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.'"
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
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.
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.
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)
liqbase
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.
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
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.
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'
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.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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.
"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.
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?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Besides, the grandparent obviously has no children of his own, as he has a delusion that children could be watched over 24/7.
Bot Assisted Blogging
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
Or even that they should be watched over 24/7.
Donate free food here
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.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
#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.