Why I Steal from Libraries

[DIzzIE]

Why I Steal from Libraries

To say that you steal from the library is to be met with mortified disbelief followed by swiftly rising umbrage alongside swelling plumage as the moralist, smelling the blood spilt by the perceived violation of some moral maxim, puffs up to thrice zir size and swoops in for the always laughable impartment of Higher Moral Values. How can you steal from the library, have you no soul?

Here then is a brief text outlining a few reasons why I steal from libraries. Any one would be sufficient on its own to warrant a theft; the fact that more often than not more than one applies in any given situation or library should be all the more cause for concern over the esteemed edification of the library as some sort of illusory bastion of knowledge as opposed to wretched dungeon of the repression of information, which it most certainly is in this day and age.

I. I don't like to be tracked or surveilled. No one has a right to know the names of the books I read, the movies I watch, the music I listen to, the animals I fuck, or the people I eat. Libraries keep intricate records of all of the books you check out or have checked out in the past. Libraries with CCTV are even more troublesome, as are the libraries that force you to undergo searches prior to entering/exiting the library. This is unacceptable to me much like search engines keeping logs of searches you make or credit card companies keeping logs of shit you buy, or say government agencies keeping logs of every inch of movement you make, every flush of your toilet. The fact that Section 215 of the US Patriot Act specifically states that the pigs can subpoena your library records (as well as any other "tangible things") is obviously troubling, but hardly surprising. That some libraries have 'fought' a government request for records here and there is immaterial. The problem is that the records exist in the first place, not that some agencies obviously want to get their hands on them. I don't want to be in any fucking records, to have to worry about the possibility that my habits may be passed on to whoever for whatever motive, therefore I steal the books instead of checking them out.

II. I don't like not being able to take some books out of the library. I see no reason to restrict some books to the musty confines of an archaic institution, to be able to be read only in the establishments the library deems to be fit for said impartment of knowledge. I like to read what I want, whenever the fuck I want, therefore I steal the books instead of checking them out.

III. I cannot trust the libraries to take care of the books I want to see preserved. Sorry, libraries do not take better care of books than us smelly laypeople. I've been to many a library and in every one I've found evidence of abuse. One example seen only last week would be several boxes of newspapers stacked right next to the fucking radiator! Other cases would be books that have been desperately in need of new binding, books covered in dust and filth attracted by the glue overflowing from apparently botched binding attempts, books literally soaked from leaky water pipes right above the shelving, and on and on. I have even found boxes upon boxes of uncatalogued books stowed away in the bowels of the library's cellar, apparently deemed unfit for public circulation. If the complaint is that the libraries do not have sufficient funding to take care of their books, I fail to see why I should be asked to provide that funding when I and perhaps others are perfectly capable of taking care of the books without monetary compensation. I don't want to see treeware tomes destroyed from neglect (at least not before I get a chance to digitize 'em), therefore I steal the books instead of checking them out.

IV. I don't like paying for information. All information must be free. Libraries charge for information by way of taxes, late fees, or (as in the case of, say, university libraries) by charging a fee for access in the first place. I like my reading to be constrained neither by price nor by time, therefore I steal the books instead of checking them out.

V. I want to disseminate information as widely as possible, this desire to free the world's knowledge extends to the digitization of books. Librarians tend to go ape shit when they see you scanning a book in the library, as they do if the binding is slightly damaged from a thorough scanning session before you return the book, perhaps even demanding that you pay some atrocious fine (which leads us back to IV). I want to share information across any illusory borders or human-made boundaries, therefore I steal the books instead of checking them out.

I support free universal access to information without the impediments of surveillance or payment. Libraries, as they currently exist, are in direction opposition to these goals, therefore I steal the books instead of checking them out.

In short: if you are a librarian, go motherfuck yourself.

Oh, and if you're interested in a few tips on how to easily go about stealing books from the library see the 'free books from the library' section of Stop Paying for Shit (http://www.rorta.net/textfiles/stop.paying.for.shit.the.college.edition.(for.digi tal.viewing).pdf).

