Librarian Stands up to the Feds

Anonymous Coward writes "A librarian at Brandeis University forced the FBI to obtain a warrant to seize computers used to send threats. From the article: 'Federal Bureau of Investigation agents tried to seize 30 of the library's computers without a warrant, saying someone had used the library's Internet connection to send the threat to Brandeis. But the library director, Kathy Glick-Weil, told the agents they could not take the machines unless they got a warrant first. Newton's mayor, David Cohen, backed Ms. Glick-Weil up. After a brief standoff, FBI officials relented and sought a warrant from a judge.'"

Comments

Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

After a brief standoff, FBI officials relented and sought a warrant from a judge.

Relented? The government is supposedly here to protect us and never stomp on our freedoms. When is the government ever NOT supposed to relent to the citizen? I believe that's their job -- to relent to our will if they come onto our property without just cause. In fact, I don't even believe they ever have just cause as the federal government has gone beyond their constitutionally mandated limits of power.

The FBI, to me, is a completely unconstitutional arm of government. I usually hear the entire "But the Justice Department needs to do their job and the FBI enforces this" and yet I also find the Justice Department unconstitutional. Neither is compatible with freedom or a republican (not the political party definition) form of limited central government.

The FBI is the greatest violator of racketeering laws. They have all the power to force you to perform actions against your will. They have all the power to take what they please when they please, and all you have is the ability to address your grievance in the courts -- the same courts that are paid by the same people who pay the FBI. And how do you vote the FBI out of office?

I don't like the idea of police that aren't policed. I have enough problems with the power that the local cops have -- it goes straight to their heads the minute they put the badge on for the first time. Federal cops are against everything I believe in -- what exactly is the FBI policing? The Constitution set up the crimes that the Federal arm was to enforce -- piracy, counterfeiting and treason. The FBI is not needed to police any of these crimes.

Sure, you can say that the commerce clause gives Congress unlimited power to regulate interstate commerce and they need the FBI to police that commerce. My view on the regulation of commerce is from a freedom perspective -- the commerce clause was written specifically to give Congress the authority to prevent any individual state from restricting commerce with another state. Congress has no mandate to do the restricting of commerce but to regulate the states from restricting free trade. That's pretty much what the founding fathers intended as well.

You can say that the FBI is needed to prevent terrorism, but they haven't. We foster terrorism by provoking anger -- our troops are in over 100 countries of the world today. If you wonder why people hate us, look at the monsters with guns that wear our flag, within our country and beyond our borders in the hundred or more countries we're policing against the will of those citizens.

You can say that the FBI is needed to police child porn or illegal communications between states, but this is also untrue -- both are protected from federal policing by the Constitution, and should be policed only by the individual states if the people so decide. Nothing prevents states from working deals out to help each other when crimes cross into their neighboring states

I don't see the need for the FBI. All I see is their involvement in crime after crime committed by the authoritarian state -- look at prohibition, the drug war, and the daily mistakes that repeat themselves by an organization with too much power and no overview.

Sort of reminds me of Congress, actually.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to remember that the same people who shout slogans about "freedom", "The Constitution", "The Founding Fathers", "strict constructionists", and the like are the same ones who think the President has some sort of God-given right to order warrantless wiretaps on American citizens and allow law enforcement to do things like in this story without authority.

It is basically a game of image - they say one thing but mean and do something completly differently. It is disgusting and parties on both sides are doing it, just with different themes.

Our political system really has failed us - where can we turn now?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[ucahg]

And how about the wing of the FBI that investiages kidnappings? If your child is kidnapped, you won't appreciate that?

How about the FBI department that handles serial killers? Surely that's an infringement of our freedom?

Of course, the FBI should have gotten a search warrant, but I'm sure they will now and I hope they can determine who sent the threats, because I want to live in a world where I know if someone sends me a death threat (or what-have-you), that they will be found and I won't have to fear my safety on their account.

You don't see a use for the FBI? Pleeease.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember. In a free society, "Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms" would be a convenience store chain.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Zeinfeld]

Sounds to me as if the FBI were just trying it on.

The point of warrants is in part to make sure that people cannot go around nicking things by pretending to be police. In this case 30 computers probably represents a good $50,000 worth of capital and another $50,000 or so of installation effort. There has to be a good reason before that amount of money is impounded.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[nanojath]

There is also the issue that they are consistently, persistently a pack of incompetent, ass-covering fuckups. The best way to get promoted in the FBI is to commit some egregious, inexcusable blunder in front of an incurably ethical underling. After they report you, they'll get demoted or fired and you'll get kicked upstairs.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[operagost]

If you think the Justice Department is unconstitutional, maybe you need to go back to third grade and learn about "separation of powers."

If you wonder why people hate us, look at the monsters with guns that wear our flag, within our country and beyond our borders in the hundred or more countries we're policing against the will of those citizens.

Wow-- guess I don't have to ask whether you support the troops or not.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[nomadic]

The FBI is the greatest violator of racketeering laws. They have all the power to force you to perform actions against your will.

Then how come when several armed agents are refused by a presumably unarmed librarian, they backed down? If they are so lawless as you claim, then how come they didn't just shove their way in?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

And how about the wing of the FBI that investiages kidnappings? If your child is kidnapped, you won't appreciate that?

I would hire a private investigator and a lawyer. Also, I don't see how someone could kidnap my child if I was a good parent and actually parented the child at all times, as a parent should.

How about the FBI department that handles serial killers? Surely that's an infringement of our freedom?

There are so many serial killers that we need an unconstitutional department costing us US$5 billion a year? Murder is NOT a federal crime, per the Constitution. Let the states handle it.

because I want to live in a world where I know if someone sends me a death threat (or what-have-you), that they will be found and I won't have to fear my safety on their account.

And if I received a death threat, I'd arm myself and make sure I had a good shot and a level head.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[AKAImBatman]

In a free society, "Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms" would be a convenience store chain.

In Adams-Friendship, Wisconsin, there's a store called "Al's Guns and TVs". Does that count?

[insert jokes about replacing the Nintendo Zapper here]

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[LiquidCoooled]

How many people know what a warrant even looks like?

Sure we see them handed over in the movies and on tv, but they never go over them and double check them.

Is there a number we can call to confirm that a warrant is actually valid?

A determined criminal could create a fake warrant easier than most other official ID badges purely because we don't know what they look like?

(Of course I'm not American and might be completely wrong, but requiring a warrant in my simplistic eyes is usually just a delaying tactic by the criminal)

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG you can pay me 50k to install 30 pc's.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

And how about the wing of the FBI that investiages kidnappings? If your child is kidnapped, you won't appreciate that?

How about the FBI department that handles serial killers? Surely that's an infringement of our freedom?

Of course, the FBI should have gotten a search warrant, but I'm sure they will now and I hope they can determine who sent the threats, because I want to live in a world where I know if someone sends me a death threat (or what-have-you), that they will be found and I won't have to fear my safety on their account.

You don't see a use for the FBI? Pleeease.

If they were in the news more for finding serial killers and recovering kidnapped children than they were for using the PATRIOTACT, then perhaps. There is a use for an FBI, but not this one.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

It's called "freedom of speech".

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, I have problems with this too. But this sort of thing is the norm, not the exception. Paliamentary governments are all littered with institutions out of voters' reach. The real work of governing society is done by institutions named for acronyms. In a very real sense, an elected government is, to a certain extent, for show. Paliamentism is "deciding once in 3 to 6 years which member of the ruling class is to misrepresent the people". And even those elected don't even end up doing the governing...

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[gmack]

I would hire a private investigator and a lawyer. Also, I don't see how someone could kidnap my child if I was a good parent and actually parented the child at all times, as a parent should.

It's nice that you seem to have a lot of money to pay for these sorts of things but what about people who aren't so well off?

And while I'm at it.. what's with the blaming the victims here? Not all kidnappings can be prevented by the parents.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[tehdaemon]

RTFA. Everybody interviewed said that they could legally have done so. :( I think that means that they actually have a few nice FBI agents...

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[nomadic]

No, it's called protection from unreasonable search and seizure. And the point is if the parent poster's opinion of the FBI is correct, then how does he explain the fact that they did back down?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[nanojath]

Oh, and in reference to "what election," it's Tuesday, November 7, 2006... and you'll generally find that voting NO to Republicans will coincide with voting NO to the further erosion of civil liberties. Though do make sure to do your research, there are always a few nutty GOPpers who actually believe that "rule of law" shuck and feel strangely compelled to, you know, uphold the constitution and stuff. And god knows there are plenty of Democrats Podpeople who have totally drunk the ""National Security" kool-aid. But inasmuch as the Administration is leading the charge to throw the judiciary out of the whole "law and order" equation, and the Republican led congress overwhelmingly supports him in this, yeah, they are the bums what need throwing out at this particular time.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[gowen]

what about people who aren't so well off?

That arguments cuts no ice with the more extreme libertarians, who seem intent on introducing feudalism to America, where the rich get to make and enforce the laws, as selectively as their wealth allows. Everyone else is just a serf.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

It's nice that you seem to have a lot of money to pay for these sorts of things but what about people who aren't so well off?

Picture how much money you'd have every year if we didn't pay for the FBI, the CIA, the NSA and every other spy organization that isn't allowed by the Constitution. Even if it was merely a US$30 billion a year savings, that's about US$300 per year per taxpayer or so. A good PI can cost you US$5000+, but if you assume that kidnapping might occur 1 in 1000 (if even that much?), you can likely purchase kidnap insurance if the market was free to police kidnappings competitively.

I don't see the point of me paying US$300 per year to an organization that has no competition, has the unique monopoly to force me to follow their rules and disrupts freedom just by their presence. No thanks.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter, you dirty fucking hippy. Must be nice to live in a fantasy world like that.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dclydew]

Kidnappings could easily be handled by the State. There's no reason that federal officials would have to be involved. Serial Killers tend to stay in a particular area (with a few notable exceptions), again a job for the State.

The State can (and used to) handle pretty much everything that the feds do now... one should wonder when all the power starts flowing up the chain, away from the individual.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[networkBoy]

" If you wonder why people hate us, look at the monsters with guns that wear our flag,"

So normally I'm a fan of you, not because I agree with you (I often do not) but because your comments are clear and unambiguous. This one, however, kind of irks me; so I'm calling you out on it.

Is it that you don't support our troops, the dirt pounders in the field, or is it that you don't support our government and command structure sending the dirt pounders into the field. The disitinction is real and I am quite interested in your response. The statement sounds like you think the individual GI Joe's are to blame, but your post history would indicate that maybe you did not mean that to be the case.

Cheers,
-nB

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

I only vote for one person on every ballot. I vote for the one person who can make a decision the way I believe it should be made. I vote for the one person who understands my life, knows what my needs are, and can adjust the law to be realistic, moral and promote freedom not restrict it.

That person is me. I recommend voting for yourself on every ballot, straight ticket, every position. Vote NO to all referenda and judge retentions. Write yourself in and you'll be voting for the only person able to enforce the law the way you want it enforced.

Picture the next presidential election: Condi Rice 7%, Hillary Clinton 8%, Other 85%. I like that. That's my kind of mandate.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since "Al's Guns and TVs" contain none of the words: "Alcohol", "Tobacco", nor "Firearms", and has 3 other words in it, I'd say no. You get no points for the "and".

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Turn-X Alphonse]

We have all them things in the UK and the police deal with them fine. Special branchs work on them, but they're still the police and don't need fancy loop hole organisations to do it. If anything they're superior to the FBI because they're directly connected to the average copper working on the street, who notice and see far more than guys working in buildings hidden away from everything.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Viol8]

"I would hire a private investigator and a lawyer. Also, I don't see how someone could kidnap my child if I was a good parent and actually parented the child at all times, as a parent should."

What planet are you on? A private investigator?? Do you *know* how hard it can
be to track down kidnap victims even with the latest foensic techniques and
hundreds of people working on the case. So how do you think one single gumshoe
is going to manage that on his own with just his notebook?

As for the second comment, thats just so absurb and out of touch that it doesn't
even deserve a reply. When you come back down from the Planet Brainless Hippie
let us know and maybe we can have a proper discussion.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[networkBoy]

In Adams-Friendship, Wisconsin, there's a store called "Al's Guns and TVs". Does that count?

No, you need chew and booze too. ;-)
-nB

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[AKAImBatman]

Also, I don't see how someone could kidnap my child if I was a good parent and actually parented the child at all times, as a parent should.

Now that's just a heartless thing to say. Many good parents still lose their children, often through no fault of their own.

For example, on our last family vacation we visited a children's museum. While we were building a dinosaur from bones together, my youngest son (only 3 years old!) sneakily departed. We noticed his disappearance pretty quickly, but couldn't find him anywhere in the multilevel facility. Since the facility had no real security, anyone could have picked him up and run off with our child while we were trying to locate him. A kidnapper could have easily attributed his crying to misbehaving rather than apprehension.

Eventually the employees found him in a dark "virtual" batting cage. He got a good lecture for taking off like that, but then managed to sneak out of an ambulence he was "driving" just a few minutes later. (He's a sneaky bugger. I was sitting right next to him, look down at the radio, look up and he's gone.) Thankfully, I found him much quicker this time and kept him on an even tighter leash after that. (Also threatening to take him to the car and keep him there for the rest of the trip unless he kept in my sight at all times.)

Now consider all the parents who have their babies stolen by adoption scams. Or kids kidnapped while they're on the school playground. (Especially by relatives who might seem to be sent by you, but often aren't right in the head.) There are just so many ways that kids can be lost or kidnapped that it just isn't funny. A good parent has a far lower chance of their kid being abducted, but they can't guarantee against it.

So do be a little careful about such sweeping statements, will you?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[MarkGriz]

" but if you assume that kidnapping might occur 1 in 1000 (if even that much?), you can likely purchase kidnap insurance if the market was free to police kidnappings competitively."

Yea! So we can look forward to kidnapping insurance fraud in your ideal world?

I'm not defending the strong arm tactics of the FBI in the situation, but throwing out the baby with the bathwater seems a bit extreme.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

This one, however, kind of irks me; so I'm calling you out on it.

I appreciate your honesty. The sentence wasn't flamebait, but it does open the door for resolving what I meant.

Is it that you don't support our troops, the dirt pounders in the field, or is it that you don't support our government and command structure sending the dirt pounders into the field. The disitinction is real and I am quite interested in your response. The statement sounds like you think the individual GI Joe's are to blame, but your post history would indicate that maybe you did not mean that to be the case.

I have friends in the military. I now have family too (my nephew just went to the Middle East). I condemn them for their actions and their commitment, because I disagree completely with performing any job that I know is immoral. I will never cheat, lie, steal or defraud a customer. I believe the soldiers are the front line not in protecting our rights abroad, but in making the decision to disregard immoral commands. They are the front line in keeping the government from violating the Constitution.

I'm a Christ follower, so there are some caveats here. I believe that God's commandment that we shouldn't murder is extremely important. I don't see any defensive killing being justified unless it is truly defensive -- protecting your land from the enemy entering at that very moment.

No soldier can tell me they're protecting freedom. They're not. My family and friends who have enlisted have come back indoctrinated and fully believing they are saving us from terrorists and communists and criminals and dictators. They're lost when it comes to morals and freedom. I can't support that.

100+ countries that we're in. 100! I believe our Constitution prevents our government from restricting freedom of everyone on this planet -- citizens and aliens in the US and all people abroad. I believe a soldier is an arm of the government, and they must also honor the Constitution.

When was the last time we declared war? We're not to have a standing army, we're to have an army organized from state militias once we declare war. WW2 has been long over, its time to disband the army of tyrants, send them back into the market to work hard and earn a moral and proper living for their families and communities. We don't need to do anything but trade freely and entangle with no one else and their problems.

Freedom first.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I personally don't have much respect for any troops that didn't desert when illegally ordered to go to Iraq.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[plover]

The point of warrants is in part to make sure that people cannot go around nicking things by pretending to be police.

Nice try, but Troll Tuesday was yesterday.

The point of warrants is that the constitution recognized that the police have more power than ordinary citizens, and that power had to be kept in check by someone else. In the case of warrants that's the court, and more specifically an elected judge. If the cops become "too powerful" and start abusing their search privileges, we the people can elect a new judge who won't issue so many warrants.

At least that's the idea they teach in Civics 101. These days, warrants are these things that we don't need so much if there are terra'rists running about. Just wiretap 'em all and let God sort out the infidels.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[doughrama]

"I would hire a private investigator and a lawyer. Also, I don't see how someone could kidnap my child if I was a good parent and actually parented the child at all times, as a parent should."

You just lost all credibility.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[NitsujTPU]

Also, I don't see how someone could kidnap my child if I was a good parent and actually parented the child at all times, as a parent should.

Wow. So, your kid is at school, and someone runs in and grabs the first kid near the door... who happens to be your kid. You view that as a shortcoming on your part as a parent?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

I understand kids have a tendency to get away. I also understand that the market has provisions for tracking when kids do get away.

One of my best friends has 3 kids. She's a single mom, too. When her kids were young, she had this device that was a plastic chain that strapped to her kid's wrist. If the kid took off, she pulled him back in.

They updated the device years later to be wireless -- if a kid walks away from a certain distance, your pocket alarm goes off and warns you to drop everything and find your child.

Most kidnapping are performed by people known by the family, aren't they? I don't see why we need a US$5 billion a year organization to do what the market has already provided for, and that seems to be predictable in who the criminals are.

One more thing: you're a good parent. Do you know how many bad parents I see every day? I'm supposed to pay for bad parenting?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Omestes]

One better, there used to be a store in Flagstaff, AZ called Ruff's Guns. You could buy a pack of smokes, a fifth of Beam, a porno, a 9mm, and ammo for it, all in one stop.

Sadly, they changed into a pure gunshop about a year ago. I used to take all of my foreign freinds there for a small slice of what makes America great, though.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Fizzl]

Besides, the grandparent obviously has no children of his own, as he has a delusion that children could be watched over 24/7.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[the phantom]

That works really well until the kidnapper or killer crosses a state line...

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

Straw man argument.

Most kidnapping are not performed by anonymous random kidnappers. Most kidnappings occur by family members or people known and trusted by the family.

My kid wouldn't be in the public school system, first of all. Second of all, I would never leave my child with someone I didn't trust implicitly. There are many many things parents could do to reduce the risk of kidnapping. It is sad that most parents don't do them.

As for hiring a PI, you'd be surprised at how often this works. PIs can use skip tracers and account tracking tools to find almost anyone at any time. The 3 times I had to skip trace someone in my life (one was a loan gone bad, one was a business partner who disappeared and one was a friend I lost track of and wanted to find) the PI was able to find them in 2 days or less for very little money.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[smidget2k4]

It seems like the solution to all of these problems for libertarians is "well, you can just buy insurance for it!" But then the PI you hire will get involved with the hired police force of the kidnapper, rendering them ineffective because they have anti-PI insurance! It is just an absolutely ridiculous system. The people who are poor, who wouldn't be able to afford kidnapping insurance, would once again get the shaft in this world you have set up.

So effectively, what we have set up here is a system where only the rich have power and any decision making power, because it makes the poor struggle even more just to stay alive, let alone get an education and a stable job. Good system.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Kohath]

Also, I don't see how someone could kidnap my child if I was a good parent and actually parented the child at all times, as a parent should.

By shooting you in head before grabbing the kid?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[soft_guy]

What a wise and well thought out idea. How can I subscribe to your newsletter?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Stradenko]

I would say[1] that if one is not "well off enough" to be a decent parent for one's children, one oughtn't have a child. I would say that's an effective solution to the kidnapping problem.[2]

[1] While I consider myself libertarian (I check the Libertarian box on my voter registration form), my views may not accurately represent the views of the Libertarian party.

[2] I realize that kids can get out of hand and that parents may have extenuating circumstances (so take my comment as a moderate eggageration, if it makes you feel better). The GP seemed to've been justifying lax parenting with poverty, and that doesn't fly with me.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[mrchaotica]

On one hand, it's the government and command structure that's setting the policy, so it's unfair to hate the grunts for "just following orders." On the other hand, though, those grunts chose to swear an oath to uphold that same policy, so it's hard to argue that they don't agree with it themselves. Besides, if they really did disagree, they could always get themselves a dishonorable discharge (although I realize that's a hard choice to make).

I guess the proper position is ambivalance -- don't call the troops "monsters with guns," but don't be so gung-ho with patriotism that you support the policies they're enforcing, either.

Incidentally, those people who say "if you don't support the troosps [and the policies they enforce] you must hate America!!!" are themselves the most un-American, intolerant fascists possible, because opposing tyranny and promoting the free exchange of ideas are the core of what it means to be American.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[HardCase]

We have all them things in the UK and the police deal with them fine. Special branchs work on them, but they're still the police and don't need fancy loop hole organisations to do it. If anything they're superior to the FBI because they're directly connected to the average copper working on the street, who notice and see far more than guys working in buildings hidden away from everything.

Which works quite nicely in a system with a strong central government and weak local governments. It doesn't work out so well when local governments are nearly as strong as the central government. Thus, the US has the FBI as well as local law enforcement.

-h-

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

My two subscriber-only newsletters are being transitioned right now to the web. Drop me an e-mail and I'll be happy to add you to a once-only notification list when the site eventually goes live. I'm doing more global hopping lately, so the print format is taking up too much time (although the income is nice, hah).

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Ixne]

Picture how much money you'd have every year if we didn't pay for the FBI, the CIA, the NSA and every other spy organization that isn't allowed by the Constitution. Even if it was merely a US$30 billion a year savings, that's about US$300 per year per taxpayer or so.

So they'd just refund it to us, you say? They couldn't possibly find somewhere else to spend it. Not OUR government.

And I can't tell you how much good that $300 tax refund from Shrub did for me, when I was unemployed at the time. That didn't even cover my rent for the month. I was so much happier to have that little bit of change than a better chance to get funding for school.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[shotfeel]

Wow, way to hold the stereotype of "he who has no children but knows exactly how they will/should be raised".

Drop a line when reality hits.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[NitsujTPU]

It's not much of an argument, but it's not a straw man argument. A straw man argument would be me taking your argument, and saying that it really translates to another argument that is easily disproven. Eh, I guess I could see where you would say it's such a device. I would argue that the Lindbergs suffered a similar situation in the kidnapping of their child, however, and hired PIs and whatnot to sort it out.

I find it reprehensible that you would take this callous attitude that the parents of kidnapping victims are somehow at fault for the kidnapping.

As for the public school system. I didn't like public school, but I went. Sure, it's not great, but it's all that most people can afford. How did I turn out? Well enough to not need to get into a contest over the matter. Did many of the students at the University that I research at at the moment attend private school? Most of them attended top-notch prep schools. Would I have liked a prep school? Yes, it would have been great. Do I look down on families who don't have the money to send their kids to private school? No. Do I curse my parents for not having the money to send me to a prep school. No.

You sounded a bit like you're looking down your nose and people who can't afford such things for their kids.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[drinkypoo]

That's nice but you should be aware that most of the time it's necessarily so easy to find someone. If they manage to avoid doing things that show up on their credit report it's damned near impossible unless they own land, have a professional certification (like a cosmetician's or contractor's license) or something like that, then you're not going to get shit that way. It's going to take actual foot-pounding and that won't come cheap.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

Yet your post covers so many reasons to back down on federal tax-and-spend policy.

First of all, your education is so expensive because of federal involvement. When the feds force money out of the taxpayers to pay for whatever private program there is, the cost of the program always goes up. Professor George Reisman makes a great example of why health insurance is crazy expensive, which is carried directly to why education is expensive and so is property: government involvement. His comment was:

I used to ask my [evening] students to imagine that after class, we would all go to a restaurant for a late dinner, on the understanding that everyone was free to order whatever he liked and the bill would be evenly divided. Thus, if there were thirty students in the class and someone ordered a $20 steak instead of a $5 hamburger, the additional cost to him would be 50 cents. Under such an arrangement, everyone would have the incentive to order anything he wanted, because he would bear very little of the cost. But since everyone would soon do this, the cost to everyone would end up being far higher than it would have been had everyone had to pay his own way.

If everyone had to pay for education directly, they'd be much more competitive with their money. When money is rare, prices are usually lower to attract the money that people are apt to save. Yet the Federal Reserve prints so much new money that money isn't rare -- its readily available. This makes it less worthy to people, so they chase property investments creating the bubbles. The feds give money to anyone who wants an education, so education prices go up. The feds force health care insurance on everyone (medicare, medicaid, social security, and a myriad of programs) so prices go up.

Get them out of the systems they shouldn't be in -- get them out of the market.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[SillyNickName4me]

The GP seemed to've been justifying lax parenting with poverty, and that doesn't fly with me.

Please read a bit better next time.

GP pointed at the fact that poverty exists and that it can revent people from protecting themselves, and that it can also prevent them from protecting their children, simply because they cannot afford the means to do so.

When peoplke fail that, it quickly becomes a problem for society as a whole, and it leaves you 2 options:

1. accept it and do nothing (extreme Libertarian way)
2. deal with the problem (about everyone else)

Now, if you see that argument being made and you just go on about ones own responsibility, and completely ignore the impossibility of it, then don't be surprised that people consider you an extreme libertarian, and may even consider you someone who is extremely egocentric (as long as I can be safe, the rest of the world can die, I don't care)

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[wanerious]

I vote for the one person who understands my life, knows what my needs are, and can adjust the law to be realistic, moral and promote freedom not restrict it.

That person is me. I recommend voting for yourself on every ballot, straight ticket, every position. Vote NO to all referenda and judge retentions. Write yourself in and you'll be voting for the only person able to enforce the law the way you want it enforced.

Wow. That sounds pathological. A mark of a mature person is one who can see the benefit of voting against his own self-interest for the benefit of others. Can you even imagine such a thing?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[AlterTick]

And how about the wing of the FBI that investiages kidnappings? If your child is kidnapped, you won't appreciate that? How about the FBI department that handles serial killers?

Very commendable, but neither crime is common enough to warrant the creation of a huge federal police force. Despite what movies like Silence of the Lambs would have you believe, serial killers and kidnappers are more often caught by local law enforcement, not the FBI.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[decepty]

Yeah, but if you've been shot in the head, that sort of negates the whole "you trying to get your child back"... unless you go for the "zombie abductor revenge from beyond the graaaave!!!" angle.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

Of course some kidnappings are by anonymous nutjobs -- especially when it comes to famous people like the Lindbergs.

For us common folk, kidnappings almost always occur by people we know. This makes it easier to find them -- a kidnapper can not exist for long on just a cash and carry lifestyle. I do believe that many kidnappings can be prevented, and I do blame the parents. Why would 2 parents work when there are kids at home? It makes no sense to me, until we look at the 50% household tax levels most families are paying compared to "just" 30% only 20 years ago. We double the tax level and increase debt to keep up with the Joneses, so mommy leaves to work leaving Nanny Mary to watch the kids. Nanny Mary decides she can do a better job and takes off with them. Typical story.

I'll do some more research on kidnappings, but it seems to me that they are more rare than they are regular. In my entire life, I have known about one kidnapping that was 2 or 3 degrees away from my direct community of peers and family. Considering I'm involved with 3 churches with a total of 1000 families, and I've never heard of a kidnapping in my 31 years, I don't consider it is a likely situation to require a federal organization paid for by tax dollars to try to prevent.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Halo1]

Or even that they should be watched over 24/7.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[shotfeel]

That's all true, but what did the FBI do wrong?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with asking for voluntary compliance without a warrent. Law enforcement at all levels often do this to save time. When the librarian said, "No, get a warrent." that's what they did.

Where's the beef?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a fucking retard. Libertarianism has rotted your drug addled hippy brain.

The FBI has the most extensive forensic techniques and technicians in the world. Your local sheriff is going to perform DNA testing on any trace evidence? Oh really. And he'll compare this to a nationwide database? And fingerprint analysts? And bomb residue analysis? And the hundreds of other forensic techniques that FBI agents use every day to solve crimes? Billy Bob the local Sheriff will fill those shoes? Oh, I guess Billy Bob and this Magnum PI guy you're going to hire will do it.

Right.

You're an idiot, frankly.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Ixne]

Most kidnapping are not performed by anonymous random kidnappers. Most kidnappings occur by family members or people known and trusted by the family. My kid wouldn't be in the public school system, first of all.

It's always amusing (in a sad sort of way) how some people who have money somehow envision the world as if everyone else is just as well off as they are.

Some of them are even in Congress.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Kohath]

Children with dead parents shouldn't just be abandoned to their kidnappers.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Alex P Keaton in da]

You sound like a prison lawyer... Look, I know that you think you know something about gov't and the constitution, but clearly you have no legal training. Rather than feed a troll, I will simply let you research something called the necessary and proper clause.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[IDontAgreeWithYou]

Hiring private investigators on a whim and private schools. These are the kinds of solutions that are going to work for the average american. I don't know what world you live in, but children are at risk all of the time. Sending your child to a public school does not make you a bad parent. I really feel bad for any children you may have. It's going to be tough to live life being permanently attached to your parents.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

...that children could be watched over 24/7.

Yes, but that is what the kidnapping insurance is for.
Let's not forget the drug pusher and the unwanted pregnancy insurance.
Insurance for when a street gang attacks...

...and insurance for whatever other trouble young people are exposed to today.

1. Shift the burden to the private sector, competition will lower your costs!
2. The market will weed out the companies that let the victims die.
3. profit!

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

The thing is that we, as humans, ARE egocentric. I have no problem with others performing jobs I should be doing if I can hold them accountable for the jobs they do on my behalf. Government has no accountability beyond voting, and voting is restrictive and not very productive in setting guidelines and mandates. I don't vote, and I don't appreciate any government because I want accountability.

I donate more than 10% of my income to various church organizations locally -- and I hold them ALL accountable for the way they spend it. I spend much of my time volunteering to help the poor -- I'm currently financing a free tech training center in the town in my county with the worst poverty. I'll also volunteer my time to help mentor to the poor. I help feed them, and I've given benevolence money to help pay for rents and utilities when jobs are lost. These are not Christians I am helping, these are people in my community.

Last week I told my pastor that I wanted the church to stop helping a family we had given a lot of money and time to over the past 6 months. I discovered that they were leeching and lying and manipulating us. After a quick review and request for accountability, the pastor agreed and the family is getting cut off. I'll give them another chance, an infinite amount of chances, if they accept accountability for their actions. They won't.

Yet government is not accountable to us, the taxpayers. When government gives money to others "in need" those in need are not accountable to government. It is a viscious circle of irresponsibility creating more irresponsible people, and the problem gets worse over time.

Do I care? Not for you, sorry. I could care less if you're starving unless you're part of my community. We paid to bring people up from Katrina and in the end we had money left over -- people didn't want to take advantage of our love for those in our community. I sent $0 out of my community for the tragedy. If I'm going to help you, I want to know that you're not taking advantage of me.

I have no desire to help those who will not be accountable to me while I am taking care of them and helping them get out of the hole they put themselves into. Everything that happens to us is based on decisions we previously made. Life is very fair, it is only when others force their beliefs on us that life is unfair -- and only government has the power to truly force anyone to do anything, legally.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[networkBoy]

Well then I suppose that this is one of those time I fail to agree with you.
Can't say your arguments are bunk, as they are well laid, I simply do not hold our troops accountable for being there.
Partially because the harshness for which our mailitary deals with deserters/objectionests so that it is far easier to just go than to not. Also, as to the standing army, our entire armed forse is currently voluntary. These people just as likely would have joined the state National Guard (the militias) if the army was "closed". I know a couple personally who joined the Army because there was nothing for them at home, they were going downhill in drug abuse, crime, etc., and joined the army to shape up. Both these people are now very productive members of their society (one stayed in Germany). For these people (who to some extent or another I think embody the reason for most to join) I think it greatly unfair to bash them for being in Iraq / abroad. Whether you think the commander in cheif has screwed up or not is a seperate issue, the command structure of our country is all assed up, you and I agree to that much I am sure.
[/wandering soapboxy rant]

Cheers,
-nB

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[NitsujTPU]

Most of the women that I meet these days are in graduate school, or are researchers. I make it a policy not to date inside my department, but I imagine that if I ever get married, that it will probably be to a professor or researcher. In such a scenario, I imagine that I probably will marry someone who becomes a researcher or a professor. I can't imagine asking her to give up her career to cater to the needs of our offspring, but I imagine that I will eventually want kids (and will seek a mate who has the same goal).

There are many professors in this department who are married to other professors, and have children... but being a professor is a 24/7 job. Certainly, they aren't sitting at home with their children. While I don't dive into their personal lives (unless they offer up details, which I wouldn't share on Slashdot anyway), I imagine that they all have their childcare situations well in hand.

That aside, you still haven't address that you pretty blatantly shot a glare down your nose at people who just can't afford such things, especially ironic given that your blog states that you had a rough and tumble upbringing, and that you vend... what is it, computer hardware? This is hardly a job that separates you from the common man unless you're selling it in Lichtenstein. Do you hold all of your clientele in such disdain?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[CheeseTroll]

And just how old must the child be before the parent can trust them enough to let them go off-leash? 12? Kids will never learn how to take care of themselves if you keep them in a bubble. They are fast, sneaky, and always testing the limits. 99% of the time it's no big deal, but it's that 1% of panic-time is what we tend to remember the most. If a kidnapper was actively trying to take advantage of that 1% of the time, it probably wouldn't be that hard, hence the need for law enforcement, as a back-up plan, even for the "good" parents.

