Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

Effects of the Patriot Act on Librarians 587

Posted by michael from the fbi-in-your-library dept.
Quaryon writes "The Patriot Act apears to have some chilling effects with respect to libraries and booksellers. An FBI agent can get a warrant, without any evidence, in order to compel a librarian to reveal lending details on a suspect. The librarian cannot tell anyone about the search, including the target of the search, and the details of how many such searches are done are not made public. Articles at SFGate News and Common Dreams give more details." We had a related Ask Slashdot a few weeks ago.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Effects of the Patriot Act on Librarians More

Effects of the Patriot Act on Librarians

Comments Filter:

  • Librarians, throw down your yokes! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Thenomain ( 537937 ) on Friday September 20, 2002 @12:00PM (#4297997) Homepage
    This only just came to mind, so I hope I'm not repeating anyone, but libraries, at least, can foil the system by simply not keeping track of people's lending habits. Nothing compells a library to do this kind of marketing history, unless there are actual laws to do the compelling for them.
    • Well, they have to keep track of lending habits until at least the books are returned. If your library has lending periods of 3-4 weeks, that could be enough time for Mr. FBI to get your current outstanding books.
    • unless there are laws to do the compelling for them.

      don't give them any ideas please.
    • I wondered about this, too. I mean, I can recall going to libraries as a kid and they had this little punchcard dealie where they actually punched a date onto a punchcard and inserted it into your book.

      That was always pretty cool to me -- the mechanical punching and the fact that it almost always lined the date up perfectly below the last date.

      But even then, I guess the libraries had records because they took the original card from the book and stored it somewhere. And somewhere along the line they someone correlated the name of the borrower with the card because they knew when to send overdue notices.

      So I think the response to your question is that libraries have to keep track of lending habits. They have no other option. They can't simply lend a book out without any record of it being checked out. (Why does this seem like it might be the germ for a Borges story?)
      • So I think the response to your question is that libraries have to keep track of lending habits. They have no other option. They can't simply lend a book out without any record of it being checked out. (Why does this seem like it might be the germ for a Borges story?)

        The library only needs to keep track of what's currently checked out, and to who. In your post, the card they took out of your book could easily be attached with a paperclip to an ID card with your name on it. Then, when you return it, the book's card goes back in the book and your ID card goes back in your file. Simple, easy to see when you're overdue, and never requires adding a record to a file.

      • Every lending library has a record of what books are currently out on loan, and who to. That's unavoidable unless you want your books to disappear. However, once the book has been returned, it's perfectly feasable to destroy that record, and make it impossible to get a loan history of the client. This has no risk - the book has been returned.
    • At the library I work at, your loan record is kept until your books are returned. At least from the clerks end, its impossible to retrieve that data.

      However, a while back the police were able to retrieve past patron check out data from another local library system.. I think they used some sort of data recovery techinique to access the deleted records.. so there is that. :/

      However, due to the PATRIOT act, and the fact that we are pissed off about it, we are now shredding the patron internet login sheets every night. So at least they won't get access to that. I think other library systems are doing this as well..
  • I seem to remember reading something about an organization filing a freedom on information act requestion a simple count of how many such warrents have been issued.

    Anyone know of a link to this?

    Scott.

  • Wow (Score:5, Funny)

    by ocie ( 6659 ) on Friday September 20, 2002 @12:03PM (#4298023) Homepage
    Makes me wish I didn't have an overdue copy of 'Hop on Pop' from 1978.

    Wait, that sounds like a zippy quote.

  • Secret Courts (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Student_Tech ( 66719 )
    One thing mentioned in the article is about secret courts. I am not sure but the idea that the FBI can go in an get information using a warrant from a secret court and not having to tell the person is mildly unconstitutional.

  • Gentlemen, start your engines (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Safety Cap ( 253500 ) on Friday September 20, 2002 @12:04PM (#4298039) Homepage Journal
    Why is it that restricting or banning ideas, code, technology, etc. is ok but once someone mentions books then all hell breaks loose?

    For those of you who have realplayer, this Ad Council clip [streamos.com] never fails to amuse. It is not a matter of if, but when.

    • Well, 50% of Americans DO afterall think that the first amendment gives them too much freedom.

