FBI and your public library's PC

[Theophylact]

Think that what you do on your public library's computer is free from the FBI's prying eyes? Think again. Unlike the www.whitehouse.net spoof, this one's for real. It's all in the USA PATRIOT Act.

And here's the American Library Association's discussion of the consequences of the Act for librarians and library users.

[Epidemic]

So I am to understand that the sky is falling because the FBI has to get a court order to discuss the reading habbits of a suspected terrorist.

This means if you have a suspected terrorist and he goes to the library to buy the "Terrorist cookbook" or how to sneak into government agencies. This is somehow a big risk to me.

The key is the who they use this infromation to build a case against.

I am sorry I think that the risk of being blown up has proven to be very real in the USA in the past 1 year plus.

We want safety but are not willing to compromise at all. The huge difference between now and in the time of the framers is that the nuclear and biotech ages are here. We have airplanes which can demolish 3000 lives.

We can not profile nor take someones political views into account when trying to assertain a risk factor. Some one comes with a vague threat about a possible attack using airplains and the FBI and CIA are incompetent. Now the FBI an CIA try to find out more information and it is 1984.

What would you do with in the current legal system to track down such a plot before it's execution? Or should we wait for the execution of a plan to disperse collera into the water or the detonation of a home made bomb in an office park?

I really want to know what you would say if they got some vague tip about someone's possible ties to a terrorist organization and were not able to compile a case within existing laws?

Would it be OOPs.

Or that is the price of freedom.

People who hate this stuff are perfectly willing to take away my right to keep and bear arms which is of far less threat than a terrorist with a bio weapon.

Rant off.

[M_Six]

No one would argue that handcuffing the FBI in its investigation of a suspected terrorist is a good thing. However, I think what Theophylact is getting at is that this represents a very dangerous erosion of your right to privacy. Traditionally, library records are considered confidential. As a matter of fact, many new automated library management systems do not even keep track of which books patrons read. Once a book is returned, the record of a given patron having checked it out is erased from the database. However, many public libraries still use systems which do keep track. The fear here is a return to the days of McCarthyism, when you were judged by who you hung out with and what you read, watched, and wrote.

The FBI has not shown in the past that it respects a person's right to privacy. J. Edgar Hoover's shananigans with Martin Luther King is an example.

This is a classic example of the Freedom/Security/Order pie. There's only three pieces, and everytime one gets bigger, the other two get smaller. Too much Freedom=not enough Security=not much Order. Too much Security=not much Freedom=dissatisfied people=not much Order. The key is to find a satisfactory balance. Those responsible for Security would love the see their piece of the pie take up half, but that means an overly controlling government and many unhappy folks which leads to protests and so on.

Quote:

People who hate this stuff are perfectly willing to take away my right to keep and bear arms which is of far less threat than a terrorist with a bio weapon.

Have to disagree there. The chance of you getting shot at any given place in the US is still much greater than the chance of you becoming a victim of bioterrorism. Or any terrorism for that matter. When that changes and you stand a greater chance of dying from a terrorist act than dying from a gunshot wound, we'll be in very deep do-do indeed.

[Epidemic]

It is not a matter of if there will be another attack by terrorists. We are still way to free a society to prevent it.

We have open borders to our north and south which allow approximately 3,000,000 flow in from the mexican border and millions in through our border to the north. Even borders we control are not any prize either. We have 250 haitians put across the atlantic into the US and no one stops them.

That asside we have a "dis-enfranchised" black muslim population of which many of them are converts from prison. Not to say that Black muslims are more prone to violence but black muslim prison converts are probably a greater risk as they have hit the bottom and have been punished by america. Above and beyond that we have millions of imigrants which hail from the middle east most of whom are fine citizens yet many speak extremely ill of the USA. We are a timebomb waiting to go off.

I figure that we will see the next big terrorist hit with in the next 8 months and it could include thousands.

You think the risk of guns is greater than terrorists. 10 years of gun violence will pale by comparison to small pox in only a few short months. A nuke transported to the USA and placed In NYC could take out millions and completely destroy the economy...

