Bookseller Purges Records to Avoid PATRIOT Act 560
Skyshadow writes "Vermont Bookseller Bear Pond Books has announced that they will purge their sales records at the request of customers . This would effectively sidestep typically insideous a provision of the PATRIOT Act which allows government agencies to secretly seize sales records. The store's co-owner, Michael Katzenberg, put it this way: 'When the CIA comes and asks what you've read because they're suspicious of you, we can't tell them because we don't have it... That's just a basic right, to be able to read what you want without fear that somebody is looking over your shoulder to see what you're reading.' Now if only certain other booksellers would show that same conscience, we might have something here."
Amazon (Score:5, Interesting)
Hey! (Score:2, Interesting)
Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Interesting)
Problem Solved (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Law Enforcement (Score:3, Interesting)
How about this? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's of little comfort (Score:3, Interesting)
And even if they don't have lists, they might have knowledge in their heads or on scraps of paper or whatever. All this is fair game when it comes to the law... perhaps just not as accessible as an explicit list.
I remember when my sister was asked about her former (fired) boss by her new boss. "Don't worry", he said, "we'll seal all this so that you can talk freely".
Nothing was written down. But when the new boss took the stand, he discussed the details of what my sister had said.
So much for records; so much for corporate promises.
Except for one minor problem... (Score:4, Interesting)
And I highly doubt they would be interested in what books a person reads, but that's just me.
Could the feds (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, they're out in the public saying they're knowingly taking steps to hinder a possible request from the Feds for information.
Amazon Lists (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember that AD? (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember that???
It is nice to see... (Score:3, Interesting)
The truely sad part of this, is that this is not the worse. This admin has been not only stealing so many of our rights, but also taking away our ability to know what is going on. Public scrutiny of all processes (check and balances) is just as important to prevent abuses.
Re:Problem Solved (Score:2, Interesting)
Only drug dealers use cash and drug dealers fund terrorists, therefore, you sir, are a terrorist.
Ipso Facto.
Ok, a bit of a stretch. Well, unless you buy something for more than $10,000. Then you have to actually *prove* you're not a drug dealer.
All they have to do now is gradually lower the bar.
KFG
Re:Good way to go. (Score:2, Interesting)
I would recommend that you inform those who you politically support that conservatives don't support this any more than liberals. And quite honestly, watching congress go like a bunch of sheep to pass this atrocity, it's clear that it's not just a left/right issue. Nonetheless, the self-proclaimed conservatives have draped themselves in the flag and put this abomination forth to begin with (let's hear it for Johnny Ashcroft, who is getting his revenge for being beaten out of his senate seat by a dead man).
what about public libraries??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:3, Interesting)
I could go on ad nausem about the other pitfalls of your "not keeping records at all" idea, but hopefully you can already tell it holds no water.
But if Google retains all data, it's cool, right? (Score:3, Interesting)
Google saves your cookie ID, your IP number, your search terms, the date and time stamp, and your browser configuration with every search request you make to Google, and Google retains all this data indefinitely, and Google will not comment on their dealings with the authorities.
But this is cool because Google has cute colored letters in their logo, right?
Re:Farenheit 451 anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
The american people are starting to get pissed off and the movements against these insanities are growing as more people are being educated.
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
That is why the USA PATRIOT act is so stupid... it does very little (if anything at all) to increase security and everything to limit the rights of everyday citizens.
Governments who attempt to have complete control over it's citizens never work out. They fall. I believe America will fall unless Bush 'n pals are taken out of office and we congress gets it's act together.
Real US patriots would never put the USA PATRIOT act into place.
Re:Remember that AD? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a pretty powerful ad to me.
Privacy wins (Score:2, Interesting)
Our Rights (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Law Enforcement (Score:3, Interesting)
We should:
Library Purging (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Tinfoil Hat Syndrome (Score:5, Interesting)
Lastly: get a clue and toss in some fucking line breaks.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL, so I don't have a reference handy, but I do recall reading that if you have reason to believe that materials will be subpoenaed in the future, and you destroy it with the express intent of avoiding having to comply with the subpoena, then that counts as obstruction of justice.
I'm really curious to hear from someone who actually is a lawyer on this point.
Nice, but purge the Patriot Act, too (Score:5, Interesting)
Which politician is man or woman enough to lead the fight to undo these un-American powers? We know that in the Senate only Feingold resisted, although colleagues have become braver since. And yet the nation remains enthralled to right wing fantasies, driven hysterical by an irresponsible administration and its cynical Democratic allies who use fear to control the public as ranchers use cattle prods.
The hour demands a Lincoln; all we have is a Bush! Is there no one in office with love great enough for our freedom to save it?
Re:Nice, but purge the Patriot Act, too (Score:2, Interesting)
We don't keep email or backups of email (Score:3, Interesting)
Close... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Law Enforcement (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Law Enforcement (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Law Enforcement (Score:2, Interesting)
Well then you run the problem having to have an "advisor(s)" for the randomly chosen person. It's been in movies a million times the advisor is always corrupt. Or take the stock market and "Financial advisors" or "Investment advisors". Their advice is always going to be what either 1) Makes them the most money. or 2) What the Company/Boss wants them to say.
So unfortunatly, we can't just elect any random dolt of the street. Politicians have to be career politicans.
As far as the president... I'm all for free choice and voting, except for the stipulation that anyone who want to be president has to have been an officer in the one of the armed forces.
