Slashdot Mirror
Library Chief Criticized for Requiring Subpoena
sudnshok writes "Hasbrouck Heights (NJ) Library Director Michele Reutty is under fire for refusing to give police library circulation records without a subpoena. Her lawyer explained, 'Reutty did the right thing... At no time did Michele Reutty say to any police officer or anybody else that she would not give the information if it was properly requested.' However, borough labor lawyer Ellen Horn, who also represented the library trustees, said Reutty was 'more interested in protecting' her library than helping the police. 'It was an absolute misjudgment of the seriousness of the matter,' Horn said."
protecting privacy is not "cool" any more...
sad day
FTA: the mayor called it "a blatant disregard for the Police Department"
When the police are breaking the laws (or sneaking around them) who do we ask to protect us?
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
"I followed the law. And because I followed the law, at the end of the day, the policemen's case is going to hold strong. Nobody is going to sue the library and nobody is going to sue the municipality of Hasbrouck Heights because information was given out illegally."
That's actually the best argument she can make. Any case prosecutors will have against this man will be much stronger because the library complied with the applicable law(s) when responding to a police request. What if that evidence had been thrown out because it was illegally, or at least questionably, obtained?
She's under fire from people with little regard for people's rights, and she's presumably respected by many readers of Slashdot for getting the authorities to apply `due process` and not just do what she's told like something out of Russia or something. If the police aren't abusing their powers and have a legal claim to the information then what's the problem here?
Teachers and librarians are the real heroes. They change the world without ever kicking down a door.
Faith: n. -- That human impulse that drives them to steal appliances when the power goes out
violation of fundamential civil right principles is far more heinous a crime
than any child molestation, rape, murder, or terrorist act.
but then, the population of that country called USA really doesn't give a damn
about that thing called liberty it gives drone-like lip service too.
never did really.
And journalists rarely let facts get in the way of a good story. So, I would caution people to not assume everything printed is correct. Nonetheless, to whatever degree it is true that a librarian was asked to break the law by the police, the librarian was in the right to refuse. She is likely to be punished, possibly severely, regardless. I doubt the city or the police will forget in a hurry, no matter who was in the right, and that should be the real point of concern. When revenge becomes more important than upholding the law, there is no law. It is a troubling cultural divide by zero error.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I hope they drag you away sometimes without asking questions. Fucking moron.
are you serious?? You think the entire law of due process and the requiring of warrants should be overturned because of this case?
i never really thought having warrants and keeping the police in check was a bad thing....
Troll
What have you been drinking? I want it too.
Get sober and come back to read what you wrote.
Laters
A search requires a warrant, it's one of those things called "rights" and it's even in the US Constitution. Unless you are "fighting terror", an improperly conducted search will get thrown out by the courts and then the "bad guys" usually get a walk. Now as someone who doesn't think the police require warrants to conduct searches you either you want bad guys to get off, you hate America, or you are a fucking idiot - which is it?
'more interested in protecting' her library than helping the police.
You don't say? That's precisely why that rule exists in the first place! Fucking morons.
1. You're an idiot.
When everyone gets together to "help" you have mob rule, riots, and other nasty things that generally follow the rule that the intelligence of a group is inversely proportional to the size of the group.
Secondly, you're exactly right that it is not her library, it's the cities and more importantly the patrons library: And it's also their data. It's not her place to give it to whom she deems may see it. That decision has been passed on to judges, hence requiring the police to ask one for a warrant.
If we go and throw out logically reasoned laws everytime a kid is in trouble from some jerk we'll throw the law to the wind and have a "society" of chaotic anarchy, no offense to anarchists.
It's called "due process". Or maybe you prefer the cops play judge/jury/executioner and shoot anyone who has checked out that library book just to be on the safe side.
Please refrain from reading anything ever again. In future, if you ever require an opinion please contact your local law enforcement authority and you will be issued one in due course. Do not give out this opinion to others as a) they don't want to hear it and b) they will source their own opinions from wherever they see fit.
Yours truly,
George Bush,
Prezident of the United Satest.
I hate printers.
From TFA:
Borough labor lawyer Ellen Horn, who also represented the library trustees, said Reutty was "more interested in protecting" her library than helping the police.
"It was an absolute misjudgment of the seriousness of the matter," Horn said at Tuesday's meeting.
What utter bullshit. She doesn't work for the police, and it is her job and her legal mandate to protect the privacy of people who check out books from her library.
These "borough officials" are nothing but a bunch of grandstanding politician assholes trying to make their careers by harassing a librarian who was doing her job the way it should be done. They should all be voted out of office.
A quick googling reveals that you can send your thanks and support to reutty@BCCLS.ORG.
I already have.
(Does anyone else just love that some cases are too important for proper legal procedure? They should have gotten warrants in the first place...)
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
If the police can commit crimes, so can the rest of us!
Warrants are there for a reason.
What if the dangerous paedophile actually managed, through hard work and dedication, to get a job on the police force? Sure, the overwhelming majority of police are good, but it's definitely possible for ONE bad cop to get through. Should he be able to get your child's records without anyone even looking over his work to determine if it's 'warranted'?
Food for thought.
She's obstructing justice, IMHO. By the time that warrant is issued, the lead could be cold. Did she consult the trustees? If it's the law, it's a law that should be amended.
I could maybe see your point if this were a case of a missing person, but how could the lead go cold? The information isn't going anywhere, and if you rush something like this you're apt to get slick lawyers unraveling the entire case. The law is fine, it's sloppy police work that needs to be fixed.
When will our legislature take a stand against these domestic book-huggers?
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. ~Benjamin Franklin
No, that's bullpoop. The police could have come up with the subpoena in minutes if there was sufficient cause. The woman in question is NOT in the position to make the policy decision that the information she could provide would be material in the case. That's a question for a judge.
In September, I ran the datacenter in the Houston Astrodome during the Hurricane Katrina disaster. The organization I was working for (a large international organization that provides relief in disasters, hint hint) keeps data on the people who seek help private. In fact, that's their mantra. I received visits from no less than FOUR Department of Homeland Security deputies who wanted to get their hands on the refugee data, purportedly to track sexual predators. Some of these requests were polite and some were not. I've encountered similar requests within the last year for data in my corporate job as well.
It's my observation that these people will ALWAYS appeal to our base fear when they encounter barriers to getting the data they want, knowing that no one wants to aid and abet "Sexual Predators" or "Terrorists". That's why the due process laws, calling for subpoenas are in place here in the US (but for how long?) I can only hope that we can come to our senses and end this gross abuse of power. . . . Has anyone else had similar experiences? How come we never really hear much about it?
Reutty was 'more interested in protecting' her library [and its users] than helping the police
I think I'd actually be proud if someone said something like that about me.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
http://www.hasbrouck-heights.nj.us/#Municipal%20Ph one%20Numbers
Sounds like fun to me.
What's a library? No, seriously...
If the police were hot on a pedophile or sex offender, they would have been able to get their warrant in no time. This is a case of the police trying to be above the law and being sore because they were put in their place.
Also it's a public library, and a public place, and I would hope that a librarian would use her power to protect the public. We have a due process for a reason. Any potential "sex offender" has rights too. Innocent until proven guilty.
hell in a handbasket I tell you...
Those who would sacrifice liberty over security, deserve neither security nor liberty.
-Benjamin Franklin
None taken.
-- A card-carrying anarchist.
Dumbass.
and that leaves exactly 1% that are bad.
How is she suppose to tell the difference? Or is she suppose to just let them all have access to our records without proper paper work? There's a reason for the proper paper work. So that way the corrupt cops can't swing by after work still in uniform and decide to see what someone is doing because they're planning something devious.
The problem isn't her. The problem is that the police cannot obtain a warrant fast enough. Just because *that* is a problem, doesn't mean the solution is to allow police access to records without having to get a warrant.
Police are people too. They're not impervious to committing crimes themselves. She's protecting the well being and privacy of individuals.
Alleged sex offender. Allegedly scoping out your child. What's stopping them from pulling YOUR library records because they don't like you, and making up some story to throw you behind bars. This dude was 23, probably was a skateboarder or something and said "lick me where I pee" but the police wants to get rid of such a trouble maker so they just pin sexual comments on him. Maybe the girl threw something at his car, or maybe she's lying. God knows 12 year olds NEVER lie. I don't see how someone's library records could possibly stop a life or death situation. You see that stupid crap in the movies all the time but that doesn't make it real. Real police work is tedious and exhaustive. It has to be that way to protect the innocent. That is what sets America apart from the rest of the world. Now if a bunch of Redneck cops want to flex on the constitution, and then COMPLAIN that the librarian didn't LET THEM? Shit, it's every citizen's duty to make sure that the constitution is followed and to speak out if it isn't. For the protection of future generations. But I forgot, only "lefties" think about the future.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
that the ones supposed to UPHOLD the Law are the first ones wanting to BREAK the Law.
Second - the Library director did the right thing. Why? Because if the information she gave was obtained without "due process", the pedophile could get free because of this. Now who would be the one to blame? The Library. Wonderful.
I'd pretty much tell the stupid police to just do their job and STFU.
What about the privacy of the people who didn't commit the crime ? What if the next step from the police was to search every house in the city and then arrest the person who had this book, would you be up for that ?
Do you have any of his pillow-talk quotes?
That guy was quite the swinger if the circumstances of his own death are recalled. Those are great too.
You also should check out his quote about pennies - hillarious stuff in modern context.
Yeah, because the Government is scared at how many times Harry Potter has been checked out in the past few months, and that's kind of like file sharing, except they don't really steal it because they give it back to their community. Eventually.
P.S. Every major city will be holding a book burning this July 4th in celebration of our Independence; our Independence from free-thought that does not consist of A. Jesus or B. NASCAR.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
Far from being an "... absolute misjudgment of the seriousness of the matter", this librarian correctly realized that it was a serious matter which she was not qualified or empowered to judge. She deferred to the courts, which are only appropriate and authorized arbiter of police search powers.
Bravo, Ms. Reutty!
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
Of course they did. Journalists file FOIA requests all day long, and have to wade through mountains of forms to get information that should be freely available to any citizen, if the governement wasn't fricking corrupt. Cops are supposed to have to do the same thing for data that isn't freely available. That's the law. And after filing dozens of FOIA requests for police reports, you bet your ass they jumped on it when the cops tried to pretend like they were above the law.
On top of that journalists are in a position where they can end up in posession of information that the government wants to know, and unlike librarians, they don't have the luxury of giving that info up if they want to continue in their careers. Strong and respected privacy laws are very much in their self interest.
And finally, journalists tend to be literate library affectionados, and, as such, are well disposed toward spunky, privacy-respecting librarians.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
In this drama, the police use illegal means to trap potential criminals.
