FBI Bugging Public Libraries 567
zamiel writes "Bill Olds writes in the Hartford Courant: 'I know my librarian, and I believe she would tell me if the government were tracking my computer use at the library. Don't you agree? No way. There's a gag order. When the FBI uses a court order or a subpoena to gain access to library computers or a list of the names of people who have borrowed certain books, librarians can't tell anyone - not even other librarians or you. They face a stiff federal penalty if they do. It's unfair that librarians should be placed in such a position.'" The American Library Association has a page with advice to librarians and links to previous news stories on the subject.
It's about time! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It's about time! (Score:5, Informative)
Universities Too (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks Patriot Act.
Re:Universities Too (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Universities Too (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, because they're already there.
At least they won't (Score:3, Funny)
"My subpoenas bigger than yours! nyah!"
Er, you don't say... (Score:3, Informative)
Now you tell me! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Now you tell me! (Score:3, Funny)
(Sorry; couldn't resist)
Wuh? (Score:3, Funny)
Is it anything like the Intarweb?
Re:Wuh? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't trust them. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have several books that might raise an eyebrow. One is "Blueprint for Black Power" Amazon inserted a small paper saying it was below their standards when I ordered it from them. But I couldn't find any visible damage...
This book is primarily about cultural phychology and has nothing to do with any radical movements or any such violence or the like. But I could easily be marked by one of the various government "plans" if they feelt the need over books like this.
This is garbage and we shouldn't allow this in a 'free as in beer' society.
What do they really expect to find? They already have shown they have enough information, but their problem is a lack of digestion and comprehention. Perhaps some of the Arabs and muslims they so actively alienate could be of assistance...Only if they really cared about security would that happen!
Mass Monitoring for "Security" made simple. (Score:5, Interesting)
> have shown they have enough information, but
> their problem is a lack of digestion and comprehention.
I'd expect that they run your reading list against the following algorithm:
* If you read at least two "radical" books like "Blueprint for Black Power"
* And you read the Koran
* Then you are likely are guilty of the thought crime of "Thought Terrorist" so you need to be watched.
* If you are found to consort with others who have committed "Thought Terrorism"
* Then you and your consorts must be brought in for "questioning" until you confess your guilt or "prove" your innocense. It's not "innocent 'till proven guilty" since they already have "proof" that you and your consorts have engaged in "Thought Terrorism".
It's quite an effective strategy to deal with "underable elements". The "beauty" of it is that much of it can be automated and using Bayesian Filtering it can be made more accurate over time. There may be some false positives, but who cares? It's "for the greater good" and "we all have to make sacrifices to stop 'Terrorism'".
*shiver*
Re:Mass Monitoring for "Security" made simple. (Score:4, Insightful)
Does my christianity vindicate me?
Its just that people are not legallay prosecuted so much anymore as they are prosecuted in a marketing fashion.
For instance, so may people still think OJ was "obviously" guilty, but fail to point out any legitimate evidence to support that claim. He is basically culturally guilty at this point. Regardless to his guilt or not I like to make sensical arguements. This is not the way of the times.
I am concerned.
one solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Saying that your not a terrorist and that the FBI should not be monitering you doesn't work, how are the authorities supposed to know what you are thinking? What you are planning to do? Investigation seems to be a way that this can be accomplished but it means throwing away all the rights that the American people have lived so long with and have fought so hard to preserve, 2 wars and innumerable conflicts have been fought by the US to "preserve and maintain our way of life", you can't get rid of that and still call yourself an American.
Its a dicey issue to be certian, balancing rights with the need for the authorities to protect Americans from their enemies.
Think about it.
Re:one solution (Score:3, Insightful)
They're not 'granted', we took them in several massive and very costly wars starting in the late 1700's. This is one of the problems with how people view our current government, and any government for that matter. The US government derives its power solely from the will of the goverened. Every so often, we put certain people in positions of power with the understanding that they will carry our out will. We are granted nothing by our government, our government is granted privileges and powers by us.
"this also means that they get granted to people who would attack the US from within."
Each person is granted certain unalienable rights by their creator. The extra rights we enjoy in the US are granted to all law-abiding citizens. Those who abuse those rights and use them in ways which infringe upon the rights of others lose some of them (ie. persons in jail). You cannot bar rights from those "who would do harm" until they've done harm or show imminent intent and ability to do so. To try to do otherwise is both futile and undermines the very principles upon which our judicial system founded. Those who do it in the name of "protecting Americans" are cowards who lack the courage and conviction to stand up for what is just.
