[Hidden-tech] THANK YOU Re: What Happened: Franklin Law Library Citizens Report
Lisa Hoag
lisahoag at gmail.com
Tue Dec 5 18:05:19 EST 2017
Thank you, Andy for your ideas and comments.
I think blockchain is a fascinating new evolution, and have been reading
much about it.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/static/special-report-blockchain-world . It would
be ideal if the Mass Trial Court Law Libraries would adopt blockchain, and
I am actually reaching out to suggest that they do this. But right now they
do not. They use Sirsis Dynix Symphony as their library management
software. As for blockchain which I really like, one colleague who writes a
law library blog called Practice Source, made me aware of an even faster
more secure evolution from blockchain:
https://breathepublication.com/blockchain-just-became-obsolete-the-future-is-hashgraph-de4948609cbf
https://hashgraph.com/
Nevertheless, there are still reasons it is important to ALSO preserve
physical records in a distributed redundant way. The Mass County Law
Libraries were conceived, 200 years ago, as a decentralized distributed
redundant record keeping system just like blockchain. The British burned
the first Library of Congress in the War of 1812, on Aug. 24th,1814. We
nearly lost our Founding Documents, which were were rescued by then
Secretary of State James Monroe, who rallied the State Department to work
through the night to rescue our Declaration of Independence, and
Constitution, and transport them out of DC to a safe hiding place in
Virginia ( we lost the ratifying documents). Seven months later, on March
2nd, 1815, Act 177, the first law creating the Mass County Law Libraries
was signed into law. The founders saw that we needed to have these records
in many different places, so that if an important law library was lost, we
could recover. This principle was borne out when Georgia's law library was
burned in Sherman's March to the Sea, Franklin County was able to restore
Georgia Case Law books to Georgia, which were in Franklin's collection.
If we fast forward to today, there are already some serious problems with
modern archiving methods. it has been discovered that microfiche degrades
faster than newsprint. It has also become increasingly difficult to acquire
and repair the microfiche readers, as there is no longer a viable business
to sell the machines. Any form of digitization relies on a centralized
format, and sophisticated machinery to be able to read the records. If the
internet goes down, for any reason, or an important database is lost, we
can no longer access our legal history. Here is an example of the concerns
of even recent digitization, Google broke Usenet:
Google’s Abandoned Library of 700 Million Titles:
https://www.wired.com/2009/10/usenet/
If one corporation owns, or has a monopoly on the search engine that the
whole world relies on (OCLC Worldcat), and access to that database is
removed, then we can no longer access the VERY IMPORTANT records of our
legal history.
The beauty of books is that the "reading device" is our eyes, which
everyone is born with, which don't become obsolete, and won't become
unobtainable when some corporate business model goes out of style. There is
no extra equipment needed to read a book than your eyes. Having a local
copy is still necessary for timeliness, in a court case where you can go
across the hall at a court recess and retrieve a book from the law library
to present as evidence.
Smithsonian is not digitizing their records. They are putting them on
vinyl, because in a nuclear holocaust, you can still play a record with a
nail.
I LOVE the internet, and am a staunch advocate. The internet is a
stupendous way to extend access to cultural resources, but it is not
considered archival. This is confirmed by the director of the Social Law
Library of Boston, the second oldest, largest law library in the country.
There are white papers on the topic
<http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=lib_research>
that confirm this. The personal computer age has only been around for 30
years. Books have survived as the accepted method of archiving for
thousands of years. Maybe computers will last that long, or maybe they
won't. Success and reliability in archiving is measured in hundreds of
years. Is it really worth risking the important legal history of our
country by destroying the originals, before digitization can pass the test
of time as a proven archival method? Destroying the originals of our legal
documents is an irrevocable act.
Warm Regards to All,
Lisa
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Andy Klapper <atk at andyklapper.com> wrote:
> “But as Vincent points out, it is much easier to manipulate Digital Data
> and that concerns me.”
