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 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?
Radical Militant Librarians
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....
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?
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.
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
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.
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.
I like muppets.
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.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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."
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!"
Please help metamoderate.
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.
Conclusion: the Empire squashes the Federation like a bug. Accept it.
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!
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.
"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"
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.
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.
Blar.