... 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.
Well now you have a point there though. Remeber, free speech et al was written in a time when there wasn't true anonmity. If you spoke or said something, you had every right to say it, but people could also identify you. Even things like newpapers and pamphlets could be tracked back to you. Anonmity and Freedom are not one in the same.
Remeber, free speech et al was written in a time when there wasn't true anonmity.
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.
>Remeber, free speech et al was written in a time when there wasn't true anonmity
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...
Thomas Paine's Common Sense, commonly regarded as one of the most influential writings of its time, was first published anonymously. The publisher knew who the author was, and people of his time found out if they really wanted to, but Paine didn't claim any credit up front.
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.
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.
PLEASE! Mod the parent up! So few people understand the meaning of the 9th Amendment, and as such this is a comment that is very valuable to this -- and any -- discussion of our rights!
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....and anonymously.
>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.
On the other hand, if you got up on your soap box in the middle of the street, or you gave pamphlets to people on the street or went to the printer to get something printed up, you could be identified by site. So if you ran arround screaming anarchy and death to people who didn't believe in your ways, people saw you and identified you, and even if you had no name, your reputation could precede you. Want your anonmity? Go save up the cash for soem plastic surgery and go chuck your SS card and your drivers licence, and all your credit cards etc. Sure you have to give up a lot, but so did people who wanted to be anonymous back then. As I see it, everything in life is a sort of double edged sword, the easier it becomes to be anonymous (now you can print a whole series of propaganda and papers from your home and distribute it all over without anyone having seen your face) the easier it becomes to track and trace you. In the end it all balances out.
You had a gripe, you got up on your soapbox in the Town Square and you made it, loud and clear.
Unfortunately, today's soapbox is The Mall, and it's a privately owned space. They can and do regulate what sort of speech/conduct is permitted, and speaking your mind in the Food Court is not allowed.
What should be done is that our local leaders should establish some sort of public use rights for large private establishments, as a way to mitigate their impact. The mall, for example, probably causes traffic problems for the nearby community, and it probably had to get some zoning easements to be built in the first place.
Unfortunately, half the people running our local government are also the people building the mall. They're not participating in local government for the betterment of the citizenry...well they are in the sense that they believe that our interests are best served by acquiescing to whatever the developers want. This just happens to coincide with their interests...
Look at how little participation there is in our local government. Presidential elections get the highest voter turnout, but really so many more tangible things are happening at the local level. The last non-presidential primary I voted in had a turnout of like 11%, and this in civic-minded Seattle.
Democracy doesn't actually work, at least not when monied interests are the only ones who bother to participate. I wonder why so many people claim it's the best form of government? Give me a benevolent despot any day. Either that, or make voting mandatory, with a fine if you don't vote. Just put a "none" box on the ballot for those who don't want to vote.
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.
Given that cities had maybe a handful of printing presses, the first thing the authorities would do is visit the pressmen and try to find out who came in and ordered 1,000 copies of a pamphlet printed up.
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.
"Anyone" with access to printing press, you mean. And in Colonial America that's not a huge number of people. It's not like everyone had a laser printer at their house.
The other two repliers to you have done yeoman's work, but left something off: if you wanted to be anonymous, or have privacy, all you had to do was move to another town in another state. Sure, you did have to give up anything you can't carry with you - but if you showed up in Charleston, S.C., in 1768, and said you were John Weatherall from Frederick, Maryland, who would ever find out? It's not as though there were drivers' licenses or other documentation.
Common Sense [earlyamerica.com] was published anonymously. Since we know who wrote it, I'm not sure if it was "true anonmity" as you define it, but it was anonymous enough protect him from the English (aka The Man).
Back to today, the courts have ruled many times against things that have a "chilling effect" on free speach. I think tracking people in libraries is clearly chilling, but so was 9/11.
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.
free speech et al was written in a time when there wasn't true anonmity.... Even things like newpapers and pamphlets could be tracked back to you.
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.
The Federalist Papers were authored by the pseudonymous "Publius" (Now believed to be James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay.) Similarly, various opposing views were published by Agrippa, Brutus, Cato, etc
There is actually a long and colorful history of anonymously published pamphlets. Often the original author only became known long after the political change advocated by the pamphlet came to pass, or after the author was dead.
Even things like newpapers and pamphlets could be tracked back to you.
And yet many potentially contentious political documents where successfully
published anonymously by our forefathers, including the Federalist
Papers [johndoes.org].
Assuming you trusted your allies to keep their mouths shut, anonymity was even easier when our freedom of speech was drafted.
Anonymity and Freedom are not one in the same.
They are not the same, but they are related. Without anonymous speech (and
the ability to anonymous hear that speech), your right to free speech is
severely limited.
Maybe not, but we do have a constitutionally protected right to free speech. That right is infringed upon when the speaker (or listener) is concerned about repercussions from an oppressive government. It is not a stretch to expect this constitutional protection to extend to what we read, whether in books or on the internet.
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.
Maybe not, but we do have a constitutionally protected right to free speech. That right is infringed upon when the speaker (or listener) is concerned about repercussions from an oppressive government.
There is a balance between free speech and responsible speech. In an oppressive government, there is certainly an interest in having anonymous speech be protected. But in most western governments, IMO the potential for abuse of anonymous speech (e.g., false accusations) outweighs the value of anonymous speech.
In other words, you have very little fear in the United States for being prosecuted by the government for your beliefs*. Therefore, it's more in the interest of society for you to take responsibility for your speech.
