You are trained and paid to be helpful and assist patrons, while the DHS is paid and trained to protect the US from more terrorist attacks.

That library computers are often used to transmit messages to aid in the committing of criminal activity is well known. After 9-11 the threat of public computers being used to coordinate attacks or extract data to use for an attack became a consideration. All sorts of websites were self censoring when they realized terrorists were pulling info off the web to facilitate attacks agains US citizens. Since personal accounts could be traced and are hard for non-US citizens without credit cards to obtain, the terrorist natural destination is a public computer.

The provisions and PR about library computers was a well planned campaign to dissuade terrorists from accessing the web in libraries. If one can keep the terrorists less informed - all the better.

The poor are just as vulnerable as the rich if a terrorist succeeds in an attack. When one knows the way library computers have limited/no access to the software running them - one knows that all the websites one visits are not only visible to the library - but to anyone else using the computer later. A simple check of the History folder on the IE web browser can reveal where the former users have traveled. By correlating these with times of access, the librarians could easily decipher which patron accessed which sites. When surveillance cameras are factored in (in the libraries that have them) one not only could link visited sites with a patron, but also a bunch of recorded visual images of that patron.

Yes privacy is very important. However, a person's actions in public libraries, in my opinion, do not require the same degree of protections as would be afforded a suspect's home, car or person.

As for intimidation...

Only wrongdoers or people who feel their activities are criminal would be intimidated by such a provision. I access the library computers and have no fear of my activities being monitored. I am all too aware NO computer or web activities are ever "private."

I can see where a poor person with no other web access might be uncomfortable using a public computer - but they probably already are uncomfortable accessing any site that would embarass them - regardless of whether they think their site browsing would be subject to Federal monitoring.

I find it amazing that the same folks who were complaining about the various intelligence agencies' failure to prevent the terrorist attacks, are so loathe to let the government have the tools to make it easier to do exactly that.

Government employees are not psychic ( most aren't anyway) and do not have crystal balls. If people are serious about preventing terrorist attacks they surely must realize they are asking for more snooping, invasion of privacy and monitoring by these intelligence agencies.

If we live as we did before 9/11, we can expect more of the same thing. You'll simply have to make up your minds which you value more - your life or your privacy.

SDAI-Tech1