I do not know about you but I think we are in big do-do. The one day death toll from terrorism in 2001 was 3000 approximately 5 days of such carnage would equal all gun deaths. 50 days of such violence would equal the entire annual death toll for any reason.

[M_Six]

Much of what you say is true, Epidemic. But if you follow your line of thinking to its logical conclusion, we have no choice but to become a martial law state. No personal freedom of any kind, armed patrols on the borders with orders to shoot to kill, the FBI and any other gov't agency prying into everything you do, and religious persecution at every turn.

There are risks involved with freedom. Right now those risks are substantial. But personally I'll accept the risks and be very opposed to any attempt to erode my rights as a citizen. The alternative, living in a locked-down society, is way too depressing.

[Epidemic]

I am not calling for martial law. I am saying that a court ordered search is just prudent when dealing with suspected terrorists.

I like the Idea of armed border. That infringes on no ones rights. It would be simply prudent. It would also reduce the number of potential points of entry from like a zillion to 50 or 60. People would not attempt the crossing if they knew they would die trying it illegally.

I say that we put up two fences approximately 400 yards apart. With proximity mines and sensors all about that way guarding would not be as big an issue. The buzzards will lead you to the bodies.

There are simple prudent steps that should be used until the crisis is over. The freedom at all costs attitude may kill millions including your unvaccinated kids.

Our borders should be secure as possible and right now they are swiss cheese. With a incompetent INS department and as new evidence shows our coast guard is incompetent as well with this haitian thing as well.

Remember a little boy named malvo who came here from jamaica and shot up dozens of people.

Ahhhhh phooey.

[M_Six]

Quote:

I like the Idea of armed border. That infringes on no ones rights.

Tell that to some former East Berliners.

The trouble with an armed border as you describe is that it can just as easily be used to keep people in. There's a theory that if you put a frog in a frying pan full of water and slowly raise the heat, the frog will sit there contentedly until he boils to death. He never realizes the danger until it's too late.

Who would you have patrol your armed border to insure the proximity mines didn't end up in some terrorist's cache of arms? The same "incompetent INS" you speak of?

[Love2Learn]

just for clarity Six the frog theory is not a theory ive tested it over time sooo many times it has become a law heheee

-L2L

[Epidemic]

M_Six,

Big difference between the berlin wall and protected border.

Lets compare the main point of the two armed borders.

Berlin wall - Primary function Keep Berliners in against their will.

The armed US border - Primary function keep people from entering illegally.


No US citizen's rights are infringed nor does it restrict movement of US citizens.

In fact it might give them a pastime like watching fireworks as the illegal imigrants try to figure out how to cross a 400 yard mine field. Ok that is sick but I am just kidding. I suspect that less people would die if we maintained our southern border if they knew that it was inpenetrable. No more people dying in the desert.

Basically me thinks that there is no downside to an extremely secure border which only allows crossings at control points.

Border patrols to keep out drug smugglers, illegals, contraband, evil people and so on is very important for any country.

Fireworks joke in poor taste.

Speaking of border control reminds me of an old joke: (Theo sorry to kinda crap but this is good)

This guy comes across the border from Mexico on a bicycle with two bags suspended on each side. The US Customs Inspector asks Pedro what's inside the bags. Pedro says "Sand."

The Inspector tells him to empty the bags and sure enough sand comes out. They suspect drugs so they test it and it's just sand. So they let him thru. Same thing happens next day and the next.

For 15 years.

All they find is sand.

So after 15 years, the Customs Inspector retires as does Pedro and they run into each other at a Resort Hotel in Mexico by the pool. So they share a beer and speak of the good old days. Finally the Inspector can't control himself any more and says:

"Pedro, we're retired now. Its all behind us. But I gotta ask you this. I know that everyday you crossed the border for 15 years you were smuggling something. I just know it. But I can't figure out what it was."

Replies Pedro: "Bicycles"