*And please, don't quote me obscure cases where government abuse might have occured. All that shows is that the exceptions prove the rule.
IMO the potential for abuse of anonymous speech (e.g., false accusations) outweighs the value of anonymous speech
That's a BS assertion. I don't know if you were only making an observation of the value system that exists, or whether you were asserting it as valid, but in any case, anonymous speech that makes false accusations is not dangerous.
Any anonymous speech is automatically suspect, why should it hold any credibility on its face?
After all, if anonymous speech was given the same sway as non-anonymous speech, then everyone would know "GigsVT is a fag" and wouldn't question it. (Hi Mr Anonymous GigsVT troll!)
Let's suppose I thought Osama Bin Laden was right for a second. Now, let's suppose I go write a letter, stating who I am, and where I live, and my beliefs that all Americans should die. How quickly do you think I would be arrested and charged with terrorism?
"Unpopular" speech has just as much a right to exist as "popular". If it has to be done anonymously, so be it. If it's "false accusations" as you claim, investigation will bear this.
There is a lot of fear right now of being prosecuted (persecuted) under the current government climate for your beliefs. If you don't think this is true, think about the Muslims and Hindus (damn ingnorant rednecks) that were assaulted after these attacks. Let's not forget, the US goverment is by the people, for the people. If you're a citizen, you're officially part of the government. You're assertion that the exceptions make the rule is a fallacy in this case, as it's the threat of BECOMING part of that "minority" stifles free speech.
Chances are you won't be arrested, but you will be watched more closely. And in all honesty there is nothing wrong with that. When you go into an area of your town known for violence, don't you watch your back a little bit more? If you knew that your neighbor made explosives in his basement (maybe he's just a demolitions worker, maybe he's not) wouldn't you keep an eye on him a bit more than normal? Caution against perceved threats is fine, it's action against unidentified threats that causes problems.
There is a balance between free speech and responsible speech. In an oppressive government, there is certainly an interest in having anonymous speech be protected.
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:)
Except it doesn't lack oversight at all. They have to justify the need for these warrants to a judge, just like they have to do to tap your phone without your knowledge.
Librarians have blown this entire issue way out of proportion.
Also,does anyone have a count of how many times this story has been published here as "New" on Slashdot? Talk about lack of editorial memory;)
IMHO, it's not about the right to anonymity so much, it's that we can't really have much public debate over this if it's absotelutely illegal for the librarians to mention it at all. Here I thought it was only heavy-handed non-democractic countries who 1) spied on citizens, and then 2) resolutely deny that any spying activity is taking place
We can debate it publicly just fine. The librarians are allowed to complain about the law. They just aren't allowed to tell you you're being monitored. We know the law is in place. That's in the public record. There's no secret about what's going on.
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?
Yes, its a good question. But done confuse the right with the difficulty. Just because the Internet make anonymity hard, doesn't negate the right. Free of expression without fear of reprisal is one of our most basic and important rights, and anonymity is part of it.
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.
The right to free speech isn't at issue here -- it's the freedom from unwarranted search and seizure (Amend. IV of the Bill of Rights) that has, in the modern age, been widely (and often inbcorrectly) interpreted as granting some notion of privacy. And it has nothing to do with democracy per se, rather the tyranny of powerful states that the framers were trying to avoid.
Of course, we seem to be heading in that very direction now anyway.
Actually, free speech rights are an issue here. This takes away the First Amendment right of the librarian to speak out against the unjust treatment of the patrons whose Fourth Amendment rights are being violated.
Unfortuantely, "We the people" have allowed our Governement to become the overseers, and we have shirked our responsibility as the government's overseer. I have the feeling that as a whole, Americans are a bunch of spoiled children. Americans don't want to be responsible or to work. There are exceptions, but the majority seems to prefer that the government act as a parent. There is moaning and complaining, but no action is taken to make things different.
If "We the people" don't like it, it is up to "we the people" to change it.
Unfortuantely, "We the people" have allowed our Governement to become the overseers, and we have shirked our responsibility as the government's overseer.
Thing is that most Americans don't even appear to understand this. Governments can be, like fire, good servents or bad masters.
I have the feeling that as a whole, Americans are a bunch of spoiled children. Americans don't want to be responsible or to work. There are exceptions, but the majority seems to prefer that the government act as a parent. There is moaning and complaining, but no action is taken to make things different.
Some of the moaning and complaining being along the line of complaining about too much government interference in some way or other at the same time demanding that government "do something" in some other area.
Anonymity has never been a right of every citizen (that's the American way, just ask the advertising and marketing industry).
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." -- 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Just because the right to anonymity isn't enumerated doesn't mean it's nonexistent. Given the situation and the values of the framers during the time the U.S. was founded, and especially given the anonymous nature of the Federalist Papers, I'd say the framers probably thought that anonymity was a right even if they didn't explicitly enumerate it.
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.
Think I am joking? Try to find an opinion of the court (not a dissent) that rested its argument upon either amendment... It may be the case that most cases based upon retained or reserved rights never get cert, but in practical terms these amendments are about as important to the current court as the third amendment. I have heard reasonable arguments made that the 13th and 14th amendments effectively gutted 9 and 10 when combined with the commerce clause after the various civil rights cases.
How about "US v. Morrison" -- in May 15, 2000 SCOTUS affirmed an US Court of Appeals ruling striking down 42 USC 13981 on the basis that the Constitution did/not/ give Congress the ability to legislate on the matter covered, and explicitly stating that the Commerce Clause could/not/ be stretched as ludicrously far as Congress and the President had wanted.
