Re: "Terror Reading"
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 12:03:00PM -0700, Meyer Wolfsheim wrote: > On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Anonymous wrote: > > > >Some librarians are probably now thinking they have a patriotic duty to > > >see what people are reading and to report any "suspicious" behavior. First of all, the entire library community is outraged at being put in this position, and, in fact, the American Library Assoc. is suing Asskruft and the fedzis over it. Secondly, I personally know a great many librarians, holding an MLIS myself and having worked in several libraries, and all the librarians I know are very pissed about this and have no interest in cooperating if at all possible. > > >Part of the intent of the Patriot Act and the Library Awareness Program > > >was to bamboozle the nation's librarians into acting as the kind of > > >"ward watchers" that were once so common in the Soviet Union (the > > >babushkas who sat on each floor of apartment buildings and filed > > >reports on the comings and goings of their flock). > > > > The purpose of this is purely a show and indoctrination. > > > > 1. No self-respecting terrorist would go to a fucking library to do > > terror reading (maybe there is something positive here - I think that > > we should get protected by pigs from extremely dumb terorists.) > > The risk is not one "terrorists" have to fear. The biggest problem with > the librarian narc program is the same as most of these anti-terrorism > measures: completely innocent people are harassed, arrested, or placed > under suspicion. > So far I only know of one instance of the pigs coming to a library and demanding info on a patron. And it wasn't the fedzis, it was the local pigs and they weren't after a terrorist, they were after some poor souls library records because they suspected him of something to do with drugs. And I'll bet you that the vast majority of pig demands on libraries are in the same vein. This one was on the web: "The Virginia Public Library received a request for patron records from the Deputy Sheriff. The staff member informed the officer he would need to talk to the Director. Director Nancy Maxwell stated that she would check with the city attorney. When he could not be located in time, she contacted ALS and was advised to give them the information requested since it was accompanied by a court order." http://www.arrowhead.lib.mn.us/compass/minutes/august02.html > You won't catch a terrorist learning to be evil at a library, but you > might wrongfully snare an innocent citizen who happens to have an interest > in "bad" books. > > How long until this program is extended to include anyone checking out any > book that some part of the US law enforcement body deems bad? If you read > Pikhal, do you end up on a watch list? Yup. That's their main interest. Fuck terrorists -- the pigs are only interested if there is something to steal at the bust, like drugs or money, or there might be property to grab. Just try and get them to do anything about regular crime like enforcing disturbing the peace or drunk and disorderly. So, of course, that's what they are using the unpatriot act for. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: "Terror Reading"
On Monday, September 1, 2003, at 12:03 PM, Meyer Wolfsheim wrote: The risk is not one "terrorists" have to fear. The biggest problem with the librarian narc program is the same as most of these anti-terrorism measures: completely innocent people are harassed, arrested, or placed under suspicion. You won't catch a terrorist learning to be evil at a library, but you might wrongfully snare an innocent citizen who happens to have an interest in "bad" books. How long until this program is extended to include anyone checking out any book that some part of the US law enforcement body deems bad? If you read Pikhal, do you end up on a watch list? The chilling effect is that libraries will get the message and remove "seditious" and "questionable" books. I'm not spending much time in public libraries, favoring the UCSC Science Library, but I'll bet that after 9/11 a lot of the old stand-by books on rocketry, explosives, hydroponic gardening, etc. were removed by helpful librarians. (A "lot" meaning at least 5% of the libraries doing at least some removal of books. In some states, if not in large cities.) Librarians are our first defense against terrorism! Ignorance is strength. --Thought Criminal "We are at war with Oceania. We have always been at war with Oceania." "We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia." "We are at war with Iraq. We have always been at war with Iraq. "We are at war with France. We have always been at war with France."