      That is what sickens me.
    • Here is a link to the main Ad Council website and the real player ads:

      http://www.adcouncil.org/campaigns/campaign_for_ fr eedom/

  • Does anyone find it ironic... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jjh37997 ( 456473 ) on Friday September 20, 2002 @12:05PM (#4298060) Homepage
    Does anyone else find it ironic that the certain government interest groups are currently running television ads that attempt to show what American life would be like if certain liberties were taken away?

    One of these commericals shows a young man walking up to a clerk at a library and asking for a series of books. When he's told that those books are no longer available he's asked for his name. He becomes clearly upset and attempts to leave when he's taken away by a group of men in dark suits.Seems the futures a lot closer then anyone else suspected.

  • slow news day? (Score:3, Informative)

    by phantast ( 35247 ) on Friday September 20, 2002 @12:06PM (#4298068) Homepage
    This is fairly old news. Similar stories were on Drudge Report back in June.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/24/attack/m ain513251.shtml [cbsnews.com]

    In the article, it shows that some libraries are resisting as much as possible. I believe the ALA [ala.org] has a section on their website to keep librarians aware of their rights.

    The real question is why libraries need to keep track of the books you have checked out after they have been returned? Most places are past the point where you sign the little card in the back of the book, so I don't see why libraries couldn't just delete the info after the book has been returned.
    • I know that here in Oregon that is exactly what they do. I suspect most other places.

      This of course brings up the obvious problem with the government. That is the fact that they have no clue in life at all.
    • Not that I think the current tactic is good, but in libraries with the little card anyone could see what books you had checked out.
  • If you care about this issue, you may be interested in the activities of the Freedom to Read Foundation [ftrf.org]

  • Hopeful sign (Score:5, Informative)

    by jvmatthe ( 116058 ) on Friday September 20, 2002 @12:07PM (#4298090) Homepage
    Here at Duke [duke.edu], the school newspaper The Chronicle [duke.edu] ran a recent story [duke.edu] about the effect of the Patriot act on librarians. I hope that word becomes more widespread about the effect of this passed-in-the-heat-of-the-moment legislation, so that we can get it off the books as soon as possible.

  • Kudos to the Ad Council (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chris Pimlott ( 16212 ) on Friday September 20, 2002 @12:08PM (#4298097)
    I recently saw an ad on TV that addresses this issue. It's part of an Ad Coucil series of PSAs [adcouncil.org] put out after 9/11. Some of them are rather tame ("Freedom means a well-stocked supermarket" [streamos.com]) but others, like the Library [streamos.com] spot, are quite effective and poignant. Hopefully, they will make people more aware of some of the frightening things that are going on nowadays that _our_ government is doing.

  • Scope of Act? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by JJ22 ( 558624 )
    Although this has been rehashed a couple of times for Librarians, does anyone know of other cases/industries where this has become a problem (or even exercised)? Such as purchasing habits from Visa or cash withdrawls from your bank (yeah, I know, terrorists don't use ATMs, they do cash and carry with all of their money coming from drug related transactions). Wonder when grocery stores will start being forced to disclose heavy purchasers of ethnic foods...

  • This isn't about terrorism... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Robber Baron ( 112304 ) on Friday September 20, 2002 @12:09PM (#4298115) Homepage
    ...it's about finding out who the dissenters are, and then silencing them.
    • Read the act again.

      If all they've got on you is evidence regarding activities permitted by the First Amendment, the changes to Sec. 501 (which would appear to be what the librarians are most likely whining about, as they cover the subpoena of records. There are other sections covering financial libraries, but they don't apply here.) do not apply.

      Go ahead and keep burning flags and writing anti-AmeriKKKa screeds to the NY Times if you like.
  • We all know from the Lewinsky mess that bookstore purchase records can be purchased as well,does anyone know if the Patriot Act allows the FBI to conduct this sort of secret research with bookstores as well as libraries?
  • Today's libraries have to allow pornography available to everyone using the net whether they are children or not because of the constitution and liberal judges. However, they can not research topics on islam or look under curiousity how "does a terrorist make a chemical bomb". Guilty until proven innocent but its ok for children to look at porn. How hypocritical!

  • Cash. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by intermodal ( 534361 )
    I'm now going to continue doing what i've been doing for years...I'll go to bookstores with cash.

