FBI Bugging Public Libraries 567
zamiel writes "Bill Olds writes in the Hartford Courant: 'I know my librarian, and I believe she would tell me if the government were tracking my computer use at the library. Don't you agree? No way. There's a gag order. When the FBI uses a court order or a subpoena to gain access to library computers or a list of the names of people who have borrowed certain books, librarians can't tell anyone - not even other librarians or you. They face a stiff federal penalty if they do. It's unfair that librarians should be placed in such a position.'" The American Library Association has a page with advice to librarians and links to previous news stories on the subject.
I don't trust them. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have several books that might raise an eyebrow. One is "Blueprint for Black Power" Amazon inserted a small paper saying it was below their standards when I ordered it from them. But I couldn't find any visible damage...
This book is primarily about cultural phychology and has nothing to do with any radical movements or any such violence or the like. But I could easily be marked by one of the various government "plans" if they feelt the need over books like this.
This is garbage and we shouldn't allow this in a 'free as in beer' society.
What do they really expect to find? They already have shown they have enough information, but their problem is a lack of digestion and comprehention. Perhaps some of the Arabs and muslims they so actively alienate could be of assistance...Only if they really cared about security would that happen!
I can already see ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... the barage of posts talking about constitional rights, the Bush Administration and, of course, the 569 jokes about the "terrorists already winnning". But seriously, does anyone thing they have an absolute Constitional Right to anonymity when they use the internet or check out books in the library?
I know that even posing the question is going to be seriously unpopular, but it should be asked.
Will it really help? (Score:4, Insightful)
Granted the person might access their own email and the feds could get the person's where abouts that way. But will criminals be that stupid? Some might say yes. So there are two sides here.
Re:USA-PATRIOT (Score:5, Insightful)
That and a president who implies that by challenging him or his cabinet you are voluntarily helping terrorists.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Universities Too (Score:4, Insightful)
That's why (Score:5, Insightful)
When you return the books, you get the money back - just don't forget your receipt with matching barcode.
Understandable (Score:3, Insightful)
BUT, it's fairly understandable, as are its counterparts.
If an investigation into a robbery suspect led to a gun shop, should the gun shop owner be able to phone up the suspect and say, "Hey--the cops were asking after you."
Due to the nature of crime (criminals don't want to get caught!), the cops have to have a reasonable opportunity to work quietly, and in private. After an investigation has been concluded, THEN this stuff should be made public.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:what books? (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, the problem with being a geek is that we generally have diverse enough interests that simply being a geek could show up, _IF_ you happened to have read Hitler's book while a senior in high school, read several other books on conspiracies in college, and are now into weapons, chemistry, etc. So, it's probably not too terribly accurate.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The question you should be asking is whether you have the freedom from pervasive government oversight as a result of Constitutional statute. Anonymity has never been a right of every citizen (that's the American way, just ask the advertising and marketing industry). However, there is a reasonable expectation to freedom from having our actions _overseen_ by our own government. It's one of the core distinctions of democracy itself, that the citizenry are the government's overseers, not the other way around.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It was also a time of anonymous pamphleteering of political opinions unpopular with the established government which was part of the forsce behind the first amendment (speech and press) and has been held by the Supreme Court including a case of an Ohio law being struck down as unconstitutional because it wouldn't allow anonymous political speech through pamphleteering.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes there was. Even more than there is now. Anyone could make up a bunch of fliers and post them all over town in the middle of the night and there would be no way of knowing who did it. It's not like they could even check them for fingerprints...
More advice (Score:4, Insightful)
What if the staff at every library put up a big sign over the counter reading "Notice: your reading and Internet activities MAY be monitored by the government." Then in smaller type underneath, "The Patriot Act forbids us from speaking about this matter. For more information call your congressional representatives at _______"
Another random thought: How about a "Jam the FBI Day," similar to "Jam Echelon Day." We in the geek community pick one day when we all stop by at least one public library and do one of the following: browse to at least one "suspicious" site, send an email message with some "suspicious" keywords in it, or check out at least one "suspicious" title.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
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.
Goddamn right I don't expect the government to be snooping on library records. And no I don't give a fuck if Bin Laden himself had checked out 'How to Fly but not Land an Airliner for Dummies' the day before last Sept. 11.
Re:Universities Too (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, because they're already there.
Re:Will it really help? (Score:4, Insightful)
Firstly, they can track the machine to its switchport, and with a simple table of switchport network drop, and/or a map of the physical layout they can easily find the exact machine in a matter of 30 seconds (or less). I administered a school with three wings, two floors and I could nail network traffic (IP or IPX) to its specific chair in under a minute.
