Librarians Join the Fight Against The Patriot Act 438
An anonymous reader writes "This article at the New York Times (free reg.) shows how lots of libraries are moving to destroy privacy related data as quickly as possible and still others have gone as far as posting signs and handing out leaflets to scare / educate their patrons."
There's nothing worse... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:There's nothing worse... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:There's nothing worse... (Score:3, Funny)
"Don't you know the Dewey decimal-system?!"
A library destroying data? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A library destroying data? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's kind of like letting you read a book, and then not running to the FBI to inform them that since you read "Catcher in the Rye" you must be a suicide bomber.
I'm a lone nut, just like everyone else! (Score:4, Funny)
JD Salinger was a well known member in intellignce circles in his day. Like the Scientologists, the spooks like to bolster their own, so all their brainwashed MKULTRA manchurian candidates are given a compulsion to buy the book, hence inflating the sales.
I should know, since I just made this shit up [davidicke.net]!
Re:A library destroying data? (Score:5, Insightful)
Libraries are trying to protect their patrons rights so that people will feel safe using what ever material is in the building.
Without having to worry about big brother. If we don't have the material to give when the feds come knocking, we can't violate a persons right to privacy.
Altp.
Re:A library destroying data? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sort of (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Where's Ray Bradbury when you need him? (Score:3, Insightful)
Librarians (Score:5, Funny)
Now you KNOW it's evil... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Now you KNOW it's evil... (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh well, off I go to the library...
D'oh!!!
Re:Now you KNOW it's evil... (Score:4, Funny)
Why is everyone worried about Orwell? (Score:4, Interesting)
Revenge of the Librarians (Score:3, Funny)
Even the damn librarians are against it!
Probably the proponents of privacy invasion were those kids that in grade school that talked loudly, joked, farted, scraped chairs, cut up with each other, and generally made all kinds of obnoxious noises in the library and ticked off the librarians.
Come to think of it, those kids, now grown up and in positions of authority, are still making all kinds of obnoxious noises!
link to story (no reg req'd) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:link to story (no reg req'd) (Score:2, Redundant)
Editors, please start posting articles with archive instead of www.
Then people like me could stop putting this in our sig lines:
Patriot Act (Score:5, Insightful)
don't piss off librarians (Score:4, Funny)
I'm glad they're on our side, as they are very tenacious, and having a dedicated, intelligent, and socially-friendly ally will do more for the cause than a hundred thousand emails to congressmen.
Re:don't piss off librarians (Score:2, Insightful)
Speak for yourself. Not everyone is on "Your" side. Don't assume that every reader or poster on this site agrees with you.
Re:don't piss off librarians (Score:3, Funny)
Now we just have to organize a bunch of librarians to do the "squint and stare at you as if you've just commited a felony" at the appropriate federal buildings. how long can such a seige last? Maybe they can creatively miss-file several million people's library fines to Ashcroft's account.
Use the partner link, Luke. (Score:2, Informative)
Somebody please explain this to me... (Score:3, Insightful)
If that is it...then good grief, what are we talking about here? What is there about borrowing a book that should make it a sacrosanct activity like confessional, or attorney-client privelege? I'm sorry, but what books someone has borrowed certainly seems like it could be relevant to me. We're supposed to ignore this information, why?
Re:Somebody please explain this to me... (Score:4, Insightful)
So basically the Patriot Act says that library records can be used in terrorist investigations. Is that it, or is there something more sinister I'm missing? Honestly, I'm not trying to troll here.
Go to the library and read some history, before the books are edited. Then you'll understand the problems. I imagine reading Marx's works in the 50's, no, not Groucho - would get you a visit, put on lists, and maybe even thrown in the pokey for awhile. These are not good times for freedom.
Re:Somebody please explain this to me... (Score:2)
unless I am off, which I might be...
Checked out the koran lately? (Score:5, Insightful)
Looked at a chemistry book?
Terrorist.
Read Mein Kampft(sp)?
Terorist
Read a physics book?
Dirty bomber
Che Guveras biography?
Terrorist
picke up a copy of 2600?
terrorist
When they control what you can read and see, they controll your mind. Of course it wont be illegal to read any of these(probably) but how many people will check them out to read once they realize that this will automaticaly get a record started on them with the FBI. I odnt know about you, but i buy my copy of 2600 with cash. How much longer will that be possible?