  • A warrant? Without any evidence? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CommieLib ( 468883 ) on Friday September 20, 2002 @12:12PM (#4298145) Homepage
    If you believe this is the case, then your problem is with the judge issuing the warrant, not the system.

    If you're arguing the more subtle difference between probable cause and evidence, then you're right, but your point is without merit.

    What you seem to be reaching for is a scenario where an FBI agent can search without restraint, i.e., commit unreasonable search and seizure. That's just not the case...not that there aren't other bigtime problems with this circumstance, but unreasonable S&S is not one of them.

  • fyi (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Changes In Legal Rights

    Some of the fundamental changes to Americans' legal rights by the Bush administration and the USA Patriot Act following the terror attacks:

    FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation.

    FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests.

    FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

    RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

    FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

    RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

    RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

    - The Associated Press

  • LEAVE. When other governments impose repressive laws, people leave. They often leave everything they own behind, but they find new homes and build new lives for themselves in countries which allow them the freedoms they desire.

    If people started flooding across the border into Canada and claiming refugee status, people certainly take notice.

    • Re:If you don't like it... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by IvyMike ( 178408 ) on Friday September 20, 2002 @12:30PM (#4298332)

      If people started flooding across the border into Canada

      Canada? That's no beter; those hosers don't even have freedom of speech [mcmaster.ca]. (Just teasing, my buddies to the north. Props to ya, eh?)

      Look, if you're in a modern democracy and you don't like the laws, you try to make things better and get the laws changed, not just give up and move away. This is fundamental to the health of the democracy, and although it may at sometimes might seem like an uphill fight, it's a battle worth fighting.

    • where do you get the idea tht Canada is the place where people still have universial human rights. Canada has its share of troubles, in part caused by being a neighbor to the powerful US. Their laws are different, but not nessicarly better. For gunowners their laws are by far worse. For other things their laws are better. Laws and courts in both countries change so even though today Canada might be better for your particular preference in rights, that doesn't mean that next year it will not be worse.

      • Re:To where? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by KelsoLundeen ( 454249 )
        That's interesting reponse: the idea of leaving.

        And the answer is equally interesting: to where?

        Times really *have* changed when *Americans* might soon face the choice of having freedoms curtailed or lighting out for better shores.

        But the question remains: where?

        Where do Americans go when they want freedom?

        I mean, I don't see the Statue of Liberty standing in any other harbor.

        That blows my mind.
    • I can't believe that this was moderated Insightful. It should have been moderated -1, cowardly and -1, ignorant. Aside from the obvious fact that most people can't just "get upand leave" without totally destroying their lives (the government might as well have put them to death!) by leaving, you're only allowing other people to be taken advantage of. It's the coward's way out: Run. I suggest staying, and fighting for your rights.
    • You are trying to take them away. THis is a direct violation of the bill of rights that governs behaveior in this country. You leave. Go to some country where there is no bill of rights ad make THEM into your serfs, asshole.

      Hell, im not even sure if this is a troll or not, im just pissed off. Ill give you mods a free pass on this one. ;)
    • If people started flooding across the border into Canada and claiming refugee status, people certainly take notice.

      While you're welcome to come and visit us in Canada, you'll find it very hard to claim refugee status here. To qualify as a refugee, you would pretty much need to prove that you face death upon returning home. The only way to do this is if you're going to be tried for a capital offense in the U.S., and in that case, the U.S. just has to promise not to give you the death penalty if they find you guilty, and then you'll be extradited.

      However, all you really need to do is find a job in Canada, and then you can apply to immigrate here. I've met a lot of American immigrants, but no American refugees that I can remember. ;^)

      I suppose, if the U.S. acts unilaterally against Iraq, and then the U.S. starts drafting soldiers, then as long as Canada doesn't go to war with Iraq, you could probably dodge your draft up here. I don't know if that's considered refugee status or not. It probably is. Americans draft dodgers did come to Canada during the Vietnam war because Canada never fought in Vietnam, but we did fight in Korea, so you couldn't do it back then.
  • Here is the text of the Patriot Act:
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c107:./temp/ ~c1073P4rg4 [loc.gov]

    Where does it give the FBI the right to search library and bookstore records without a valid search warrants? I couldn't find library or bookstore mentioned and I could only find one unreleated reference to the work book.