>
>
>
> First of all, has this ever happened or is this just a conspiracy theory?
>
>
>
> Second, you can use multiple data stores and block chaining (the same
> technology used by Bit Coins) to prevent undocumented changes to the
> digital copies. You can still make changes but there will be a record of
> that change that cannot be deleted stored with the changed document which
> would be stored in multiple locations. It would be just like the ledgers
> used to store Bit Coin transactions and if it’s good enough to prevent
> nefarious actors from stealing bit coins then it would be over kill for
> documents.
>
>
>
>
>
> Andy.
>
>
>
> *From:* hidden-discuss-bounces at lists.hidden-tech.net [mailto:
> hidden-discuss-bounces at lists.hidden-tech.net] *On Behalf Of *Shel Horowitz
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 05, 2017 12:18 PM
> *To:* explodingbee . <explodingbee at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* doug wight <wight155 at gmail.com>; John Bailey <jgbark at aol.com>;
> Nathaniel Davis <Nat at topnotchwoodworks.com>; Lisa Hoag <lisahoag at gmail.com>;
> hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net; Betty Tegel <btegel at crocker.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Hidden-tech] THANK YOU Re: What Happened: Franklin Law
> Library Citizens Report
>
>
>
> I see absolutely no reason not to keep paper copies while digitizing. Both
> have advantages in certain types of searches. The books are definitely part
> of our history and should be kept for that reason if no other, while the
> instant search capacity of electronic files is a worthy addition. But as
> Vincent points out, it is much easier to manipulate Digital Data and that
> concerns me.
>
>
>
> I had a conversation the other day with Lori Sanders, who is one of the
> co-managers of Historic Northampton. She suggested involving Penny Geis,
> retired Hampshire County Administrator. I don't know her personally. Does
> anyone know her and might reach out to her?
>
>
>
> On Dec 4, 2017 8:11 PM, "explodingbee ." <explodingbee at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Stephanie,
>
> You are welcome.
>
> You say that you are a pro se user of the Hampshire Law library. Lisa
> Hoag, who works with me on this project, has said that she has some
> information that they may be planning to do a similar thing to Hampshire
> Law Library as what they did to the Franklin Law library. You can contact
> her (lisahoag at gmail.com) if you want more info on that.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Vincent
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 7:03 PM, <sgelfan at rcn.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you for posting this, and for taking the time for you very
> thoughtful answer. It is so important.
>
>
>
> Stephanie (not a lawyer, but a pro se user of the Northampton library
> several years back)
> ------------------------------
>
> *From: *"explodingbee ." <explodingbee at gmail.com>
> *To: *"Laporte Rob" <rob at 2disc.com>, hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net
> *Cc: *"doug wight" <wight155 at gmail.com>, "John Bailey" <jgbark at aol.com>,
> "Nathaniel Davis" <Nat at topnotchwoodworks.com>, "Lisa Hoag" <
> lisahoag at gmail.com>, "Betty Tegel" <btegel at crocker.com>
> *Sent: *Friday, December 1, 2017 6:31:34 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [Hidden-tech] What Happened: Franklin Law Library
> Citizens Report
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Ok. I will try to respond to your query now. I was not able to do it
> earlier. Here we go:
>
>
>
> 1) *Physical books facilitate legal research better than online sources:*
> Doing legal research is often substantially easier when one has, and
> facilitated by having, the physical books, as opposed to just online
> records. I have been doing legal research for quite a few years (although
> I am not a lawyer). I know what it is like when one is straining to learn
> about a particular legal point, or to find sources for a particular issue.
