Patriot Act cuts into library privacy

[jdavionic]

In my opinion, I believe this grants the FBI the authority that violates the 4th amendment...
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

I look at it this way. These are personal records of what books a person has been reading at a public library. One could certainly argue that it's a "public" library. But my argument is that it's a personal record at a public record and that the rights of the individual should prevail. And no, I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV.

And with that opinion, I say that I would rather risk that someone is reading books that are "concerning" and that they might eventually do bad things with their newly acquired knowledge...yes, I would rather take that risk than have our bill of rights trampled upon, no matter how benign it might seem. If the FBI is so concerned with certain books in a government (people) funded library, then the government should work to remove the books from the library versus trampling on our rights. I don't recall any constitutional right that states the right of the people to have "The Communist Manifesto" in every public library shall not be infringed upon.

[Yuppicide]

When the time comes where little old Librarian ladies are defying the Govt. and facing jail time to fight for our rights to privacy....

......and all people can say is: "If your not doing anything illegal, you probably have nothing to worry about."

IMHO: Those people are BITCHES!

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

As someone already pointed out, there is not a right to privacy in the public square in the constitution, but there is a right to bear arms. So your comparison doesn't make any sense.

The 4th Amendment:

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 Right of the People to be secure in their...PAPERS...against unreasonable searches.

Where do WE THE PEOPLE keep our "Papers"?

At the Library!!!!

[Judge]

If you'll read that section of the constitution, and the federalist papers, you'll note that all the things listed protected - are personal - home, body, personal possessions. Papers would be things the person has written for non-public consumption - ties into the 5th.

No private papers are stored at a public library, hence the name, 'public'.

There is and has been no constitutional protection.

Originally Posted by Yuppicide

When the time comes where little old Librarian ladies are defying the Govt. and facing jail time to fight for our rights to privacy....

......and all people can say is: "If your not doing anything illegal, you probably have nothing to worry about."

IMHO: Those people are BITCHES!



The 4th Amendment:

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 Right of the People to be secure in their...PAPERS...against unreasonable searches.

Where do WE THE PEOPLE keep our "Papers"?

At the Library!!!!

[Dutter]

Originally Posted by jdavionic

In my opinion, I believe this grants the FBI the authority that violates the 4th amendment...
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

I look at it this way. These are personal records of what books a person has been reading at a public library. One could certainly argue that it's a "public" library. But my argument is that it's a personal record at a public record and that the rights of the individual should prevail. And no, I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV.

And with that opinion, I say that I would rather risk that someone is reading books that are "concerning" and that they might eventually do bad things with their newly acquired knowledge...yes, I would rather take that risk than have our bill of rights trampled upon, no matter how benign it might seem. If the FBI is so concerned with certain books in a government (people) funded library, then the government should work to remove the books from the library versus trampling on our rights. I don't recall any constitutional right that states the right of the people to have "The Communist Manifesto" in every public library shall not be infringed upon.

I might argue that any record the library keeps, belongs to the library....not to you. I don't think it could be included in your personal papers or effects, as it was never yours........

jd

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by Yuppicide

When the time comes where little old Librarian ladies are defying the Govt. and facing jail time to fight for our rights to privacy....

......and all people can say is: "If your not doing anything illegal, you probably have nothing to worry about."

IMHO: Those people are BITCHES!



The 4th Amendment:

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 Right of the People to be secure in their...PAPERS...against unreasonable searches.

Where do WE THE PEOPLE keep our "Papers"?

At the Library!!!!

Who keeps personal papers at the library

I'm pretty sure they were talking about personal documents. The 4th would cover personal documents at your home, any residences, and perhaps safety deposit boxes at a bank.

Library records belong to the library, not you.

Sorry,

Frank

[FrankRizzoXD40]

wow! 3 replies nearly at the same time.

Frank

[Yuppicide]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzo

wow! 3 replies nearly at the same time.

LOL!!
Well, you know what they say.....

Great minds STINK alike!




