[ghporter]

Is there anything new on this? Any verification other than a couple of profs saying it happened? A student's name? Where the student traveled and how often?

Or is it still a nice little vapor cloud of "someone said..."?

Second year journalism students should know about things like sources and credibility...

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Second year journalism students should know about things like sources and credibility...

That assumes they're being taught well. A lot of journalism programs, I don't know what the kids are doing for four years.

[SimeyTheLimey]

The following comes from the Washington Post, which is a much more reputable newspaper than USA Today. It's also from this June -- not 2002. It's also not just quoting interest groups, which always makes for a more balanced article.

The Justice Department said in a letter to Congress this week that the provision has been used only 35 times and has never been used to obtain bookstore, library, medical or gun-sale records. It has been used to obtain records of hotel stays, driver's licenses, apartment leases and credit cards, the letter said.

Washington Post

So let's review. As of June of this year, the much ballyhooed provision in the Patriot Act allowing for special orders so the FBI can pull library records has not in fact been used. The hooting and hollering back in 2002 was over what interest groups said could happen. Only it hasn't actually happened.

Second, of course, is a theoretical question. Are your commercial transactions private at all. Under existing 4th Amendment jurisprudence, the answer is probably no. If you engage in public acts of commerce, it's not private. That's why these questions are dealt with under statutory law.

So the bottom line is, I wouldn't much care if the FBI were able to check library records. It's not a private matter. I would care if they ran about interviewing people for reading something as mundane as a book which is readily avaliable anywhere. But unlike some here, I won't froth at the mouth about what could happen. Only at what has happened. And this article was fiction.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Is there anything new on this? Any verification other than a couple of profs saying it happened? A student's name? Where the student traveled and how often?

Or is it still a nice little vapor cloud of "someone said..."?

Second year journalism students should know about things like sources and credibility...

The whole may have been dramatically exagerated, if it ever happened.

Sources? Credibility?

This is how things are done:

You get someone to answer questions. You bombard that person with half truths and outlandish comments until they say yes. Then you publish. It creates interests. You raise the price on publicity space. Then you do a follow up on the story. Cash flows in. Period.

People need to understand that the right to inform has nothing to do with truth, because the right to inform is about the right to give anything to print. It's not so much the lies of the reporter that counts as the lied he tries to have others publish or say in his own newspaper to increase sales.

I am just out of a training on how to handle the press. The training was provided by 2 reporters with 50 years of experience combined on radio, TV and written media. Their goal is to sell audience. The truth is accessory.

And Internet is the pop media of choice.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

The following comes from the Washington Post, which is a much more reputable newspaper than USA Today. It's also from this June -- not 2002. It's also not just quoting interest groups, which always makes for a more balanced article.



Washington Post

So let's review. As of June of this year, the much ballyhooed provision in the Patriot Act allowing for special orders so the FBI can pull library records has not in fact been used. The hooting and hollering back in 2002 was over what interest groups said could happen. Only it hasn't actually happened.

Second, of course, is a theoretical question. Are your commercial transactions private at all. Under existing 4th Amendment jurisprudence, the answer is probably no. If you engage in public acts of commerce, it's not private. That's why these questions are dealt with under statutory law.

So the bottom line is, I wouldn't much care if the FBI were able to check library records. It's not a private matter. I would care if they ran about interviewing people for reading something as mundane as a book which is readily avaliable anywhere. But unlike some here, I won't froth at the mouth about what could happen. Only at what has happened. And this article was fiction.

And you wasted how many minutes of your life on this?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Sources? Credibility?

This is how things are done:

You get someone to answer questions. You bombard that person with half truths and outlandish comments until they say yes. Then you publish. It creates interests. You raise the price on publicity space. Then you do a follow up on the story. Cash flows in. Period.

People need to understand that the right to inform has nothing to do with truth, because the right to inform is about the right to give anything to print. It's not so much the lies of the reporter that counts as the lied he tries to have others publish or say in his own newspaper to increase sales.

I am just out of a training on how to handle the press. The training was provided by 2 reporters with 50 years of experience combined on radio, TV and written media. Their goal is to sell audience. The truth is accessory.

And that's how all reporters do it, is it? Do black reporters threaten to beat people up in order to get quotes?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

So the bottom line is, I wouldn't much care if the FBI were able to check library records. It's not a private matter. I would care if they ran about interviewing people for reading something as mundane as a book which is readily avaliable anywhere. But unlike some here, I won't froth at the mouth about what could happen.

Yet interestingly, these are among the same folks quick to indict for this same level of "implicationism" regarding conservative concerns over controversial social issues like gay marriage.

