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.
My advice to librarians (Score:5, Interesting)
nothing good about this (Score:1, Interesting)
Simple Solution... (Score:2, Interesting)
Geez. I thought that after the movie Seven [imdb.com], this would have alerted anyone who they could possibly suspect to cease using public libraries with open, honest library cards.
another reason to avoid libraries? (Score:2, Interesting)
Soon enough, when enough of these freedoms are taken away, like the public unmonitored use of public libraries, then all of the so-called "public" institutions will be used less and less frequently by people who are concious about these things.
In the movie Seven, there was a great hubbub about tracking the use of library card-holders' reading habits. Now it seems that it doesn't need to be kept a secret, that they can and will do it, and that you can't find out about it. That's troubling.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:5, Interesting)
The acronym... (Score:2, Interesting)
the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act" (USA PATRIOT Act.) until I read the librarian guidelines. Call me s-l-o-w. I bet there is a full-time job to come up with those catchy titles. (I wonder what it pays)
hmmm... (Score:1, Interesting)
Ashcroft is the reincarnation of McArthy? (Score:5, Interesting)
In Canada ... (Score:2, Interesting)
The legacy of our PM is broken promises... Case and point... GST and Free Trade...
NAPMFQ
Re:Will it really help? (Score:3, Interesting)
Most library machines I have come across have not been well secured, many are easy leaping points for doing "naughty" things. They even give media access to use material on CDs.
Reminds me of a scene... (Score:5, Interesting)
That movie came out only a few years ago, and yet the scene would probably be meaningless today. It's funny how things change, and not necessarily for the better.
Libraries? (Score:4, Interesting)
College libraries were awesome places. Places to hang out, maybe study a bit, meet young ladies.
Then I moved to Fayetteville, Georgia. Where the publicly funded library is run by the white hair Gestapo. The collection of books there is lacking. So you say, donate some? I did! I offered to donate 8 cases of books. Computer programming manuals, CS theory, even some copies of books I'v written or edited. Not 30 year old books, but fresh books. Books that a young teenager may not be able to afford to buy, but interested in reading. The offer was refused. No strings attached, just take them. No.
Would the old bags in Fayetteville let you know whats going on? No. Odds are THEY'LL call the FBI first.
Ok, thats my rant. If you are in the atlanta area, its worth the drive to the Georgia Tech library downtown if you really are looking for information. Georgia State's isn't too bad off either.
Just like echelon (Score:3, Interesting)
-Restil
Re:My advice to librarians (Score:5, Interesting)
At least at the library I work at, that's already being done - in fact, it's always been done that way. We don't maintain a list of what a patron has checked out - we only know what's circulating at any given time so we know who to bug when their books're overdue. Different insitiutions might have different policies of course, but my guess is if my library [nypl.org] doesn't care about keeping those records, none would.
Triv
Good idea! We already do that. (Score:5, Interesting)
Since dead patrons are bad for our statistics, we use a system that keeps track of who currently has a book checked out. That's it. Once a book is returned to the library in good condition, its borrowing record is wiped clean (would that our young patrons' noses were too!). This protects us from having anything Officer Friendly is interested in looking at (except perhaps for certain books of "art" photos -- but that's his business, isn't it?)
Irony (Score:2, Interesting)
The funny thing about this is that there is currently a public service announcement being aired now (I'm not sure which networks are carrying it. I do know, however, that the television station here at my school has been airing it every now and then) produced by a group that has some involvement with our government, that shows just this sort of thing happening, implied by context that it's "fictional". A sort of what-if scenario, reminding us of our supposed freedom.
What it involves is a kid asking a librarian for help finding some books. She explains that they don't have those books anymore, then guys in suits appear and presumably bust his inquisitive ass.
What's my point? I don't know. I just think it's a little bit creepy, with them saying that we should be glad to be American because shit like that doesn't happen, when in fact it clearly can and most likely does happen! The content of the ad does seem absurd: a kid getting hassled for just trying to read some books. But, it also seems like it's happening, so the fact that this ad lies to us about that is probably more absurd.
Mass Monitoring for "Security" made simple. (Score:5, Interesting)
> have shown they have enough information, but
> their problem is a lack of digestion and comprehention.
I'd expect that they run your reading list against the following algorithm:
* If you read at least two "radical" books like "Blueprint for Black Power"
* And you read the Koran
* Then you are likely are guilty of the thought crime of "Thought Terrorist" so you need to be watched.
* If you are found to consort with others who have committed "Thought Terrorism"
* Then you and your consorts must be brought in for "questioning" until you confess your guilt or "prove" your innocense. It's not "innocent 'till proven guilty" since they already have "proof" that you and your consorts have engaged in "Thought Terrorism".
It's quite an effective strategy to deal with "underable elements". The "beauty" of it is that much of it can be automated and using Bayesian Filtering it can be made more accurate over time. There may be some false positives, but who cares? It's "for the greater good" and "we all have to make sacrifices to stop 'Terrorism'".
*shiver*
What is the issue? (Score:3, Interesting)
If such power is misused then it is cause of great convern, but the article provides no evidence that this is the case.
The author also seems upset that the library staff is not telling him. Well, it is pretty obvious that if you are going to bug something you can't tell the world what you are doing.
Tor
one solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Saying that your not a terrorist and that the FBI should not be monitering you doesn't work, how are the authorities supposed to know what you are thinking? What you are planning to do? Investigation seems to be a way that this can be accomplished but it means throwing away all the rights that the American people have lived so long with and have fought so hard to preserve, 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.