None of the police are ever criticised or punished in any meaningful way for breaking the rules. The drama shows the rights of innocent people being routinely and egreiously trampled upon.
I see it as the BBC portraying what some people in government would like. No restraint on the police, no rules of evidence, no need, in fact for actual evidence -- just lock up (or better still, shoot) the people you think are the "bad guys". How many people will watch the drama and later think it is OK for the police to take such actions becasue "they have seen it on TV"?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
You forget, the police are above the law. They enforce it only on the people they choose to enforce it on. Or at least that's how it's getting to be.
If she hadn't forced them to follow the letter of the law, whoever this person was that broke the law initially could have turned around and used the illegal obtaining of his records in court to get the case thrown out.
That exact scenario has happened before, where these small-town cops get worked up, don't follow the rules, and it ends up hurting what could have been a simple, open-shut case if they had just had patience. I really wish I could post a link to the details (I've spent a lot of time in Jersey Boroughs) but usually there is little to no public record, things get lost, or safety nets are put in place.
Its really really sad actually.
1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
The police are out there busting their hump, protecting you and me. 99% of them are good
Apparently you've never been pulled over by a cop in Georgia.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
YMMD.
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
As a Lifelong resident, I have to agree. From local goverment to the state house, this state S*cks. As soon as my kids graduate, it's off to another state that lets me own a gun with out a hassle, and to let me shoot off a couple of bottle rockets to celebrate this COUNTRY's Independance, from the vey TYRANNY we are facing today.
What justice are you talking about? How do you know that blindly handing over anything the police might like would further this justice?
Personally, I like the idea of a fair trial, innocent until proven guilty, laws to protect the rights of individuals and all that stuff.
Quote: What if the dangerous paedophile actually managed, through hard work and dedication, to get a job on the police force?
It's not a far-fetched scenario. IIRC, a cop here where I live was busted within the last year for having a collection of kiddie-porn on his computer.
My hat is off to the librarian--you did the right thing, for the right reason. Tell the cops you would be glad to assist them with their request...once they have a court order requiring it.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Let's tell these sociopathic assholes what we think of their attempts to trample on our rights.
e w_Jerseyf o.html
HASBROUCK HEIGHTS NJ - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbrouck_Heights,_N
General Info - http://www.hasbrouck-heights.nj.us/general/townin
Mayor Ronald R. Jones
Borough of Hasbrouck Heights
320 Boulevard
Hasbrouck Heights, NJ 07604 USA
Phone: (201)-288-4111
Police Chief Michael Colaneri
Hasbrouck Heights (Bergen County)
248 Hamilton Avenue
Hasbrouck Heights, NJ 07604-1811
Phone: (201) 288-1000
Fax: (201) 288-1691
Bergen County Prosecutor's Office
10 Main Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Mon-Fri (201) 646-2300
After Hours (201) 646-2700
Also let's show Ms. Reutty our support!
Michele Reutty, Director
Free Public Library of Hasbrouck Heights
320 Boulevard, Hasbrouck Heights NJ 07604
E-mail: reutty@bccls.org
TEL: 201-288-0488
FAX: 201-288-6653
i am going to give her a call when i get done w/ work.
i gaurantee if the people involved get just a few dozen calls or emails it will make them think twice. please take a moment to show your anger and/or support.
Calm down Skippy. I know there's an almost uncontrollable reaction to do something here, but if the librarian had given up the lending lists, that idiot would have gotten off with any $100 dollar lawyer-- likely a public defender (who you, and I, have already paid for) could have gotten the case thrown out because of tainted evidence.
We are still a nation of laws. This isn't an Amber Alert-- the girl was home, unharmed, with her parents. This librarian made it possible for the police to gather useful, and legal, evidence to prosecute the bastard. I hope he rots in jail, but don't blame the librarian. She's doing her job, and keeping the local cops from blowing the case.
Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
If it's that serious, you want a trail of evidence and iron-clad law-abiding police searches and questioning to bring you through prosecution. The fact that the police failed to get a subpeona for a situation where one would likely be needed (they wouldn't have to use it right away, only if the librarian put up a fight).
I applaud this librarian for forcing the police to do their job. Why, if everyone did this, we might actually have a trust-worthy government! Oh, the horror!
The article mentions that reps from a library association went to a meeting to show support for Reutty, but I think it might help if concerned citizens from around the country let their voice be heard.
Hasbrouck Heights Library website
Here is a list of staff, with the board of trustees at the bottom. I can't find individual contact lists for them, but sending snail mail to the library and putting their name would probably work.
It seems that most any time privacy issues are called into question, one group always retreats to the "how dare you interfere" concept. They consider the rules irrlelvent because "the good guys would never abuse their power". If it were up to them it would be a police state, where the police did not have to follow the same laws the rest of us do. But they forget, this is the exact reason we have those laws, to protect the people from abuse by the government. In a perfect world where the government was just and wise, those such laws would not be necessary. But the government is oftentimes neither just nor wise, and in that case I prefer to have the law on my side to protect me from the abuse.
Stripping the people of the protection from persicution to make the job of law enforcement simpler is proteting people's fredom and rights by taking them away.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
This is the kind of opinion that is killing us. Flat out, no it isn't. Your "rights" don't include the right to molest, rape, murder, or terrorize.
Perhaps you didn't read the article, in which the police chief clearly stated that the suspect did not molest the girl. Now, exactly *who* in this case do you believe should forfeit their right to privacy?
I'd much rather deal with crime than a police state, thanks.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
If ANY law enforcement agency shows up and asks for anything, they had better have a warrant from a court in hand. These National Security Letters are bullshit and I wipe my ass with it after I scan and post it right here on slashdot.org, infowars.com, rense.com or whomever else would take it. Here that facist aggressor of the state. Fuck you. Yes this will drop the karma points, but I am damn tired of seeing facist police scum jackboots trying to set up a police state using secrecy and fear. I ain't scared of you people.
Apparently the police didn't think it was even serious enough to bother getting a subpoena.
It's not a troll, it's a genuine opinion.
Which makes you a total idiot.
Ben Franklin was wrong. You will always sacrifice privacy for security. Get used to it.
Uh, no. You see, not all of us are cowardly sheep ready to flush all our rights down the sewer the minute someone jumps out and screams "TERRAH! TERRAH! CRIME! TERRAH!! BOOGAH-BOOGAH-BOOGAH!!"
You, sir - and people like you - are a total disgrace to everything the United States stands for and an enemy to all those who believe in, and gave their lives for, liberty.
If this country ever does finally morph into the Stalinist police state you and you fellow sheep want so badly, I sincerely hope that you are among it's first victims. Coward.
Certain facts were presented, no matter the original spin. The police did not have a subpeona, and the chief of the library did not give them the information requested.
The facts are what we are cheering. It doesn't matter whether she helped an alleged pedophile get away or not. (She didn't.) She helped protect liberty. That's more than most of us do in a lifetime.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
You obviously don't understand what due process is. Please read Pennoyer v Neff, and the Supreme Court jurisprudence of "due process." Please read about notice. Please read about a minimum contacts analysis, and Burnham v Superior Court of California. You have no fucking clue what "due process" is. At all. You're confusing illegal search/siezure with due process. Seriously, shut up. IAAL. YHL. HAND.
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
Hold up on the bulldozer for another day, I've got parts made out of pure un-obtainium that I'd like to get this side of the state line. Then I'll buy that dozer the first tank of fuel...
Somebody should send this Horn person a copy of the Bill of Rights, with the appropriate ones (pural) that she wants to violate circled in red. And duplicates to the local papers for use on the editorial page.
What I want to know, is how does such a person manage to get into such a position of authority? If its an elected position, then come the next election, they should be remembered. And so would those who appointed this person is its an appointed position. If you live there, look it up folks, and act like you care by applying the 2nd box of liberty, the ballot box next election day.
--
Cheers, Gene
So? He was a lady's man. And very smart. And he helped build a country based on liberty.
I always use the "Penny saved" quote, only I use, "Hey! This totally fucking useless item is 20% off! We're saving money! It's like money in the bank!"
He was a genius. My lava lamp (on which I saved 20%) tells me so.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Obstructing justice is a specific crime, and this librarian came no where near to committing such a crime.
Even more to the point, interfering with police is not "obstructing justice," it's "interfering with an officer."
There is a very good reason for this distinction. The police can arrest a person, but they are not qualified and cannot be allowed to determine guilt or innocence on their own. They are not responsible for "justice," and dishing it out is not part of their job description.
"Justice" is the court's purview, and when you interfere with courts carrying out their duties, then, and only then, are you "obstructing justice."
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
"Reutty was 'more interested in protecting' her library than helping the police."
errr... call me stupid, but isn't that what her job supposed to be, protecting the library? I just don't get it... If she wanted to help the police, she'd be a neighborhood watch woman.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
She is doing more to save our liberties than the politicians: reutty@bccls.org
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"This is so that other librarians, when faced with a subpoena, will do the right thing." - Library Director Michele Reutty
Ah... The irrepressible idealism of youth.
--
Is being a pedophile illegal? I think you mean a child abuser.
Well said.
While RTFM-ing I ran across this jewel:
Actually, it was a proper delegation of judgement of the seriousness of the matter to ... a judge.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Citizens of the United States of America, you do realize you live in a fascist state, don't you?
Actually, the statement you're thinking of is "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Same idea, just a bit more wordy.
It's also not definitively attributable to Franklin. He *published* the book where it appeared, he was not the sole author, and he may or may not have penned that phrase.
A similarly insightful phrase that is attributable to him with certainty is "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
The law is in place, she was justified in her technicalities, but she violated the spirit of law enforcement.
What the hell is "the spirit of law enforcement"? "Law enforcement" first and foremost requires the agents in charge of executing that duty to *follow the law*, right? The separation of powers spelled out in the Constitution isn't some 200+ year old idea implemented just to inconvenience the police, you know.
You should probably read up on cases such as Warren v. D.C. and Castle Rock v. Gonzales that clearly establish that the police have no duty to help or protect anyone. If they have no legal duty to help anyone, exactly how is anyone obligated to break the law to help them? Often, the police aren't even aware what the law is. I don't say that to belittle them, just that it's a fact - just this week, I spent about half an hour talking with a local cop about state concealed weapons permits. He was a nice enough guy, but he had absolutely no clue as to what the state requirements for obtaining one were, where weapons are and aren't allowed, which weapons are and aren't legal, etc.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
if a crime was committed the criminal has no right to privacy.
Actually, the right to speak with a lawyer in private is pretty much universally guaranteed to criminals in the US, unless of course you are an "enemy combatant."
-- listen to interesting music, support independent radio... WPRB
Your statement is self-contradictory. A "child molestation, rape, murder, or terrorist act" IS a "violation of fundamential civil right principles."