Only at what has happened. And this article was fiction.

crafted to illustrate Pendergast's breakdown of the "philosophy of modern journalism". Unfortunately, we've witnessed a significant decline in journalistic civility particularly the last few years.

It seems the only way to maintain a reputation is to lower the criteria of what is reputable.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

And that's how all reporters do it, is it? Do black reporters threaten to beat people up in order to get quotes?

Wow, you must be so clever!

Btw, this is a very good example of subjectivity.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Yet interestingly, these are among the same folks quick to indict for this same level of "implicationism" regarding conservative concerns over controversial social issues like gay marriage.


crafted to illustrate Pendergast's breakdown of the "philosophy of modern journalism". Unfortunately, we've witnessed a significant decline in journalistic civility particularly the last few years.

It seems the only way to maintain a reputation is to lower the criteria of what is reputable.

I think. to emphasize this point further, we can look at the increase in sales of any publications related to "stars" (paging Cowdy here). I saw numbers a while ago that presented an important increase in such media. Look also at how much publicity space. The whole idea is to make money and information is accessory.

This does not mean that reporters are all rotten liers. It just mean that in the context of a sale, ethics may very well become secondary, and the hungrier you are... As had been demonstrated before in these threads (by Simey I believe), ethic associations of reporters have no power but a symbolic one; you would not want to stop a good gig when it works so well!

[production_coordinator]

AGAIN, if the FBI was monitoring ALL books being requested in university and public libraries... don't you think they would be a little more discreet about checking in on people? There is NO WAY they would just walk up to a student and start asking questions.

"Hi, we are from the FBI and have been monitoring your book requests and would like to ask you some questions"

no way...

[dialo]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

The following comes from the Washington Post, which is a much more reputable newspaper than USA Today.

"Reputable"? LOL. They are both second-hand sources! Go to the original source, FFS.. Sheesh.

And if you go straight to the source I cited you can see that librarians at multiple institutions are reporting visits that they can't talk about:

Similarly, when asked survey question number 8, "Have authorities requested any kind of information about any of your patrons since September 11, 2001?", only twenty-seven (6.0%) public libraries and 6 (5.0%) academic libraries responded yes. In reference to this question and the secrecy provision, librarians wrote comments such as:
"By the way, it is illegal for me to answer question 8."
Or as another wrote:
"The Patriot Act lowers the standard of proof that law enforcement officers must provide in order to view library records. It also requires secrecy from the library officials. In fact, if we've been served under the Patriot Act, we shouldn't be answering question 8 on your survey."
Another librarian commented:
"Technically, I think I shouldn't have answered #8 according to the 'Act' but I'm not totally sure."
Twelve Illinois public libraries (2.6%) and 2 academic (1.7%) reported that they did not answer questions on the survey because they believe the provisions of the USA Patriot Act prohibit them. One librarian wrote:
"While I cannot tell my board that we have been served with a search warrant, I can and do tell them each month that we haven't been served."

And this is just Illinois.

Are these under section 215? Who knows? The fact is that you certainly don't, so you are just running on assumptions again. We have librarians reporting these visits and reporting that they can't talk

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

And this article was fiction.

You don't know that.

It's particularly strange since there are enough open questions in the story that there is no reason to just make up a bunch of incorrect claims about how libraries work and pad it with other completely uninformed assumptions. After all, it's a common book available at hundreds of libraries. DHS likely isn't too concerned about communist ideas in the US. The FBI would more likely be involved. Seriously, Simey, why do you even bother to make stuff up when there are more than enough questions already?

In the end, though, we just don't know. I, like most people, am of the opinion that this is a student's tale that got out of hand because it was posted online third-hand. But we really don't know and it could easily go either way when more info comes out.

And claiming that the lack of direct evidence proves that something isn't happening makes no sense when you are talking about things that are secret. Two weeks ago you could have said "Bush has never authorized wiretaps on US citizens. There's no evidence!" And you would have been wrong.

[Spliffdaddy]

lol. keep dreaming.

[dialo]

Keep dreaming about what?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by dialo

"Reputable"? LOL. They are both second-hand sources! Go to the original source, FFS.. Sheesh.

And what does that do? It's the same basic information the Post cited. DOJ says definitively that the Patriot Act has never been used to obtain library records. Despite all the political claims of librarians who have been engaged in a campaign against the Patriot Act's provisions allowing for an expedited process to get an order to search library records, in fact no such warrantless searches have taken place. That's the facts, the political claims are bogus.

