"Terror Reading"

[jayh at 1st.net]

My comment was basically a musing, but nonetheless technically since it is a crime 
to reveal that the feds have gotten information, it would seem that declaring that they 
have not provided information is in itself a declaration about fed activity and so 
covered.

You are right, that librarians are upset. However the situation is such that librarians 
have been specifically warned that if they call the ALA about such a visit, they cannot 
say anything in their conversation that they are calling in regards to such a request. 
The most they are allowed to say in such phone conversations is that they would like 
to talk to a lawyer.

This is a very bad precedent.

j

On 25 Jun 2002 at 20:35, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> > hmmmm... does that mean the by declaring that his library does not have than info, 
> > and thus has not provided info to the feds, is that declaration in itself a violation of 
> > USA PATRIOT?
> 
> 
>     How could the library have the info, it's SOP to *not* keep the 
> info, as I said. Most libraries wouldn't dare keep the info, if other 
> librarians found out about it there would be all sorts of nastiness. A 
> library director of a library that kept that sort of info would be 
> destroying his own career if he expected to go anywhere else. And I 
> think cooperating with the feebs would do likewise.
>     Nobody really believes the gov't anymore -- Asscruft would be spat 
> upon if he entered most libraries. I think at this point most educated 
> people recognize the Un-Patriot act for what it is - the USA Fascist 
> Manifesto. There's lots of people in libraries who have no doubt at all 
> that 9/11 was engineered by the CIA to give the military the pretext to 
> invade Afghanistan and regain control of the opium market. That's what 
> the "War on Some Terror" is all about, that and another big domestic 
> power grab by the feebs, just like the "War on Some Drugs."
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Harmon Seaver	
> CyberShamanix
> http://www.cybershamanix.com
> 
>