Edited by author 03-27-2003 04:49 PM
I knew you'd all jump on the "The government wants to spy on me and my everyday activities!!" plot!

Comparing this to Hoover's sexuality list is funny too.

"I am also sure that the Patriot Act does more harm than good. For over two centuries American law enforcement was able to capture criminals without assuming everyone was guilty until proven innocent. "

For over 2 centuries the enemies conformed to the rules of war. For over 2 centuries we've had only ONE attack on US soil (Dec7 1941) and it was by an organized military, now we've been attacked again, but this time by distributed group with no home country and no army. And YES, for the past 2 centuries we MOST CERTAINLY could detain criminals without filing a single charge. Law enforcement has 72 hours to file charges when they detain you, and they don't have to file charges and can simply let you go after that time.


Do ANY of you realize that YOUR ISP RIGHT NOW tracks who has a lease on which IP address at what time? It's been that way for 10+ years, but somehow you should have a GREATER degree of privacy when using a PUBLICALLY FUNDED computer than you do when using the one in your own home? Get real folks, this isn't "big brother", this is simply applying the same rules of accountability towards the users of public computers that we have today with private ones.


"This is awfully reminiscent of the sort of Soviet propaganda that said "Innocent citizens have nothing to fear!"

Thanks for defending my "freedoms", but quite frankly this is silly. The "Slippery Slope" argument of "WHERE DOES IT ALL END!!!" is played out. This is about logging users on a public computer, while we already do the same on private ones! That's it. It's about knowing who was on a computer at what time, same thing your ISP does today.

Man, I don't know how most of you go on with your daily lives. I mean, if I thought the US government made every decision based on how they can intrude on my life and spy on me, I'd be a paranoid wreck!

I'm in the computer business. I run an E-Commerce development division. I know how ISPs work, how DHCP servers log leases on IPs, etc. I know that RIGHT NOW you are 100X more anonymous when using a computer in a library than you are using your computer at home. What logging users does is NOT an invasion of privacy, I don't see the negative repercussions, and I don't know how this is anyway comparable to the USELESS logs of homosexuals.

As for other aspects of the Patriot act, I'm not commenting on those. What I AM commenting on is that if you want to keep users anonymous at libraries then it WILL be abused. I know I would. So why not put the same level of logging on the library computers as you have right now on your home PC?!? I don't see how logging that "Lovegravy was on PC#13 from 3:00pm - 4:00pm) is such a bad thing.

I guess some of you just like feeling like "Freedom Fighters" and buying into every government conspiracy and wearing "Microsoft Suxors!" t-shirts, but I guess you have that luxury since you aren't tasked with keeping people safe. Instituting the same level of logging on Library PCs as they have on home pc's, and indeed on your work PCs too, isn't some X-files plot.

Anonymous proxies, LoveGravy Baby, Anonymous proxies.

The PATRIOT Act is more than just the logging of net traffic -- your point that you are more anonymous in the library than you are at home is well-taken. 100x more, I'm not sure... However, the USAPA allows law enforcement to monitor keystrokes [your username, your password, your email] on library computers which I have the privacy to resist while at my home using SSH and other encryption techniques. My ISP will only release this information about me with a search warrant *and* they will likely let me know that the information release has happened. Or, they would have, pre-PATRIOT. They probably still would; we have similar, as you say "X-Files" ideas of how the world works. The gag order and the ability to install monitoring software go hand in hand and the logging is most noxious when juxtaposed with the silencing of librarians. Patrons have had anonymous access in many public libraries for years, where's the abuse?

Other provisions of the PATRIOT Act allow agents to learn what books you checked out of the library, bought using credit cards at a bookstore, or in a weird reverse-lookup tactic, which patrons have checked out a particular book. As far as the library goes, these were all privacies afforded by various state laws specifically giving patrons of libraries these rights. These rights have been overruled by the PATRIOT Act for, in my opinion, no compelling law enforcement reason. It's closing the barn door after the horse gets out. Terrorism is terrible, but so is reducing the US to a panopticon.

Actually, jessamyn, it's closing the outhouse door after the horse gets out; that is, it wouldn't have helped in the first place!

Yes, LoveGravy, if you're innocent you have nothing to fear.

Have YOU ever driven over the speed limit? Rolled slowly through that stop sign? Right-clicked on that copyrighted image to save it to your hard-drive?

There are no innocents. And every little bit of datum will soon be available to prove that premise to whoever needs to prove it.