Finally, in anticipation of the aforementioned repugnant knee jerk reactionism of you, the moralist, I'd merely like to point out that nowhere in this text do I preclude the possibility either of stealing the books back to the library after you're done with them, or of setting up your own free libraries using stolen bounty; think that one over for a little bit.

[Bollocks]

I know where you're coming from on a lot of this, but what gives me the right to deny another person the right to read any certain book? If I steal a book and thus make it unavailable, while the library system says it is available, that is essentially what I am doing.

[Stone]

You're not denying the person the right to read it if the book is OCR'd and available online.

[Th0r]

That was a very interesting read.
I also find interesting the fact you steal because you do not want to be tracked.

Oh, and if you're interested in a few tips on how to easily go about stealing books from the library see the 'free books from the library' section of Stop Paying for Shit (http://www.rorta.net/textfiles/stop.paying.for.shit.the.college.edition.(for.digi tal.viewing).pdf).

Your PDF was very interesting aswell.

PS: The few times Ive stolen from libraries, on the most part have been accidental.

[Bollocks]

You're not denying the person the right to read it if the book is OCR'd and available online.

I suppose. But really, I'd much rather read a physical book than an online one, even if that means going to the library.

[odin_dax]

I suppose. But really, I'd much rather read a physical book than an online one, even if that means going to the library.

I'd agree with that. I don't think anything in the text is really necessary, apart from stemming one's own paranoia, but that's just my opinion.

[Bollocks]

I'd agree with that. I don't think anything in the text is really necessary, apart from stemming one's own paranoia, but that's just my opinion.

Well libraries do keep records of your checked out books, and those records can be subpoenaed. I have nothing to hide myself, but it is the general principle that I'm against in that case.

[sabotage]

I usually unplug the RFID towers(maybe I'll post a pic) or set up a fake account(my library is lenient, no id & you can still check out 2 items) Have yet to try the faraday cage approach (magic/booster bag), currently reading up on it. ^^Yeah, and if someone cant get a book b/c you stole they are either in a really fucked up region or dont deserve to read it b/c they are too stupid to get it through other means. Somebody stole (or lost) The Art of Deception: Controlling The Human Element of Security from my library and Im not complaining, I just went to another library & stole it from them.

[Axxess of Evil]

I usually unplug the RFID towers(maybe I'll post a pic) or set up a fake account(my library is lenient, no id & you can still check out 2 items) Have yet to try the faraday cage approach (magic/booster bag), currently reading up on it. ^^Yeah, and if someone cant get a book b/c you stole they are either in a really fucked up region or dont deserve to read it b/c they are too stupid to get it through other means. Somebody stole (or lost) The Art of Deception: Controlling The Human Element of Security from my library and Im not complaining, I just went to another library & stole it from them.

It's a hell of a lot easier then that. Check out this article from totse, I've tried it out and it works just fine (at least at the libraries I go to).

http://www.totse.com/en/bad_ideas/scams_and_rip_offs/howtoliberateb179130.html

[odin_dax]

Well libraries do keep records of your checked out books, and those records can be subpoenaed. I have nothing to hide myself, but it is the general principle that I'm against in that case.

There's no right to privacy in the Constitution. And if library records were ever subpoenaed then there's already a trial...

Library records are safer than your medical and "marketing" records, as well as other financial records.

[Mr.V]

I think its because you fucking rule

[ComfortablyNumb]

There's no right to privacy in the Constitution. And if library records were ever subpoenaed then there's already a trial...

Library records are safer than your medical and "marketing" records, as well as other financial records.


Yes there is a right to privacy, the supreme court has decided that the right to privacy is included within the 4th amendment rights against unwarranted searches and seizures, they generally refer to it as "the right to be let alone." And this is where the term "reasonable expectation of privacy" derives from. Under that rule, you have a right to privacy in any situation in which a "reasonable person" (magical person in law) would consider there to be a reasonable expectation of privacy- ie- in your own home, on a direct phone call, etc.

[odin_dax]

Yes there is a right to privacy, the supreme court has decided that the right to privacy is included within the 4th amendment rights against unwarranted searches and seizures, they generally refer to it as "the right to be let alone." And this is where the term "reasonable expectation of privacy" derives from. Under that rule, you have a right to privacy in any situation in which a "reasonable person" (magical person in law) would consider there to be a reasonable expectation of privacy- ie- in your own home, on a direct phone call, etc.