Re:That would be nice but... (Score:2, Interesting)
> if this is the best we have to offer.
I'm inclined to think it's a different issue altogether.
Here in Australia, there's ongoing outrage at the fact that "run of the mill" federal politicans make something around twice the average salary. Given the responsibility that these guys take on, compared with "average salary" guy, I think they're woefully underpaid.
Think about it: a lot of us working in IT wouldn't even consider taking these jobs on, since we couldn't afford the pay *cut* we'd get in trying to help lead our countries. Doesn't that seem ridiculous? - we can make much more money doing relatively obscure IT work for large corporations that we could if we were running our countries!
Factor in the time commitment of a political career, and the only people left to take on the role are the independently wealthy and those who would otherwise be on relatively low incomes. For those with young kids, it's just about impossible, and that's been borne out by a significant number of Australian politicians "dropping out" to look after their families.
Of course, there will always be those who take on the job because they feel they "should contribute in some way", but they may tend to be the people who have some sort of axe to grind with the present system.
Look at a hypothetical alternative: Suppose we raised the income of politicians by a factor of (say) 10, and as a tradeoff limited the number of terms they could serve (maybe 10-15 years max). Suddenly, you'd get people who weren't interested in the role prepared to take it on. Now I'm not saying these people would do a better job (in fact, individually they might do worse), but by making the job more (financially) attractive you'd expect to a number of better quality people applying. By limiting the number of years someone can hold down a political career, you'd kill off the "career politician" mentality - those people who seem to focus simply on getting re-elected time after time, rather than contribute in any concrete way.
I think these two steps would have the effect of weeding out a lot of the dud politicians, while keeping most of the good ones. Maybe then such stupidities as the Patriot Act, Copyright Extension Act and DMCA in the US, and unenforceable Internet censorship laws and "Muslim=bad" political hype in Australia, wouldn't keep popping up.
Blame the eligible voters. (Score:4, Interesting)
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No", said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd", said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did", said Ford. "It is."
"So", said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them", said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes", said Ford with a shrug, "of course".
"But", said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said", said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them." he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it." - Douglas Adams, So long, and thanks for all the fish, chapter 36.
"It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it." - Eugene V. Debs
Re:Remember that AD? (Score:2, Interesting)
A thought on voter education... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Don't blame the people, blame the two parties (Score:3, Interesting)
Another problem is that third parties have a hard time getting on state ballots. Here in North Carolina it is almost impossible for candidates to get on the ballot. For example, there was a Write-In candidate for Senator last election, but he wasn't able to get his name on the ballot. They had a blank for you to write his name on. How hard would it have been to put his name as a choice, rather than printing "Write In _________"? I wrote his name on my hand before voting so I wouldn't misspell it...
Re:Law Enforcement (Score:2, Interesting)
The career politician is precisely the problem. Pop quiz: What's the solution?
A) Random selection of officials
B) Dictatorship
C) Term Limits
D) Who cares? Pass me a beer...
E) CowboyNeal
If you answered C you answered correctly. (Well, maybe D is okay.)
If a politician can hold no single office for more than two terms and cannot campaign for any public office while holding one, there is less opportunity for corruption. Period.
...Nah, I'm just joshing: the answer is CowboyNeal!
Re:Don't blame the people, blame the two parties (Score:4, Interesting)
"Winner takes all" only applies in presidential elections. There are a number of other problems which apply in all elections. The plurality voting system is chief among them.
Bad idea. Learn about the problem with Instant Runoff Voting [electionmethods.org]. The same problem applies in any runoff, instant or not. Sometimes the best "compromise" candidate may get eliminated first, and you're stuck voting between two bad choices - exactly what we have now. Yes, plurality voting is bad, but IRV isn't really any better (even though it seems to be). The system you want is Condorcet [eskimo.com] voting [electionmethods.org]. Same ranking method, but you consider all preferences simultaneously rather than sequentially.
Not really. True proportional representation by popular vote forgets that the states, as political entities, should be represented in the federal government too. (That's what federal government means, the federation of individual states.) In Congress we have one house that represents the states (at least we did until that lousy 17th Amendment) and one that represents the people. The EC is an attempt to unify the interests of the states and the people when voting for a singular office (president). That's why the number of EC votes a state has is the total number of Senators and Representatives from that state.
I do agree that "winner takes all" is a broken system. The legislators that put it in place were very short-sighted - in giving more power to "their state's party" in presidential elections, they didn't think that the balance of power in their state might swing another way in the future and end up hurting "their party". NE and ME allocate their EC votes (less two) proportionally by congressional district to the plurality winner of that district. That's a good attempt at compromise. I think it would be better if we used Condorcet, better still if the last two EC votes were decided in the state legislature (if they are supposed to represent the state's interest) and we scrapped the 17th Am. while we're at it. Remember, these issues are decided by your state legislators, not DC. This gives you much greater ability to make a change to the system. It's closer to you, and hence more responsive.
I've also heard people say that we don't have enough representatives in Congress. With only 435, each has far too many constituents to respond to. The Constitution originally called for a 1:30k ratio. Maybe several thousand would be a tad excessive, but with modern technology I don't see why the number couldn't be increased without hampering the ability to debate. This means you'd have more chance of your view being represented in Congress, and combined with the idea of allocating EC votes by CD, a better chance of picking the president too.