Bookseller Purges Records to Avoid PATRIOT Act

Skyshadow writes "Vermont Bookseller Bear Pond Books has announced that they will purge their sales records at the request of customers . This would effectively sidestep typically insideous a provision of the PATRIOT Act which allows government agencies to secretly seize sales records. The store's co-owner, Michael Katzenberg, put it this way: 'When the CIA comes and asks what you've read because they're suspicious of you, we can't tell them because we don't have it... That's just a basic right, to be able to read what you want without fear that somebody is looking over your shoulder to see what you're reading.' Now if only certain other booksellers would show that same conscience, we might have something here."

Law Enforcement

Why don't we just enforce the law in the USA. And the premier first set is the US Consitution and the amendments.

Vote some decent congressmen in and maybe we can win the country back!

Re:Law Enforcement

The problem is most of us have given up on finding any decent politicians. Quite honestly I can't think of any where I'm from.

Re:Law Enforcement

Arthur C. Clarke, \i{Imperial Earth}. Anyone who wants an office was, by definition, unqualified for it. Officeholders had to be dragged kicking and screaming into office.

Re:Law Enforcement

The late Douglas Adams put it rather well: "Those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job." And he's right. Just look at Bush.

Exactly.

To put it another way, the individuals most likely to strive for political power are those with a desire to control others and reduce personal liberty. Those who just want to live their lives in peace, according to their own will, are those least likely to strive for political power. And there we have the reason why, as time progresses, the US government becomes more expensive, more corrupt, and more oppressive.

Re:Law Enforcement

And, damn it, pick people other than Old, Rich, White Lifetime politicians.

I have been thinking of Cincinattus of late, how he was called upon by the people of Rome to leave his farm, become the dictator and lead the Romans to war against the Truscans (I think). He does so, leads his people, defeats his enemies, and then returns to his farm after the war has ended.

I want a leader like that! Well, multiple leaders. I agree here, select people who at least have some education. President Cletus may get us into a war with Alabama simply because his sister's name has been desicrated on a water tower.

At the same time, get the hell rid of those people who are lifetime people in government. Those that serve who ever is in power, and help with the status quo.

Re:Law Enforcement

I'm with ya! How about first getting people to actually VOTE in our elections, huh? Then we can focus on getting the decent politicians back where they belong -- in power.

Only if they vote in a studied, deliberate manner, rather than simply taking in traditional campaign rhetoric. If you vote just to vote, you're adding noise to the signal of people who did study carefully. And if you choose a candidate on some litmus-test issue -- like abortion or gun rights, as many do now -- then you get... well, a system much like we do now, where it's all partisan perception and no real policy and statecraft.

We don't need more voters, we need better voters. [metafilter.com] That's what Thomas Sowell thinks, and I think I'd have to agree.

That would be nice but...

I think the problem is finding decent congressman. Remember, these people come from the population. The politicians don't suck, the population sucks if this is the best we have to offer. An ignorant population is easy to control. I bet the people who ran out and bought duct tape and plastic think the PATRIOT act is a great idea. Considering what it is the name, "PATRIOT act", makes me want to vomit.

I have com to the the conclusion that in general us Americans give up lots of our rights (think freedom) without a fight for the illusion of protection. We are no better protected than we were before this abomination to our freedom, American politics at its finest.

Think about that while you eat your red, white, and blue cake.

Don't blame the people, blame the two parties

Both parties together represent the ideal combination of ideologies needed to create a system ripe for mass-control of the populace. The Democrats don't really represent the better parts of the left, they represent the worst and same for the Republicans on the Right. IMO our system would be a lot more (Classical) Liberal if it were a 3 way control by the Libertarian, Green and Reform parties.

The people have on paper usually two choices. Two choices isn't a choice, it's a coin flip and a mockery of representative republican values. Both parties have tried for years to convince the public that having 10-190 people officially registered on the ballot is irresponsible because it creates chaos somehow. Having two people on the ballot is akin to having only one choice in most races. Hell in my last congressional election, we had literally only one choice for the House.