On a side-note, my youngest son earned a reputation as "Houdini" after he figured out how to unlock a neighbor's screen door (from the inside, mind you) when they were babysitting him, and he could unlatch our fence gates when he was barely 2 years old. I had to get extra spring-loaded latches for the fence latches to keep him in. Of course he figured those out, too, but by then he was old enough to know better than to run into the street.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dlt074]

"and all you have is the ability to address your grievance in the courts"

i'd like to bring the second amendment of the constitution to your attention.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

It's going to be tough to live life being permanently attached to your parents.

When a human is a minor, they should be permanently accountable to their parents. When the child decides they are a major (at 13, in my case, at 18 for some, and I'd assume some aren't majors at even 25), they're free to be irresponsible and deal with the consequences.

Public school is a outlet for "free" daycare. I don't have kids yet (I'm 31) because I can't afford to send my child to a good private teaching group. I won't put them in school, I'll put them in a community of children with parents who care -- I'll call it a private teaching group.

I don't believe most people need a basic education beyond the age of 11 or 12. At that point they should enter a mentorship program (for a trade) or enter higher education (specialized towards what they are good at learning). The average high school education curriculum is a terrible education. Children are smarter than that, but they have no opportunity to head in a specific direction.

Schooling should not cost US$20,000 per year per student. 5 teachers earning US$60,000 per year each = US$300,000 budget. 5 teachers can handle 15 students each at a time, which is US$4,000 per year per student. The books can be provided for online instead of in paper form, and the rest of the money can be refunded.

Where does the rest of the money go? Just ask the teachers' unions, I guess.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Atzanteol]

The State can (and used to) handle pretty much everything that the feds do now...

Until the 1930's or so when organized crime figured out that state run police was terrible at tracking them across borders. The FBI was formed for a reason. Whether or not they've over-stepped their bounds I'm not arguing however.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly, the Parent of this clearly outlined responses to your post, before you posted it. All of the things you mentioned could be handled by local and/or state athorities.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

One more thing: you're a good parent. Do you know how many bad parents I see every day? I'm supposed to pay for bad parenting?

You mean people YOU think are bad parents. There is a difference and honestly, after you made that head up your ass comment about kidnapped kids being the parents fault, I doubt you're able to tell the difference in all but extreme cases.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

A mark of a mature person is one who can see the benefit of voting against his own self-interest for the benefit of others. Can you even imagine such a thing?

A mark of a mature person is making decisions based on their ability to carry out the responsibilities that decision will require in the future.

Don't buy a big car if you can't afford the maintenance, gas and insurance.

Don't buy a big house if you can't use the space efficiently and afford to keep it clean and safe.

Don't have kids unless you've found a way to pay for their education and know how you'll take care of them.

Don't start a business unless you've researched the market and found a way to make a profit.

Don't get into a relationship unless you've found your significant other is stable, responsible and honest.

Don't make me pay for your mistakes unless I voluntarily offer to share your risk (insurance).

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Hasai]

If you wonder why people hate us, look at the monsters with guns that wear our flag, within our country and beyond our borders. . .

....Let me guess: You've never talked to a soldier, and you're very careful not to, since the encounter just might puncture your beloved prejudices, am I correct?

. . . in the hundred or more countries we're policing against the will of those citizens. . . .

Um, name just 20% of those, please. . . . 10%, perhaps?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Stradenko]

GP pointed at the fact that poverty exists and that it can revent people from protecting themselves, and that it can also prevent them from protecting their children, simply because they cannot afford the means to do so.

And my point is that poverty-stricken people (or any people who are unable to care for a child) should not be having children, and anything that results from that lack of planning is their own damn fault.

"Poverty" is not a valid excuse.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Floody]

The point of warrants is that the constitution recognized that the police have more power than ordinary citizens, and that power had to be kept in check by someone else. In the case of warrants that's the court, and more specifically an elected judge. If the cops become "too powerful" and start abusing their search privileges, we the people can elect a new judge who won't issue so many warrants.

At least that's the idea they teach in Civics 101. These days, warrants are these things that we don't need so much if there are terra'rists running about. Just wiretap 'em all and let God sort out the infidels.

Mmmm.. time for Civics 101 again, I think. Although elected judges do exist in certain parts of the modern judicial branch, this was never the intention. The purpose of the judicial is to impartially oversee the application of law as codified by We the People (i.e. congress) and enforced by the executive (law enforcement). At higher levels, the judicial also ensures that law fits the constraints imposed by the constitution and amendments. To this end, judges were not intended to be elected, as doing such creates implicit coercion by way of popular opinion. A safety check does exist however, in that the judicial may not act as any active legal force; they may only rule on cases that are brought before them from those external to the branch.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

The necessary and proper clause?

From this article: At the Virginia ratifying convention, Patrick Henry expressed his fear that the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution (which said that the federal government would have all powers "necessary and proper" to carry into effect the powers granted in Article I, Section 8) would inevitably be interpreted by the federal government as a boundless grant of power, transforming the limited government that supporters of the Constitution promised into an unlimited government that would menace the people's liberties. He was likewise concerned about the "general welfare" clause, since government could justify practically any action it might take by some strained reference to the general welfare.

Do you know what "necessary" and "proper" actually mean?

Necessary -- The group or person must do this in order to follow through on their obligations. The federal government is obligated to two things: protect We the People from piracy, counterfeiting and treason, and prevent the states from trampling on our freedoms.

Proper -- The group or person must do the action morally to follow through on their obligations. The federal government is obligated to only do what the Constitution has limited them to do.

Don't use words you don't understand.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Hmm- listening to someone with no kids tell me how to raise them? Well thats like someone with no penis telling me how to wash my scrotum. You are a troll. A troll with a subscription, but still a troll.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[NitsujTPU]

Warrants are a necessary check. Without them, courts wouldn't have appropriate oversight over the process. Requiring a warrant isn't just a delay tactic. It isn't like you see on TV. The police who are following procedures correctly will get a warrant in advance unless they feel it isn't needed. If there is an obvious and immediate action required, saying "you need a warrant" won't stop anything, the police are allowed to act in such scenarios.

An example? Your face is covered in white powder and they can see over your shoulder that your buddy is doing a couple of lines. They're allowed to check that out without a warrant.

They go into a University library asking to steal the computer lab? I'm sure that the librarian wasn't thinking "oh no, they'll catch the one of multiple thousands of students who did this!"

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Politburo]

dada21 had credibility?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Bimo_Dude]

I have friends in the military. I now have family too (my nephew just went to the Middle East). I condemn them for their actions and their commitment, because I disagree completely with performing any job that I know is immoral.
...
My family and friends who have enlisted have come back indoctrinated and fully believing they are saving us from terrorists and communists and criminals and dictators. They're lost when it comes to morals and freedom. I can't support that.

So why condemn your family and friends, then. After all, they have been indoctrinated. It's not their fault. A better use of your mental resources in this regard would be to help them see that they have been indoctrinated/brainwashed, and help them get over it. I speak from experience here, as I was in the Army infantry for four years. Brainwashed, convinced that I was defending the people of this country, and determined to keep those evil commies from gaining any ground.

Imagine how pissed I was (and still am) when I found out that I was nothing more than a brainwashed corporate mercenary.

Give your friends and family a break and help them, rather than condemn them. Please.

As for the rest of your post: agreed!

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dzafez]

There was an Agency in Germany. It was in the 30's and 40's, they where calles the SA (Sturmabteilung), they added the SS (Schutzstaffel) and the SD (Sicherheitsdienst) later. The SD was the intelligence part of the SS, but actually was soon part of the so called Gestapo (geheime Staats Polizei). Later in the communist-socialist East-Germany (DDR) they had a troup called Stasi (Staatssicherheit). They all had similaries with those 3x3 you know in the USA : FBI+CIA+NSA

Oops, guess what, if you wonder, if I will have the Feds after me for writing this, you already join me in saying, they might stomp on my freedom of speech!

Fascism in Italy: (short cut from Wikipedia)

In 1919, the fascists developed a program that called for: a democratic republic, separation of church and state, a national army, progressive taxation for inherited wealth, and development of co-operatives or guilds to replace labor unions. As the movement evolved, several of these initial ideas were abandoned and rejected.

That might sound familliar to some people ...

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[corbettw]

Also, I don't see how someone could kidnap my child if I was a good parent and actually parented the child at all times, as a parent should.

So only bad parents let their kids get kidnapped? WTF?? That's either incredibly naive, incredibly stupid, or incredibly heartless, take your pick.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

I can't imagine asking her to give up her career to cater to the needs of our offspring, but I imagine that I will eventually want kids (and will seek a mate who has the same goal).

And you want me to pay for your child care, education and protection. That's great. I don't want to.

Women are finding the reason they get paid less in some situations is because they have kids and don't come back. Companies are finding that women are costlier to keep on their payroll because of the retraining costs. The market is providing for what the consumer wants. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

I find it terrible that people tied to their jobs 24/7 believe they have a right to have children and have me pay for the consequence of their un-thought out action. In my experience, every single girl I dated before the age of 25 that went through 4 years of college and more years of graduate school put themselves into a few years of work before retiring to have children. Every one of them. I commend them for doing the right thing for their families.

I see myself as the one retiring to raise the kids. I know I'd do a great job considering I help some of my church family with their own kids on occasion (but always supervised by another adult just to protect myself).

That aside, you still haven't address that you pretty blatantly shot a glare down your nose at people who just can't afford such things, especially ironic given that your blog states that you had a rough and tumble upbringing, and that you vend... what is it, computer hardware?

Of course I shoot a glare down my nose at people who expect me to pay for their responsibilities. I give 10%+ to various churches in my community to help people in MY community. I don't want to pay for people in other communities, I can't hold them accountable.

If I can't hold you accountable for spending my money and my time, I don't want to give you that money or time. Why should you force me to?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Alex P Keaton in da]

I usually don't feed trolls, but I will respond.
Once again, you have a bit of knowledge of the constitution, however you have no understanding of the law. Do you know what makes up laws? Common Law etc? You are trying to argue about what the Constitution says, when the issue is really the breadth of the interpretation of it....

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Mr. Slippery]

The thing is that we, as humans, ARE egocentric.

Well, you're egocentric, so egocentric that you project your egocentricism onto everyone else.

(I'm not saying that I'm not egocentric, BTW. Just pointing out the reasoning.)

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Atzanteol]

Most people murdered are also killed by somebody they know. Does this mean that we don't need the police? After all, the provisions are there to defend yourself (guns), and you could just hire a PI to find the murderer of your Sister! And think of the arsenal you could afford to defend yourself if you no longer pay taxes to support the police!

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[IDontAgreeWithYou]

Wow! Your views on the world are extremely out of whack. Now you want a child's future to be completely determined at 11-12 years old. I am not currently employed in the field I originally went to college for at 18, but you think that somehow we can determine at age 11 what we should be studying for the rest of our lives. Good work.

I also like how you think that you can pay teachers $60000 a year and that is all you need to give your kids a good education. While I agree that the teacher's unions generally provide a disservice to education, teachers are no the only costs associated with education. You need supplies, a building, and (contrary to your opinion) you need books. You can not educate kids with 5 teachers and the internet. So, in conclusion, there will be no need for you to send me an invitation to your commune when you get it started.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[deadlinegrunt]

Probably the most insightful comment in this thread relating to the actual story.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[larkost]

The vast majority of what the FBI does is correct. But their boss (the president), has mandated a number of things that are probably illegal siting "terrorism" or "trust us" as the grounds. This has created what usually happens in the case of bad management from above: people go to far and cross the bounds.

The problem is not the FBI, they are the ones who are just stuck enforcing bad decisions from above.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

listening to someone with no kids tell me how to raise them? Well thats like someone with no penis telling me how to wash my scrotum. You are a troll. A troll with a subscription, but still a troll.

You steal my money via taxation to pay for your responsibilities, I should be able to tell you how to raise them. In fact, it is my money, so I want cameras in your home to see how you're spending my money.

That isn't trolling, that's requesting accountability for what you're taking from me against my will. I wouldn't give money to people that I knew were unable to spend that money wisely. Why should I give you money without telling you the requirements I have before giving it to you?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[CFBMoo1]

How many people know what a warrant even looks like? Sure we see them handed over in the movies and on tv, but they never go over them and double check them. Is there a number we can call to confirm that a warrant is actually valid? A determined criminal could create a fake warrant easier than most other official ID badges purely because we don't know what they look like?

Time to go to your local library and crack open a book.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Your internet is transmitted over subsidised lines- May I intercept your traffic? You drive on subsidised roads- may I look in your trunk? etc etc etc. You make no sense. I am done feeding the troll.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[MightyMartian]

The article says there was a brief stand off. Clearly the FBI did more than say "Can we borrow 30 of your computers, pretty please". The story suggests quite the opposite, that some FBI goons, feeling empowered by a moronic president and a cowardly, butt-kissing Congress, could just waltz in any ol' place and make any ol' demand. The FBI has long had a rather nasty sense of entitlement, but since garbage like the Patriot Act, they seem to think they're some sort of justice god. It's nice to know that there are still a few Americans left that know what liberty means, and won't let bullies with badges walk all over them.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations, "who'll think of the children" by post #2. And no, I'm not so selfish and self-absorbed to think a nation of 300 million should lose the right to due process because my child is missing. An odd, antiquated point of few these days I know. Have another latte.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[helifex]

After a brief standoff, FBI officials relented and sought a warrant from a judge.

The problem is that they should be protecting our rights not attempting to slip one past a less informed librarian. Their job is to protect us, this should include protection from unreasonable searches, instead they tried to conduct one.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[simpsone]

Diamond Jim's Sporting Goods and Liquor in Ukiah, CA. Alcohol, toboaco, firearms a-plenty, a deli, fishing gear, and the requisite rack of porno mags. The true man's man store.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a big fan of the war on terror? Good for you.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that trying to seize items without a warrent was likely not a bad decision from above but a consistent, unyielding opportunism stemming from the powers granted to the FBI by Congress, the Executive branch, and confirmed by judiciary. This is a war for power and control, not peace, harmony or any other high falutin virtue that Bush may have gullible America believe. The consequences aren't even being felt today. Wait 20 years; by then judicial precedent will have provided (or failed to provide) the staying power for these obscene laws.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[budgenator]

Warrants for violent crimes, or non-violent crimes involving persons with a history of violence or where evidence is likely to be destroyed, tend to be executed vigorusly; doors battered in, guns drawn SWAT style. Your not likely to be able to check the authenticity of a warrant under those conditions.
A neighbor of mine is a policeman who was on the entry team, executing one warrant, he was confronted with armed resistance and had to fire, actually the perpetrater didn't go down with one round, the officer ended up putting tem bullets into the man before he went down. It was very sad, the perpetrater's innocent wife, son and mother were present and witnessed the shooting. Normaly in an incedent like this is carreer ending for the officer, even if the shooting is justified, its psychologicaly tramatic.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

Um, name just 20% of those, please. . . . 10%, perhaps?
01-10: Antigua, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Belgium, Canada, Columbia, Cuba, Denmark
11-20: Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Iceland, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Japan, Luxembourg
21-30: Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Peru, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, South Korea, Turkey
31-33: United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela

Want more? This is only where we have official bases of troops. That's 33 nations of official bases.

We also have troops in another 70+ countries.

Don't believe me? Maybe you believe your government.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[SillyNickName4me]

And my point is that poverty-stricken people (or any people who are unable to care for a child) should not be having children, and anything that results from that lack of planning is their own damn fault.

So, how are they going to protect themselves? oh right, you are gonna say they shouldn't exist to begin with?

"Poverty" is not a valid excuse.

Not when living in an utopia, which we don't.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

dada isn't a troll, he's just an idiot. He's just another uneducated pseudo-Randite. His premises are that (1) government is always bad (2) unregulated capitalism is always good. Everything he says will stem from his interpretation of this, even if it isn't socially or economically advantageous. That is unless he draws upon the secret premise (3) dada's ignorant interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is good, which while might appear to contradict (1) does not because [non sequitur].

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

Intepreting a single line or paragraph of the Constitution is not why the Constitution was written. You have to look at the Constitution and ponder it.

Then you realize the Constitution was written and enacted to force government to only protect freedoms of the governed from the only ones who can take them away: the governments. We were supposed to be free to choose how we spend our money, our time and how we use our bodies. We were supposed to be free to own physical property and protect that property with force from anyone else.

What we live in now is not freedom, it is tyranny, specifically because people (like you) decided to interpret the Constitution piece by piece rather than read it and understand the limitations it forces government to follow.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Eli Gottlieb]

The mark of a mature person is not creating arbitrary criteria for considering others mature. This statement is recursive and should probably go in someone's signature.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

The road in my community is 100% paid for by the community voluntarily. The road that leads from my community to the main base of stores could easily be paid for by a co-op of the stores. Roads don't need public funding, in fact, my community's private road is cheaper per mile than the public roads are by over 200% in savings.

The Internet can work fine without publicly licensed and subsidized costs. My T1 at my office would be cheaper if not for public mandates an subsidies. The day will come, soon, that those subsidies are removed from the books and our costs will drop.

I'm no troll, I'm just trying to defend my rights to not have to pay for your irresponsibilities. Since you feel you need to force me to pay for your roads, communications and parenting, I can only assume that you're too irresponsible to pay for it yourself.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[ChildeRoland]

How's that?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to our Constitutional Republic, where what we want is the only thing that matters. Don't like it? Don't let the border hit you in the ass on the way out. We're going to tax you until the day you die (and maybe even afterward), and spend all of that money on things you find objectionable. We're going to regulate everything you don't want regulated. You know why? Because there are a lot more of us than you, and it's our country.

Maybe you should get a job, instead of the make-believe job(s) you have between you 50,000 word treatises you post everywhere on the Internet for hours at a time. Taxing you would be a lot more profitable if you weren't living out of your mom's basement in Chicago.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[SillyNickName4me]

The thing is that we, as humans, ARE egocentric.

And yet, we can accomplish much more as a group then as a bunch of individuals. If it wasn't for actually putting aside some of that egocentrism, we would not have gotten anywhere, we wouldn't even have survived long enough to get to make the first tools.

Realizing humans have an egocentric tendency is good, but then just accepting that and not lookign any further is just stupid and ignorant of human history.

I have no problem with others performing jobs I should be doing if I can hold them accountable for the jobs they do on my behalf. Government has no accountability beyond voting, and voting is restrictive and not very productive in setting guidelines and mandates. I don't vote, and I don't appreciate any government because I want accountability. ... skipping lots of stuff to come to the conclusion ....

I have no desire to help those who will not be accountable to me while I am taking care of them and helping them get out of the hole they put themselves into. Everything that happens to us is based on decisions we previously made. Life is very fair, it is only when others force their beliefs on us that life is unfair -- and only government has the power to truly force anyone to do anything, legally.

Your problem is accountability, the obvious solution is to strive for accountability, not for extreme egocentrism.

In theory, the government is accountable, if that is not the case then the solution is to make it such. Discussing how much power a government should have is legitimate. Assuming that it can have no power because it will just abuse it or use it in ways it can't be held accountable for is either pointing at a very bad government and bad laws, or at complete and utter stupidity of the person making that claim, at least, a few thousand years of documented history seem to suggest so.

Why do a few thousand years of history suggest so? because followinbg your model has never got peopel beyond stone age conditions unless those conditions were there to begin with. Why? because individuals can't be bothered to do enough for the common good so there won't be the resources needed to get any further.

Last but not least, I'd refuse your help if that comes with religious and political fanatism as well, thanks.

The story you had about that family is a good one, and I agree with the principe you are pointing out there, if someoen receives help, they are also accountable for what they do with that help.

If you believe life is completely fair however and use that as justification for your actions then I suggest you tell us what decision of people causes hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis and so on? Which individual people decided on those things that caused those, and why are there so many who didn't make those choiuces but became the victim of it anyway?

I don't want anything bad to happen to you, but I hope for your own sake that some day you will find yourself in the situation of needing outside help. I also hope you can find it. You may learn a very big lesson from it.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Now that's just a heartless thing to say. Many good parents still lose their children, often through no fault of their own.

"Many" is a relative term. Curiously, nobody seems to be keeping statistics on this particular crime. Kind of odd considering how "popular" child abuction and murder crimes are in the news. But at least one study has been done and it indicates a rate of less than 100 per year nationwide.

I'm pretty sure that nationwide more than 100 kids die due to falling out of trees each year. So, while it certainly sucks to be one of those kids who fall out of a tree or who are kidnapped and murdered, it is not really a problem that can be described as happening to "many" parents.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[NitsujTPU]

And you want me to pay for your child care, education and protection. That's great. I don't want to.

Where did I say that? I imagine that our income will be fine on its own. I never even alluded to such a thing.

Women are finding the reason they get paid less in some situations is because they have kids and don't come back. Companies are finding that women are costlier to keep on their payroll because of the retraining costs. The market is providing for what the consumer wants. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

I don't want to discuss women's issues. I'm not a specialist on the topic. I'm quite sure that the women on faculty here are there because they stand at the top of the field, and require no retraining. This includes, especially, those who are prolific researchers, excellent teachers, and, in general, top professors. This school isn't losing a dime by having them as faculty.

I find it terrible that people tied to their jobs 24/7 believe they have a right to have children and have me pay for the consequence of their un-thought out action. In my experience, every single girl I dated before the age of 25 that went through 4 years of college and more years of graduate school put themselves into a few years of work before retiring to have children. Every one of them. I commend them for doing the right thing for their families.

You were 25. The woman did 4 years of college, plus (arguably average) 5 years of PhD, plus (arguably average) a year or two of postdoc... only to retire having never gone into a faculty position or full-time research outside of postdoc. She then dated you, with the clearly stated goal of retiring and having kids in her 30's, having never held a job that could fund her retirement.

All of that aside, what do you think the income of 2 professors is? Why do you think that, somehow, they are burdening society and your paycheck to raise their kids? Assuming that there are no changes in current laws, they're not draining any more out than the average couple with children.

Of course I shoot a glare down my nose at people who expect me to pay for their responsibilities. I give 10%+ to various churches in my community to help people in MY community. I don't want to pay for people in other communities, I can't hold them accountable.

Dude, what are you talking about? I'm saying that you're shooting a glare down your nose and people who can't afford private schooling for their children. That was the core argument. They can't afford private schooling. I said nothing about a scenario that involves pumping you for cash. I'm talking about distinctly average, common people, the group that you said you are a member of earlier.

If I can't hold you accountable for spending my money and my time, I don't want to give you that money or time. Why should you force me to?

My stocks and paycheck cover me fine. My paycheck is the result of several large research grants. Trust me, I'm not forcing you to give me a dime. As for time, you can feel free to stop posting your point of view any time, and I'll stop replying. I have research to work on anyway, and no, I'm not on the clock at the moment.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[ahodgson]

I guess "library burned by FBI" doesn't sound as good as "cult wackos with guns burned by FBI". They've learned to be pickier.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[TheSkyIsPurple]

>"Poverty" is not a valid excuse.

What about my pal here who was rather well off, and got wiped out by a lawsuit, then lost his job, and is most definitely in poverty now.

Should he get rid of his kid? Send the kid to some unaccountable foster organization? Or do the best he can with what he has?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

Truely sir, you are an idiot.

The purpose of society is to allow a group of people, through collective cooperation, to better the condition of all. For instance, if people did not have children, the human race would die. Therefore it is in our best interests to foster a society where children can be raised. This is why everyone should pay for public education, because everyone will get the benifits of an educated population in the next generation. This is why its good that the police help find children who are lost.

You should just go live on an island and leave the rest of us alone.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

Maybe you should get a job, instead of the make-believe job(s) you have between you 50,000 word treatises you post everywhere on the Internet for hours at a time. Taxing you would be a lot more profitable if you weren't living out of your mom's basement in Chicago.

Haha. My addresses are publicly available by Google or by phone. My office is downtown in Chicago (on W. Erie Street). My home is in Gurnee. Both addresses are readily accessible.

I offer those who are interested in learning more about freedom the opportunity to hang out for the day and see how I live my life. I've had quite a few slashdotters join me over the years, and I'd love to offer you the opportunity to see how you can turn your US$20 an hour 8 hour a day job into one that makes way more money with way less time by avoiding the pitfalls that we've come to believe are mandated by living in the U.S.

I have jobs. Quite a few of them. I create new ones on a regular basis to stay ahead of becoming a commodity. Last week I found 3 fresh markets in my area that should pay at least US$80 per hour if not twice that. I'd be happy to introduce you to the markets if you want to come visit one day in March. I'll be in Europe in early February (see pics on my site) and in Asia in late February, finding new markets to explore. If you live in London, Warsaw, Zurich, Bombay or Dubai, I'd be happy to visit with you for a few minutes while I'm there.

You can think I live in a basement and am unemployed. You'd be missing out on a great opportunity to live a happy life without the stresses you get from following the lemmings and keeping up with the Joneses.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[glsunder]

we'd probably end up with something more like Condi Rice 7%, Hillary Clinton 8%, Pat Robertson, 9%, Other 76%.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[arth1]

A neighbor of mine is a policeman who was on the entry team, executing one warrant, he was confronted with armed resistance and had to fire, actually the perpetrater didn't go down with one round, the officer ended up putting tem bullets into the man before he went down.

A guy was still standing and being a danger with nine bullets in him? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

--
*Art

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If I can't hold you accountable for spending my money and my time, I don't want to give you that money or time."

I'm sure this type of thinking is well recieved when you fail to file your income taxes on the grounds that it is distributed to countries or agencies that are not accountable to you. Why not become a public prosecutor or a police officer if you want to hold people accountable. Hey!!! Better yet why not start a master race of people who refuse not to be held accountable. You can tattoo them with little bar codes which would be scanned by various devices even within their own home. For example their pillow will scan them to record what time they went to sleep. So if they arrive late to work the next day we can fire them for not going to bed by 7 p.m. How about the freezer recording how many times the ice cream container was accessed so that when they become overweight we can refuse them health care because they are irresponsible fat bodies who don't deserve an extra serving of ice cream.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[budgenator]

Michael J. Sullivan, the U.S. attorney for Massachusetts, also said in an interview Monday that the FBI had acted within its authority to ask for the computers without a warrant.
Sounds to me like the FBI did the wise thing, facing a situation where lose of life and/or significant property was likely, instead of waiting for the issueance of a warrant, they went to the libraian and asked. The libarian assesed the situation, feeling the lose of life or property was unlikely to occur declined the request to protect the patron's privacy which allowed the FBI to recieve a warrant to sieze a more reasonable amount of evidence. Ms. Glick-Weil allowed an FBI computer-forensics examiner to work with information-technology specialists at the library to narrow down which computers might have been used to send the threatening message.

It might be reasonable for the library to put the public access computers on static IPs so in the future, only one computer will be siezed if there is a repeat.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[kpang]

I think the issue here is that the FBI's first course of action should have been to assess the threat and determine a legal course of action, rather than immediately going with the "let's take all the computers and hope nobody asks for a warrant" route. As a citizen, you should be looking out for your rights, but I think it is also reasonable for a citizen to expect the government also look out for them as well instead of trying to cut corners every time they get.

This story just strikes me as a "let's see if we can get away with this...oh well they got us we'll do it the legal way then".

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Ubergrendle]

You're probably right that a fake warrant would work, however... well, I'd hate to see the penalty for being caught for theft _AND_ impersonating federal authorities. PYITAP (pound you in the a** prison) is invented for such occasions I would guess...

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Irish_Samurai]

How about the FBI department that handles serial killers? Surely that's an infringement of our freedom?

There are so many serial killers that we need an unconstitutional department costing us US$5 billion a year? Murder is NOT a federal crime, per the Constitution. Let the states handle it.

The reason this is done on a federal level is because states would have to define "serial." Not all Psychologists can agree on what makes a killer a serial killer. To some it is the number of homicides committed, to others it must include a repeated methodology or victim profile, even others say it must exclude any evidence of mental disorder.

This could quickly lead to states having varying definitions of "serial murderers" and their investigative process. This would result in the whole process being slowed as two state agencies have to negotiate their co-operation tactics and parameters. All the while the number of victims will be increasing.

Also, the FBI maintains the Serial Killer database. If this database allows police from multiple areas to enter information regarding homicides and extract information based off of those parameters. If this database was not kept centralized and governed by a federal agency, it would quickly degrade into a system of no standardization - and that would make it useless. Also, no one would be responsible if it failed.

I can just see two state CTO's arguing over whose side of the line the problem is on - yeah, thats efficient.

Last, the FBI does not come to investigate serial killers in a state until requested to. They do not just come swooping into a local police stations and take control of any murder investigation that they deem as being "serial". Do not get this confused with them coming into a municipality and taking all information regarding a murder if it is in conjunction with a case they are already investigating - that is a different circumstance all together.

FBI handling of Serial Killer investigations is completely justified.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

The purpose of society is to allow a group of people, through collective cooperation, to better the condition of all. For instance, if people did not have children, the human race would die.

And I am fine with this on a community basis. I see no reason why my money should be forced out of my household to pay for people who are not in my community. I pay for education in other towns, other states, hell even in other countries. Why?

I am just asking for accountability for how my time is spent. Money is time saved, that is all money is. If my time is being spent on others I can not hold accountable, I believe I shouldn't have to be responsible to give them that time saved so they can use it against my morals and my beliefs.

I have no problem with government at the community level -- as long as I am free to leave the community if I see fit. I see a huge problem with county, state and federal government that is overbearing and offers the taxpayer absolutely NO ability to hold them accountable for how the money is spent.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[shotfeel]

And of course the article's writer, editor, etc. wouldn't spice things up a bit to increase readership. There's just nothing there for me to get upset about.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[zenasprime]

How many times can a quote be quote before people get it through their thick skulls?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Good old Ben is pointing his finger right at you pal.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Spectra72]

I would imagine his beef is this. There is no draft. There is no one in the military who didn't at some point sign up, take the oath and willfully submit to their rules and regulations. They volunteered to follow the orders of their political masters. History has lessons for the "just following orders" crowd, being in the military does not absolve a person. If soldiers were kidnapped and brainwashed against their will, that would be different, but that's not the case here.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[zaul32]

You have to be pretty important fo the FBI do do anything about it. If my kid got kidnapped they wouldn't do shit.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dlt074]

they all hate us? hardly. they love all that money.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[vertinox]

Eventually the employees found him in a dark "virtual" batting cage. He got a good lecture for taking off like that, but then managed to sneak out of an ambulence he was "driving" just a few minutes later. (He's a sneaky bugger. I was sitting right next to him, look down at the radio, look up and he's gone.)

Have you ever considered spanking him? I know this may sound crass, but my father told me that the only time they ever spanked me is when I was in physical danger. One being that I would run out into a busy road and the other is when I leave them in a public place.

Even though he was technically a hippie during this time in 70s early 80s and swore he would never spank his children like his more conservatie parents.

However, he did find the congnative powers of my small mind weren't up to the task of understanding certain things and instead of letting me just end up darwining myself out of existence, he chose to use the extreme action of putting his hand to my bottom.

Even with my meager mental abilities to understand the effects of physics of oncoming cars on my little body or that the ability of strangers to wisk me away, I did understand that if I wandered close to the road out in front of the house alone or wandered away from my parents in public I would get a spanking.

(but personally if I was a parent, I would perfer a more technical solution with RDIF tags, kid lease, or a frence...)

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy Crap!!!

You sir, are a scary person. This opinion was formed after reading what you have posted. Perhaps what I find most unnerving is that you seem to think that your views are those of someone who is a normal and rational person. I bet all the biggest whack jobs throughout history thought along similar lines.

We should all read these comments and pay close attention to this person and just what role he has in our society. He is clearly not only a danger to himself but to others as well. I wonder if they would even be a dada if his parents followed the same line of reasoning. Hmmm... Let's consider that for a moment.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

And yet, we can accomplish much more as a group then as a bunch of individuals. If it wasn't for actually putting aside some of that egocentrism, we would not have gotten anywhere, we wouldn't even have survived long enough to get to make the first tools.

Within a group of voluntary cooperation, both parties in any transaction profit from the transaction. Within a group that requires government force to extract "cooperation" you often times see one party profiting while the other party is losing. Voluntary cooperation with a mutual profit is called capitalism. Involuntary use of force with a single party profit is called authoritarianism.

Communities do better with voluntary cooperation (the free market) than through coercion and force and freedoms lost.


Last but not least, I'd refuse your help if that comes with religious and political fanatism as well, thanks.

It doesn't. Not a single person I help has to become a believer in Jesus. I don't even force the issue unless they ask. Yet I will not help people who use my money to buy a bottle or a hooker or a video game or a new car. I will help them become responsible, but those that continue to be irresponsible don't deserve my charity.

If you believe life is completely fair however and use that as justification for your actions then I suggest you tell us what decision of people causes hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis and so on? Which individual people decided on those things that caused those, and why are there so many who didn't make those choiuces but became the victim of it anyway?

When I lived in Ft. Lauderdale I was "poor" -- I had no savings and lived paycheck to paycheck. After yet another hurricane, I moved to the Midwest because I couldn't handle the risk. The rewards were terrible. How did I afford the move? I worked an extra job and I saved. Moving from anywhere in the country to anywhere else to start over is not as costly as you think, and there are opportunities everywhere I travel in starting over. Unfortunately, many people who lived on welfare were afraid to move or couldn't because the welfare organizations seem to create dependencies instead of building responsibilities. This is to be considered the norm as I have seen it.