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
it makes no difference if they were interested in the book itself or not.
in fact it makes no difference if there was even a crime commited or not.
in this particular case the girl was fine and the man was found to have not done anything wrong - but that too is irrelevant.
my question to you is: how exactly do you figure that an allegation made by someone who could very well by lying justifies violating MY privacy?
especially when the information is available through proper channels via a subpeona and noone is in any imminent danger whatosever.
i wish that you would kindly do us all a favor and spare us any further posts on a topic of which you clearly have no business offering advice on.
From TFA "The next day, borough police detectives asked Reutty to tell them who took out that book."
If the police had such a hot lead, why did they wait until the next day to follow it up?
We've heard medical people all tell us how much better prevention is then cure. Better it eat well and exercise then to get that double by-pass surgery. Same with crime but more so. Even if you catch the gang banger who shot the clerk at the store to robe the register it don't help the clerk. So when I'm in charge we will prevent crime. Yes we will. My plan is to put the thugs in jail BEFORE they comit the crime and there by prevent it. Police will be impowered to simply grab people off the streets who look like they may commit a crime in the future. With potential criminals eliminated we will all finaly be safe.
Library records which contain the names or other personally identifying details regarding the users of libraries are confidential and shall not be disclosed except in the following circumstances:
a. The records are necessary for the proper operation of the library;
b. Disclosure is requested by the user; or
c. Disclosure is required pursuant to a subpena [sic -- probably transcription error in the database] issued by a court or court order.
L. 1985, c. 172, s. 2, eff. May 31, 1985.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
If it was so serious that they needed to suspend due process to apprehend this criminal, why were they still able to indentify the suspect after having to wait to get their proper subpoenas 2 days later? I think the police were the ones who misjudged the seriousness. If the information they wanted was in the library records, it wasn't going to go anywhere while they waited.
hope you are reading this ms reutty, along with other courageous librarians
1 fuck the popo!
this is the first reaction most people would have. since people have historically given up thier lives for our freedom, it should follow that the heirs of this freedom should value it above safety, if for nothing else than to honor those sacrifices.
2 "It was an absolute misjudgment of the seriousness of the matter," Horn said at Tuesday's meeting.
this statement echoes the views of the police very well, and when listened to is very hard to dismiss. librarians do not have to deal with sex offenders, muderers, etc, and certainly do not have to protect the public from them. police do. and they do not like to fail in this. this creates the sense within many honorable police officers that people should be trusting and helpful. however, not all police officers, like masyors (see below) are honorable, and, unfortuneately it only takes a very small amount bad conduct on the part of a few individuals to hurt the reputation of the police as a whole.
but the police should be allowed to act quickly if the need arises. in this case it could prevent a predator from harming children, something most if not all people would be willing to suspend their rights for. in a broader sense, much prevention of harm can be achived by this. we will never really hear about the columbines that did not happen because police were able to detect and intervene. it would be a national tragedy if something like that happened because police had to wait for whatever reason.
3 compromise. there is a very simple solution to all of this. police should be able, on good faith, to write a statement to whoever they need information from, in lieu of a court order, perhaps stating that one is on the way, and also stipulating that time is too important to wait untill it arrives. such a statement would put responsible accountability on the officer who made it, and could easily be judged by any court at a later date to determine if a) it was a good faith argument made by the cop b) if it was legal (ie did not violate rights without cause) and c) should the evidence be allowed in court. by separating these 3 issues it would free the police officers of having to think about c) when performing their duty, only needing to worry about a) and b) which is their duty anyway.
0.5 wit. But the mayor called it "a blatant disregard for the Police Department,"
sounds like someone making inflammatory remarks for personal political gain, without any care being paid to making the situation better.
the mayor is an asshole.
Following the law is not a "misjudgement".
From the article, "But borough officials say Reutty intentionally stonewalled the police investigation by putting the library first.".
The subpeona has to be specific about what is to be seized. The librarian did what was proper.
The instrument was not license for a 'fishing expedition'. When the police returned with a more
specific instrument, she complied with the instrument.
This is how our system is supposed to work. The police were negligent OR STUPID. They ask
for subpoena's ALL the time. They should know that they need to be specific. Can you say "Keystone Cops employ Barney Fife"? Sure you can.
As stated previously, the city idiots are politicians, with NO CLUE. They were, after all, voted into office.
The inclusion of the city or Libraries lawyer, would most likely have not lead to ANY more protection to the
citizen's rights. Sadly, these same people have been around for many years, and have had the opportunity to
read newspapers that have published cases like this before. They did not read them or convienently forgot the precedents already in the law.
Pity.
Yesterday we didn't have time to follow the law because we had to catch a terrorist, today we didn't have time to worry about the law because a child molestor was on the lose, and tomorrow we won't have time for due process because...well, because it really just gets in the way of us doing our job. These Constitutional rights are just technicalities anyway, right?
Please don't lump all cops together in one group. Prejudice against any group is unfair to INDIVIDUALS. Not all cops are wannabe dictators just like not all computer geeks are virgins living in their parents' basement...well, I can't speak for you...because I don't KNOW YOU. Get the point?
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
That's exactly right. The criminal has no right to privacy. But in this case the police were inquiring about a person suspected to be a criminal, not about a proven criminal. The police have to prove to a judge that a certain person is criminal, then they can get a warrant, and then they can get the info on that person's library habits.
Otherwise, if you do not follow this procedure, you might as well throw out the presumption of innocence and assume everybody is a criminal.
You need to install an RTFM interface.
There is no single legal argument that can put this librarian at fault for her actions under current law.
'nuf said.
(fuck the patriot act anyway)
I hope you're being ironic. If this happened in the UK, those police would have been reprimanded for even trying. If a UK librarian gave out those records without a court order they'd have the book thrown at them for breach of the Data Protection Act.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Maybe the next president can reward her patriotic actions by awarding her the Medal of Freedom. That might remove a little of the tarnish that the award has gotten from W's awarding it to the likes of George "Saddam's got WMD's--slam dunk case" Tenet and L. Paul "$9 billion lost in fraud on my watch in Iraq" Bremer. It'd be nice that the actions of an awardee actually represented what this country used to stand for.
I'm with you, sort of, if the police had some good reason for needing the info on a particular person she should have handed it over. Now if the police were just fishing for something and had no particular person in mind than she she did the right thing in protecting the privacy of the library patrons. And BTW the law protects you from search but it does not say that you cannot hand over info if you think it is needed. And if you do so the police can look at it and use in court it all they want. The law just means they can't break in and steel info or take it by force without a warrent. If the police had to have a warrent every time they questioned someone or used info in court that was obtained from somebody then no case would ever be solved. We should all pitch in and help when we can. But use a little common sense people don't just give out private info for no reason and "because we asked" is not a reason.
NO DIRECT EMAIL TO MAYOR OR COUNCIL MEMBERS
Cops & Politicians
From Hasbrouck Heights,NJ website
http://www.hasbrouck-heights.nj.us/index.html/
Chief of Police Hasbrouck Heights email: chief_colaneri@hhpd.com
Borough of Hasbrouck Heights email: info@hasbrouck-heights.nj.us
Librarian & Reporter
Michele Reutty (Super-Librarian) email: reutty@bccls.org
Merry Firschein (Intrepid Reporter) firschein@northjersey.com
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
"The girl told police the man was carrying a library book with a certain title. The next day, borough police detectives asked Reutty to tell them who took out that book."
There is NO WAY anyone could have determined IF THAT BOOK came from THAT library. Not with the data given in the
article. Pervs would hide using books as mis-direction. The 'book' could have come from ANY library, unless there was a great BIG sign saying, "I came from THIS library". Most library books from a specific area, state, county or city, resemble each other. Why re-invent the wheel? They usually use the same software and marking system.
Do you think that the girl read a big sign saying "I got this book from XYZ library system, remember this title IF you are sexually threatened"?
I think NOT. It MAY have come from a nearby library or maybe not. Who can tell? Where did the 12 year old get the lucidity to notice a particular book? Was the title "how to harass young girls"? What was exactly the title? I smell a rat. Maybe a rat who was formerly crippled, and then received Stem Cell Therapy. When would a person being scared and threatened , look for clues or even think about such stuff? Did the 'perp' deliberately show her the book?
This smells on way too many levels. I , had I been a 12 year old girl, would have yelled at the top of my lungs. They would have heard it in Hackensack.
From the article:
... Reutty, the director for 17 years, now faces possible discipline by the library board. Members of the Borough Council have suggested she receive punishment ranging from a letter of reprimand in her personnel file to a 30-day unpaid suspension.
Library Director Michele Reutty is under fire for refusing to give police library circulation records without a subpoena.
You can't be serious!
What if I said:
"Michele Reutty didn't send me a Christmas card last year. This made me very sad and I got angry at some children. This was a blatant disregard for my feelings and resulted in harm to children. I suggest we put a letter of reprimand in her file or suspend her for 30 days."
You'd think I was nuts, right? Why? Well, she is under no obligation whatsoever to send a Christmas card to me. Now, here she is, having been pressured to do something she was under no obligation to do... and frankly, likely in breach of privacy laws as well. She said no. Good on her!
If people want a law that forces anyone to obey arbitrary instructions of police officers (hint: this might be a baaaad thing), then petition to pass one. Until then, she not only did nothing wrong, but she did the right thing. If the police need the information for an investigation, they should get a warrant. Until then, she's done the right thing. Shame on the council members who have suggested disciplinary action.
There is a memorable quote on this. It is:
With the first link the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.
And so what happens to the little girl only affects the little girl. But when the civil rights of an individual are violated, it creates a precident that affects ALL of our civil rights. This doesn't just affect the little girl, it affects us all!
As an American, I am proud to have rights. Those rights are worth more than anything you can buy in the whole world!
Or at least that's how it's getting to be.
I don't suppose you read that last statement. I never said all cops are corrupt. I'm just saying that people in power are more easily corrupted and it's getting to the point where the cops are above the law. It's not there yet, but it's getting there.
OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
There is this thing called "The Rule of Law" which basically means that the law always trumps irrational emotional appeals. If the police could make a good case for those records being absolutely critical, then they'd have no problem getting a warrant for those records. If they can't get a warrant, then they can't convince a judge that they need them, and therefore they don't.
This isn't some piddly local statute either.
Amendment IV
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.
People tend to ignore it these days, but the Constitution is still the law of this country. Screw with the little laws as much as you like, but not that one.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
This may very well be the dumbest thing I've heard anyone say in weeks. If you thought you were in the slightest danger, you'd be screaming for protection. Everone thinks they're self-reliant during periods in which they have no problems. As soon as anything goes wrong, as soon as there's some tiny risk, they start crying from help and protection. If your home was invaded and you were incapacitated, you'd be pretty damn glad when the cops showed up because your neighbour had the sense to call them to PROTECT you, rather than to simply check your corpse for evidence so that they can investigate the crime.
