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?
The police are out there busting their hump, protecting you and me. 99% of them are good, and when they have a hot lead that requires your help, there's no reason to be a hump. It's not "her" library, and I hope that the trustees show her that. It's a public library, and a public place, and if there's a sex offender scoping out my child, I want every citizen's help, whether they think they're somehow "doing good" or not.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
When will our legislature take a stand against these domestic book-huggers?
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...
Reporter: "Now, who are your rolemodels?"
Michele Reutty: "I'm a big fan of Rosa Parks, I've always really respected her."
Reporter: "Yes, you two both took a stand in a world controlled by sexist men."
Michele Reutty: "I feel that women should stand up against things they feel are wrong."
Reporter: "You are obviously an inspiration to millions of people...Thanks for speaking with us."
Michele Reutty: "Thankyou. And remember, you always have the power to just say 'No'"
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.
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.
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
Leave it to New Jersey... the country would be a lot better off if we carved that state off with a bulldozer and push it out to sea...
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
--
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.
Thank you, Police Chief, for instructing your officers to diligently persue the matter of a twelve year old being threatened by a sexual predator. I'm sorry you're going to catch heat for trying to follow up on an eyewitness report which, by sheer coincidence, happened to mention a book title. A darn shame that the Internet doesn't understand the difference between a fascist government shooting everybody who takes out a certain book and a democratic government saying "We've got an eyewitness report of someone threatening to sexually molest a little girl in the last couple of hours. He was carrying a book we have absolutely no interest in. Time is of the essence here, could you quick look up in your records who might have it?". Sorry that the lady who jerked you around, forcing you to leave and get a SECOND subpoena because you had to ask to access a whole *two* computer systems (the horrors, I know) will be made to be the hero in all of this.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
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!?
Fuck you, you fucking bitch. Quit your fucking job too, since you obviously have no idea what the law says.
Hugs and kisses.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
"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/
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/
US soldiers surrounded the city (with a population of 350,000), told everyone to leave then dropped white phosophoros bombs onto it killing an estimated 3000 or more people. Then they declared anyone who died in Fallujha was an insurgent/terrorist. Of course they killed a lot of innocent people among them.
It's not just the dribs and drabs of a death in custody here, or a death there - they're trying to take out insurgents with blanket bomb techniques, and stirring up more insurgency in the process. Rumsfeld is a complete idiot.
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!
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.
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
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.
That depends on how widely the Supreme Court's weakening of the exclusionary doctrine ends up being interpreted.
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.
'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
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.
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'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
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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 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.
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...
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."
> 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."
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.
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.
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?
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'
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.
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.
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."