> Legal research is different from other types of research in that one often
> needs to refer to many cases and various documents which refer to other
> cases or texts (sources which reference other sources); and one is often
> dealing with voluminous texts. One is also often under time pressure to
> get this information. One also often (or at least sometime) does not even
> know exactly what one is looking for and yet one needs to look hard in many
> areas/sources to try to find a solution to one's legal dilemma/issue. I
> can tell you from my own experience that it is simply easier to have the
> physical legal treatises (which may be 500 to 1,000 or more pages long
> each) in front of you to do the research. It is just easier to find things
> and remember where one was looking previously and instantly get to a table
> of contents or an index. It is just better to have the physical books. In
> case you think that my views might be an anomaly, I can tell you that some
> and probably many lawyers feel the same way. One example is John
> Stobierski, a lawyer who practices in the Greenfield area and who was
> quoted in a 3/22/17 Greenfield Recorder article as saying similar things
> (using different words). You can read his quoted comments in paragraph
> 3(c) of the summary of the issues
> <https://saveourlawlibraries.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/on-the-destruction-of-massachusetts-law-libraries-2m.pdf>
> on our website <http://saveourlawlibraries.com>.
>
> 2) *Storing legal data on DVD’s would be problematic:* When you use the
> word "digitizing" you seem to be thinking of putting files on DVD's
> (although maybe I misunderstood you). What the Executive Office of the
> Trial Court is doing here, however, is putting things online, not on
> DVD's. If one tried to put all these books on DVD's I suspect that many,
> many, many DVD's would be needed. I don't know how many, but I remember
> seeing a set of Westlaw (I think it was Westlaw) DVD's years ago and it was
> something like 25 DVD's (I did not count them). And that is (apparently)
> just the material that Westlaw had in its databases. Lots and lots of
> legal materials are not on Westlaw. And many items need to get updated
> every year. New cases come along which overturn previous cases or which
> change the case law on a particular issue, thus negating the influence of
> numerous other cases. For this reason (and other similar reasons),
> physical copies of large legal treatises get updated annually with "pocket
> parts." Those pocket parts get inserted (or a cardboard tab attached to
> the pocket part gets inserted) into a "pocket" in the back of each volume
> of the treatise. I think it could potentially cause all kinds of problems
> and confusion (not to mention avenues to facilitate fraud and censorship by
> the powers that be) to have 100's of DVD's of legal data, and then updates
> on other DVD's, or updated DVD's, or a combination of updates online and
> other materials on DVD's.
>
> 3) *It is easier to censor online materials than physical books:* One
> problem with putting books online instead of having physical books, as the
> Executive Office of the Trial Court has been doing, is that the online
> materials can be readily manipulated and edited more easily and more
> anonymously. If one were to try to edit a physical book, one would
> probably leave physical evidence of the edit. If someone tore out a page
> or pasted in a new, edited page there is a good chance that he would leave
> physical evidence of what he had done. Furthermore, there is the problem
> that if one did that and then returned the book, the records of who had
> checked out the book could lead to the person who edited it getting
> caught. If one tried to do this inside the library, without checking the
> book out, there is a chance that the person might be seen and caught.
> There is also the problem that one would have to repeat this physical edit
> over and over again in every law library in the state (and, depending on
> the book, in other states). Similarly, if one wanted to remove the entire
> book by stealing it, he would have to steal it from all the libraries in
> order for the censorship to be consistent; and it might well be a book kept
> in libraries of other states so one might have to go all over the country
> to steal these books, each time risking getting caught. In contrast, if one
> changes some data in a very large database produced by a very large company
> (like Westlaw or LexisNexis) it might be very unclear who had committed the
> censorship act, or even if it was an infiltrator who did not really work at
> the company who did it through hacking. There is greater anonymity by
> censoring data that is online. This is all the more true given that these
> large legal materials companies are outsourcing much of their work offshore
> to countries like the Philippines and India. One could just blame it on
> unknown workers in India who “misunderstood” this or that.
