Librarians shredding contact documents

It's a tough issue.

Nuff said.

I see both sides. My only request is either shread it all... or none... not just for certain patrons. As long as the shread all documents... fine. or shread none. Otherwise, it gets unethical... bias, framing someone... etc.

my impression from the article is that it WAS shredding it all, just doing it more regularly than once a week.

did you get a different impression?

I'm all for the shredding of all documents. Requiring the patron to request such is suspect, as is attempting to keep all documents, no matter what.

BG

What happens if they found out that I checked out Catcher in the Rye and was surfing on the Wacky Iraqi website??

I'd better booby-trap the apartment and get my "in case I disappear" instructions in order!!

my comments were just a general statment about the practice of Librarians shredding documents rather than possibly handing them over.

heh...okay, Mel.

Yeah, who would thought that Librarians would show more backbone than the Democratic party in standing up for the Bill of Rights?

Good for the librarians. Patriot act, my ass. I wonder what Ben Franklin, the ole commie, would have to say about this? John Adams- the subversive? That pinko T. Jefferdaddy? Jos. Warren? You can bet it wouldn't be puh-ritty, no siree bob.

In so many words, and from a public place, I chuck the virtual finger at the (anti) PATRIOT ACT, TIPS, The IAO, Poindexter, Ashcroft and anyone else who has the idea that any of this is even REMOTELY OK or accuses me of being Un American for saying so. And I mean it.

As a librarian, the government simply orders that you keep a log of all public internet users, and to note suspicious requests for publications like "How to Hijack a Jumbo Jet" and "Al Qaeda: Dedicating Your Life to Allah".

This librarian quote from this NY Times article is ridiculous:

Hence the shredding...

If I were a terrorist, I'd now know exactly which libraries to use to avoid detection.

Why is it "ridiculous" to be more afraid of government crushing your rights than to be afraid of terrorists?

It's ridiculous in context with what the government is asking - to record the names of internet users in a public library. There is absolutely no freedom of speech infringed upon.

But her statement (the one you called ridiculous) wasn't limited to the request for Librarians to play spy on their patrons. She didn't say, "It's terrifying that I be asked to record the names of Internet users....".

Or were you making a broad comment about their act of dissent by destroying the documents?

What she said rings very true with me. I'm surprised you found it ridiculous. Usually conservatives are very quick to be skeptical of government infringement on Liberty.

I definitely DO NOT support public libraries - funded by tax dollars - providing free, anonymous internet access to anyone who walks in off the street.

Why that?
Should only the rich who can afford a computer be allowed access to information?

You have been reported. Sleep lightly...

Home users, or as you say ' the rich' do not have anonymous internet access.

Try again.

Sure. If you want to.

Government-provided and free?

I got that book as part of my Matyr of Month subscription. I can't wait for the two volume set of "Better caves and hideouts"

There are good reasons to provide Internet access for everybody.

People might search for a job, educate themselves, read news, chat/e-mail with friends or relatives far away which they otherwise could not afford etc.

Sure, you could argue that access to information should be limited by a money barrier to secure your eliteness, but then I dare to disagree with you.

And better yet, the government provided it for you at their expense, and the transaction is guaranteed to be completely anonymous!

Every other month, you'll receive additional sets, like "Small Package, Big Blast", "High Impact Civilian Targeting", and the award-winning "Born Yesterday: Creating a New Identity in 24 Hours".

Please stay on topic.

If a person walks into a library to use the internet, his/her visit should be logged by the library.

There is no infringement of speech here. There is no rich-poor divide here. This is basic stuff.

If there is ever an incident where a crime investigation leads to a library terminal, it's imperative to know who was at the terminal when the crime(s) were committed.

I am extremely skeptical of anyone who disagrees with that.

Because the risk of the first is infinitesimal and the risk of the second is tangible.

You're right about conservatives jumping up to defend liberty (or Liberty). I'd be the first to do that if liberty was in fact at risk.

Sounds like an Orwellian nightmire what you're advocating. I don't want the Stasi to come back, thank you.