"how are the authorities supposed to know what you are thinking?"
They're not, and that's why I have a problem with them monitoring what you and I are reading; it gets very close to what you're thinking. Policing thoughts is something so detestible to the senses of human freedom that it has no place beyond the depths of the Orwellian hell which we find ourselves so perilously close to experiencing first-hand.
"2 wars and innumerable conflicts have been fought by the US to "preserve and maintain our way of life", you can't get rid of that and still call yourself an American."
Our way of life? Are you joking? Our way of life shouldn't be even close to what we're worried about. How about our principles? How about beliefs (secular)? How about our childrens' future? How about our ideals? Our way of life can always be improved, but our ideals are just that; ideals. As for our way of life, if we stand firmly grounded in our ideals and beliefs, our way of life is intrinsically preserved. Our freedom is our strength; our courage is our protection; our ideals are the life through which we live eternally.
I agree we need to protect ourselves from our enemy, but restricting the rights and liberties of Americans is NOT the way to do it. Nor is ubiquitous surveillence. Not only that, but none of these things will help us in the end. Most of the people who are involved in terrorist (and I use that word sparingly) plots and such against America grew up in countries that have more restrictions on freedom and more surveillance than you or I can possibly imagine. They've lived their lives bypassing security, surveillance, and other measures. Israel has security tighter that most Americans dream of, yet they must endure regular suicide bombings. Ask someone from Israel who's lost a loved one to a suicide bomber what super-tight security is good for; you'll have no shortage of people to talk to. You really think checking reading habits is going to help? Certainly checking mine doesn't help you; merely gives you more irrelevant data to sort through. Aside from that, just what the hell gives you the right to monitor what I read and judge whether the books I'm reading are ok?
Most of the changes being made will do nothing to deter those who are determined to do us harm, and many of the new policies do nothing more than overwhelm authorities with data completely irrelevant to terrorism; only relevant to societal control. If you want to control what I think or control what I say, you're in for a big surprise. Myself and many like me will MUCH sooner die resisting you than let you destroy the freedoms and ideals preserved by the blood of the thousands who've defended that in which they believed and held dear. If you'd like to kill those willing and ready to defend their rights, you can start with me. To destroy the freedoms of Americans in the name of America is to disgrace our forefathers, our flag, our Constitution, and everything those things represent. To those like Ashcroft who commit these heinous acts, you are dishonoring the American government, your position, and yourself as an American. And you should know that the American people will not tolerate but so much of your totalitarianistic edicts before they rise up against you.
Protect us from those who would do harm to America; do not "protect us" from ourselves, and do not believe for a moment that we will happily trade our freedom like candy for your bitter and distastful tyranical "protection".
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: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: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:5, Insightful)
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: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: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: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:I can already see ... (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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.
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.
Also (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Also (Score:4, Funny)
That sounds about as exciting as a Mormon keg party.
My advice to librarians (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:My advice to librarians (Score:5, Interesting)
At least at the library I work at, that's already being done - in fact, it's always been done that way. We don't maintain a list of what a patron has checked out - we only know what's circulating at any given time so we know who to bug when their books're overdue. Different insitiutions might have different policies of course, but my guess is if my library [nypl.org] doesn't care about keeping those records, none would.
Triv
More advice (Score:4, Insightful)
What if the staff at every library put up a big sign over the counter reading "Notice: your reading and Internet activities MAY be monitored by the government." Then in smaller type underneath, "The Patriot Act forbids us from speaking about this matter. For more information call your congressional representatives at _______"
Another random thought: How about a "Jam the FBI Day," similar to "Jam Echelon Day." We in the geek community pick one day when we all stop by at least one public library and do one of the following: browse to at least one "suspicious" site, send an email message with some "suspicious" keywords in it, or check out at least one "suspicious" title.
Re:More advice (Score:4, Funny)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The FBI has announced that it has discovered a new domestic terror group, 'Slashdot', which was using public computer terminals at libraries to plan a domestic terror event involving nuclear material, airplanes, and a mystical figure named CowboyNeal...