Re: "Terror Reading"
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Anonymous wrote: > >Some librarians are probably now thinking they have a patriotic duty to > >see what people are reading and to report any "suspicious" behavior. > >Part of the intent of the Patriot Act and the Library Awareness Program > >was to bamboozle the nation's librarians into acting as the kind of > >"ward watchers" that were once so common in the Soviet Union (the > >babushkas who sat on each floor of apartment buildings and filed > >reports on the comings and goings of their flock). > > The purpose of this is purely a show and indoctrination. > > 1. No self-respecting terrorist would go to a fucking library to do > terror reading (maybe there is something positive here - I think that > we should get protected by pigs from extremely dumb terorists.) The risk is not one "terrorists" have to fear. The biggest problem with the librarian narc program is the same as most of these anti-terrorism measures: completely innocent people are harassed, arrested, or placed under suspicion. You won't catch a terrorist learning to be evil at a library, but you might wrongfully snare an innocent citizen who happens to have an interest in "bad" books. How long until this program is extended to include anyone checking out any book that some part of the US law enforcement body deems bad? If you read Pikhal, do you end up on a watch list? -MW-
Re: "Terror Reading"
Tim wrote: > Even the owner of my ISP is narcing me out. > Read what he wrote recently to a Net.Nazi who wanted my speech limited: > "I'm sorry that Tim is being a bother again. He has a long history of > being obnoxious and threatening. So far, he has not broken any laws. We > have talked to the authorities about him on numerous occasions. They > have chosen to watch but not act. Please feel free to notify me if he > does anything that is beyond rude and actually violates any laws and I > will immediately inform the authorities." > Thank You > Don Frederickson (co-owner and CEO of got.net, Santa Cruz) Every police state is enabled by the actions of thousands of little peons (like Don Frederickson here), who insert themselves into things that are none of their business, in order that they may feel that they are important in the new scheme of things. Indeed, baggage screeners, librarians, and operators of small mom and pop ISPs do more damage to individual freedom than the uniformed jackboots do. I am reminded of that scene in Roman Polanski's movie in which the hero staggers out of the apartment where he has been hiding, and is pursued out the building by a middle-aged woman screaming - "Stop him, He's a Jew!" Replace suspected Jew by Terrorist, Child Molester, Drug Dealer, or Money Launderer, and you basically have the current climate for neighbor on neighbor snooping here in AmeriKKKa. Indeed, the hallmark of the Neocon climate of fear we current live under is the successful exportation of the technology of critic silencing formerly found only in areas such as Holocaust Promotion or the Sex Abuse Agenda to every facet of our everyday lives. The new rule for personal political speech seems to be - "Don't tip your hand until you have the firepower to defend yourself." -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
Re: "Terror Reading"
On Saturday 30 August 2003 14:46, Tim May wrote: > > Even the owner of my ISP is narcing me out. > > Read what he wrote recently to a Net.Nazi who wanted my speech > limited: (snip) Huh. Did the ISP cc you on that, or did the would-be censor forward it to you as a warning that he held your access in his hands? -- Steve FurlongComputer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel "If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!" -- Rep. Henry Waxman
Re: "Terror Reading"
On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 08:56 PM, Steve Furlong wrote: On Friday 29 August 2003 13:22, Tim May wrote: I am giving thought to visiting one of my local libraries and sauntering up the checkout desk and casually saying "So, what about this Patriot Act and librarians narcing us out to Big Brother?" Then, after hearing her explanation, just as casually saying "Well, I hope it never happens. Because if I ever learn that you have narced me out, I would of course have to lie in wait until you leave the library and then do what needs to be done." Yah, good thinking. Push the local librarian from siding with the patrons against intrusive and unwarranted snooping, to thinking that Asscruft may actually have a point if there are all these dangerous wackos running around. Even the owner of my ISP is narcing me out. Read what he wrote recently to a Net.Nazi who wanted my speech limited: "I'm sorry that Tim is being a bother again. He has a long history of being obnoxious and threatening. So far, he has not broken any laws. We have talked to the authorities about him on numerous occasions. They have chosen to watch but not act. Please feel free to notify me if he does anything that is beyond rude and actually violates any laws and I will immediately inform the authorities." Thank You Don Frederickson (co-owner and CEO of got.net, Santa Cruz)
Re: "Terror Reading"
>Some librarians are probably now thinking they have a patriotic duty to >see what people are reading and to report any "suspicious" behavior. >Part of the intent of the Patriot Act and the Library Awareness Program >was to bamboozle the nation's librarians into acting as the kind of >"ward watchers" that were once so common in the Soviet Union (the >babushkas who sat on each floor of apartment buildings and filed >reports on the comings and goings of their flock). The purpose of this is purely a show and indoctrination. 1. No self-respecting terrorist would go to a fucking library to do terror reading (maybe there is something positive here - I think that we should get protected by pigs from extremely dumb terorists.) 2. No library that I am aware of requires ID to do on-site anything. The same goes for internet cafes and open wireless access points. 3. Buying books for cash is anonymous as it gets - it's unlikely that a library will have something that university bookstore or Internet doesn't have. Again, poor terorists should be caught. I want to be terorized by professionals.