Now, it is possible that searches have taken place using regular search warrants. The Patriot Act didn't repeal the Fourth Amendment. It's not particularly hard to get an ordinary search warrant and most of the time when you want to search public records, there is plenty of time to get a warrant. All you need is probable cause, and that is not a high standard. Then you just need a few minutes to call a local magistrate. You don't even need the affidavits, you can usually submit them afterwards. And in fact, your probable cause can turn out to be false, and your affidavits defective. As long as a reasonable police officer would have relied on it, the warrant is effective. So this is utterly routine, which simply underscores the fact that all the hysteria that has surrounded the Patriot Act isn't justified.

What is interesting to me about all of this is how hysterical people are about something as utterly mundane as library records. The legal standard to trigger the 4th Amendment is government action and a reasonable expectation of privacy. Yet, there there are so many exceptions to the 4th Amendment -- including in areas where I am quite certain most people have an expectation of privacy. Take one example. If you are a passenger in a car, and you have a bag with you, would you anticipate that because the driver has a tail light out, the car in which you are riding can be stopped. Then the entire car, including you, and including your bag, can be searched? It doesn't matter that there is no probable cause to suspect you did something wrong. It's just because you are in a car that means you can be searched without any kind of warrant, or without even any suspicion of wrongdoing. That's just one of the car exceptions.

Or take another example. When you leave your trash out, the police can haul it away and search through it. They don't need a warrant. I don't know about you, but my trash says a lot more about my private life than my library record. Suppose you are not careful and dump your bank records or other personal documents in the trash. It's now available to the police without any need to get a warrant.

Or take a third example. Say you live in a town house or ground floor apartment. The police can walk up to your window, and watch you in your home -- even peeking through closed blinds. So long as they stand where the public has a right to stand, they can peek away and use anything they see. That's called the plain view exception. Then suppose they see you doing something illegal. Now they have "exigent circumstances" to charge in and search without a warrant. That's the exigent circumstances exception, and it is really broad.

That is just four examples. There are more than a dozen more of them, and several have sub-issues that effectively create exceptions. The totality effectively guts the 4th Amendment. I wonder how aware people are of those exceptions if they can become so paranoid about warrantless searches that aren't happening, and yet ignore the warrantless searches that happen all across the country all the time.

[ghporter]

Isn't the "Little Red Book" somewhere out here in the Internet cloud? I know really dangerous information, from the instructions for how to make various explosives to how to bring down a building to how a nuclear weapon works, are all out here and waiting to be searched for.

Further, I'd like to address dialo's assertion that library records have been frequently requested by "authorities." Simey qoutes the U.S. Department of Justice, the agency over the FBI. This does NOT mean that the FBI is the only agency that can cite the Patriot Act to ask for information. Nor does it mean that any such requests are actually legall made under the PA. Local law enforcement agencies and even some state police agencies have been known to push for information using inappropriate means, including threatening librarians with "super secret requests" about "persons of interest." Many have actually used the PA to go after common criminals, directly violating both the spirit and the letter of that act. The fact that some librarians have been intimidated by people with badges does not actually reflect the correct and lawful use of the Patriot Act-it more likely reflects the bullying nature of the badge holders in question.

The Senate has allowed a six month extension of the act for purposes of hammering out what should and should not be continued. The library provisions don't look like they have much of a chance of being retained. I'd like to see them add a provision that puts bad cops inappropriately using any Patriot Act provision in a very nasty jail with a big label that says "I'm A BAD Cop," so all their fellow inmates can learn a valuable lesson about abusing the public trust.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Wow, you must be so clever!

Btw, this is a very good example of subjectivity.

First of all, I don't see why my posts can't be subjective. Is there a problem with that?

Secondly, I don't see what's "subjective" about me checking if you seriously believed what you were saying when you turned a conversation with a couple of bad reporters into a general example of "how things are done" by reporters. But people use that word in funny ways these days…

[SimeyTheLimey]

Oh, what a surprise. It was a hoax, or at least, wrong. Per the American Library Association:

Link

The story broke in the December 17 New Bedford Standard-Times as the result of an interview with UMD faculty members Brian Glyn Williams and Robert Pontbriand, who mentioned the incident as an example of government monitoring of academic research. Williams told American Libraries, “The student told me that the book was on a watch list, and that the books on this list had changing status. Mao was on the list at the time, hence the visit, which was also related to his time abroad.”

UMD Library Dean Ann Montgomery Smith told AL that the student had requested the book by phone from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, not through the UMD interlibrary services as originally reported.

The UMD chancellor’s office released a statement December 19 that said, “At this point, it is difficult to ascertain how Homeland Security obtained the information about the student’s borrowing of the book. The UMass Dartmouth Library has not been visited by agents of any type seeking information about the borrowing patterns or habits of any of its patrons.” Chancellor Jean F. MacCormack stated, “It is important that our students and our faculty be unfettered in their pursuit of knowledge about other cultures and political systems if their education and research is to be meaningful.”

