[WEB4LIB] Re: FBI to monitor libraries

[Tom Edelblute]

Academic purposes?  What about the public library where over half of our
users come in just to use Hotmail?  Then there are those who are making
travel plans, remodeling their houses, learning how to care for their
pets, trying to figure out what car to buy, and the list goes on and on.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Edelblute
Public Access Systems Coordinator
Anaheim Public Library   phone: (714) 765-1759
500 West Broadway        fax:   (714) 765-1730
Anaheim CA 92805         e-mail: thomas at anaheim.lib.ca.us

Nancy Sosna Bohm wrote:
> 
> Since I heard Ashcroft at lunch today, I can't stop imagining a Seinfeldian
> routine of a fibbie interacting in a chat room. LOL
> And what would be the response if a Librarian tapped him/her on the shoulder
> and pointed to the sign that states computers are for academic purposes?
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Karen Harker" <Karen.Harker at UTSouthwestern.edu>
> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <web4lib at webjunction.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 3:47 PM
> Subject: [WEB4LIB] Re: FBI to monitor libraries
> 
> > I think many of us have been nervous of our government's actions since =
> > Sept. 12th (and some of us even before that ;).
> >
> >
> > Karen R. Harker, MLS
> > UT Southwestern Medical Library
> > 5323 Harry Hines Blvd.
> > Dallas, TX  75390-9049
> > 214-648-1698
> > http://www.swmed.edu/library/
> >
> > >>> Raymond Wood <raywood at magma.ca> 5/30/02 4:58:36 PM >>>
> > On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 12:26:47PM -0700, Andrew K. Pace remarked:
> > >
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=3Dstory&u=3D/ap/20020530/ap_on_go_c=
> > a_st_pe/fbi_reorganizing_40
> > >=20
> > > Interesting that we have been on a thread of OPAC logs.  Is
> > > everyone ready to turn those logs over to the FBI?  Better get
> > > the web logs, proxy, and patron records out while we're at it.
> > > Is there a patron field or web server log delineation for
> > > "foreigner?"  It's always refreshing to see professional
> > > ethics described as "bureaucratic restrictions."
> > >=20
> > > That was sarcasm, just in case anyone has mistaken my ethical
> > > concern for sympathy with Mr. Ashcroft's new plans ;)
> > >=20
> > > -Andrew
> >
> > Once again, the pendulum swings, and the empire strikes
> > back.  I wonder how long before we can say hello to the 'new
> > McCarthyism' :-/
> >
> > Does anyone else get nervous about the 'terrorism' of a
> > surveillance society ?
> >
> > My $0.02,
> > Raymond
> >
> >
> >
> > *********************************************************************
> > Due to deletion of content types excluded from this list by policy,
> > this multipart message was reduced to a single part, and from there
> > to a plain text message.
> > *********************************************************************
> >