Re: "Terror Reading"
On Saturday, August 30, 2003, at 03:44 PM, Steve Furlong wrote: On Saturday 30 August 2003 14:46, Tim May wrote: Even the owner of my ISP is narcing me out. Read what he wrote recently to a Net.Nazi who wanted my speech limited: (snip) Huh. Did the ISP cc you on that, or did the would-be censor forward it to you as a warning that he held your access in his hands? The would-be censor forwarded it to me as a warning, that he was "in synch" with my own ISP and that I would likely soon be either losing my account or getting a visit from the cops (he claimed to have forwarded several of my posts to "law enforcement"). My larger point in this discussion here is the issue of what William Burroughs called "the policeman inside." Some librarians are probably now thinking they have a patriotic duty to see what people are reading and to report any "suspicious" behavior. Part of the intent of the Patriot Act and the Library Awareness Program was to bamboozle the nation's librarians into acting as the kind of "ward watchers" that were once so common in the Soviet Union (the babushkas who sat on each floor of apartment buildings and filed reports on the comings and goings of their flock). Just as some ISP owners seem to think it their duty to "talk to the police" about customers whom the DA has not charged with any crime but whom the "policeman inside" thinks may be committing thoughtcrime. I'm not hopeful that the evils of this "policeman inside" mentality can be demonstrated by mere, calm discussion. Reminding librarians that narcing out customers for reading magazines or books may result in violence against them may be useful. It may be that killing just a couple will make the point. Perhaps a small price to pay. --Tim May "Ben Franklin warned us that those who would trade liberty for a little bit of temporary security deserve neither. This is the path we are now racing down, with American flags fluttering."-- Tim May, on events following 9/11/2001
Re: "Terror Reading"
On Friday 29 August 2003 13:22, Tim May wrote: > I am giving thought to visiting one of my local libraries and > sauntering up the checkout desk and casually saying "So, what about > this Patriot Act and librarians narcing us out to Big Brother?" > > Then, after hearing her explanation, just as casually saying "Well, I > hope it never happens. Because if I ever learn that you have narced > me out, I would of course have to lie in wait until you leave the > library and then do what needs to be done." Yah, good thinking. Push the local librarian from siding with the patrons against intrusive and unwarranted snooping, to thinking that Asscruft may actually have a point if there are all these dangerous wackos running around. -- Steve FurlongComputer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel "If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all!" -- Rep. Henry Waxman
Re: "Terror Reading"
At 10:48 AM 6/26/2002 -0400, Kathleen Dolan wrote: In many states, it is illegal to store records showing who borrowed a book from a public library. Maryland, for example, requires destruction of the record after a point and even backups cannot be accessed without a court order. KAD Say a public library implements a policy of replying positively to all such inquiries, that is, if asked by a patron the db admin will tell them when their account is free of such inquiries. If a request does come in then the db admin can either: fail to respond (monitoring implied), tell them they are being monitored (violating the law) or lie and say they are not even if they are. So, can the Feds require a librarian to lie to a customer who inquires whether their library usage is being monitored? Looks like at least one library is trying a variation the method I suggested... "The Patriot Act also prohibits libraries and others from notifying patrons and others that an investigation is ongoing. At least one library has tried a solution to "beat the system" by regularly informing the board of directors that there are no investigations. If the director does not notify the Board that there are no investigations, it can serve as a clue that something may be happening. " http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/1706/1/41 steve A foolish Constitutional inconsistency is the hobgoblin of freedom, adored by judges and demagogue statesmen. - Steve Schear
Re: "Terror Reading"
Steve Schear wrote: Looks like at least one library is trying a variation the method I suggested... "The Patriot Act also prohibits libraries and others from notifying patrons and others that an investigation is ongoing. At least one library has tried a solution to "beat the system" by regularly informing the board of directors that there are no investigations. If the director does not notify the Board that there are no investigations, it can serve as a clue that something may be happening. " http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/1706/1/41 http://librarian.net/technicality.html is another example if such tactics. --B
Re: "Terror Reading"
On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 09:46 AM, Steve Schear wrote: At 10:48 AM 6/26/2002 -0400, Kathleen Dolan wrote: In many states, it is illegal to store records showing who borrowed a book from a public library. Maryland, for example, requires destruction of the record after a point and even backups cannot be accessed without a court order. KAD Say a public library implements a policy of replying positively to all such inquiries, that is, if asked by a patron the db admin will tell them when their account is free of such inquiries. If a request does come in then the db admin can either: fail to respond (monitoring implied), tell them they are being monitored (violating the law) or lie and say they are not even if they are. So, can the Feds require a librarian to lie to a customer who inquires whether their library usage is being monitored? Looks like at least one library is trying a variation the method I suggested... "The Patriot Act also prohibits libraries and others from notifying patrons and others that an investigation is ongoing. At least one library has tried a solution to "beat the system" by regularly informing the board of directors that there are no investigations. If the director does not notify the Board that there are no investigations, it can serve as a clue that something may be happening. " http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/1706/1/41 This is the "dead librarian switch." And in these times when the Constitution has been shredded, when dissidents are being sent to concentration camps in Cuba, when thought criminals who post links to explosives knowledge are in prison, perhaps "dead librarian switch" has literal meaning. I am giving thought to visiting one of my local libraries and sauntering up the checkout desk and casually saying "So, what about this Patriot Act and librarians narcing us out to Big Brother?" Then, after hearing her explanation, just as casually saying "Well, I hope it never happens. Because if I ever learn that you have narced me out, I would of course have to lie in wait until you leave the library and then do what needs to be done." Seriously, maybe librarians need to realize at a gut level that if they act as stool pigeons, as narcs, then some of them may pay the same price that rats in general sometimes pay. --Tim May "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." -- Nietzsche