I don't want anything bad to happen to you, but I hope for your own sake that some day you will find yourself in the situation of needing outside help. I also hope you can find it. You may learn a very big lesson from it.

That's why I save. That's why I prepay for insurance. That's why I live in the safest places I can, and that's why I build relationships of trust and accountability with people all over my community and the world. I help those, and I hope they'll help me.

Yet I would NEVER take public money that was stolen from you in order to help myself. If I end up poor it is because of bad savings decisions. Last year I lost a US$300,000 business due to my own mistakes (trusting others without oversight). I didn't ask for any public help, I just swallowed the loss and I am working to make it a mere bump in my personal wealth. Big deal.

I didn't finance higher education on your back, I won't raise my kid with your money, and I won't retire by charging your children to pay for my future. I'll do it on my own by saving, no spending. I won't get a home loan as I don't need a bigger house. I'm not college educated yet I study every day and learn a new trade every year -- if my current businesses fail, I'll go flip burgers or mow lawns. Save, save, save, save, save.

Keep saving, stop spending. Do this for 5 years as I have and you'll find that you can probably overcome almost any tragedy. Just a poor family's cable bill annually (about US$1000 on average) can buy them their own home in 6 years if they canceled it. 6 years!

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

Hah, you'd think so but the US dollar is being forgotten quickly as the Fed keeps printing too much of it.

I'm going to London, Warsaw, Zurich and possibly Baden-Baden in 2 weeks. Most of my readers in Europe admit that the general consensus is that we're too powerful and we intrude too much. After Europe I'm going to Dubai, Mumbai and possibly Madras and Goa -- I guarantee the majority of people there hate us. In summer I'll be hitting the Southern Hemisphere (Central and South America) -- my readers in those regions have hated us for over 10 years and continue to.

I have yet to be to one continent in the last 5 years where someone said "America? We love you!" Instead its "America?" *spit in food*

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nice that you seem to have a lot of money to pay for these sorts of things but what about people who aren't so well off?

If you are concerned about that, contribute your own money and start a drive to encourage others to do the same. It is not appropriate to simply take money for you cause because you hold the need for funding the cause to be axiomatic. Nor is it appropriate to set up agencies that violate the law; if the need exists, amend the law.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[packeteer]

Its just a piec eof paper that says 1) that its a search warrant, 2) details the items or locations to be searched (unlisted locations or items can not be searched), and 3) signed by a judge. They dont all look the same but as long as it has that stuff its a legal warrant. The things you can do when served with one would be to follow the searchers around the location and make sure they only search what is listed (you are not always under arrest when served with a search warrant).

Make 100% sure that the warrant is signed, its perfectly legal for a cop to tell you that they have a warrand when they have an unsigned warrant. When presented with an unsigned warrant most people will then give permission unknowingly to the police to search.

Again make absolutly sure that you dont give permission for a search. If you later knock down the search warrant in court but you also gave permission to search when presented with the warrant you are basically screwed.

A few other things police can do to search a place is to show up dressed like a pizza man and beinvited into the house. Upon entering the house if you have something not 100% legal they can arrest you for that and then they have the ability to search your house now that you are under arrest. This sadly does happen to many adults who use marijuana recreationally. This problem is usually made worse by the fact that a "victim" or the police might be stoned themselves and unknowingly give consent for a search.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[donutello]

So you listed a bunch of countries that the US has bases in. You failed to list the "hundred or more countries where the US has bases against the will of their citizens".

Most college football fans hate USC. Most college basketball fans hate Duke. Most baseball fans hate the Yankees. Not all conflict is your fault. Sometimes it's just the other guy who's nuts.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[d03boy]

i'm goign to kill you tomorrow at 2:00pm central time

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because they don't print all the stories on slashdot doesn't mean they arent working. How about you educate yourself on how something works before you scream about how much it sucks. Or try working for them, and learn about their stress enviroment.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, I don't see how someone could kidnap my child if I was a good parent

Wow. So, your kid is at school

Not if I'm a good parent, no.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[SillyNickName4me]

When I lived in Ft. Lauderdale I was "poor" -- I had no savings and lived paycheck to paycheck.

You have no clue what poverty means if you think that that makes you 'poor'.

Come back with 'not having enough to even live from paycheck to paycheck' or 'not having a paycheck at all' and you get a little bit closer already.

After yet another hurricane, I moved to the Midwest because I couldn't handle the risk. The rewards were terrible. How did I afford the move? I worked an extra job and I saved.

Congratulations, and I completely agree that if you have that option, you should take it, and not blame others when you don't. Having that oppertunity is a luxory that many in such a situation won't have.

I suggest you go try run your own business someday (talk about own responsibility) and then get it destroyed by a hurricane or whatever. Oh, and try doing another job besides running a (fulltime) business. Some peopel can, some can't. It depends on the situation, and applying your situation to everyone is not going to work.

Moving from anywhere in the country to anywhere else to start over is not as costly as you think, and there are opportunities everywhere I travel in starting over.

Unfortunately, many people who lived on welfare were afraid to move or couldn't because the welfare organizations seem to create dependencies instead of building responsibilities. This is to be considered the norm as I have seen it.

Let me tell you a few things..

First of all, I don't live in the USA, I live in western Europe, where most countries have much more expanded welfare systems then the USA has ever had.

Now, I have actually lived on welfare for a short time, after first having payed some 13 years for it. I lived on it only for a limited time because depending on the state doesn't make me very happy, achieving something does. Additionally, the system was enforcing rules that did not help me achieve anything, rather, to some extent it prevented me from doing anything.

That said, it was a great help to get through a somewhat difficult time, and I'm gladly paying again for maintaining that system for everyone who needs it.

Own responsibility is about making the right choices for yourself and not blaming others for your choices. It is NOT about judging someone elses conditions.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Plunky]

Just wiretap 'em all and let God sort out the infidels.

thats all very well, but *their* God says we are the infidels!

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

My point was if an unreasonable search and siezure did occur, it would have been all over mainstream media. Hence "freedom of speech".

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[WolfZombie]

Welcome to "Bush Land". Former home of the United States of America. Please leave your retinal scan, finger prints, and DNA sample with our "quality control" personnel. Enjoy your stay!

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[ocbwilg]

How many people know what a warrant even looks like?

A determined criminal could create a fake warrant easier than most other official ID badges purely because we don't know what they look like?

True enough. But anybody presenting a warrant is going to have to present identification of some sort indicating that they are actually with some branch of law enforcement. That might be harder to duplicate.

But beyond that I'm not sure why a determined criminal would want to fake a warrant. If you show up at a place of business with a warrant to seize equipment (intending to steal and resell it?), the first thing that usually happens is that the person presented with the warrant calls their lawyer/legal department. If you show up at someone's home trying the same tactic, the potential payoff is much less and the 'victim' would probably be much more likely to challenge the warrant (by calling the real police, etc).

Not only would you be likely to get nabbed on forgery, you would probably also get hit with impersonating an officer of the court as well. It's not worth it, you'd be better off just burgling it.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Eli Gottlieb]

Actually, I put it in my own. Couldn't hurt to have it floating around Slashdot on another set of posts, though. Could it?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of investment yields a great enough rate or return on a 6 year $1000 annuity to buy a house?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[smbarbour]

If they were in the news more for finding serial killers and recovering kidnapped children than they were for using the PATRIOTACT, then perhaps. There is a use for an FBI, but not this one.
 
Did it ever occur to you that PATRIOT Act stuff is the only thing that the media deems newsworthy? There is a lot of day-to-day stuff that the FBI handles that doesn't get news coverage.
 
Oh, and to the grandparent: The FBI is not the department that is supposed to handle counterfeiting cases. That would be the division of the Treasury Department known as the Secret Service.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Jackmn]

And you want me to pay for your child care, education and protection. That's great. I don't want to.

Tough. That's life. Don't want to function as a member of society? Leave.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[SillyNickName4me]

Oh, something I forgot in my previous post...

That's why I save. That's why I prepay for insurance. That's why I live in the safest places I can, and that's why I build relationships of trust and accountability with people all over my community and the world. I help those, and I hope they'll help me.

And guess what, in many countries that have a welfare system that actually somewhat works, it is a 'collective insurance', which can quite be held accountable. Now you may not like a mandatory 'collective insurance', and I can see some reasons for not liking that, but it works a lot better then you seem to believe. If all you have ever seen is the USA welfare system I can't entirely blame you, but the problems are with the implementation, not with the idea of welfare itself.

Again, I don't think you are wrong with regards to the problems you are seeing, but I believe your solutions are wrong. Fix the problems instead of getting rid completely of the thing in which those problems may occur.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I think this subject has slid off the "on-track" line, but here's my dos pesos:
Taxes, for me (married 23-yr-old with no kids), cost about $3,500 total. Now, I realize that's pretty damn low compared to some others out here, so I won't complain. But I could think of lots of stuff I could do with that money. A new computer, plasma screen TV, savings, paying off a car, money for my $$$-sucking hobbies, etc. etc.

Now, I'm not dying for lack of $3,500. I have a decent apartment in a safe area, a wonderful wife, nice property... basically, I make do. But that money goes towards some really good causes I happen to support: NSF, scholarships, education, NPR, PBS, things like that. Granted, it also goes towards paying for a bloated, overzealous and overreaching government bureaucracy, the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, Guantanamo Bay, etc, things I am not so happy with. But I'm happy thinking that my money, however little actually trickles through the system, goes to directly help some people who aren't in as fortunate a position as I. Someday, I may find myself in their position and be forced to rely on the help of people I don't even know. But until that happens, I'll be happy to be one of those faceless millions who helps give a gifted but poor teenager a college education, or funding basic scientific research for the betterment of mankind.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[wanerious]

Cute, but your reply is constructed in a merely syntactic way. My criterion is not arbitrary. It's my own opinion, thought out, maybe worthy of discussion, and possibly wrong. But not arbitrary. We all have a varying set of criteria by which we judge others' actions to be indicative of a mature person --- these are chosen for one reason or another because they have some personal bearing on the judgement; they are typically not plucked in a Monte-Carlo arbitrary fashion from the domain of all possible criteria.

But I'll agree that your .sig is catchy, however inaccurate.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[smoker2]

Back when I was a kid, parents used to keep their toddlers on a leash - no, I'm not kidding.

I think the correct term was "reins". But the screaming liberals decided it was inhumane or demeaning or something, and now you never see them being used.

Say what you like, but your (defenseless) kid can't walk off in shopping centres or run out into the path of the passing traffic.

Kids are kids, and they are not predictable or enlightened enough to run free in public places at that age.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

So how do you think one single gumshoe is going to manage that on his own with just his notebook?

Easy! He can Google the location of the kidnappers!

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[anarchyboy]

If you do come to London please don't look at any of the building built or maintained by the taxpayers, use the roads, public transport, or do anything that might cost the british people money. We didn't pay all those taxes for you to use our stuff.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I guess when the FBI finally admitted that organized crime existed, what about 30 years later, they ably joined the fight.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree with several of your points, the FBI needs to exist as a jurisdictional referee. If a child from Kansas is abducted and taken to Montana, who has jurisdiction? Answer? The FBI. Not Kansas HP/PD. Not Montana HP/PD. The entire crime scene is in both states and any state between them, and the FBI is needed to oversee the handling of the case across the jurisdictions of the state HP's and the municipal PD's involved.

That's why the FBI exists. Other than that, your arguments have a lot of merit and offer something to think about.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Insightfill]

Not all kidnappings can be prevented by the parents.

Actually, it's a matter of statistics that most kidnappings are BY one of the parents. Kidnapping by stranger is so rare as to be the exception that makes the news (extra points for young, white, girl).

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

I publish a print newsletter called Mobile Home Millionaire. I just picked up a 1030 square foot mobile home that was repossessed for under US$6000. It has an R-rating over 21, offers a cost of living including average lot rent for under US$750 per month. Even at minimum wage you can fit a family of 4 in there nicely (3 bedrooms, 2 baths, family room, kitchen and storage shed).

I'm currently starting an anarcho-capitalist charity to help families transition from high costs of living to low costs of living with the same standards of living. I recently have helped over 20 of my newsletter subscribers to knock nearly US$300,000 in debt from their monthly payments and build real wealth without requiring any intervention of the public taxpayer, the banks or the credit card companies.

Americans don't understand wealth. Wealth is not how much money you have -- money can come from crazy debt. Wealth comes from owning your home, car and preferably land without debt and then upgrading once you've saved enough to actually pat (in full) for the next upgrade.

A geek earning US$60,000 a year can be a millionaire in 6-8 years if they avoid the traps sold to them by the Joneses. Work, build wealth, marry, be happy. That's the order of operations.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[nobodyman]

Of course, the FBI should have gotten a search warrant, but I'm sure they will now and I hope they can determine who sent the threats, because I want to live in a world where I know if someone sends me a death threat (or what-have-you), that they will be found and I won't have to fear my safety on their account.

Most people that support the librarian's actions also appreciate the FBI and support its mandate (well, at least I do). You seem to hold the impression that the defense of civil liberties and the pursuit of criminals are mutually exclusive. They are not. A system checks and balances is the best way to ensure that both goals can be achieved.

However, this system of checks of and balances in practice is not always pretty. The scenario you describe is a perfect example. It is possible that an FBI investigaion into a kidnapped child could be impeded by procedural restrictions designed to protect civil liberties. But it is just as possible that you could could apprehend the 9/11 hijackers by if agents had stormed into the residence of all middle-eastern men between the ages of 20-40 with student visas.

The motives & concerns of the FBI agents in this article, as well as those of the librarian, should be admired. And the entire situation was a justification of why we should strive for a system of checks and balances.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[virtualchoirboy]

There are already a number of homes with cameras in them for you to watch and get your vaunted "accountability"

.....usually at $2.95 a minute, but still.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

The GP specifically said that the FBI was not needed in counterfeiting cases. Please re-read his comment. He said that the Federal wing of government was to concern itself with only certain crimes, so therefore the FBI is not needed.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they were in the news more for finding serial killers and recovering kidnapped children than they were for using the PATRIOTACT, then perhaps. There is a use for an FBI, but not this one.

Have you ever talked with any FBI or Secret Service agents about what they do on a day to day basis? Didn't think so.
Do you actually know any FBI or Secret Service agents? Didn't think so.

No, you base your opinion solely on the basis of what the idiot box tells you. As such, your reaction to any government discussion is entirely predictable. Which, non-coincidently, is exactly what the leftist media wants.

Come back when you can formulate (and back up) an opinion on your own as opposed to being told what to think. Frankly, I don't care what "side" you are on, as long as you've reached the conclusion yourself.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[porcupine8]

Of course, you don't have the problem of criminals running 1,000 miles away (or more) from the crime scene and committing another crime - all within your country. It's hard to stay connected to the copper on the street in both Maine and Southern California (over 3100 miles apart).

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is insightful? Where's Rush Limbaugh when you need a moderate voice?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[shotfeel]

There was a threat -the FBI responsed in the most direct, quickest way available. They went right to the library and tried to persuade the librarian to give them the computers. From the article, there was a "credible threat" made from one of the computers, though there was no "clear and present danger". As I said before, there's nothing wrong with asking for cooperation -it has nothing to do with "looking out for your rights". In some circles it may even be seen as more polite than getting a warrant and "breaking down the doors".

I might also note that the last paragraph of TFA notes that some people think the librarian "acted irresponsibly and could have jeopardized people's lives." The librarian had a right to refuse (and she did). But did she have an obligation to cooperate too?

There's scant real information in TFA. I find it "Informative" to see how people interpret that information.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[geekoid]

But the do handle check and credit card fraud.

Which they shouldn't, but that is an other issue.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

Taxes, for me (married 23-yr-old with no kids), cost about $3,500 total.

No, they're nto US$3500 a year total. They're much much higher than that.

Please total up all these taxes you spent in 2005 and get back to me. I'd bet that they come close to being 50% of your gross income:

Sales Tax (I pay up to 8.75% in Chicago)
Social Security Employee Share (6.2%)
Social Security Employer Share (6.2%) -- This would be passed on as pay if it didn't exist
Medicare Employee Share (1.45%)
Medicare Employer Share (1.45%)
Federal Income Tax
State Income Tax
Property Tax -- If you rent, a portion of your rent is paying the landlord's property tax
Food Tax -- there are regulatory costs also in the price of food, but I'll ignore those
Gas Tax
Fuel refinery costs
License Plate fees

I could list another 50 smaller taxes which all take 1/2% - 1% of your income over the year each.

On top of all of this, government prints new money every week. This new money raises the cost of the average consumer good by the amount of new money added -- this is where inflation comes from. This makes each dollar you have in savings or investments worth less and less over time. This is a hidden tax and it also pushes you into higher tax brackets over time even if you don't really earn more compared to living costs.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

Murder is usually not a federal crime. The two examples you cite are examples of mission creep, unless the murder or kidnapping takes place on a federal reservation.

All state governments have large enough budgets to fund top quality state police departments that can handle these types of crimes.

Aks yourself this: Before we had 200,000+ armed federal agents of various types, was there more crime, or less?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, the grandparent obviously has no children of his own, as he has a delusion that children could be watched over 24/7.

If he has no children of his own, how can he be a "grandparent"

ty, ty, don't forget to tip your waitresses.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Maserati]

Wow, wouldja look at all the replies under this post !

I think we have another entry for all-time grand champion troll. He's certainly got the monthly title sewn up.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Coryoth]

And I am fine with this on a community basis. I see no reason why my money should be forced out of my household to pay for people who are not in my community. I pay for education in other towns, other states, hell even in other countries. Why?

No one is really forcing you to pay. You live in a large community called the USA where people agreed to collectively pay for things like education according to some tax system. If you don't want to pay for education in other towns then all you have to do is move out of the community in which you are currently in. Somalia is presently without government, and has a completely free market capitalist system - I hear they have pretty good wireless service because of that (don't ask about the roads, water supply, electricity or schools though) so if you really don't want to take part in the community of the USA you can move to a community that seems closer to your ideals.

The other option is to accept that you are part of a large community, accept that you are not forced to take part in it and pay taxes if you don't want to, and engage in that community to try and, for example, reduce government within that community. Don't play the victim here though, no-one is forcing you to take part - that's your option.

Jedidiah.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[kpang]

My issue here is that the FBI only determined there wasn't a "clear and present danger" after being forced to re-assess the situation. Shouldn't they have reached this conclusion *before* they took action? It seems to me that if the FBI is going to search through a boatload of private e-mails, they better have a damn good reason for looking at each and every one. In this situation they only needed to look at a few. What bothers me is that their first reaction was to be granted access to look at them all.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[UnknowingFool]

And how about the wing of the FBI that investiages kidnappings? If your child is kidnapped, you won't appreciate that?

Two words for you: Exigent circumstances. There are well known exceptions to requiring a warrant. One such exception is an ongoing kidnapping. Most exceptions to warrants involve situations where the search would be hindered if there was any waiting. i.e. A car during a routine traffic stop. In this case, there are no reasons why the FBI couldn't first get a warrant or that the search would be somehow damaged by waiting for a warrant. The FBI could quarantine the computers and unplug them from the network while waiting.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[xappax]

And my point is that poverty-stricken people (or any people who are unable to care for a child) should not be having children, and anything that results from that lack of planning is their own damn fault.

Something to remember is that in the zany United States of America, it's very possible for a middle class or even rich person to become utterly destitute through no fault of their own. A violent shift in the job market, a serious medical emergency or a major fire/flood in which the insurance company screws you over (happens all the time), getting sued into the ground by the RIAA...these are things that can happen to anyone, and they'd leave anyone incapable of adequately supporting their kids.

So, if poverty is not a valid excuse, and anyone can easily become impoverished through no fault of their own, does that mean nobody's fit to raise kids?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

The love it or move argument doesn't work if you don't realie that this country was founded to be small community based with a small central government. It is your kind who should have moved (or stayed where they were initially) rather than change the way America was when it was great.

In my system, socialists can happily live together and even align themselves with other socialist community around the U.S. In your way, it is your way or the highway.

Which one is pro-freedom and which one is authoritarian?

By the way, I do plan on visiting Somalia this fall. Dubai is going to be a quarterly stop for me, and Somalia is just down the water.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I am more afraid of a world where somebody can be a grandparent with no children.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucking idiot.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[TacNuke]

Most of this argument is drivel. Boo hoo the big bad police/government are persecuting me even though I really don't know how or why. Sounds like ACLU claptrap. I've read most of the posts in this article and about half sound like reasoned individuals and the rest sound like people who don't know what the heck they are talking about.

So the librarian refused consent to search and the FBI had to get a warrant. Standard police operating procedure. So What?? Happens all the time all across America. People then use this to spout off about how they hate the FBI or government etc.

The article made a big deal about it because thats what sells media. I have read the article and you need to look at the source. "The Chronicle of Higher Education" I think might be a magazine for some community college in PA. The author of the article Andrea Foster states that in the first part of the article "the FBI relented". See my comment above, I don't think relenting is technically true. The FBI asked for consent, this was denied, so they seek a warrant. The rest of the article talks about the FBI and library IT staff working to narrow down which computers it was. The FBI could have just went and got a warrant for EVERY computer in the place, but they did not and instead worked with the library to narrow it down. Members of the town were actual mad at the town officials for not essentially supporting the FBI seeking consent to search.

Anyway, much a do about nothing. Move along, nothing to see here.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mobile homes are inefficient to heat, shoddily-constructed, and have grossly limited options for placement, especially in regards to local economic opportunities and necessary utility provisions. On top of that $750/m is certainly not a value with a minimum-wage income. It has virtually no resale value because of continual depreciation. A poor investment for sure.

20 of my newsletter subscribers to knock nearly US$300,000 in debt from their monthly payments
$300k would be a mean debt of $15k. Depending on the rate and purpose of the debt, that isn't a lot of debt. Contrary to what you think, having debt isn't necessarily bad and can be quite beneficial.

A geek earning US$60,000 a year can be a millionaire in 6-8 years if they avoid the traps sold to them by the Joneses.

After taxes and fixed costs, it would be rather unlikely for a single person with an annual income of $60,000 to become a "millionaire" in 6-8 years, especially while eschewing debt. Please share with us the investment strategy and projected expenses for an engineer or IT monkey making $60k to earn $2M in 8 years.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[OmgTEHMATRICKS]

..And you still call them libertarians?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[AndersOSU]

How many times can a quote be quoted before someone actually thinks about it?

How many times can a quote be quoted before someone realizes that an argument from authority is a really crappy way to make a point?

For the record I'm mostly against the Patriot Act, the DCMA, and illegal wire tapings, but for God's sake try to think about what Ben is saying for a minute.

Whether you like it or not there is a continuum of safety and liberty, and the ideal location on the continuum isn't extreme liberty.

If as a nation we decided that in all cases liberty was better than safety we wouldn't have warrants because no court could order an invasion of someone else's privacy. We wouldn't have traffic control devices, because damnit I'll drive when, where and how I want to. We wouldn't have police, because that's just the Man's way of telling you what to do.

Now I think that we should fight to preserve our liberties, especially when it comes to the first amendment, but I can come up with better arguments for doing so than quoting a 300 yr old dead guy - no matter how expierienced, accomplished, and intelligent said dead guy was.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Coryoth]

The love it or move argument doesn't work...

Good job completely misinterpreting what I said into a strawman. I didn't say "love it or leave", I said "accept that you have made the choice to stay and attempt to change the system, or choose not to stay". You're perfectly welcome to not love it and stay and try and change it. I'm just suggesting that pretending you are a poor put upon victim with no choice in the matter is remarkably disingenuous.

Jedidiah.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[thegarbageman]

I could care less if you're starving unless you're part of my community.

I am from Earth. What community are you from?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[IAmTheDave]

We have all them things in the UK and the police deal with them fine.

With all due respect, the UK is the size of Texas, which also has its own police force that does just fine. Multiply the size of the UK by oh... 5 or 6 or so, and it might become a bit more difficult.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[AddictedToBeef]

200% in savings?! Is this a toll road?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

This country was intended to be a Constitutional Republic. Government by the consent of the governed and all that. Thomas Jefferson's ideals with respect to some primitive agrarian society are essentially irrelevant, and hardly representative of the numerous founders of the U.S., nor of those interested in maintaining the union during the Civil War. No democratic government stands still, so leave, violently overthrow your tyrannical oppressor, or deal with losing at democracy. The last thing people that descend from all of those people really want to do is listen to some immigrant whine about how he can't live in the 18th century.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[metamatic]

Within a group of voluntary cooperation, both parties in any transaction profit from the transaction.

The problem is that those with the most capital tend to profit the most. So left unchecked, over time all the capital gets sucked into the hands of a relatively small percentage of the population, and the others get to be serfs.

Basically, capital is power, and power tends to concentrate if left unchecked.

Communities do better with voluntary cooperation (the free market) than through coercion and force and freedoms lost.

I'm not aware of any communities that don't rely on coercion. Economic coercion is the cornerstone of US society; it's the explanation for how the crappiest jobs can also often be the worst paid. If your choice is "take a McJob or live in a cardboard box", it's farcical to pretend that that isn't coercion.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[GigsVT]

I agree with the AC. As a reader of your blog, you should write up this whole "millionaire in 6 years making $60,000 a year"...

That's only $360k. You'd have to invest $360k at a 17% rate of return (compounded daily) today to have a million in 6 years. And that's assuming you can live eating air and not wearing clothes. And it assumes you got paid for the next 6 years of labor all at once.

I don't have a calculator handy for figuring how much the rate of return would have to be in reality, making only 60k available per year to be invested, but I suspect somewhere around 25-30% rate of return.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[jedidiah]

That makes the dubious assumption that the FBI will be effective at retrieving stolen children. I have far more confidence in a cabal of good old boys from the local coutryside. If you are rich, it makes far more sense to hire people. If you're not rich, then the FBI is probably pretty irrelevant anyways.

          This is just one of those stupid "but think of the children" appeals.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[monkeydo]

That's all true, but what did the FBI do wrong?

Absolutely nothing at all. But that violates the "gov't is bad" groupthink. IMO, the librarians are the bad guys here. They absolutely could have cooperated with the FBI, but they chose not to. They weren't protecting anyone's privacy, because there's nothing (legally, morally, or otherwise) private on a public terminal. Quite simply, those in position of power at the library were thumbing their noses at "the man". In another article on the incident, the mayor was quoted as saying that staring down the FBI was their "finest hour". What a crock.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[jedidiah]

You may have something there.

The last "amber alert" in this area was some kid that was with his dad.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was referring only to Federal Income Tax, as that is the major tax where the government gets most of its "disposable" income.

Sure, you can find that 50% of your gross income goes to taxes of one type or another, but how much are you missing that money? Can you not eat because your checking account is empty? Can you not make credit card payments because your savings have been devalued by incessent government printing of money? Does you daughter not have that "Barbie" doll she really wanted because the sales tax was just too high?
Meanwhile, is someone being fed by those taxes? Are major strides in knowledge being made? Is someone getting an education (the single GREATEST gift anyone can get) who wouldn't necessarily have one?
Of course there are abuses and misuses of the system, but I would argue that in every human-designed and administrated system there are abuses and misuses, and we should always try to correct them, but we shouldn't lose sight of the good things that happen. You can whine about taxes being too high, or you can see that they actually help people.

My uncle is a hardcore Republican, in favor of less taxes and cutting social programs. He always said when I became a taxpayer I would lose my leftist leanings, but it hasn't worked that way. I recognized I could miss that money (again, since I live pretty well) and it would go to good causes. I would prefer to be able to put it ALL toward programs of my choice and eliminate the government middleman, but it's the only way available to me at present. Someday, I'd like that option.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[jedidiah]

You make it sould pretty much like a lost cause all around. We're basically allowing the existence of an organization that tends run amok on the off chance that it might occasionally be useful. This FBI is infact redundant by a factor of 50.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[monkeydo]

If anything they're superior to the FBI because they're directly connected to the average copper working on the street, who notice and see far more than guys working in buildings hidden away from everything.

That isn't how the FBI works, but thanks for playing. Now, shall I tell you all of the things that are wrong with Scotland Yard? For one, you need that pipe smoking opium addict and his doctor buddy to solve all of your major crimes. Why can't the coppers handle it themselves?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[bradleyland]

If they were in the news more for finding serial killers and recovering kidnapped children than they were for using the PATRIOTACT, then perhaps. There is a use for an FBI, but not this one.

Well, if news outlets felt that finding serial killers and recovering kidnapped children made good news, I'm sure we'd see more of it. The FBI does these things daily, it's part of their job. I see this recent "news" as the culmination of recent events such as the NSA wiretaps, Bush's open defense of his actions in the recent state of the address, and (loosely) the recent Google stand against requests for records.

A librarian refusing to turn over computers to officials without a warrant isn't news, it's the proper execution of civil liberty protection. I won't complain too loudly though, because I believe execution of these rights is to be encouraged.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[monkeydo]

Another well know exception to the warrant requirement is consent. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the FBI asking the library to cooperate. There's also no expectation of privacy in a public computer, or in records held by a third party.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[jedidiah]

No, but he can call in the Rangers.

This whole droning on about the FBI forensics lab just underscores a key point about the FBI. It is grossly overutilized. Like all forms of welfare, it tends to create even more dependency than existed beforehand.

Quite simply, the FBI shouldn't have the only suitable resources in the country because if those resources get corrupted (like say Houston's) then everyone is SOL completely and there is no fallback.

States are supposed to have police powers, not the feds.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[masdog]

Let me know when you have kids. Then you can tell me, or anyone else, how to raise them.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[shotfeel]

Shouldn't they have reached this conclusion *before* they took action?

But then we get into a chicken/egg scenario. You need data & evidence to determine if there's a clear and present danger. But you're saying they need to know if there's a clear and present danger (or get a subpeona) before they go searching for information.

Looking at it from another direction, I'd say they were derelict in their duty if they waited around to get a subpeona before approaching the librarian and asking for access. As you said, at that time they didn't know there wasn't a clear and present danger. They did know there was a credible threat -that's a "damn good reason" in my book to gain access to a public terminal. Imagine the uproar if life was lost while the FBI was off getting their subpeona and hadn't bothered to simply ask first.

Maybe the FBI agents should have just filled out the form to get a library card. Then they'd have access to the computers, just like everyone else with a card.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[masdog]

I would hire a private investigator and a lawyer. Also, I don't see how someone could kidnap my child if I was a good parent and actually parented the child at all times, as a parent should.

Thats because you don't have kids. Until you have kids, and have to start trusting others to take care of them at some point, you will never understand.

The problem with your argument is that you assume that you can protect your kids 24/7. Parents aren't always there, and they shouldn't always be there. If you don't allow your kids to go off on their own, they're never going to learn how to function in the real world.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[k12linux]

With all due respect, the UK is the size of Texas

Actually Texas is almost 3x larger than the UK by itself. (696,241 sq km versus 244,820 sq km.)

Multiply the size of the UK by oh... 5 or 6 or so

Actually you'd want to multiply it by almost 40 to approximate the size of the US (9,631,418 sq km)

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Kermit870]

Since when does Texas need a police force?

I thought Chuck Norris has the whole state covered (and a little bit of New Mexico too).
And even when Chuck can't stop the violence with roundhouse kicks, absolutely everyone else carries a rifle in the back of their truck.

Sounds like the problem could be fixed if we could just clone a few Chuck Norrises.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[masdog]

Do you actually have any thoughts of your own? Or are you just going to keep citing that website?

There is a very good reason why the Necessary and Proper clause was added to the Constitution. It was to ensure that if the Federal government would be able to deal with changing circumstances.

Yes, it does give the government a power grant that they most likely don't need. But if they didn't have this ability, its very possible that the Union would have dissolved in a manner similar to the Articles of Confederation.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[masdog]

And in how many of those places are we basing troops without the consent of the government, elected or otherwise?

How many of those troop deployments are the result of a treaty commitment that was ratified by both the United States and the host country?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

As a reader of your blog, you should write up this whole "millionaire in 6 years making $60,000 a year"

I currently make a good income on my newsletter, and I am working on finding ways to recuperate that income when I start to give that advice freely to the masses. I am very close to working out a sponsor for the site and should be able to cover my ass that way :)

I'll give you a few clues, though:

1. Many people who are posting here who are 30 years old are not millionaires because they refused to attempt to be wealthy in their teens and 20s.

2. Many people who are not wealthy by 30 have over-run their debt, including mortgages, for products they didn't need in their youth and could have afforded better after becoming wealthy (big screen TVs, new cars, etc).

3. Many people who are not wealthy by 30 likely have listened to the media and the masses, believing in 401Ks, stock markets, bank accounts, ATM cards and credit cards, as well as home equity loans and overpriced clothing.

4. Many people who are not wealthy by 30 are W2 employees, unable to maximize the savings set up by the IRS for contract employees and pseudocorps.

My investments locally earn me a 20% dividend minimum annually. I would never invest in the stock market -- it's a suckers game (no dividends, P:E over the maximum of 6 I recommend, no clarity in ownership). A recent business I invested in locally made me nearly 50% in dividend payouts. Even my failed retail store was earning over 25% annually while growing with very little management (it failed due to a tax conflict that we could not afford to fight because we didn't take out the proper insurance).