But isn't a library a government institution?

Yes, we all have the right to privacy unless the government chooses for us not to. We have privacy against individuals and private institutions, maybe.
Even with Patriot Act, I don't feel my life has changed at all in regards to privacy, but I would, of course, agree with you that we should have the right to "be let alone." I, however, feel that libraries have the right to take any action to safeguard the public. It isn't that they're trying to snoop every person's record, only look for patterns that might stop the next Unibomber or Shoe Bomber.

I think all of us on this board are safe from government action, but I leave open the possibility I may be wrong. Like I said earlier, paranoia...

[Axxess of Evil]

But isn't a library a government institution?

Yes, we all have the right to privacy unless the government chooses for us not to. We have privacy against individuals and private institutions, maybe.
Even with Patriot Act, I don't feel my life has changed at all in regards to privacy, but I would, of course, agree with you that we should have the right to "be let alone." I, however, feel that libraries have the right to take any action to safeguard the public. It isn't that they're trying to snoop every person's record, only look for patterns that might stop the next Unibomber or Shoe Bomber.

I think all of us on this board are safe from government action, but I leave open the possibility I may be wrong. Like I said earlier, paranoia...

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. No good what so ever will come from permitting the government to do whatever the fuck they want in the name of "national security".



They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security

[odin_dax]

No one is saying they should have the right to do whatever the fuck they want, though. In regards to my words, the library is a government service people use. If there are patterns that point to the next potential unibomber, I see no reason why that info can't be used and passed on to authorities. The difference is reason. It's not giving up any liberty for security, especially if we are unaware of the security (but nice quote, btw). How is that an issue, really?

[Axxess of Evil]

No one is saying they should have the right to do whatever the fuck they want, though. In regards to my words, the library is a government service people use. If there are patterns that point to the next potential unibomber, I see no reason why that info can't be used and passed on to authorities. The difference is reason. It's not giving up any liberty for security, especially if we are unaware of the security (but nice quote, btw). How is that an issue, really?

Patterns? So if check out a book about bombs or whatnot I deserve to be under government surveillance? That's a hell of a slippery slope there...

[odin_dax]

Patterns? So if check out a book about bombs or whatnot I deserve to be under government surveillance? That's a hell of a slippery slope there...

Is it? So a civilian checking out a lot of books about bombs shouldn't raise any eyebrows? Shouldn't because we have a right to absolute privacy? Tell me, would you be the one that tells the families of victims because the bomber had a right to privacy we didn't want to take any preventative measures to stop him? Regardless of any criminal background or psychological disorders? Who says checking out books and having the library and police force do their jobs by do a simple background check is a violation of any liberty or privacy, especially if the customer is unaware of such a background? What about my liberty? My right to live? If a bomber who used books he checked out at a library kills me with one of his bombs, how can I sue for my rights? What about me? Hmmm? Oh, right to "privacy" is much more valid.... Right...

I think you implictly exaggerate the ramifications of library flags

[Th0r]

Im anti every act that challenges privacy, but there are some exceptions where information has to be handed over to government agencies. If someone is reading a dangerous book [like a book similar to The Anarchist Cookbook], it is your duty to alert someone to what this person is doing, because if you dont you may have the burden of the reader and/or others deaths on your conciense. On another note, there is no need for a library to keep books that could endanger lives unless they are truly educational. im not sure where to draw that line but a reasonable line would be to keep a book which tells the reader about the workings of explosives in an industrial means not in a way that could kill or maim others. As I dont live in America I dont know what kind of dangerous books they have but allegedly some libraries in New York have special forces manuals etc.