The ruling even states, "Every law enacted by Congress must be based on one or more of its powers enumerated in the Constitution", and specifically cites Marbury v. Madison in rejecting arbitrary extensions of federal power.
Incidentally, it was the four liberal justices who dissented in order to promote federal power over every little bit of American society (and likewise in striking down the Gun Free School Zone law, where again Congress tried to buy votes by grossly exceeding its limits).
(And for the but-the-Conservatives-screwd-States-Rights-to-help -Bush whiners -- Florida did/not/ apply its own law evenly to its counties; hence, the 14th Amendment violation. SCOTUS got jurisdiction as an appellate court. Ergo, no states-rights problem, as the states do not have a right to apply their own laws unevenly and thus violate equal-protection.)
Limiting the extention of powers is not so much a matter of the rights being retained by the states, more a limmit on the rights of the government. In this case, the decision was telling the government that you can only extend your power so far. For example, the congress has the power to regulate commerece between the states. But they don't have the power to control your interactions with someone else even though that could by extension effect inter-state commerce. They tried this once, I forget the case, and basicaly the courts told them that you can not say that the interactions of two people withing a state, even if one of them has interactions outside the state, constitutes interstate commerce. Still nothing about you retaining a right though
I will grant you that the persistent fungus that is the commerce clause is occasionally fought back, but the opinion in the case you cite does not, as far as I can tell, actually cite the ninth or tenth amendments. The case limits the range of the pernicious combination of the fourteenth and the commerce clause.
Seriously, does anyone with a Lexus link have an answer here? It has been more than a decade since my last con law class and I sort of lost track of what the Supremes were up to in some of the less celebrated cases of the 90s...
How about "US v. Morrison" -- in May 15, 2000 SCOTUS affirmed an US Court of Appeals ruling striking down 42 USC 13981 on the basis that the Constitution did/not/ give Congress the ability to legislate on the matter covered, and explicitly stating that the Commerce Clause could/not/ be stretched as ludicrously far as Congress and the President had wanted.
For one thing the 10th ammendment should trump the commerce clause anyway. It requires a strange reading of the document to ignore an ammendment.
The ruling even states, "Every law enacted by Congress must be based on one or more of its powers enumerated in the Constitution",
If this needs to be stated then there is a big problem with the US Congress.
You know, perhaps the most disconcerting thing about this whole issue is the *greatly flawed* notion that the materials one reads has any bearing on their guilt or innocence in the acts they perform.
No matter how many books I choose to read about serial killers, it doesn't make me one. The very idea that somebody would label me as "suspicious" of such activity if I did read these books smacks of "circumstantial evidence" - which should have very little value in a court of law.
There is a huge difference between using a UAV to fire a missile into a SUV full of Tangos and "terrorism".
1. The aircraft while possibly not USAF marked, is marked USA somewhere with a US tailcode somewhere on it.
2. The missile used will have serial numbers and other national identifiers on it's casing.
3. The primary target of said missile is an enemy combatant, operating outside of UMC regulations and in violation of every treaty concerning military combatants. Thus, any rights to a fair and speedy trial are right out the window.
Personally, I feel that every combatant captured in Afghanistan, Pakistan or wherever not in a uniform is subject to military justice, an uprising of prisoners in northern Afghanistan was rightly bombed and shelled.
If one wants the rights accorded to a combatant, then they need to operate within the framework the international community has established to govern warfare over the last 400 years.
There is a huge difference between using a UAV to fire a missile into a SUV full of Tangos and "terrorism".
I disagree. President Regan signed an executive order forbidding the CIA or any other United States agency from assasination. "W" has not signed an executive order recinding Regan's. If we knew where this fellow was (and we did, since we killed him) why didn't we arrest him and bring him to justice? Killing him in cold blood is murder, and no different than what "W" calls terrorism when done by others. Pot. Kettle. Black.
According to Pres. Clinton, the assassination ban only applies to heads of state. Mr. Al-Qaeda-Man doesn't qualify.
Also, the Yemenis already tried to arrest the guy, and lost eighteen soldiers in the process when the locals attacked the authorities -- the region is lawless and the Yemenis have very, very poor control over there. An "arrest" doesn't work very well when the locals are heavily armed and against you, and it'd be an utter humiliation for the government if the/US/ (which would also have to kill the villagers to succeed) were summoned to bring him in. It's also more politically acceptable in the region for Yemenis (Moslem) to kill Yemenis (Moslem) than for the US (has Moslems, but seen as an infidel state) to kill Moslems.
'sides from the above facts, they were in a vehicle, in the desert, away from traffic, with weapons. What, you think they'd kindly stop if a helicopter (which wasn't in the area) buzzed by with a megaphone?
No rights by the rules that govern warfare, no rights to a trial, no rights to an arrest.
Like a spy, a combatant not in a uniform is subject to summary execution on the field of battle.
The CIA can't kill a head of State, but otherwise it may operate as a government agency would in a time of war. Although, a CIA agent not in uniform is also subject to the same rules reguarding a combatant not in uniform.
OSS, German Intelligence, MI6, DIA, SAS, SBS, NVKD, CIA, FBI, KGB all organizations operated and killed people in theatres of battle and neutral nations before, during and after World War Two. Dead agents on all sides involved during the Cold War.
That ban applies to heads of state. TO be a head of state, you have to be an internationaly recognized leader of a legitamate government. Al Queda and the Taliban are not recognized as legitimate rulers. Therefore they are not protected from that ban.