Kirk Whitworth, a spokesman for the DHS—the U.S. cabinet department that oversees the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, the Secret Service, and Citizenship and Immigration Services, among others—said in the December 21 Standard-Times that the story seemed unlikely. “We’re aware of the claims,” he said. “However, the scenario sounds unlikely because investigations are based on violation of law, not on the books and individual[s who] might check [them] out from the library.”

An earlier report that the incident occurred at the University of California at Santa Cruz has proven false.

That last line is the kicker. Amazing how urban legends always seem to happen over, and over, and over again. And yet people still fall for them.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Oh, what a surprise. It was a hoax, or at least, wrong.

thanks. i'm glad that this line of detective work is not actually being pursued by the gov't.

[hyteckit]

UMD Library Dean Ann Montgomery Smith told AL that the student had requested the book by phone from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, not through the UMD interlibrary services as originally reported.

The UMD chancellor’s office released a statement December 19 that said, “At this point, it is difficult to ascertain how Homeland Security obtained the information about the student’s borrowing of the book. The UMass Dartmouth Library has not been visited by agents of any type seeking information about the borrowing patterns or habits of any of its patrons.” Chancellor Jean F. MacCormack stated, “It is important that our students and our faculty be unfettered in their pursuit of knowledge about other cultures and political systems if their education and research is to be meaningful.”

Illegal wire taps by the Bush Admin perhaps? Thanks for confirming that wire taps without court order is illegal.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

First of all, I don't see why my posts can't be subjective. Is there a problem with that?

Your example was really "out there" an reflects your point of view which says you give no credit to what I reported, yet, you act as if the profession of reporter is tantamount to objectivity. I tried to explain the inner workings, as it had been explained to me by 2 prestigious reporters, with a great deal of experience.

It is your choice to not believe it. Yet, it is clear that the recipe works all the time, especially when we look at the number of peolpe here who complain about the takeover of the media by the so-called "Liberals".

Secondly, I don't see what's "subjective" about me checking if you seriously believed what you were saying when you turned a conversation with a couple of bad reporters into a general example of "how things are done" by reporters. But people use that word in funny ways these days…

As you wish.

But sometimes, it is worth it to check under the hood. Feel free to. Feel free not to.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Illegal wire taps by the Bush Admin perhaps? Thanks for confirming that wire taps without court order is illegal.

You're a loon.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

You're a loon.

Hehe...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051224/...omestic_spying

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Hehe...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051224/...omestic_spying

But the Times said that NSA technicians have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might lead to terrorists.

The volume of information harvested from telecommunications data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the paper said, quoting an unnamed official.

The story quoted a former technology manager at a major telecommunications firm as saying that companies have been storing information on calling patterns since the Sept. 11 attacks, and giving it to the federal government. Neither the manager nor the company he worked for was identified.

Another hoax, certainly....

As I mentioned earlier, databases are just waiting to be used... And I am certain this is done in many other countries, including France, Canada, U.K., etc...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Another hoax, certainly....

As I mentioned earlier, databases are just waiting to be used... And I am certain this is done in many other countries, including France, Canada, U.K., etc...

Well, be careful here. Assuming the Times story is accurate, it doesn't provide evidence one way or the other on the already-debunked story about the library. It doesn't even shed any light on even the potential for that story to be accurate.

Think of it this way. Just because you are searched before you get on an airplane doesn't mean you are searched when you get into your private car. The fact there is policing on the borders doesn't equate to policing activity on your driveway. Likewise, whether the NSA looks for patterns in international telecommunications doesn't indicate that they (or anyone else) look for patterns in book borrowing from domestic public libraries. It's two separate things.

In fact, the reason they don't is probably mostly not because of any constitutional restriction. It's mainly because there is nothing to be gained by it. Libraries don't carry illegal books, and therefore there is no reason to care who borrows what from one. Resources are better used elsewhere - like looking for illegal misuse of international telecommunications systems for terrorism, money laundering, and cybercrimes.

So the story was debunked, and it stays debunked.

[SimeyTheLimey]

[Note: the below actually has nothing to do with the debunked urban legend about library books that is the subject of this thread.]


hyteckit: I followed your link to the originial NYT article about "domestic (actually, international) spying (actually information gathering). Link Here is how I read it without the NYT hysteria and spin. Apparently, the government, in cooperation with the private operators, are using technology to look for patterns in international telecommunications. Humans aren't actually looking at this stuff until the technological searches produce a hit. Once they have a lead, then investigators can look at it, and if necessary, proceed to the next step - which would presumably be individualized targetted searches.