[Axxess of Evil]

Im anti every act that challenges privacy, but there are some exceptions where information has to be handed over to government agencies. If someone is reading a dangerous book [like a book similar to The Anarchist Cookbook], it is your duty to alert someone to what this person is doing, because if you dont you may have the burden of the reader and/or others deaths on your conciense. On another note, there is no need for a library to keep books that could endanger lives unless they are truly educational. im not sure where to draw that line but a reasonable line would be to keep a book which tells the reader about the workings of explosives in an industrial means not in a way that could kill or maim others. As I dont live in America I dont know what kind of dangerous books they have but allegedly some libraries in New York have special forces manuals etc.

Jesus fucking Christ, listen to yourself. It's not the government's right to ordain what's fit for the public to read.

[Th0r]

Jesus fucking Christ, listen to yourself. It's not the government's right to ordain what's fit for the public to read.

If someone is reading effectively a terrorist manual in a library...
a.) What the hell is the book doing in the library? [As its obviously going to do harm]
b.) The govt should know because if they dont there is a chance they'll be picking up the pieces.
c.) The govt can do whatever it whats, and you cant make a difference.

I personally believe that if people cannot search for the information they require, they should not be entitled to use it. The people who want to be spoonfed on Bombshock etc. So almost all books that a library shouldnt have [because they are a danger to the user or others] are on the internet, a place where you can easily find and download them.

I personally think there should be no dangerous books in a library, that way there is no reason or excuse for the govt to be looking at what you are reading.

[odin_dax]

Jesus fucking Christ, listen to yourself. It's not the government's right to ordain what's fit for the public to read.

Way to not address any point that I made. I never said the government has or doesn't have the right to determine what the public should read. I said that a library is a government acility, they have the right to check on us if we use their services, and if there's a serious pattern of potential harm, do a background check. If the check is good, fine. Leave it be. What don't you get about that? How is that so wrong or immoral in today's society? How can you as a customer tell any service provider what he or she may not do with internal information?

And if you choose to respond, please respond to my points in the previous post or don't respond at all. Thank you.

[Axxess of Evil]

I personally think there should be no dangerous books in a library, that way there is no reason or excuse for the govt to be looking at what you are reading.

Who gets to decide what's "dangerous"? You allow the government to decide what's unfit in the name of security and before you know it you have some nutball who jerks it to the patriot act banning all "dissident" material.

[Th0r]

Who gets to decide what's "dangerous"? You allow the government to decide what's unfit in the name of security and before you know it you have some nutball who jerks it to the patriot act banning all "dissident" material.

Well seeing as the library is renting the books out, maybe them?
They might want to have a say before being blamed when some terrorist kills people or some kid blows his house up?

I dont think books like "The Anarchist Cookbook" or "Improvised Munitions Handbook" should be tottally restricted, I just dont know why they should be in a public library, especially when a large porportion of library users are teenagers.

[Axxess of Evil]

Well seeing as the library is renting the books out, maybe them?
They might want to have a say before being blamed when some terrorist kills people or some kid blows his house up?

Terrorists aren't going to study from reading the Anarchist Cookbook a lot of the shit in that book doesn't even work. Books like that have been on library shelves for decades and except for a few dumb asses who probably would have done something like that anyways it's been OK.

I suppose this should be banned too?
(http://www.amazon.com/Hacking-Dummies-Kevin-Beaver/dp/076455784X)

[Th0r]

This book is about hacking ethically

If it is hacking ethnically its doing nothing illegal, but maybe the library wouldnt want it on their shelves.

Oh and by the way I was using the Anarchist cookbook as an example [we all know its useless].

[Axxess of Evil]

If it is hacking ethnically its doing nothing illegal, but maybe the library wouldnt want it on their shelves.

Oh and by the way I was using the Anarchist coookbook as an example [we all know its useless].

If you know how to hack "ethically" you can unethically hack as well.

[REL0AD]

I think its because you fucking rule


Here's a tissue to wipe the shit off your nose Mr. V.

[Th0r]

If you know how to hack "ethically" you can unethically hack as well.
Unethical hackers would find that material off the internet, they wouldnt bother with the hassle of taking it out of the library

[odin_dax]

This thread is definitely off track... Privacy and book stock are two different issues. BTW, books aren't banned under the Patriot Act.