Couple this with strategically placed surveillance cameras (which many public institutions have installed already) and they can get a video image of the "perp" for facial recognition at a more convenient time.
So we take a few stills from the video feed, add them to the TCP dump log / keystroke log / screen capture, and file it away for a later date.
So easy, a child of five could do it.
Someone fetch me a child of five! ;)
The Irony Is... (Score:5, Insightful)
And the same government that financed that Ad Council spot (naturally, who else would pay for such drivel, or require networks to air them), is doing exactly the same thing.
Re:So what? I'll Tell You What! (Score:4, Insightful)
"Those who would trade a little freedom for a little security will soon find they have neither".
That one's for you, Sunshine.
-- Jude
(Not a coward, and not anonymous)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Remeber, free speech et al was written in a time when there wasn't true anonmity.
Sort of.
In that day and age, if I went to the town marketplace, people would know me and could tell someone that Joe over there had been talking like a Tory, or whatever.
But the central government probably didn't know me on that basis. And neither did they know instantly if someone uttered a word against the King's will. It had to be really outrageous and it would take weeks or months for politically indiscreet speech to cause a reaction with the central governmental authority.
But a desire for anonymity was still there, because some individuals were in jeopardy, even with the molasses-like speed of the British military and government's intelligence operation. Indeed, that action at a distance delay is one of the reasons why rebellion in the colonies succeeded where rebellion in Scotland or Ireland did not.
Despite the practical protection of distance and not computerized databases on citizens, Thomas Paine, in particular, often wrote under a pseudonym.
At any rate, technology has changed.
Despite its bureaucratic nature, we can't rely upon the FBI to be as sluggish in keyword analysis as King George's government.
But anonymity of one kind or another was an important protection back then. These days, anonymity is an even more important ingredient as a check on unrestrained power that seeks to stifle opposing points of view.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:1, Insightful)
What basis do they have for suspecting all people
that use libraries?
Anyone who thinks "oh well, it's ok because
everything is different now and the government
will only use it against the bad buys" does NOT
know much about the early days of the FBI (F*ck
Hoover). You also don't know about the abuses
against suspected Communist, minority rights, and
peace organizations.
Fake ID anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Oh, looks like Chuck U. Farly checked out another copy of 'How to bow up big buildings with farm chemicals.' Where does he live? 110 Up-Yours Infidel St., New York, NY? Book him, dan-o"
Meanwhile, somewhere on the other side of the country, little 4th grader Joey checks out 'How Power Plants Work" for a school project, and 10 minutes later the S.W.A.T. team is busting down his parent's door...
I wonder where our government will put the concentration camps.
-----
Re:I can already see ... (Score:5, Insightful)
How exactly could pamphlets be tracked to you 200 years ago? The point of pamphlets was that you didn't need to give your name to the printer and you could take them far away to distribute and simply post or drop them. You didn't need to show your government issued ID. There were no credit cards to track down. They wouldn't even be able to track your fingerprints down.
What anonymity gives us is the ability to disagree even when we fear retaliation for our words. While this may not be a basic right listed in the Constitution it's certainly a valuable tool and worth fighting to keep.
Election Day... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps this isn't the right topic for this gripe, but I guess if you're going to complain about an America-centric problem like the FBI tapping your library's computer, you should at least *try* to do something about it.
Just my two cents.
bemis
Re:I can already see ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The general case is that you have a right to anonymously publish or read. Without this right, our right to free speech is shallow and nearly meaningless. The right to anonymously read ensures that if you're curious about the principles of Communism, you won't be dragged in front of the House Unamerican Activities Comission or any similar modern witch hunt. It ensures that your teenage fling with Anarchism isn't going to taint your job record twenty years later. Without anonymity, you put yourself at risk of future loss for what you read today, or you limit what you read to official sanctioned materials.
The right to anonymously publish ensures that you can get your work out even if powerful forces attempt to silence you. Sure, in the long run the First Amendment should protect you, but in the short run your life can be destroyed. Our founding fathers (assert(reader.nationality==AMERICAN)) used anonymous publications to raise public support against the British and for the new Constitution [johndoes.org]. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of anonymous speech [cpsr.org] (repeatedly [epic.org]).
Given that anonymous speech and reading is essential to free speech, it's only natural that the same rules would apply to the internet and libraries. The internet is simply a new way to express yourself. Allowing anonymous pamphlettering, publishing, and speech, but prohibiting anonymous speech on the internet is silly. Similarly, public libraries exist in part to support an educated citizenry. If citizens are afraid to check out "dangerous" books to educate themselves, we're stifling the democratic process which requires free access to information.