For the same reason that if you ran down the street shooting people, the cops could shoot you. I'm not claiming that all this is clear cut black and white (nothing is) but you're reaching here.
The problem is.. Never stoop as low as them. Always treat an immoral enemy, morally. It shouldn't be an eye for an eye, but a learning experience by demonstrating a morally superior conduct of ourselves.
I don't think there should be any expectation of anonymity, since libraries are public institutions, after all. I'm also of the opinion that it's OK to have cameras on street corners, because how is that really different from the cop walking down the street watching for anything suspicious? Or just some guy staring at you while you walk by. It's a public place, other people can see you, so why pretend that you have any inherent privacy? On the other hand, if the feds are looking for people that check out controversial books, then it almost seems like entrapment: the books are there for the taking, but you better not touch them, or else. Of course, the alternative is for the libraries to remove the aforementioned "flagged" titles, but that would be outright censorship.
Seems to me, beyond confusing multiple uses of the word 'public' (publicly owned vs. open to view) that you have this exactly backwards. As libraries are publicly owned, the public should have finally say regarding library surveillance. I'll guess that most library users wouldn't approve.
Law enforcement has to have some particular reason to suspect YOU specifically before it probes through generally accepted expectations of privacy. The depth of the intrusion is propotional to the persuasiveness of the evidence. BUT NO FISHING EXPEDITIONS.
The Patriot Act relies on a hysterical and ill-defined notion of a future terrorist threat to provide justification. This has been characteristic of many "emergency measures" in many countries over the years -- you know, we have to shut down the presses because it might cause trouble, etc. Now, it's been fairly quiet for over a year in the States -- when do you think they'll dilute the Act?
A recent example abroad -- the Russian gov't interfered with internet and print press in the wake of the theater hostage-taking crisis. Although antiterrorism was the justification, a good portion of this appears to have been to save face for the gov't. They politely call this censorship "media restrictions." [nytimes.com] (NYT 11/2) Good precedent?
Now, are we aiming to be more like the Russians, or more like us?
If we go to war in Iraq, we'll see even more severe censorship than in Gulf I (when they couldn't lay hands on Peter Arnett) and who knows what sort of internal investigations looking for seditious intent. How many people here will end up on the list? (Actually, with the increased use of sniffers looking for keywords in email and postings, you probably all are on the list.;-) Look what happened to the medical students in Florida, where even the traffic violation was a lie, disproved by videotape." [dailyhowler.com] Watch out for the next Eunice Stone, aided by fear.
I am a great supporter of our government, but stop snooping in our libraries, this is pathetic.
Law enforcement has to have some particular reason to suspect YOU specifically before it probes through generally accepted expectations of privacy. The depth of the intrusion is propotional to the persuasiveness of the evidence. BUT NO FISHING EXPEDITIONS.
Or at least this is the way it should work. Similarly if they want to specifically spy on you or search your private property then in theory they have to convince a judge that there is some evidence to begin with.
The Patriot Act relies on a hysterical and ill-defined notion of a future terrorist threat to provide justification. This has been characteristic of many "emergency measures" in many countries over the years -- you know, we have to shut down the presses because it might cause trouble, etc. Now, it's been fairly quiet for over a year in the States -- when do you think they'll dilute the Act?
Governments like to grab power a lot more than they like to give it up. Sometimes the only way to get this to happen is a revolution.
A recent example abroad -- the Russian gov't interfered with internet and print press in the wake of the theater hostage-taking crisis. Although antiterrorism was the justification, a good portion of this appears to have been to save face for the gov't. They politely call this censorship "media restrictions."
Now, are we aiming to be more like the Russians, or more like us?
Do you really think the US (, British, French, German or wherever) government is any less interested in "face saving" than the Russians. People in power like to be portrayed as somehow superhuman and never making mistakes.
Face-saving -- oh, I doubt the two gov'ts are necessarily different in wanting this, but the Russians are more ruthless in getting it. They're climbing out of a history of brutal repression, while we are descending into censorship; maybe we'll pass each other at some point, who knows?
One of the worst things about these changes is that they're not necessary, and no one has even tried to show they would made 9/11 less likly. Rather things like the Patriot Act appear to be opportunism by groups who have wanted to do this for a long time.
But ultimate responsibility lies with the voters -- if they care they need to show it. And I think most people support or tolerate things as they are now, and until it's too late.
It might be helpful to review the 9th and 10th amendment.
The point is Americans should have all rights, 100% freedom - rights revoked. Not 0% rights + whatever we are granted.
1. Convince Americans the enumerated rights are all they have. Then enumerate less. 2. ?? 3. Profit
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.
To answer your question, yes, I have an absolute Constitional Right to anonymity. I'm talking Constitution here. I have the right because the Constitution does not say otherwise.
The ideal of freedom is not one we have lost, it is one we have yet to achieve.
However, unless it specificaly violates (as determined by the supreme court) a right granted to the people or denied to the government by the constitution, the congress has the right to make all laws deemed "nessesary and proper". So far, the Patriot Act has been deemed such. Therefore, it's the government's right to spy on you, just as it's your right to be anonymous (dont' want to get caugt? read it in the library instead of checking it out). It's wierd and hazy stuff, but so is all of the government. It's that way be design.
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?
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.
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.
If you have an entrenched ruling class, including career politicans, then an educated citizenship can be rather frightening. They might do things like investigating things themselves, rather than simply taking what those in government say as being correct. It's likely to be a bit harder to witch hunt Communism or Islam in a population which knows all about the principles of Communism or has read the Koran. Similarly claiming Iraq is a huge enemy of the world dosn't really wash with anyone who knows the recent history of that country.