Seriously, my head is spinning with the incredible lack of thought that went into your post.
Really want to thank her? Why not mail her $10 or something?
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
I've watched several new US TV shows and have seen portrayal of misuse of the PATRIOT act (I can recall one mention in Numbers where some FBI guys threaten some gang mambers into cooperating by saying even if they don't have any warrant, they could put them on the suspected terrorist list to get what they want.) And all sounding like it makes it all better to get the bad guys (though it also makes it way easier to get the unwelcome good guys too, but that is not for the media to portray).
Vaffanculo!
Seriously, she didn't "stonewall". She was asked for information, and she said "Sure, just come back with a subpoena." The police had their first subpoena back to her THE SAME DAY. What's the big deal? That's why we HAVE subpoenas and judges. This story is evidence that the system can work properly, even despite the best efforts of the police to screw it up.
I agree that you didn't say all cops are corrupt. That's still an awfully general statement for me to try and ignore. It's just not fair to the (possibly too few) good cops that are out there. I agree that people in power are often more easily corrupted but I think it's more correct to say that it's easier for the more corrupted to get positions of power. There are too many examples of local, state, and federal government officials who play that "good 'ol boy" game with each other and their buddies who own businesses. And you are way too right...things are headed in the wrong direction and "it's getting there". :)
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
Great post.
Absolutely insane, but great nonetheless.
Perhaps they should charge her with a crime because she followed the law?
And yes, if you believe there's a sex offender 'scoping out' your child (I really hope that means 'looking at') then it's still better to do things the right way using the laws. You don't want that evil person to get off on a technicality (ie you failed to follow due process, the case is thrown out and the person sues you in a civil court for slander and harassment).
It cuts both ways as well. If someone doesn't like you they can use your methods to gather evidence about your behaviour. They may find nothing but I'd be willing to bet that anyone's life can be cast in a poor light if you're careful.
So much better to stick to the laws you have rather than throw them out when you deem it convenient.
Where in the last 400 years has any nation really had ether, or even really attempted to have ether?
While undergoing surgery?
Those who advocate more authority for the police are actually advocating a "police state" as opposed to a "Free nation".
Yes, there is nothing irrational about the desire for a police state. Nor is there anything irrational about the desire to live in a Free society. This is not about rational/irrational.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
This is fully in keeping with New Jersey's pathological hatred of the Bill of Rights. If you want to own so much as a BB gun in New Jersey, you have to be fingerprinted like a common criminal at the police station first, in flagrant violation of the 2nd and 4th amendments. This is just a continuation of their assault on the 4th.
just like not all computer geeks are virgins living in their parents' basement Exactly. I am living in the attic.
Great Intellect...
It's not "her" library,
Then it isn't her information, either, and so she isn't entitled to give it away.
That's where you're wrong! See below (courtesy of post above by patio11) of New Jersey LAW that REQUIRES librarians to keep library records confidential:
Library records which contain the names or other personally identifying details regarding the users of libraries are confidential and shall not be disclosed except in the following circumstances:
a. The records are necessary for the proper operation of the library;
b. Disclosure is requested by the user; or
c. Disclosure is required pursuant to a subpena [sic -- probably transcription error in the database] issued by a court or court order.
L. 1985, c. 172, s. 2, eff. May 31, 1985.
Apparently you're not a black man living in Chicago. or Las Vegas. Or Los Angeles. or any major metro area in the US. Or any small town.
Or a Latino living in any of the same cities.
Or a practicing Muslim attempting to pray in public.
I checked with b0nj0m0n's local library...I indicated to the head librarian he might be a pedophile, so he let me look at all his records right away... anyway, it turns out that he has been looking at books that make you think he is involved with little children. Lots of kids books.
Thank god the librarian did the right thing and let me look at his records once I mentioned kiddy porn.
That's the way it *should* work.
D'oh! Meant to reply to the parent. Sorry. :)
You a right, the little girl does have rights, and that is why the police work fervently to catch the culperate. But the fact remains that the rights of that one girl do not justify the violation of the rights of all. A government with no checks can do much more damage then any one person ever could, which is just what not demanding a warrant supports. It is true that a pedophile can ruin the lives of 100's of children, but a corrupt government can ruin thousands. Every genocide and every totalitarian state is a testament to just that.
I give bread to the poor, they call me a saint.
I ask why the poor have no bread, they call me a communist.
Feel free to copy-paste-modify my email as you see fit, but get your friends involved, and DO IT RIGHT NOW.
I'm not sure "a good reason" is quite enough. They need to have a legally good reason, which can only be determined by the court. Library records are not something that can be gotten lightly. A library is a place you can go for free information, and if you have to fear the government looking at what you check out, you will be influenced, and therefore the information is no longer free. Plus, she is not qualified to sacrifice the rights of her readers. The rights weren't hers to sacrifice.
I give bread to the poor, they call me a saint.
I ask why the poor have no bread, they call me a communist.
"It has to be that way to protect the innocent. That is what sets America apart from the rest of the world"
You must be living in an alternate reality.
I'm all for protecting out citizens from crime, but the fact of the matter is that a unchecked government is way more of a threat to society then any one person. Even 9/11 killed only a few thousand, when corrupt governments can kill and oppress millions. Libraries are especially protected, because they exist for free information. If a person is worried about the government looking at what they read, they will be influenced in their choices, and therefore the information is no longer free. This limits the freedom of speech, and that is the first step to a totalitarian government. We believe in freedom over safety because while it is easy for us to sacrifice rights for safety, history has shown that blood must often be shed to gain them back.
I give bread to the poor, they call me a saint.
I ask why the poor have no bread, they call me a communist.
Well no shit Sherlock, unwanted sexual attraction from the police will do that to anyone.
You sure about that? Let's consider the "law that should be amended"
Amendment IV
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.
This right extends to personal information that a third party has collected. There are only certain circumstances that police can aquire information, and most of them require probible cause, an affidavit sworn by an officer as to what the evidence is, and a Judge granting permission to search a specific place or places for a specific item(s). If the police had a warrant that was not specific, then she was right to refuse.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
I'll see your cop in Georgia and raise you a cop in Louisiana.
On my way home from a motorcycle trip once I was stopped in Columbia, MO. The policeman had me demonstrate that all my lights worked and then told me he was going to have to search my bags. Now I had been on the road for a week, and had some funky clothes and little else in the bags. There was for sure nothing the policeman would have cared about, but I did not feel like having him dig through my dirty underwear.
I told him that he did not have my permission to search the bags, and I asked if I was being charged with anything. He told me he could have a search warrant in no time. He had been fishing with the judge just that morning.
I encouraged him to get a warrant if he wanted to search the bags.
He said it could also take a while to process the warrant, and he would have to take me to the jail to wait. I told him I was a teacher and was on summer break. A wait would just make for a better story when I got home.
I asked if I was being charged with anything.
We danced around this issue for a while. I was polite but firm. He kept telling me he was going to have to search the bags.
He never did search the bags or write me a ticket or tell me why he stopped me.
It still pisses me off.
I think the librarian should have asked for a subpoena. There are fundamental issues here, and while I don't think anyone should obstruct justice, I also don't think policemen should be able to waltz into a library and ask for circulation records. It is not that you have anything to hide, but sometimes you don't feel like having someone digging through your personal stuff.
Except for a US congressman, of course!
"Ah... The irrepressible idealism of youth."
That attitude held by the majority is _exactly_ why things don't change.
Isn't it the judge's job to judge whether or not the seriousness of the matter requires that information be given to police?
You guys need some serious privacy legislation.
http://outcampaign.org/
Sorry you're still a virgin but the attic has a better view than the basement. Probably better bird watching from there too! Do you have any bird feeders in your trees? :) I much prefer climbing steps rather than dealing with limited light. When I lived in the basement I had problems with bugs and it was too cold in the winter.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
In our new fascist(getting there as fast as we can world) FATHERland USA, if the two words, paedophile or terrorists appear, the current mainstream society says that all rights are to be ignored so that we can be protected. To obstruct/enforce the rights, we are supporting these paedophile/terrorists. :)
This should all correct itself in about 5 years, just like the Senator McCarthy red scare shit.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Can anyone explain why the police in this case would get a subpoena, instead of a warrant?
The way I understand it, a subpoena is a court order that a human appear in court; and a warrant is a court approval of police search or seizure. So, since in this case the police wanted to search the library records and sieze one of them, I would assume a warrant would be the proper writ. But obviously I'm confused about something.
The only difference between the suicides a few weeks ago that was different from before was that more recent suicides succeeded. There were several dozen suicide attempts before. These particular suicides weren't a start, they were a culmination.
"it's not about aptitude, it's the way you're viewed" - Galinda
How about we contact the library and let them know we appreciate that she did her job?
http://www.bccls.org/hasbrouck/librarystaff.htm
Ms. Reutty's email is also on the contact page.
I think writing would be better... I don't think they'd like their email or answering machine slashdotted.
The site also has the names of the Board of Trustees, who seem intent on persecuting Ms. Reutty instead of supporting her.
Put your money where your mouths are. Do something!
No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
...and there is no way in hell our library would give out ANY information about ANYONE to te police, or any justice official without a warrant first. We are not even allowed to say to a police officer if someone they are looking for is in, or has been in the library.
In saying this, I am in New Zealand, where people actually care about privacy laws.
library Director was doing her job GG librarys +1
It is not the job of the police to prevent crime. That is no-one's job because as soon as you start entolling the importance of preventing crime (and we have, terrorism == crime) you are creating a power against freedom that is uncheckable. Everyone has the right to commit crime. No society can be free without that right. If you are caught committing crime you will be judged and you will lose your freedom - all your freedom - but that is after the fact; it doesn't deminish your freedom. All freedom has consequences. I have the right to free speech. I can say whatever I like to whoever I like - no-one will try to stop me, and if they do I am free to ignore them - but that does not mean that my speech will not have consequences. If I tell my boss he is an idiot he might fire me, or give me really shit work to do, or (more likely) steam off in a hissy fit and make me feel bad. If I tell people to go out and kill others I may be arrested and lose my freedom.
The police are not the Access Control Lists of society. They're not there to prevent you from doing things. They're there to aid in repremanding or removing you from society if you fail to abide by its laws. The fact that this results in some sense of the word "protection" is just an unfortunate coincidence. I say unfortunate because people have come to believe that this is what the police are for; to ensure no harm ever comes to them. The result is this learned helplessness that has led us down this garden path of voting people into power who promise to "smoke out the terrorists". They're openingly promising to pass laws that deminish our freedom and people are eating it up. It sickens me.
How we know is more important than what we know.
As a Norwegian, I think you are spot-on. People always complain a little about politicians, they have done that all my life. But those who actually DO something good to society, lift up the spirit of lesser fortunates, spread information and knowledge about issues, are far and between. I don't expect everyone to become politicians, but everyone can do something with their unique talents, however small in the beginning, and grow on that.
