I think it might work better to just display a similar statement with a date, and the date could be updated on a regular basis. When the date failed to be updated, particularly following an update request by a user, the same conclusion could be drawn. Therefore, the admin needs to take no action in response to the agency request.
It's worth considering. Although I have no idea how effective it actually would be. I wonder to what extent they pressure you. (For example, do they threaten action on friends and family?) It might be most useful if every userpage had such a statement specific for that user. I can tell you that we haven't had any requests from any agency at this point. We are talking about these things. I am always interested to hear people's thoughts on the matter.
I always kind of assumed that they worded it in such a way to prevent you from indicating it in any way, specifically to avoid this loophole. They're not stupid, after all. But like the article says, forcing you to lie might get a bit tricky, legally speaking. Anyway, assuming this is possible, how would one for each user work? You (an admin) simply click a button every day that updates the timestamp on all profiles, excepting the ones you were contacted about? At this point, it might help raise the profile of both the tactic and the site a bit. Could be interesting to watch how the policy develops across other sites and institutions.
It might work like that. Still, I wonder if it is illegal for me to tell you that no government agency has requested information about you from us. That much is true.At this point, it might help raise the profile of both the tactic and the site a bit. Could be interesting to watch how the policy develops across other sites and institutions.
I wonder how they would make it illegal? It's a truthful statement, it's not harming American national security, it's not slander and isn't inciting panic. ...I might still want to talk to a lawyer first though. It would suck to have the site shut down over something like that.
It is not completely uncommon for me to be upset with stuff that Jessamyn West writes on the web. But when I do and when I am bright enough to get up from my keyboard to cool off ... lo and behold I re-read what she has said and yup ... it was my chauvinism or misogyny that was being revealed to myself. And that exposure hurts, but it is good for me. Jessamyn West is an example of what 21st century digital citizens should aspire to be.
No, librarians are just annoying, once they're politicized. I once sat next to a Ph.D. in "library science" who assured me that she was in the front line of the fight against GWB's "fascist America." With a straight face. So I asked her what her stance on Cuba and China was and she said she wasn't political. You can't make this stuff up. -XC
For sure, your one-case anecdotal evidence can be extrapolated to apply to all librarians.
Criticizing my spelling isn't a rebuttal to my point.
I know, I was joshing. If you're going to whack someone verbally, it's always best to spell bam right. Perhaps you do not know many 'professional' librarians - if I started counting I could probably name a dozen - UNC/CH has a big program. It's highly politicized, predictably doctrinaire leftism, and has an astounding unemployment rate. Draw your own conclusions about the folks who graduate. -XC
Assuming I accept all of your assertions I don't see what I can draw from it. Perhaps you could elaborate?