On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Jim Choate wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:43:56 -0500 Subject: those hysterical librarians

"Ashcroft Mocks Librarians and Others Who Oppose Parts of Counterterrorism Law" http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/16/politics/16LIBR.html

And, in case you missed it, a related "News in Brief" story from The Onion:

Revised Patriot Act Will Make It Illegal To Read Patriot Act WASHINGTON, DC-President Bush spoke out Monday in support of a revised version of the 2001 USA Patriot Act that would make it illegal to read the USA Patriot Act. "Under current federal law, there are unreasonable obstacles to investigating and prosecuting acts of terrorism, including the public's access to information about how the federal police will investigate and prosecute acts of terrorism," Bush said at a press conference Monday. "For the sake of the American people, I call on Congress to pass this important law prohibiting access to itself." Bush also proposed extending the rights of states to impose the death penalty "in the wake of Sept. 11 and stuff."

I had a very interesting conversation today with a pair of cops who work under the PA - a real mindblower. While the ALA, ACLU, and everyone else I can think of is screaming for the PA to be withdrawn, preferably *now*, I found it interesting that the cops had pretty much the same opinion, although for different reasons. LEAs, according to these guys, were able to get a *lot* more information, with a lot less hassle, *prior* to the PA. The reasoning went something like this: Before the PA, they could grab a routine subpoena, "practically preprinted, from damn near any prosecutor [they] could find", serve it on a library/bank/<fill in your favorite target here>, and get anything they wanted. Now, they have to get an "investigative subpoena" (I believe I remember this term correctly, but if not, anyone with more accurate info please correct me), and have this subpoena signed off on by both a federal persecutor *and* a federal judge in the correct district, and then serve on the appropriate party: and this new "investigative subpoena" can request far less data than the old ones, as they have to be strictly PA-compliant. Needless to say, the thought that LEOs find the the PA to be "way to restrictive compared to before" struck me as one of the most bizzarre things I'd ever heard. But they were quite adamant that given a choice, they would gladly go back to the "old way". The only thing that could possibly, IMHO, make this more understandable, was that the two LEAs I was speaking to were not themselves fedz. I find it exquisitely amusing that I and my neighbor LEOs share the common goal of seeing the PA rot in hell :-) -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org "Every living thing dies alone." Donnie Darko