I can only conclude that most of the population just cares to read, bitch, moan and watch bad movies. Ultimately it's someone else's problem. News remains a perpetual depressing treadmill, so people can revel in some "reality", while themselves mostly being far-cut off from any real trouble. Easy sadness-fix, to be kept in a depressing and dull state.
Everyone seems to be waiting for someone else to fix the big problems, but who can do that without support? Politicians will come and go, giving a little fix here and there while fighting eachother, often making the big picture worse actually.
How much wealth can we amass, and to what use? That new car, new apartment, how much happiness will it bring. In a few years, they too go boring, and we spend much time hunting for new pieces of happiness. How much can we enjoy partying every weekend, and what do we do that is really fun. We spend so much time amassing wealth and trying to find happiness out in the world. Everyone seeks happiness and love, but true happiness and love doesn't come from drug-injection and superficial relationships, as they instead drain our energy.
Stretch _your_ hand out first. Happiness comes from within, but can be cultivated by doing the 'right' thing. Our inner voice always tells what to do, but it is up to us to cultivate hearing it. It's an adventure, and totally fulfilling and unique to every person. This is the steps to come forward in the world and out of self-indulged misery.
It also helps to do breathing-excercises, or similar practices, to lift the energy. It will actually feel uncomfortable in the beginning, because we're so used to deplete our energy all the time. However, isn't it time to turn around now?
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Here in the UK, my sister, who is a librarian, is often asked for customers' data by the police. Usually for sensible reasons, e.g. they found a handbag with a library book in it and want to find the owner. However, she has had it made clear to her by her bosses that it is completely illegal to give such information out without a warrent - the data protection act simply doesn't allow it. She always finds it amusing to be having to explain to the police what the law is!
Here, I've corrected it for you. This is my pet peeve: the USA isn't the country which has the most freedom today. Try Sweden, Finland, Denmark or Norway if you're looking for the most freedom.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
That is what sets America apart from the rest of the world.
It doesn't even set America apart from the whole of the third world, let alone the other developed nations.
Your fervour for justice is commendable, but your patriotism is misplaced; we're not all police-state dwelling savages, y'know.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
It's like the police entering a place of business and grabbing the clients database without a subpoena...It is wrong, and the public should push back on this or face a never-ending spiral into a police state.
You fought and deservedly won your freedom from us Brits, don't let your own government return you to your past.
Karem
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
"I think it would have been so easy for me to just resign when all of this started happening," she said. "But it's not just me anymore. This is so that other librarians, when faced with a subpoena, will do the right thing."
Those are the words of a true patriot.
Of course. If one hundred children have to be raped in order to prevent the raping of one child then so be... it...
Hm. I think there's a flaw somewhere in my argument, but I just can't put my thumb on it...
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
The last time I checked, most states don't acknowledge this constitutional right.
For example, it is a five minute walk to where I take martial arts classes in California and my car recently broke down. By California state law, it is unlawful for me to transport nunchakus, sais, tonfas, or swords on my person. All of which are used in my martial arts training. It is lawful to transport said items in the trunk of a motor vehicle. So, if I don't want to break the law, I have to wait until I have a working vehicle before continuing with my classes.
Many people aren't looking at the big picture when they try to say that the second amendment is no longer needed. What they either forget or don't realize is that it's the second amendment that helps to guarantee the perpetuity of the first.
Pining for the fjords
And one way you keep seeing it cutting the other way is providing an endless stream of ammo for those in power to use as justification for their getting more power. Any crime or problem can be presented as a nation-sweeping epidemic, that demands immediate action, if the public is just bombarded with just enough examples of it happening.
The problem, as I've been saying before is that human brains functions sorta like that of Terry Prattchett's trolls, whose counting went something like "one, two, many, lots". People simply lose sense of proportion beyond a certain scale. A week, a month, or a year, or even ten years, you can put into an intuitive proportion. A billion years, you can't. Or 10, 100 or 1000 people you can see every day. A billion people becomes just a very large number. "Lots." You may be able to work maths with 1,000,000,000 or 10^9, but your intuition won't help you.
Hence bombarding people with stuff that happened over such huge, unintuitive areas and numbers of people can be a very dangerous thing. The fact that it was a one in a million or one in a billion case just gets lost, and all those cases are treated as if they all happened in a world barely larger than their home town.
E.g., if you heard that one gamer in your home town preferred to play EQ until he lost his job, his house and everything, you think "heh. What a loser." But when you get bombarded with thousands of examples of that happening, it suddenly becomes "whoa! It's a dangerous addiction! It's a wave sweeping the nation!" Why? Because your brain doesn't have the intuitive framework to put it in the right proportion: that it's one in a million cases. But your intuition acts as if they all happened within a mile of your home.
E.g., if you heard that someone raped a child in your home town, you're disgusted, shocked, etc, but in the end, eh, it's one insane person. But get bombarded with cases from all over the world, and evidence that it happens every day, and suddenly it starts seeming like every other adult male is getting a hard-on at pre-teens. Why? Again, because it's not put in the right proportion. It's compared to a vague "Lots" number that's just marginally larger than the male population you see in a day.
And so on.
And while, yes, on one hand it does serve to also amplify the perceived extent of the abuses of power, it also works the other way, giving those in power ammo to keep people scared and justify getting more power. Yes, some citizens might be genuinely mistaken and concerned about the extent of police abuses. But on the other hand, there'll also be a bunch of ruthless politicians understanding this phenomenon and milking it for everything its got.
And frankly, the latter worries me more.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
However, your unwillingness to exercise your right to bear arms should not limit others' right to do so.
Of course, believing that a specific tool/weapon should be limited to a class of people based solely on its potential for doing a specific harm is not exactly the best way to disprove your lack of fear for that item. Humans are by form very frail things. Most objects in this world can kill humans if used for such purposes. Laws exist to punish those that would harm individuals no matter what implement they use.
Weapons, in certain circumstances, by their potential harmful nature may allow an individual to force others to respect their rights and life when those others may not be inclined to do so. Rule of law can then be asserted after the fact to address justice. However, the violation of an individual's rights cannot be addressed after the fact. Guns are the most useful defensive tool we as individual humans can possess to prevent immediate abuse from other humans. Limiting what specific weapon or who is allowed to possess a weapon that can harm other individuals is denying the ability to defend one's own humanity.
>"Ah... The irrepressible idealism of youth."
>That attitude held by the majority is _exactly_ why things don't change.
They won't change anyway, even if the majority thought otherwise. If you're still under the impression that you have ANY degree of control over your life, GROW UP and learn the ugly truth.
http://www.hasbrouck-heights.nj.us/
email contact: info@hasbrouck-heights.nj.us
Moral of the story? If the US says "get the fuck out of the city", get the fuck out of the city.
I'm the father of a five year old. We go to the library regularly. We check out books and return them. I'm pretty sure that I'm familiar with the titles that my kid is reading - since I read them with him.
Recently when returning books to the library, we were short a title. I asked which one it was so that I could look for it more carefully when I returned home. Since for that particular visit my wife had taken my gone to GET the books, the libarian refused to tell me which title it was. It was checked out on my wife's card, not mine. When my kid is old enough to have his own card, but still a minor, I suppose the librarians will protect his privacy be refusing to tell me what books he checks out, too.
I'm the parent, dammit. I should be able to have that information. This is ridiculous. In the example above, my wife wanted to know what the title was, too. Making her call to see what it was did not protect or help her.
It's gone too far. Where did the common sense go? I think it left when the sense of entitlement and privacy arrived as a consequence of the warped ideology of the boomers.
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
The story says that she's been director for 17 years. I'd assume that she's at least 40 years old. I don't think that she's an idealist kid. I think that she's standing up for civil rights and getting pounded by her bosses for it, which is kind of alarming.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
He sponsored the Alien & Sedition Acts that eventually jailed the grandson of Benjamin Franklin for sedition (he wrote bad, probably true, things about Adams). Like the law that imprisoned him, he also had a short life.
And not only are you right that there is no law requiring "balanced reports", but the law has been tested on whether they are allowed to deliberately lie. They are.
info@hasbrouck-heights.nj.us
This was taken from the town's web site. I'll be dropping them a line now.
One might think that if the matter were this serious, the police would do their job right. Because, maybe I'm high, but I'm pretty sure the librarian did her job right.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
It's obvious to anyone who is awake - that the USA is moving (very quickly right now) towards a totalitarian state. And it's only when someone steps up to the plate and shows some "balls" that the totalitarian process stalls, and slows down. Libraries have always been attacked by the elite and their puppets - the list of books censored and taken out of libraries in the USA is long. It's ggo to see this librarian as well as the assoc. stand up to the "machine". It's interesting that the cops (and the elite) in the USA are so "concerned" here. Tens of thousands of children have been raped by priests in the USA. The cops and the elites always protected the above priests - as well as the church officals. In one case the cops refused to investigate -until the raped child committed suicide.
According the the New York City Police Department's Web site, there are currently 39,110 officers on duty. Using your estimate, there are approximately 391 city cops that are out there busting everyone else's hump.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
E che cazzo, parla in inglese...
That depends on how widely the Supreme Court's weakening of the exclusionary doctrine ends up being interpreted.
Oooh, good job! You managed to use the "think of the children" argument against itself! I'll have to remember that one, to use it next time I'm arguing with an idiot.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
She's my Hero... When John Hancock Signed the Decleration of Independance it is reported that he signed it large enough that the King of England would not need his glasses to see his signature. THOR - Houston Texas
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
She saved their collective butts on this case. If they requested the information and she just handed it over with the
subpoena the case would have been most likely thrown out with the defense lawyer arguing his client's rights were abused.
* "corrupt" includes lacking the proper respect for the laws that [are supposed to] guarantee our Freedom, not just taking bribes and whatnot.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Indeed, if anyone it was the police themselves who were obstructing justice!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
'It was an absolute misjudgment of the seriousness of the matter,'
Well, if this case requires a JUDGEment as to how SERIOUS it is, maybe you should ask a JUDGE. Like you do... when you get a subpoena.
The librarian could misjudge the situation, and come under legal fire!
The police could misjudge the situation, and come under legal fire!
If you get a subpoena, its ok! Duh!
This pisses me off so much. The government HAS methods available to it for obtaining information, they ought to USE them, instead of complaining that the situation was 'too serious' for such methods.
Your
Do you honestly think that any cop would rather go knocking on every door in the city looking for this book than go sit in an air conditioned courthouse for an hour & get a suppena for the record? They were lazy, they got rejected, they did it right, they got the information they wanted.
You should probably run for congress, your hyperbole is certainly world class.
Let's look at it more closely had she done as the police had asked:
- Officer: Give me the records on this book [book of the day].