Under the Fourth Amendment, those individualized searches might require a warrant. (Though not necessarily, opinions vary, noted liberal constitutional scholar Cass Sunstein thinks that the searches are legal). Prior to then I don't think that it does. In fact, to demand a warrant at that point would make ever obtaining a warrant impossible. Warrants require probable cause. You have to do a certain amount of policing before you can get that probable cause. If you cannot search for probable cause, you cannot get probable cause. Then, if you are in a situtation where a warrant is required, you obviously can't get it. In fact, you wouldn't even know you would need to get it, because you wouldn't know about the illegal activity. And you could never find out about or police.

The Times is apparently too dumb to realize this reality. The police conduct searches all the time, looking for patterns of activity that indicate probable cause of criminal conduct. Take as an example a hypothetical that I am drawing out of an actual case. A cop is in a store, and sees what he thinks is a stolen check. He lifts the check and looks at it. This is a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. He might have been drawn to the store because of a pattern of suspicious activity, or he could be there by accident. But either way, the Fourth Amendment has kicked in. So what does he do?

What he does is go back and get a warrant. Then he can go back to the store and arrest the person. If he didn't get a warrant (and if an exception didn't apply, which for the sake of simplicity, we will say does not) then if he tried to admit the evidence against the store owner, then the store owner could move to suppress the search.

See how this works? The police can do the initial searches that lead to probable cause. They just have to have a warrant (or a valid exception) before they can take the next steps to go after the individual. The Fourth Amendment doesn't stop him lifting the check. It doesn't require the policeman not to police.

The Times is so eager to push their story and to make a political issue that they have lost sight of reality. Their absolutist position would deprive law enforcement and intelligence agencies of any ability to develop leads that could lead to probable cause (in a criminal case) or intelligence (in a intelligence matter). They are putting the warrant cart before the information horse. Basically, they are stupid.

The fact that they would gut law enforcement would be bad in a peacetime situation. In wartime it is even more dumb. Does the New York Times even care that they are blowing the lid on a sensitive intelligence matter? Do they care that they are shielding criminals?

The current and former government officials who discussed the program were granted anonymity because it remains classified.

I'm disgusted with the Times for their arrogance and stupidity. But if this anonymous story is accurate, then I am very pleased with my government for their proactive intelligence and law enforcement operations. This is exactly what we demanded after 9/11 that the government do. Look for dots to connect, and connect them.

And that, my friend, is the reaction that I suspect most people are having to this. The more the left huffs and puffs, and the more extreme your positions become, the more reasonable people notice that the responsible people in all of this are the people diligently protecting the country. That's why politically this works better for Bush than it does the Times. But I can't be happy about that because the country and national security is still hurt by the Times' collusion with criminals inside the government who are illegally leaking classified information. That makes me really mad.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

[Note: the below actually has nothing to do with the debunked urban legend about library books that is the subject of this thread.]

I think the debunking of the press is the crux of the matter.

(...)

And that, my friend, is the reaction that I suspect most people are having to this. The more the left huffs and puffs, and the more extreme your positions become, the more reasonable people notice that the responsible people in all of this are the people diligently protecting the country. That's why politically this works better for Bush than it does the Times. But I can't be happy about that because the country and national security is still hurt by the Times' collusion with criminals inside the government who are illegally leaking classified information. That makes me really mad.

Well, they are reporters, not political analysts. Thw Washington Post may have more integrity than the Times, but in the end, it is the same; people reporting situations, but more or less an analysis about it.

Reporters will do anything to get an information, whatever that information is. Of course there will be political bias at some point. But from the training I got, I am no, longer surprised about how information percolates to the public. Startegies used are often illegal and extremely duplicitous (we had a reporter infiltrating a municipal office here in Montreal, impersonating an employee I believe and reported that employees were paid 2 hours to wait for the workplan for the day; to the benefit of the Union, and against the Municipal administration). Any means of getting an information is a good one, even using the peers from the competition.

With reporters, there is no such thing as a "off-the record" and friendship always has a pay-off; it has to.

Those government officials may never have leaked the story to a reporter of the NYT, but a reporter from the Washington Post could very well got the information first hand from a friend (the alleged anonymous source), promised not to say anything, but decided to share some nites of choice with a friend working at NYT (so the sleazy part of it would fall on the NYT) and afterwards, the Wahington Post reporter can pick up the story and complete it with more stuff that were never told to the NYT reporter but benefit more the Washington Post.

That happens daily.

The lack of integrity you mentioned may be purely accidental, and may never have been meant to leak information, but it lead that way because some people are just too gullible to trust a reporter.

And stop making this a left-right thing. It's all about getting the attention of the public to increase revenues from publicists. Politicians are a matter of convenience and a reason for more profiting. Whoever is in power is irrelevant.