    I really wish when journalists mention that so-and-so law is evil they would be more specific as to which sections they are talking about. I'm not questioning whether those provisions are in there, I just want to read and judge them myself. For example, maybe the FBI is assuming authority that it really doesn't have.
    • Read it more carefully.

      (Note: thomas.loc.gov gives temporary links. Those looking for the bill text should do a search for HR 3162).

      Relevant sections might be

      Sec. 213, on when notice of a warrant can be delayed. Note that this requires "reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result", and does not include
      tangible property seizure or wire interception.

      Section 214, where it amends Title V of FISA, regarding the subpoena of records. FBI higher-ups (no lower than assistant SAIC) may apply for orders "requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution."

      Apparently, a FISA judge or a US Magistrate Judge must approve. In addition, the records must be sought for such an authorized investigation. In addition, you can also find the non-disclosure requirements there.

      Libraries aren't special, no matter how much library associations would like to pretend they are. OTOH, they can't subpoena your library records just 'coz you hang out with a street gang called the "Bin Laden Boys" (freedom of association) or you write editorials demanding the destruction of America (speech) unless they have additional non-First-Amendment evidence.
  • or is anyone else having librarian prison-sex fantasies?
    Let's see:
    slashdotter: "What are you in for hot stuff?"
    librarian: "Failing to comply with a federal investigation."
    slashdotter: "That's cool."
    librarian: "What are you in for?"
    slashdotter: "port scanning."
    librarian: "Guess we're both terrorists."
  • Quote: We had a related Ask Slashdot a few weeks ago.

    So it was the Feds that asked the question on /.

  • Libraries are public (Score:2, Informative)

    by Syncdata ( 596941 )
    While I am indeed concerned about some of the infringments to liberties post 9-11, I must say that this particular isue is pretty much open and shut. When you go to a library, you are visiting a public place, stocked with public property. The computers you use are not your own privately held property, nor are books/periodicals/music that you check out. There can be no expectation of privacy when the resource one is using is not private.

  • A few words of sanity (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dkh2 ( 29130 ) <{dkh2} {at} {WhyDoMyTitsItch.com}> on Friday September 20, 2002 @12:28PM (#4298311) Homepage
    As a university library employee I can tell you this.
    1. Most libraries today use an online catalog (read: "database") for just about everything regarding their collections. This means that very few libraries have those old hard copy circulation records any more.
    2. Libraries in general have no interest in tracking what you, I, or anybody else reads. They are interested in what people (in general) are reading, who currently has their books but, not what books each person has read in the past. Therefore, they typically have knowledge of who has the book right now, and possibly who had it last (in case Johnny cuts out all the pretty pictures and nobody notices until the next reader opens the book).

    Given those two points, I and my fellow library employees have been told the following:

    • All inquiries regarding patron records are to be referred to library administration.
    • No information will be provided without appropriate warrants and/or court orders.
    • Before any search for information begins the library has the right to have an attorney examine any/all warrants and/or court orders to determine their validity, jurisdiction, and all other aspects of legal standing.
    • The library, through its attorney has the right to additional judicial ruling on potentially suspect or questionable documentation before any search begins. (Right of appeal)
    • The library has the right to have its attorney present at all times when any search activities are carried out.

    All of this applies even for the most classified requests under the most extreme reading of the PATRIOT act.

    Thus, if you want to know what Sally has checked out right now, and your request makes it through all of these requirements there might be a chance that you'll find out without having to ask Sally directly.

    If you want to know what Sally read last week (or possibly even this morning if the materials have already circulated) there's a good chance you're going to have to find Sally to ask her yourself.

    • 1) No information will be provided without appropriate warrants and/or court orders.

      Good to see that the 4th Amendment is still valid. However, over the last 34 years the 4th Amendment has been slowly eroded of most of its power. Beginning with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 ('68) the Supreme Court has supported the notion that "even in the law enforcement context, the State may interfere with an individual's Fourth Amendment interests with less than probable cause and without a warrant if the intrusion is only minimal and is justified by law enforcement purposes.