My housing costs when I owned a huge house were crazy -- almost US$2600 a month including property taxes. I downsized the house and bought mobile homes (and soon a mobile home park that I'll convert into a tech mobile home complex) and for US$9000 I bought a big mobile home that costs me only US$700 a month to live in -- utilities, taxes and insurance. I'm saving US$1900 per month there.

My Land Rover cost me over US$2000 a month to drive -- insurance, gas, maintenance, tires, brakes, servicing, cleaning, etc. I sold it, bought a used 96 Toyota Corolla, and I pay about US$280 a month to drive it. That's over US$1700 a month I'm saving there.

I refused to go into debt for education, so I didn't go to college. I am attending a college now electronically so I can at least get a degree some day, but I am in no rush. I proved my value by selling myself cheaply when I was younger and building up my customer base over time through great work and financial savings for those who used my services.

I am a 1099 contractor for all my work -- offering my huge tax incentives and savings. My billable rate varies from US$80 to US$210 depending on the work I am performing for the customer. I get what I ask, and I get paid on time or ahead of time because I guarantee the work I do.

Let's look at that now. 20%-50% return on my local investments that I have real control in. A savings of nearly US$45,000 a year in living expenses.

If I started this when I was 18, I'd be well over a million now, if not more. I could realistically retire at 30, if I didn't wait as long as I did. Unfortunately, I'll have to wait another 4-5 years, but the wealth builds while my friends blow their futures and retirements by living high on the hog today.

How old are you? If you're 25, what did you do with all your earnings since you were 18? Between 18 and 25 I likely earned about US$400,000. It blew it on stuff I don't even have today! At 25 I learned the secret: stop listening to your friends, your advisors and the media. They don't know. They don't care. They don't see that wealth is not dollars saved but assets built and the future considered merely 10 years away, not 35.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

The problem is that those with the most capital tend to profit the most.

Under a fiat currency, maybe.

Under a fixed 100% reserve currency, no way. If people horde money, it forces prices to drop to get the money back into circulation. The free market addresses this problem nicely. The wealthy can't horde money because if they do, they won't have anything to use it for as businesses fail around them. The wealthy use the money by saving it, and the banks loan it out in safe investments. The poor and the rich are closer to one another in a free market than in a heavily regulated market -- today's wealthy are that way because they took advantage of government, not by offering a great product at the lowest price in the fastest way.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote NO to all referenda

So you're the one. I always wondered who the people were who vote against building another school even though enrollment has gone up by more than the number of kids who fit in a single school since the last one was built. Very forward thinking of you. We can always just cram them into bathrooms and closets I guess.

Of course you are probably the same person who complains when student:teacher ratios explode, when music and arts programs are canceled or when textbooks your student uses are 10+ years old due to lack of funds.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

Theres no need of a leash or rfid tags for your children, My son (now 3 yo) never strays more than 5 feet from me and never crosses onto roads without holding either my or my spouses hand.

We walk and employ public transport, and found it very easy to let him walk with us from a very young age. While it would be futile to attempt to verbally explain why it is dangerous for him to be away from our side, we found a "demonstration" phycological method, to be exceedingly effective.

We took him out on a trip to the superarket as normal and deliberatly took him to a section of the store we knew he would get caught up in. When he refused to come along, we simply said "goodbye". and continued onto the next row. (carefully observing him). Needless to say he got a little frightened. (but a lesson was learned). Of course we do not leave out the reward part, if he behaves himself while out we will buy him a treat.

Lots of people don't try to think on how a childs mind works. Children are extremely egocentric, they also crave security, a lesson easily taught.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[linguae]

The rich already makes and enforce the laws. Look at copyright extensions, software patents, DMCA, and other related legislature. Most libertarians do not support this political bribery at all, and wish it would be done away with.

Why do so many people spew all of this bad crap about libertarianism? Libertarianism is about reducing the government's role to protecting our individual freedoms, and is about promoting free markets, indivudal freedoms, and limited government. You need to start reading about libertarians before you compare a libertarian society to serfdom. (In fact, one libertarian, Friedrich Hayek, wrote a book called The Road to Serfdom which describes what happens when socialist and collectivist policies are implemented. Go and read, before you spew anti-libertarian garbage.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

Meanwhile, is someone being fed by those taxes?

At a cost higher than if the money was spent freely in the market, creating real competitive jobs and wealth for those working rather than a permanent welfare dole.

Are major strides in knowledge being made? Is someone getting an education (the single GREATEST gift anyone can get) who wouldn't necessarily have one?

No, education is worse today than it was 100 years ago. Literacy is down (the literacy rates are up because they changed the reporting to not true literacy but how many years of education a person has). The average person today is dumber than they were even 20 years ago.

Over time, people like me will find black market ways to exit your system. I wish it didn't have to be this way. I would much rather turn off the federal government and let each State be their own entity and I would truly be able to vote with my feet. As I meet more and more people through my posts who have already exited the system, I believe that "freedom" does exist, but it still lives on top of the mess that society has created since FDR.

In my anarcho-capitalist future, we'd all be able to choose our own form of government at the community level -- not at the federal level. You could live happily in a socialist community, and I could live happily in a pure cooperative voluntary anarchist community. Why do we need a huge aggressor?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

Mobile homes are inefficient to heat, shoddily-constructed, and have grossly limited options for placement, especially in regards to local economic opportunities and necessary utility provisions. On top of that $750/m is certainly not a value with a minimum-wage income. It has virtually no resale value because of continual depreciation. A poor investment for sure.

I've moved at least 50 people in mobile homes in the past 12 months. All of them are happier than they were in the older homes. Inefficient to heat? My mobile home is over 1000 square feet (soon to be 2000 square feet). My heating bill in November and December was under $180 for the two months. My mother lives in a house -- same square footage. Her gas bill (1/2 hour away from my house) was over $630 for those two months.

Shoddy construction? The recent repo I bought was build in 1989. It is meticulously assembled and when I did a test of energy efficiency, I only had to replace one window.

All homes should continually depreciate -- all of them. Only land can appreciate in value, friend. The housing bubble will prove you very wrong when it bursts. I like living in a house that depreciates. I bought my home for under US$10,000 last year and its great. Every friend of mine who has visited me says it is better than the 2500 square foot home I owned previously just 2-3 miles from where I live now. That house is worth around US$350,000 and offered a lower standard of living compared to my life now.

$300k would be a mean debt of $15k. Depending on the rate and purpose of the debt, that isn't a lot of debt. Contrary to what you think, having debt isn't necessarily bad and can be quite beneficial.

No, you should never have debt on depreciating assets -- cars, physical portions of your home (not land value), clothing, food or appliances. Anything depreciating should be owned outright if you plan on building wealth and being able to resist life's ups and downs. People ask how I could prepare for a terrible tragedy? I do it buy building wealth -- real equity -- and avoiding debt in depreciating assets (such as the physical part of the home).

Debt is bad. This country will learn this very soon I believe. Just as we did in the 80s and Japan did in the 90s.

After taxes and fixed costs, it would be rather unlikely for a single person with an annual income of $60,000 to become a "millionaire" in 6-8 years, especially while eschewing debt. Please share with us the investment strategy and projected expenses for an engineer or IT monkey making $60k to earn $2M in 8 years.

I can't. My newsletter offers this advice and I'm not going to give it away for free. I also don't have room to add any more members to it, until I move it online.

US$60,000 can be turned into US$1 million in 8 years easily, if you downsize your debt, downsize your living costs (no mortgage, own a mobile home or other such inexpensive property) and maximize your savings and investments. For example, rather than invest in the sucker's stock market (no dividends, P:E ratios over the maximum of 6, etc), invest in local businesses with a set business plan and attention to cash flow concerns. My investments in local businesses offer me a yearly dividend usually over 20% annually. Some are as high as 50% if the business is really well maintained and competitive.

My living expenses in the Chicago area when I was living in my house and keeping up with the Joneses was over US$4400 per month plus food. My living expenses today are less than US$800 per month plus food. I put the rest into gold and local businesses. That US$3600 per month that I save is approximately US$43,200 plus my usual 25% net dividends on previous investments is what I base my forecasts on.

Also, most geeks making US$60,000 annually in a salaried position could double that income if they struck out on their own. Charging US$60 per hour and finding 40 hours a week of contract work is very easy and brings with it many more write-offs and tax savings than being a W2 employee.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[linguae]

Free-market based ideologies deal with poverty in a completely different manner than leftists do. I guess you never heard of the negative income tax, have you? And guess who founded it? Well, no other than the "extremely egocentric libertarian" Milton Friedman.

Plus, libertarians support a sort of voluntary welfare system on a local level. Communities should be able to help out people in need; however, it should be done voluntarily (either from the votes of the community or from voluntary donations) and should not be implemented on a statewide or federal scale. Libertarians don't believe in huge, bureaucratic welfare systems that have been implemented in the United States, for example. Even though I don't believe in mandatory welfare, many European countries implemented a system of welfare combined with community donations and state-funded welfare, which is very extensive and works well.

It's not that libertarians encourage extreme egocentrism. It is just libertarians don't want social safety nets implemented on national levels; they should be implemented on a community level.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[pmenefee]

You're exactly right on so many points i'm not going to itemize them. But I will point out that most people out there won't admit it's a pride issue. Pride is why they won't sell their car and drive an older, paid for car or move into a smaller more affordible house.

A little personal story... I found a steal of a deal on a house in a prime location in a college town. My intentions were to buy the house fix it up and turn it for a profit. Then I started doing the math. Long story - short; my wife and I sold our 4000+ sq. ft. home and moved us and the four kids into the 1200 sq. ft. house.

It was the best financial decision we've made. I took the huge reduction in mortgage payment and started knocking out debt. We plan to be out of debt in a few years; including our home. The bottom line people is suck it up! Debt = pride; pure, plain and simple.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll be wanting to back that up with facts, rather than talk.

So, make with the facts.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

The average person today is dumber than they were even 20 years ago.

Some of these average people tend to post on slashdot, too.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've moved at least 50 people in mobile homes in the past 12 months.

Provide references.

All of them are happier than they were in the older homes.

What did they live in before?

Inefficient to heat?

Yep. The windows in mobile homes are completely worthless. The shape of a mobile home is thermally wasteful. The materials used are all budget-grade.

My mobile home is over 1000 square feet (soon to be 2000 square feet). My heating bill in November and December was under $180 for the two months.

I have a 4,100ft^2 house and my gas bill for 11/05 and 12/05 is $238.

My mother lives in a house -- same square footage. Her gas bill (1/2 hour away from my house) was over $630 for those two months.

Your mother lives in a shitty house, or you just made that up. Take your pick.

Shoddy construction? The recent repo I bought was build in 1989. It is meticulously assembled and when I did a test of energy efficiency, I only had to replace one window.

Haha. When I started college I worked with a group of people assembling mobile homes. Absurdly cheap materials with haphazard imperfections slapped together with staples. Meticulously assembled piles of glue and sawdust! With only the finest insulation and carpeting! And the roofs are truly amazing craftsmanship. Don't kid yourself about the quality of your mobile home.

All homes should continually depreciate -- all of them. Only land can appreciate in value, friend.

Er, no.

The housing bubble will prove you very wrong when it bursts.

The housing bubble will prove me wrong about rapid depreciating trailers? Sure it will.

That house is worth around US$350,000 and offered a lower standard of living compared to my life now.

Haha. You just like to make things up, don't you? Well your friend should sell his $350,000 house and purchase a nice mobile home! I'll stick with my $650,000 home.

No, you should never have debt on depreciating assets

Whether debt on a depreciating asset is valuable depends on the rate of depreciation, the rate of the debt, and the return on the borrowed capital. For example, mortgaging homes and renting them. The depreciation is actually valuable. Though I was speaking of carrying debt in general.

I do it buy building wealth -- real equity

Like mobile homes.

Debt is bad. This country will learn this very soon I believe. Just as we did in the 80s and Japan did in the 90s.

Debt is neither good nor bad in of itself. It can be good or bad depending on how it's managed. If you're losing money on debt then it's only good if the utility is worth the loss. Borrowing recklessly is stupid. Not borrowing when it's advantageous is stupid.

I can't. My newsletter offers this advice and I'm not going to give it away for free. I also don't have room to add any more members to it, until I move it online.

Yeah, I don't doubt that you can't.

For example, rather than invest in the sucker's stock market (no dividends, P:E ratios over the maximum of 6, etc), invest in local businesses with a set business plan and attention to cash flow concerns.

I made $900,000 in the stock market from 1997-1999. Hell, I bought blocks of AAPL at $20-23/share in 1998. If you want I'll sell them off. I cashed out of GOOG over the last two weeks with a nice return. I have a diversified portfolio that does quite well. I made some money in real estate. I've got a few houses I rent. Unless I were to personally run a small business to ensure profitability, I would have little interest wasting my money on investments that will most likely fail to realize a profit for five years. Since I already have a job that I like doing something I actually find interesting I don't think I'll be running any small businesses.

Also, most geeks making US$60,000 annually in a salaried position could double that income if they struck out on their own.

Most "geeks" making $60k/y are either in saturated markets, aren't very good at what they do, aren't long out of college, or don't live in regions where consulting rates consistently beat their salaries.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[kpang]

It's not all that clear from the article but the FBI seemed to have determined that there wasn't a "clear and present danger" without access to the terminals as the librarian rejected their request to confiscate the computers. It sounded like they came, demanded that the library hand over all their computers, were asked for a warrant, then decided there wasn't a reasonable enough danger to take the computers anyway. If that were the case, then weren't they overstepping their bounds by demanding the computers when upon further reflection they really didn't need to? I fully understand if, by the time they reached the library, they thought there was still a credible threat and that time was of the essence, but considering they waited for a warrant in the end, that doesn't seem to be the case in this scenario.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[johncadengo]

You're talking to the same guy who wrote on his blog (which I wont link to, don't want to promote his site on google, but its in dada21's profile) the words:

I should be president? I was talking with a new friend today, and he commented something I hear often -- "You should run for President." Sometimes its "You should be in politics" or something like that. I'm very convincing. I'd be a great informercial guy if I was more attractive on camera.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Zigurd]

Until the 1930's or so when organized crime figured out that state run police was terrible at tracking them across borders.

Take a look at your state police budget and tell me if you still believe that. With the size and capability of modern state government, there is no excuse for federal mission creep. There is really nothing outside the reach of state government except national defense.

In a roundabout sort of way, Original Intent is looking very practical these days.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[narad]

He is $#@$#$#@ rich

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[MurphyZero]

In general I agree with your viewpoint, but not with the blanket statement. For one, a person who uses the all NO isn't giving the issues any thought, and I can't stand when people refuse to think. But, unless there is a damn good reason, don't vote for any party candidate, vote the judges out and vote against referenda. (1) Your vote against party candidates is worth more than your vote for one. See information theory. Yourself, a spouse, a relative, whoever works. (2) Judges shouldn't be permanent positions, so take every opportunity to vote them out. (3) Last election there were a few referenda on my ballot worth voting in favor, especially one that cancelled a previously supported, poorly thought out referenda. Those are definitely worth voting YES.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Elminst]

Also, I don't see how someone could kidnap my child if I was a good parent and actually parented the child at all times, as a parent should.

From what i've seen from your posts, you seem a relatively smart guy. So I can't understand this obviously ignorant statement.
The MAJORITY of kidnappings are perpetrated BY A PARENT or other relative. How exactly does proper parenting protect against the PARENT snatching the child?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Kohath]

and you'll generally find that voting NO to Republicans will coincide with voting NO to the further erosion of civil liberties

Unless you consider smoking a civil liberty.
Or controling the property that you own.
Or free speech during a political campaign.
Or free speech on campus.
Or free speech in the workplace.
Or free speech in advertising.
Or the free exercise of religion.
Or the right to bear arms.
Or keeping the money in your paycheck.
Or being admitted to college without being discriminated against based on your race.
Or buying a home where you want to live.
Or driving the car that you want to drive.
Or using a snowmobile.
Or hunting.
Or wearing a fur coat.
Or using an off-road vehicle.
Or eating at a fast food restaurant.
Or shopping at Walmart.
Or talking on a cell phone.
Or using nuclear power.
Or owning and running a business.
Or home-schooling your children.
Or choosing your children's school.
Or making any other choices about how your children are raised.
Or buying non-organic food.
Or buying health care with your own money.

None of those count as civil liberties for Democrats. If you want to do any of those things, you have to do them the way you're told. Or else.

But no wire-tapping terrorist phones to prevent another 9/11 style attack. That's sacrosanct.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[R3d M3rcury]

"On one hand, it's the government and command structure that's setting the policy, so it's unfair to hate the grunts for 'just following orders.'"

Although here's another argument. We decided years ago that "I was just following orders" was not a valid excuse for a crime.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[mrchaotica]

That's true, but the perspective of the individual soldier doesn't really allow him to evaluate the legality of the war as a whole. I mean, I think we can all agree that the war as a whole is immoral, but given that the UN and/or individual nations (since the US can veto anything the UN decides) haven't started sanctioning us en masse, it's difficult to argue that the specific orders given to our soldiers violate international or US law (with some exceptions).

In other words, soldiers are free to question illegal orders, but not merely immoral ones. Considering that the orders probably aren't actually illegal, and also considering that the (high) burdon of proof is likely on the soldier, I can understand their reluctance to question.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

Provide references.

Not to an anonymous coward. Some of my references live on my block -- as soon as I have the wealth to buy out the park, I'll start my free tech village website with details :)

What did they live in before?

60% of my readers are geeks -- most lived in houses and apartments. The reason they are happy is because they are building wealth instead of the debtYep. The windows in mobile homes are completely worthless. The shape of a mobile home is thermally wasteful. The materials used are all budget-grade.

Well, I work with one of the top architects in the city of Chicago (I'll be happy to provide a reference if you e-mail me) and he's helped me find the highest quality builds of the repos I've bought. I live in Chicago, its very cold and very hot. The fact that my trailer is 70% cheaper to heat and cool than a similar house makes me believe you're wrong here, but your mileage may vary. I also know which models and manufacturers tend to have better builds and better years to buy. Part of the information I sell, actually.

I have a 4,100ft^2 house and my gas bill for 11/05 and 12/05 is $238

Not in Chicago you don't. Many of my friends with houses in the 2500sqft range are paying almost $400 for their December bill and a bit higher in November. I'm trying to expand my trailer to 3000 square feet (2000 for sure) this year. My bills are consistently 70% less than theirs.

Your mother lives in a shitty house, or you just made that up. Take your pick.

Most homes in the city of Chicago and close burbs are 30-50 years old. I agree with you, its a crappy house. Considering it is worth almost US$300,000 for that tiny shack, I believe there is a bad housing bubble.

Don't kid yourself about the quality of your mobile home.

I look at 10 repos a month and I pass on 9.75 of them. I find the quality ones and pick them up well below market value. My recent acquisition was a US$4000 repo that I can turn around for US$12000 and its still US$5000 below market value. I'm not turning them around, though.

I'll stick with my $650,000 home.

If you own it cash, I congratulate you -- you're a rare one. If you have more than 60% owed on it, I fear for you in 2-3 years. A 4100 sqft home for US$650,000 can not be in a booming community near a major city, is it? New Mexico? Maybe Oregon? A 4100 sqft home in my town (actually 2 miles away) goes for nearly US$1.7 million.

hether debt on a depreciating asset is valuable depends on the rate of depreciation, the rate of the debt, and the return on the borrowed capital.

You're basing that on a free market of currency. The US dollar is in a Keynesian inflationary cycle, so the base depreciation is hidden by the bubble's rise. I believe all homes should depreciate over time, and property should appreciate. The only way a home should go up in value is if you add to it or fix things.

The housing bubble will prove me wrong about rapid depreciating trailers? Sure it will.

I'm thankful they depreciate properly. I wouldn't buy a new one for US$45,000 when I can buy repos for US$4000. I can get a geek with US$150,000 in debt into a nice trailer around US$10,000 paid off in a year, and on the US$3000/month mortgage he's saving, he can pay off his debt in just under 3 years if he puts all his income to debt reduction. Then he can build wealth, and hopefully in another 3 or 4 years he can buy back his old house -- cash.

Yeah, I don't doubt that you can't.

My name is public. My accomplishments and failures are cataloged all over Google. How about yours? You just spin without attaching a name to it -- I can back up everything by invitation.

Since I already have a job that I like doing something I actually find interesting I don't think I'll be running any small businesses.

You're a rarity. One in maybe 10,000. The majority of people our age in our business

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[R3d M3rcury]

You're being a tad facetious in some of this.

Every country where we have an embassy has American troops to defend it. You might also have regional people based at the embassies of the country.

For example, Antigua has 2 Air Force officers. From what I can see, those two guys maintain a missile-tracking facility. New Zealand has 7--two Army, two Navy, and three Air Force. Hardly what I'd call "policing against the will of the citizens."

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[kraut]

Please change your login name; you're giving DaDa a bad press.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Mr. Slippery]

It's always amusing (in a sad sort of way) how some people who have money somehow envision the world as if everyone else is just as well off as they are.

It's the root of the conservative mind-set: lack of imagination. As Tim Kreider put it:

I've thought before that the most fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is not over issues of individual freedom vs. authority or progress vs. traditional values, but imagination. Conservatives don't have any. The status quo seems only inevitable and right to them, the natural order of things, and anyone who protests it is an impractical dreamer who should get a job or a malcontent who needs to be medicated. They're incapable of seeing their own historical moment as in any way anomalous or provisional; as Montag's colleagues assure him in Farenheit 451, "Believe me, houses have always been fireproof. Firemen have always burned books." They believe that they deserve their own lives; they can't imagine having been born as someone else. (Empathy, and by extension compassion, is a function of imagination.) They can't imagine what it would be like to be poor, or black, or gay, because, well, they're not, and they suspect that these unfortunate conditions are those people's own faults, a consequence of some moral failing or dereliction. (I always secretly felt this way about old people until I noticed I was aging as well.) Likewise people living in other cultures with different beliefs and customs; they're simply ignorant, deprived of the advantages of Jesus and Wal-Mart. Francis Fukyama, in a book with the straight-line title The End of History, argues that capitalist liberal democracy is the final culmination of all social progress, apparently unable to imagine a more perfect system than the one epitomized by Donald Trump and Kenneth Lay. Fukiyama knows his Hegel, but he clearly never saw Death Race 2000. Science fiction is political philosophy, too. Kim Stanley Robinson, in his Mars trilogy, depicts capitalism as a transitional phase between feudalism and true democracy, fundamentally in conflict with human freedom, and envisions a credible--and far better--post-capitalist future. History is not inevitable but contingent on our choices. We're only just beginning to figure out what is an intrinsic part of human nature and what's culturally conditioned, so we might as well keep trying to change what sucks rather than complacently accept that sucking is just what the world is meant to do. But that's liberals for you: never happy, always agitating for change, clamoring for some hopeless pie-in-the-sky fantasy world where gay people get married and health care is free and nobody has to be poor, or where women work in offices and frequent saloons and Negroes can vote and must be addressed as "Mister", where slavery doesn't exist and men live without kings to rule them. Dream on, crackpots!

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

No children of his own? Grandparent? Please explain.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

I do believe that the federal government should turn back to being a Republic like it was intended to be(just remember that to join the union you must be a Republic to according to our constitution). I also think that first comes the citizins then the states then the feds in order of power. I think also the state deos have a right to create temp. social welfare programs but it grant form(ie not be directly funding a private school system like now but giving everyone say $1000 to pay for what ever type of schooling they want). I also belive that proterty taxes, inheratice tax, income tax are all unconstitutional. I believe it would be better if they just implented a federal sales tax much like the state sale taxes. Say 1-2% for the consumer and 5% for the corporations but it should list the total sale price for the item much like the do for gas.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[McPierce]

Of course, the FBI should have gotten a search warrant, but I'm sure they will now and I hope they can determine who sent the threats, because I want to live in a world where I know if someone sends me a death threat (or what-have-you), that they will be found and I won't have to fear my safety on their account.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. Benjamin Franklin

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[Anonymous Coward]

Picture the next presidential election: Condi Rice 7%, Hillary Clinton 8%, Other 85%

Picture the world laughing at you for an 8% of polled-votes president.

What's that, less than 4% of voting population?

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[UnknowingFool]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the FBI asking the library to cooperate. There's also no expectation of privacy in a public computer, or in records held by a third party.

True. Public computer users should not expect privacy. In this litigious society, the librarian probably wanted to make sure that the library was covered. It may have been more about proper procedure that actual rights.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[MadUndergrad]

I don't know what schools you went to, but in my high school the best, most experienced teachers were paid little more than $50,000. The others, far less. This wasn't an inner-city school in an underfunded system, either. I think those wages are pretty standard. I don't in general disagree with your comment, but the overstatement of a teacher's salary started by the GP had to be addressed.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[IDontAgreeWithYou]

My wife is a teacher. She is in her 7th year of teaching and makes a little less than $50,000/yr. Teaching salaries vary greatly depending on degree(Bachelors, Masters, or PhD), tenure and location. I think that the GP was saying that he could pay teachers $60,000/yr in his fictional hippy school and that would be enough to lure them there. The overall average salary for teachers in the US is over $40,000. Here is a list of the 10 states with the highest average teacher salaries.

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[FleaPlus]

Somalia is presently without government, and has a completely free market capitalist system - I hear they have pretty good wireless service because of that (don't ask about the roads, water supply, electricity or schools though) so if you really don't want to take part in the community of the USA you can move to a community that seems closer to your ideals.

This is a faulty comparison, as Somalia's being without a government doesn't change the fact that it's in one of the poorest regions in the world. Even the countries around it with intact governments are doing horifically.

Good job!

[Anonymous Coward]

I must say that I am developing a significant level of respect for people such as this librarian who are actually fighting back against an ever more invasive US government and its various agencies.

Librarians

[Anonymous Coward]

This dashes my profound belief in the meek librarian cliche.

Damn.

Re:Librarians

[hey!]

Take that forces of evil.

Re:Librarians

[Phreakiture]

This dashes my profound belief in the meek librarian cliche.

Librarians are actually very cool people. They have a meek outer layer, yes, but they know a lot about a lot of things. Most librarians that I have met have also been willing to bend over backwards to help the clients of the library in any way conceivable, and protecting the privacy of those clients is just one of those ways.

Re:Librarians

[wayward]

I'm a graduate student in Library and Information Science at UIUC. One professor I had last year has done a lot of research on the Patriot Act and its effect on libraries. (And yes, Leigh is definitely cool.) http://www.uiuc.edu/minutewith/leighestabrook.html

Re:Librarians

[saskboy]

You haven't met the "anti-meek" until a librarian decends upon you for using the computer past your time.

You know it's sad...

[MustardMan]

You know our society is in a sad state of affairs when someone demanding a warrant is newsworthy. This type of behavior should be the norm, not the exception. That said, kudos to the librarian for reminding folks that we are SUPPOSED to live in a country where people have rights and the government can't trample all over them at will.

Re:You know it's sad...

[Coryoth]

You know our society is in a sad state of affairs when someone demanding a warrant is newsworthy.

Isn't hyped up fear of "terrorism" wonderful? I think the important point here is that, if there really are reasons to be concerned then getting a warrant is not an onerous task! For some reason (maybe it's the joys of TV) people seem to feel that saving people fom getting a warrant really is going to make a difference in how effective they can be - that it really does spare them vast amounts of time and work. In practice that's only going to be the case for boderline cases where considerable explanation is required as to exactly why the particular search or seizure should be justified. This same attitude has infected the NSA wiretapping issue with the President declaring "If you're talkin' to al Qaeda we want to now about it" as if, were it not for secret warrantless wiretaps, we'd never know about it. If you're talking to al Qaeda I'm guessing that's probably enough right there to get a warrant from the FISC.

Honestly, if you're concerned about the process of getting warrants taking up too much time and effort then try and get the process and required paperwork streamlined, don't just forgo the need for warrants altogether!

Jedidiah.

Re:You know it's sad...

[analog_line]

Of course it's a sad state of affairs, that's why it both is and should be news. People need to see that you CAN stand up and demand that federal officials follow the law.

Until the American people wake up and start actually seeing what the people they elected are allowing to happen without so much as a protest vote, or even actively participating in them (see Abramoff, DeLay, and other things that non-partisan public interest groups have been screaming about for years) it's going to be an extremely sad state of affairs, so I'd like to see more news of this nature, frankly. It's among the only things that keep me hopeful for this battered country.

Re:You know it's sad...

[Kohath]

You know our society is in a sad state of affairs when someone demanding a warrant is newsworthy. This type of behavior should be the norm, not the exception.

Yeah, the FBI sucks -- trying to investigate threats against minorities before someone gets hurt. Who do they think they are? They have a lot of nerve asking for help from a public library.

Re:You know it's sad...

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that our media are in a sad state of affairs when someone's demanding a warrant is newsworthy. That said, kudos to the librarian for reminding folks that doing everything exactly by the book is the primary concern when an imminent terrorist attack has been threatened.

Re:You know it's sad...

[bogie]

Yep, gotta watch out for those minorities. Jackass.

Re:You know it's sad...

[Kohath]

I don't get your comment. Are you saying the Jewish folks at Brandeis University aren't a minority? Or maybe you just don't like Jewish folks? Or maybe you don't care about threats against anyone, minority or otherwise? It just wasn't clear.

Re:You know it's sad...

[Eli Gottlieb]

Where are Jews mentioned in TFA? I don't like anyone hating on us any more than you, but I just don't see a mention of us in the article.

Re:You know it's sad...

[Moofie]

You forgot to include "Think of the children!"

Re:You know it's sad...

[lbrandy]

You know our society is in a sad state of affairs when someone demanding a warrant is newsworthy.

Yea, that or the sad state of affairs in our news organizations. Seems you've bought hook, line, into sinker into a non-story dramatized by the media to feed the political machine.

Re:You know it's sad...

[Kohath]

I guess it was an assumption. Why else would someone threaten Brandeis University?

It's not important though. The FBI should investigate threats against anyone, minority or not.

I don't applaud the librarian for getting in the way of the FBI unless she had no choice. If someone was threatened, she should have helped the FBI if she was allowed to -- so the person who made the threats could be caught before they hurt someone.

Re:You know it's sad...

[afidel]

Exactly. It's not like submitting a FISA warrant is a hard or onerous task. Hell the agent has up to 72 hours after the fact to obtain the warrant! Only ONE warrant has ever been turned down by the FISC, so the problem is either that they are doing actions which they know even a rubber stamp court would not grant OR they are spying on so many people that the court can't keep up with the volume of warrants that would be required. Either prospect should be scary to any freedom loving American.

Re:You know it's sad...

[jnhtx]

Warrants are certainly required in the case of the FBI gathering evidience for a criminal investigation that might lead to a procescution.

Warrants are not required for military intelligence gathering operations targeted against people overseas.

Not only does the NSA and Department of Defense not need a warrent to monitor international telephone calls and email to and from overseas persons, they don't need a warrant to toss a JDAM into the overseas window.

That's because we are at war per declaration of Congress.

Re:You know it's sad...

[Proteus]

Yeah, the FBI sucks -- trying to investigate threats against minorities before someone gets hurt. Who do they think they are? They have a lot of nerve asking for help from a public library.

They didn't ask for help, they demanded the ability to deprive the library of its computers without having met the burden of proof that those computers were relevant to the investigation. The library will have to live without those computers for a while.

By requiring that the FBI get a warrant, the librarian basically said "prove to a judge that you actually have a good reason to take these from me." The attitude was -- and should be -- "I am perfectly willing to assist you, as long as you can prove you aren't abusing my trust."

Searching or seizing someone's personal property is encroaching upon their rights; there are times when it is jusitified for police to do so, but it's perfectly reasonable to expect that a judge be convinced that the police have justification before they encroach on one's rights.

Without the ability to demand these checks and balances, the FBI could demand my PC on a whim, just because they don't like me. All they'd have to do is claim that they suspect my PC was involved in a crime, and they deprive me of my PC idefinately. By requiring that they get a warrant first (which takes hardly any time, so all the "before someone got hurt" arguments are just ignorant), I make sure that a judge agrees that there is reasonable suspicion.

BTW, there are exceptions to the warrant requirement, subject to review. If there was, for example, clear and present danger that could likely be averted by the search or seizure, they can search first and get the warrant afterward. It's rarely used because you have to be really sure that it's justified, or the sanctions can be very severe.

Re:You know it's sad...

[Myself]

Next time I need to invade your domain without a warrant, I'll tell you it's to protect minorities. Without any paperwork or oversight, how would you know otherwise?

Re:You know it's sad...

[tm2b]

Trying reading TFA, dumbass:

Mr. Cohen said in an interview on Monday that he and Ms. Glick-Weil demanded the warrant because the FBI agents did not indicate that anyone at Brandeis faced a "clear and present danger." If there had been such a danger, Mr. Cohen added, agents probably would have seized the computers without even asking for them.

Re:You know it's sad...

[Pollardito]

what should be newsworthy is that they had enough evidence to get a warrant, but didn't bother to do so until they were forced to. wasn't the extremely shakey justification for the PATRIOT Act provisions that they needed to be able to do investigations in cases where they didn't quite have probable cause for a warrant? getting a warrant is a check-and-balance on the executive branch intruding on our lives, requiring one shouldn't be seen as the exception but as the rule.

Re:You know it's sad...

[aminorex]

Compounding the sadness is the foregone conclusion that if a warrant is requested, it will be issued, whatever the pretext, and damn the cost to it's victim, in this case the loss of 30 library computers for an illimitable time.