Will it scare you off some books? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody wants his every move tracked by the FBI. So some people will stay away from certain books just to keep there private lives private. So the question is, would you rather be informed? Or would you prefer to keep the cameras and the spies away from you?
Re:I can already see ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, we seem to be heading in that very direction now anyway.
Did you vote today?
Wrong enemy (Score:2, Insightful)
This absolute, knee-jerk libertine fascist reaction against any kind of reasonable investigations is what can eventually result in all freedoms being lost. The people the FBI is fighting are the people who would turn the US in to Egypt or Saudi Arabia where, except for the very rich, have the kind of rights we have here.
Re:Reminds me of a scene... (Score:0, Insightful)
I don't know; if you made it much deeper, the kiddies might drown.
Although maybe that's not such a bad thing...
Re:Mass Monitoring for "Security" made simple. (Score:4, Insightful)
Does my christianity vindicate me?
Its just that people are not legallay prosecuted so much anymore as they are prosecuted in a marketing fashion.
For instance, so may people still think OJ was "obviously" guilty, but fail to point out any legitimate evidence to support that claim. He is basically culturally guilty at this point. Regardless to his guilt or not I like to make sensical arguements. This is not the way of the times.
I am concerned.
Yes, we have a right to privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, the library is a public place, but what I look at and what I check out is my private business, and unless I'm already under investigation, they have no right to this information. My email is as private as normal letters, phone conversations and even my private conversations with a librarian about my library searches. This practice needs to be tested in court, and it surely will not stand.
The FBI has consistently shown themselves to be tools of buearocrats and the current administration, and they must be held to a higher standard. They don't need this to fight terrorism, they need to work with other government agencies and quit being so damned arrogant.
Here's a Simple Solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Start compiling a list of where the librarians answer like they're in a spy movie and where they go "huh?". Publish it. Ask for the official "we have not been visited by the FBI letter", if you can get it.
If you can find where there's light, the darkness will also be visible.
Just DON'T keep (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So what? I'll Tell You What! (Score:4, Insightful)
And a misquote from the grandparent post: "Those who would sacrifice an *essential* liberty for temporary safety, deserves neither", the key words here being essential, for liberty, and temporary, for safety.
There is no such thing as permanent safety, no matter what the nanny state would have us believe.
And the context of essential liberty is intended to refer to those liberties that do not infringe upon the liberties of others, it is not intended to promote or justify anarchy.
A common misconception in most societies is the idea that we are granted our freedoms by law, when in fact, the opposite is true. Our essential freedoms have *always* existed, it is in the scope of law merely to protect them from those that would abuse them, and those abusers can (and often do) include the government and institutions we have in place to protect those freedoms.
I'd rather keep EVERY ONE of my *essential* liberties, even at the risk of a little less certainty in the public safety arena, for the very simple reason that those who would threaten that safety will not be hampered, IN THE LEAST, by any of the restrictions on my freedoms.
David Brin's Accountability Matrix (Score:5, Insightful)
3 4
1. Tools that help me see what others are up to.
2. Tools that prevent others from seeing what I am up to.
3. Tools that help others see what I am up to.
4. Tools that prevent me from seeing what others are up to.
Maybe we should promote laws that make everyone's activities transparent. We like 1 and 2, but reality is that it is either 1 and 3, or 2 and 4. And 1 and 3 promotes accountability while 2 and 4 is an "arms race" to see if one can remain hidden. If we could check and make certain the FBI was doing its job properly, it would reign in any questionable activities.
Re:USA-PATRIOT (Score:5, Insightful)
That means one has to believe that the current occupant of the White House was elected in the first place. I, for one, don't. And if one accepts the fact that El Presidente came to power in a coup worthy of any third world dictator, then his current governments attacks on our constitutional rights are not all that surprising.
Turning into 1984? 9/11 was the day that 1984 became a reality. Bush got his Reichstag fire, and he has used it to his advantage.
Just another step on the road to perdition. (Score:2, Insightful)
This fiction brought to you by the United States of America. Just don't tell anyone you read it here.
Anonymity the only privacy - or is it? (Score:3, Insightful)
So do something. (Score:2, Insightful)
Call your mom.
taking books out? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now that's not so difficult is it?
Re:Just like echelon (Score:1, Insightful)
It sounds like you got a glimpse of what "die" is all about, that's it's a real possibility, and you are now having second thoughts. The romantic words are too impractical and unrealistic: It is better to be a slave to a politician, than face death.