      2) Before any search for information begins the library has the right to have an attorney examine any/all warrants and/or court orders to determine their validity, jurisdiction, and all other aspects of legal standing.

      This is really one of those grey areas of the law. On the one hand, you are absolutely correct: you have every right to have an attorney examine any/all warrants and/or court orders to determine their validity, jurisdiction, and all other aspects of legal standing. And more than likely the FBI won't be serving subpoenas personally.

      On the other hand, if they do serve the subpoena personally and you try and stop or hinder in any way a legal search, they'll more than likely arrest you for obstruction of justice.

      3) The library, through its attorney has the right to additional judicial ruling on potentially suspect or questionable documentation before any search begins. (Right of appeal)

      This will most likely be true in Patriot Act cases. More than likely the FBI will send you a subpoena requesting specific records. I really don't see them knocking on your door personally.

      4) The library has the right to have its attorney present at all times when any search activities are carried out.

      This is true. Hope you have him/her on speed dial.

    • Re:A few words of sanity (Score:5, Interesting)

      by namespan ( 225296 ) <namespan@nOsPaM.elitemail.org> on Friday September 20, 2002 @01:03PM (#4298622) Journal
      A contrasting view:

      I worked as a developer in a major university library for about two years. The system I worked on only tracked requests made to borrow books through other universities, but it kept ALL of them. Your whole history. This system was used at a whole host of other libraries, including NYU, ASU, Berkely, and more.

      The main system that kept track of circulation for the whole library also kept all requests to a certain point... but even after it purged, every time something was overdue, THOSE records were kept indefinitely. And it gets worse. I shouldn't have known any of this: it was outside my employee privileges, but several reference librarians kept the username and password posted on post-it notes, and being able to look up my own circulation records via telnet (or tnvt3270 or whatever it was) was way too convenient. From that point, looking up someone else's circ records was often way too interesting.... oh, and did I mention that the library used your SSN as a unique ID?

      Anyway, the point is, the system saved lots of your information, and it was fairly easy to get to it. If we were counting on practices of libraries to preserve anonyminity, I wouldn't feel all that secure....

      (disclaimer: I made slightly different version of this comment [slashdot.org] weeks ago, but it seemed like it bears repeating....)

  • replace librarians with NSA agents! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fermion ( 181285 ) on Friday September 20, 2002 @12:30PM (#4298333) Homepage Journal
    Librarians exist to help patrons find information. If the relatioship is reversed, the libraries should be staffed with NSA agenst. A librarian is a highly professional, highly skilled position. Information protection is serious matter. Librarians can get into serious trouble, including termination, for release of lending records to anyone other than the patron. I think this policy is critical in a Democracy, as it protects the citizens right to the free access of information. This fact in drummed into every librarian.

    If lending records are released it create a serious breech of our freedoms. In particular, how will the records be interpreted? If I regularly check out books on a certain faith, will I be categorized as that faith? If I check out books on chemistry, will I be building a bomb? If I read too much Tom Clancy, will I be a spy? It is this sort of thing that makes me wonder if the Germans comparison of out president to Hitler may not be as far off as we first imagine. We already know that dark colored people with accents cannot drive through the south without being accused of terrorism. I do not see how violating patron confidentiality will help anything.

    The saddest thing is that Laura Bush is a Librarian. The fact that such a thing could happen with her husband in office makes me wonder if there are any ethics at all in that house.

  • The US is no longer free. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by The Fanta Menace ( 607612 ) on Friday September 20, 2002 @12:32PM (#4298354) Homepage

    Emigrate. There's better countries to live in. They're not perfect either, but the US is definitely taking the wrong path.

    Government is controlled by big business. The two big parties have very few differences between them. Even when elections do happen, they are a sham, as can be seen in the last presidential election.

  • I think we all understand that the underlying theme of the Patriot Act is to protect the citizens of this country from those who would do us harm. However, should we give up our freedoms in return for poorly written laws that focus in the wrong area?

    Most information available at any local library is on the Internet. In fact, there is more information available on the Internet, than in any library. In addition, you stand a better chance of remaining anonymous while using the Internet, as opposed to using a public library. So, I ask you: why bother with library habits?