[ebuddy]

ahhh, balderdash

[ebuddy]

The media is just miffed. If there's any spying on phone conversations and library habits going on, they want in on the action.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Your example was really "out there"

My example of stereotyping? But some black folk do beat people up, just like some reporters are more interested in a good sound bite than in reporting the truth.

Originally Posted by Pendergast

an reflects your point of view which says you give no credit to what I reported, yet, you act as if the profession of reporter is tantamount to objectivity. I tried to explain the inner workings, as it had been explained to me by 2 prestigious reporters, with a great deal of experience.

As an editor at a newspaper. I think I understand "the inner workings" of reporting at least as well as somebody who sat through a short seminar with a couple of self-professed hacks who were being paid to make him scared of reporters.

And I did not say anything along the lines of "the profession of reporter is tantamount to objectivity." You described an unethical, advertising-driven method of reporting and said that is how reporters are. I said you were stereotyping and not all reporters are that way — just tabloid reporters and hacks.

Originally Posted by Pendergast

It is your choice to not believe it. Yet, it is clear that the recipe works all the time, especially when we look at the number of peolpe here who complain about the takeover of the media by the so-called "Liberals".

First of all, when people talk about "the media," they often mean a lot more than reporters. Besides that, I don't see how the fact that right-wing people are paranoid proves that "the recipe works all the time."

[SimeyTheLimey]

OK, as those of us with common sense figured out from the get-go, the library watch list/DHS Thought Police story was definitely a hoax. From the Boston Globe (via Instapundit). Link

The story, first reported in last Saturday's New Bedford Standard-Times, was picked up by other news organizations, prompted diatribes on left-wing and right-wing blogs, and even turned up in an op-ed piece written by Senator Edward M. Kennedy in the Globe.

But yesterday, the student confessed that he had made it up after being confronted by the professor who had repeated the story to a Standard-Times reporter.

The professor, Brian Glyn Williams, said he went to his former student's house and asked about inconsistencies in his story. The 22-year-old student admitted it was a hoax, Williams said.
''I made it up," the professor recalled him saying. ''I'm sorry. . . . I'm so relieved that it's over."

This is the best bit:

'I feel as if I was lied to, and I have no idea why," said Williams, an associate professor of Islamic history.

"Feels as though he was lied to"? He was lied to. And the ditz repeated the lie to the media without bothering to check on it first. What an idiot!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

First of all, when people talk about "the media," they often mean a lot more than reporters. Besides that, I don't see how the fact that right-wing people are paranoid proves that "the recipe works all the time."

I don't think the "paranoid right-wing people" were the ones exposed for paranoia this time Chuckit. It seems there are a few chicken littles on the left though. Notably, the initial poster and just about every subsequent kneejerk, naive, paranoid, delusional, black helicopter seeking leftist nutbag who tried to give the story some weight.

paranoid indeed!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

OK, as those of us with common sense figured out from the get-go, the library watch list/DHS Thought Police story was definitely a hoax. From the Boston Globe (via Instapundit). Link

Well done as always Simey.

Thanx for affirming what I knew was BS out of the gate. If there's BS, it's usually going to be found somewhere near a University.

[hyteckit]

Simey,

I never defended what the student said was truth. Yes, the student lied.

I argue about domestic spying and the watch list. You said there is no such thing. What do you think "using technology to look for patterns" means? Match the conversation with what's on the watch list. Terrorist groups, people's names, explosive material, places, and so on. If the technology sense the patterns, it automatically flags the conversation. A real person who works for the DHA analyses the conversation and see if there is any threat. If there is, they can continue to spy on that person(s) for up to 72 hrs without a warrant. However, they still need to filed for a warrant with FISA no matter what.

There is a watch list.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Simey,

I never defended what the student said was truth. Yes, the student lied.

I argue about domestic spying and the watch list. You said there is no such thing. What do you think "using technology to look for patterns" means? Match the conversation with what's on the watch list. Terrorist groups, people's names, explosive material, places, and so on. If the technology sense the patterns, it automatically flags the conversation. A real person who works for the DHA analyses the conversation and see if there is any threat. If there is, they can continue to spy on that person(s) for up to 72 hrs without a warrant. However, they still need to filed for a warrant with FISA no matter what.

There is a watch list.

You have not produced any evidence of a "watch list" in library books borrowed from libraries. Asserting that there is such a thing does not make it so.

The New York Times article talks about analysis of patterns in international telecommunications. International telecommunications and domestic library transactions are not the same thing. An article asserting the existence of one does not prove the existence of the other.