Re:You know it's sad...

[Bongo Bill]

Hear, hear.

The only people whose rights are infringed upon are those who don't demand rights. The Founding Fathers knew it - government, even well-intentioned and competent government (which we may or may not have now, I'm not intending to be an anti-Bush troll) will inevitably infringe upon the rights of the people, and the only defense is a populace who cares enough about their rights to claim them.

I'm not trying to say that government is evil - merely that government is very dangerous, the way a car is dangerous. It can do very great things, but proper safety procedures (such as wearing a seat belt, or demanding a warrant) must be observed.

Re:You know it's sad...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not like submitting a FISA warrant is a hard or onerous task.

And you would know that, exactly how?

I heard Alberto Gonzalez say on the radio that a request for a FISA warrant requires a one-to-two-inch stack of documentation. (That sounds like a couple hundred pages to me.) The problem was that preparing that documentation can require substantially more than 72 hours.

If you're aware of anything that disputes Gonzalez's assertion, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Re:You know it's sad...

[StikyPad]

I think it could also be argued that the current practice of approving 99.9x% of warrants is contributing to the climate in law enforcement where getting a warrant is almost deemed optional.

Either that, or law enforcement is just really good at their job. But you'd think, just as a matter of human error, that at least some requests would be legally groundless.

Congratz

[Kushy]

Mrs. Kathy Glick-Weil,

Thank you, for being a citizen. I wish more Americans would be more like you.

Re:Congratz

[gstoddart]

Mrs. Kathy Glick-Weil,

Thank you, for being a citizen. I wish more Americans would be more like you.

Oddly enough, it seems Librarians spend a disproportionate amount of time doing such things.

From what I can tell, as a group they're more concerned with your rights and liberties than most everyone else.

Support your local librarian.

Re:Congratz

[m50d]

I think it's just that Librarians tend to be people who read for pleasure, which is a disappointingly small proportion of people these days. I think you'd find the response of that small group is similar though.

Re:Congratz

[kraada]

You can email her:

http://www.ci.newton.ma.us/Library/email.htm

Or call her at: (617) 796-1360

and exprss those sentiments in person. I just did.

Re:Congratz

[zCyl]

Oddly enough, it seems Librarians spend a disproportionate amount of time doing such things.

From what I can tell, as a group they're more concerned with your rights and liberties than most everyone else.

I would love to see the results of a study comparing politicians and librarians for knowledge of what the constitution says.

Re:Congratz

[chaosmarine]

I would just like to add:

Ook!

Re:Congratz

[Kesch]

Did you just Slashdot her phone?

Re:Congratz

[jaronc]

It's a crime you haven't been modded up for this.

You and your monkey :)

Re:Congratz

[Hossicle]

Kathy Glick-Weil: 1

Chuck Norris: 0

Re:Congratz

[Wolfrider]

+1 Cool fkg Librarian. Anybvody got a pic of her? Is she hot??
;-)

Where's the Fark HERO tag when you need it?

[Akardam]

Seriously... good for her.

Re:Where's the Fark HERO tag when you need it?

[Threni]

Fark is for small-minded jerks. Tags are for animals. We don't need tags here. We can - largely , and certainly to a far greater extent than is the case at Fark - think for ourselves.

Thanks, anywy.

Re:Where's the Fark HERO tag when you need it?

[toleraen]

We can - largely , and certainly to a far greater extent than is the case at Fark - think for ourselves.

Which is why you're taking the time to read a blog where a couple people decide what you should hear about, posting in threads with idiots and geniuses alike about the news story at hand. Sounds a whole lot like Fark doesn't it?

Re:Where's the Fark HERO tag when you need it?

[plantman-the-womb-st]

and Kathy Glick-Weil says, "Thanks, I think. I wish it didn't require the 'seriously' though."

Re:Where's the Fark HERO tag when you need it?

[Threni]

> Which is why you're taking the time to read a blog where a couple people decide
> what you should hear about, posting in threads with idiots and geniuses alike
> about the news story at hand. Sounds a whole lot like Fark doesn't it?

There's a lot less genuises on Fark. Maybe they just post less frequently?

She's a t'rrst

[gowen]

Doesn't Ms Glick-Weil know that demanding that law enforcement agencies obtain warrants (even retrospectively) makes the country unsafe, and helps terrorists? I know this, because no less an authority than The President said while talking about NSA wiretaps in last nights State of The Union address.

Re:She's a t'rrst

[hey!]

because no less an authority than The President

Who, it should be mentioned, loves books so much he married a librarian.

Re:She's a t'rrst

[gowen]

Yeah, but George was so drunk he though she said Libran. "Groovy baby, our signs are compatible"

Re:She's a t'rrst

[mrchaotica]

You laugh, but I don't think it's funny. The summary mentions that the Mayor's support was required to get the FBI to back down. That's just bad.

You know, if the Mayor hadn't gotten involved I wouldn't be surprised if that librarian "disappeared" to Gitmo because the FBI would have declared her a "ter'rist!"

Re:She's a t'rrst

[RealProgrammer]

I know this is Slashot, so painting with a broad brush and taking things out of context is the norm. Maybe PP was supposed to be funny, but if so you missed the mark a bit.

[...] demanding that law enforcement agencies obtain warrants (even retrospectively) makes the country unsafe, and helps terrorists? I know this, because no less an authority than The President said while talking about NSA wiretaps [...]

What he said, according to the C-SPAN transcript was:

It is said that prior to the attacks of September 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al-Qaida operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late. So to prevent another attack -- based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute -- I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al-Qaida operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have -- and Federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate Members of Congress have been kept informed. This terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al-Qaida, we want to know about it -- because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.

That has nothing to do with librarians, unless members of al-Qaida have overdue books or something. You're making the same mistake the FBI apparently does, confusing the need to fight foreign terrorists with the need to fight domestic crime. Maybe you knew that, though.

Most people think calling an al-Qaida phone number is probable cause to have your phone records searched and even to have your very own wiretap. Most people would also insist that domestic crime be fought with traditional due process. Lumping the two together is a mistake, both politically (whichever side you're on) and for its actual results.

Seizing the computers is a move driven by forensics. You want to keep the evidence from becoming tainted by further use of the computers. The trouble is that the FBI doesn't have the authority to seize the evidence, and they're bureaucratic nimrods. So they try to bully their way along, without realizing that if they explained the process to the librarian she'd probably have been of immense help. If there's one thing librarians are good at, it's knowing where things are. Getting the library to cooperate, instead of pushing them around, actually would have resulted in tighter control of the evidence, since the computers would not have had to move.

Re:She's a t'rrst

[SpaceAdmiral]

No one thinks phone calls made to Al-Qaeda shouldn't be taped. The question is whether the NSA should get a warrant before taping calls that originates within the U.S. (which is why it does relate to this librarian case, which is also a question of whether a warrant should be used).

And the "we don't have time to get a warrant" excuse doesn't apply since the FISA warrants are retroactive for 72 hours. e.g. The NSA can start taping someone's calls now and as long as they get a warrant within the next three days, everyone's happy.

Re:She's a t'rrst

[BobNET]

Yeah, but she was the first thing he ever checked out at a library.

Re:She's a t'rrst

[TCQuad]

I know this is Slashot, so painting with a broad brush and taking things out of context is the norm. Maybe PP was supposed to be funny, but if so you missed the mark a bit.

"This terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al-Qaida, we want to know about it -- because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again."

This is the part of the SotU transcript that the gp was referencing. The grandparent was actually very close to Bush's remarks when he facetiously said "demanding that law enforcement agencies obtain warrants (even retrospectively) makes the country unsafe, and helps terrorists".

Re:She's a t'rrst

[roman_mir]

Yeah, but she was the first thing he ever checked out at a library. - badaboom. Will you be here all week?

Good Call

[catdevnull]

I think a further condition should have been that the FBI should replace the computers with temporary ones during their investigation.

Now, the FBI has put out the entire library's lab so no one can use a computer.

It's funny how slowly things evolve--how slowly liberty erodes.
I wonder how long it took before the Nazis realized they were fascists?

Re:Good Call

[operagost]

RTFA- they only took three, thanks to the librarian's efforts. She actually helped them narrow it down to one of only three computers.

I wonder how long it took before the Nazis realized they were fascists?

Godwin's law strikes again!

Re:Good Call

[nuggetman]

RTFA. They determined in the process of getting a warrant that they only needed to sieze 3 computers.

Re:Good Call

[lahvak]

I think this is definitely one of the most interesting points in the article.

Re:Good Call

[menkhaura]

Quirk's Clause: Intentional invocation of Godwin's Law is ineffectual.

Re:Good Call

[catdevnull]

I guess I should have my caffeine before I post...

Kudos To Glick-Weil: +1, Motivating

[Anonymous Coward]

Glick-Weil is a patrioti unlike this Al-Qaeda member.

Patriotically as always,
Kilgore Trout, C.E.O.

Did they GET the warrant?

[jcr]

Did the FBI find a judge willing to let them do this? If so, why aren't we hearing who that was, so we can drop the judge a note and express our opinion of how well he's holding up his end of the deal..

-jcr

Re:Did they GET the warrant?

[mark-t]

Yes, they did. You'd know this if you rtfa.

And you know, just because they went and tried to ask for the computers without a warrant doesn't mean they didn't have just cause to obtain one. Getting a warrant takes a bit of time, and it's not unreasonable to assume that they were merely trying to be expeditious and hoping the librarian would cooperate. They ended up conceding the point, however, and went to a judge. And as the article says, if the danger had been clear and present, they could have legally taken the computers without a warrant anyways.

In the end, they ended up only getting a warrant to take some of the computers, anyways, not all of them. But the fact that they got a warrant at all is more likely to be an indication that they had just cause to take the computers in the first place than it is that the judge that issued it was corrupt.

Re:Did they GET the warrant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes they did, but.. Late that evening, the FBI received a warrant to cart away the three computers. According to Mayor Cohen, the warrant allows the FBI to view only the threatening e-mail message and the messages sent immediately before and after that message. It is strange that if they were only allowed to view a few e-mails they were allowed to take the whole computer.

Re:Did they GET the warrant?

[Chris Burke]

In the end, they ended up only getting a warrant to take some of the computers, anyways, not all of them. But the fact that they got a warrant at all is more likely to be an indication that they had just cause to take the computers in the first place than it is that the judge that issued it was corrupt.

Which I'd just like to point out for everyone paying attention means that if the authorities don't get a warrant it is an indication that they don't have just cause.

The only reason this is a story is because we just watched our President tell us that he okay'ed spying on people without a warrant, but we should just trust him that the spying was with just cause. This article is merely a poignant counter example showing how things are supposed to work in a free nation, no matter what the charming not-Texan says.

Re:Did they GET the warrant?

[Anonymous Coward]

And as the article says, if the danger had been clear and present, they could have legally taken the computers without a warrant anyways.


Just to point out from the article that your refference of the "legality" of removing the computers before having a warrent came from the FBI.

Gail Marcinkiewicz, a spokesman for the FBI's Boston branch, declined to talk about the investigation into who sent the e-mail message.

But she said the FBI had a right to seize the computers because the agents who went to the Newton library thought Brandeis students, professors, and staff members were in immediate danger. "We could have done this," said Ms. Marcinkiewicz. "It is supported by case law."


So basically this means that

Re:Did they GET the warrant?

[An. (Coward)]

And you know, just because they went and tried to ask for the computers without a warrant doesn't mean they didn't have just cause to obtain one. Getting a warrant takes a bit of time, and it's not unreasonable to assume that they were merely trying to be expeditious and hoping the librarian would cooperate.

'Cause yeah, if you don't have anything to hide, why wouldn't you want the FBI seizing all your computers?

Sorry... There's plenty of information that's legal but none of the government's business. What do you want to see happen? "Well, this computer has nothing about the bomb threat on it...but the cache shows that two weeks ago, this guy here was lookin' at porn, let's keep an eye on him. And this woman here emailed a friend of hers a long rant about the Alito nomination--let's put both of them on a watch list, they could be a threat..."

People in this country are a bunch of pusillanimous cowards who start cowering in terror anytime someone with a tan and a black beard even looks at them, and are willing to lock themselves up and throw away the key in the hopes of keeping the big bad terrorists away. Anyone who allows police to conduct a warrantless search & seizure is betraying their own Constitutional birthright, and by fostering an atmosphere where warrantless searches & seizures are common, they betray anyone who insists on defending our rights by making us look suspicious. If the government's entitled to seize something, they'll have no problem getting a warrant. If they're not, why the hell would you let them?

Radical Militant Librarians

[Anonymous Coward]

Radical Militant Librarians

Why is this news?

[the computer guy nex]

This is no different than a Police Officer asking to search your car after you were pulled over.

Most people say yes, and the police can legally search with permission.

You can legally say no, and the officer must let you go due to the lack of a warrant. This happens on a daily basis.

Re:Why is this news?

[dfn5]

Thank you. I couldn't help but think "Someone told investigators to get a warrant and this is news how?"

Re:Why is this news?

[gowen]

Well, most of the time, if the police pull you over and want to search the car, they've seen you do something which has given them probable cause to believe a crime has been committed (e.g. DUI, or just suspicious behaviour [a Terry Stop]). You can say no, but there's a good chance you'll get legally searched anyway.

Re:Why is this news?

[SoCalChris]

He doesn't have to let you go, but he often does. Unless he's feeling like a prick that day, and makes you wait while they call out a K-9 unit to sniff the perimeter of your car, looking for probable cause.

Re:Why is this news?

[isotope23]

Most people say yes, and the police can legally search with permission.
You can legally say no, and the officer must let you go due to the lack of a warrant. This happens on a daily basis

meanwhile back in the real world...

say no and the cop WILL detain you while he calls in backup, drug dogs etc.
because saying no means you MUST be doing something wrong.

Re:Why is this news?

[PornMaster]

How often is no accepted? While I've got no evidence to back me up, I'm willing to bet that the majority of cases of refusal of permission end up with the cop in some way "causing" himself to perceive reasonable suspicion, and searching anyway.

Hassling someone enough is bound to provoke him to get nervous or agitated, and then he's "acting suspicious". Then get him worked up enough to contradict a statement he's made, and somehow twist it into reasonable suspicion.

You wouldn't hear about cases where someone who got his car searched like that *didn't* have something illegal in his car, because most people won't speak up.

Re:Why is this news?

[dclydew]

Wow, I hope your real world doesn't spread to my stste. :(

Re:Why is this news?

[sseaman]

The event prompted talk-show hosts and newspaper columnists in Boston to lash out at Newton officials, arguing that they acted irresponsibly and could have jeopardized people's lives. But Mr. Cohen said he had also received many positive comments from people all over the country supporting his actions.

Regardless of whether this is news, it is important that the Newton officials get our support. You're right: the librarian did not act in an extraordinary manner. But these are extraordinary times, and public opinion is not necessarily on her side. I am happy to see Slashdotters affirming her decision to stand up for privacy.

Re:Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

so i take it you havent been pulled over lately?

Here is the REAL scenario. You get pulled over for nothing. Cop sees no problem but asks "may i search your car?" You say no, but guess what? Cop sees a baseball bat in the back seat (because your kid left it there after practice). Now the cop can use that as an excuse to search your car and slam you down handcuffed onto the trunk of his cruiser, because you have a "dangerous weapon" in your car. Cops seldom react "nicely" when you say no to searches. It happens FAR too often these days.

The US is slipping towards fascism and totarianism in the name of "fighting terrorism", and your local neighborhood cops and the fbi are the local thugs.

Individuals seldom buck the system even as it closes in around them, and then of course it's too late. I'd rather die from a gunshot than trust any of the present administration to do ANYTHING for my safety and security. I know to my core that they are only out to create a hegemony for western multinational corporations and the military industrial complex.

maybe you should get out more?

Re:Why is this news?

[shalla]

Actually, this is significantly different from a police officer asking to search your car, as in most states it is illegal for library staff to turn over information on library patrons' resource usage without a warrant or unless the PAtriot Act is invoked. I can't speak for Massachusetts, but in the two states I've worked in, library records (including use of electronic resources) are specifically named in state privacy laws. I cannot give out that information without a warrant unless I have a warrant (or a national security letter).

I was annoyed with the coverage of this when it first ran because many news articles portrayed the library director as having a choice in the matter and choosing to impede the FBI. It would have been nice to see an article that ran that essentially said, "Library Director follows law and demands warrant so evidence not later thrown out of court or abused."

Re:Why is this news?

[bombadillo]

Execellent point. Mod parent up!

Re:Why is this news?

[slashrogue]

Except they don't need a warrant if they have a reasonable suspicion. Just what is that? Well it varies by state. I recall Virginia's Supreme Court ruling that having a drug dog sniffing around outside the car, and if the dog detects something, your car can be searched whether you agree to it or not.

Re:Why is this news?

[LurkerXXX]

Actually no. Many/most times when they've pulled you over for something, when they ask to search it's a fishing expedition because they've seen something somewhat suspicous or your behaviour is suspicous. Being suspicious is far different than having probable cause. If they have probable cause they can search it anyway. Chances are they don't, so the worst they can do is make you wait while they call in a officer with a drug-sniffing dog, and have it sniff the outside of the car.

Re:Why is this news?

[Random832]

He can't "make you wait" without arresting you - if he tries that without actually saying you are under arrest, reading your rights, etc, just drive off. [Don't do this unless you can actually get him to say you're not under arrest]

Re:Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just that, but you could pose an immediate danger in a car. What are you going to do with a library book - throw it at somebody's head?

Re:Why is this news?

[Rakshasa Taisab]

I think it would be big news if a police officer pulled over an university library asking to search their premises.

Re:Why is this news?

[netruner]

Be careful in how you apply this. You can be held, even arrested if the officer is dead set on searching your vehicle. An officer once explained to me how this can be done:

If you refuse the search, they can keep you there while a K9 unit is sent out to take a dog around the outside of the car - if the dog gets a "hit" then they can search without a warrant (they know not suspect that something's there). If the suspicion is that there's something in there that the dog can't detect, you can be arrested on "suspicion" and your car gets impounded, but not searched. It gets searched when they have to inventory it before putting it on "the lot" to make sure you can't accuse them of stealing anything out of it. Anything found in the inventory can be used as evidence for any charge they feel the need to level (i.e. a receipt from a restaurant 10 miles away from the place you were pulled over with a timestamp 9 minutes before you were pulled over proves that you were driving over 60mph, etc.).

The bottom line is that the 4th ammendment has lost much of its potency. This is because it depends on the word "reasonable", which in modern society has become usual and customary to regard as having no meaning.

Re:Why is this news?

[amliebsch]

While I've got no evidence to back me up, I'm willing to bet that the majority of cases of refusal of permission end up with the cop in some way "causing" himself to perceive reasonable suspicion, and searching anyway.

Probably more often than you might think. Defense attorneys really are quite good at challenging fourth amendment violations, because the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine means that one mistake can get the whole case dismissed. Cops know this, and usually give wide berth to someone who isn't nervous and knows their rights. Suspicion alone, even if it is reasonable (and that is challengable in court), is only enough for the cop to pat you down for weapons, or shine a flashlight in your car to make sure there's nothing you can hurt him with in easy reach. They still need probable cause to believe that a specific crime has been committed in order to go through your stuff, open containers, go in the trunk. The thing is, most people really don't have anything to hide and don't care, so they usually give permission.

Re:Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same goes for NY state -- if the dog barks, they don't need probable cause / a warrant to search your car. IMHO, using a drug sniffing dog is against the fourth ammendment.

"[...] and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The dog is used as a tool for searching before any probable cause is determined, and there is no warrant issued describing the things to be seized.

Along this same line of conversation, how about the 5th ammendment...

"[...] nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The computers taken from that library should be replaced. As should the price / cost of drugs taken from a citizen who has peacefully acquired such property.

Re:Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Unless he's feeling like a prick that day "

Funny how that day turns out to be the 5 days a week he works.

Re:Why is this news?

[amliebsch]

What you describe is not "reasonable suspicion" but "probable cause." They need probable cause to search your car.

Re:Why is this news?

[amliebsch]

"[...] and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The dog is used as a tool for searching before any probable cause is determined, and there is no warrant issued describing the things to be seized.

The Constitution requires that warrants must be based upon probable cause and describe the particulars. However, nowhere does the Fourth Amendment actually require a warrant for all searches and seizures, only that all searches and seizures must not be "unreasonable."

The SCOTUS has held that because of the special nature of cars, probable cause automatically makes a search "reasonable" (so long as the search is directly related to crime which there is probable cause to believe has been committed).

Re:Why is this news?

[amliebsch]

you can be arrested on "suspicion" and your car gets impounded, but not searched.You can't be arrested for "suspicion." Arrests also require probable cause. He might have meant that you can be arrested for speeding or some other traffic violation that you actually did commit, which is true depending on the state, and IMO stupid.

Re:Why is this news?

[esaloch]

I highly doubt a restaurant timestamp on a receipt would do any good unless the police start synchronizing their watches with all the local restaurants.

Re:Why is this news?

[mathmathrevolution]

You can legally say no, and the officer must let you go due to the lack of a warrant.

That's not what the Texas State Troopers did when I got pulled over. Instead they detained me for an hour and a half while they fetched a drug-sniffing dog. Then when the dog didn't react to my person or car they induced the dog to jump at my car by tapping on the windows and saying "right here boy, right here boy." Then they claimed the dog gave them "probable cause" and made me sit around for another hour while some cop rifed through all my belongings and dismantled parts of my car.

You're living in lawyer land. In the real world the police have almost all the rights.

Re:Why is this news?

[pthisis]

Actually, _reasonable_ suspicion is sufficient for them to search the passenger compartment of your car; probable cause is not required. Numerous Supreme Court rulings have upheld that policy, on several ground including 1. Items in your immediate area could pose a threat to the officer; and 2. Unlike a home or other area, a car is mobile and it's more likely that evidence will disappear quickly (other justifications have been posited as well).

They do need reasonable suspicion that you have been or are currently involved in criminal behavior; it's a much lower bar than probable cause.

At least that's my non-legal belief of how things are, but I could be wrong--consult a lawyer if you need legal advice.

Re:Why is this news?

[M. Baranczak]

Absolutely wrong. If the cops have the right to search your car (which they do, but only in some cases), they wouldn't be asking for permission.

Re:Why is this news?

[ChildeRoland]

Actually, it varies from state to state. Some require the officer to place you under arrest before he has cause to search your car (he has to check your immediate vacinity to insure his and the public's safety). However, that doesn't stop some cops from pulling you out of your car, searching it, and then arresting you if/when they find something illegal.

Re:Why is this news?

[pthisis]

Sorry, I should've clarified that's my understanding of the Constitutional limits. Clearly states can restrict the actions of their officers further if they so choose.

Re:Why is this news?

[netruner]

But you can be "held" on suspicion - sorry for my poor choice of words. They have a window of time where you can be held but not charged for anything, and it's not timed in minutes.

Re:Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Next time.

Note the pigs name. Find out where he lives. Kill his family.

Re:Why is this news?

[pthisis]

But you can be "held" on suspicion - sorry for my poor choice of words. They have a window of time where you can be held but not charged for anything, and it's not timed in minutes.

Kind of.

There are 3 different concepts you reference:
1. Detained for questioning (a "Terry stop")
2. Arrested
3. Charged

Being charged with a crime is a formal procedure that takes place in a courtroom, it's pretty much out of scope here.

With reasonable suspicion they can stop and question you without arresting you. However, such a stop must be (1) of short duration and (2) limited to investigation of the specific suspicious activity seen before the stop.

If they detain you for a prolonged time, legally it's an arrest. They don't have to say "you're under arrest" for it to be an arrest, and they can let you go without taking you down to the station or charging you. But the rules of arrest (custody, Miranda rights, etc) apply once you've been arrested.

An arrest requires probable cause. A Terry stop (stop-and-question) requires reasonable suspicion, a much lower standard.

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.

Re:Why is this news?

[amliebsch]

it's not timed in minutes.

Actually, it is.

If you are placed in a cell and your car is impounded, you have been arrested, whether that's what they call it or not, and they must have probable cause to do so. You can be detained at the scene for an articulable suspicion (not just a "feeling" or a "hunch") in what is termed an "investigatory stop", but only as long as it takes to determine whether or not there is probable cause to arrest you (e.g., bringing a drug-sniffing dog) and it can't be unreasonably long (e.g., the drug-sniffing dog isn't available until tomorrow.)

Re:Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

or the officer trumps up charges, searches your car and takes you downtown, anyway. or worse, plants evidence on you.

who is a jury to believe - you are the police officer?

iow, be careful about unethical consequences if you don't let johnny law run roughshod over you. it might not happen, but it just might, too.

Re:Why is this news?

[lar3ry]

The police ususally don't have the ability to force you to do things
like open the trunk of your car. However, they may ask, and they can
even lie to you ("I heard something moving in that trunk!") in order
to get you to voluntarily comply with their request.

One of the best pieces of advice that I've heard was that if you do
have contraband in your car and a police officer demands to search it
without a warrant, to simply get out of your vehicle, lock all the
doors, and close your door after putting your car keys into the car as
well. Since everything in the car is locked and you cannot get into
it, you have removed any occasion that the police officer may think
there is reasonable danger present to the officer in that he/she must
break into your vehicle (higher standard of proof required).

However, there ARE people that need less burden of proof. For
instance, said police officer may simply radio the Fish and Game
wardens that they suspect you have violated state hunting/fishing
laws. These people have the right to actually use a crowbar and force
your vehicle open without a warrant. Of course, they won't find any
illegal game/fish in your vehicle, but now that the car is opened and
subject to search, those other things in your car can be considered
fair game. (Pun not intended.)

A good lawyer (or perhaps even the public defender) can probably have
the evidence dismissed against you, but it's pretty shaky ground
you'll be standing on. Judges don't like denying evidence against
people that are clearly guilty (despite what you see on crime shows
nowadays).

Now, I'm not advocating people feel free to transport drugs or
automatic weapons. Actually, I'm advocating that people don't
transport illegal things in their vehicles! It's simply stupid to be
lulled into a false sense of security because you THINK the police
will be unable to search your car without a warrant.

Re:Why is this news?

[prockcore]

You can legally say no, and the officer must let you go due to the lack of a warrant. This happens on a daily basis.

Actually, what happens is you say no, and the officer holds you until the K9 unit arrives.

Re:Why is this news?

[poot_rootbeer]

You can legally say no [to a police officer asking permission to search your car], and the officer must let you go due to the lack of a warrant.

Or, perhaps just as likely, since the officer already had cause to pull you over, he detains you until a quickie search warrant can be obtained.

Re:Why is this news?

[kcbrown]

Which means that the bottom line is this: we now live in a police state. If the police want to search your car, you'd better let them, because the consequences will be ... unfortunate ... if you don't. At the very least your car will be trashed and/or you'll be out a decent amount of money.

So: better get used to living in a police state, because it's going to get a lot worse, not better.

Re:Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the best pieces of advice that I've heard was that if you do
have contraband that is NOT in plain sight in your car and a police officer demands to search it without a warrant,

That's better.

Re:Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want concrete details, try this book: Beat the Heat. And yes, I'm a librarian.

Re:Why is this news?

[ad0gg]

Fish and game guys do that all time in california. They'll search coolers, backpacks etc but i don't think they have authority to search places not connected to the fishing/hunting event. I never seen them search a car, but will stop you walking back to your car. They are pretty bold about it too, and sometimes won't even ask while they ruffle through your stuff.

Re:Why is this news?

[huge colin]

One of the best pieces of advice that I've heard was that if you do have contraband in your car and a police officer demands to search it without a warrant, to simply get out of your vehicle, lock all the doors, and close your door after putting your car keys into the car as well.

That's funny. My advice in this situation is "get arrested" because it sounds like you'd deserve it for having contraband in your car.

Re:Why is this news?

[StikyPad]

That's the problem with voluntary compliance. If most people comply, it means anyone who doesn't is suspicious by default. Further, most people are inclined to be (or be viewed as) cooperative and helpful, especially toward authority figures. In my opinion, law enforcement shouldn't be allowed to perform a search or siezure (beyond a Terry Stop or items in plain sight) without a warrant, period.

Re:Why is this news?

[amliebsch]

I disagree. People should be allowed to consent if they want to.

You know it's sad...Who's on First?

[Anonymous Coward]

"You know our society is in a sad state of affairs when someone demanding a warrant is newsworthy. This type of behavior should be the norm, not the exception."

Who's behaviour? The Feds? Or the Librarians?

"That said, kudos to the librarian for reminding folks that we are SUPPOSED to live in a country where people have rights and the government can't trample all over them at will."

They can if one willing choses to not exercise them. A right is just an abstract concept, with no will of it's own. Just like a vote is.

Isn't this expected?

[dgaines]

What worries me more is that this type of behavior, i.e. demanding a warrant before relenquishing information/property, is abnormal.

Ook

[revery]

I imagine the Librarian being a several hundred pound orangutan didn't hurt things either. I hope they didn't call him a monkey. He hates that.*

*for those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, you have my pity and should click here or here for more information.

Re:Ook

[catnap_seven]

Buggerit.. beat me to it. Millenium hand and shrimp

Re:Ook

[SilentOneNCW]

And I thought you were talking about the Bazookie player! Or was it the MP sketch about the man in a gorilla suit applying to be a librarian?

Re:Ook

[rleibman]

Funny. I just got started a month ago on these books, I'm up to 'Sourcery' now (though I read 'Thud' when it came out and that's what got me hooked to go back to the start)

Re:Ook

[mooingyak]

I actually (for whatever reason) thought of Tak of the Archives rather than Pratchett.

Re:Ook

[trmcdougle]

But THAT orangutan is an officer of the law himself! (at least some of the time)

Warrantless Searches Are Unreasonable

[Doc Ruby]

4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now, before you get out your boolean logic analyzers for a legal statement with centuries of precedent built on it, grok the fact that

"searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment--subject only to a few specially established and well-delineated exceptions."

Re:Warrantless Searches Are Unreasonable

[Jtheletter]

"searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment--subject only to a few specially established and well-delineated exceptions."

THANK YOU! I can't even count the number of times just this week that I have seen or heard people refer to the NSA wiretapping as "warranted" because we're in a "state of war". (Amazing how we can be in a state of war w/o having declared such, the authorization of the use of force being completely different legally, although lametably it seems in practice it's being treated the same.) People act as if there is no precedent to any of this when in fact the laws are well defined, have been tested and upheld, and clearly show that there are prescribed methods for legally performing these searches. Ignoring them because they are inconvenient or counter to an agenda is not an acceptable reason, and clandestinely informing certain members of congress that you're breaking the law does not, I repeat NOT, excuse you from breaking the law!

Please continue to spread the truth good sir!

Re:Warrantless Searches Are Unreasonable

[cold fjord]

So, what is "unreasonable" and what are those carefully defined exceptions? Is this an unlimited right, or primarily a question of criminal law verus the Law of War? Maybe we can better understand it based on some selected paragraphs, in order of interest, from LEGAL AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY DESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT published by the Justice Department.

The only court that squarely has addressed the relative powers of Congress and the President in this field suggested that the balance tips decidedly in the President s favor. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review recently noted that all courts to have addressed the issue of the President's inherent authority have held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002). On the basis of that unbroken line of precedent, the court [took] for granted that the President does have that authority, and concluded that, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President s constitutional power. Id.14 Although the court did not provide extensive analysis, it is the only judicial statement on point, and it comes from the specialized appellate court created expressly to deal with foreign intelligence issues under FISA.

But the NSA activities are not simply exercises of the President s general foreign affairs powers. Rather, they are primarily an exercise of the President s authority as Commander in Chief during an armed conflict that Congress expressly has authorized the President to pursue. The NSA activities, moreover, have been undertaken specifically to prevent a renewed attack at the hands of an enemy that has already inflicted the single deadliest foreign attack in the Nation s history. The core of the Commander in Chief power is the authority to direct the Armed Forces in conducting a military campaign. Thus, the Supreme Court has made clear that the President alone is constitutionally invested with the entire charge of hostile operations. Hamilton v. Dillin, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 73, 87 (1874); The Federalist No. 74, at 500 (Alexander Hamilton). As commander-in-chief, [the President] is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy.

And again...

The courts uniformly have approved this longstanding Executive Branch practice. Indeed, every federal appellate court to rule on the question has concluded that, even in peacetime, the President has inherent constitutional authority, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, to conduct searches for foreign intelligence purposes without securing a judicial warrant. See In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002) ( [A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information . . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President s constitutional power. ) (emphasis added); accord, e.g., United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980); United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3d Cir. 1974) (en banc); United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1973).

and more... (notice this is pre-war)...

As noted in Part I, on May 21, 1940, President Roosevelt authorized warrantless electronic surveillance of persons suspected of subversive activities, including spying, against the United States. In addition, on December 8, 1941, the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt

Re:Warrantless Searches Are Unreasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,

This took place in a public library. Technically, its on public property so the 4th Amendment doesn't apply here. searches conducted outside the judicial process

Again, public property.

Not a brandeis librarian...

[blackdefiance]

You'd think someone would RTFA before posting: the librarian was at public library in Newton, MA, not at Brandeis. There's a big difference when the library in question belongs to 'the people'. Also, mod -1 for old news.

Re:Not a brandeis librarian...

[holySherm]

I was thinking that as soon as I saw this. Didn't this happen 2 weeks ago?