    The FBI instituted a covert program tracking library habits during the Anti-War movement in '67 to '75. Rumors have persisted since '75 that the FBI continued the program and it is what gave birth to idea and institution of carnivore [fbi.gov].

    Because Federal Authorities have the power to act in secret, don't expect anyone to challenge this law for some time. Unless a librarian of conscience refuses to assist the FBI, Federal Prosecutors will have to file charges and take someone to trial before this law may be challenged.

  • On a related note: (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DeltaSigma ( 583342 ) on Friday September 20, 2002 @12:38PM (#4298399) Journal
    A fellow developer on a common network I work with was shut down quite effectively by the FBI using the patriot act. What Slashdotters predicted would happen did happen here. He was accused of being a terrorist, his website was immediately removed from the world wide web by his providers and an investigation was launched into his personal life where relatives were quized on his habits and intentions.

    It was "all cleared up" shortly after, yet, they still managed to remove his website from the internet for an exceptionally long time. Even now his service is still canceled and he can't get back online until he finds another provider.

    Everything's on his front page, being hosted by a friend, which you can read about here:
    http://www.peachkin.com/tt/
  • To set it up, you get a card with a unique identifier. Hand the nice librarian 5,10,15 100 dollars, cash. You now have a credit to take out books up to the value on the card, that way replacemt is simple. If you dont bring the books back before some reasonable amount of time, say, double the lending period, the amount buys the library a new book, and you are SOL. You agree to this at the time of getting the card, end of story. If the book is the only copy the library has, and it is impossible to replace, too bad, have a seat and start reading, or hit the nice xerox machine. Yeah, there would be a lot of problems, but it think it might be worth it.
  • This whole "sanctity of librarians" thing is just ridiculous! There are several recognized principles of confidentiality, such as doctor / patient, legal representation, confessional, etc. It seems to me (IANAL) that the rationale for these confidentialities is as follows:

    • The person has a reasonable expectation of privacy,
    • There is a public good that would be abgrogated by violating the confidence, e.g., folks won't talk to their doctors and die more often, folks won't talk to their lawyers and the search for the truth is impeded.


    I don't see that either principle holds here. Would I like for my borrowing records to be private? I suppose so, but I don't have any expectation of it. How exactly is it that if this were B&N we were talking about it would be public, but because it's a library, it's not?

  • Some commentary I wrote on this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vsync64 ( 155958 ) <vsync@quadium.net> on Friday September 20, 2002 @12:44PM (#4298461) Homepage
    What follows is an email I sent to friends and family based on a WSJ article I read.

    :

    My comments follow. Please note that the quotes included are only
    excerpts; I strongly advise reading the whole article.

    Communications

    Previously, the government had to show probable cause that a crime
    had been or was about to be committed to obtain a warrant. Now, it
    only needs to show that the surveillance is relevant to a current
    investigation.

    However, the 4th amendment to the US Constitution states quite
    explicitly that "...no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause".

    "The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones," said
    President Bush when he signed the Patriot Act. Now, he said, "we'll
    be able to better meet the technological challenges posed by this
    proliferation of communications technology."

    I'm rather curious what the "existing law" Bush refers to is,
    considering that the probable cause requirement was written in the
    days before the telegraph, let alone telephones, rotary or touch-tone.

    It's also rather troubling that new technology is always assumed to
    create a situation where existing principles do not apply. While I am
    not one to rabidly and unthinkingly defend American superiority, it
    must be acknowledged that the founding fathers were not utter fools.
    The sheer volume of their writing evidences the fact that much thought
    was spent first determining the effects of their initial regulations,
    as well as laying out their reasoning for establishing them.

    I find it difficult to imagine a situation where the existing rules
    are unworkable. The only reason not to show probable cause is to cast
    a dragnet, the catch of which can later be data-mined at leisure. Of
    course, it is well-known that one can find evidence of nearly any
    conspiracy if he is looking for it, and it's important that suspicion
    of a crime be established before investigation is begun.

    It is not difficult to obtain a warrant; a judge's signature is all
    that is required. But the judge must first be satisfied that the
    constitutional requirements have been met, lest the evidence later be
    thrown out. This is a process which takes some time and
    consideration, and I am not overly concerned by this. Better that one
    piece of "crucial evidence" be occasionally lost than that the specter
    of random searches begins to frighten every citizen. If a deluge of
    warrants should be required, appoint more judges and set up more
    efficient pipelines for obtaining one. However, this situation should
    ideally act more as a warning flag than anything else.