- Librarian: Here you go.
- Officer: Bob Buddy, you are under arrest.
- Prossecutor: Judge we have here the book identified by the victim, as you can see it was checked out by Bob Buddy on June 10th at 5PM.
- Defence: Your honor I object, the prossecution has no chain of custody for the records.
- Prossecutor: Of course we do, Librarian->Officer->Me.
- Defence: Where's the suppena to obtain the records?
- Prossecutor: We don't have one.
- Defence: Judge, that constitutes illegal search and seasure of the records. I request the book and the records be ruled as inadmissable.
- Judge: Sorry, but he's right. The loan records are the property of the patron not the librarian, she had no right to release them to you without a suppena. The book & the records are ruled inadmisable.
[2 weeks later][Newspaper Headlines]
Accused Child Molester, freed on technicality, sues Police and Library for $30M for violating his civil rights.
In a country where police are routinely sued for 'abuse' when they do their job by the book, you don't think that suit would happen?
Today -- Librarian 1 : Cops 0 : Nutjob 0 : Board of Directors 0
The police have to prove to a judge that a certain person is criminal, then they can get a warrant, and then they can get the info on that person's library habits. ... they have to show to a judge that they have probable cause to believe that the information relating to the loaning of the book will help them resolve the case, and therefor the interests of the state outweigh the individual rights of privacy that may be breached in the search. There is no way for the police to prove to a judge that a certain person is a criminal if they are still trying to come up with his name.
Close
I believe you're on the wrong side of the pond there partner
Know why I can tell this? Because the sentence you left out of the paragraph you quoted started with "I thought you yanks got rid of all your news shows and replaced them with infotainment years ago.".
Canadians do not refer to Americans as yanks -- ever, to the best of my knowledge. Don't drag Canada and the CBC into this, you were addressing either a Brit or an Aussie.
His point about infotainment still seems valid though.
Cheers (eh
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Like New Orleans? Some people don't have the option due to circumstance/health. Others, such as doctors, are often ethically compelled to stay to help out.
Blanket firebombing belongs in WW2 with all the other horrors of that war. There is no excuse for attacking civilian areas regardless of any enforced evacuation.
It says that they make an exception for parents checking out materials on their kids' cards, but make NO provision for any adult under any circumstances (short of a court order) to see the records of any other adult. There's no option for me to allow my wife to know the books I'm checking out.
There's this little thing in relatinships called "transparency" perhaps you should look into it.
If my relationship with my wife has deteriorated to the point that she feels a need to conceal from me a disease, a pregnancy, adultery, lesbianism, religion, other sexuality, or "odd" topics - access to her library records would be the least of my concerns.
I understand that there are people who are not in safe relationships with a spouse, and may not want their records shared. The library should provide an offer of protection for people as needed, but it seems to me that we're writing policy on the exceptions. I'm sick ot death of the me-ism that came with the boomer generation, and the "my rights" ideas that trickle down into stupid policies.
Another example is the hassle I have to go through with EVERY medical provider about access to medical records or prescriptions for my grandmother with Alzheimers disease. She CAN'T come to the pharmacy. She's DYING! I'm filling prescriptions for her, paying her bills, making sure that she gets to the doctor or hospital as needed, cutting her grass, doing her home maintenance and whatever else she needs. Why must it be a big deal with every doctor, every pharmacy, every lab? There was a time when this kind of "protection" was offered in the form of discretion on the part of the service provider - when deals didn't require a written contract because people had (on the whole) more integrity, and people had less rights. Culturally people were more "in your business." Frankly that was not a bad thing.
When I was a kid and a jerk around the neighborhood, people who lived there called me on it. If I didn't change my behavior, they'd call my mom. It made sense.
Now what happens? When a kid is a jerk - should I call the police? I'd hate to trample on his rights by directly addressing his irresponsibility....
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
I'll see your cop in Georgia and raise you a cop in Louisiana.
I'll see your cop in Lousiana and raise you a vacation trip to China!
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in mud. Soon, you realize the pig is dirty, and he likes it.
I've sent a note to the ACLU via its website to see if they can get involved. I REALLY hate to see all the "librarian was wrong" talk in that article. What people don't seem to understand is that the ends do NOT justify the means. Maybe today you cheer because the police forced their way in to immediately capture a murder suspect "before he could escape"... tomorrow that wrong suspect may be you, because someone that dislikes you called in an anonymous tip on a local murder and fingered you... a judge would never grant a warrant on that alone, but if the police don't think they have to be hassled by getting the warrant... Things like this always remind me of my favorite line in "JFK" - "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."
Let me introduce you to my very own DMCA-protected encryption key: BC 1B 64 4A 8D DE 49 E8 C3 7D CC EE 1A AD EE
Don't assume the trivia (star babies and scandals) on TV and other media is what the people want. Just as much a factor is what the corporations want to tell us / not offending other corporate advertisers.
Of course, that's why *we* are on the internet, instead of watching the "boob tube". Ugh.
Yeah, I'm not much interested in helping the police break the law either, only in preventing crime and making neighborhoods safe. "Patriot", indeed. Bah!
Give me liberty of give me death? Don't tread on me? I guess those are pretty dated attitudes.
Yow! I'm supposed to have a plan?
Ladies and gentlemen, What that librarian showed was something that's hard to find these days, integrity.
The police come in and try to bully her out of information that she's not required to give, and she stands up to them to defend her rights.
Oh, and the mayor is a JackOff[TM].
Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
The police VERY rarely prevent a crime from happening. It may happen if they're lucky enough to be in a store just as someone decides to rob it, or if they're right next to someone who is about to get mugged on a street corner. But 99% of the time, their job is to document a crime that was already committed. The biggest part of a police officer's job is usually filling out paperwork.
:)
Securty systems, bullet-proof vests and guard dogs help "protect" people. Police, generally, don't.
That's not to say their purpose has nothing to do with serving the public. Obviously, they do. But the whole "To Protect and Serve" slogan is as much an effort in good "marketing" as anything. It wouldn't be nearly as impressive to say "To document and question", would it?
Mayor Ronald R. Jones, 201-288-4111
Dear Sirs;
It has come to light that Mrs. Reutty, Director Free Public Library of Hasbrouck Heights, NJ., has come under fire for her actions regarding the requirement of a subpoena for access to the Library records. In my opinion Mrs. Reutty should be commended and not criticized for her actions.
I have been working with a Search and Rescue team for the last five years and know time is of the essence in the rescue of an abducted child, or the capture of a sexual predator. I also understand the frustration that Law Enforcement has when dealing with this type of case. However critical, there is no excuse for anybody to violate the law when it comes to obtaining evidence.
I would recommend that you congratulate Mrs. Reutty for her actions and not pursue the avenue which you are currently following.
Thorton K. Burfine
Alvin, TX
Cc
Mayor Ronald R. Jones
Police Chief Michael Colaneri
Bergen County Prosecutor's Office
Michele Reutty, Director Free Public Library of Hasbrouck Heights
KPRC TV Attn: News Department
FOX 26 News Attn News Department
Slashdot.org
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
If this is happening in a city this size, I can only imagine the greed and underhandedness that happens in larger cities. This country needs to wake up, and the general population needs a few more IQ points to boot.
What are you attempting to say, here? You've been given a long list of scenarios that justify the library's confidentiality policy, and your response is that, what, the library should instead be enforcing "transparency" in your relationships? Is it a public institution's job to make you feel good about your marriage? Is it an insult to your character that the librarian could not tell simply by observing your inherent, righteous glow that it was okay to make an exception just for you?
Mind the Gap
I, for one, welcome our new...ah, screw it, that's too long to say.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
She can't just hand it over.
- It's not hers to give. By fact, law, and tradition the private information an organization collects about you is yours.
That's why there are a crapload of privacy laws in effect that state under what circumstances the credit reporting agencies can release your information. Why everyone is bent on the telco's giving your call records to the NSA. Why people are pissed about the FBI buying $30M of personal information from data brokers (who generally shouldn't have it) that they can't obtain legaly by requesting it without a warrent.
- It's part of her job to ensure that the policies and procedures of the library are enforced. Check up above, someone actually went out & found the privacy ruling for the library in question. It's clear about when & how those records will be released. Because a cop says 'gimme' is not on the list.
For the other point, a suppena or warrent is the court saying that the police have a 'good reason for needing' whatever. So even by your standard, she was correct to require the police to get a suppena or warrent. Remember here, she didn't say "No", she said "Not without the correct paperwork." She wasn't impeding anything, she was following a set procedure which has been in place and well defined for 200 years.I know too well the hassle; ironically enough my grandmother also suffers from Alzheimers. Contact a lawyer, they can help you out on that one.
That in itself is yet another example: should there be reason, there is a legal process to perform the needed task. I think you would cry bloody murder if I got a hold of your grandmother's medical records. Those safeguards are there for good reasons.
It is ironic that you rail against "me-ism" and yet advocate not protecting the rights of everyone so that YOU can have less hassle.
it would have been illegal to hand over the records without a warrant.
Don't forget that we haven't carpet bombed anywhere in Iraq, much less with white phosphorus. That's a WWII technique that was frequently used against Japan.
Yes, we have had planes and helicopters bomb/shoot targets in fallujah and elsewhere. However, in one example where they drop a bomb on a group moving down a street, you hear the pilot asking if he should take out the group, and a voice answers 'yes'. That affirmation would be from a combat controller, who's on the ground nearby tracking the enemies.
I don't read AC A human right
What the grandparent failed to mention is that they started turning back men of a certain age range, apparently under the logic that all men 20-25 or so are insurgents.
If someone says they are a civilian, and has no weapons or uniform, well...yeah, you can say 'Liar' and bring them in. Or you can believe them. What you cannot do is kill them.
By refusing to let people who claimed to be civilians leave the city, they delibrately placed people in the path of a firebombing and thus they committed blatant war crimes. I mean, it's not even at some debatable level.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Disclosure: I was a resident of NJ from 1973-1993.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
You have no idea how many criminals are walking the streets simply because of the technicalities.
I'd rather have some criminals walking the streets than have *the police turn criminal* and committing "technical" violations against innocent people.
You earlier said the library is a public place and it should be public info. So if *I* walk into your public library and I ask the librarian for the dates and titles of every book your 9 year old daughter has ever taken out, then the librarian should just hand that over to me?
If I happen to be a police officer and walk into the library *EMPTY HANDED*, should the librarian turn over the the dates and titles of every book your 9 year old daughter has ever taken out, just on my say-so?
A government that itself becomes criminal and ignores and violates the rights of people... violating the rights of the innocent and guilty indiscriminantly... a government that itself becomes a criminal is far more dangerous and harmful than any ordinary criminal person.
