I know the biggest threat will be an inside job. Much like the job Bush and Asscroft are doing on us right now.
I'm willing to fight, kill and die for American freedom. The only real question is whom will I have to kill. Saddam, or Bush?
Parent
Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's frightening how much faith Americans have in the institutions which have shown time and again how untrustworthy they are...
Re:Where in the Patriot Act does it mention this?? (Score:3, Interesting)
(Note: thomas.loc.gov gives temporary links. Those looking for the bill text should do a search for HR 3162).
Relevant sections might be
Sec. 213, on when notice of a warrant can be delayed. Note that this requires "reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result", and does not include
tangible property seizure or wire interception.
Section 214, where it amends Title V of FISA, regarding the subpoena of records. FBI higher-ups (no lower than assistant SAIC) may apply for orders "requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution."
Apparently, a FISA judge or a US Magistrate Judge must approve. In addition, the records must be sought for such an authorized investigation. In addition, you can also find the non-disclosure requirements there.
Libraries aren't special, no matter how much library associations would like to pretend they are. OTOH, they can't subpoena your library records just 'coz you hang out with a street gang called the "Bin Laden Boys" (freedom of association) or you write editorials demanding the destruction of America (speech) unless they have additional non-First-Amendment evidence.
Re:Aren't warrants still issued by judges? (Score:3, Informative)
"Unlike other search warrants, these warrants do not require the officer to show that evidence of wrongdoing is likely to be found or that the target of its investigation is involved in a crime.
A librarian who is served with a warrant must surrender records of the patron's book borrowing or Internet use and is prohibited from revealing the search to anyone -- including the patron. The Justice Department has refused to tell Congress how the law is being used, saying the information is classified. "
-- I especially like the standards for warrents. The don't need probably cause of evidence, they just need to tell the judge "it's in the interest of National Security". We all know by historical example that powers like that are never abused, right?
Re:Seven ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, now it is!
Truth be told, I kinda like the PATRIOT Act. It brought a lot of stuff that was probably going on anyways into the open.
Now that it's officially legal and above-board, it's up to the courts to decide whether it'll remain legal, and the last the I checked the Constitution, that's where the decision's supposed to be being made.
Or would you prefer the old system, wherein the cops couldn't tell the court how they'd gotten the evidence, and the court had to pretend they didn't know, and as a result, the hard questions were never asked?
Parent