In fact, there is no proof of a watch list for library books, and no logical reason why there would be one given that the books themselves are all legal. Libraries don't carry illegal books, so law enforcement agencies would have little to no reason to ever care what you borrow. This scare story has turned out to be like all the others alleging that the government harassed someone because of a book he borrowed -- it is a hoax. Every such hysterical story about the government watching their perfectly legal transaction has turned out to be a hoax. You seem keen on the idea of people analyzing for patterns. Can you figure out that pattern? What does it tell you?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

My example of stereotyping? But some black folk do beat people up, just like some reporters are more interested in a good sound bite than in reporting the truth.

Fair enough.

As an editor at a newspaper. I think I understand "the inner workings" of reporting at least as well as somebody who sat through a short seminar with a couple of self-professed hacks who were being paid to make him scared of reporters.

Thank you for calling me gullible in the end. I am OK to accept I may have been mislead, so I will tone down my opinion, but I won't leave it aside completely, whether you are an editor or not.

And I did not say anything along the lines of "the profession of reporter is tantamount to objectivity." You described an unethical, advertising-driven method of reporting and said that is how reporters are. I said you were stereotyping and not all reporters are that way — just tabloid reporters and hacks.

I am saying that the money we give to pay for a newspaper is not enough to maintain it. And when there is a star system in development in the media, the cash as to flow in, as well as the audience.

First of all, when people talk about "the media," they often mean a lot more than reporters. Besides that, I don't see how the fact that right-wing people are paranoid proves that "the recipe works all the time."

I think everyone can be paranoid as paranoia is not a trait applicable to political identification but to people. The recipe works all the time because it is a simple one. It does not mean that all reporters are unethical. It means the ethics is bound to revenues and that there is no superstructure to ensure these ethics with enough authority, besides the employer and in the end, the respect/interest from the audience/mob.

[dialo]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Libraries don't carry illegal books, so law enforcement agencies would have little to no reason to ever care what you borrow.

Slow down there, Simey. Not only do we have widespread reports showing frequent requests for information from libraries made by government officials, but there is a long, long history of federal surveillance in libraries, most famously during the cold war. Saying that law enforcement officials have no interest in libraries is just plain wrong and yet another example of the totally flawed reasoning and continued misconceptions that you've expressed throughout the thread.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

What do you think "using technology to look for patterns" means? Match the conversation with what's on the watch list. Terrorist groups, people's names, explosive material, places, and so on. If the technology sense the patterns, it automatically flags the conversation.

No such technology exists. Audio recognition to the point of being able to pick out individual words spoken by anyone at all, regardless of their accent, background noise, interference, etc. does not exist in ANY language. It takes human operators listening to samples from the enormous number of international conversations that happen every second of every day, and identifying the language the conversations are in, followed by language-specific analysts figuring out what was said. This has to be targeted at specific languages, specific source or destination countries, and specific patterns of conversation, or it would be impossible to do anything useful with it.

I think it's somewhat more possible to correlate such things as library book usage with individuals, but that would take direct access to every single library in the country and would completely ignore the possibility of people reading books from (gasp!) other countries.

In short, without having more hardware that's more sophisticated than what is currently in existence today, this "technology looking for patterns" idea is just an idea.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by dialo

Slow down there, Simey. Not only do we have widespread reports showing frequent requests for information from libraries made by government officials, but there is a long, long history of federal surveillance in libraries, most famously during the cold war. Saying that law enforcement officials have no interest in libraries is just plain wrong and yet another example of the totally flawed reasoning and continued misconceptions that you've expressed throughout the thread.

You are the one that needs to slow down. In an age where people give credibility to every crank and wild unsubstantiated rumor, "no smoke without fire" is not the proper standard. Allegations and assertions about watch lists and government surveillance are simply unproven and don't by themselves constitute evidence that the thing feared and complained about exists. Indeed, the fact that every time we look, the evidence appears to be flawed. We find out that reports are made up, allegations about warrantless searches under the Patriot Act contradicted by the facts, and so on. But somehow the same allegations keep getting made. It's because facts aren't the issue. Fantasy and paranoia is.

Now, remember what you are asserting. You are saying that the government routinely watches library book borrowing habits of people who they don't otherwise have any reason to be interested in. There is no evidence for this. There is no evidence that the government uses watch lists on books to identify people to harrass. There is no evidence presented that they would even find that profitable, or would or could invest the kind of resources necessary to do so. I can't prove a negative, but you haven't come close to proving the positive. You are just making assertions that aren;t credible to anyone who isn't already invested in your world view.