Good idea! We already do that. (Score:5, Interesting)
Since dead patrons are bad for our statistics, we use a system that keeps track of who currently has a book checked out. That's it. Once a book is returned to the library in good condition, its borrowing record is wiped clean (would that our young patrons' noses were too!). This protects us from having anything Officer Friendly is interested in looking at (except perhaps for certain books of "art" photos -- but that's his business, isn't it?)
Feel free to read the numbers and weep (Score:3, Informative)
The USA patriot act (Score:2)
Re:The USA patriot act (Score:2)
Wow, it has been a decade since I last passed such good freudian. :)
Re:The USA patriot act (Score:5, Funny)
In an effort to combat this image John Ashcroft announced yesterday, the creation of an organization which will monitor American security in the private sector. He is calling it 'Society of Trusted American Service Interests' or STASI
Humor....not really
Will it really help? (Score:4, Insightful)
Granted the person might access their own email and the feds could get the person's where abouts that way. But will criminals be that stupid? Some might say yes. So there are two sides here.
Re:Will it really help? (Score:3, Interesting)
Most library machines I have come across have not been well secured, many are easy leaping points for doing "naughty" things. They even give media access to use material on CDs.
Re:Will it really help? (Score:4, Insightful)
Firstly, they can track the machine to its switchport, and with a simple table of switchport network drop, and/or a map of the physical layout they can easily find the exact machine in a matter of 30 seconds (or less). I administered a school with three wings, two floors and I could nail network traffic (IP or IPX) to its specific chair in under a minute.
Couple this with strategically placed surveillance cameras (which many public institutions have installed already) and they can get a video image of the "perp" for facial recognition at a more convenient time.
So we take a few stills from the video feed, add them to the TCP dump log / keystroke log / screen capture, and file it away for a later date.
So easy, a child of five could do it.
Someone fetch me a child of five! ;)
Simple Solution... (Score:2, Interesting)
Geez. I thought that after the movie Seven [imdb.com], this would have alerted anyone who they could possibly suspect to cease using public libraries with open, honest library cards.
Sign O' the Times (Score:2)
Additionally, terrorists have never used public computers in the past. And if they did, they didn't use public computers in the furtherance of terrorist plots.
Free Speech (Score:2)
another reason to avoid libraries? (Score:2, Interesting)
Soon enough, when enough of these freedoms are taken away, like the public unmonitored use of public libraries, then all of the so-called "public" institutions will be used less and less frequently by people who are concious about these things.
In the movie Seven, there was a great hubbub about tracking the use of library card-holders' reading habits. Now it seems that it doesn't need to be kept a secret, that they can and will do it, and that you can't find out about it. That's troubling.
The acronym... (Score:2, Interesting)
the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act" (USA PATRIOT Act.) until I read the librarian guidelines. Call me s-l-o-w. I bet there is a full-time job to come up with those catchy titles. (I wonder what it pays)
That's why (Score:5, Insightful)
When you return the books, you get the money back - just don't forget your receipt with matching barcode.
One solution... (Score:5, Funny)
A Good Thing (Score:2, Funny)
We just cannot let libraries protect terrorits. Imagine if a big "mushroom cloud" were to blow Washington, and we later found out that the author of this crime once borrowed a nuclear science book!
Science books and books with a bias against the US should also be banned. Anyone saying the opposite is against the Homeland Security!!
Understandable (Score:3, Insightful)
BUT, it's fairly understandable, as are its counterparts.
If an investigation into a robbery suspect led to a gun shop, should the gun shop owner be able to phone up the suspect and say, "Hey--the cops were asking after you."
Due to the nature of crime (criminals don't want to get caught!), the cops have to have a reasonable opportunity to work quietly, and in private. After an investigation has been concluded, THEN this stuff should be made public.
Ashcroft is the reincarnation of McArthy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ashcroft is the reincarnation of McArthy? (Score:3, Informative)
er, no. It's quite expensive because of the sheer volume of data that needs to be tracked. And no, just stuffing it away for "future" perusal is not a viable option. Your assuming that either the information flow will decrease, or the methods used will increase productivity as a rate significantly higher than the data being captured. Until that happens, any saved (and my god this would be a massive amount) could only be used to go back and look for specific individuals, vs retro-processing.
Lay off McCarthy (Score:4, Funny)
Of course we do have Jeffrey Dahmer and Ed Gein. Oh wait.
