Patriot Act cuts into library privacy

[AZXD]

Ownership
The library belongs to the community. It is a department of the city and operated with tax dollars, grant money and private donations.

Thus while it might be public, it is not Federalized. So what is the proper way for the Fed's to obtain information from a state level of government ?? What about something at the city level ???

I have always been led to believe that state rights overrule any Federal regulation a state does not wish to comply with. Sure they might loose Federal funding ... Talk about a threat!! Do as we say or we won't pay for your stuff, has about as much weight as a state allows and no more. How many states lost Federal funding of highways when they went against the mandated 55mph limit and raised their speed limits ?? A few! Why did the Fed eventually cave in and raise the limits to match state mandates ?? Perhaps because they realized who is really in control.

So again I ask,
Who do these Public Libraries really belong to ??
I see this as no different than the mandated National ID card that a few states are opting out of. Sure the residents may loose some priveledges because of the states actions. So what! Where do you want to stop the invassivness of the Fed's?? What is wrong with obtaining a warrant to gather information about a public libraries records??

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

Quote:
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?

Thus the reason some wish to throw the thing out and start over with a fresh slate that meets todays requirements. Ya know, that damned piece of paper is in the way mentality, that doesn't allow a proper dictatorship to be established.

[Judge]

If I may, I do believe they did 'conceive' of things they couldn't conceive. That's why they wrote it in such a way as to preserve the principles - a man should be secure in his own home - they made that clear for all generations. What he does outside of that home is public and is not protected.

Courts have tried creating rights where none were intended, or adding their own personal whimsy to the constitution. The constitution supplemented is the constitution supplanted. To try to expand the rights undermines them.

Originally Posted by Frenchy

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?

[Judge]

A warrant is necessary to break the security of the privacy of one's home/possessions. Again, there is no basis for adding to the constitution, expanding it beyond what the original founders intended. To get a warrant requires some evidence of criminal activity. There is not a criminal investigation underway, there is no grand jury convened, the gov't is simply data mining, trying to look for some patterns which might narrow the field and help lead them to criminal activity at which time they probably would request a warrant.

While I'm not sure what good it will do, I simply can't argue that it is not public information/public conduct and should be restricted.

Originally Posted by AZXD

[/font][/color][/color][/size][/font]
Thus while it might be public, it is not Federalized. So what is the proper way for the Fed's to obtain information from a state level of government ?? What about something at the city level ???

I have always been led to believe that state rights overrule any Federal regulation a state does not wish to comply with. Sure they might loose Federal funding ... Talk about a threat!! Do as we say or we won't pay for your stuff, has about as much weight as a state allows and no more. How many states lost Federal funding of highways when they went against the mandated 55mph limit and raised their speed limits ?? A few! Why did the Fed eventually cave in and raise the limits to match state mandates ?? Perhaps because they realized who is really in control.

So again I ask,
Who do these Public Libraries really belong to ??
I see this as no different than the mandated National ID card that a few states are opting out of. Sure the residents may loose some priveledges because of the states actions. So what! Where do you want to stop the invassivness of the Fed's?? What is wrong with obtaining a warrant to gather information about a public libraries records??

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by Judge

If I may, I do believe they did 'conceive' of things they couldn't conceive. That's why they wrote it in such a way as to preserve the principles - a man should be secure in his own home - they made that clear for all generations. What he does outside of that home is public and is not protected.

Courts have tried creating rights where none were intended, or adding their own personal whimsy to the constitution. The constitution supplemented is the constitution supplanted. To try to expand the rights undermines them.

But as Franklin exclaimed, are we giving up liberty for security, and where do you draw the line? At what point have we lost what we can never regain?

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by Judge

A warrant is necessary to break the security of the privacy of one's home/possessions. Again, there is no basis for adding to the constitution, expanding it beyond what the original founders intended. To get a warrant requires some evidence of criminal activity. There is not a criminal investigation underway, there is no grand jury convened, the gov't is simply data mining, trying to look for some patterns which might narrow the field and help lead them to criminal activity at which time they probably would request a warrant.

While I'm not sure what good it will do, I simply can't argue that it is not public information/public conduct and should be restricted.

Perhaps you should read this ALA | The USA Patriot Act & Libraries then tell me about data mining. IMO, if there is no investigation underway, and no grand jury convening, there is no need to allow for profiling based on what books an individual reads.

[Judge]

We are not giving up any liberty...

Originally Posted by Frenchy

But as Franklin exclaimed, are we giving up liberty for security, and where do you draw the line? At what point have we lost what we can never regain?

[Judge]

I read it, didn't see anything.... it's data mining, and profiling what - terrorists??

Who's been arrested for what they read?

Geeze..

Originally Posted by AZXD

Perhaps you should read this ALA | The USA Patriot Act & Libraries then tell me about data mining. IMO, if there is no investigation underway, and no grand jury convening, there is no need to allow for profiling based on what books an individual reads.

[Frenchy]

It's good to know that the government has never infringed on our rights and freedoms...

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by Yuppicide

LOL!!
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.

You mean they're not PUBLIC RECORDS?

Exactly my point. They are public records, not personal papers. That is why the 4th amendment does not protect them.

According to your logic, you receive constitutional protection for anything that has ever been in your possession at any time, but no longer is

Originally Posted by Yuppicide

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????

I've already said that I think they should get a warrant when possible.
My opinion doesn't change the fact that public records/papers are not constitutionally protected under the 4th amendment and that a "right to privacy (I still can't find that in the constitution) somehow applies to things you do in public.

Frank