And if you think that total monitoring will prevent crimes, you are dreaming. Every Internet Caf� provides anonymous Internet access. Every book store provides anoymous access to books. You are limiting the rights of all - the mostly honest - people, for very minor prospect to prevent crimes.
The 9/11 terrorists didn't need to be anonymous by the way, since they hadn't to fear prosecution.

Next time you seal an envelope, think what you might have to hide. It makes you suspicious.

History tought us different.

Anything I do in a library (check out a book, surf the net, or just read) should be free and anonymous. Understandably they need my info if I check out a book to insure that I return it, but I expect that record to be used solely for that purpose. My tax dollars and the taxes paid by every other citizen are used to purchase and maintain the assests of said library. Thus I should have full access to any resource there without restriction. The two notable exceptions would be (1) if I hadn't returned a book, which would constitute theft and (2) time limits on borrowing which ensure that others can enjoy all of the library's resources, and thus have access to assets they paid for in part. Monitoring internet usage is outside of this scope. It serves no purpose other than to infringe on the right of a taxpayer to use a public resource however they see fit. Frankly it disturbs me that our government sees it necessary to collect information about it's citizens. That's not its purpose.

"Please stay on topic.

If a person walks into a library to use the internet, his/her visit should be logged by the library.

There is no infringement of speech here. There is no rich-poor divide here. This is basic stuff.

If there is ever an incident where a crime investigation leads to a library terminal, it's imperative to know who was at the terminal when the crime(s) were committed.

I am extremely skeptical of anyone who disagrees with that."


PLease explain WHY a person's internet session should be logged by the library? What possible reason would they have for doing so? I'll tell you...NONE!

I worked for a year at the public library in my town as an internet instuctor and it goes like this: person walks into library... wants to use internet, reserves a block of time, uses internet for free, done. Did we track their name and log what sites they went to? NO. In fact you didn't even need a library card to use the service! We didn't track anything, only the number of users. No usage logs, not even those dreaded net nanny filters.

Where do you get this notion that it is right or nessessary to track what people do? Do you really think tracking what internet sites people go to is going to stop terrorism???

What about if someone walks into a library and starts reading an Islamic newspaper, should they have to sign their name in a 'special' book?????

Its maddness I say!

I believe that the documents that they're shredding also have to do with what books you're borrowing! The "Patriot Act" (makes me want to puke saying that) allows the government to also demand information on what books you're borrowing, and it forbids the library from telling you that the FBI, or other government agency, was checking into your reading habits! It's none of the government's ****ing business what books I read!!! This act is nothing but "feel good" legislation, designed to make the American sheeple think that their legislators are doing something to keep them safe from those big, bad, terrorists! Unfortunately, too many of the American sheeple are too stupid to realize that terrorists don't frequent public libraries in order to get information on how to become a terrorist! So sad!

Why do you insist on focusing on tracking web sites visited? Nothing of the sort is proposed. I suspect you fear some sort of tracking of your own web habits, but that's a debate for another thread.

You want a possible reason? - Here's a few...

1: An investigation determines that child porn is being distributed over the internet from a library-hosted ip address.

2: An investigation determines that a participant in an internet credit card fraud scheme did much of his/her work from a library-hosted ip address.

3: An investigation determines that plans to blow up a building are being communicated online, and one of the terminals has a - you guessed it - library-hosted ip address.

Where does the investigation go from here? Nowhere - because the library doesn't keep records. Instead of having a list of 5-10 people who were on the terminals at that time, the investigators have nothing.

For a tax-dollar-funded entity, this is unacceptable, and provides clear cover for anyone wishing to use a computer to commit crimes.

People are confusing public policy with Constitutional rights.

Do I like the fact that the FBI might investigate what books people buy, what books they check out at the library, or what internet sites they visit at the library? Not necessarily - there's a clear potential for abuse. But is it unconstitutional? Probably not. Protection of that information would probably require an act of Congress. However, if I'm mistaken about this, I'd be happy to hear from someone with more info.