In Canada ... (Score:2, Interesting)
The legacy of our PM is broken promises... Case and point... GST and Free Trade...
NAPMFQ
Reminds me of a scene... (Score:5, Interesting)
That movie came out only a few years ago, and yet the scene would probably be meaningless today. It's funny how things change, and not necessarily for the better.
universities track logins (Score:5, Informative)
Which brings me to the point of, where's the right to privacy? Waived at the door, I guess, since apparently the presupposition is that by using your authentication to log in to these systems, you've agreed that you've read all these policies and have agreed to all these potential remedies against your violation of these policies. Any lawyers out there know if that holds water?
--
"Limited government" will always exceed its bounds
Re:universities track logins (Score:4, Interesting)
Libraries? (Score:4, Interesting)
College libraries were awesome places. Places to hang out, maybe study a bit, meet young ladies.
Then I moved to Fayetteville, Georgia. Where the publicly funded library is run by the white hair Gestapo. The collection of books there is lacking. So you say, donate some? I did! I offered to donate 8 cases of books. Computer programming manuals, CS theory, even some copies of books I'v written or edited. Not 30 year old books, but fresh books. Books that a young teenager may not be able to afford to buy, but interested in reading. The offer was refused. No strings attached, just take them. No.
Would the old bags in Fayetteville let you know whats going on? No. Odds are THEY'LL call the FBI first.
Ok, thats my rant. If you are in the atlanta area, its worth the drive to the Georgia Tech library downtown if you really are looking for information. Georgia State's isn't too bad off either.
Just like echelon (Score:3, Interesting)
-Restil
What is the issue? (Score:3, Interesting)
If such power is misused then it is cause of great convern, but the article provides no evidence that this is the case.
The author also seems upset that the library staff is not telling him. Well, it is pretty obvious that if you are going to bug something you can't tell the world what you are doing.
Tor
Re:What is the issue? (Score:3, Informative)
Of course we're not against law enforcement monitoring communications between individuals who are under investigation so long as they show just cause to a judge and receive the appropriate warrents. The main problem I have with this is that what you read is very close to what you think. I don't believe that our government has the right to tell us which books are ok, nor do I believe they have the right to judge what we read or think. It's absolutely impossible that reading something can lead to imminent danger for yourself or others. You might use knowledge gained from a book to do harm to yourself or others, but that's a decision not affected by what you've read. If you believe it's ok for the government to look into what you read, what do you think about the government surveilling your thoughts as well? Think that's silly? NASA doesn't seem to think so [washtimes.com].
"If such power is misused then it is cause of great convern, but the article provides no evidence that this is the case."
Quite alright, I'll provide the much-anticipated evidence. The FBI began its campaign of illegal monitoring and other abuses back in the 1960's during the civil rights movements. Organizations such as SNCC were routinely infiltrated by FBI agents while many of the leaders were being bugged and had their phones tapped; most of it without even so much as a warrant. The abuses continued until the 1970's when major restrictions were put in place on the FBI's domestic spying capabilities. The culmination of these efforts was the 1974 Privacy Act. (back then, the names of laws weren't usually misleading like they are now). What's been going on lately? Well, just recently, the FISA court (secretive court created to deal with foreign intelligence gathering on US soil), in an unprecidented move, blasted the FBI [go.com] publicly for abuse of the FISA act, lying to the FISA court about evidence and such, and a whole host of other things. They even barred one agent from ever again appearing before the court due to his consistantly inaccurate depositions and testimony before the court.
What's my point? The FBI has, for the last 40 some-odd years shown a constant disregard for laws and civil liberties, as well as the Constitutionally-protected rights of citizens; especially with regard to matters of free speech. The evidence against the FBI is very damning, and the FISA court's anger with the FBI clearly shows they have no intention of staying within the limits of the law, even now. Now, we're giving the FBI more powers of surveillance? The USA PATRIOT act basically removed all the restrictions placed upon the FBI in the 1970's, and gave them a whole host of new powers. Did you know they can now look through your financial and banking information without so much as a visit to a courthouse? The book-bugging escapade appears as though it'll require judges to get rubber stamps made up just for the occasion. The fact that the entire process is secretive is even more frightening. As was said in a recent court ruling, "democracies die behind closed doors." But like I said, I don't think they should be able to monitor what you or I read anyway, so this is all moot.