The average slashdotter is too sheltered or politically and socially immature to see most of those points. Who here thinks a lot of the Right loves the PATRIOT Act? FreeRepublic is a very right wing website and when the PATRIOT part deux was discussed, no less than 85% of the posts were calling for Bush and Ashcroft's heads on pikes out on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue if they seriously pushed it.

Blame the eligible voters.

You blame the parties, I'll keep blaming the people who keep voting for the republicrats, and the vast majority who don't vote at all - not even to go and spoil their votes by writing "none of the above" on their ballots.

"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No", said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd", said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did", said Ford. "It is."
"So", said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them", said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes", said Ford with a shrug, "of course".
"But", said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said", said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them." he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it." - Douglas Adams, So long, and thanks for all the fish, chapter 36.

"It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it." - Eugene V. Debs

Re:Don't blame the people, blame the two parties

Because the most states have a "winner take all" system, any candidate that doesn't have enormous numbers of backers to begin with isn't going to win anyways.

"Winner takes all" only applies in presidential elections. There are a number of other problems which apply in all elections. The plurality voting system is chief among them.

So, if no candidate gets a majority, you have a run-off among the top contenders.

Bad idea. Learn about the problem with Instant Runoff Voting [electionmethods.org]. The same problem applies in any runoff, instant or not. Sometimes the best "compromise" candidate may get eliminated first, and you're stuck voting between two bad choices - exactly what we have now. Yes, plurality voting is bad, but IRV isn't really any better (even though it seems to be). The system you want is Condorcet [eskimo.com] voting [electionmethods.org]. Same ranking method, but you consider all preferences simultaneously rather than sequentially.

Now that I think about it, getting rid of the electoral college would have the same effect as insisting on proportional represntation of electoral college seats.

Not really. True proportional representation by popular vote forgets that the states, as political entities, should be represented in the federal government too. (That's what federal government means, the federation of individual states.) In Congress we have one house that represents the states (at least we did until that lousy 17th Amendment) and one that represents the people. The EC is an attempt to unify the interests of the states and the people when voting for a singular office (president). That's why the number of EC votes a state has is the total number of Senators and Representatives from that state.

I do agree that "winner takes all" is a broken system. The legislators that put it in place were very short-sighted - in giving more power to "their state's party" in presidential elections, they didn't think that the balance of power in their state might swing another way in the future and end up hurting "their party". NE and ME allocate their EC votes (less two) proportionally by congressional district to the plurality winner of that district. That's a good attempt at compromise. I think it would be better if we used Condorcet, better still if the last two EC votes were decided in the state legislature (if they are supposed to represent the state's interest) and we scrapped the 17th Am. while we're at it. Remember, these issues are decided by your state legislators, not DC. This gives you much greater ability to make a change to the system. It's closer to you, and hence more responsive.

I've also heard people say that we don't have enough representatives in Congress. With only 435, each has far too many constituents to respond to. The Constitution originally called for a 1:30k ratio. Maybe several thousand would be a tad excessive, but with modern technology I don't see why the number couldn't be increased without hampering the ability to debate. This means you'd have more chance of your view being represented in Congress, and combined with the idea of allocating EC votes by CD, a better chance of picking the president too.

Amazon

I like that Amazon keeps records of what people are buying. I just think they should do it in an anonymous basis. I like being able to see what people are buying in addition to a certain DVD. On a sidenote I like that they have a spot to add your opinions about what to watch in addition to a movie and what to watch instead of a particular movie.

Purging records?

Someone should show them how to slag their hard drives, quick!

The real question is...

The real question is, did the bookseller binge beforehand? If so, this could be a very serious condition.......

Obstruction of justice

This poses an instresting question, if destruction of records is not a normal business practice (to my knowledge its not), then i have to wonder if some creatative sort in the DoJ is going to try to attack them for obstuction of justice for destorying potential "evidence"

Re:Obstruction of justice

Not unless they destroy it after it has actually been subpoenaed or otherwise requested.

If they or you destroy data that no one wants, then, hey... that's life.