Don't forget! (Score:2, Informative)
If you're checking books on crypto from the library, you're obviously a terrorist and a danger to the status quo [wired.com]!
Re:Checked out the koran lately? (Score:4, Interesting)
Now IANAL, and I have heard some talk of erosion of the need to get a subpoena for this stuff, and I disagree with that. We need to have a judge playing ref on this stuff.
But failing that, I guess I just don't see a special privelege for checking out books. Consider that on one hand, it would be admissable in court that I purchased the supplies for a bomb but not that I checked out a book on how to make one. Really it comes down to the question of: why should library records be inadmissable? What special privelege exists? And before you answer, make sure that you believe that at least something should be admissable in terrorist investigations, otherwise you're wasting everyone's time here.
Re:Checked out the koran lately? (Score:5, Insightful)
This means there is little to no control even if the FBI walked into the library and asked for EVERYONE who checked out "Catcher In the Rye".
Very few people have problems with them specifically requesting information in connections to actual crimes, with oversight and proper paper trails indicating they are doing this. It's harassment for potential crimes that they collect data on without letting you know that makes people concerned.
Re:Checked out the koran lately? (Score:3, Funny)
Terrorist.
Read Mein Kampft(sp)?
Terorist
Checked out "The Prince"?
Republican
Re:Checked out the koran lately? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Somebody please explain this to me... (Score:5, Informative)
Courts have ruled in several instances that if something is to be considered available, it must be available anonymously. Freedom of speech implies freedom of anonymous speech, because otherwise people will self-censor out of fear of retribution; access to abortions implies anonymous access to abortions, because otherwise the social stigma could stop people seeking abortions; access to public libraries implies anonymous access to public libraries, because otherwise people will avoid reading "subversive" material.
You're right, it is unlikely that the ability to access these records would be abused; but it has been abused in the past, so many people are very wary of giving law enforcement that ability again.
McCarthy-era fears (Score:5, Insightful)
There has been fear in the past about using people's book preferences for profiling on a larger scale. Took out a book on gay relationships? maybe you're gay. Took out a book about religion X? Maybe you practice religion X. Took out a book on living with disease X? maybe you have disease X. This becomes a lot more insidious if records of specialized bookstores are being examined. I seem to recall a case recently about a gay/lesbian focused bookstore refusing to release their customer records.
Re:Somebody please explain this to me... (Score:5, Interesting)
See the Library Bill o' Rights [ala.org] for a more concise explanation than I could ever give.
--kotj.mf, para-professional library drone
Re:Somebody please explain this to me... (Score:4, Insightful)
So this is useless against people who are serious about committing crimes, just like a lot of the rest of the Patriot Act. What's it good for? Finding people who the government doesn't like.
I'm sure I know the answer to this question, but do you not care that someone might be sitting in a room somewhere some day, looking at a list of books you've borrowed, and using their judgement to decide if your interest one weekend in Nuclear Engineering means you should be flagged for checks every time you try to fly? Right right, you have nothing to hide.
Re:Somebody please explain this to me... (Score:5, Informative)
If that is it...then good grief, what are we talking about here? What is there about borrowing a book that should make it a sacrosanct activity like confessional, or attorney-client privelege?...
We are not talking about borrowing a book, we are talking about unfettered access, by the government, to records that we should reasonably expect to remain private. They want access to all personal data, in the name of national security, but there is no control over how that data is actually used. This can put a chilling effect on what we may or may not do just by association and the fear of being targeted for said associations.
How long until you are stopped driving and asked for your 'papers', where are you going, why? Sounds far fetched, it probably is, but where it the line that once the governemnt crosses it is no longer OK for them to have unfettered access to our personal lives?
If the government wants to know that I have read "such and such author", they should be required to tell me that they want to know, and further they should show a good reason for neededing the information.
Pre-crime... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it could be relevant to terrorist investigations... And it can help find potential terrorists, too! For instance, if you see someone has checked out books on flying planes and September 11th, then they're probably a terrorist (or maybe a pilot); if you see someone has looked at books on chemistry and physics, they're probably a suicide bomber (or maybe a high-school teacher); if you see someone has read 1984, they're obviously a subversive commie-lovin' bastard (or maybe a student); if you've read anything on crypto, codes, Engima machines, numbers theory, you're obviously a cracker (or maybe a mathematician)... In any case, these potential terrorists, bombers, subversives, and crackers will likely commit crimes in the future, so for the safety of the little children, we MUST lock them up now!