[Mr.V]

Here's a tissue to wipe the shit off your nose Mr. V.


go fuck yourself hater

[s70n3d]

I agree, i stopped reading after the 5th post. Good post DIZZIE, though i don't agree with some of your reasoning everyone is entitled to their own opinion (Though i do agree with your morals). Thread should be closed, seems to be taking upon an emo attitude that has nothing to do with the origonal post

[Nox (ADVANCED)]

emo attitude that has nothing to do with the origonal post

I demand examples!!!!

[headcase]

Jesus fucking Christ, listen to yourself. It's not the government's right to ordain what's fit for the public to read.

1. Nothing to do with dtealing from libraries.

2. Nothing to do with anything.

3. Emo in a violated, self-righteous pubescent kind of way.


I have more to say on the topic but not this second.

[meekgeek]

All the arguments you make in favor of stealing from libraries would apply equally to stealing from bookstores, but bookstores would arrest you if you get caught and libraries probably wouldn't.

Another difference is that libraries don't charge you anywhere near what a bookstore does for "knowledge"

Another difference is that books in libraries that DON'T get stolen tend to dissseminate knowledge much more effectively than books that stay in bookstores.

Another difference is librariains have been raising hell about the requirement to turn over their records to the government, while bookstores are vaguely annoyed at best. Why? Because for the most part, librarians think information should be free. THAT WHY THEY BECOME LIBRARIANS! Well, they also believe that you can't predict a person's actions based on the books they check out, but that's pretty much common sense.

Yeah it's a pain that the librarian yells at you when you destroy the spine of a book on a photocopier. But then, they're just trying to take care of the book. I thought you liked that.

And while you may be great at taking care of books in your house, the library has to take care of books that are borrowed by idiots who don't care about library books. It's kind of like bragging that you're a better driver than Tony Stewart (http://www.nascar.com/2005/news/headlines/cup/04/24/tstewart_jjohnson/index.html) because you've never crashed your scooter.

If you don't like the fact that the library keeps records of what you check out, just check out 5 random books for every book you want to read. If you put enough noise in the system it becomes useless.

[odin_dax]

You're like that guy in Gone In 60 Seconds that doesn't say anything until the very end.

(that's a compliment, btw)

[dmtfrogy]

If you put enough noise in the system it becomes useless.

There exists a state in which you will not attempt to make use of the system, and the system will not attempt to make use of you. If you do not see yourself as outside, do not enter, but then Why do we close our eyes? Because then the room is empty.There is no place where nothing is born and nothing dies and that we need not see each other at all. If there is an exception to every rule, then every rule must have at least one exception, excepting this one.

[7eleven mafia]

If someone is reading effectively a terrorist manual in a library...
a.) What the hell is the book doing in the library? [As its obviously going to do harm]
b.) The govt should know because if they dont there is a chance they'll be picking up the pieces.
c.) The govt can do whatever it whats, and you cant make a difference.

I personally believe that if people cannot search for the information they require, they should not be entitled to use it. The people who want to be spoonfed on Bombshock etc. So almost all books that a library shouldnt have [because they are a danger to the user or others] are on the internet, a place where you can easily find and download them.

I personally think there should be no dangerous books in a library, that way there is no reason or excuse for the govt to be looking at what you are reading.



look if the government really cared about what people read they would shut down sites like rorta, totse, warweed, etc it doesn't matter they could put dangerous books in the library and it wouldnt make any difference because we could just go to a computer and figure out what to do. anyone can look up online on how to do pretty much anything for example ive figured out how to make explosives, weapons and other things so in the big picture books keeping certain books out of the libraries would be a pointless endevour.

[Th0r]

look if the government really cared about what people read they would shut down sites like rorta, totse, warweed, etc it doesn't matter they could put dangerous books in the library and it wouldnt make any difference because we could just go to a computer and figure out what to do.

Except they can't. Was Warweed really shut by the Govt?

[7eleven mafia]

i never said they shut down any sites im mearly saying that they could...

[Th0r]

I never said you did, however people have been saying Warweed was shut down by the Government.

[7eleven mafia]

ooo i see i didnt know that, but if the site is over seas the gov cannont do anything about it

[headcase]

I wouldn't say that. Unofficially, they can do whatever the fuck they want.