Why do you insist on focusing on tracking web sites visited? Nothing of the sort is proposed. I suspect you fear some sort of tracking of your own web habits, but that's a debate for another thread.

You want a possible reason? - Here's a few...

1: An investigation determines that child porn is being distributed over the internet from a library-hosted ip address.

2: An investigation determines that a participant in an internet credit card fraud scheme did much of his/her work from a library-hosted ip address.

3: An investigation determines that plans to blow up a building are being communicated online, and one of the terminals has a - you guessed it - library-hosted ip address.

Where does the investigation go from here? Nowhere - because the library doesn't keep records. Instead of having a list of 5-10 people who were on the terminals at that time, the investigators have nothing.

For a tax-dollar-funded entity, this is unacceptable, and provides clear cover for anyone wishing to use a computer to commit crimes.

-----------

Wow, I can only wish I lived in your paranoia filled world where every person is a potential terrorist. When I worked at the library there were basically two types of people who used the comps, those looking for a job, and old people doing geneology research.

I didn't get to experience a single FBI raid or sting operation

Seems to me that you're the paranoid one. People looking for a job or doing geneology research would have no problems signing in at the desk before using the library computer.

Those who have problems with this are those who fear they may be caught doing something illegal or immoral.

Nope...I'm not paranoid. My cable provider has my name, and they know my ip address, and if in a library, I'll gladly sign in to use the internet. I have absolutely nothing to hide.

Nothing Government Provided is free. NOTHING.

If the librarians really wanted to hide the documents, they could just file them using the Dewey Decimal System...

OK. THAT...was funny.

Better not seal those enelopes, then, only people doing immoral things like sending anthrax seal envelopes.

Have a camera installed in your bedroom, too. Do you know how many instances of child rape occurr in bedrooms every year? After all, you would only want to hide it if you were doing something illegal.

You also cannot be trusted to be alone with any child anywhere, you might be forcing them to pose for child porn.

Those bathroom stalls.. Gotta go. How do we know you aren't looking at kiddie porn in there? Or shooting up with heroine?

Lose the clothes, too. After all, how do we know you don't have a nuclear suitcase bomb, or a vial of VX hidden if you aren't naked?

You can add body cavity searches for concealed vials of sarin whenever you go in to a public place.

I've got a better idea. Upon finding out about criminal acts tracing back to a library IP, law enforcement enforms the library discreetly, and interviews librarians, to set up a sting. That way, people maintain their rights to privacy (there are things which are embarrassing which aren't illegal after all, don't enforce your immodesty on the rest of us), and the criminals can get caught. They can reasonably expect the cooperation of the entire library system in looking for specific criminals, upon production of some sort of legal documentation, I'd wager.

BlackGriffen

You may feel paranoid due to your activities, but law-abiding, library internet users have nothing to fear.

If you need to committ computer crimes, it's not going to be with taxpayer-funded resources that provide anonymousness.

So the loss of privacy is nothing to fear?

Sorry, but I can only roll my eyes.

Odd. The assumption is, then, if I want privacy, I must be hiding something? If I need privacy, I must be committing a crime? Huh.

Good thing the laws of this country (currently) don't agree with you.

You can have privacy in your own home. The library is a public place.

I see. I am only entitled to privacy in my own home? Once again, good thing the (current) laws of this country do not agree.

You should have a certain expectation of privacy at most times.

Doctor/patient
Lawyer/client

So much so that there is now a 10 page form that everyone in my wife's office (patients and employees) have to fill out in order to verify said privacy, which is implied anyway.

(The above is not intended to say that those listed relationships are the exclusive places where one should have an expectation of privacy.)

Yes, and I expect the state to respect that as much as possible.
If I borrow a book from a public library, I understand they have to record my name so that they can check if I returned it. But after I returned the book there is no good reason why the records shouldn't be shredded.
If I read the book within the public library, there is no good reason why my name should be recorded at all.

And no, criminal prosecution is not a good reason to keep track of people's reading habits. I have never heard of a crime prepared in a public library, let alone cleared up.