This has been a message from the Ashcroft Bureau of Pre-Crime.
-T
Re:Somebody please explain this to me... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok please tell me what books you have read over the past 6 months.
also what movies you watched.
and can you give me a list of the phone numbres you called last week?
thanks.
It doesnt bug you right.. If it does then what are you trying to hide?
Are you up to some Terrorist activities?
do you get the picture now?
Re:Somebody please explain this to me... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's basically censorship at the reader end - if you can't stop it being written you can harrass everyone who reads it instead.
You think you have a free press right ? Do you still think you have a free press if reading a certain newspaper means you get questioned as part of a terrorist investigation ?
Re:Somebody please explain this to me... (Score:4, Insightful)
> records can be used in terrorist investigations.
> Is that it, or is there something more sinister
> I'm missing?
Among other things, the PATRIOT Act allows the FBI to not only get a list of all web sites or books you've seen from a library, but it forbids the library to tell you that the FBI came-a lookin'.
The ACLU has more information here [aclu.org] and here [aclu.org].
Claiming that these brave new powers will only be used to combat terrorism is a bit misleading. "Terrorism" is whatever the government wants to call it. For example, the government at one time wanted to call computer cracking "computer terrorism". Or, consider the fact that Senate Bill 742 [yahoo.com] in Oregon, introduced by Republican John Minnis, would define as a terrorist, a person who "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly." Keep in mind, that means if you start a food fight, you could be a terrorist under this law.
Brings to mind a line from Patrick McGoohan in The Prisoner, "Why don't you just put us all in solitary confinement and be done with it!"
Re:Somebody please explain this to me... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, today, I'll tell you the story about Jim. Jim was a fine young man, he just graduated with a degree in criminology. He was an honest and caring individual, who was selfless and brave. He would have been an outstanding police officer some day.
Well, would have been, except that Jim's freshman year, his roommate Steve was arrested. He didn't know the guy too well, Steve always hung out with the "tough crowd" and usually didn't use the room at all, preferring to stay out all night or crash at his girlfriend's place. Anyway, Jim went home for summer break to see his old friends, and when he came back, he had a different roommate. He hadn't heard much about it, and nobody was too keen on talking about it, so he figured he'd just let it slide.
So, after graduating, Jim applied to join the police force. He passed the civil service exams, and waited to hear the good news. And waited. And waited.
Then one day, there was a knock on the door. He got up, to answer it, and suddenly there was a loud bang and the door splintered, then collapsed inwards. 5 armed FBI agents rushed him and threw him to the ground then pinned him down. That was the last anyone heard from Jim. His neighbors thought it was sad that he'd be hauled away, since he seemed like such a nice quiet boy.
The End.
So, what happened?
Well, Jim's life started on the quick road to Hell when the university's random housing lottery placed him with Steve. Except Steve wasn't named Steve. He was just using that name while he was illegally in the US to study piloting airplanes. Then, Jim started checking out books on famous murders, criminology, DNA testing, and the like. His final mistake was applying for a position on the police force, thats when they ran the background check on him.
They punched his name into the database, and out popped the following:
Warning lived with "steve" for one year. Possible terrorist connection.
Well, this was enough for the FBI to get involved, so they went and looked up the list of books Jim had checked out and read. The list certainly was eye-opening. They fed this data into their database (which incidentially had Jim's major incorrectly listed as "English". But that was OK, since it wasn't important for the information to be correct)
The database churned for a few minutes and spat out the following:
Warning subject lived with "steve" for one year. Possible terrorist connection.
Warning subject has extensive interest in criminal behavior and violent crimes.
Conclusion: HE'S A TERRIST! GET HIM!
So now, Jim's sitting in a cell (if you can call those chain link things in Cuba "cells"). Been there for a few years. They still haven't told him why though. Every now and then they beat him or make him kneel with his head back and his arms straight out for hours on end, but they let up a little after a couple of other guys died. On the up side though, he's gotten to be good friends with this Ali guy in the next cell over, who seems like someone he knew his freshman year.
Moral (if you're still reading):
If you think this kind of thing is bullshit, you seriously underestimate the ability of the US justice system to be perverted. Take a look at the current mess the Houston Police Department is in, using shoddy lab work and practically lying through their teeth to get the conviction. Its not about justice here, no, its about having the big conviction numbers, whether or not the criminals are still roaming the streets. And now the FBI wants to maintain a database on everyone (oops, did I say "maintain"? That kind of suggests some effort in upkeep and keeping it correct) and is using terrorist arrests and secret trials which always end in conviction to convince everyone that they need even more power to catch every last terrorist out there.