You earlier said 99% of police are good. Hell, lets forget the 1% of police and other government officials who are currupt or malicious. Lets imagine that 100% of police and government officials are good. Often the greatest dangers and worst violations are committed by well intentioned people simply trying to do their jobs and get the bad guys. It is often the most well intentioned of people who break the law and violate our civil rights and other such "technicalites" in their zeal to "get the bad guy".
Catching criminals the right way is more important than making it easier for police to catch criminals. Ensuring that the police operate with respect for individual rights, ensuring that the police operate within the law, ensuring that the police do not become the criminal, that is more important than making it easier for police to catch some ordinary criminal.
It would certainly be easier to catch criminals if any officer could arbitrarily break into innocent people's homes and search and seize innocent people's property. It would certainly be easier to catch criminals if any officer could arbitraily and forcibly extract blood samples from innocent people. It would certainly be easier to catch criminals if any officer could beat a confession out of innocent people.
But in *THIS* country we take the high road. Police are required to operate within the law. Police are required to operate within the Constitution. Police are required to respect Civil rights. Police are required to get search warrants and subpoenas. In this country our police operate "with one hand tied behind their back". And that is what makes this country great and noble.
If you dissagree with that, if you don't want the police to operate with one hand tied behind their back, I suggest you move to Somalia or Nigeria or someplace. The police over there are free to persue criminals - and suspected criminals - and personal enemies - with ruthless efficiency. No need for pesky judges over there. No pesky warrants and subpoenas getting in the way over there. No pesky Civil Rights getting in the way over there. No pesky "technicalites" over there. Police can most efficently catch and punish "the bad guys" over there, guilty or not.
she could just as easily allowed another bus bomber
I'd rather have our police respect "technicalities" (as you call them) and take that risk, than to destroy the fundamental and most noble principles that make America America. Terrorists can "attack our freedoms" and blow up a some busses or buildings and kill some people, but they are incapable of taking away any freedoms and they are incapable of destroying this country.
No, it is only people like you who can actually take away our freedoms, only people like you who can destroy this country.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The bill did in fact exist - It was called the Fairness Doctrine
Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
I remember being pissed off when they revoked this rule, it was done so Rush Limbaugh's show could exist.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
To clarify, I mean, is the problem with radio as a specific medium that happens to have this limit about the number of stations that can air at once? Would you support a Fairness Doctrine for a medium that doesn't work the same way -- so that if Limbaugh had gotten his start by podcasting, you'd have no problem with him not being "balanced?"
Revive the Constitution.
This sgtory has been spun in such a way as to ignore the central issue. She was protecting her library patrons rights and helping the police. What kind of case would they have if they didn't follow procedure? The creep might have gotten off scott-free. The police and the library might have been sued. So she added a few extra hours to the investigation. She should get a fucking medal, for doing her job, and also for doing the police's job.
The conspiracy nut in me wants to think this is all calculated to make people forget that police actually need a subpeona.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The great CBC sure did a lousy job reporting this information to you. It was the "Equal Time Rule" that was rescinded. That Federal law required broadcasters to donate an equal amount of time to any political opposition candidates. If one candidate bought an hour of advertizing the broadcaster had to provide an hour to his opponent.
I'm sorry to inform you that you were close... but what he was refering to what was called the "Fairness Doctrine".
Wikipedia has a good article on it : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
The summary of the article is "The Fairness Doctrine is a former policy of the United States's Federal Communications Commission. It required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in an honest, equal and balanced manner."
The only reason I knew the name was because I remembered it being done. It was done so that Rush Limbaugh's show could exist.
BTW before accusing anyone of doing a lousy job, at least get your facts right (Just pokin fun).
Regards,
Bill
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Unless they lied to me in school, the American Civil War (aka The War of Northern Aggression) was one of the bloodiest wars in recorded history.
Unless, of course, you're speaking of the end of slavery in Britain.
Exactly - it's a win for nobody, and is most notably a loss for law enforcement. That's why I think the exclusionary rule is enough disincentive for law enforcement to trample on our privacy rights; their natural impulse is to attempt to maximize convictions, and staying between fourth amendment lines serves that goal better than straying does.
On the flip side, I've often wondered how things would pan out if we *removed* the exclusionary rule, and put criminal liability for fourth amendment violations in its place... on the face of it, it appears that this would satisfy the points you raise above...
Pi Ran Out
http://www.bccls.org/reference/2006-06-23.shtml
- DRFS Rich
Please be respectful so that he will take your comments seriously. Here is the digest of my message to him:
Hopefully, a full voicemail box will help him get the picture.
Sigs are for lusers. Hey! wait a second...
> Please don't lump all cops together in one group. Prejudice against any group is unfair to INDIVIDUALS.
Those individuals are supposedly in the business of protecting the public. Yet when they see other cops violating rights, do they say anything? If not, they are just as guilty as the officer violating the rights.
And before anyone brings up the fact that there are no laws forcing people to be good-samaritans, these are police officers we are talking about. They are failing to do their jobs if they fail to prevent other officers from breaking the law.
I hate to shock you, but your use of "Taxachusetts" automatically labels you as a Bushie. And nobody likes the Bushies, except other Bushies. So if you're really interested in protecting the reputation of the President, you're accomplishing nothing by trolling on Slashdot. Disclosure: I've never been a resident of NJ.
You have certain rights spelled out in the Constitution, as well as in many other documents; among them is the Fourth 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.")
If that makes you feel secure, great! If it doesn't, too bad. There's no protection for feeling secure, any more than there's a protection for 'having a great life.' If you feel secure within the realm of protections afforded to you by law, or don't feel secure, that's your own business. The job of the police, and of government in general, are not to make you feel a certain way, and just because you feel insecure, it doesn't mean that they're not doing their jobs.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
> They are failing to do their jobs if they fail to prevent other officers from breaking the law.
Oops, no. They are failing to do their jobs if they fail to make it known when other officers from breaking the law. They can't prevent something if they don't know about it, but they can raise hell after the fact.
> Hm. I think there's a flaw somewhere in my argument, but I just can't put my thumb on it...
Ooh, it's that your argument has no bearing on the parent statement, right? Did you have a point, or are you a Neocon?
> The problem isn't her. The problem is that the police cannot obtain a warrant fast enough.
They had a subpeons THE SAME DAY. I'd say that's pretty damned fast.
> If you're still under the impression that you have ANY degree of control over your life, GROW UP and learn the ugly truth.
I find it funny that you protray the extreme opposite of youthful idealism. You are so clouded by hate and/or cynicism that you assume everyone else is too. I find myself feeling that way at times, but I usually recognize it as unreasonable. Also, suggesting that we DON'T have any control over our lives is to give in to self-victimization.
At least now I know why I still smoke cigarettes: I don't have any control. That guy raped that little girl because he didn't have any control. I don't want to cetegorize you unfairly, but you remind me of some extreme Christians who try to put EVERYTHING in the "hands of God" and as such, their children are not better than they "which is generally the goal in raising (planned, usually unplanned too) children."
5% state sales tax in "Taxachusetts", 7.25% sales tax in Texas - plus most big cities add on their own 1% to make it 8.25%. Plus the Robin Hood tax to take property tax revenues from richer school districts and redistributing them to poorer ones. Wealth redistribution sounds like a socialist plan of the democrats to me. Before anyone cries "NIMBY!", check your own back yard first.
And, why, Yes - I have been a resident of Texas and of Massachusetts. And both reek of political extremes.
"A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
:%s:work:/.:g
"Any person who quotes me had better make sure it's correct and give an exact source instead of just putting my name after the quote." ~George Washington
:%s:work:/.:g
The info@ mailbox has apparently been filled to capacity.
--
Failed to deliver to 'info@hasbrouck-heights.nj.us'
LOCAL module(account info@hasbrouck-heights.nj.us) reports:
account is full (quota exceeded)
--
I'll have to resend my email of support later.
Or does someone have another email address that would be more appropriate?
EDIT: stupid lameness filter. Those are NOT junk characters.
Ummm, we did use white phosphorus in Fallujah.
So much of the populace today seems to think that the right to privacy can't be abused because "if you didn't do anything, then you won't be affected". Well, I don't know what country they're living in, but in the "good ole usa" I often see someone who's managed to be misidentified, or simply be at the wrong place at the wrong time almost every night on the TV news. Occasionally these mistakes are perpetuated for such a long time that reputations are ruined and jobs are lost. There are legal channels available for authorities to use in order to request information (a supoena). I expect them to use them before coming to me. Period.
And you have no idea how many more innocent people walk the streets because their rights aren't taken from them.
Can you provide some data that supports this claim? Or are we all guilty until proven innocent?
There is no such thing as "the spirit of law enforcement" in the constitution or in the courtroom. There is, however, law. Michele may have also saved many innocent people from unlawful search and seizure and may have prevented the police from screwing up their chances at bringing this alleged criminal to justice.
:%s:work:/.:g
This is an excellent comment. Why be Anonymous Coward unless... UNLESS you are the PEDO.. quick where are your records? Just ask George Bush and find out who is making the phone calls from a police station. Wait.. are you GEORGE? BUSH!!!!!
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
You forgot.. we cannot talk about Jebuz anymore. They are taking all our symbols away. Its the other religions we can talk about.
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
huh ? My reply was to somebody who stated that the librarian should have just handed over the records because criminals have no right to privacy ... my point was that without a properly focused subpoena the privacy rights of the law abiding members of the library were on the line. I have no problem with the records being released in response to a proper subpoena.
Even though I suspect that IHBT I'll answer.
My point is the exact opposite of what you seem to believe. I was applying the to the "the police should have unlimited searching rights" POV by claiming that it's okay to tolerate 100 $CRIMEs (implied to be committed by overinformed crooked cops) in order to prevent one $CRIME from happening, which is obviously absurd.
It was just a cynical mocking of the "police rights rah" faction.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
From that contact page, here's where to send a bouquet of flowers:
Michele Reutty, Director
Free Public Library of Hasbrouck Heights
320 Boulevard
Hasbrouck Heights, NJ 07604
Let's make a bold statement and support Michele. Proflowers has several lovely items for $30. If only a thousand Slashdotters do this the message of support will still be overwhelming (not to mention the whole town of Hasbrouck Heights will have a lovely scent), will help Michele keep her job, and will inspire librarians the nation over to do what's right.
All for the cost of half a tank of gas.
"Thanks for supporting Freedom", "We Support You and the Law", "You Did the Right Thing" would all make fine inscriptions. Be creative, be generous, and be caring. It couldn't hurt to post a reply here noting that you've done so.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
So you think any adult should be able to see any other adults reading history?
Why not? What's the big deal?
My reading list includes Rainey, Feldhahn, Lewis, Eggerichs, Piper, Thomas, Luther, Calvin, Smith, Lewis, McGraw, Cussler, Clancy, Grisham, business books, and geek titles. Who cares? What difference does it make? Now that you know this about me, how does it benefit you or harm me?