Re: "Terror Reading"
Ah yes, you're absolutely correct. Larger libraries, especially university libraries, have been online forever. I was thinking of the smaller public libraries, most of which have been getting computerized more recently. On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 01:57:38PM +0100, Ken Brown wrote: > Harmon Seaver wrote: > > > And the computer revolution has been > > going on in libraries for a decade now > > ? 3 decades more like. I'm pretty sure that the first computerisation of > lendings was brought into the library in my home town (Brighton in > England) about the time I stopped working there part time, when I was in > the 6th form (top 2 years of what Americans would call High School). I'd > have left in time to revise for exams before going to University. So it > would have been early 1975. The University library was all computerised > while I was there. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: "Terror Reading"
Harmon Seaver wrote: > And the computer revolution has been > going on in libraries for a decade now ? 3 decades more like. I'm pretty sure that the first computerisation of lendings was brought into the library in my home town (Brighton in England) about the time I stopped working there part time, when I was in the 6th form (top 2 years of what Americans would call High School). I'd have left in time to revise for exams before going to University. So it would have been early 1975. The University library was all computerised while I was there.
Re: "Terror Reading"
At 10:48 AM 6/26/2002 -0400, Kathleen Dolan wrote: >In many states, it is illegal to store records showing who borrowed a >book from a public library. Maryland, for example, requires destruction of >the record after a point and even backups cannot be accessed without a >court order. > >KAD Say a public library implements a policy of replying positively to all such inquiries, that is, if asked by a patron the db admin will tell them when their account is free of such inquiries. If a request does come in then the db admin can either: fail to respond (monitoring implied), tell them they are being monitored (violating the law) or lie and say they are not even if they are. So, can the Feds require a librarian to lie to a customer who inquires whether their library usage is being monitored? steve
Re: "Terror Reading"
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 09:30:47AM -0600, Michael Motyka wrote: > OK, so all that is needed is a collateral-based anonymous library card. > Required collateral could be based on the difficulty of replacement. > Priceless relics could require identity as collateral. Potboilers, > market price + shipping and handling. > Actually, I think it's a non-issue. Why would someone planning a bombing, let's say, check out a book from the library on explosives, when he could just read/copy it right there, totally anonymously. Of course, in the past when the fedzis wanted access to patron's records, it was more on the level of thought crime -- were they reading commie lit. Is that what they're after now -- whose reading Islamic texts? Put them on the list to be tortured. Also I just realized that if they allowed the fedzis access to the staff side of the database, so they could read the victim's records, they would then also have the ability to manufacture evidence, check out books in that person's name. > Worse than searching library records, of course, is the tracking of > internet reading habits. Exactly. And most ISPs don't have the moral backbone that librarians do, they all roll over without a wimper. I think the fedzis would have to be seriously stupid in the first place to even attempt to get libraries to spy on patrons -- there's far too many old '60s radicals in libraries who would love the opportunity to shout it from the rooftops, make a real cause out of it. It's totally absurd for the fedzis to think that they can tell anyone not to talk about it anyway -- there's no possibility that could pass constitutional muster. Are they going to start arresting citizens as "material witnesses" because they refuse to cooperate? That would go over real well. Maybe we should hope they do, all the better to get protestors out in the streets. It's pretty clear the courts are starting to really frown on the current fedzi power grab, as is congress. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: "Terror Reading"
Eric Cordian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > > It was my understanding that libraries destroy records of patrons' > activity as soon as the books are returned. Nonetheless, this is an > interesting Federal fishing expedition, with warrants issued by secret > courts, and criminal penalties for librarians who talk too much. > > >http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-attacks-libraries0625jun24.story > > -- > Eric Michael Cordian 0+ > OK, so all that is needed is a collateral-based anonymous library card. Required collateral could be based on the difficulty of replacement. Priceless relics could require identity as collateral. Potboilers, market price + shipping and handling. Worse than searching library records, of course, is the tracking of internet reading habits. Mike
Re: "Terror Reading"
At 02:23 PM 06/25/2002 -0700, Joseph Ashwood wrote: >I can tell you that at least in some areas that is simply not the case. I >have personal experience with the San Jose City library and know this for a >fact to be incorrect. They store information since the last upgrade of the >central database, currently the better part of a decade, but coming up on a >cycle point. Although it is very difficult to get the information, and large >portions of even that have been lost through various issues. It's been almost ten years since I was in the Keyport NJ library, but I'd be surprised if they've computerized their recordkeeping. If you wanted to see who'd checked out a given book that was on the shelf, you'd look at the card in the back and see the library card numbers of the people who'd checked it out, and they might have had dates as well. To find which 3 or 4 digit number corresponded to which person, it'd depend on whether they took their library card home with them the last time they'd returned books or left it at the library (mine might still be there?), and if they currently had books out, it was definitely at the library. If they took the card home, they had privacy, though the librarian often did know her regular customers by sight. They might have computer records for books they got on interlibrary loan, but that'd be about it - no sense in spending money on computerizing when old-fashioned card catalogs worked well enough for the speed at which they acquired books. On the other hand, any place that does computerize finds it almost as easy to keep records permanently as not, and it's certainly easier to centralize records and make them searchable.