This isn't about your right to not have information recorded about your library habits or web surfing habits. That information always was recorded and always was available by court order. At issue is whether or not you don't have a right to know that this information is being scrutinized. In an extreme case, not knowing this information means the government can carelessly scrutinize anyone and everyone without repercussion.
I dont see it that way. Rather, I see it a short step from them tracking people who check out books on civil disobedience to such records being deemed worthy to be presented as evidence in court. You have a right to read it, sure, but can you feel safe afterwards? How long until someone, lacking better evidence, stumbles accross your name in both a witness list and a 20 year old record of a book you checked out?
Let us not forget, either, that the public library system in USA was founded by a certain Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia. He was also a noted publisher of anonymous works, both his own and others.
It's right there in the Bill of Rights. The right to be secure in your person, papers and properties against unwarrented searches and sesures (paraphrasing, of course). The free speach aspect is secondary, although important as well.
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.
OK, if I don't have a Constitutionally protected right to be free from surveillance, why is the FBI entitled to be free from MY surveillance? In other words, if they are entitled to surveil me anonymously, why am I not allowed to read books anonymously?
As a side note, can this new measure be justified by historical precedent of Bad Guys using libraries to do Bad Things, or is it simply a power grab by the FBI?
I've been using public libraries for a while now, and it's rare when you're allowed to enter and exit one nowadays without a search. To me this is a bigger violation of my constitutional rights, but this doesn't bother me so much as the fact that my tax dollars are going to staff 2 full time cops to do the search. Is my small town library really such a hotbed of terrorism? Somehow I doubt it.
Yes...you do have a right to anonymity...not under the guise of freedom of speech but rather the 4th amendment, that being illegal search and seizure..."probable cause" needs to be established before a search can be conducted
However a search of a person and their property has been expressly limited to items on that person and their identifiable personal property. If information want's to be free, than the information of what you do in a public place with public materials is therefore not your property.
The Constitution doesn't work that way. Look at the Ninth and Tenth Amendments: any power not expressly given to the Federal Government or to the states is granted to the people.
So it's not a question of, "do you have the right to anonymity." It's a question of, does the government have the right to monitor you under a given situation? In this case, because the threat to public safety and the possible information that could be gained from this kind of surveillance are minimal, the answers to both questions should be, "No."
It may not be a constitutional right, but my state (Washington) has a law on the books that protects the privacy of patron records, so a library cannot disclose any patron information without a court order.
We've been over this ground before. Libraries do not keep a reading history. If you bring the stuff back on time, it gets erased. Once it cycles off the backup tapes (which don't go back that far and would be a big pain in the patootie to restore) no one knows what you had checked out prior. Ant yes, I'm sure, because I've run these systems for the last 20 years.
over your shoulder when you borrow a book and make a note of it and there'd be nothing you could do about it, no. Libraries are public places, whats the reasonable expectation of privacy at the library checkout counter?
That's a good question. And if absolute anonymity is granted to public library patrons, then what makes them so special?
Let's say the FBI is investigating a poisoning. One of their possible suspects is known to have visited a hardware store a few days before the murder. An agent gets a warrant and asks the store manager for a copy of the suspect's receipt. The receipt indicates that the suspect purchased a poison, the same poison used in the murder. Aha. Obviously this suspect is worth investigating a bit more closely. Fearing that the suspect might panic, flee or destroy evidence, the employees of the hardware store are told not to say anything to the suspect about the investigation.
I hear that examining receipts and tracking purchases is a fairly common method of gathering evidence. And I'd imagine that most people involved in a criminal investigation are asked not to tell the person being investigated exactly what the police are doing, for obvious reasons.
So, any objections to that first scenario? Ok, try this variation:
Let's say the FBI is investigating a poisoning. One of their possible suspects is known to have visited a library a few days before the murder. An agent gets a warrant and asks the librarian for a copy of the suspect's borrowing records. The records indicate that the suspect borrowed a medical text about the dosages and effects of various poisons, including the same poison used in the murder. Aha. Obviously this suspect is worth investigating a bit more closely. Fearing that the suspect might panic, flee or destroy evidence, the librarians are told not to say anything to the suspect about the investigation.
You tell me, what's the difference? Why should police investigating a crime be denied access to that information? And what is so ominious about librarians being asked to keep quiet about an ongoing investigation?
If different standards are to be enforced, should these same special rules apply to bookstores, newsstands, or private libraries? Or are the books and employees found in public libraries unique in some way?
There is no problem in either situation...they have probable cause in each case. They have a suspect and they are gathering information on that suspect. Fine. Sounds good to me. And the fact of the matter is that they would have some sort of warant to gather that information.
The problem lies in having no probable cause and merely getting a listing of people who have checked out "book x". These people have done nothing wrong necessarily and therefore the government has no right to see those records. They have committed no crime. It is almost like saying that checking out that book is illegal. So if the government came out and said it is illegal to own a given book...what do you think the response of the people would be then?
The problem lies in having no probable cause and merely getting a listing of people who have checked out "book x". These people have done nothing wrong necessarily and therefore the government has no right to see those records. They have committed no crime. It is almost like saying that checking out that book is illegal.
No, it's not saying that, not even "almost". The gov't isn't preventing you from checking out the book, and it isn't doing anything to you because you checked out the book. After getting "a court order or a subpoena" (per the article) the FBI gets a list of who checked out a particular book of interest to their investigation. Just like the FBI can go over to the local Borders bookstore and get a list of who bought the same book. Again, why should libraries be exempt?
