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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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'
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 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.
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.
"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
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.
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
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
Actually, it's a matter of statistics that most kidnappings are BY one of the parents. Kidnapping by stranger is so rare as to be the exception that makes the news (extra points for young, white, girl).
#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.
The rich already makes and enforce the laws. Look at copyright extensions, software patents, DMCA, and other related legislature. Most libertarians do not support this political bribery at all, and wish it would be done away with.
Why do so many people spew all of this bad crap about libertarianism? Libertarianism is about reducing the government's role to protecting our individual freedoms, and is about promoting free markets, indivudal freedoms, and limited government. You need to start reading about libertarians before you compare a libertarian society to serfdom. (In fact, one libertarian, Friedrich Hayek, wrote a book called The Road to Serfdom which describes what happens when socialist and collectivist policies are implemented. Go and read, before you spew anti-libertarian garbage.