On a side note, who cares and why are people jumping to conclusions about the 'brief standoff and relented' thing? It just sounds like crap thrown in there by the writer to blow things up a bit because really this news isn't news at all. SURPRISE! A librarian asks an agency for a warrant before being searched. News at 11! A LIBRARIAN who knows her rights and exercises them and an agency that responds properly by obtaining a warrant.

It would've been news if the FBI just went and took the computers anyway. Then that would've been a real story.

Re:Not a brandeis librarian...

[mobiux]

I'm not sure what your point is...
Because it's a public library, they should expect a warrant, or they shouldn't expect a warrant.
Or a private library should or shouldn't expect one?

To me it doesn't really matter, it didn't matter to the FBI wanting to take the stuff without a warrant.

Re:Not a brandeis librarian...

[isdnip]

The point is that the front page of Slashdot had an egregious error in the summary. It named the wrong place. It's like saying that Hurricane Katrina destroyed Dallas. What's the point? It's still a city, after all.

Slashdot is just very sloppy these days.

Warrent, see was that so hard?

[layer3switch]

hmmkay?

Being a "Law and Order" addict, I question, doesn't investigators time to time search and request stuff by just sound of "warrent" to information holder threating to shutdown the place? But then again, I might be just circling around the edge of reality and fantasy.

---
"Don't be fooled by fools. They are the clever ones."

Re:Warrent, see was that so hard?

[pyite]

Being a "Law and Order" addict, I question, doesn't investigators time to time search and request stuff by just sound of "warrent" to information holder threating to shutdown the place? But then again, I might be just circling around the edge of reality and fantasy.

No, it sounds like your circling around the edge of Engrish and English .

Equality before the law

[jack79]

Well done, librarian. Same rules for everyone: students aren't allowed to burst into the library, talking loudly on their mobile phones and brandishing weapons, and neither are the FBI. Agent Marcinkiewicz must also pay her outstanding fines before she is allowed to borrow any more books, or computers.

Think 1st

[Anonymous Coward]

1st Response:

Someone decided to stand up to the Feds and tell them you're going to follow proper procceedure instead of just doing as they desire. Supposedly they could have under public safety laws but as those laws are designed to protect the public safety (already done by the evacuations) there was no longer any justifiable reason to seize all of the computers without a warrant.

On the other side of the coinage, it's even quite possible that the entire purpose of the threat may have been to distract/decieve the responders into following the wrong trail and the attack could actually have been directed at another facility.

Clear and Present Danger

[tnk1]

Honestly, I really can't find this situation to be one where people were facing off the big bad government. The FBI was working under the supposition that people were in fairly immediate danger and that they needed to move to get the information ASAP. They determined that previous case law allowed for this.

And as for oversight of the FBI, the fact is that if the computers had been obtained illegally and against procedures, the evidence that they provided would have been thrown out in court. No FBI agent is looking to have an arrest dismissed due to a technicality such as that.

I suppose you don't have to like the FBI, and certainly they got to where they were today due to a lot of PR and manuvering in the Hoover years, but they were responders, likely called in by the local authorities to help with the issue. They weren't sitting in FBI HQ spying on personal emails and suddenly decided to descend on Newton in black cars and helicopters....

Re:Clear and Present Danger

[Anonymous Coward]

If there were a 'clear & present danger' then, yes, they DO have that authority. However, the fact that they DID back down & wait for the warrant but only after they were questioned is a bit troubling. Apparently they were never convinced there was an immediate danger - they were just trying to see how much they could get away with. It implies a certian investigative laziness & disregard for the privacy and inconvenience (of having the entire library computer lab shut down indefinitely) of the citizens they are supposed to be serving, not to mention a complete willingness to ignore due process.

My tinfoil hat is not terribly polished, so I'm attributing this to sloppiness & laziness instead of malice.

Re:Clear and Present Danger

[finkployd]

I suppose you don't have to like the FBI, and certainly they got to where they were today due to a lot of PR and manuvering in the Hoover years, but they were responders, likely called in by the local authorities to help with the issue. They weren't sitting in FBI HQ spying on personal emails and suddenly decided to descend on Newton in black cars and helicopters....

And yet this story proved that even they are not above the law. For a truly lawful and just society, nobody can be. Clear and present danger or not, the law must be followed. If the law is too inflexible for this type of scenario then it must be changed, but not broken at will by those sworn to uphold it.

Finkployd

Re:Clear and Present Danger

[Keyslapper]

The FBI was working under the supposition that people were in fairly immediate danger and that they needed to move to get the information ASAP. They determined that previous case law allowed for this.

Now, that's just foolish of them. "Clear and present danger" explicitly implies an imminent potential danger to life and limb. By the time the Feds got to the library, the threat was no longer immediate. Since they were in fact, in Newton, and the danger was clearly in Waltham, it's quite a stretch to imagine anything like a "present" danger of any kind related to the crime. While Waltham and Newton are neighboring towns, Brandeis is on the other side of Waltham.
Now, I can understand they wanted to get access to the relevant data as quickly as possible, but that's just no excuse for what they were trying to do. Law enforcement is their bloody job, for cryin' out loud, so they should bloody well follow the law.
They knew very well they were operating in an investigative capacity, but they wanted to go in and take the shortcut. If these guys had known their job, they'd have come with warrant in hand, and there would have been no need for a "brief standoff". They would also have gotten access to the data that much sooner.

Re:Clear and Present Danger

[Anonymous Coward]

"And as for oversight of the FBI, the fact is that if the computers had been obtained illegally and against procedures, the evidence that they provided would have been thrown out in court. No FBI agent is looking to have an arrest dismissed due to a technicality such as that."

Having evidence thrown out as inadmissible is only a concern if you're actually looking for evidence. If instead you're looking to cause trouble, whether through harrassment or by denying access to certain computers, then you're all set to be able to sieze your 'evidence' and return it whenever, if at all.

Re:Clear and Present Danger

[HiThere]

At least they aren't above the law while you're standing in public view, and with a mayor who decides to back you up.

If, however, you are alone...
I've heard unverifiable rumors of people disappearing in hands that claimed to be official. Of course they were members of minority groups, and that was a year or so ago... and the rumors *are* unverifiable.

Naturally, it's also the case that if the people ever re-appeared, it wouldn't be worthy of circulating as a rumor. So that may well have happened, if, of course, the original rumors were true.

When there's a lot of mystery, obfuscation, and hidden maneuvering, people tend to assume the worst of those who are the agents of secrecy. Often with reason.

This was not (as stated) a librarian from Brandeis

[spartan7891]

The threat was emailed into Brandeis (I know b/c I went there and the alums were all talking about it), but it came from newton (the town basically next door). It forced the campus to close down one day and it got swarmed, from what I understand. It's a VERY small school, so it was a really big deal. Obviously, also because it's a predominantly jewish school. Just my $.02

Summary WRONG

[hrieke]

It was not the Brandeis Librarians, but the Librarians for the City of Newton Public Library that forced the FBI to get a warrant.
I should know, that library is about a mile away from where I live.

*Newton* librarian, not Brandeis librarian

[yppiz]

I read the summary and wondered why a Newton mayor would back up a Brandeis librarian.

The messages were sent from a Newton public library and allegedly threatened the Heller School at Brandeis.

The librarian works for Newton, not Brandeis.

--Pat

Re:*Newton* librarian, not Brandeis librarian

[hey!]

Because Newton is a highly educated town with a median individual income of around 90K$. It's the place to move to if you're a doctor or other highly paid professional, because it's large Jewish population and it's liberal politics means they have exceptional schools. Isaac Asimov lived in Newton for many years -- '56 to around '70.

It's exactly the kind of place you'd expect the librarian to tell the FBI to go to hell if they don't have a warrant, and the mayor to back her up. It isn't much to ask, after all.

Hot Pursuit Laws??

[peterpressure]

I don't see why they needed a warrant if it they knew the e-mail originated formt he Newton Library and were in hot pursuit, AKA fresh pursuit... http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=88 6&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C We already have laws in place for warrantless searches when probable cause comes into play, no?

Re:Hot Pursuit Laws??

[sealawyer2003]

Probable cause is the basis for getting a warrant and not a substitute for a warrant. Unless the police thought that either the perps, a bomb or a bomb trigger were in the computer, there were no hot pursuit/exigent circumstances to justify not getting a warrant. The computers were not going anywhere. What would have been accomplished by having the FBI grab up all of the libraries computers and dragging them off to the lab? Was that somehow going to save lives? This is exactly why we want judicial oversight over the executive branch. We want a zealous executive branch trying to keep people safe, but with oversight so to rein them in as necessary.

Not in California.

[Demon-Xanth]

In California, your car can be searched at any time for any reason if you are on public roads.

You can say no, but that won't do you any good.

Re:Not in California.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another reason California is referred to as the Democratic Peoples Republic of California more and more these days.

Two sides

[Billosaur]

Dennis Nealon, a spokesman for Brandeis, declined to disclose details about the e-mail message other than to say that it warned of an impending terrorist attack against the Heller School for Social Policy and Management. The message was sent to the university's office of public safety that day at about 11 a.m.

Clearly, some nut out to stir things up, but who knows? If you receive such a threat, in this day and age, wouldn't you have to take it seriously?

But she [Gail Marcinkiewicz, a spokesman for the FBI's Boston branch] said the FBI had a right to seize the computers because the agents who went to the Newton library thought Brandeis students, professors, and staff members were in immediate danger. "We could have done this," said Ms. Marcinkiewicz. "It is supported by case law."

Nonetheless, she said, the FBI decided to seek a warrant. By the time agents had determined that they needed to seize only three of the computers, about 5 p.m., they realized that people at Brandeis were not about to be killed, she added.

So there was an apparent threat, the FBI determined (who knows how) that it came from the library, was ready to seize the computers until the librarian intervened, and then the FBI backed off, got a warrant, and everyone went home happy. Where's the news?

Perhaps everyone sees the FBI as the US Government's stormtroopers (remember Waco?), but the fact is they are charged with the duty of protecting all citizens of the US from harm. They saw a threat and were prepared to act accordingly. They could have simply taken the computers and have been off and no one could have done a thing about it, but they chose retsraint, perhaps wondering how credible the threat really was. In the end, no one gets hurt, Democracy is safe, and the Republic goes on.

Re:Two sides

[WhiteWolf666]

The important part of the story is that citizens have an active duty to stand up to organs of authority.

When the police/fbi/black suits come for you, demand to see the warrant. Don't agree to anything unofficial, don't agree to anything causal.

Demand a warrant.

Democracy and freedom only remain vibrant through active participation of the citizenry. This means more than "you have to vote". You have to actively stand up for your rights; rights that go unexercised you will most likely loose.

Re:Two sides

[mrchaotica]

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

Re:Two sides

[Anonymous Coward]

There really is a story here. The first is the FBI doesn't believe they need a warrant as long as they determine "somebody is in immediate danger." This is not an issue of hot pursuit, this is the FBI trying to spin out of whole cloth a justification to ignore the courts.

Now what I find really interesting is when you put yourself into the FBI's shoes the story breaks down. If I were truly concerned for someone's safety, let's say my Mom, and I truly believed that information on a public library computer could prevent immediate danger to her then my highest goal is getting that information.

Let's say the FBI proposed to me that the best way of obtaining this information is to go straight to the library and demand access to the computers without a warrant. I would say "Drive very fast and let's use that same speed to fill out a warrant and get a judge in case we get one of those 'civil something' librarians because getting the information is the most important thing".

If the FBI response is that the two track process is not needed, I would go through the roof. I would accuse the FBI of incompetence and toying with my mother's life to make a post 9/11 power grab and picking a fight with the judiciary over already settle case law.

This case is one more fractal leaf in the whole "war on terror." Protecting the people is always given a back seat to challenging case law and pushing constitutional limits of power.

You know, that may be important enough to repeat.

Protecting the people is always given a back seat to challenging case law and pushing constitutional limits of power.

Re:Two sides

[Archtech]

"Perhaps everyone sees the FBI as the US Government's stormtroopers..."

No, that would be the US Marines.

Re:Two sides

[Bongo Bill]

It's not so much a case of "All that is necessary for evil to succeed etc." as it is a case of "freedom relies upon a well-informed populace." Government is not inherently evil, merely inherently dangerous, nor are citizens inherently good, merely inherently vulnerable.

Correction - Newton Free Library

[clamantis]

Correction - Ms. Glick-Weil is Director of the Newton Free Library which is in Newton NEAR Brandeis. Brandeis is a couple miles away in Waltham, MA.

Re:Correction - Newton Free Library

[abandonnship]

Nothing ever happens in Waltham, though... It's more exciting this way.

And on and on it goes

[NiteShaed]

First the [possibly] illegal warrentless wiretaps authorized by the president, now the FBI attempting to seize computers without a warrant....is it a coincidence that these things are happening so close together, or has the example set at the top started creeping downhill? This is the kind of slippery slope I worry about, the idea that because it's been done at higher levels, law enforcement feels less inclined to play by the rules because "everybody's doing it". This is a problem not only for the people whose rights are being violated, but also for otherwise solid criminal cases that will be thrown out because of sloppiness.

Re:And on and on it goes

[Anonymous Coward]

First the [possibly] illegal warrentless wiretaps authorized by the president, now the FBI attempting to seize computers without a warrant....is it a coincidence that these things are happening so close together, or has the example set at the top started creeping downhill?

Give me a break, these are two seperate issues. I am a taxpayer in Newton, and the computers are PUBLIC property. Therefore, a portion of my tax dollars have probably somehow helped pay for that computer. If it were a private computer in a private household, school, or business then that is one thing, but since it was a single (not 30 like the summary says), public computer, and since I am declaring myself partial owner, I say let the FBI do what they want. Their intentions are only for the greater good.

Oh wait.. now I get it, and it fits perfectly with the hypocrite liberal mentality here.

From the local reports I have heard, the story sounds more like a librarian being a pain in the ass just because she sees the FBI as Bush's evil associates. I believe that reasonable people can come to reasonable solutions in situations like this. I doubt the FBI came into the situation with guns drawn ready to make a huge scene (exageration I know), so I think it's more of a case of a tin foil hat wearing liberal weenie.

I would have liked to see what she would have done if it were a threat directed at her or her family. I bet she would have given them full access then. Another hypocritical liberal? I think so...

Re:And on and on it goes

[NiteShaed]

Yep, it's all part of the big liberal conspiracy to be mean to the government. I can see it now. FBI agents weeping openly because that awful librarian wouldn't let them do their job. The fact that they backed down implies that they had no right to take the machines, and that they did in fact have time to secure a warrant, after working with the cooperation of the library staff.

I find it fascinating that somehow expecting and demanding that the government act within the boundaries of law is now somehow a "liberal" cause. I always thought it was just part of being an American.

And by the way, just because the library receives public funds, that does not mean that the government has full and unconditional access to take whatever they like from it. Also, if we're talking about the Newton Free Library (I don't know if there's another one in town or not), it would appear they run, either in part or in whole, on donated funds and money raised by the library itself, which makes the taxpayer argument a bit less compelling.

She's My Cherry Pie!

[Anonymous Coward]

Warrant rocks your ass off.

You go girl!

[Nonillion]

I'm glad to see that there is someone other than me who would of told the FBI to fuck off, get a warrant. Of course, now that I've said this I'll probably be considered a terrorist.

Because, evidently, no one has read TFA.

[sammy baby]

The same story, edited down to the bare minimum, because apparently the vast majority of people here can't be bothered to clicky-clicky. Emphasis is mine.

An e-mail threat... prompted the evacuation of more than a dozen Brandeis University buildings [along with a local elementary school]. Federal Bureau of Investigation agents tried to seize 30 of the library's computers without a warrant... Ms. Glick-Weil allowed an FBI computer-forensics examiner to work with information-technology specialists at the library to narrow down which computers might have been used to send the threatening message. They determined that three computers were implicated in the alleged crime. Late that evening, the FBI received a warrant to cart away the three computers...

Mr. Cohen said in an interview on Monday that he and Ms. Glick-Weil demanded the warrant because the FBI agents did not indicate that anyone at Brandeis faced a "clear and present danger." If there had been such a danger, Mr. Cohen added, agents probably would have seized the computers without even asking for them...

The key to this story is the "clear and present danger" issue. According to Mayor Cohen and an FBI representative, the law actually would have permitted the agents to go ahead and just take the computers if they had believed the situation to be an emergency. And that's why there was a standoff: because FBI agents paused to evaluate the situation, balanced the risks of waiting for a warrant with the benefit of having the assistance of library IT staff, and decided to get the warrant.

So, kudos for Ms. Glick-Weil for requesting the warrant. And kudos to the FBI for considering the request and deciding it was the best course of action. Had they thought the threat was credible and immediate, I'm sure they would have responded differently, and I would have a hard time faulting them for it.

Re:Because, evidently, no one has read TFA.

[avdp]

And if you read a bit more down the article:

But she said the FBI had a right to seize the computers because the agents who went to the Newton library thought Brandeis students, professors, and staff members were in immediate danger.

At the end of the day of course, the librarian was right and the FBI wasn't. But if the standard is "clear and present danger" I am not sure I want my local librarian to make that determination. I think the FBI has a bit more qualification to make that call. They say there was clear and present danger, but then they chose not to do it anyway. Weird. Don't know if I should congratulate them or not for they've done (or in this case, not done).

Re:Because, evidently, no one has read TFA.

[sammy baby]

Yeah - the pull quote you make is what I was referring to by "According to Mayor Cohen and an FBI representative..."

And the more I read it, the odder it gets. Reconciling "immediate danger" with "decided to wait for a warrant" is tough, unless they were having second thoughts about the legitimacy of the threat.

Re:Because, evidently, no one has read TFA.

[Moofie]

The librarian essentially asked "Is there a clear and present danger?" and the FBI (by not seizing the PCs over her objections) said "No, not really."

What, do you think the librarian defended the PCs by force? She asserted her rights (that is, our rights) and the Feds backed down. Surprisingly.

Re:Because, evidently, no one has read TFA.

[1u3hr]

But if the standard is "clear and present danger" I am not sure I want my local librarian to make that determination. I think the FBI has a bit more qualification to make that call. They say there was clear and present danger, but then they chose not to do it anyway. Weird.

Not weird, sounds very like the FBI were knowingly exaggerating the "threat". When they were called on it, they backed down. As TFA says, if they had really thought there was danger they would have gone in regardless and got the warrant post-facto.

Also, the whole idea of a "credible threat" sent by email from a neighbouring public library is just, well, not very credible to me. They couldn't resist bringing 9/11 into it, as if Osama or any real terrorist would go for such a chicken-shit target, and if he did, he wouldn't give any warning; and with two braincells to rub together would do it untraceably. It's just some trouble-maker making an empty threat, and some bureaucrats covering their asses by going through the motions of responding. At the end of the day they'll probably throw the terrorism book at some student who was trying to cover up being overdue for an assignment.

When I was in high school back in the 70s once or twice a year some idiot would phone in a bomb threat. Everyone knew it was bogus, still we trooped outside for an hour while the cops wandered about, though to do a real search of the buildings would have taken days.

Googling for other articles I find a lunatic columnist the library is a hotbed of liberalism, and that thus a terrorist would have thouht he would have a "safe haven". Spare me.

Re:Because, evidently, no one has read TFA.

[avdp]

That's great if this is what happened, but it isn't what happened based on the article. In the article you will see that the FBI was actually interviewed for the story (the librarian wasn't available for comment) and said that there was indeed "Clear and Present Danger", but the agents decided to back down anyway (for some hard to justify nebulous reason).

I agree with another poster that it's most likely an exageration (there really wasn't such thread and that's why they decided to back down) but if to this date the official position of the FBI is that there was indeed that thread, then they have some explaining to do.

Re:Because, evidently, no one has read TFA.

[avdp]

Agreed that it was in all likelyhood an exageration, and the agents knew that, and that's why they backed down. But in the article the FBI (which was interviewed) is not backing down from the "Clear and Present Danger" thing, so how do they justify not forcing their way past the librarian? Their statements is not matching up with their action. Yes I know, you're gonna tell me that this is also very much consistent with the FBI. I am just pointing out the obvious I guess.

Re:Because, evidently, no one has read TFA.

[Moofie]

If there was in fact a clear and present danger (and they weren't just saying that to intimidate some librarian, which I think is far more likely), why did they back down? Sounds like cowardice and/or ass covering.

And, for the record, I explicitly DO NOT trust the FBI to decide what is and is not a clear and present danger.

Re:Because, evidently, no one has read TFA.

[sammy baby]

I think you're pretty much spot on, but:

Also, the whole idea of a "credible threat" sent by email from a neighbouring public library is just, well, not very credible to me. They couldn't resist bringing 9/11 into it, as if Osama or any real terrorist would go for such a chicken-shit target...

Be fair. The 9/11 quote was from a representative of Brandeis, not from the FBI.

Re:Because, evidently, no one has read TFA.

[jaronc]

And another bit that,

Meanwhile, Ms. Glick-Weil allowed an FBI computer-forensics examiner to work with information-technology specialists at the library to narrow down which computers might have been used to send the threatening message. They determined that three computers were implicated in the alleged crime.
Late that evening, the FBI received a warrant to cart away the three computers.

...snip....

"We were able to both protect public safety and also protect the rights of people, the sense of privacy of many, many innocent users of the computers," he said. "Had we given them the computers, they would have gotten to see e-mails from ordinary citizens doing ordinary things and would not have preserved privacy."

Librarians take the privacy of their users seriously.
*disclaimer: I'm a librarian*

Re:Because, evidently, no one has read TFA.

[1u3hr]

Be fair. The 9/11 quote was from a representative of Brandeis, not from the FBI.

OK. But it's the subtext to the whole event.

Having read the article...

[Captain Sarcastic]

... I still applaud Ms. Glick-Weil for her stand. I think that the Slashdot headline was a little misleading, though, suggesting images of jack-booted thugs trying to grab every single computer in the library being held off by a stereotypical dressed-in-severe-black-dress-with-hair-tied-back- in-a-bun librarian.

The article instead gives me the impression of over-reacting investigators being greeted with a question of "Hold on a minute, tiger, where's your warrant?" followed by "Well, without a warrant, you can't cart off any of the computers. But I'll tell you what we can do -- we'll let you look at the computers here to figure out which ones you might need to grab, while you get a judge to issue a warrant. Is that workable?"

It wasn't black-hat-vs.-white-hat, it was a voice of reason calming down a couple of (rightfully) concerned FBI agents. It wasn't a stand-off, it was a prevented stand-off... which strikes me as better all around. So let's not generate hysteria after the fact, but let us be grateful that there are people willing to tell City Hall, if not to get lost, then to slow down and wait for its own papers.

Librarian Stands up to the Feds.....

[Beebos]

....next article... .....Librarian vanishes....... ....next article...... ...Dewey Decimal System big hit in Guantanamo Bay.

Re: Librarian Stands up to the Feds.....

[eltonito]

...Dewey Decimal System big hit in Guantanamo Bay.

How ironic, seeing as how DDC provides substantial classification for Christian texts in the 200's, while snubbing all other religions into a tiny little back alley of the classification.

Coincidence? I think not.

Re: Librarian Stands up to the Feds.....

[MavEtJu]

Coincidence? I think not.

It only shows where the DDC originated (i.e. western european and other english speaking countries).

Obstruction

[kartaron]

Her grand moral stand was to resist a criminal investigation. The agents knew they had cause. The judge agreed and awarded the warrant. She is being lauded for impeding an investigation and protecting the guilty.

Re:Obstruction

[Anonymous Coward]

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INOCENT....... (or has america given up now?)And by tring to take the pc's without a warrent are the FBI not commiting a crime therefor she was protecting the inocent against would be wrong doers.

Re:Obstruction

[gnuLNX]

No she is being lauded for requiring the FBI to go through the proper channels.

Re:Obstruction

[pyite]

Her grand moral stand was to resist a criminal investigation. The agents knew they had cause. The judge agreed and awarded the warrant. She is being lauded for impeding an investigation and protecting the guilty.

No, her grand moral stand was to ask that the Constitution of the United States of America be upheld in connection with an investigation. Here's the fourth amendment to that document, in case it slipped your mind.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Re:Obstruction

[budgenator]

FTA

Ms. Glick-Weil allowed an FBI computer-forensics examiner to work with information-technology specialists at the library to narrow down which computers might have been used to send the threatening message.

Actualy she didn't impead the investigation and very probably assisted it by forcing the feds to only look at the involved computers rather than wasting time examining 30 of them.

Re:Obstruction

[kartaron]

The courts have decided that probable cause and time restraints are rational and reasonable considerations to allow a search without a warrant document. The FBI knew they would get a warrant. The judge apparently had no problem with their tactics. The fact is, her moral stand only delayed the investigation a few hours. The agents werent critised for their actions. The judge found no reason to deny the warrant. She tried to impede a fully legal investigation. A computer used in the commission of a crime is just as searchable as a vehicle use in the commission of a crime, and police have the authority to investigate if there is reasonable cause to assume the computer has been used to commit a crime. Since the judge found nothing unreasonable doesnt this disable your argument?

Re:Obstruction

[pyite]

Since the judge found nothing unreasonable doesnt this disable your argument?

If so, wouldn't this mean that it "wasn't necessary" to obtain a warrant in the case of every single warrant that is issued? In which case, why bother with the whole system at all? You know what, forget the Constitution, it's an old document anyway.

*yawn*

[Transfan76]

Can't slashdot keep up with the news? I mean this happened last week.

do you have a reference for that?

[YesIAmAScript]

California may do a lot of things differently than the rest of the country, but the Constitution still applies in California, and the Constitution is the governing document that gives you an expectation that you cannot be searched unreasonably without a warrant (unless George W. Bush wants to search you and swears on the Bible that he's doing it for the right reasons).

Re:do you have a reference for that?

[lahvak]

I don't know how it is in California, but in some countries, they cannot search your person nor your residence, but that doesn't apply to your car. Which means that when they stop you, they cannot search you nor your bag that you happen to be holding in your hand, but they can go through your car and take it completely apart if they want to.

Re:do you have a reference for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't specifically know about California (though I live here), but in other state's I've lived in you can refuse to have your car searched. The officer then files a form with the state to that effect, and your license to drive is revoked.

Re:do you have a reference for that?

[zCyl]

I don't specifically know about California (though I live here), but in other state's I've lived in you can refuse to have your car searched. The officer then files a form with the state to that effect, and your license to drive is revoked.

That would make an interesting Supreme Court case. It's pretty easy to argue that if there are severe penalties for exerting your fourth amendment rights, then essentially you don't have fourth amendment rights. A state law that says "If you don't let us search your house without a warrant, then we'll fine you six million dollars and take your house," would clearly violate the fourth amendment. It doesn't strike me that a driver's license would be much different here. No matter how much the phrase "driving priviledge" is invoked, it's still a severe penalty for exerting a constitutional right.

Re:do you have a reference for that?

[Demon-Xanth]

Basically, every single driver's ed/traffic school course taught me that just getting your license is basically signing that you accept that any law enforcement officer can search your car.

IMO, it's not right, but nobody has enough money to fight it.

There was one instance that I saw on Cops or something like that, where some guy's ex girlfriend called in an anonymous tip to the cops saying a guy had drugs, the guy just finished packing to move. They made him unpack everything that he owned while they looked. No warrent needed.

Re:do you have a reference for that?

[Myself]

I'm curious how this works with mobile homes / RVs. Is the cab a vehicle, and the rest a residence? Or is there no private place in an RV?

Re:do you have a reference for that?

[lahvak]

I am not sure, but I would guess that if you have it parked on a privat land, they can't go in, but if they stop you on a public road, they can search the whole damn thing.

Alternate version?

[Loconut1389]

What if she'd stood her ground and Brandeis blew up? Technically the FBI could have just taken the machines (as stated a few times above). Then we'd have a different story on our hands.

"Librarian causes delay in finding email threat source, results in death of 50"

Re:Alternate version?

[Anonymous Coward]

This only happens on 24.

Re:Alternate version?

[banaanimies]

How about "FBI screws up again".

Re:Alternate version?

[Boronx]

And what if the only way to stop the terrorist was to launch a hellfire at an apartment building?

Re:Alternate version?

[Walkiry]

>"Librarian causes delay in finding email threat source, results in death of 50"

No no, if Brandeis blew up the headline would have been: "Authorities fail to evacuate, results in death of 50." Finding the source of the email isn't going to necessarily get you anywhere closer to the (hypothetical) killer bomb. If they thought there was such [i]clear and present danger[/i] there'd have been noone at the threatened place to begin with.

Seriously, the whole "but the terrorist are after us!!!1" scaremongering to trample all over the citizen's rights is geting really really old.

Re:Alternate version?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or rather, "FBI fail to state an instance of clear and present danger when faced with a librarian who seems to know their procedures better than they do, resulting in the death of 50". If they didn't state that there was a clear and present danger then the librarian was in the right to ask for a warrant. How was she meant to determine the existence of such a danger? Isn't that the job of the agents? Surely the whole point of having these measures is that they are followed.

Re:Alternate version?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or "50 more die in defense of constitutional rights to privacy and free speech"

Re:Alternate version?

[Anonymous Coward]

but the terrorist are after us!!!1

Re:Alternate version?

[Loconut1389]

i hope nobody got me wrong, I wasn't trying for either profound nor stupid thought. It was just a what if, and I didn't to spur on the 'but the terrorist's are after us' crowd.

I think it's interesting that they did work it out, but if they really do have the right to come in there and take them in a potential crisis, then what I said certainly could have been a possibility. In that case, it's hard to determine who is right since what is legal isn't always right.

I mostly meant to stir thoughtful discussion about the possibility.

God Bless Academia!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure Justice Brandeis would be proud of his namesake.

Most important

[gr8_phk]

The most important aspect of this non-story to me is that it's all normal. They tried to get the computers. They were told to get a warrent. They went and got one. I'm happy to see they didn't just barge in and take them anyway. I'm glad they didn't try to charge the librarian with anything stupid. Most of all, it does point out that they can still get their job done even when they have to get one of those pesky warrants. It's a simple proceedure to have a check against unreasonable search and seizure (that whole constitution thing). And remember, they did take the computers - I'd want them to have a warrant for that too.

There's really nothing to see here, unless you think the system never works the way it's supposed to.

Re:Most important

[Chris Burke]

There's really nothing to see here, unless you think the system never works the way it's supposed to.

The President of the United States just got done telling us that he doesn't think this is the way it's supposed to work. According to him, he doesn't need warrants.

THAT is why this is a story.

Re:Most important

[surprise_audit]

I'm glad they didn't try to charge the librarian with anything stupid.

Not yet, anyway... It would be interesting to follow up with Ms Glick-Weil in six months or so and see if anything unusual happened to her, like an IRS audit...

Good...

[SilentOneNCW]

Hurrah! Clap-clap! It is high time that we, as citizens and as people of this democracy stand up for ourselves against a government decidely willing to sacrifice the rights and freedoms that make the United States so different than other nations in exchange for the warring that will eventually bring us down to the level of all petty, agressive, and ultimately self-destructive nation-states. We must stand together to protect our freedoms, we must question the justice of the actions of this administration, and we must not be afraid, we must not merely roll over and conform. I applaud this librarian, who was not afraid to merely give in to an injust act of the federal government.

Re:Good...

[psykocrime]

Well said!

Counterpoint

[Wilebi]

Personally, I applaud the actions of the librarian. Not everybody feels the same however: http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?artic leid=122959/

Re:Counterpoint

[arose]

By 2 p.m. the threat had been traced to a computer at the Newton Free Library. FBI agents showed up at the library asking to examine the computer to which the threat had been traced.

Or maybe 30 computers. A scaremongering article without superpolice with supertech just isn't the same.

Imagine the consequences of a nine-hour delay because some nitwit bureaucrat decides she needs to see a warrant.

Imagine the enourmous amout of personal information the suspect stored on that one library computer... Now imagine the time needed to search 30 computers for a needle that might not be there.

Re:Counterpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

"Communism is when everyone is a capitalist."

ahh, no. And your comments also show you are incapable of reason

Time for a Library Action Hero

[Ranger]

They should make library action figure in her honor.

Conan The Librarian!

[scovetta]

It's nice to see people standing up for the rights of the individual. Too bad it happens so infrequently these days...

(in other news, Kathy the Librarian is being held as an enemy combatant in a secret military holding area)

Actually the general public is stupid

[tbcpp]

Actually the feds always need a warrent unless there was a crime currently being commited, etc. Kudos to her. The other thing most people don't realize is, is that the FBI cannot even investigate a case unless it is a federal crime. So, if the FBI showed up accusing me of stealing from a store down the road and requested I open my house. I could not only deny them entrance, but I could also inform them that even if I did break into the store down the road, it is not a federal crime and so they cannot even investigate it.

I heard of a guy who did that. This guy was protesting Clinton comming to WI with some guy from China. And he was holding a sign, next the road the president was comming down, that said somthing to the effect of "Go back to China you commie". He was stopped by a FBI agent who instructed him to leave the area due to security reasons. He looked at the agent's badge and replied, "This is a public sidewalk, and you are a federal agent. Federal agents have no jurisdiction (sp?) on city owned property". The agent left the guy alone. There was nothing else he could do unless the man commited a federal crime.

Re:Actually the general public is stupid

[nurb432]

You keep thinking that as they haul your ass away for 'detainment'.