Here is what does sometimes happen, and why it is completely different, even though *gasp* it does sometimes involve the government looking at library records. The police do on a case-by-case, non-systematic, basis, occasionally pull library and other records as part of their normal investigations of crimes and as part of trial preparation. That's just normal policing. It's the kind of thing you do when you need to complete a profile of your suspect, or if you are on the defense side, it's the kind of information you need in some cases before you go to trial. That's no doubt how, for example, we know that the guy who killed John Lennon was obsessed with Catcher in the Rye. They caught him, he was a nutcase, his defense attorney argued insanity, and so of course every public record was checked. Library records are no more sacrosanct than any other public record that the police would look at in such a case. It's just that librarians have been more vocal of late.

I'm wondering if you can see the difference. It's a logical fallacy to think that evidence that records are pulled lends any credence to the idea that there are watch lists. It doesn't prove it, it only proves that people are not being rational.

[ghporter]

I'd like to know where all these "government officials" are, who they work for, and where they get their funding. It can't all be "black" funding. And if they are indeed getting library records for intelligence purposes, why aren't tons of people "disappearing" because they said "gee, I wonder what's in this book, 'The Anarchist's Cookbook?'"

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I agree. I'm somewhat skeptical about this story. But I figured the fact that people were actually agreeing with this probably fictitious scenario made it worth discussing.

the story is made up.
UMass Dartmouth Student Recants Story: No Snooping on "Little Red Book"

books are so passe. the in thing is snooping on the internet and mobile phones.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ghporter

No such technology exists. Audio recognition to the point of being able to pick out individual words spoken by anyone at all, regardless of their accent, background noise, interference, etc. does not exist in ANY language. It takes human operators listening to samples from the enormous number of international conversations that happen every second of every day, and identifying the language the conversations are in, followed by language-specific analysts figuring out what was said. This has to be targeted at specific languages, specific source or destination countries, and specific patterns of conversation, or it would be impossible to do anything useful with it.

I think it's somewhat more possible to correlate such things as library book usage with individuals, but that would take direct access to every single library in the country and would completely ignore the possibility of people reading books from (gasp!) other countries.

In short, without having more hardware that's more sophisticated than what is currently in existence today, this "technology looking for patterns" idea is just an idea.

Such technology does exist. It's similar to transcription software. But instead of needing to know the whole dictionary, it only needs to look for specific patterns. Every made a payment over the phone through an automated response system? Say "Yes", say "No", say "your account number", say "your credit card number". Works even with heavy accents over the cell phone. Plus what the NSA doesn't even have to be live. The audio conversations are stored and post process. Any conversation that is flagged gets listened to by a live person who will analyze it further to determine if it is a threat or not. You really think we have the capacity to analyze every single phone call using live humans? Please!

[Ratm]

Dp Dp

[Ratm]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I think it's wonderful that Americans have government agents that take the time to investigate any potential terror-related incident - no matter how small.

Makes me feel a bit safer. heck, I didn't think anybody was doing anything about it.

Yeah, one in particular that I was thinking of was the Oklahoma City bombing. I wonder what progress they've made in finding the rest of members of this American born terrorist group.

Could they just be lying in wait for the right moment to exact their revenge? I want to know that the U.S. is just as vigilant about these groups as the foreign ones.

[Face Ache]

Anthrax anyone?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Nobody seemed to care about this before Bush became President...

PWWWWWNAGE.

And yeah, don't you guys know it's not what is the TRUTH that matters, it's the accusations.

This COULD happen. So it's perfectly ok to make up stories and lie.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Ratm

Yeah, one in particular that I was thinking of was the Oklahoma City bombing. I wonder what progress they've made in finding the rest of members of this American born terrorist group.

What American born terrorist group???

Could they just be lying in wait for the right moment to exact their revenge? I want to know that the U.S. is just as vigilant about these groups as the foreign ones.

Have there been any more of these major bombings? No. I suppose maybe they're doing something right assuming people would like to exact terror today, just as they did the day of the Oklahoma City bombing.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Kevin

PWWWWWNAGE.

And yeah, don't you guys know it's not what is the TRUTH that matters, it's the accusations.

This COULD happen. So it's perfectly ok to make up stories and lie.

Relax preying mantis/constipation boy/MacNN furniture/attack dog,

It's yet another article about something posted to the political lounge. Chill with the self-righteousness if you have it in you, it makes for better conversation when people aren't being accused of being pwned.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Relax preying mantis/constipation boy/MacNN furniture/attack dog,

It's yet another article about something posted to the political lounge. Chill with the self-righteousness if you have it in you, it makes for better conversation when people aren't being accused of being pwned.

Besson, stop, pause for a sec, and take your own advice.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Besson, stop, pause for a sec, and take your own advice.

Ahhh.. the reverse forcefield effect, aka "I know you are, but what am I?" I don't really care the decipher what you mean here, but thanks for the obligatory knee-jerk self-defense!

[Kevin]

Jeesh bessy, I am back not 24 hours and you are already fan-boying me.