Let's say the FBI is investigating a poisoning. One of their possible suspects is known to have visited a library a few days before the murder. An agent gets a warrant and asks the librarian for a copy of the suspect's borrowing records. The records indicate that the suspect borrowed a medical text about the dosages and effects of various poisons, including the same poison used in the murder.
Here you have a specific crime and specific suspect(s). Which is rather different from seeing who might have borrowed "bad books".
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.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
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.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
Re: download commonsense here.... (Score:1)
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.
MOD PARENT UP! (Score:2)
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:I can already see ... (Score:1)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
Unfortunately, today's soapbox is The Mall, and it's a privately owned space. They can and do regulate what sort of speech/conduct is permitted, and speaking your mind in the Food Court is not allowed.
What should be done is that our local leaders should establish some sort of public use rights for large private establishments, as a way to mitigate their impact. The mall, for example, probably causes traffic problems for the nearby community, and it probably had to get some zoning easements to be built in the first place.
Unfortunately, half the people running our local government are also the people building the mall. They're not participating in local government for the betterment of the citizenry...well they are in the sense that they believe that our interests are best served by acquiescing to whatever the developers want. This just happens to coincide with their interests...
Look at how little participation there is in our local government. Presidential elections get the highest voter turnout, but really so many more tangible things are happening at the local level. The last non-presidential primary I voted in had a turnout of like 11%, and this in civic-minded Seattle.
Democracy doesn't actually work, at least not when monied interests are the only ones who bother to participate. I wonder why so many people claim it's the best form of government? Give me a benevolent despot any day. Either that, or make voting mandatory, with a fine if you don't vote. Just put a "none" box on the ballot for those who don't want to vote.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
them all over town in the middle of the night and there would be no way of knowing who did it.
Given that cities had maybe a handful of printing presses, the first thing the authorities would do is visit the pressmen and try to find out who came in and ordered 1,000 copies of a pamphlet printed up.
Not so different from today.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
"Anyone" with access to printing press, you mean. And in Colonial America that's not a huge number of people. It's not like everyone had a laser printer at their house.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:1)
You`ve really been keeping up with forensics, haven't you. Heard of DNA?
Re:I can already see ... (Score:1)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:1)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:1)
Back to today, the courts have ruled many times against things that have a "chilling effect" on free speach. I think tracking people in libraries is clearly chilling, but so was 9/11.
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: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, 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.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
There is actually a long and colorful history of anonymously published pamphlets. Often the original author only became known long after the political change advocated by the pamphlet came to pass, or after the author was dead.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
And yet many potentially contentious political documents where successfully published anonymously by our forefathers, including the Federalist Papers [johndoes.org].
Assuming you trusted your allies to keep their mouths shut, anonymity was even easier when our freedom of speech was drafted.
They are not the same, but they are related. Without anonymous speech (and the ability to anonymous hear that speech), your right to free speech is severely limited.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
Maybe not, but we do have a constitutionally protected right to free speech. That right is infringed upon when the speaker (or listener) is concerned about repercussions from an oppressive government.
There is a balance between free speech and responsible speech. In an oppressive government, there is certainly an interest in having anonymous speech be protected. But in most western governments, IMO the potential for abuse of anonymous speech (e.g., false accusations) outweighs the value of anonymous speech.
In other words, you have very little fear in the United States for being prosecuted by the government for your beliefs*. Therefore, it's more in the interest of society for you to take responsibility for your speech.
*And please, don't quote me obscure cases where government abuse might have occured. All that shows is that the exceptions prove the rule.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:1)
That's a BS assertion. I don't know if you were only making an observation of the value system that exists, or whether you were asserting it as valid, but in any case, anonymous speech that makes false accusations is not dangerous.
Any anonymous speech is automatically suspect, why should it hold any credibility on its face?
After all, if anonymous speech was given the same sway as non-anonymous speech, then everyone would know "GigsVT is a fag" and wouldn't question it. (Hi Mr Anonymous GigsVT troll!)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:1)
Let's suppose I thought Osama Bin Laden was right for a second. Now, let's suppose I go write a letter, stating who I am, and where I live, and my beliefs that all Americans should die. How quickly do you think I would be arrested and charged with terrorism?
"Unpopular" speech has just as much a right to exist as "popular". If it has to be done anonymously, so be it. If it's "false accusations" as you claim, investigation will bear this.
There is a lot of fear right now of being prosecuted (persecuted) under the current government climate for your beliefs. If you don't think this is true, think about the Muslims and Hindus (damn ingnorant rednecks) that were assaulted after these attacks. Let's not forget, the US goverment is by the people, for the people. If you're a citizen, you're officially part of the government. You're assertion that the exceptions make the rule is a fallacy in this case, as it's the threat of BECOMING part of that "minority" stifles free speech.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
How quickly do you think I would be arrested and charged with terrorism?
Never. In fact, take a look at some of the radical Islamic web sites sometime. You'll see that this is not an uncommon theme.
They only thing that will put a knock on your door is threats to the President, which by law they have to take seriously.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
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
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
This lacks oversight
Except it doesn't lack oversight at all. They have to justify the need for these warrants to a judge, just like they have to do to tap your phone without your knowledge.
Librarians have blown this entire issue way out of proportion.
Also,does anyone have a count of how many times this story has been published here as "New" on Slashdot? Talk about lack of editorial memory ;)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:I can already see ... (Score:1)
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:5, Insightful)
Of course, we seem to be heading in that very direction now anyway.