Re: "Terror Reading"
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 01:09:53AM -0700, Bill Stewart wrote: > It's been almost ten years since I was in the Keyport NJ library, > but I'd be surprised if they've computerized their recordkeeping. > If you wanted to see who'd checked out a given book > that was on the shelf, you'd look at the card in the back and > see the library card numbers of the people who'd checked it out, > and they might have had dates as well. To find which 3 or 4 digit number > corresponded to which person, it'd depend on whether they took their > library card home with them the last time they'd returned books > or left it at the library (mine might still be there?), > and if they currently had books out, it was definitely at the library. > If they took the card home, they had privacy, though the librarian > often did know her regular customers by sight. > They might have computer records for books they got on interlibrary loan, > but that'd be about it - no sense in spending money on computerizing > when old-fashioned card catalogs worked well enough for the speed at > which they acquired books. You'd probably be surprised then, because I'd bet it has been computerized. In WI and MN at least, even the tiniest libraries are on line. It came about because of laws mandating that all public libraries belong to a library consortium, and the consortiums run the centralized databases. If they don't join the consortium, they can't get state funding, and since most libraries are strapped for cash, they join. And the computer revolution has been going on in libraries for a decade now -- I can recall libraries where the staff was terrified of computers, but most of those people either got on board or retired. I'm sure there are non-computerized libraries in backwards states like AL or MS, where they don't even fund the public schools, let alone libraries, but NJ? Hardly. > > On the other hand, any place that does computerize finds it almost as easy > to keep records permanently as not, and it's certainly easier to centralize > records and make them searchable. It's a matter of policy not to keep records, that, and the fact that library software comes with that turned off by default. In some cases I think it would take custom programming to turn it on. And in most cases, since most systems librarians are not really computer gurus and rely heavily on outside consultants, they would have to call the software manufacturer or an outside consultant to help them figure out how to turn on the retention of patron records after the books is checked back in. And then explain to them *why* they would want to do such a nasty thing. And, as I said, there would be immediate outrage on the part of the other librarians with much shouting and wailing and demands for explanations, and demands that it be turned off. I think most people don't realize what strong civil libertarians most librarians are -- and how much privacy and freedom of speech is stressed in library administration and library schools. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
"Terror Reading"
It was my understanding that libraries destroy records of patrons' activity as soon as the books are returned. Nonetheless, this is an interesting Federal fishing expedition, with warrants issued by secret courts, and criminal penalties for librarians who talk too much. http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-attacks-libraries0625jun24.story - By CHRISTOPHER NEWTON Associated Press Writer June 25, 2002, 1:40 AM EDT WASHINGTON -- Across the nation, FBI investigators are quietly visiting libraries and checking the reading records of people they suspect of being in league with terrorists, library officials say. The FBI effort, authorized by the anti-terrorism law enacted after the Sept. 11 attacks, is the first broad government check of library records since the 1970s, when prosecutors reined in the practice for fear of abuses. A Justice Department official in the civil rights division and FBI officials declined to comment Monday, except to note that such searches are now legal under the Patriot Act that President Bush signed last October. Libraries across the nation were reluctant to discuss their dealings with the FBI. The same law that makes the searches legal also makes it a criminal offense for librarians to reveal the details or extent of the contact. ... -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