I would still have to disagree. Yes the library is a public place, but once I check out a book -while it is in my possesion, It IS my "papers".

There for, the library is actually keeping records of "papers" that (at one time) were in my personal possesion.

Originally Posted by FrankRizzo

Library records belong to the library, not you.

You mean they're not PUBLIC RECORDS?

So, then under the 4th Amendment shouldn't the Government have to lawfully obtain and serve a warrant to the Library declaring exactly who and what they are searching for????

How about a book store? They're open to the public too. Should the name of the books they've sold me be obtainable without a warrant??

The internets not mine. When I surf the 'Net, I'm just "checking out" the information stored in a public place. Should the government be able to find out what I look up without probable cause?

Cell-Phones:
Once I leave my house I'm in public, and should expect no right to privacy. In fact when I use my Celly, I'm using public "airwaves/signals".
As long as I'm outside in public using the peoples "waves", should Big Brother be able to "cut in" and listen without a warrant?

It's a slippery slope, and we'll NEVER get back the Rights we lose or give up!

So I'll say it once again:

the people who truly believe that "If your not doing anything illegal, you probably have nothing to worry about."

IMHO: Those people are BITCHES!!!

So someday when Big Brother comes for you... just smile, bend over, spread your those cheeks wide...and enjoy the cavity search!

Because, after all:

"If your not doing anything illegal, you probably have nothing to worry about."

[jdavionic]

Like I said, I can see arguments regarding the fact that the library is indeed public; and I think these are strong arguments.

However claiming that the "papers" (now electronic paper) is not personal seems counter-intuitive to me. The information contained on these papers is not so much about the activities of this public library as they are about the reading habits of the individual. This assertion is further reinforced by the government's own admission as such...otherwise, why would they care to see them. Therefore I believe that the government is investigating personal information without going through the proper means for doing so.

In the past, we have seen rationale for gathering data without warrants or any judicial process because the government needed to have access to this information 'real time' and could not afford to wait for the normal processes to unfold. In addition, we were told that communication going outside of the country to terrorists needed to be monitored 'real time' in order to ensure the data was relatively 'fresh', which is important in gathering intelligence data on communications. To me, we are at war with Islamic radicals and I think it's prudent to monitor this type of communication during a war. But library records too? Come on...what's the harm in following the process of obtaining a warrant to get this data? I fail to see the justification.

[Judge]

While I can't say this argument doesn't have some intrinisc appeal, it simply offers up a distinction that is not in the constitution, it goes to great lengths to apply protections where none exist and in so doing does violence to the text. if all amendments were interpreted this expansively, we would have nothing but confusion in the legal system (are we there now?) due to the myriad individual interpretations. The Constitution is best interpreted strictly and clearly - or simply to the plain meaning of the words.

The founders didn't mean every action of an individual to be protected, they simply would have worded it differently.

Originally Posted by jdavionic

Like I said, I can see arguments regarding the fact that the library is indeed public; and I think these are strong arguments.

However claiming that the "papers" (now electronic paper) is not personal seems counter-intuitive to me. The information contained on these papers is not so much about the activities of this public library as they are about the reading habits of the individual. This assertion is further reinforced by the government's own admission as such...otherwise, why would they care to see them. Therefore I believe that the government is investigating personal information without going through the proper means for doing so.

In the past, we have seen rationale for gathering data without warrants or any judicial process because the government needed to have access to this information 'real time' and could not afford to wait for the normal processes to unfold. In addition, we were told that communication going outside of the country to terrorists needed to be monitored 'real time' in order to ensure the data was relatively 'fresh', which is important in gathering intelligence data on communications. To me, we are at war with Islamic radicals and I think it's prudent to monitor this type of communication during a war. But library records too? Come on...what's the harm in following the process of obtaining a warrant to get this data? I fail to see the justification.

[Frenchy]

The founders didn't mean every action of an individual to be protected, they simply would have worded it differently.

I agree, but in this alien world of the 21st. Century, I wonder how the founders would have envisioned something that they could not have conceived?