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.'"
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.
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.
Mrs. Kathy Glick-Weil,
Thank you, for being a citizen. I wish more Americans would be more like you.
"The word "genius" isn't applicable in football. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein," - Joe Theisman
Seriously... good for her.
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.
What worries me more is that this type of behavior, i.e. demanding a warrant before relenquishing information/property, is abnormal.
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.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
There's really nothing to see here, unless you think the system never works the way it's supposed to.
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
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.
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!!!
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
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.
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.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
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.
#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.
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.