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.
Doesn't Ms Glick-Weil know that demanding that law enforcement agencies obtain warrants (even retrospectively) makes the country unsafe, and helps terrorists? I know this, because no less an authority than The President said while talking about NSA wiretaps in last nights State of The Union address.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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.
I imagine the Librarian being a several hundred pound orangutan didn't hurt things either. I hope they didn't call him a monkey. He hates that.*
*for those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, you have my pity and should click here or here for more information.
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 done, librarian. Same rules for everyone: students aren't allowed to burst into the library, talking loudly on their mobile phones and brandishing weapons, and neither are the FBI. Agent Marcinkiewicz must also pay her outstanding fines before she is allowed to borrow any more books, or computers.
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....
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
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
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
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.
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.
... 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
....next article... .....Librarian vanishes....... ....next article...... ...Dewey Decimal System big hit in Guantanamo Bay.
Take that forces of evil.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
There's really nothing to see here, unless you think the system never works the way it's supposed to.
Personally, I applaud the actions of the librarian. Not everybody feels the same however: http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?artic leid=122959/
Mrs. Glick-Weil was indicted on charges of methamphetamine production which caused a fire that subsequently burned her entire house down. FBI agents have determined that all evidence of the lab was destroyed in the blaze. She was also ticketed for a broken tail lamp.
>"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!
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.
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.
What are you talking about? The President supports getting warrants.0 040420-2.html
In HIS own words:
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
G.W.B. April 20, 2004
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/2
Is there a number we can call to confirm that a warrant is actually valid?
Yes - fortunately, though, it's printed on the warrant itself so there's no need to remember it.
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
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.
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.
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
#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.
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.
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.