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

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...

[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...

[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.

Congratz

[Kushy]

Mrs. Kathy Glick-Weil,

Thank you, for being a citizen. I wish more Americans would be more like you.

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.

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: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?

[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?

[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: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.

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: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: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?

[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?

[Halo1]

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

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.