Re:Somebody please explain this to me... (Score:4, Interesting)
Thats right. Humans do the work. The government has no "ulterior motives" or "conspiracies", instead, some human has a power trip. Or a nervous breakdown. Or types in Jim's "Academic Study Code" as 80 (English Major) instead of 08 (Criminology Major). There could be many number of reasons why an FBI agent didn't interrogate Jim right away. Maybe the file fell behind someone's desk. Maybe some agent put Jim under survelliance to see if anything concrete enough to haul him in would come up. After a year or so, he got bored and started wiretapping corporate headquarters for stock tips. "Steve" was present illegally, so he was breaking the law even if studying to be a pilot was legal (when did it become illegal to learn to fly a plane? Maybe "Steve" just wanted to do cropdusting back in his home country. Or is that illegal too now?).
Jim's captivity results directly from the Patriot Act in this case. Years ago, just associating with "Steve" wasn't enough for an outright arrest warrant. Now, in the more-permissive "we gotta get the terrorists at all costs" environment, the attempt of an apparent English major who used to live with a terrorist to "infiltrate" LEA, was enough to obtain a warrant for the library records, and the library records, on top of all of that was sufficient circumstantial evidence for the arrest warrant.
So lets say that the FBI decides to do the token "Constitutional" thing, and gives Jim his trial after all. The FBI agents show up, and after initial arguments, an agent takes the stand and reads his prepared speech: "We have direct evidence which proves that Jim is engaging in terrorist activities." On cross examination, the agent is unable to actually produce any evidence in court due to the "sensitive nature" of the evidence and its "importance to national security". How does Jim defend against this?
As for Gitmo, lets call it a proof of concept. It proved that the American public was willing to allow the governement agents representing them to indefinitely hold and torture (oh wait, im sorry, according to the PR bits released by the government to the news which you so blindly follow, there was no beatings going on. In fact, the two detainees who died, died of "not-tortured" causes.) non-citizens. And now we have a fellow citizen from Intel, who apparently gave money to a fake charity, and is now being detained. Before you say "well, maybe he did more than just being misled by a false charity", ask yourself why the "justice" department hasn't given him the fair and speedy trial he is entitled to as a citizen of the US. Why haven't they proven he was more than a victim of circumstance?
Re:Somebody please explain this to me... (Score:3, Interesting)
His investigation started before I was ever in the military.
year later I was denied a promotion because of it, and found out I had been under investigation and constanly monitored during that whole time.
Now, its the military, so one should expect that type of behaviour. however, when that type of government met
I told you to watch out for those librarians!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I told you to watch out for those librarians!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The Patriot Act doesn't bypass the "probable cause" warrant requir
Re:I told you to watch out for those librarians!!! (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, but the Ninth Amendment [usconstitution.net] explicitly states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Re:I told you to watch out for those librarians!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I told you to watch out for those librarians!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
So, they can enter your home while you are out, search and then notify you up to 30 days later. (reasonable is such an ambiguous word, isn't it?)
Things have changed in America. Where once the Fourth Amendment ("The right of the people to be secure
The courts respond to the "pragmatic realities" of the Drug War by granting police a progressively greater presumption of "compelling need" to violate the terms of the Fourth -- first in a few cases of "fleeing suspects"; then in "random traffic stops"; finally tumbling down the slippery slope so far that today, "It's OK that you killed these innocent homeowners in their beds, as long as it was your anonymous informant who got the address wrong. But you really should pay to fix the door."
The fourth amendment is history. Get over it.
Re:I told you to watch out for those librarians!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
I know I'm not the only one wondering at this turn of events... "Perhaps the Constitution was correct, and the War on Drugs is wrong?"
I remember a quote from somewhere, "If your laws are turning your country into a police state, creating more crim
Buy books with cash (Score:2)
Re:Buy books with cash (Score:2)
Re:Buy books with cash (Score:2)
Re:Buy books with cash (Score:2)
Have you seen the price of books?
More Links! (Score:5, Informative)
Support the Freedom to Read Protection Act [bookweb.org] today!
p.s. on "joining" the fight (Score:5, Informative)
The privacy of user records has been a concern to librarians since the the FBI's Library Awareness Program [greenwood.com] and beyond. And as this this post [berkeley.edu] shows, erasing computer records was thought of by a systems librarian in 2000.