And don't spout that crap about distrubuted groups being a new concept and threat. Ever hear of the Underground Railroad, or the French Resistance? But perhaps you're right. If only we could have stopped them when we had the chance, those uppity french would know their place.

Reading the Patriot Act, it's surprising how large a portion is devoted to the government unchaining itself to scour the financial world, freely tracking funds to "suspected" terrorist groups. But here, in this blog, most of the talk's about the relatively minor, but insidious, snooping librarians. My conclusion: none of us has any fucking money.

Chico...You're right for my case! Let me keep my reading anonymous and you're welcome to know where my money goes :-)

Edited by author 03-27-2003 11:32 PM
I am utterly outraged. How dare someone from the continent of Africa criticize our US policies. Liberians should clean their own house, don't they have a few human rights issues of their own?

Oh, libRARians....

Never mind.

[caveat: I am a tree hugging liberal. With a beard.]

Hey, let them have the library data, I'm sure that they'll behave responsibly with it. It's not like the government has set a precedence for taking laws and using them to nail people thay want for completely different reasons. Except for Nixon and marijuana laws. Oh, and Ruby Ridge and Randy Weaver. And Waco. Frightening how easy it is to get labeled a druggy, gun smuggler, or pervert, and then the doors get kicked in.

I am starting to sound like my libertarian brother, so I'll stop now. He lives downwind of the nerve gas destruction center in Tooele. That scares me more than Iraq ever will.

I tend to agree that Patriot Act 2.0 is pretty bad, but to play devil's advocate, has anyone read David Brin's "The Transparent Society?" His argument is that as various types of surveillance and information gathering-technologies get cheaper and more common, wanting some kind of absolute "right to privacy" will tend to become more and more unrealistic--the real choice we face is between top-down surveillance by the few in power, or bottom-up "information wants to be free"-type surveillance where everyone can easily access all kinds of information about everyone else. If Brin is right, we shouldn't be objecting to things like the Patriot Act on the basis that there is something fundamentally good or important about "privacy" (I certainly don't think it's as important as, say, free speech, and the constitution does not appear to protect it in the same way), but more on the basis that it's so top-heavy and that there are not enough checks and balances to prevent the government from abusing this information. I'm not sure what the solution would be--make the database publicly accessible? Have something like a "freedom of information act" to make sure that any investigations using the database will eventually be subject to public scrutiny? I don't know, in the absence of any good alternatives even those who agree with Brin's argument are probably better off just opposing things like the Patriot Act for now, but these kinds of issues are going to keep coming back and so I think his thesis is worth thinking about.

Some excerpts from "The Transparent Society" can be found here:

http://www.davidbrin.com/tschp1.html

Rich Gibson, absolutely. Plus I could find and exploit any of 10000+ servers that aren't patched that I could break into and run an unlogged proxy to re-transmit my IP traffic. There ARE options to remain anonymous, but why make it as easy as walking into a library?

Craniac:

"Hey, let them have the library data, I'm sure that they'll behave responsibly with it. "

Ok, they know LoveGravy was on computer #12 for 2 hours today between 3:00pm and 5:00pm. Please tell me how this info will be abused? I'm dying to hear your conspiracy theories about how they can beam thoughts into my head once they have that info.

Comparing terrorists using computers to the French Resistance or the Underground Railroad is a FANTASTIC clue to your position. Apparently you feel the terrorists are the ones that are right and the US Government is the bad guy. These poor, oppressed terrorists are being persecuted based on nothing more than the fact that they kill innocent people (which is no different than the black people in the Underground Railroad), and the US Government is an occupying force here in North America... Rrrright... It's statements like yours that TRULY harm your cause. If you want people to question the government, the best way to do that is NOT by appearing as an extremist nutcase.

You all are big on the "slippery slope" argument, but it is fruitless. Logging who uses what computer when is NOT the first step to mind control. I could apply your logic to any of a billion liberal causes and get the same results:

"Legalizing marijuana is the first step to making hard drugs legal in the US. It starts with pot, then before long we'll have gradeshoolers shooting heroin in the school bathrooms."

"Enforcing anonymity will eventually lead to allowing terrorists to freely enter and leave our country, wreaking mass havoc without a paper trail."