>
>
>
> Here are a couple of examples of online censorship and how anonymous it
> can be:
>
>
>
> (3)(a): On November 26, 1977 advanced aliens took over British TV
> stations to broadcast a message to the public. The message told us what we
> must do to overcome evil in our world and pass into a much higher state of
> evolution. (I believe it is true, that this was really done by aliens. But
> even if it was a hoax the point I am making about censorship of online
> materials still applies.) (One version of this video is here:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BWHVmBY0Cs ) The point here is that a
> section of that broadcast is missing in all the videos of it that I could
> find. That section talks about the importance of getting rid of all
> nuclear weapons AND nuclear power plants. I have spent hours, I think,
> reviewing various videos of this broadcast and every one I watched had that
> section missing. But the full broadcast, including the omitted section,
> were recorded in a written periodical (don’t have the name right now but
> that is findable and I have it somewhere). This webpage has the text of
> the broadcast, including the omitted section. (That webpage is here:
> http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread125790/pg1 ) (I don’t have
> time to check this entire webpage but I am assuming it is an accurate
> transcript of the entire message which I have previously reviewed.) The
> censored section, which you will find missing from every youtube video you
> can find on this topic (or at least every one that I viewed) is in two
> paragraphs: the paragraph, starting with the words “Be still now and
> listen…” and the following paragraph, which ends with the words “All
> weapons of evil must be removed.” So here is my question to you, Rob: Who
> censored this? Can you tell me? Who did it? I don’t think you can tell
> me. Furthermore, notice how most people who watch the video and even most
> people who know about this broadcast are not even aware of this
> censorship. All the videos (and many written versions of the text) quietly
> omit this section. Anonymous censorship. This is one example of how
> online censorship is so easy and anonymous.
>
>
>
> Another example of online censorship is Eustace Mullins’s seminal book,
> Secrets of the Federal Reserve. This was the first book to write about and
> expose the utterly corrupt Federal Reserve Bank. My understanding is that
> before this book was first published in the 50’s, very few people even knew
> of the existence of the utterly corrupt Federal Reserve (or at least they
> knew very little about it). Eustace Mullins exposed the whole thing.
> There are now other writers who have co-opted and plagiarized his message
> (with support from the powers that be, I think it is safe to assume) and
> expressed it in other books (e.g. The Creature from Jeckyll Island) in a
> way that the powers that be are more comfortable with. But the point is
> that when you look at online versions of Mullins’s book (no regular
> publishing house has been willing to publish it; Mullins had to self
> publish, and that was in an era when it was much more difficult to do that
> than it is nowadays) portions of the book have been altered. Here is an
> online version of the book: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm If you
> look on p. 96 and 104 and elsewhere you will see strange illustrations
> (labeled as “Chart II” and “Chart VI”) which look like they reflect ancient
> Egypt. *I have a physical copy of the book which i purchased online from
> a relative of Eustace Mullins (who died a few years ago).* I can tell
> you that on p. 96 is Chart II, a schematic diagram (titled “FEDERAL
> ADVISORY COUNCIL To The FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD OF GOVERNORS 1914”) which a
> chart of the people in that advisory council. I can tell you that on p.
> 104 is Chart VI, which is a chart (titled “Federal Reserve Directors: A
> Study of Corporate and Banking Influence”) showing certain corporations and
> other entities which are apparently involved in some way with the Federal
> Reserve Bank. The Egyptian pictures are not in the physical book. These
> charts have been edited in the online version to undermine the book (and
> make the reader think “WTF?”). So can you tell me, Rob, who did this
> censoring? I don’t think so. It is easy to be anonymous in censoring or
> editing online materials.
>
>
>
> 4) *Large legal materials companies cannot be trusted to safeguard our
> legal history online:* Additionally, it is insane to entrust our entire
> database and history of legal texts (or much of those materials) solely to
> these large legal materials companies, like Westlaw and LexisNexis. These
> companies can be bought out at any time by other, larger entities who do
> not respect legal histories and legal ethics. And as a matter of fact this
> has happened, from what I have read, both with LexisNexis and Westlaw. I
> have attached to this email an article by a LexisNexis insider (titled
> "Response by Anon to Shawn Hocking article on SLAW titled “Christmas comes
> early for Lexis employees.” ") who explains that the company was bought out
> by Reed Elsevier, which knew nothing about legal issues and which sought
> to use the company as a cash cow. Reed Elsevier has been completely
> mismanaging the company and seeking to maximize profits by laying off
> workers outsourcing work to India and other countries, with the result
> being that quality has gone out the window and, the author predicts, the
> company will probably just collapse in the near future.