"Well, it is pretty obvious that if you are going to bug something you can't tell the world what you are doing."
While this is correct, we also assume that when law enforcement takes an action, especially one which has the potential for massive abuse, there's going to be some kind of oversight. The USA PATRIOT act removes virtually all oversight, granting the FBI unprecidented free reign to spy on Americans.
I don't know about you, but I really don't want my government spying on me.
If anyone's interested in a little honesty-in-politics, we should rename the "war on terrorism" to "The War on Freedom and the Average Citizen", and then we should rename the USA PATRIOT act to the "Dividing and Frightening America by Providing Inappropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Freedom Act". Hmm, DFAPITRIOFA - perhaps not the best acronym, but certainly more accurate. USA PATRIOT act... What's patriotic about shredding the US Constitution?
See Also (Score:3, Informative)
See also the article [slashdot.org] posted in September on this topic
Laura Bush (Score:3, Interesting)
The Irony Is... (Score:5, Insightful)
And the same government that financed that Ad Council spot (naturally, who else would pay for such drivel, or require networks to air them), is doing exactly the same thing.
The spot itself [Re:The Irony Is...] (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.adcouncil.org/campaigns/campaign_for
Click on Library (links on the right).
If security experts believe that a determined criminal's last resort for information would be the public library... too bad for all of us.
Our society is built on the trust that most of its members lead lives based on "acceptable" line of behavior. There is no way to enforce high security against determined individuals without changing the environment, at a high cost, both monetary and human rights wise. Such environments are prisons, banks, airports, etc.
The choice of a government to create conflicts and conditions which encourage the appearance of such "determined individuals" is a conscious decision to turn its citizens into hostages.
Unfortunately, I don't see a quick solution.
Maybe treat others with respect and/or leave them alone? Even that might not be a solution as it might be exploited as a sign of fear. I am not a politician and do not understand the rules in the battle for power. What I see is that a structure which was invented to support the best interests of "all people" is changing its function to support other entities by _exploiting_ "all people".
Now what?
Re:The Irony Is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Experience as a current Library Network Specialist (Score:3, Interesting)
We definitely do not log peoples traffic nor do we have the storage space to do so. We have a snort box for intrusion detection that does only logging. We had logging enabled for http for a day and we used up all 200gb of space.
Fake ID anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Oh, looks like Chuck U. Farly checked out another copy of 'How to bow up big buildings with farm chemicals.' Where does he live? 110 Up-Yours Infidel St., New York, NY? Book him, dan-o"
Meanwhile, somewhere on the other side of the country, little 4th grader Joey checks out 'How Power Plants Work" for a school project, and 10 minutes later the S.W.A.T. team is busting down his parent's door...
I wonder where our government will put the concentration camps.
-----
Re:Fake ID anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Election Day... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps this isn't the right topic for this gripe, but I guess if you're going to complain about an America-centric problem like the FBI tapping your library's computer, you should at least *try* to do something about it.
Just my two cents.
bemis
Will it scare you off some books? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody wants his every move tracked by the FBI. So some people will stay away from certain books just to keep there private lives private. So the question is, would you rather be informed? Or would you prefer to keep the cameras and the spies away from you?
it's christmas for con men! (Score:5, Funny)
Christmas comes early this year for the black hats! How many other gag orders like this exist under the patriot act? How many people are hindered in finding out if inquiries are coming from a valid source? How many shady groups are already using this enviornment of secrecy to reach thier nefarious ends?
Fear ... uncertainty ... denial. (Score:3, Informative)
It's true that the USA-PATRIOT Act has a number of provisions that are of questionable Constitutionality and dubious value to the War Against Terror (TM, Pat. Pending). However, this article (gratuitous link [ctnow.com])is nothing more than gross conjecture without evidence. As we say down here in Texas, he's sellin' a whole lotta bull and not much steak.