Re:Obstruction of justice

And what about when customer Bob wants to return his copy of "Road Ahead" ?

Assuming that Bob is willing to admit buying it in the first place ;-) Bob keeps his receipts, right? Well, the store can print an MD5 checksum of the important sales fields on the bottom of the receipt, signed by the store's private RSA key. When Bob wants a refund, he goes back to the store with his receipt, and the store can instantly verify that the receipt and its items are genuine. This protects the customer's privacy and still gives the store a way to verify old receipts. (If you object to the potential data entry, the receipt can have the critical info barcoded.)

Re:Obstruction of justice

if destruction of records is not a normal business practice (to my knowledge its not), then i have to wonder if some creatative sort in the DoJ is going to try to attack them for obstuction

From what I gathered, they are informing their customers of a new customer service policy. They only keep records from customers that agree to it and they are giving everyone equal footing by purging existing records by request.

It's also an "all or nothing". They are not purging individual items from their database.

This is typical retail practise. Customer wants their information purged from the company's system, fine. Bear Pond is just making it sound like they're the only one doing it.

Policies at my campus

I purge email logs over a week old

I don't keep squid (http cache) logs logs at all

In my humble opinion, Your admin shoud do the same

Problem Solved

Buy in "meatspace", pay in cash. Or Ebay.

Farenheit 451 anyone?

Does this remind anyone of Farenheit 451? You know, where they burn the books so people won't revolt against the government? This is a similar restriction [ala.org] placed upon our libraries and bookstores that silences any mention of a subpoena for a list of books a certain individual has purchased or borrowed.

I still don't understand how Mr. Ashcroft and his DoJ thugs [usdoj.gov] got PATRIOT through Congress. Oh wait, I forgot! Our US Congress was so freaked out by September 11 and thought that somehow if they took away Americans' right to privacy and freedom from harassment that this world would somehow be a better place!

Re:Farenheit 451 anyone?

I'm sorry about our government... It's the 1950's all over again and it sucks ass. Everyone is freaked out about all the terrorists that must be living next door, or down the street. Everyone watches CNN and FOX news for their information, and the 6 news agencies in the US are all for these horrible things as it will mean bigger sales in the near future. The government is being run by corporations at the moment, but I think another uprising of protest (ala early 70's) will put the government back in somewhat close to what could kind of be called balance.

The american people are starting to get pissed off and the movements against these insanities are growing as more people are being educated.

Re:Right to privacy

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

==

Just because you're not specifically guaranteed the right to privacy anywhere, doesn't mean you don't have it. The only way you _wouldn't_ have it would be if the constitution specifically said, "the federal government shall have the right to invade the private lives of citizens."

Re:Right to privacy

privacy is an extension the forth amendment.

Is that the amendment that prohibits the use of COBOL in governmental applications? ;)

GAAAAA! use the fourth!

Just because you're not specifically guaranteed the right to privacy anywhere, doesn't mean you don't have it.

Why not quote the 4th amendment? It's very clear about what circumstances are required for the government to invade your personal life:

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. [archives.gov]

Indeed, the bookstore records should be considered "papers" and protected, so this whole business of "knocking down stovepipes" between government and private databases is FUCKING UNAMERICAN!

The language of the constitution is so clear and the intentions are so obvious, that it is equally obvious that it has been broken. You have the right to assemble, to say, pray, and publish what you will. You have the right to bear arms. You will not be put upon by the military. The government can't harrass you without real evidence you are a criminal. The court system will not be used to abuse you. You will have a jury if you are sued. Bail will not be used instead of a conviction. You will not be abused in jail. All of these things have been violated recently with perhaps the exception of the 3rd. I'm not aware of any involuntary quartering of troops, unless eminent domain aquisitions for military bases are considered.

Re:Right to privacy

Amendment XI should have been, "Any leader caught violating any of the first 10 amendments shall be set afire as to cause unimaginably painful death."