>
>
>
> This insane company, and one or two others like it, are what we are going
> to entrust our very rich legal history to? Bad idea.
>
>
>
> Ok. So those are my responses to your query and your concerns. (I wanted
> to put up a post on the website relating to these issues but I have not
> have time to. I may do so in the future.)
>
>
>
> Best regards and hope to see you tomorrow at the meeting (see
> saveourlawlibraries.com for info on the meeting),
>
>
>
> Vincent Gillespie
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:27 PM, explodingbee . <explodingbee at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Thanks for your response. Your questions (or concerns or whatever I
> should call them) seem logical and understandable. I cannot put together a
> response right now because of things going on. I will try to respond by
> some time tomorrow.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Vincent Gillespie
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 8:55 PM, Laporte Rob <rob at 2disc.com> wrote:
>
> I could get my mind around this issue better if I read:
>
>
>
> 1. Evidence that the digitized library is and will be incomplete.
> 2. Evidence that the digitized library could be tampered with or
> damaged, with greater likelihood than by stolen or lost books and by fire
> or water destruction.
> 3. An explanation of what special interests would get by reducing
> availability, if indeed a digitized version would reduce availability.
> 4. A hypothetical case of someone being disadvantaged by the digitized
> version of the library.
>
>
>
> My firm, DISC, was a Document Imaging & Scanning Company (D-I-S-C) during
> 1995-6 and did such jobs until about 2001 (primarily search marketing since
> 1997), including for lawyers and Yale. Back then the technology was
> impressive (and ahead of what the IRS uses today!). Done right, I would
> think it could empower users of the digitized library.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> *Rob Laporte*
>
> Founder & Managing Partner
>
> *DISC, Inc. - "Making Web Sites Make Money"*
>
> 413-584-6500 <(413)%20584-6500>
>
> Rob at 2disc.com
>
> www.linkedin.com/in/2disc
>
> www.2disc.com
>
>
>
> *NOTE:* Emails can be blocked by spam filters throughout the web. If you
> don’t get a reply within an expected span of time, please call.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 16:41:35 -0500 *Lisa Hoag <1world4all at gmail.com
> <1world4all at gmail.com>>* wrote ----
>
>
>
> Hi To All :),
>
> Thank you to those who signed our petition to protect our
>
> Massachusetts County Law Libraries. I have spent most of this year
>
> researching the destruction of the Massachusetts County Law Libraries,
>
> and Franklin County in particular. Here is the report at Save Our Law
>
> Libraries:
>
> http://saveourlawlibraries.blogspot.com/2017/11/report-
> on-franklin-law-library-11-27-17.html
>
> Direct link to pdf:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zSCwHx8-Bn5dAk6WGzMj_XyW_PnY4vhC/view
>
>
>
> There is a pdf of the deaccessioning "weed list" from Franklin County
>
> Law Library here:
>
> https://saveourlawlibraries.wordpress.com/records-showing-
> the-law-books-from-the-franklin-law-library-which-
> were-shredded-incomplete/
>
>
>
> I must also tell you that Hampshire Law Library, which is still
>
> intact, is now at risk. The books have been shredded when a courthouse
>
> is renovated, and the law library spaces are now being shrunk, and the
>
> space taken for the court service centers.