Its a dicey issue to be certian, balancing rights with the need for the authorities to protect Americans from their enemies.
Think about it.
Re:A Good Thing (Score:2, Interesting)
Laura Bush (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:universities track logins (Score:4, Interesting)
Experience as a current Library Network Specialist (Score:3, Interesting)
We definitely do not log peoples traffic nor do we have the storage space to do so. We have a snort box for intrusion detection that does only logging. We had logging enabled for http for a day and we used up all 200gb of space.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Where the hell did you get that idea? Ever hear of the Federalist Papers? Signed 'Publius', the authorship of some of them are still debated.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been reading it lately, as part of a compiled volume of Paine's best writings. I find it really interesting to read some of the thoughts that were influential in the forming of my government. And, in the process, I'm learning a few things about the history of British government that I didn't know, either....
I've been taking my time reading through it, though. Some very deep words to think about. So it's probably a good thing I didn't borrow this book from the library.
The real test.... (Score:2, Interesting)
All of these safeguards are merely illusions. The real indication that a terrorist cannot bring in a nuke into the country will be the day that illegal drugs can't get into the country. I don't see that happening anytime soon. Think about it, if I were a terrorist and had a large nuclear device i wanted smuggled into the US, I would contact a drug smuggler, they get literally 1,000's of tons of drugs into the US every year.
The day heroine is 1,000$/gram is the day we can expect a reasonable sense of security (from a nuke detonating in DC atleast).
Re:Fake ID anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2, Interesting)
The Rascals! The... The Anarchists!!
And if they wanted to put some in the next town, they went to their corner Kinko's?
There was no anonymity, no over-educated under-worked "Anonymous Cowards" when your Constitutional rights were framed. You had a gripe, you got up on your soapbox in the Town Square and you made it, loud and clear. The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure you couldn't be legally shot or carried off later that night, so they protected your right to speak freely. The Constitution does not, was not meant to, protect your anonymity as you take snivelling globally distributed pot shots at the government or corporations or the media or soccer Moms or Britney Spears all from the safety of a firewalled computer terminal on your employer's time.
Want to really make a difference, be heard, get your point across? Find a large group of like-minded people and have a rally. The Founding Fathers knew that took guts, too (it was the age of Napolean's "whiffs of grapeshot," after all), and so they protected your Right to Assemble. In public, where people live, not in a virtual "chatroom," or (saints and martyrs preserve us!) a "Blog."
Got something to say? That's great, let's hear it. But be prepared to take personal responsibility for it. I may not agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your freedom to say it. But just have the balls to own up to your words, and don't expect to hide behind the Internet or your Mom.
In short, the Founding Fathers did not work to protect your right to be an Anonymous Coward... maybe because they knew that cowards already die a thousand deaths and there was not much anybody could do to improve their lot.
All this is not to say that I don't respect your privacy, or respect others who respect their privacy. It's just not a God-given or Constitutional right, then or now.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is Americans don't care about their freedoms any more. Hell, how many slashdotters didn't know about this law 'till they read it here today?
Amendments 9 and 10 really don't exist... (Score:3, Interesting)
America.. Home of the what?? land of the what?? (Score:1, Interesting)
here in canada we are prepairing for Rememberance day, and i think this year i will be reflecting of the fact that thousands of brave men & women gave up their lives fighting aganst facisim, and for my freedom. and in that in the end it was all for not, because we allowed the facists to take over our government. and allowed those that same government to take away our freedoms in the name of security..
something to reflect upon. and i sincerely hope people do on rememberance day..
Re:Will it really help? (Score:2, Interesting)
Most of the libraries I've been to make you sign up to go online. Sometimes they even check your driver's license to make sure you put down your real name and are a resident.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yep. Completely anonymously. How scandalous! As one of the other posters pointed out, even whole books could be published anonymously. How did the country ever survive?!?
>There was no anonymity, no over-educated under-worked "Anonymous Cowards" when your Constitutional rights were framed. You had a gripe, you got up on your soapbox in the Town Square and you made it, loud and clear.
You could even ride your horse to another town and get up on a soapbox there, and guess what - nobody knew you! That's right, you were anonymous and were allowed to speak!
>The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure you couldn't be legally shot or carried off later that night, so they protected your right to speak freely.
>The Constitution does not, was not meant to, protect your anonymity as you take snivelling globally distributed pot shots at the government or corporations or the media or soccer Moms or Britney Spears all from the safety of a firewalled computer terminal on your employer's time.
Of course not. They didn't have any concept of firewalls or Britney Spears. They didn't need to spell out the right to be anonymous because everyone already was effectively anonymous. They had no way of knowing that some day the government would have to power to track everything you do, and would have been horrified at the idea.
Re:The Irony Is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:3, Interesting)
There probably isn't any such thing as a non-oppressive government. Just about any government has something they'd rather was kept secret. Also governments are made up of people, there might be things these individuals do not want known or investigated.
But in most western governments, IMO the potential for abuse of anonymous speech (e.g., false accusations) outweighs the value of anonymous speech.
False accusations can be made without anonymity. All anonymity does is prevent the person making the accusation from being cross examined. If the accusation is false and you have freedom of speach then it can be refuted.
In other words, you have very little fear in the United States for being prosecuted by the government for your beliefs.
Probably best not to hold Islamic religious beliefs, Russian citizenship and visit the US to give a speach of computer security then