What you forgot is that they still can't save you. You're going to die, all your children are going to die, everyone you ever loved or known is going to die, and nobody can ever, or will ever, be able to do anything about it. Even signing your life over to the state, won't stop Time.
So enjoy the life you have, and make it good. And one of the most enjoyable things in life, is to give a big Fuck You to people who don't want life to be enjoyed.
So the big question is: are the feds an example of those people? Are they really trying to bring justice to the world, or are they looking for new powers to abuse for personal ambitions? When I look at history, I know that it has been a long, long time since there were honest people in that level of government. The probability that the top-level decision makers want to protect you from another plane (and have no other agenda), is about as bad as your chances of having a winning lottery ticket. Learn from history, dude.
Note the irony. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm glad a stupid law from DC has an exception in DC. I wouldn't want my representatives in DC to be subject to the same stupid laws as me. Funny how everybody seems to forget that before 9/11, there were FBI oversight hearings going on and they were being blackballed in the media.
Note to FBI: I haven't been to a library in a while so don't even bother.
From the perspective of a Librarian (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:one solution (Score:3, Insightful)
They're not 'granted', we took them in several massive and very costly wars starting in the late 1700's. This is one of the problems with how people view our current government, and any government for that matter. The US government derives its power solely from the will of the goverened. Every so often, we put certain people in positions of power with the understanding that they will carry our out will. We are granted nothing by our government, our government is granted privileges and powers by us.
"this also means that they get granted to people who would attack the US from within."
Each person is granted certain unalienable rights by their creator. The extra rights we enjoy in the US are granted to all law-abiding citizens. Those who abuse those rights and use them in ways which infringe upon the rights of others lose some of them (ie. persons in jail). You cannot bar rights from those "who would do harm" until they've done harm or show imminent intent and ability to do so. To try to do otherwise is both futile and undermines the very principles upon which our judicial system founded. Those who do it in the name of "protecting Americans" are cowards who lack the courage and conviction to stand up for what is just.
"how are the authorities supposed to know what you are thinking?"
They're not, and that's why I have a problem with them monitoring what you and I are reading; it gets very close to what you're thinking. Policing thoughts is something so detestible to the senses of human freedom that it has no place beyond the depths of the Orwellian hell which we find ourselves so perilously close to experiencing first-hand.
"2 wars and innumerable conflicts have been fought by the US to "preserve and maintain our way of life", you can't get rid of that and still call yourself an American."
Our way of life? Are you joking? Our way of life shouldn't be even close to what we're worried about. How about our principles? How about beliefs (secular)? How about our childrens' future? How about our ideals? Our way of life can always be improved, but our ideals are just that; ideals. As for our way of life, if we stand firmly grounded in our ideals and beliefs, our way of life is intrinsically preserved. Our freedom is our strength; our courage is our protection; our ideals are the life through which we live eternally.
I agree we need to protect ourselves from our enemy, but restricting the rights and liberties of Americans is NOT the way to do it. Nor is ubiquitous surveillence. Not only that, but none of these things will help us in the end. Most of the people who are involved in terrorist (and I use that word sparingly) plots and such against America grew up in countries that have more restrictions on freedom and more surveillance than you or I can possibly imagine. They've lived their lives bypassing security, surveillance, and other measures. Israel has security tighter that most Americans dream of, yet they must endure regular suicide bombings. Ask someone from Israel who's lost a loved one to a suicide bomber what super-tight security is good for; you'll have no shortage of people to talk to. You really think checking reading habits is going to help? Certainly checking mine doesn't help you; merely gives you more irrelevant data to sort through. Aside from that, just what the hell gives you the right to monitor what I read and judge whether the books I'm reading are ok?
Most of the changes being made will do nothing to deter those who are determined to do us harm, and many of the new policies do nothing more than overwhelm authorities with data completely irrelevant to terrorism; only relevant to societal control. If you want to control what I think or control what I say, you're in for a big surprise. Myself and many like me will MUCH sooner die resisting you than let you destroy the freedoms and ideals preserved by the blood of the thousands who've defended that in which they believed and held dear. If you'd like to kill those willing and ready to defend their rights, you can start with me. To destroy the freedoms of Americans in the name of America is to disgrace our forefathers, our flag, our Constitution, and everything those things represent. To those like Ashcroft who commit these heinous acts, you are dishonoring the American government, your position, and yourself as an American. And you should know that the American people will not tolerate but so much of your totalitarianistic edicts before they rise up against you.
Protect us from those who would do harm to America; do not "protect us" from ourselves, and do not believe for a moment that we will happily trade our freedom like candy for your bitter and distastful tyranical "protection".