Time to read Libraries Are 31337 [slashdot.org] again....
Re:p.s. on "joining" the fight (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:More Links! (Score:2)
Um, its Sanata Cruz folks... (Score:2)
Winton
Um, it's not just Santa Cruz (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Um, its Sanata Cruz folks... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a no-registration link (Score:2)
I used to be into fireworks and... (Score:5, Interesting)
Then one day I saw the coolest book in the library! It was all about how to make black powder and colored sparks and pipe bombs and it just kept going! I was so excited! Now... I'm afraid to check it out. I start checking out books on explosives and the feds could show up at my door! Am I paranoid? Maybe... but I think things have gone a little too far here. So a kid wants to make a pipe bomb. So what. When my dad was a kid, he'd blow holes in the ground for the fun of it. On his dad's own 100 acre farm. I'm a terrorist! yay!
Re:I used to be into fireworks and... (Score:4, Insightful)
So? You don't have to talk to them. If you choose to talk to them, tell them exactly what you said in your post. You are interested in chemistry and explosives and so was your father. "Since when was will to learn chemistry a cause for federal investigation?"
Don't be confrontational or start spouting shit about your rights and they'll go away.
Personally I'm so sick of the "padded safe world" the soccer moms and their friends want to create at the expense of the freedom to learn. Every time a kid blows himself up with a self-made explosive, you see his parents screaming about how the internet/books/movies made him do it. It's like the stupidity and carelessness on the part of the kid and bad parenting had nothing to do with it. And the society goes along with it. "They are the victims and we can't really put any blame on them then."
Re:I used to be into fireworks and... (Score:5, Insightful)
they can take you and put you into a cell and hold you as a material witness indefinitely without charging you with a crime.
don't think it can't happen because it can, has, and is.
Watch out its the Librarians... (Score:2)
Now I just bet everyone in Washington is just crapping themselves, those Librarians, they've always been the biggest threat to any goverment.
I mean what are they going to do, refuse to lend people books, or start an active "it overdue" campaign against representatives ?
What is needed here is something to galvanise the seperate groups under one banner.
Freedom once again needs a Martin Luther King.
Librarians (Score:5, Insightful)
Librarians are also the ultimate beurocrats. Where I went to college, the library shared some of its physical space with the administration on a supposedly temporary basis. Much later tha administration moved its high-level offices to another building, but wanted to keep its basic functions in the library. The librarians produced a 30+ year old document showing that the administration was supposed to completely move out once X number of square feet became avalible in another building. The administration was forced to give back the space in the library.
Re:Librarians (Score:2)
Hence proving that libraries are the only well-functioning beurocracies.
Stand up and be counted (Score:5, Interesting)
Even a few hours ago I was informed by a telemarketer that the conversation would be recorded for quality assurance puposes, and asking for my consent. I declined and she seemed shocked, as if she had never heard somebody say no to it. She even followed up with "why not?", to which I explained briefly the privacy implications if I had chosen to do so.
She said that she would note that I hadn't consented so the tape wouldn't be listened to. So, of course, the recording was made anyway because that was "standard practice". _______
cheap web site hosting [cheap-web-...ing.com.au] for those on a budget
This could be a VERY good thing (for me) (Score:3, Funny)
I hope they do this at my library... then they won't have a leg to stand on for those 5 books and 2 videos I have had out since August, 2000... since they couldn't tell me what they were, how am I to know whether or not I took them out... This could be the best policy ever!!! Any chance of Blockbuster adopting this policy?
Re:This could be a VERY good thing (for me) (Score:4, Funny)
So a note to terrorists... if your checking out books on making weapons, make sure to return the book. J/K
anonymous borrowing scheme (Score:2, Interesting)
I would do it by using some combination of details about the book, like ISBN, page numbers, etc to create a UID for the book when it is checked out, and then when it is returned perform the same calculation to make sure it is the same book.
The important thing would be to make sure there existed nowhere a database of books and their IDs.
Is this flawed in
What about bookstores? (Score:2, Interesting)
If I search for books about nuclear weapons, nuclear technology and guns, am I going to get flagged for it.