    I would also like to point out that, for better or for worse, the
    demand for probable cause is not absolute and inflexible. The
    doctrine of exigent circumstances has been established for some time
    now.

    Libraries

    The FBI can demand from bookstores and libraries the names of books
    bought or borrowed by anyone suspected of terrorism. Librarians may
    be prosecuted if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed
    information related to a terror investigation. [...] Library and
    book records were previously only available to prosecutors if a
    judge issued a subpoena for the records.

    Once again, this is a clear violation of the 4th amendment. In
    addition, courts have previously held that this sort of action creates
    a chilling effect on activities protected by the 1st amendment; see
    the Colorado Supreme Court's decision on the Tattered Cover issue:

    Search warrants directed to bookstores, demanding information about
    the reading history of customers, intrude upon the First Amendment
    rights of customers and bookstores because compelled disclosure of
    book-buying records threatens to destroy the anonymity upon which
    many customers depend.

    Detention

    The Immigration and Naturalization Service can now detain aliens
    suspected of terrorism for a week before bringing criminal
    charges. The INS can hold terrorist suspects for up to six months
    without bringing charges if their country of origin won't take them
    back.

    Writ of habeas corpus, anyone?

    The accumulation of these civil rights violations, including others
    not discussed in the article, coupled with the secret police/informers
    John Ashcroft wishes to set up across the country (see
    http://news.com.com/2102-1023-944555.html, for example), creates an
    environment where not only terrorists need fear for their rights. It
    is reminiscent of Orwell's 1984, where the faade of the
    war with Eurasia/Eastasia is used to mask the totalitarian actions of
    the government. Reminiscent of the empires of Commodus, Hitler,
    Stalin, Mao, and others, for that matter.

    This needs to be fought.

    ----
    Permission is given to redistribute this commentary verbatim,
    as long as credit is given to Tim Howe (vsync@quadium.net).

    Quotations are from the "A Look at the Patriot Act, Nearly One Year
    Later", Stephanie Miles, The Wall Street Journal Online, 6 September
    2002.

    ********************

    If you are having trouble with any of the links in this message, or if the URL's are not appearing as links, please follow the instructions at the bottom of this email.

    Title: WSJ.com - A Look at the Patriot Act, Nearly One Year Later

    Copy and paste the following into your Web browser to access the sent link:
    http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/em ailThis ?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=2046431354&p t=Y
  • Usurping and
    Subjugating
    America by
    Providing
    All the
    Tools
    Required to
    Implement
    Orwellian
    Tyranny

  • Ironic isn't it? (Score:3, Informative)

    by PaddyM ( 45763 ) on Friday September 20, 2002 @12:54PM (#4298545) Homepage
    Considering that Congress revealed how much the FBI knew about the possible attack, without having to use any of the new capabilities granted to them by the Patriot Act.

  • is something missing here? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by io333 ( 574963 ) on Friday September 20, 2002 @01:24PM (#4298792)
    One comment that I havn't seen here yet (though I'm not browsing below 1 so I might have missed it):

    Everyone is freaked out about them tracking our library browsing habits.

    Isn't the same thing being done right now, without warrant, with regard to our *web* browsing habits?

  • My Local Library (Score:3, Informative)

    by RatBastard ( 949 ) on Friday September 20, 2002 @01:26PM (#4298813) Homepage
    My ;ocal library doies nto keep track of who checked out any books. Once a book is returned, and there are no unpaid fines for said book, or any other unfinshed transactions regarding said book, the record is expunged. This has always been their policy. Alaska is a very pro-privacy state. Personal privacy is built into our state constitution and we take it rather seriously.

  • Library record keeping (Score:4, Informative)

    by mschuyler ( 197441 ) on Friday September 20, 2002 @01:33PM (#4298871) Homepage Journal
    Lots of posts below this one displaying some ignorance of how modern libraries operate.

    1) Most all libraries these days have computerized inventory systems using barcodes or RFID tags to track books and patrons. These systems make it LESS possible to track reading histories. In the old days with the 3 x 5 cards and date stamp machines one COULD track reading histories, though the logistics of such an operation would be daunting.