>
> • Hampshire County Courthouse gets state money for repairs
>
> http://www.recorder.com/Northampton-courthouse-gets-
> renovation-money-12957212
>
> • County courts slated for consolidation under 10-year state plan
>
> http://www.gazettenet.com/Northampton-part-of-plans-to-restore-state-s-
> deterioriating-courts-9246819
>
>
>
> Court service centers help people fill out the trial courts various
>
> forms, but they do not provide a library, where citizens can educate
>
> themselves about the laws, and do their own research about the laws,
>
> and our Constitutional Rights. There are no longer any librarians in
>
> charge of the law libraries. The former Law Library Coordinator for
>
> the Massachusetts Trial Court Law Libraries, who retired in 2013, had
>
> an MLS from Lesley University. The new law library coordinator is also
>
> Senior Manager of Court Services, and came into the position through
>
> her postition as a court service center manager. There is now no one
>
> in charge of the history of our laws and legislation contained in
>
> these collections that has any professional archival training, or
>
> library science training.
>
>
>
> Please forward this report to your friends. We are now working to
>
> create a petition to protect Hampshire Law Library. If you would like
>
> to help protect Hampshire Law Library. please email us at
>
> saveourlawbooks at gmail.com.
>
>
>
> Also, if you can make a couple phone calls, or emails that would be
>
> great. We need folks to call Franklin Courthouse, and request that the
>
> Franklin Law Library full originally promised space be restored ( the
>
> original promised space was two full floors, enough to house the
>
> 30,000 vlume original collection - we do have a way to restore the
>
> collection, but first the space must be restored). (Feel free to be
>
> creative ad call/contact anyone you think might be good :)
>
> Franklin Courthouse:
>
> (413) 774-7011
>
>
>
> Office of Court Management
>
> Massachusetts Trial Court
>
> Facilities Management
>
> Suffolk County Courthouses
>
> 3 Pemberton Square
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=3+Pemberton+Square+Room+106+Boston,+MA+02108&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> Room 106
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=3+Pemberton+Square+Room+106+Boston,+MA+02108&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> Boston, MA 02108
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=3+Pemberton+Square+Room+106+Boston,+MA+02108&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> Phone: 617-725-8787 <(617)%20725-8787>
>
>
>
> Senate President Stan Rosenberg:
>
> stan.rosenberg at state.ma.us
>
> 413-584-1649 <(413)%20584-1649>
>
>
>
> Warm Regards to All,
>
>
>
> Lisa Hoag
>
>
>
> http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/86-of-200-yr-old-franklin
>
>
>
> --
>
> Lisa Hoag Designs
>
> PO Box 983
>
> Wendell, MA 01379
>
> http://www.lisahoagdesigns.com
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Hidden-discuss mailing list - home page: http://www.hidden-tech.net
>
> Hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net
>
>
>
> You are receiving this because you are on the Hidden-Tech Discussion list.
>
> If you would like to change your list preferences, Go to the Members
>
> page on the Hidden Tech Web site.
>
> http://www.hidden-tech.net/members
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hidden-discuss mailing list - home page: http://www.hidden-tech.net
> Hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net
>
> You are receiving this because you are on the Hidden-Tech Discussion list.
> If you would like to change your list preferences, Go to the Members
> page on the Hidden Tech Web site.
> http://www.hidden-tech.net/members
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hidden-discuss mailing list - home page: http://www.hidden-tech.net
> Hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net
>
> You are receiving this because you are on the Hidden-Tech Discussion list.
> If you would like to change your list preferences, Go to the Members
> page on the Hidden Tech Web site.
> http://www.hidden-tech.net/members
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hidden-discuss mailing list - home page: http://www.hidden-tech.net
> Hidden-discuss at lists.hidden-tech.net
>
> You are receiving this because you are on the Hidden-Tech Discussion list.
> If you would like to change your list preferences, Go to the Members
> page on the Hidden Tech Web site.
> http://www.hidden-tech.net/members
>
>
>
--
Lisa Hoag
106 Lockes Village Rd.
PO Box 983
Wendell, MA 01379
phone: 978-544-7894
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.hidden-tech.net/pipermail/hidden-discuss/attachments/20171205/a7f9d29f/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Hidden-discuss
mailing list