Librarians - keepers of the faith (Score:5, Insightful)
This, however, goes above and beyond simply providing their patrons with knowledge. This is an example of a group of people with a very subtle power using that power to advance the principles of freedom and democracy. By actively protecting the right to privacy of their patrons and seeking to educate them about laws that have a very real and chilling effect on their lives, they truly are making this country greater by the day.
You won't see major media protesting this law; only showing how great it is that our wonderful government is protecting us so that we may feel warm and fuzzy all over. To see a group of people standing up in defense of the rights of citizens at the risk of being denied their own rights is both comforting and encouraging.
If any of you notices a librarian tearing up a checkout card, handing out fliers or putting up posters on this subject, thank them; they deserve that much if not more. They're risking their safety and freedom to try and protect your's.
Re:Librarians - keepers of the faith (Score:3, Informative)
One Al-Jazeera reporter died in a U.S. airstrike on a building housing Arab media.
Of course they won't protest. This could happen to them!!
Re:Librarians - keepers of the faith (Score:3, Interesting)
[tinfoil hat]
For that matter, do we really KNOW that computerized library systems haven't already been compromised by gov't trojans??
[/tinfoil hat]
Re:Librarians - keepers of the faith (Score:4, Interesting)
> you, a democracy only works well when you have an
> educated public.
That explains what Karl Rove (you know, Bush's brain) was thinking when he said [uiuc.edu], "As people do better, they start voting like Republicans--unless they have too much education and vote Democratic."
You can easily steer the country on the road to fascism all the while calling it "democracy," if your citizens don't know any better. Republicans have made no secret of their anti-academic views (e.g. they want to teach Biblical Creation in science class, and the current president probably hasn't even read a book since The The Very Hungry Caterpillar [ariannaonline.com]). Utimately, they want to replace our democracy with a plutocratic theocracy under their brand of Christianity. Sounds a little extreme, right? Well, Bush already believes that he was elected by God [usatoday.com] to lead this country.
Wow, this post is probably one sentence away from violating Godwin's law. I should have read my sig before posting.
Lived through the McCarthy Era? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
"There are people, especially older people who lived through the McCarthy era, who might be intimidated by this," he said.
All I can say is, GOOD! I'm sure many of these same older people (whose sensibilities that some libraries are trying to protect) voted for the president and members of congress we have that gave us this act. All the better if they are made to realize just what they are voting for, and what is being done in the name of "protecting us from terrorsim."
Scare tactics, spreading baseless FUD, and all that aren't good. Stating the facts and allowing people to be informed about what the government is giving itself the right to do, however, is a different matter altogether. Those who lived through the McCarthy era may have the perspective to realize that they should be intimidated by this, while those of us who are younger can shrug off based on the rest of that quote (that the probability that any one person will have their records searched is low, since there are so many people).
-Rob
worth a reread (Score:5, Interesting)
[The United States]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Fear of prosecution for reading is the corollary [reference.com] to abridging the freedom of speech.
In reading the responses of some of the (probably younger) technophiles here at
Last I checked there were about 85,000 full text books on the web for free. That's less than roughly
Five Technically Legal Signs for Your Library (Score:5, Informative)
Check out interesting books (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Check out interesting books - Nooooo... (Score:3, Funny)
Teacher: Did you complete your library research assignments?
Class (in unison): We couldn't - the library was Slashdotted again.decreasing signal-to-noise ratio (Score:3, Interesting)
I was witness to a moment of beauty, which (though slightly OT) demo
NPR Interview (Score:3, Informative)
You can find the real audio stream of his interview at http://www.wamu.org/ram/2003/r2030313.ram
I never appreciated librarians like I should before hearing this interview.
Best quote from the article (Score:4, Insightful)
Good. Those people SHOULD be intimidated, because they've lived through an era where absolute bullshit such as this went unchecked and they saw the results. And I don't CARE if it's unlikely that the public records will be unchecked. It's unlikely that someone will win the $300 million Powerball on Sunday, but that doesn't mean some guy won't be $300 million richer come Monday. It's also unlikely that my local library will run a check to see who's checked out "The Art Of War" and "1984", but that doesn't mean that it won't happen.
It's at times like these that you realize how blind the general public really is.
Result is better privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
I live in Santa Cruz, and I am glad that this controversy has resulted in the libraries destroying old records. I am more concerned about Santa Cruz misusing the old data than about the FBI misusing its subpoenas. The best solution to privacy invading databases is to purge the unnecessary info from the database, and not to rely on controls on who can access the database. If the data is there, then it can be had by low-level workers who can be persuaded, bribed, or coerced.