Bomb threat

[abandonnship]

I missed calculus and chemistry lectures because of that evacuation.

Good for Kathy Glick-Weil, she did the right thing.

Re:Shes Stupid

[finkployd]

I suppose you can cite the relevent law where a warrant is not needed to search and seize property?

Finkployd

In related news...

[Ex-Narwhal]

Mrs. Glick-Weil was indicted on charges of methamphetamine production which caused a fire that subsequently burned her entire house down. FBI agents have determined that all evidence of the lab was destroyed in the blaze. She was also ticketed for a broken tail lamp.

When law enforcement uses illegal means...

[j.leidner]

> But the library director, Kathy Glick-Weil, told the agents they could not take the machines > unless they got a warrant first

Didn't they know the law?

Good thing it wasn't the Johnson building...

[OmniGeek]

Blimey, I *thought* that new construction on campus looked a bit familiar -- it was clearly designed by the famous architect Bergholt Stutley Johnson, (aka "Bloody Stupid Johnson")! I'll have to have a word with the Bursar...

Re:Good thing it wasn't the Johnson building...

[Keyslapper]

Don't forget his dried frog pills!

"clear and present danger" is NOT VALID

[SuperBanana]

Mr. Cohen said in an interview on Monday that he and Ms. Glick-Weil demanded the warrant because the FBI agents did not indicate that anyone at Brandeis faced a "clear and present danger." If there had been such a danger, Mr. Cohen added, agents probably would have seized the computers without even asking for them.

Uh...that's not how "clear and present danger" was ever meant to be used. The phrase comes from a 1919 US Supreme Court case on first amendment protected speech.

Incidentally, that case was overturned in 1969.

"Clear and present danger" was specifically NOT, as of 1969, a legitimate reason for punishing someone for speech. It certainly is not a legitimate reason for illegal search and seizure (ie, bypassing the court system.)

I hate it when people romanticize unconstitutional action; happens in the movies all the time. "You can't do that!" "Oh? Are you going to make me get a warrant to search this place? Little Timmy could be dead by then!"

Re:"clear and present danger" is NOT VALID

[Sigma 7]

"Clear and present danger" was specifically NOT, as of 1969, a legitimate reason for punishing someone for speech. It certainly is not a legitimate reason for illegal search and seizure (ie, bypassing the court system.)

It's been replaced with "Imminant Lawless Action", as stated from the Wikipedia link. Regardless of it's legality, it can easily be used to encourage cooperation between the FBI and the library to have a forensics team analyze the exact source of the message without having to do an unnecessary bulk processing of 30 computers.

How the events turned out is exactly how things should be processed. Instead of a bulk request for 30 computers, it should be narrowed down to a smaller cluster that can be more easily analysed. In terms of evidence, it is quality, not quantity.

Re:"clear and present danger" is NOT VALID

[Anonymous Coward]

You couldn't be more wrong. Any law enforcement agency has the right to seize almost ANYTHING if they think a crime is in progress. This could be a bomb threat, kidnapping, or attempted murder. The PATRIOT act contains an extension that specifically allows the government to seize the records of a public email terminal in a case like this:
(Sect. 212(3)(c) SEC. 212. EMERGENCY DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS TO PROTECT LIFE AND LIMB)

Those who RTFA would know that the FBI's lawyer said they had precedent case law to support the emergency seizure. That implies that at least one court has agreed to this sort of thing. I'm inclined to agree as well.

I guess some people just want the bomb to go off...

Re:No it isn't

[Anonymous Coward]

The librarian doesn't own the computers at the public library, and there's no reasonable expectation of privacy at a public library.

There are privacy laws that make library records private. They DO apply to computer use.

In many states, library employees who give out patron information on what they have checked out or used without either a warrant or the Patriot ACT being invoked can be fired or charged. The evidence would almost certainly be thrown out of court.

Good for her!

[digitaldc]

I hope everyone follows her example and stands up for what is left of their rights.

Do we really want to live in a society where government agents can just come in and take things with no warning or notice, and then just leave? Sounds like fascism to me.

Are you sure they have to let you go?

[Anonymous Coward]

My understanding is that they can make you wait while another officer goes and petitions for a warrant. How convenient, of course, for the path of least resistance (i.e., just go ahead and let them do a warrantless search) to be the path that makes a mockery of the great principles upon which the US was founded.

I've always wondered similarly about the question police officers often ask "Do you have any guns or knives or anything I should know about in the car?" How do you answer that? If you say yes, you get searched in detail for any other stuff. If you say no, meaning that there is "nothing you need to know about" despite maybe carrying a legal weapon (I usually carry a knife), and the officer finds some excuse for searching and locates the legal weapon, you're probably in for more trouble.

Screwy system we've come to accept.

Re:Are you sure they have to let you go?

[budgenator]

Officer says "Do you have any guns or knives or anything I should know about in the car?"
if you say "nothing you need to know about."
and the officer is injured while searching for illegal contraband, by a legally transported but hazzarous item you may have civil liabilities.

if you say "there are several knives in the tool box in the trunk, don't get cut on them." or "the bags contain dental cases and should be considered biohazardous" it a different story.

Sometimes criminals place sharp objects on there persons or in places where an officer is likely to search with the intent of causing injury to the officer. By asking that question, the officer's saftey is increased, and if he's injured your lie to him is a strong indication of intent.

Re:Are you sure they have to let you go?

[Hatta]

I've always wondered similarly about the question police officers often ask "Do you have any guns or knives or anything I should know about in the car?" How do you answer that?

You don't. Do not talk to cops. If they're arresting you anyway, nothing you can say can make the situation better and talking can definately make your situation a lot worse. The only words out of your mouth should be "I want a lawyer".

Old News...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yawn. This was on Digg a week ago.

Here's how

[flyinwhitey]

"I would hire a private investigator and a lawyer. Also, I don't see how someone could kidnap my child if I was a good parent and actually parented the child at all times, as a parent should."

Walk up to you (or even better, your wife), put a gun to your neck, and take your kid.

By the way, you get idiotic post of the millenium.

Unix Self-destruct mechanism?

[Anonymous Coward]

This may be a bit off-topic,
but i was wondering if anyone knows if there is
a Unix self-destruct program?

I have this vision of the FBI coming for my machines,
and a need to quickly launch a multiple-overwrite of
the drives in a machine from the command line.

i guess you could just boot a secure hard disk eraser
disk, but what if i'm out of the country when it happens?

plus, having a built in self-destruct appeals to my
sci-fi side. i never understood why you would need one
on a space ship, but this seems to almost make sense.

Re:Unix Self-destruct mechanism?

[amliebsch]

This may be a bit off-topic, but i was wondering if anyone knows if there is a Unix self-destruct program?

Programs work too slowly. A platform-independent solution: a panic button that activates a relay connected to an igniter, which ignites the blocks of thermite attached to your hard disks.

Re:Unix Self-destruct mechanism?

[cpghost]

which ignites the blocks of thermite attached to your hard disks

Of course, not every machine has a console. To kill the raid arrays in colocated servers, you need a software solution too:

# shutdown -P now

You'd better not confuse -p (powerdown) with -P (permament self-destruct) though...

Re:Unix Self-destruct mechanism?

[tinkerghost]

A platform-independent solution: a panic button that activates a relay connected to an igniter, which ignites the blocks of thermite attached to your hard disks.

looks over both shoulders, pulls out the chemistry book, the history book, and the electrical engineering book from the deep dark hole they hide in
Need:

model rocket igniter

12V relay

soundcard

aluminum can

rusty car part

misc wiring & solder
A soundcard is a D->A converter - attatch wires to headphone jack & relay
Hook relay to igniter & powersupply
Install in PC as 2nd soundcard
Mix powdered rust with powdered aluminum - preferably in a flamable matrix.
Insert igniter into matrix & attach to hard drive.

Activate 2nd soundcard => tone to headphone jack => relay activated => current to igniter => thermite (Fe2O3(s) + 2 Al(s) -> Al2O3(s) + 2 Fe(l)) reaction eats HD & PC & possibly house.
Unrelated historical side note - thermite reactions were used to weld the tracks together for railroads.

Re:Unix Self-destruct mechanism?

[amliebsch]

It would probably be even simpler to connect your relay to the RTS pin on your serial port. You should be able to make the pin go high (activating the relay) by sending a \x11 character to the tty for that port.

Re:No it isn't

[Anonymous Coward]

>> The librarian doesn't own the computers at the public library, and there's no reasonable expectation of privacy at a public library.

Wrong. Big wrong. There is the expectation that the materials read by and checked out by the library's users will not be tracked by the government.

Or at least there should be, and was before big brother started watching.

This will be fixed one day. Either by legislative changes or by guns, sadly.

dada21 never sleeps!

[Medievalist]

dada21: I don't see how someone could kidnap my child if I was a good parent and actually parented the child at all times, as a parent should.

doughrama: You just lost all credibility.

You got that right! Denial of reality and good parenting are hardware incompatible.

Some of us have to work. And sleep (one of my kids sleepwalks, incidentally, as does my spouse). And some of us have chosen to parent more than one bright, inquisitive child. Human beings can't do these things and simultaneously do 24 hour bodyguard duty.

It should also be obvious that not every parent can afford nannies and high-tech surveillance, so don't bother bringing it up.

Re:dada21 never sleeps!

[dada21]

Some of us have to work.

I'm working right now. Yet 50% of my household income goes to pay for things I don't use or need or could afford on my own. If you have to work so hard that you don't have time for kids, don't have kids. If you do have kids, don't force me to pay for your responsibilities.

Human beings can't do these things and simultaneously do 24 hour bodyguard duty.

Fine. If you want my money, my hard earned money, then submit to me a full audit of your life income and expenses from today all the way back to the day you found out your lady was pregnant.

Have cable? Turn it off. Have a big house in an expensive neighborhood? Sell it and get something you can afford. Buying new clothes? Go to the thrift store. Taking expensive vacations? Stop. Eating at nice restaurants? Cook your own food.

Don't make me pay for your responsibilities, ever, if you have anything in your life that takes time and money away from parenting.

It should also be obvious that not every parent can afford nannies and high-tech surveillance, so don't bother bringing it up.

I help many poor families out through my churches -- nearly 99% of poor families have cell phones, cable TV, X-Boxes, and more than one car. You'd be surprised at what is considered poor. I don't want to pay for them anymore so that they can spend their income on garbage while I spend my income on taking care of their responsibilities.

You don't have a right to having kids. If you have kids, you don't have a right to force me to pay for their care against my will. If you want my money, move to my community where I can hold you accountable for your welfare check.

Re:dada21 never sleeps!

[Jackmn]

I'm working right now. Yet 50% of my household income goes to pay for things I don't use or need or could afford on my own. If you have to work so hard that you don't have time for kids, don't have kids. If you do have kids, don't force me to pay for your responsibilities.

The tax money you help provide benefits society as a whole. Whether or not you benefit from it personally is irrelevant.

Whether or not you like it is also irrelevant.

Re:dada21 never sleeps!

[mOdQuArK!]

If you want my money, my hard earned money, then submit to me a full audit of your life income and expenses from today all the way back to the day you found out your lady was pregnant.

If you don't want to help pay for the public infrastructure, then please leave the country (preferably the planet). The rest of us will get along with helping each other out, and will probably be much better off without your presence.

Re:dada21 never sleeps!

[jp10558]

You don't have a right to having kids.

Woah. I really think that a libertarian ought to back up on telling two people what they can and can't do in their own home, on their own time.

If you have kids, you don't have a right to force me to pay for their care against my will.

That's better - that's at least consistant. And I have some good arguments on costs that I've posted to /. before.

Quote:
In your above senario, let's say there is no Social Services and welfare (to work in many places). So that person has -$$ because of bad life judgements.

As a liberal, I don't care about that person. I'm looking at a big picture - those children and that woman having no money will still cost me, even if I don't pay into social programs.

Why? Here:

Instead of preventative health care, they end up in the emergency room. But can't pay that much larger bill. Guess what - that gets passed on to people who can pay the bill - you and I.

Even if we don't treat people at the emergency room regardless of proof of insurance it costs us.

How? Here:

Now, when you are having a heart attack (or whatever) and the paramedics show up, someone has to find your proof of insurance or give them a large wad of cash so they know you can pay for treatment. Guess what, while they were running the forms, you died! Doesn't that suck? But at least you didn't have to pay towards the people you listed above.

A good reason to have medicaid style programs is that emergency room visits are made more common by not getting checked out (for whatever reason, I know for me it's been money related) on a regular basis and only going when you're flopping around dying.

There are hundreds of medical issues from the flu to cancer that can be very cheap to treat if cought early (the kind of stuff that is found in doctors visits, not at the emergency room after a collapse) but incredibly expensive if impossible to treat once you're in the emergencey room having reached a critical point.

Another common argument that get's made that misses the point is "go live on the street until you make your mind up to put in the effort to keep a roof over your head."(The idea that there should not be any sort of housing support)

Now, that is just creating emergency room visits. Because they can't afford a home, they're out exposed to the elements. You know what that causes? Sickness. So some cop finds them dying on the street. Most will call an ambulance - and back to square one there.

Moreso, now you also are putting mobile sickness breeding grounds wandering around outside. All sorts of sicknesses spread in that manner, through sick people outside...

Lets get away from medicine. Those people who get no help from anyone now are trying to feed themselves. Look at the innercity, what do they do to get money? They have no skills to get a job with, so they either start dealing drugs, or start stealing things.

Either way, now you pay - more - in both losing areas of the city you feel safe in, and in a larger police force to try and stop such crime, and possibly in the additional hassle of dealing with police more often. To clarify:

Such suggestions lead to crime, violence, and increased police cost. Someone will have to deal with the people so poor they cannot pay for housing or feed themselves - it can be Social services, or it can be Police. Guess what though, Social Services sometimes turns these people into contributing workers in our society, all the Police can do is put them in Jail.

Now you're supporting them more than ever, at greater cost.

The last point I want to address in your post is the idea that Social Services will make all your cares go away. I have no idea where this concept comes from, but people on welfare or government assistance aren't living like Bill Gates!

There are stringent requirements to get government assistance. First you have to show you need it. Then you have to attend various program

Re:dada21 never sleeps!

[AK Marc]

You don't have a right to having kids. If you have kids, you don't have a right to force me to pay for their care against my will.

Is this your argument for complaining about the government being involved in investigating children's kidnappings? You want proof of financial responsibility before the police investigate crimes? You really are a twisted person.

Jack Ryan agrees

[digitaldc]

I hate it when people romanticize unconstitutional action; happens in the movies all the time. "You can't do that!" "Oh? Are you going to make me get a warrant to search this place? Little Timmy could be dead by then!"

from: Clear And Present Danger (1994)

Ritter: Jack, computer theft is a serious crime.
[hangs up the phone]
Jack Ryan: [to himself] So are crimes against the Constitution.

Always demand due process

[scorp1us]

You are garenteed a constitutional right to due process. Nothing can happen to you for demanding it. The fact that you require the government to do _all_ of their job is not one to be ashamed of. "It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error." - Robert H. Jackson Surpreme Court Justice.

The government, with less and less of the will of the people (and more so rich investors and coprorations) cannot be trusted. Cooperation is not required, the law has already given the government whatever powers it requires to do the job (all too often too many powers, IMHO). Much like the 5th amendment allows one to deny testimony, and the mere use of the 5th admendment cannot constiute an admission of guilt, your demanding due process should be expected, not your cooperation.

Example: the IRS. So many people give into their notice of deficientcies and levies, despite the IRS not obtaining the proper court order. You can cooperate, but any action until that court order is voluntary. Also, I recently read a disturbing ruling that you may actually give up to your rights to anything they acquire from you voluntarily. So, you better demand due process and double check everything!!!

You are still in a utopian fantasy.

[Medievalist]

I understand kids have a tendency to get away. I also understand that the market has provisions for tracking when kids do get away.

While I'm no fan of the FBI, your remarks about parenting are inutterably clueless. I suggest you stop digging the hole deeper. It's actually painful to watch.

Rosa Parks lives

[wardk]

librarians, aparently the bravest humans in the United States in 2006

confiscating computers - when do we get them back?

[vfrex]

If anybody here works in the Waltham PD, we want our cluster computer back that you confiscated after last year's bomb threat. Thanks.

Choice quote from the article

[DrSbaitso]

The event prompted talk-show hosts and newspaper columnists in Boston to lash out at Newton officials, arguing that they acted irresponsibly and could have jeopardized people's lives. But Mr. Cohen said he had also received many positive comments from people all over the country supporting his actions.

Says a thing or two about talk radio, doesn't it?

That "tighter leash" must have been metaphysical

[Anonymous Coward]

Offered with an intent to help, not criticize...

You say you had him on a "leash" but you don't seem to really mean it. 3yrs old ... large, open public place ... use a real leash like other parents have learned to.

http://ks.essortment.com/childrenleashes_rvjf.htm

http://www.epinions.com/content_106201976452

http://www.babycenter.com/dilemma/toddler/toddlerb ehavior/1149656.html

and on, and on, and on...

Been there (on the leash side ... as a kid, not an adult), can't remember squat from that young, so didn't mind.

NEWTON Librarian stands up to the Feds

[bgalbrecht]

If you're going to summarize TFA, at least read the entire article.

President Said that Wiretaps Require Court Order

[srobert]

What are you talking about? The President supports getting warrants.
In HIS own words:
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
G.W.B. April 20, 2004
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20 040420-2.html

So The FBI Got A Warrant

[aquatone282]

Kind of takes the air out of all the "nazi Amerikkka Bushitler police-state!" crap, doesn't it?

Re:So The FBI Got A Warrant

[DragonTHC]

no it doesn't

the fact is, the FBI tried to sieze the computers without a warrant.

They expected full cooperation with their demands.

they didn't expect someone to force them to obey the law.

Re:So The FBI Got A Warrant

[Anonymous Coward]

Not entirely, one case of following the law doesn't excuse passed violations and questionable behavior.

Re:So The FBI Got A Warrant

[aquatone282]

In a police state the librarian would have been dragged out into the street and shot as an example to the populace of the consequences of disobeying the authorities.

In this case a citizen challenged the authorities' actions and the authorities complied.

Sorry, but it's not a "police state" when your sensibilities are outraged.

Verifying warrants

[MS-06FZ]

Is there a number we can call to confirm that a warrant is actually valid?

Yes - fortunately, though, it's printed on the warrant itself so there's no need to remember it.

Re:Verifying warrants

[vux984]

I think I saw that scam once on the TeeVee, you just have an accomplice waiting back in the truck with a throw away cell phone. The number on the forged warrant conveniently matches it.

sort of

[tacokill]

You are somewhat correct but from what I know, what they actually do is detain you (note: detain != arrest) and then go get a warrant to search your car. If they can get a warrant in a reasonable time, they will do that. If they can't get it in a reasonable time, then you are probably let go as you describe in your post. It's not like they just say "Oh, ok...you can go now" if they have a reason to believe you are doing something wrong. They *will* take the time to go through due-process if they truly think you are doing something bad enough to warrant attention.

You are right, though, most people say "yes" when asked -- and that gives them all the permission they need to do the search. A "no" response will usually get you what I outlined above.

This is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

This same scenario happens over and over again all of the country for the last 200 years. I guess someone reporting this story has an agenda to push by suggesting that a law enforcement agency is trying to search with the owner/proprietor's permission rather than a warrant for the first time and this is some sort of "dark development" related to the Patriot Act or something.

Nice try.

meh....yawn....

lol

[Anonymous Coward]

where are my modpoints when I need them? :)

What was this guy thinking?

[jayray23]

"Since September 11th, the university's response is to take something like this very seriously," Mr. Nealon said, "and go above and beyond to make sure that there is no threat to anybody on campus." So what was the policy before September 11th, flip a coin to see if action should be taken to avoid a tragedy.

Re:This is going to end very badly someday

[bbuchs]

wow. I agree with your steps 1-6, but everything you wrote above that is complete and total bullshit. NOBODY - President and FBI included - has the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want. There's a reason we have laws that require a warrant, and it's to protect our civil liberties. I don't care if there is some so-called-war-on-terror going on, you follow the damn rules. The FBI agents obviously tracked down a lead to the library - there's no reason they couldn't have gotten a warrant on the way there.

If you start giving the goverment a free pass on things like this, who's to say what's next?

I don't disagree with the conclusion...

[Belial6]

I don't disagree with your conclusion about the troll, but your reasoning is flawed. The 'You haven't done X, so you can't know what your talking about' argument is flawed at best. Here are some other examples of that argument that might point out the flaw:

You can't know if a crime is being commiting unless you've been to a police acadamy.
You can't know your legal rights unless you hava a law degree.
You can't know how to raise a chile unless you are a parent.
You can't understand piracy unless your a *IAA member.
You can't judge resonable cost unless you are the manufacturer of that product.

The poster is so far off base, that you do not need to use 'tricky' logic to dispute it.

Librarian was wrong to ask for warrant

[Anonymous Coward]

"Gail Marcinkiewicz, a spokesman for the FBI's Boston branch, declined to talk about the investigation into who sent the e-mail message.

But she said the FBI had a right to seize the computers because the agents who went to the Newton library thought Brandeis students, professors, and staff members were in immediate danger. "We could have done this," said Ms. Marcinkiewicz. "It is supported by case law."

Since the librarian's actions slowed down the investigation, it could have resulted in harm to the person/people threatened.

just my 2cents, the librarian at newton

[cinnamon colbert]

aint so great
I live about 1/2 mile from the library, and use it frequently.
The librarian may be a civil liberties hero, but at running the day to day ops of a major library (newton is a city of 90,000 odd soouls, and the massive new library, which you have to DRIVE to in a car, and which replaced all the wonderful branch libs) is not run that well.
For instance, I would bet dollars to donuts that every /. if they saw the gui on the library search engine, would scream in horror

they can't even provide a decent bike rack, and the one they have is unusable due to overgrowth ofthe bushes

The library is fully computerized, and will send yo all sorts of emails, but for some reason, can't send you an overdue notice untillyour fines are 5$.

I could go on, but whats the point.

Re:just my 2cents, the librarian at newton

[geekoid]

HAve you gotten involved? volunteered to clear the overgrowth?
I am sure there are meeting about the library you could go to. Find them, go, voice your issues and provide possible solutions.

Aftermath

[lintocs]

After acquiring a warrant from a friendly judge, the FBI proceeded to seize all electrical items in the library including photocopiers, printers, lightbulbs and such. They further proceeded to search the homes of all University employees who were freedom hating "library card" carrying Islamic radicals.

Ms. Kathy Glick-Weil, if that is indeed her real name, was questioned, beaten, questioned again, put on the Homeland Security "No-Fly" list, and will be watched by federal authorities for the rest of her life, which will be spent in beautiful Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

When asked what her feelings on the matter were, Ms. Glick-Weil was beaten again.

Re:Aftermath

[cpghost]

AFAIK federal authorities have no say in Guantanamo Bay, unless it falls under U.S. jurisdiction. Does it? Right now, only the US Navy assumes authority over this base. Are they considered federal authority?

Re:Burgers and Steaks...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet your post covers so many reasons to back down on federal tax-and-spend policy. First of all, your education is so expensive because of federal involvement. When the feds force money out of the taxpayers to pay for whatever private program there is, the cost of the program always goes up. Professor George Reisman makes a great example of why health insurance is crazy expensive, which is carried directly to why education is expensive and so is property: government involvement. His comment was: I used to ask my [evening] students to imagine that after class, we would all go to a restaurant for a late dinner, on the understanding that everyone was free to order whatever he liked and the bill would be evenly divided. Thus, if there were thirty students in the class and someone ordered a $20 steak instead of a $5 hamburger, the additional cost to him would be 50 cents. Under such an arrangement, everyone would have the incentive to order anything he wanted, because he would bear very little of the cost. But since everyone would soon do this, the cost to everyone would end up being far higher than it would have been had everyone had to pay his own way. If everyone had to pay for education directly, they'd be much more competitive with their money. When money is rare, prices are usually lower to attract the money that people are apt to save. Yet the Federal Reserve prints so much new money that money isn't rare -- its readily available. This makes it less worthy to people, so they chase property investments creating the bubbles. The feds give money to anyone who wants an education, so education prices go up. The feds force health care insurance on everyone (medicare, medicaid, social security, and a myriad of programs) so prices go up. Get them out of the systems they shouldn't be in -- get them out of the market.

Ok, so, 5 dollar burger versus 20 dollar steak... right? Alright, we can run with this... So, the burger translates into someone with normally low medical expenses, while the steak would be that old cat down the road who takes 45 pills a day just to survive... alright... burger-man, seeing what he's getting dollar-for-dollar, decides "Hey, you know something, I'm gettin' screwed!" and thus, because he also feels he deserves steak (45 scripts a day), he starts writin' off his "enhancement" medication (the kind we get flooded into our mailboxes every day), he starts writing off his wife's cosmetic surgery (and his underage child-star beauty pageant daughters trips south of the border), he starts writing off his brand new experimental-surgery-tentacle-and-wing-grafts that he got to impress the guys at work ("LooK Fellas! I'm so far beyond the mere human!"), etc. All for only a meager hike in insurance rates. Meanwhile, poor old steak-man, who could barely afford to pay the insurance that covers his pills in the first place, also gets to help foot the bill for all these absolutely vital medical costs that burger-guy is accruing, which, while they may not actually add up to steak-man's previous expenses, they surely do something to his bottom line. So now that insurance are just out of reach of steak-man, who was at one point able to afford insurance (but never all the meds he requires), he's left with 2 options; rob a bank, or die. Then he goes to jail (because he was kinda diggin' on staying alive and whatnot) and we all end up paying for his share of the insurance - which from jail he can't - and is miserable in his new life as a prisoner, while we are all miserable for paying for this prisoner to stay alive; after all, this schmuck robbed a bank - he's scum, right? So now we got the burger-guy - happy, successful, loving family, job at a good law firm (we'll assume), medically "enhanced" endowments, beautiful wife and daughter, and proud owner of body parts a human shouldn't have but that'd make life easier on a guy that does - and steak-man - prisoner, bank robber, and chemical dependant - who both have everything they could need or want out of medical science, only this tim

Newton public library?

[commodoresloat]

So the computers they wanted to seize were eMate 300s?

Re:Newton public library?

[hrieke]

I thought I replied to this, but the comment hasn't shown up...
The last time I checked they where white box PCs, and that was a few years ago.

Reminder

[SchrodingersRoot]

I'm as concerned about my civil liberties as the next guy.
Actually, probably more than the next guy. Or more than the next 51% of guys.

I tend to agree with Mr. Franklin, in point of fact.

And I, too, applaud Ms. Glick-Weil; the FBI should damn well have relented in this situation, IMNSHO. More quickly than they probably did, in fact.

One thing I see, however, is a lot of /.ers appearing to believe that a warrant should be required to be issued in all cases, without exception. I just want to remind them that if it's my [damn] house, and I want to let 'em search without a warrant, that's my right, too (of course assuming that there's no coercion, etc). I think that still counts as "secure in [my] persons, houses, papers, and effects..."

Now, mind you, I'm not saying that that's necessarily the sort of thing I'm likely to do. I think I'm likely to stand with Ms. Glick-Weil, depending on the circumstances, especially given the atmosphere of national security of late. On the other hand, I don't tend to have anything to hide, and I do believe in citizens helping out law enforcement to a reasonable extent. Balance, I think, is the key.

Re:Shes Stupid

[nurb432]

Havent been keeping up with the news lately have you.

Warrents are for after....

[Belial6]

This is not suprising. The primary purpose of a warrent isn't for the person being served. It is to prevent casual civil rights violations by the police. Most of us have seen police commit crimes. Usually minor ones like taking a bribe of free food or coffee in a restaurant. The warrent is so that the police won't take that kind of casual attitude about entering your home.

The handing over a warrent, I would suspect, is more for the investigation of businesses, and other less violent crimes. In those cases, handing over the warrent can prevent escalation.

I know if someone enters my home without knocking, and waiting for a response, my first reaction would be to hit them in the head with something heavy, and preferably sharp. Luckily, I have no history of any illegal activity beyond a couple of speeding tickets. This makes it exteamly unlikely that the police would bust my door down. I'm just glad that if they do, they will have to have had a third party verify their intent BEFORE they try.

Re:Burgers and Steaks...

[dada21]

Medicine and medical help is actually very cheap. I pay my doctor and my clinics cash before service and get a nice discount, sometimes 70% less than "retail" or insured price. My insurance is very cheap even with two expensive pre-existing conditions that are covered (kidney stones and TMJ problems). I don't use my insurance for regular medical care -- checkups, minor accidents and the like. I use insurance for big problems. Over 10 years I socked away about 10 ounces of gold to cover my deductible, which is now US$5000 and I am negotiating to move my deductible up to US$20,000 in the next 2 years. The more I sock away for savings, the cheaper the insurance gets. And I have great insurance.

Because I prepay cash, my doctor is happy to give me the best treatment possible. My last kidney stone attack was followed up by a house visit -- he appreciates that I respect his ability and offer to pay in cash up front to keep his paperwork and overhead costs down.

Medical care can be cheap if it wasn't to cover every sneeze, cough and pain. Americans (and the world) look at insurance as full coverage for everything. I look at insurance for what-if situations.

Half my family is on lipitor because of cholesterol and high blood pressure. When my blood pressure and weight skyrocketed at the age of 25, I cut my sugars and starches, increased my healthy fats and proteins, and watched my weight and blood pressure and cholesterol fall to pre-high school numbers. I don't take pills. I am healthy, I watch what I eat, and I won't cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars because of an irresponsible diet for 50 years of my life. Yet I have to pay for you fatties who won't stop eating starches and sugars.

Not in a Library

[geoffrobinson]

The library's computer doesn't belong to you. It belongs to a local government.

How would there be any expectation of privacy or anything else? It's not your computer, so there would be no 4th amendment violation.

Re:Not in a Library

[Anonymous Coward]

With that line of reasoning, your borrowing habits are simply pieces of data in a database that the state owns and runs, so why shouldn't the government be allowed to know about them? You're not HIDING anything, are you?

Captcha is "warrants", wooo! :D

Re:This is going to end very badly someday

[1u3hr]

6. So here is how it is going to go. One of you guys stays here to watch me, one goes and gets a warrant for "any and all information in our possession regarding the patron at X IP address at Y time" and I start pulling logs off to CD-R....It is possible to obey the law AND help law enforcement. But it was pretty obvious those idiots in MA were enjoying preening for the press about how they were so feeling oppressed but stood up to great evil. Bullshit.

Bullshit indeed. If you read TFA you'd see the library staff did pretty much what you said they should.

After a brief standoff, FBI officials relented and sought a warrant from a judge. Meanwhile, Ms. Glick-Weil allowed an FBI computer-forensics examiner to work with information-technology specialists at the library to narrow down which computers might have been used to send the threatening message. They determined that three computers were implicated in the alleged crime.

And the Feds DID then take those 3 PCs. Who's the moonbat?

Re:This is going to end very badly someday

[jmorris42]

> NOBODY - President and FBI included - has the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want.

They don't. But hot pursuit carries a different standard. And remember they 4th doesn't say "Police, Intelligence agancies, hell NOBODY can do anything without a warrant." It says citizens are protected against "unreasonable search and seizure".

And my reaction would be different in different circumstances. For example if they FOUND a bomb and were trying to get the guy to learn how to disarm it before it went FOOM! I'd probably compromise with "Give me your word as an Agent of the FBI to have me a warrant before end of business today and I'll give up a name now; and we will all just fudge the timeline if any moonbats start poking around."

The key thing is to realize the law is intended to codify rules intended to protect us in general, it isn't a suicide pact. There are times when you have to do what is right even if it isn't, strictly speaking, perfectly legal. The agents are chasing a potential bomber, the librarians have legal obligation. But you don't have to see it as good vs. evil, the trick is in realizing that and working out a compromise where the public good is served AND the core ideals of our civilization are kept instead of seeing it as an oportunity to grandstand before the TV cameras.

The funny thing is...

[natet]

The same people that have been lauding the librarian for her stand would probably been the people howling the loudest about how the Feds didn't do a thing to stop this tradgedy if there had really been a bomb.

I for one am glad that the librarian insisted on a warrant. I've been disturbed by the laws that Congress has passed recently in the name of fighting terrorism. But, I also have some idea of how difficult the job of assessing terrorist threats is. How many people would have been willing to submit to some of the measures implemented in airports befor 9/11? By the complaints I have heard often, I would guess very few would have felt them necessary (some would argue that they aren't necessary now either). The Federal government, even now, has to walk a very fine line. On the one hand, we the people hold the responsible to protect us for terrorist threats. On the other, we don't want too much government intervention. They can't seem to be using techniques such as profiling (whether or not they really are), because that would raise the cry of discrimination, but they also have to be aware of the fact that the most credible threat to safety comes from a militant arm of a particular sect of a religion, centered in a particular region of the world. I for one am glad I don't have the job of having to deal with this stuff. I'll stick with writing software in my little office, thank you.

No Expectation of Privacy in a Library

[geoffrobinson]

I mentioned this in a reply to someone's post, but I'll restate it here.

When you are on a library's computer you are on property owned by the public, presumably the county or municipality. There is no expectation to privacy. No 4th amendment rights are being violated.

It's not the suspect's computer.

Re:No Expectation of Privacy in a Library

[Anonymous Coward]

I mentioned this in a reply to someone's post, but I'll restate it here.