Look, there's no such thing as privacy anymore. Why should the library insist on a draconian policy? It's a waste of time. Besides, my tax dollars paid for the books, the people, and the processes for checkout. Why shouldn't those records be public?
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
I'll claim the Mea Culpa here.
I read it as a 'if she would just turn it over we don't have to' as opposed to 'hey, if just got it this time, why can't we do this next time."
How about Jesse Jackson?
That did'nt scare you?
How about Jerry Fallwell? Hillary Clinton? The Bush clan? The 'green party'? The Trilateral commission? PETA?
You should all be scared by now. Did I miss anyone?
Do you realize the wisdom of not having one but 300 million or so (if they could be bothered)?
Even the recent blatant examples (e.g. Rather and the MSWord generated Bush documents from the 60s) don't point to a need for legal remedies. They got caught, their carriers are over and they are reduced to writing books for the 'coolaid drinkers'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I'm not saying that the will be interested just that they should be.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
First if the records that organizations collect on me are my property then how do companies sell my info without compensating me. Of course its not mine i did not collect it they did. However much I dislike that fact. You have to protect yourself and your personal info by not giving it out.
Second I did not say that she should give out everyone's records but if the police have a good reason for wanting a particular record she should cooperate.
The library policy is a guideline for behavior meant to protect there patrons but those rules must be interpreted and it seems obvious where the library stands on this situation as they were talking about a reprimand and a possible 30 day suspension for her.
Um, I said we haven't carpet bombed anyone/where. We have many types of phosphorus weapons, from incendiary rounds on up. We have grenades, mortor shells, tank rounds, and even bombs all made of the stuff.
Notice how the article you mentioned carefully avoided mentioning what kind of munitions employing WP were used.
And yes, we use them. War is ugly.
I don't read AC A human right
Lets just not mention tax rates eather. Keeping you own money has nothing to do with freedom (to a scandanavian).
Scandanavia is the place to be if you want to be free of work for life (or untill their baby boom breaks them as surly as it breaks social security in the USA).
How long does it take to fire someones ass in any of the above countries. That business owner certainly has little freedom.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I'm sick of this. Children are the new "Terrorism".
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
You're favorite president did it too. (Assuming he's post WWII, how could anybody have a 'favorite' pres post WWII? They were/are all scum.)
The Brits and Aussies spyed (not just wiretaps!) on American citizens as they were not domestic hence required no warrents.
The Americans spied on the Brits and Aussies as they are not domestic hence required no warrents and were under their charter (CIA is'nt supposed to operate domestically).
The only thing that has changed is the law now allows them to do it somewhat openly. At that the true domestic spying (calls between Americans/Brits/Aussies without international connections) is still being carried out under Echelon.
For example this post is being read in Scotland by an agent of British Intellegence (sitting in a base in scotland, eating Haggis and kicking himself for believing those stupid movies, 'Pussy Gallore' his ass). If they think I'm worth watching they will send it back to the CIA.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Hunkering in the back with your remington is all well and good, but it sure does help that the invader knows he's got to be long gone in ten minutes. A lot can happen in ten minutes, but consider the kinds of things that can happen in a few hours.
It seems like you're assuming that just because I take a highly Liberal standpoint on this that I automatically oppose gun ownership and pesonal defence, but it isn't the case. I think you've got to protect your safety from every reasonable angle, which definitely includes having a good emergency-response system in your city or town. No one can deal with everything on their own, and once you admit any form of cooperation, you basically wind up with some sort of government and police.
No, PRIVATE information is private. It is yours. If I call up AT&T and they give me your DUF information, they are in violation of Federal laws (Telecommunications Act of 1996 is one). If I call up Citibank and they give me your CC details, they are in violation of other federal laws. If one of the credit reporting agencies gives my information away without my authorization, they are in violation of federal law. Data collected on you illegally is not thiers any more than your TV belongs to the thief who stole it from your livingroom. Why can data collection services sell it, because due to a loophole Congress is trying to close, it's illegal for companies to give you that information, but not for you to have it. Other information - your appearances in court, ownership of a house, birth date - public record type stuff is another matter.
Second I did not say that she should give out everyone's records but if the police have a good reason for wanting a particular record she should cooperate.
Who's opinion should she defer to for a 'good reason'? That's the very essence of the supena/warrent system. She doesn't have to defer to anyone's opinion [it's not the judges opinion she has to defer to, it's his ruling]. She has to follow a set protocol which is clearly defined in both the US Constitution, and in 200 years of case law.
The library policy is a guideline for behavior meant to protect there patrons but those rules must be interpreted and it seems obvious where the library stands on this situation as they were talking about a reprimand and a possible 30 day suspension for her.
Um, no. How about state law:
And just so we don't get confused:Now, can we discuss how exactly the Board of Directors of the library can complain about her behavior? Oh right, they are elected and appointed officials. If they do anything to her, they are going to have every ACLU lawyer camped out on their doorstep just dieing to take a crack at them.
ACLU: Why did you suspend her?
Board: Because she didn't give out record information when the police asked.
ACLU: Did they provide a supena?
Board: No.
ACLU: So she followed the legal requirement of L.1985, C.172, 2(c) - which requires a supena prior to the release of that information to the police?
Board: Um
ACLU: So, in the opinion of the board, Michele Reutty should have violated state law, rather than follow it?
It goes downhill fast from there.
This isn't a case of some librarian with a privacy bug up her ass, it's someone following the letter and the spirit of the law, and having over zelous cops asking her to break the law, and a moronic board responding in typical gutless elected official fasion.
I know that if they go after her they will lose and that she was well within her right to refuse there request. But that does not mean that she should not have tried to help the police if they have a reasonable reason to see the information.
Protecting the privacy of clients is an important thing but that should not be used as an excuse to protect a criminal. If the police came to my work today and asked for a copy of our customer DB I would flat out tell them no but if they asked to see information on a particular client and had some reasonable reason for requesting that information I would certainly try to work with them. Although I would send the request through one of the company VP's
That is all I'm saying use some common sense and try and help out the police if you can. They are out there trying to protect you every day and the least you can do is try and help them whan it is in your power to do so. Of course if your one of those people who think every cop is corrupt and out to get you, then I understand trying to hinder them at every turn but most of them are good people trying to do what's right. They are not part of some evil Government plot to get you they work for the city not the federal or even the state Government they are just local.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Fallingcow wrote:
> I wish that there were some way to record incidents like this, report them, and have those responsible punished.
>
> Abusing and threatening a citizen who has done nothing wrong should be a jailable offense.
>
> These people seek special power, and we give it to them. In exchange, they should be HARSHLY punished for any abuse of said power.
> That goes for politicians, too.
This is the most insightful post I have seen on
Read it. Read it again. Think about it.
Why do those who are granted a mandate by the people to wield power on the people's behalf, employ this power in their own interests -- often against those who bestowed it upon them?
Because they can.
Abuse of authority should be one of the most serious offences in the book.
It is a crime against democracy, society, justice, freedom and human rights.
It is equal to treason and should be treated as such.
Yet, strangely, it isn't.
Don't you find it strange that in most (all?) "civilized" countries, abuses of power often go unpunished, and when punishment cannot be avoided, there are always "mitigating circumstances" that result in a slap on the wrist or other mockery of justice?
Perhaps it is because those who are given the power to write, interpret and enforce the laws, do not wish themselves to be constrained by those laws.
Here is my suggestion to minimize corruption:
If an offence involved abuse of authority, the minimum sentence should be twice the maximum that the law prescribes.
Let this apply to policemen, teachers, abusive parents, JUDGES, politicians, members of government, PRESIDENTS.
The first party that makes this their platform and (adheres to it!) gets my vote for life. Hell, I'll donate and volunteer for the cause.
People seem to forget that the police is not some amorphous entity but is, in fact, comprised of police-men (and -women), fallible human beings with all the weaknesses inherent in our race.
Wearing a police uniform does not suddenly make them flawless (especially since the requirements to get on the force are quite low).
They can get high on power trips. They can have bad days. They can be petty, vindictive jerks.
The subpoena is needed to ensure that the officer in question actually follows a legitimate investigation and didn't just decide to make some poor schmuck his/her personal hobby and is now stalking them while hiding behind the protection of their badge.
Yeah, it is better having a window but it gets awful hot... :P
Great Intellect...
Wait until they commit a suicide attack and then arrest them and put what's left of their corpses on trial for the murders?
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
99% of people would have just consented to the search. You stood up for your rights. Unfortunately, your only reward is being able to post a comment on slashdot about it and have it be modded up to +5 Insightful. :)
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
I think we're disagreeing on the difference between "being secure" and "feeling secure." I would agree that the government is given some responsibility (in a democracy) for attempting to ensure the former. But you said originally that people have a right to "feel safe," and it is with this that I take issue.
Just because you don't feel secure, doesn't mean that the government (or anybody else) is necessarily doing anything wrong. It might just be you being oversensitive. Thus, the goal of making everyone feel secure is impossible -- it's like saying that everyone has a right to 'be happy.' You don't. You have a right to pursue happiness, and the duty of government is to create an environment where this is possible, but the end result (whether you are actually happy or not) is not the responsibility of government. Likewise, the government has the responsibility of attempting to protect you from physical harm, but whether you feel secure as a result of the actions taken or not, is up to you.
In the case of both happiness and security, there is a feedback mechanism: if people are unhappy or feel insecure, they will vote for a government that they think will improve the situation. However, this is a far cry from saying that people have an inherent 'right' to feel a particular way.
To make it the business of government that everyone 'feels' secure is dangerous, because it allows someone to claim that their rights are being violated -- that someone else is harming them and should be sanctioned -- because of a way they feel, in the absence of physical reality. For example, let's say that I was just a particularly well-muscled black man, and I took a stroll down the street in a White neighborhood that happened to be populated with people who have a socially-instilled fear of black people: if your statement was true, I would be violating one of their rights (the right to feel secure) simply by my very presence: because just having me around would make them feel insecure.
If we change the situation so that I (the black guy) am wearing an explosive vest, than you would be correct in saying that I'm violating their right to physical security by essentially threatening them implicitly with physical harm -- since the reality of the threat is there (and is evident to everyone), the government would be correct to make this behavior illegal. But the crime/violation-of-rights occurs not in making them feel insecure, but in creating the actual possibility of physical harm. (Or in creating a situation where the people realistically believe themselves to be in danger of actual physical harm: e.g., pointing an unloaded gun at someone if they don't know it's unloaded.)
It is one thing to say that a government should protect its citizens well-being, but quite another to say that a person has an inviolate right to be able to think a certain way, especially since by creating a 'right,' there is the immediate implication that anyone violating it in another is doing something wrong. In short, while you have a right (perhaps) to 'be' secure, you don't have a right to 'feel' secure.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."