Did you vote today?
Re:I can already see ... (Score:1)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:1)
guilty until proven innocent...
Re:I can already see ... (Score:1)
If "We the people" don't like it, it is up to "we the people" to change it.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
Thing is that most Americans don't even appear to understand this. Governments can be, like fire, good servents or bad masters.
I have the feeling that as a whole, Americans are a bunch of spoiled children. Americans don't want to be responsible or to work. There are exceptions, but the majority seems to prefer that the government act as a parent. There is moaning and complaining, but no action is taken to make things different.
Some of the moaning and complaining being along the line of complaining about too much government interference in some way or other at the same time demanding that government "do something" in some other area.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." -- 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Just because the right to anonymity isn't enumerated doesn't mean it's nonexistent. Given the situation and the values of the framers during the time the U.S. was founded, and especially given the anonymous nature of the Federalist Papers, I'd say the framers probably thought that anonymity was a right even if they didn't explicitly enumerate it.
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.
Amendments 9 and 10 really don't exist... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Amendments 9 and 10 really don't exist... (Score:4, Informative)
The ruling even states, "Every law enacted by Congress must be based on one or more of its powers enumerated in the Constitution", and specifically cites Marbury v. Madison in rejecting arbitrary extensions of federal power.
Incidentally, it was the four liberal justices who dissented in order to promote federal power over every little bit of American society (and likewise in striking down the Gun Free School Zone law, where again Congress tried to buy votes by grossly exceeding its limits).
(And for the but-the-Conservatives-screwd-States-Rights-to-hel
Re:Amendments 9 and 10 really don't exist... (Score:2)
Re:Amendments 9 and 10 really don't exist... (Score:2)
Seriously, does anyone with a Lexus link have an answer here? It has been more than a decade since my last con law class and I sort of lost track of what the Supremes were up to in some of the less celebrated cases of the 90s...
Re:Amendments 9 and 10 really don't exist... (Score:2)
For one thing the 10th ammendment should trump the commerce clause anyway. It requires a strange reading of the document to ignore an ammendment.
The ruling even states, "Every law enacted by Congress must be based on one or more of its powers enumerated in the Constitution",
If this needs to be stated then there is a big problem with the US Congress.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
You know, perhaps the most disconcerting thing about this whole issue is the *greatly flawed* notion that the materials one reads has any bearing on their guilt or innocence in the acts they perform.
No matter how many books I choose to read about serial killers, it doesn't make me one. The very idea that somebody would label me as "suspicious" of such activity if I did read these books smacks of "circumstantial evidence" - which should have very little value in a court of law.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:1)
1. The aircraft while possibly not USAF marked, is marked USA somewhere with a US tailcode somewhere on it.
2. The missile used will have serial numbers and other national identifiers on it's casing.
3. The primary target of said missile is an enemy combatant, operating outside of UMC regulations and in violation of every treaty concerning military combatants. Thus, any rights to a fair and speedy trial are right out the window.
Personally, I feel that every combatant captured in Afghanistan, Pakistan or wherever not in a uniform is subject to military justice, an uprising of prisoners in northern Afghanistan was rightly bombed and shelled.
If one wants the rights accorded to a combatant, then they need to operate within the framework the international community has established to govern warfare over the last 400 years.
Yea I'm off topic.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
Also, the Yemenis already tried to arrest the guy, and lost eighteen soldiers in the process when the locals attacked the authorities -- the region is lawless and the Yemenis have very, very poor control over there. An "arrest" doesn't work very well when the locals are heavily armed and against you, and it'd be an utter humiliation for the government if the
'sides from the above facts, they were in a vehicle, in the desert, away from traffic, with weapons. What, you think they'd kindly stop if a helicopter (which wasn't in the area) buzzed by with a megaphone?
Re:I can already see ... (Score:1)
No rights by the rules that govern warfare, no rights to a trial, no rights to an arrest.
Like a spy, a combatant not in a uniform is subject to summary execution on the field of battle.
The CIA can't kill a head of State, but otherwise it may operate as a government agency would in a time of war. Although, a CIA agent not in uniform is also subject to the same rules reguarding a combatant not in uniform.
OSS, German Intelligence, MI6, DIA, SAS, SBS, NVKD, CIA, FBI, KGB all organizations operated and killed people in theatres of battle and neutral nations before, during and after World War Two. Dead agents on all sides involved during the Cold War.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:1)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
Generally YES (Score:3, Informative)
The Patriot Act relies on a hysterical and ill-defined notion of a future terrorist threat to provide justification. This has been characteristic of many "emergency measures" in many countries over the years -- you know, we have to shut down the presses because it might cause trouble, etc. Now, it's been fairly quiet for over a year in the States -- when do you think they'll dilute the Act?
A recent example abroad -- the Russian gov't interfered with internet and print press in the wake of the theater hostage-taking crisis. Although antiterrorism was the justification, a good portion of this appears to have been to save face for the gov't. They politely call this censorship "media restrictions." [nytimes.com] (NYT 11/2) Good precedent?
Now, are we aiming to be more like the Russians, or more like us?
If we go to war in Iraq, we'll see even more severe censorship than in Gulf I (when they couldn't lay hands on Peter Arnett) and who knows what sort of internal investigations looking for seditious intent. How many people here will end up on the list? (Actually, with the increased use of sniffers looking for keywords in email and postings, you probably all are on the list.
I am a great supporter of our government, but stop snooping in our libraries, this is pathetic.
AMERICANS: VOTE TODAY!