Perhaps then we wouldn't continuously get ourselves into cycles of Constitution shredding/rebuilding. What's missing from the US Constitution is, quite frankly, consequences. There's no provision for punishing a bad, or abusive sitting government. What's worse, in today's surveillance society, a good old fashion revolution is downright impossible. Since when is it treasonous to save your country from your government?

This deserves more than a comment

Where's a HERO tag when you need one?

Re:This deserves more than a comment

Where's a HERO tag when you need one?

Why, that's a farking good idea!

Good way to go.

The Patriot Act is a violation of what my father fought for in Korea and Vietnam, and what I stood for while in the military.

I am upset that people are associating the Patriot Act with conservatism. Violation of my rights isn't conservative, its facism. Fellow conservatives need to speak up. We DO need some stronger laws and enforcement tools, and I do believe this is a passing problem, but only if we speak up.

Some may compare our current situation to that during the Civil War (oxymoron if there ever was one) when Lincoln suspended Habius Corpus, but I don't feel the two events can be compared in this way. The threat is real, more real than that era, but not as localized.

Until then, destroying sales records is a legal way to not comply with this over reaching Act. Hopefully, others will follow their lead.

Re:Good way to go.

The Patriot Act is a violation of what my father fought for in Korea and Vietnam, and what I stood for while in the military.

Bullshit. The military is nothing more than a gigantic make work program, to keep nitwits from causing trouble. We have wars to make people content with bad economic times and to make people accept a temporary command economy. I won't even get into the supposed economic benefits of redirecting wealth to irrelevant industries to produce war related shit we don't need. Every single war of the 20th century was simply a tool of social control, nothing more.

You and your father were nothing more than willing participants in a gigantic scheme akin to prison, except the illusion of freedom is maintained.

Violation of my rights isn't conservative, its facism

I have got news for you, standing armies, forced schooling, government directed industry, those are all the tools of every fascist regime.

It all goes back to Germany. After Napolean's defeat of the Prussian army in 1807, a huge transformation took place. You see, Germany's primary source of revenue back then was renting their huge mercenary army. Remember the British sending the Hessian soldiers to America? To see the world's foremost professional army defeated by Napolean's peasant army was unbelievable.

When Germany regained their independence, their entire society was transformed into a military machine. Prior to this, forced schooling didn't exist anywhere in the world outside of caste schools in India and to a lesser extent in China. Children were ripped from the families, and drilled in the mindless art of discipline all in order to make them better soldiers. Eventually, the entire society conformed to a hierarchical military system.

Perhaps you aren't aware of the huge influx of German immigrants from 1830-1880. There wasn't a place for the independent farmer of tradesman in that military machine, so they left and came to the US. Thats why, they just wanted to be left alone. This is also why the trades died far more quickly in Germany than the US. While in the US, fathers taught their sons their art, in Germany that pretty muched ceased by 1880. Thus, shit modern architecture can be quite ancient there.

Anyway, the legacy of this is our own military society. Every company is structured like a military. The classic bussinessmen's suit is a copy of late 19th century military style. Classroom schools are the same size as typical military units. Discipline is the goal, rather than education. There is a reason schools make people stupid and passive. Soldiers are not particularlly good at taking orders when they have the ability to question them.

Anyway, look into. You have been duped into believing you are free, but you have been spending your entire life doing what you were trained to do: Take orders, and do so willingly.

Heil Hitler!

How about this?

They shouldn't be keeping records about who buys what books in the first place. I know what I buy, and I have the ability to look for new reading material in catalogs, libraries or via social contacts. Why is a bookseller keeping track of my book purchases any better than a government keeping track?

It's of little comfort

But still, why should I trust this bookseller? Sure, they claim that they won't manage any lists of customer purchases... but how do I, as a customer, know that they don't have some lists somewhere?

And even if they don't have lists, they might have knowledge in their heads or on scraps of paper or whatever. All this is fair game when it comes to the law... perhaps just not as accessible as an explicit list.

I remember when my sister was asked about her former (fired) boss by her new boss. "Don't worry", he said, "we'll seal all this so that you can talk freely".

Nothing was written down. But when the new boss took the stand, he discussed the details of what my sist