beware of the book snoops

[realthog]

Feds Cancel Amazon Customer ID Request


reads the headline over an AP story quoted at http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071127/D8T68B4O1.html.

The story goes on to say, in part:

Federal prosecutors have withdrawn a subpoena seeking the identities of thousands of people who bought used books through online retailer Amazon.com Inc. . . ., newly unsealed court records show. The withdrawal came after a judge ruled the customers have a First Amendment right to keep their reading habits from the government.
 "The (subpoena's) chilling effect on expressive e-commerce would frost keyboards across America," U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker wrote in a June ruling. 

"Well-founded or not, rumors of an Orwellian federal criminal investigation into the reading habits of Amazon's customers could frighten countless potential customers into canceling planned online book purchases," the judge wrote in a ruling he unsealed last week.

. . .

"The subpoena is troubling because it permits the government to peek into the reading habits of specific individuals without their knowledge or permission," Crocker wrote. "It is an unsettling and un-American scenario to envision federal agents nosing through the reading lists of law-abiding citizens while hunting for evidence against somebody else." 

Federal prosecutors issued the subpoena last year as part of a grand jury investigation into a former Madison official who was a prolific seller of used books on Amazon.com. They were looking for buyers who could be witnesses in the case. . . .

Hero Judge Crocker's point seems to be, although he has slightly veiled it, that, while superficially this was merely a request related to a specific criminal investigation, there was every reason to suspect that it was, rather, an attempt to establish precedent: had he granted the subpoena then, further down the road, the feds could use the decision as justification for demanding, on mere whim or for sinister purposes, the purchase records of private individuals -- and hence the ability to snoop into those individuals' reading habits. (Do I hear a distant, sarcastic voice saying "PATRIOT Act?")

I used to think I didn't give a damn about other people knowing about my reading habits -- okay, sure, so I read all sorts of crap from time to time, and I'm sure my peers would laugh themselves all the way to an urgent laundry requirement if they learned about some of it, but in essence I have nothing to hide.

More recently, though, I've realized the logical gap in that attitude -- the gaping, ginormous, cavernous black hole of a logical flaw. I'd been assuming that the hypothetical snooper into my reading records would be rational. But there've been so many examples over recent years of federal goons displaying profound irrationality in misguided quests to ensure "homeland security" (and I'm being charitable describing all of these as merely misguided), goons who've lost sight of any distinction between prosecution and persecution, that now I'm a bit more protective of my privacy.

For example, I've recently read and enjoyed (and keep intending to review) Diane Setterfield's very pleasing novel The Thirteenth Tale. Can I run the risk of some acne-ridden Maxwell Smart somewhere going into orgasmic fits of speculation about the fact that the title's third word forms the first four letters, in some spellings, of . . .?

How far could such nonsense go? If I read Demos by one of my favourite 19th-century authors, George Gissing, would there be worries in the Secret Surveillance World that the title was so eerily suggestive of that subversive concept . . . democracy?

 

Comments

[hutch0.livejournal.com]

Hm. I'm not sure there was an attempt to establish precedent here. Reading the article, it seems the FBI were genuinely trying to track down witnesses in a criminal investigation.

I think what Judge Crocker saw was the possible future use of the precedent it would have set, rather than an immiment danger, and did the right thing. It makes the FBI's job that much harder, but I guess that's the trade-off you make for freedom.

[realthog.livejournal.com]

"It makes the FBI's job that much harder, but I guess that's the trade-off you make for freedom."

I think it is, and I think it's important the trade-off be made -- in freedom's favour. At the moment we've traded off so much in the name of "security" that this supposed beacon of democracy has become a torture state, alongside such earthly paradises as Syria and Zimbabwe. All this to protect us from a threat that's statistically less likely to strike the individual than lightning.

As to whether the Feds were fishing or not? Don't you think they were going to rather a lot of effort to find out if this guy was earning pin money through Amazon Marketplace?

[hutch0.livejournal.com]

Don't you think they were going to rather a lot of effort to find out if this guy was earning pin money through Amazon Marketplace?

No, I don't. They weren't looking for evidence, they were looking for witnesses, people this chap had interacted with, who could be subpoenaed and give evidence. It probably seemed like a tempting witness pool, but now it's been put beyond their reach.

It's an interesting question: if all our freedoms are protected but a bad guy goes free, is that a reasonable trade-off? Myself, I'd say yes, but you could turn the argument on its head and say that the occasional innocent who's hanged is a fair price to pay for all the authentic monsters who go to the gallows. The world is grey, there are no conspiracies, everything is chaos, and life's just a long walk in uncomfortable shoes.

[realthog.livejournal.com]

"No, I don't. They weren't looking for evidence, they were looking for witnesses, people this chap had interacted with, who could be subpoenaed and give evidence."

Which'd be reasonable if this was the only crime they were worried about. As I understand it, they've got him bang to rights on several others -- several more important others.

You may not have yourself sold on Amazon Marketplace. When I said "pin money" I meant it. You get ripped off so much by Amazon that, while if you have a warehouse full of stuff and several slave staff, you can make a somewhat paltry livig out of it, for the most part you're just earning the occasional dinner out as reward for weeks of hard work. It's as if the Feds were mounting a major operation to net this guy for having failed to declare the proceeds of a single car-boot sale.

[hutch0.livejournal.com]

What I was getting at was that it's unfair to invoke the Forces Of Babylon argument. The Feds were trying to get as much evidence as possible to build a case against this guy - the amount of money is irrelevant; they wanted witnesses who had done business with this person. They wanted as much evidence as humanly possible in order to make the case watertight, which is what law enforcement organisations do. They asked the judge if they could go get this evidence, and he said no. It happens. I don't think getting a precedent to examine people's Amazon Marketplace records was uppermost in their minds, but the judge spotted the possible precedent and quashed it, which is one of the things he's paid to do. All I see here is a system working properly.

[realthog.livejournal.com]

"All I see here is a system working properly."

You don't live here.

[hutch0.livejournal.com]

That, at least, is impossible to argue with.

But you see my point? What it looks like to me is a series of people doing their jobs and doing them right. The FBI wanted to interview people who had done business with this guy, in order to build their case - as they're supposed to. They went to the judge to get permission to rummage through the Marketplace records, and the judge - as he's supposed to - spotted the implications of the precedent it would set, and said no. Which is as it should be.

Now, I don't know whether the Feds were thinking to themselves, "As soon as we get permission to look at this guy's records, we can do it to everybody." Maybe they were, maybe not. I don't think so.

[realthog.livejournal.com]

"Now, I don't know whether the Feds were thinking to themselves, "As soon as we get permission to look at this guy's records, we can do it to everybody." Maybe they were, maybe not. I don't think so."

In the current climate in this country, it is impossible that, at the very least, the thought was not going through their minds.

If it were not, the Feds would have been virtually alone among Americans not to have been aware of the possibility. It's feasible they could have regarded it as an added bonus rather than as a prime motive.

This country is not as it was in the Clinton years. It is a different place. I hope it can rediscover democracy soon.

[hutch0.livejournal.com]

Don't get me wrong; I don't know enough about the subject to give an expert reading of it, although god knows that's never stopped me in the past. I just think it's sad that the climate of the time makes us default to paranoia. We automatically assume that the Powers That Be are solely concerned with turning us over, when ninety-nine percent of the time they're just bureaucrats trying to do their jobs the best they can. Maybe the Feds did have an eye on future investigations. I don't know. I prefer to think they didn't.

It is, in any event, academic, because Judge Crocker did his job and nipped it in the bud. And I suspect Judge Crocker's predecessors have been doing this kind of thing for a very long time.