[WEB4LIB] RE: FBI to monitor libraries

[GRAY, PAUL]

>. . . Paul suggested, more like what is posted on a billboard.

Actually - I wasn't so much suggesting this - as repeating what I had been warned of as early as 18 years ago -- and as recently as last month.  Most recently - by my Library Director. 
Not so much that the Internet was LIKE a bulletin board -- but that anything communicated over a network - or stored on a hard drive -- stands the chance of being 'found' and used in ways I may not have desired - inlcuding public display.


> . . . Our library laws provide exceptions for criminal investigations. 
> So could policies dealing with Internet use. 

I definitely agree here.
Forgive me if I am generalizing based on a minority opinion -- 
But the argument I keep hearing is that we should do everything in our power to prevent the law enforcement agencies from having access to information.

> But why should every user be treated like a criminal?

Best example I can think of on only 1 cup of coffee - is speed bumps.
I don't speed through a parking lots endangering the lives of pedestrians - 
nor does anyone I know. 
Unfortunately, though, the owners of these lots have no way of knowing in advance who would.  So we are all treated like criminals (speeders) by having speed bumps placed in our paths to slow us down.  And frankly - I am more than willing to give up my 'right' to unobstructed travel - if it helps save a life.

>We don't allow postal employees to open our mail,

Oh - but there ARE situations and allowances within the law where exactly that is allowed and even required.

> Why should someone's personal e-mail or
> other activities on the Internet be subject to government snooping? 

Because - sadly - we live in a world where there are people who would use these tools to do harm to the lives and property of others. And there is no way to predict in advance who these people are.

Should there be checks and balances involved and controls over who can investigate what when --
DEFINITELY. 
And that is the value of debates like this - and letters to our legislators who set these limits.


> Just because you can technically look at someone's information,
> doesn't mean you should.

I totally agree here. As per my argument on other topics -- ability in no implies right.

Hey -
I'm a child of the 60's and as cynical regarding government as the next person.
But when it comes to interfering with legitimate investigations -- 
or assuring those who would want to engage in illegal activities that the library is going to do all it can to provide a safe haven where their activities will remain anonymous.
(No - I know that is not the intent but it is the logical result.)
Well - there I draw the line. 

PHG
Hurst, TX