Re:Generally YES (Score:2)
Or at least this is the way it should work. Similarly if they want to specifically spy on you or search your private property then in theory they have to convince a judge that there is some evidence to begin with.
The Patriot Act relies on a hysterical and ill-defined notion of a future terrorist threat to provide justification. This has been characteristic of many "emergency measures" in many countries over the years -- you know, we have to shut down the presses because it might cause trouble, etc. Now, it's been fairly quiet for over a year in the States -- when do you think they'll dilute the Act?
Governments like to grab power a lot more than they like to give it up. Sometimes the only way to get this to happen is a revolution.
A recent example abroad -- the Russian gov't interfered with internet and print press in the wake of the theater hostage-taking crisis. Although antiterrorism was the justification, a good portion of this appears to have been to save face for the gov't. They politely call this censorship "media restrictions."
Now, are we aiming to be more like the Russians, or more like us?
Do you really think the US (, British, French, German or wherever) government is any less interested in "face saving" than the Russians.
People in power like to be portrayed as somehow superhuman and never making mistakes.
Re:Generally YES (Score:2)
One of the worst things about these changes is that they're not necessary, and no one has even tried to show they would made 9/11 less likly. Rather things like the Patriot Act appear to be opportunism by groups who have wanted to do this for a long time.
But ultimate responsibility lies with the voters -- if they care they need to show it. And I think most people support or tolerate things as they are now, and until it's too late.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:1)
The point is Americans should have all rights, 100% freedom - rights revoked. Not 0% rights + whatever we are granted.
1. Convince Americans the enumerated rights are all they have. Then enumerate less.
2. ??
3. Profit
To answer your question, yes, I have an absolute Constitional Right to anonymity. I'm talking Constitution here. I have the right because the Constitution does not say otherwise.
The ideal of freedom is not one we have lost, it is one we have yet to achieve.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
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.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
If you have an entrenched ruling class, including career politicans, then an educated citizenship can be rather frightening.
They might do things like investigating things themselves, rather than simply taking what those in government say as being correct.
It's likely to be a bit harder to witch hunt Communism or Islam in a population which knows all about the principles of Communism or has read the Koran. Similarly claiming Iraq is a huge enemy of the world dosn't really wash with anyone who knows the recent history of that country.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:1)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:1)
Re:A noted publiusher of his own anonymous works.. (Score:2)
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.
Re:Yes, we have a right to privacy (Score:2)
Private between you and the library.
and unless I'm already under investigation, they have no right to this information.
Even if you are under investigation, someone should still have to make the case that your book borrowing is relevent.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
As a side note, can this new measure be justified by historical precedent of Bad Guys using libraries to do Bad Things, or is it simply a power grab by the FBI?
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:1)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
The Constitution doesn't work that way. Look at the Ninth and Tenth Amendments: any power not expressly given to the Federal Government or to the states is granted to the people.
So it's not a question of, "do you have the right to anonymity." It's a question of, does the government have the right to monitor you under a given situation? In this case, because the threat to public safety and the possible information that could be gained from this kind of surveillance are minimal, the answers to both questions should be, "No."
Re:I can already see ... (Score:1)
We've been over this ground before. Libraries do not keep a reading history. If you bring the stuff back on time, it gets erased. Once it cycles off the backup tapes (which don't go back that far and would be a big pain in the patootie to restore) no one knows what you had checked out prior. Ant yes, I'm sure, because I've run these systems for the last 20 years.
Given that someone could just look (Score:1)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
Let's say the FBI is investigating a poisoning. One of their possible suspects is known to have visited a hardware store a few days before the murder. An agent gets a warrant and asks the store manager for a copy of the suspect's receipt. The receipt indicates that the suspect purchased a poison, the same poison used in the murder. Aha. Obviously this suspect is worth investigating a bit more closely. Fearing that the suspect might panic, flee or destroy evidence, the employees of the hardware store are told not to say anything to the suspect about the investigation.
I hear that examining receipts and tracking purchases is a fairly common method of gathering evidence. And I'd imagine that most people involved in a criminal investigation are asked not to tell the person being investigated exactly what the police are doing, for obvious reasons.
So, any objections to that first scenario? Ok, try this variation:
Let's say the FBI is investigating a poisoning. One of their possible suspects is known to have visited a library a few days before the murder. An agent gets a warrant and asks the librarian for a copy of the suspect's borrowing records. The records indicate that the suspect borrowed a medical text about the dosages and effects of various poisons, including the same poison used in the murder. Aha. Obviously this suspect is worth investigating a bit more closely.
Fearing that the suspect might panic, flee or destroy evidence, the librarians are told not to say anything to the suspect about the investigation.
You tell me, what's the difference? Why should police investigating a crime be denied access to that information? And what is so ominious about librarians being asked to keep quiet about an ongoing investigation?
If different standards are to be enforced, should these same special rules apply to bookstores, newsstands, or private libraries? Or are the books and employees found in public libraries unique in some way?
Re:I can already see ... (Score:1)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
No, it's not saying that, not even "almost". The gov't isn't preventing you from checking out the book, and it isn't doing anything to you because you checked out the book. After getting "a court order or a subpoena" (per the article) the FBI gets a list of who checked out a particular book of interest to their investigation. Just like the FBI can go over to the local Borders bookstore and get a list of who bought the same book. Again, why should libraries be exempt?
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
Here you have a specific crime and specific suspect(s). Which is rather different from seeing who might have borrowed "bad books".
Re:I can already see ... (Score:1)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:1)
yes