It is illegal for a wiretap or datatap to be undertaken without judicial oversight and authorization (see United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972), holding "Fourth Amendment freedoms cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances may be conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch."). The expanded tap provisions of USA-PATRIOT allow for a greater level of secrecy to surround specific wire- or datataps (specifically, those approved by the special FISA court for national security issues), but federal law enforcement does not have carte blanche to go around randomly listening in to our conversations. In order for a tap to pass Constitutional muster, it has to be narrowly drawn. Setting up a general-purpose dragnet to pull in data from all library patrons, the vast majority of whom cannot legally be targeted by a FISA tap order, would get drop-kicked out of the most deferential judge's chambers. (Orrin Hatch's statement on FISA taps under USA-PATRIOT is here [fas.org], and the ALA's interpretation of the Act is here [ala.org]).
The FBI does have expanded powers to grab library records, for purposes of domestic law enforcement as well as international espionage and terror investigations, but that's very different -- if no less disturbing -- than ongoing monitoring, and would be sufficient to trigger the librarians' circumspection. It certainly doesn't mean that the Feds slapped a Carnivore underneath the public terminal carousel.
Here's a Simple Solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Start compiling a list of where the librarians answer like they're in a spy movie and where they go "huh?". Publish it. Ask for the official "we have not been visited by the FBI letter", if you can get it.
If you can find where there's light, the darkness will also be visible.
Just DON'T keep (Score:3, Insightful)
David Brin's Accountability Matrix (Score:5, Insightful)
3 4
1. Tools that help me see what others are up to.
2. Tools that prevent others from seeing what I am up to.
3. Tools that help others see what I am up to.
4. Tools that prevent me from seeing what others are up to.
Maybe we should promote laws that make everyone's activities transparent. We like 1 and 2, but reality is that it is either 1 and 3, or 2 and 4. And 1 and 3 promotes accountability while 2 and 4 is an "arms race" to see if one can remain hidden. If we could check and make certain the FBI was doing its job properly, it would reign in any questionable activities.
Anonymity the only privacy - or is it? (Score:3, Insightful)
taking books out? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now that's not so difficult is it?
When they catch somebody (Score:3, Funny)
Librarian: Shhhh
Agent #1: You have the right to be silent
Librarian: Shhhh
Agent #1: Somebody shut that librarian up
Agent #2: Shhhhh
Agent #1: Not that way you idiot...
Note the irony. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm glad a stupid law from DC has an exception in DC. I wouldn't want my representatives in DC to be subject to the same stupid laws as me. Funny how everybody seems to forget that before 9/11, there were FBI oversight hearings going on and they were being blackballed in the media.
Note to FBI: I haven't been to a library in a while so don't even bother.
From the perspective of a Librarian (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh, great. (Score:2)
How I wish this was +1 funny instead of +0 JustPlainSad (but realistically, -1 OffTopic)
--
Re:USA-PATRIOT (Score:5, Insightful)
That and a president who implies that by challenging him or his cabinet you are voluntarily helping terrorists.
Re:USA-PATRIOT (Score:5, Insightful)
That means one has to believe that the current occupant of the White House was elected in the first place. I, for one, don't. And if one accepts the fact that El Presidente came to power in a coup worthy of any third world dictator, then his current governments attacks on our constitutional rights are not all that surprising.
Turning into 1984? 9/11 was the day that 1984 became a reality. Bush got his Reichstag fire, and he has used it to his advantage.
Re:what books? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So what? I'll Tell You What! (Score:4, Insightful)
"Those who would trade a little freedom for a little security will soon find they have neither".
That one's for you, Sunshine.
-- Jude
(Not a coward, and not anonymous)
Re:So what? I'll Tell You What! (Score:4, Insightful)
And a misquote from the grandparent post: "Those who would sacrifice an *essential* liberty for temporary safety, deserves neither", the key words here being essential, for liberty, and temporary, for safety.
There is no such thing as permanent safety, no matter what the nanny state would have us believe.
And the context of essential liberty is intended to refer to those liberties that do not infringe upon the liberties of others, it is not intended to promote or justify anarchy.
A common misconception in most societies is the idea that we are granted our freedoms by law, when in fact, the opposite is true. Our essential freedoms have *always* existed, it is in the scope of law merely to protect them from those that would abuse them, and those abusers can (and often do) include the government and institutions we have in place to protect those freedoms.
I'd rather keep EVERY ONE of my *essential* liberties, even at the risk of a little less certainty in the public safety arena, for the very simple reason that those who would threaten that safety will not be hampered, IN THE LEAST, by any of the restrictions on my freedoms.
EFF Pioneer award in 2000: "Librarians Everywhere" (Score:3, Informative)