When you are on a library's computer you are on property owned by the public, presumably the county or municipality. There is no expectation to privacy. No 4th amendment rights are being violated.


And I've mentioned this: In most states, it is ILLEGAL for library staff (or anyone) to give out patron usage information without a warrant or national security letter. That's for both computers and books. So please stop telling people there's no expectation of privacy, because it's not true. I ought to know, as I'm a librarian.

Re:No Expectation of Privacy in a Library

[geoffrobinson]

Then state laws would require that. I'm not sure if the feds would need to care about a state law, since I'm not sure about state law vs. federal polic case law. 4th amendment violations would still not be in view.

No warrant necessary, for many reasons.

[Fookin]

Because it's a public library and they wanted to seize public computers where someones "reasonable" right to privacy doesn't seem reasonable. They weren't picking through book rental records or anything along those lines. Would the FBI need a warrant to take a public library's public photocopier or public fax machine to get finger prints or fax records if there were exigent circumstances? I don't think they would. Should I have a "reasonable" expectation of privacy using a public photocopier? It's public property and IMO the FBI didn't need a warrant to seize the computers.

The librarian should have been arrested for obstruction of justice / impeding the adminstration of justice and they should have been done with it. There were exigent circumstances present since the computers could have been tampered with and evidence pointing to the threat-maker lost. Between being a public library, a public appliance where no "reasonable" expectation of privacy should be expected and there being exigent circumstances since it was a bomb threat and the evidence was technically in plain view and on public property, I guess I don't see why the FBI tip-toed around this one.

Is there any information I'm missing or did I pretty much cover it?

Re:No warrant necessary, for many reasons.

[Anonymous Coward]

The librarian should have been arrested for obstruction of justice / impeding the adminstration of justice and they should have been done with it. ...Is there any information I'm missing or did I pretty much cover it?

You missed the fact that in most states, patron use of library resources (both books and computers) are protected by state privacy laws. As in libraries are SPECIFICALLY NAMED in laws.

So what you're saying is that the library director should have been arrested for following the law. She isn't allowed to give out that information without either a warrant or through the Patriot Act being invoked. That's both to protect the public from unreasonable search and seizure and also to prevent evidence being tossed out later because it was illegally obtained.

As a librarian myself, I'm a bit sick of the attitude people have when I try to protect their privacy. I. Don't. Have. A. Choice. You don't like it? Change the law, but stop acting like I'M the one being unreasonable for following it. I'd really prefer not to get fired and possibly charged because the police can't bother to get a warrant.

Re:No warrant necessary, for many reasons.

[Fookin]

Are you a librarian in Massachusetts? If not, you may want to do some research before you start spouting off like you did ... it's not as cut and dry as you made it seem. If you are, well ...

Here's what I found:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/78-7.htm

CHAPTER 78. LIBRARIES

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Chapter 78: Section 7. Establishment by cities and towns; records

Section 7. A town may establish and maintain public libraries for its inhabitants under regulations prescribed by the city council or by the town, and may receive, hold and manage any gift, bequest or devise therefor. The city council of a city or the selectmen of a town may place in such library the books, reports and laws which may be received from the commonwealth. That part of the records of a public library which reveals the identity and intellectual pursuits of a person using such library shall not be a public record as defined by clause Twenty-sixth of section seven of chapter four. Library authorities may disclose or exchange information relating to library users for the purposes of inter-library cooperation and coordination, including but not limited to, the purposes of facilitating the sharing of resources among library jurisdictions as authorized by clause (1) of section nineteen E or enforcing the provisions of sections ninety-nine and one hundred of chapter two hundred and sixty-six.

So the question becomes, is a public computer in a Massachusetts public library that any person can use considered part of the records of a public library? You see, it's not specified here and IMHO, I don't think it is ...

Even the American Library Association site that discusses this directs folks to the MA statute above and says for them to "adopt a policy that specifically recognizes the confidentiality of information sought or received, and materials consulted borrowed or acquired by a library user." Does emailing a bomb threat count as "materials consulted borrowed or acquired"?

I'm just talking about laws concerning this in MA, not your state. I'm sure your state has its stuff together.

Re:No warrant necessary, for many reasons.

[Anonymous Coward]

So the question becomes, is a public computer in a Massachusetts public library that any person can use considered part of the records of a public library? You see, it's not specified here and IMHO, I don't think it is ...

Okay. Let me pull out what I see in this law:

That part of the records of a public library which reveals the identity and intellectual pursuits of a person using such library...

If the library hands over a computer and/or records which tell what patron used the computer, that is revealing the identity and intellectual pursuits of a person using the library. If they hand over just the computer and its contents are analyzed to trace where a patron went, it's very likely that the identity of the patron or other patrons who used it will be clear. That's rather the POINT of why they wanted the computer. Also, keep in mind that this was not a few computers they were requesting; it was something like 30.

And no, I don't work in Massachusetts, but I'd also point out that the library director herself is quoted in news articles as saying the law requires a warrant.

To me, that law is fairly clear that any library resources that could reveal the identity and what the patron was doing are protected. Library computers can do that when analyzed. Hence, they're covered. I'd certainly say that compromising the identity and pursuits of all the patrons who have used those 30 computers should require either a warrant or use of the Patriot Act.

And yes, I tend to get annoyed when people say things like "We should arrest so-and-so" when they're doing their job.

(As to the ALA quote of "adopt a policy that specifically recognizes the confidentiality of information sought or received, and materials consulted borrowed or acquired by a library user," I'd point out that using a computer generally involves consulting materials on that computer, as well as information sought or received.)

Re:Shes Stupid

[finkployd]

Not into answering questions are you.

I've been keeping up with the news, so where does it say the FBI can confiscate equipment without a warrant? Note, I did not say "with a secret warrant" (I've read the patriot act too), I mean completely without any court oversight.

Finkployd

Re:This is going to end very badly someday

[jmorris42]

> If you read TFA you'd see the library staff did pretty much what you said they should.

No I didn't read That FA, and I guess I should have since it had more information than the link I'd followed over the weekend from an email passed around librarian circles. So they did pretty much DO the right thing, but afterwards they still used the opportunity (or the press used them, could be either way) to launch a standard issue moonbat 'they wanna trample our civil liberties' rant.

freedom .vs. despotism

[MECC]

Perhaps, freedom could be likened to a dynamic state, and despotism to a static state. Always, the tendancy is to fall back to the static, unless effort is exerted in the dynamic direction. If things could be described thus, then these kinds of things will *always* happen, and we can only hope that effort is exerted (as it was) to oppose it.

There's no need for anger against injustice, only the awarness and will to oppose it.

Warrents and Public Institutions

[Azeron]

The 4th Amendment does not protect public places or institutions belonging to state, federal, municipal entities --- ONLY PRIVATE PERSONS AND THIER PROERTY.

Furthermore, ALL public employees are bound by the US Constitution to comply with federal law, and not to interfere. If The FBI agents, want the computers so they may ENFORCE federal law.

3rdly, if the Libarian knows that there MAY BE materials on computer evidencing the nature of attack by by an Enemy of the United States, she is bound under Article 18 of the US Title code "Treason, Sedition and Subversive Activities" to inform the federal government of such an attack or evidence.

4th as a employee of the state, she is also bound to uphold and report any crimes to the state.

Ayatollah Ashcroft

[wayward]

Speaking of librarians and the Patriot Act, here are Dave Lippman' lyrics to "Ayatollah Ashcroft." (http://www.davelippman.com/

Well, I went down to see my librarian.
Did I mention her name, it was Marian?
She was handing my checkout records to this guy
Who examined it for the FBI.

Well you can't always get what you want
Cause some of the books have been withdrawn.
They had passages from the Koran.
And if you translate some, you just might find
How to make a bomb.

Let me tell you a story
About John Ashcroft
And all the good things he has done

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Re:This is going to end very badly someday

[srobert]

"Listen up folks, this hate of our own country is going to end up getting a lot of people killed just to stroke some moonbat egos."

So you equate advocacy of the fourth amendment with "hate of our own country"?
Does that extend to the rest of the Bill of Rights or just the 4th?
How shall we protect the country from those who love it as you do?

Re:confiscating computers - when do we get them ba

[tinkerghost]

If anybody here works in the Waltham PD, we want our cluster computer back that you confiscated after last year's bomb threat. Thanks.
Good luck - took me 5 months to get my cookie tray back after I dropped off the surplus of a cookie exchange.

Yes search, no seize

[TheConfusedOne]

From TFA:

After a brief standoff, FBI officials relented and sought a warrant from a judge. Meanwhile, Ms. Glick-Weil allowed an FBI computer-forensics examiner to work with information-technology specialists at the library to narrow down which computers might have been used to send the threatening message. They determined that three computers were implicated in the alleged crime.

It would appear that the issue was one of convenience versus privacy. This wasn't any great stand against the "Evil[tm] PATRIOT Act", it was a librarian trying to keep from losing 30 computers.

At worst the local FBI officials could be accused of being a bit heavy-handed but they were investigating a crime and they did obtain a warrant when they could not obtain voluntary cooperation.

Hmm...

[Spamicles]

The emperor will not be happy.

Speak for yourself, John Alden.

[Medievalist]

No one thinks phone calls made to Al-Qaeda shouldn't be taped.

I do. I think it's a waste of time and money. There are more important things to do.

Terrorists are pikers. Alcohol abuse kills more people than terrorism. Enron wrecked more lives than 9/11. The US government has committed far more atrocities than Al-Qaeda ever will. Terrorists are a just bunch of incompetent, underachieving losers with good press; hell, diseases you never heard of kill more innocent people than terrorism every single day.

The USA government's highly successful campaign to convert the "home of the brave" to the "land of gutless wimps" disgusts me. People are lining up to give away their civil rights (and their tax dollars) chasing some imaginary feeling of security that can't really be achieved since they have become terrorized, puling cowards.

Re:Speak for yourself, John Alden.

[SpaceAdmiral]

I don't think fighting disease and crime are mutually exclusive endeavors, so I'm not convinced that the comparison is relevant. I mean, sure diseases kill more people and should therefore be addressed aggressively, but that doesn't say anything about terrorism. (I realize that both endeavors are sort of correlated because they get their funding from the same pool of tax dollars, but I doubt disease prevention would automatically get the counter-terrorism funds if counter-terrorism programs were canceled).

Re:Speak for yourself, John Alden.

[Medievalist]

Good point about the funding. Personally, I would rather the government spent counter-terrorism money on alleviating the conditions that breed terrorism instead of ineffectual military bungling and pervasive surveillance. But unfortunately George didn't ask for my opinion. :(

Still, I stand by my observation that terrorists are underachieving losers. Terrorism is not even close to being a significant threat to US society. Al-Quaeda has killed what, 5000 people more or less? That's not worth any military expenditure or abrogation of civil liberties; more people have died playing High School football than that!

The UK is so big!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I agree with the other side, but it's easy for you to claim that your federal system works better. Your whole Island is about the size of Illinois, one measly moderate sized state out of 50. Our federal government has a lot more work to do, no doubt about it.

rules are for other people...

[YesIAmAScript]

I hate it when people romanticize unconstitutional action; happens in the movies all the time. "You can't do that!" "Oh? Are you going to make me get a warrant to search this place? Little Timmy could be dead by then!"

The truth? You can't handle the truth!

The FBI has little constitutional standing

[mangu]

how about the wing of the FBI that investiages kidnappings? ... How about the FBI department that handles serial killers?

According to the Constitution, neither is in the list of things the federal government must investigate.

The US Constitution is a wisely written document, and that's why it has survived for over two centuries. It states how the government is constituted, from which its name is derived. It states what the federal government can do, and things the government cannot do. Its first ammendments state some basic rights citizens have, things no government can take away.

The best of all, are the limits stated by the government on these rights and attributions: if something isn't prohibited by the law, every citizen is allowed to do it. OTOH, unles something is specifically mentioned in the constitution, the federal government cannot make laws regulating it.

The FBI is in a very delicate situation on all this, its existence hangs on a mandate by the constitution allowing the federal government "to regulate interstate commerce". In the cases you mention, serial killers and kidnappers, the FBI doesn't start investigating them unless there is evidence that the criminal has crossed state lines. Even then, it's a wild stretch of imagination to assume that a serial killer or kidnapper is involved in interstate commerce.

Re:The FBI has little constitutional standing

[kraut]

> The US Constitution is a wisely written document, and that's why it has survived for over two centuries.
Actually, it's probably survived more by being ignored whenever expedient. /ducks

Re:This is going to end very badly someday

[Anonymous Coward]

"They don't. But hot pursuit carries a different standard. And remember they 4th doesn't say "Police, Intelligence agancies, hell NOBODY can do anything without a warrant." It says citizens are protected against "unreasonable search and seizure"."

Actually it as says:

Amendment 4
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The later part of it would seem to imply that what constitutes a reasonable search and/or seizure is to be determined by the courts and supported by issuance of a warrent. Indeed there is a Supreme Court ruling that says warrantless searchs are inconsistant with the 4th amendment and therefore unreasonable.

In the United States v. Rabinowitz (1950), 339 U.S. 56, the Supreme Court of the United States had held that a search without warrant was not ipso facto unreasonable. Seventeen years later, however, in Katz, Stewart J. concluded that a warrantless search was prima facie "unreasonable" under the Fourth Amendment

Also
"Over and again, this Court has emphasized that the mandate of the [Fourth] Amendment requires adherence to judicial processes," United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 51

Correct procedure

[mcspoo]

As the "computer geek" for several libraries, I can state without doubt that they only did what they're supposed to do. Libraries are governed in part by the Library Privacy Act. The Library Privacy Act states in no uncertain terms that Libraries are REQUIRED BY LAW to protect any and all personally identifiable information. This means, we can't even tell you if your 10 year old kid used the computers or checked out a book UNLESS you have a warrant or Patriot Act Summons. If the FBI, CIA, NCIS, or Dubbya showed up unannounced and demanded we hand over our computers WITHOUT a warrant or summons... we'd tell them to go fetch said warrant or summons. It's a simple check and balance system. All this article illustrates is the failure of the FBI agents to follow the letter of law: you can't look up someones personal information (which every computer used for public internet access may or may not have on it) without the proper paperwork. Incidentally, if the FBI or whomever showed up at any of the Libraries I work for and asked for computers... they'd be SOL, even with a warrant: there IS no information stored on our computers thanks to software like Deep Freeze.

Re: President Said that Wiretaps Require Court Ord

[flubbergust]

If I had mod point I would mod you funny cause that was funny. G.W.B cares about the constitution. Now that would be something I love to see.

but "too late"=="before the attack"...WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

He nicely side-stepped the issue by redefining the terms. If instead of "we did not know about their plans until it was too late" he had said "we did not know about their plans until X days before the attack" (a true but less amgiuous statement) it would have become a pretty poor rationale for instituting warrantless wiretaps.

Re:This is going to end very badly someday

[aboyko]

You seem confused. Nobody hates our country, especially not librarians. We just hate you.

Librarians are not a "core moonbat constituency". Librarians are the people most acquainted with "knowledge", which is a kind of useful information that the right has no particular acquaintance with. Many librarians are also familar with "history", and "reading comprehension", and several other fields and skills that, again, the right has generally discarded as inconvenient. So, from the reality-based community's perspective, librarians are just doing what they have always done; it's just that the right isn't particularly fond of core values like the open flow of information or free inquiry.

You don't see a use for the FBI? Pleeease.

[TehDagda]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

-Benjamin Franklin

Re:This is going to end very badly someday

[jmorris42]

> Librarians are not a "core moonbat constituency".

Riight. Listen buddy, I was there in Texas and saw what I saw. Think about what I said. In Texas, the very heart of Bush Country, the vast majority of librarians were to the left of the Democratic party. I was there at ALA's national convention in 2000 and saw the blatent politicization of the ALA bookstore. I know librarians. I happen to be fortunate enough to work in a library that has a diverse collection of people that also includes Republicans and Libertarians but am under no delusions as to what the average looks like.

Like leftists in general, they are no more devoted to free inquiry than the Taliban.

Your rights

[homebrewmike]

Your rights: use 'em or loose 'em.

Exigent circumstances?

[bobpence]

The threat was to blow up a building, but then again the FBI was talking about taking the computers rather apparently to get evidence to prosecute. It would have made more sense to clear the library and use the computers in place if they were racing the clock to find the bomber.

My question is, did the librarian do this same calculus? Or would she have obstructed a search if lives were on the line, or a terrorist act were imminent? She doesn't come off sounding like someone who recognizes that sometimes we as reasonable people can surrender non-essential liberties for a lot of security, and end up with both. (To flip the Ben Franklin quote, which is concerned with essential liberties, more fundamental than whether when lives are on the line an FBI agent can see the same things that minimum-wage library slaves peruse everyday.)

More most important - warrant limited search.

[fahrbot-bot]

Even more importantly, the warrant limited the search on the computers to the e-mail and those sent around the same time.

Without the warrant, the FEDs could have searched anything found on the PC. From the article:

Late that evening, the FBI received a warrant to cart away the three computers. According to Mayor Cohen, the warrant allows the FBI to view only the threatening e-mail message and the messages sent immediately before and after that message.
...
"We were able to both protect public safety and also protect the rights of people, the sense of privacy of many, many innocent users of the computers," he said. "Had we given them the computers, they would have gotten to see e-mails from ordinary citizens doing ordinary things and would not have preserved privacy."

Re:Shes Stupid

[nurb432]

No, im just not into answering stupid questions by people like you who wouldnt understand the answer.

Re:This was not (as stated) a librarian from Brand

[Anonymous Coward]

I beg your effing pardon, but did you go to the school in question, do or did you live in Waltham? I Did. your description of the school is false and without merit. Go bite a rock.

She should be fired...

[GigG]

This would be the equivalent to me calling the police that someone has broken into my home and then my wife not letting them in without a warrant. Brandeis University was the victim of the crime that had been committed. For and employee to not then help in anyway she could in the investigation is stupid. Had this been in any other business other than a University the woman would have been fired before they could have gotten the warrant.

Re:She should be fired...

[Captain Sarcastic]

Your example is not a parallel situation.

If you read the article, you will see that the librarian co-operated with the FBI in everything else except seizing all of the computers. She let them in, she had her staff work with the FBI investigators on looking at the computers for the information they wanted -- and as a result, they only had to seize three computers instead of 20.

Also, as has been pointed out, she is not an employee of Brandeis University, nor was the library where the FBI agents visited a part of Brandeis University.

It's more along the lines of the guy living 2 streets down getting a visit from the cops to search his attic because of a sniper threat at someone's house. He'd might willing to let them look at the roof, he'd probably be willing to let them look at the outside of the house, but he might understandably demand a search warrant before letting them into his house.

But, as this IS SlashDot, and it IS easier to skim the headlines than to read the article, reactions like this should be expected.

Your smug pontification makes me angry.

[Medievalist]

#1 - I ADOPT. Do you? No? Then shut up about who has the "right" to have kids. And yes, I am fertile, as is my spouse, although it's none of your business. I have a biological kid too. And no, I don't adopt Chinese or Russian babies, I can't afford to fly to exotic places and rescue children. I go to the closest major city, which happens to be Wilmington.

#2 - I do not ask for or receive any charity from you, the government, or anyone else. Period. I am self-sufficient through 20 years of hard work; I own productive land with game and clean water and I would be fine if every other human on the planet disappeared tomorrow. So shut up about paying for me, you simply don't. I pay for you, though, since you require the business environment that my tax dollars make possible - an environment my family does not require. I have read your blog and posts; you require social support structures far more than I do.

#3 - I don't watch TV, we cook at home, we don't have an X-box, we drive to the beach for vacation, and all your other typical classist and racist arguments don't apply to my family either.

So, I do have a right to have kids. I have demonstrated it by providing a home and education for homeless, parentless kids you clearly don't want to pay for.

You, on the other claw, have not earned the right to even talk about parenting, much less the right to be one. Your snide contempt for poor people's financial mismanagement invalidates whatever good your "churches" do with your donations, as far as I'm concerned; in fact I'd rather you kept your money and grew some compassion.

And finally: Listen, I've seen "kill all nigger-lovers" spray-painted on my goddamn sidewalk, when we were the only mixed-race family in the plastic yuppie neighborhood I used to live in. I'm marked for death by the fucking phineas priests because I'm actually doing something meaningful while you grub for money and post clueless tripe about parenting on the Internet. Go adopt some parentless inner-city children, raise 'em up to be productive, self-actualized human beings and then you'll have the right to lecture me.

Re:Shes Stupid

[finkployd]

Touche, I bow to your superior public debate skills.

Finkployd

When will they get their hardware back

[dpilot]

Makes me wonder when they'll get their computers back...

Though it sounds as if without the warrants, 30 would have been seized, but only 3 with the warrants.

Still, I wonder if there will be some hidden "retribution" expressed in return time or condition.

No really

[geekoid]

They don't need a warrent to look through the windows.
In Nevada, the detain you, have you car impounded, then search it as part of the impound procedure.

Clear and in Half-an-Hour Danger

[maggard]

The FBI was working under the supposition that people were in fairly immediate danger and that they needed to move to get the information ASAP. They determined that previous case law allowed for this

The FBI is quite able to get a search warrant quickly when it needs to. There is always a judge on call expressly for such emergency situations.

Furthermore this wasn't a panicked run to the library, there was a call made a half hour prior to their arrival informing the library. In that time the agents would have had no difficulty obtaining the required warrant and confirming it with the library upon their arrival.

Instead the FBI agents involved (incorrectly) assumed they could walk in, seize, and then search anything they wished. That they assumed so points to a grave deficiency in their training and understanding of the legal requirements they operate under.

Re:This is going to end very badly someday

[Hatta]

Listen up folks, this hate of our own country is going to end up getting a lot of people killed just to stroke some moonbat egos.

What's a moonbat?

Re:This is going to end very badly someday

[BillWhite]

I don't understand what your disagreement with the Newton librarians is. They told the FBI that they needed a warrant, and you say you would do the same thing. Noone has charged that the Newton librarians were trying to resist a legal authority. They only required that the law be followed. This is not something a conservative has much use for or interest in, I realize. Respect for the law is, apparently, a liberal notion.

FWIW, I would have probably been applauding for Ralph Nader as well, as he is the most honest and straightforward person in political life in the US today, possibly tied with Jim Hightower.

Re: President Said that Wiretaps Require Court Ord

[eclectic4]

Are you seriously suggesting that we take his words as nothing but the truth and leave it at that? Jeebus dude... at least post some facts or something and then we can show you the changes that were made that make his "words" true, but far from the complete story.

I'm sorry, but the ones we have give the opportunity to represent us should be questioned more than anyone. Take off the blinders.

Life Sucks. Wear A Helmet.

[FatSean]

You can't get everything. You can't have freedom without some risk. I'm sorry, but the whole 'child kidnapping' thing is a bunch of hype. My cynical side says it's hype originated by the media to grab viewers, and exploited by the government to grab power.

For me, I'm willing to risk not having the FBI arround to investigate my child's kidnapping.

Besides, how many go missing right now even with the FBI? LOTS. Where are the stats on kidnapped children actually found by the FBI? I don't know, but I bet the percentage is LOW.

Therefore, not worth the loss of freedom.

Re:She should be fired...well maybe not.

[GigG]

But, as this IS SlashDot, and it IS easier to skim the headlines than to read the article, reactions like this should be expected.

Mea Culpa. I didn't read the article that the original poster cited but I did read the origianl post and it clearly read... "A librarian at Brandeis University forced the FBI to obtain a warrant to seize computers used to send threats."

Re:This is going to end very badly someday

[jmorris42]

> I don't understand what your disagreement with the Newton librarians is.

As I explain in another post, I had read a different account passed around librarian mailing lists over the weekend. Much higher moonbat spin on the version I read. But I still question why they even brought the press in on it at all. If they hit me with a request I'll need the warrant to comply with State Law (which I do consider to be a good law btw.) but I'm more than willing to do my bit to stop some asshat that thinks it is funny to email in a bomb threat. In a nutshell, I believe I'm basically on the same side as the law. I get the feeling those librarians in MA, even after the warrant were grudgingly turning the stuff over only because they had no other option and then running to the nearest reporter to whinge about who horrible the whole ordeal was. Good grief, you would think the FBI showed up with rubber hoses or something.

Re:She should be fired...well maybe not.

[Captain Sarcastic]

OK, I can see that - I was feeling the same way until I read the article myself.

Perhaps Slashdot needs to be a little more accurate in their headlines.

[offers hand]

Re: President Said that Wiretaps Require Court Ord

[Smurf]

Are you seriously suggesting that we take his words as nothing but the truth and leave it at that?

I think you missed the point of the parent's post. In my opinion, he was just being sarcastic to make us realize that those very clear words that Bush said in April, 2004, directly contradict what he has been saying lately.

In other words, months before being re-elected, he proclaimed himself as a champion of constitutional rights. Less than two years later, he is claiming that those rights should have exceptions. And he wasn't supposed to be the flip-flopper...

False axioms

[Tony]

Within a group of voluntary cooperation, both parties in any transaction profit from the transaction.

You say this as if it were axiomatic. It is not. It is only true when all other sources of power and coercion are equal, when both parties are on equal footing.

I have seen too many instances of sleazy people taking advantage of times of grief, or ignorance, or a superior social position. Your axiom works only when honor is involved, and in my experience, too many people lack honor.

Re:False axioms

[viashno]

As I see it, the problem is that people are not striving for perfection in themselves. We fear that everyone else is trying to cheat and swindle us for all we have, and then seek to protect our material belongins, rather than striving for strength of character and happiness. Happiness does not come from owning your car and house, or even your Porsche and mansion. Instead happiness comes from loving, and in order to love you must be able to trust. Now, I know that no one is perfect, and that there are people out there who will cheat, lie, and steal. This is where the government comes in, government in general is meant to protect you from the ill will of others. But when the people who have come to the mistaken thought that money and power equal happiness are put into a position of government, the system becomes corrupt. The people who wrote the constitution knew this, and the preamble itself suggests that they knew it was flawed, even if they could not forsee the ways in which it would be misused. This is why they said "in order to form a more perfect union" rather than to assume it was perfect and set it in stone. This is also why they included provisions for ammending the constitution, so that when flaws were found, they could be corrected. These ammendments are sacred, meant to protect the rights of the people, rather than restrict them, by dictating who can marry who, based on sexual preference. Alas, I digress. In short, strive for happiness rather than wealth, and remember that the government exists to serve and protect its people, not restrict them, and when a government becomes corrupt, it is time to begin reworking it.

Your story sounds familiar...

[Thunderstruck]

Oh yeah, I remember... Luke Chapter 18:

          11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

          12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

(With appologies to /. for quotin' scripture)

Re:This is going to end very badly someday

[chinton]

Google is your friend.

What's a Librarian?

[juancnuno]

Is that like Google?

that's called "probable cause"

[YesIAmAScript]

I've seen that ep of Cops a lot. That's the one where they end up recording him calling her from a pay phone to ask why she set him up.

But anyway, having a tip of drugs in a car is probable cause. If a cop doesn't have probable cause, they need a warrant. Just speeding or having a taillight out or something isn't probable cause to search your vehicle.

I thought most people actually knew all this stuff. I guess not.

Re:Congratz - Radical Militant Librarians...

[jollygreengiantlikes]

You should all take a look at the following page:
https://www.ala.org/ala/oif/basics/basicrelatedlin ks/radicalbutton.htm
with more details at:
http://www.librarian.net/stax/1575
The gist is that the parent is right on. We should learn from our librarians how to be better protectors of our civil liberties.
JGG

Re:Shes Stupid

[nurb432]

What debate? Im right. Always.

Re: President Said that Wiretaps Require Court Ord

[srobert]

In my opinion, you are correct.

Not Heartless - Learn to be a Parent

[gadlaw]

Watch your child or children. You're the parent, it's your responsibility. If your child or children tends to want to run away, discipline him or her and make sure it doesn't continue to happen. You're the parent, it's what you signed up for. Hopefully you taught them to not run in the street, play with fire or run with scissors already but if you don't know how to discipline or take care of your child or children then get some help from someone who can teach you. Also you might want to learn how to keep them from screaming or acting up in public, most parents have a handle on that and if you are one of those parents who is without a clue then for heavens sakes buy a clue and get some parenting help. I see too many children outside alone, parents all too busy to sit out onside and watch their children play. Too many excuses for lack of attention and proper care. Not many children will actually have harm befall them but why tempt fate. Be a better parent.

Librarians of the worlds unite

[Anonymous Coward]

OOOOK..

Um, the FBI agents dropped the ball here...

[Anonymous Coward]

The librarian did the right thing by refusing. As the mayor pointed out, law enforcement can seize ANYTHING if they believe a crime is in progress (like a bombing).

The FBI agents either didn't really believe the threat was credible, or they were ridiculously over-concerned with their PR image and didn't do what is within ANY law enforcement officer's right to protect the public....as the Mayor pointed out "the agents probably would have seized the computers without even asking for them."

The PATRIOT act extends this exception to public email terminals:

=====================

SEC. 212. EMERGENCY DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS TO PROTECT LIFE AND LIMB.

`(3) a provider of remote computing service or electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications covered by paragraph (1) or (2)) to any governmental entity.';

`(c) EXCEPTIONS FOR DISCLOSURE OF CUSTOMER RECORDS- A provider described in subsection (a) may divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service...if the provider reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person justifies disclosure of the information"

And to add to your list...

[eugene ts wong]

"You can't be a gynecologist, unless you are a woman."

I believe that women should have an advantage in this area of study, but that doesn't mean that men know nothing.

The scary thing is...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

The scary thing is the Feds expected to get what they want, without a search warrant. Instead of working under the limits of the law, they went right into action and tried to do whatever they wanted.

Quite scary that they would expect anyone to just go along with that.

Re:The scary thing is...

[aeoneal]

Really scary is that TV shows seem to promote this kind of behavior. Law & Order, CSI, and others show police regularly asking for privacy-betraying, civil-liberty-infringing information without warrants, and occasionally threaten disruption of business, etc., when they are resisted. Citizens who cooperate with the police sans warrants are shown as good, supportive characters.

While the shows may be doing this to avoid having to include getting a warrant in the plot line, the message to the millions of viewers is that warrants are technicalities which don't really have a serious purpose. Simply because this is done by networks and not the government doesn't mean it doesn't have a propaganda-like influence.

Re:This is going to end very badly someday

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that librarians, as a group, are a core moonbat constituitency group. I'm serious, I work in the library world. I attended the Texas Library Association's convention in 2004. Ralph Nader was their keynote speaker and gave a straight up campaign speech to standing ovations. And since this incident happened in MA they happened to have a moonbat for a mayor. So they all felt real good, sticking it to the 'man', those minions of the hated Bushitler. And nothing went boom so they think they got away with it along with almost everyone here on slashdot, DailyKos, DU, etc. But to quote Lt. Cmdr Ivanova, "No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a Boom tomorrow."

Yeah, that little constitution thing just gets in the way all the time eh? Firstly, I work in a real library (as opposed to you down there in bumfucked) and the folks there are just fine. They don't drink the Bush Kool-Aid. Secondly, you're an idiot, your linux distro sucks, and I will find it funny if RedHat ever finds a way to drum your stupid parasitic ass out of existence.

Shot placement counts

[StupidKatz]

Google for Trooper Mark Coates.

Short version: a state trooper shot an obese perp four times in the torso with .357 magnum hollowpoints - the perp lived to serve prison time. Conversely, the bad guy shot the trooper once more with a .22 pistol *after* being shot - and the bullet severed an artery, resulting in the trooper bleeding to death at the scene.

It's not that you shoot them - it's *where* you shoot them.

The other matter is, that once someone doesn't go down after being shot the first time, there's a tendancy to empty the firearm. Keep in mind that lethal force is allowed only when someone's life, usually the shooter's, is in danger, and then it's easy to justify someone being shot ten times.

If you don't vote...

[Anonymous Coward]

...you get no say. QQ loser

Re:This is going to end very badly someday

[aboyko]

You're mixing the tautologically meaningless and the just plain stupid. Of course librarians lean leftward, because if your job is to encourage the use and understanding of information, you're doing liberal works by definition. What possible analogy can you draw between 'leftists' and the Taliban that isn't purely retarded? The Taliban are religious conservatives, you moron; they're book-burning art-cleansing opposition-killing zealot fanatics, just like we have in the US, and in the US I can assure you those folks aren't voting Democratic.

I happen to be fortunate enough to work in a library that gets evacuated on occasion, because of actual terrorist threats, like airplanes heading toward it. In 2001, this place was closed because of anthrax in the ventilation. Also, it's sitting a block away from a likely target of Flight 93 on 9/11/01. Do you dare accuse the people who come to work here of hating America, because their politics differ from yours, while you sit in some podunk little town that's never going to be a terrorist target because it's hundreds of miles away and several decades in the past? You myopic imbecile.

Speaking only for myself, of course, and not for liberals, librarians, or anyone else,
I will confess that part of my reason for working in libraries is to ensure that by preserving and sharing human knowledge, and not just the parts your favorite party deems acceptable, that mindless thuggish fascism will inevitably be overcome, and basic Jeffersonian American values won't be called "hating our country" by people like you.

Re: President Said that Wiretaps Require Court Ord

[AK Marc]

And he wasn't supposed to be the flip-flopper...

I think he flipp-flopped on whether to be a flip-flopper.