Your argument of it being a "Slippery Slope" is hyperbole. Taking something as mundane as recording who is using a public computer and somehow saying it will lead to the oppression of all personal freedoms and privacy is a HUGE leap. I'm not discussing the merits of the Patriot Act as a whole, I'm only referring to this one small piece of it. It's not an "all or none" situation, there are parts of it I agree with and others I don't, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We are at war (agree with it or not). We had a major terrorist strike 2 years ago, the second act of international terrorism (not conducted by a state) on US soil. We are uncovering more and more plots every week. Ever since the first bombing of the WTC we should have been paying more attention, and it took the towers finally falling before we started to. The price of freedom is eternal vigilence, and for us to have NO reaction to the change in climate is almost as bad as an overreaction (which, I agree, is the worst case). The topic being discussed is NOT an overreaction. Claiming it's the first step in a slipperly slope is paranoia, and I strongly feel that it is NOT the librarians place to decide what laws to abide by. If they disagree with the laws then they should GET OFF THEIR LAZY BUTTS AND DO SOMETHING REAL.

I think that's what makes me the most angry about these movements: Their laziness. Instead of working to FIX what they think is broken, they simply do the lazy thing and ignore the law. If I think speed limits should be increased, I could simply drive faster, or I could gain popular support and lobby my government to affect REAL change. Oh, but the second option is too hard, I'll take the first option that has no real impact but I'll call it a "political statement" to lend some credibility to my lawbreaking....

(I don't know why I bother, but)... Great! let's make is so only those who want to (illegally) break into servers to set up an unlogged proxy have any hope of true anonymity. Only criminals should have that right. The fact is that the terrorists will always have a way to subvert things like the Patriot Act - it's only the average citizen that has anything to fear.

Edited by author 03-28-2003 09:28 AM
Ah, now I see the light of my ways: I'm a lazy terrorist sympathizer. Whew! Now I know what to do: go to the library and try to hack the al Jazeera website....

Get a clue, LoveGravy, and read what is written. I never said the terrorists were the ones who were right--I said autonomous cells were not a new thing--like the UR or the FR. Which is not a value judgement.

But your reaction is a FANTASTIC clue to your position.

It's statements like yours that TRULY harm your cause. If you want people to question their attitudes, the best way to do that is NOT by appearing as an extremist nutcase, and actually reading and responding (as opposed to knee-jerk reacting) to their posts.

Edited by author 03-28-2003 09:37 AM
Alison, so what's your position on Gun Control?

So if a criminal can do it illegally, we should make it legal so everyone can do it? Odd.

And xradio, you are still drawing a comparison between 2 factions used to LIBERATE a group from oppression to the Terrorists. If your point is that the technology that is used to keep terrorists out can also be used to oppress revolutionary "freedom fighters" then that's fine. We have a mechinism in place to change government policy, but if you feel that sabotage and civil disobediance are the ONLY ways to effect government change, then I'm sorry but I completely disagree. Sure, putting together a PAC and fighting for a cause in court isn't as exciting is blowing up an ROTC barracks or blocking rush hour traffic in San Francisco, but it's certainly more effective. Being a vocal MINORITY is tough, but unfortunatly in a Republic the majority still rules.

LoveGravy: "Ok, they know LoveGravy was on computer #12 for 2 hours today between 3:00pm and 5:00pm. Please tell me how this info will be abused?"

Oh, that's not abused. Not that at all. But combined with the keystroke capture and image redirect I now know your email address and password. I also know an organization you to which you belong. I also know a very bad man is a member of that organization. And since you belong to that organization you can't be trusted any longer.

And since I can't trust you I must suspect all the groups to which you belong. After all, any of them could be terrorist cells. Just because you pretend to be a right-wing America lover doesn't mean you aren't secretly meeting with the terrorists.

And since I have your email and password I can easily set up your terrorist friends by emailing them under your name. If they don't turn you in then I know they're terrorists!

Now I have a list...right here in my hands...of 30 members of the Free Public Library who are known terrorist sympathizers!

LoveGravy: you trust me don't you? I have the information. I'm a member of law enforcement. I must be right. Didn't Romper Room teach you "always trust the police?" After all, information has never been abused by men in positions of power.

Lovegravy wrote:

> Get real folks, this isn't "big brother", this is simply
> applying the same rules of accountability towards the
> users of public computers that we have today with
> private ones.

To get information from my ISP about what I've been doing, the police would need a warrant to get it, and the ISP could tell me that they were served with one.

To get information from a public library, they could just show up, and the library would be *forbidden* to tell me that it happened.

Those do not seem like the same rules to me.