PATRIOT II is even WORSE (Score:5, Informative)
Allow the Attourney General to:
o deport permanent residents
o revoke citizenship
Allow the government to:
o Create DNA databases
o grant immunity to police and businesses
http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=15541 [alternet.org]
Re:NYT (Score:2)
News from Babylon [newsfrombabylon.com]
theres probably others, I just happen to come across this one yesterday...
Re:NYT (Score:4, Informative)
Simply replace the www with archive. eg:
http://archive.nytimes.com/2003/04/07/national/
Presto! At least until they fix the hole...
And now that you can RTFM, you'll notice that the librarians aren't burning books, they're cleaning out their old paperwork so the gov' can't collect the info under the patriot act.
=Smidge=
Re:NYT (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:NYT (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A better URL (Score:2)
http://archive.nytimes.com/2003/04/07/national/07
Re:That's bad news or is it? (Score:3, Insightful)
furthermore, though you might not have realized it, se7en was a movie. that means it is not real. now, if you could point me to real actual cases of serial killers, rapists, terroists, etc. being caught mainly on the basis of siezed library records, you might have a point.
Re:That's bad news or is it? (Score:2)
But what happens when the feds might have a lead on some guy, and he suddenly vanishes. Little or no clues as to where he went. If they had been able to check his library records, they could have seen he'd checked out a couple books on the Seattle area. However, by the time they figure it out, Seattle is a smoking crater.
It's unlikely, but in any investigation, t
Re:That's bad news or is it? (Score:3, Interesting)
In your example, there is ZERO proof that the guy you refer to would be the one using the card, and frankly I think it would be a much easier thing to do to establish an alibi by using library records than to find a terrorist. What if all the evidence against Timothy McVeigh where highly circumstantial at best, but his library card had been used that very same morning hundreds of miles away?
If you need library records to build a case, then you need to learn how to do legwor
Re:That's bad news or is it? (Score:2, Interesting)
How about Sheila Copps big database o' Stuff which had nothing to do with her branch of Government? It ain't so pretty here either.
From the G-man's website:
The Permanent Resident Card (PR Card) is a new, wallet-sized, plastic card. People who have completed the Canadian immigration process and have obtained permanent resident status, but are not Canadian citizens can apply for the Card. The Card replaces the IMM 1000 as the status document needed by Canadian permanent r
Re:The obsolecense of libraries .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you really need multimillion dollar facilities to house books?
I am the first to agree a book is better than a monitor screen, but it's time to get current and cut government costs. If books in libraries were distributed via network or if the libraries also offered community WiFi, wouldn't that be more useful, less costly?
Yeah, great idea. Lets shut down public libraries and tie them up in technologies that no poor person can possibly afford, because they're too busy spending what little money they have buying food. Then, when they try to educate themselves, they'll be unable to find any information, because it will be all but unavailable to them. Friggin' brilliant.
Why is it that technophiles have such a hard time realizing that there are people who are a) less computer literate than them and/or b) don't have as much money. It's great how people in the cushy middle-class can so easily forget about the massive poverty which exists in their own country. And don't get me started on this Utopian ideal that, somehow, computers are the solution to (and cause of?) all of life's problems.
Re:Aren't public librairies part of The State? (Score:3, Insightful)
> suprised when they pay attention to what you are
> borrowing?
The government isn't like a private or corporation; its powers are clearly defined in our Constitution. Our system of government is based on the idea that the citizens have certain unalienable rights -- you know, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government's powers on the other hand are derived from the consent of the governed -- us. Therefore, one can clearly be "cranky" if the
Re:Aren't public librairies part of The State? (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyhow, governments don't own things in the way that an individual or business owns things. Public libraries belong to us, not to the state or county that created it. We merely entrust their operation to them. It is their responsiblity and duty to operate them in the manner that best suits the citizens that they are sworn to serve.
So, yeah, I get pretty angry when the state wants to violate my 4th Ammendment rights at the local library. That's my library, not theirs, and they don't have the right to search my records without a clear, legal search warrant obtained with probable cause.
Re:Canada the Irrelevant (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe if our kids played better hockey, Canadians would take us more seriously, eh?
On another totally off topic, when you Canadians finally get around to applying for Statehood, please have each Province apply separately. Fifty-one stars on the flag would suck.