    2) Libraries erase lending history upon return of items. In fact, librarians insist the systems keep no history as part of the RFP process.

    3) It is potentially possible to retrieve lending history via backup tapes. These are usually recycled in a typical father-grandfather scheme. Restoring data from these tapes would mean the library system would be shut down during the process. It would be a massive operation and very visible.

    4) Librarians are generally liberally educated left-wing leaning social and humanities graduates who are well aware of the first amendment and often the only people in the community willing to stand up for it. With recent polls shoing 49% of Americans believe the 1st amendment goes too far, you better go hug your local librarian. Because you know what? Nobody else is helping.

  • The Failure of TIPS: Three Medical Students (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jagasian ( 129329 ) on Friday September 20, 2002 @01:33PM (#4298872)
    TIPS as well as the prevailing attitude held by the general public of the USA is only causing things to get worse.

    A recent example is how a woman could report three medical students as suspected terrorists, have them locked up, their possessions molested, and their jobs lost... simply because they looked like Muslims, Arabs, Pakastanis, Iranians, or in many people's minds "like them terrorists". This sparked paranoid delusions, not just within her mind, but within the minds of the general public [miami.com].

    If such horrible things can be inflicted upon you because of your ethnicity makes you a target of the current administration's programs, then how hard is it to imagine your reading habits making you a target of the current administration's programs?

    If I read a book about "Islam", "Jihad", "American is Evil", or, hell, any book written by Noam Chomsky... will I be locked up, my possessions molested, my name defaced, and my job lost?

    The land of the free? Are you serious? I feel like my nation has become a suicide bomber - ready to self destruct out of shear desperation and hate.

  • Remedies (Score:3, Informative)

    by jsgrahamus ( 610267 ) on Friday September 20, 2002 @01:36PM (#4298893)
    Seems to me that the various things mentioned in
    the article represent a conspiracy to or a deprivation of our God-given, Constitutionally-protected rights. Maybe the following sections of laws from the US Code should be enforced against anyone who passed, signed off or attempts to enforce it.

    * United States Code
    * TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
    * CHAPTER 21 - CIVIL RIGHTS
    * SUBCHAPTER I - GENERALLY

    U.S. Code as of: 01/05/99
    Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

    Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such of
    ficer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

    U.S. Code as of: 01/05/99
    Section 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

    (1) Preventing officer from performing duties
    If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;
    (2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror
    If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in
    any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;
    (3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
    If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

    U.S. Code as of: 01/05/99
    Section 1986. Action for neglect to prevent

    Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.

  • Warrants are ABOUT collecting evidence? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by stevew ( 4845 ) on Friday September 20, 2002 @02:48PM (#4299392) Journal


    Now - it maybe that the level needed to get a warrant has decreased under the Patriot act (IAMAL) so I'm not sure, but there STILL MUST BE some level of probably cause to get such a warrant. The original poster said that you could get a warrant without evidence...Uhm..HELLO - where do you think the government get's permission to gather personal evidence??? It's through the warrant mechanism. That means a judge has to be pursuaded that the adequate cause under whatever standard the law establishes to allow a search to occur.

    So there has to be due process before ANY search can take place.


    So - if a Judge says - "Yeah, give them your records" after the Judge is convinced there is a reasonable expectation that something will turn up, then the legal hurdle has been overcome to allow a search of personal property, or some business records. So how is this that different than ANY legal search of personal property or personal records?


    Next comes the issue that we are actually at war. I'm not talking Sadam, but OBL who unquestionably hit us first. What I hear from the librarians amongst us is that that they would rather shred documents instead of possibly helping catch a terrorist? Is that what you really mean here? Don't forget that it is a FACT that that Al-Qaeda has used the internet from public locations like libraries and cyber-cafes to communicate. Seems like talking to librarians is a perfectly understandable place to begin such investigations?!?


    Instead of having a complete knee-jerk reaction to this like "they are stepping on my rights," try looking at the reasons behind such investingations. You might find the government still has to get warrants just like they always have, and that your rights are still being observed!

Slashdot Top Deals

Prediction is very difficult, especially of the future. - Niels Bohr

Close