Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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."
--
make install -not war
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.
circa75.com
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.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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.
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
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.
... 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.
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
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.
Personally, I applaud the actions of the librarian. Not everybody feels the same however: http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?artic leid=122959/
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.
>"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.
---- Take the Space Quiz!
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
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.
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"