Slashdot Mirror
FBI Seizes Library Computers Without Warrant
An anonymous reader writes "Two FBI agents walked into a public library in Maryland, without a warrant, and walked out with two computers. The library director agreed to release the machines to these smooth-talking feds. According to the article, the director of Frederick County Public Libraries indicated that this was the third time in his 10 years there that the FBI had requested records, but the first time they had come without a court order. The director seemed to indicate no regrets, stating 'It was a decision I made on my experience and the information given to me.' He further justified his actions, noting that the agents indicated specific computers they needed (of the several dozen in the library) and further that they 'had an awful lot of information.'" The library director speculated whether the raid may have involved the Bruce Ivins / anthrax case, musing "Obviously it coincided with the events everyone is talking about," but he said the agents hadn't mentioned it.
What would it be anyway? Most library computers I've used don't even connect to the internet, but rather just their online catalogue.
Some I know provide net access, although I presume websites are restricted/monitored.
If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
Vee arrrr de F-B-I
This goes completely against the American Library Association's issued "Recommended Procedures for Law Enforcement Visits" policy:
"Without a court order, neither the FBI nor local law enforcement has authority to compel cooperation with an investigation or require answers to questions, other than the name and address of the person speaking to the agent or officer. If the agent or officer persists, or makes an appeal to patriotism, the library director should explain that, as good citizens, the library staff will not respond to informal requests for confidential information, in conformity with professional ethics, First Amendment freedoms, and state law.
If the agent or officer presents a search warrant or other judicial process, the library director should immediately call the library's counsel and ask for assistance."
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/confidentiality.cfm
This library director was just a putz (and I can say that as a libraian-in-training).
Dance like no ones looking and love like it's never going to hurt.
Silly me, I thought the easy way would be to Get. A. Warrant. Plus it fulfills another coda of law enforcement: Cover. Your. Ass.
It would just be the cherry on top of this whole escapade if evidence from those computers is used in a trial...and it gets slapped down for violating the fourth amendment.
A public library does not own the computer. They maintain it, house it and control access to it.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
"Don't Talk to the Police" by Professor James Duane - 27 min - May 21, 2008
James Duane explains why innocent people should never talk to the police:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865
The librarian should be subject to a thorough questioning of her judgment
The library director in question is male.
There aint no pancake so thin it doesn't have two sides.
Since the library is public, I believe the people who own the computer are the taxpayers of the state of Maryland
Well actually the owner would be the county or state. Taxpayers have no property interest in the property of the state or the state's subdivisions. There is no legal grounds to object to the state's use of its own property. If you don't like it, it is a political issue to take up with your local representatives.
Maryland DOES have a library privacy law that forbids the library from sharing information that identifies individual users, etc.
Those computers are accessed using the patrons library card (or a temporary access card) that identifies the usages to an individual.
With a warrant, the library can, of course, release the information, but lacking a warrant patrons DO have an expectation of privacy BY LAW in that state.
Here is the pertinent information that the library director should have known by rote:
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifgroups/stateifcchairs/stateifcinaction/marylandprivacy.rtf (Courtesy the American Library Association)
The computers, with information on individual patron usage of same, were unlawfully seized if taken without a warrant, even with the incorrectly given permission of the library director.
--Tomas
I fail to see how that is at all related.
I'm so glad that we're talking about the 4th amendment and not the 1st... Because it'd be pretty horrible if you were only allowed freedom of religion, freedom of speech/press and the right to peaceably assemble in your own home.
What is being discussed is the 4th amendment as grabbed from Wikipedia:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Now I dont know about you but papers and effects dont necessarily have to be in your house. Do you want the FBI to walk over to your bank and go 'Hey can you please open up Safety Deposit Box #XXXXX for us?'... Didnt think so. Same thing here, except the guy who did it is also a public employee. A search is typically unreasonable if a police officer is unable to obtain a warrant in a court of law (which would indicate probable cause). It also states that a warrant cannot be a 'fishing expedition' indicating the specific place and things to be seized (IE. they cant take a warrant for your financial records on your computer, find child porn they cant charge you with possession of it because their warrant did not cover it, although it may be probable cause to check the rest of your house for such).
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
s/Seizes/Removes with Permission
I'll be first in line to tell the FBI to come back with a warrant, but don't blame them for the library director's stupidity.
For whom you voted is protected, but if you voted, and in most states' primaries, for which party you voted, are both recorded.
The law says that law enforcement officials need a warrant to seize evidence without the owner's consent. There's nothing in the law that prevents them from taking something without a warrant as long as they are given permission to do so. In this case, they requested permission and it was granted, so they FOLLOWED THE LAW, just as you suggested.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
The slashdot title is very misleading: "Seizes Library Computers" is very different from what the cops did.
The American Library Association, ALA, has a professional code of ethics. It includes the following:
In practice, this means that patron privacy is protected--period. No search warrant, no information, no cooperation. It is not difficult for an investigator pursuing a valid investigation of a legitimate crime to obtain a warrant. They shouldn't even bother showing up without the paperwork. The ALA statement on confidentiality goes into more detail about this.
Another interesting bit of librarian resistance to this sort of thing: A public library in Vermont put up a sign reading "The FBI has not been here. Watch for the discrete removal of this sign."
See, the Patriot Act states that the librarian can't inform people than a "national security letter" has been used, but it doesn't say anything about informing people that an NSL hasn't been used.
I am officially gone from
As someone who works in a library on a college campus where law enforcement has come in to take away computers, we have a very specific policy for this kind of situation.
Unfortunately, while campus law enforcement is aware of the library's policy, they do not always make it easy for us to comply with it.
I once fielded a call from campus computing services where they wanted to know where a computer in the Libraries was located based on its IP address. I looked up our records and gave them the floor and area number.
Later, I found out that law enforcement officers later showed up on the floor to take away the computer that I had helped identify. At no point during the call had I been made aware that this was a law enforcement request.
So now, I have to ask every time a query like that comes in: "Is this in response to a request from law enforcement?" If it is, then I have to contact my supervisor, my department head, and the designated person (an assistant head librarian) in charge of dealing with these requests. The designated liaison will then check about whether or not they have a warrant, and will supervise the removal of the computer(s) if necessary.
Everyone in the library (from the students and staff at the public services desks to IT to technical services) has been trained on this procedure.
[Unfortunately, it's very unlikely that law enforcement will be able to get much from the computers that they do take. We use public accounts, and after a certain period of idle time, the computer forces logout and then automatically logs back in, overwriting the public profile with a clean copy from the server and effectively erasing the user's browser history, cookies, etc., as well as any documents left on the desktop. While forensics might be able to recover something, by the time law enforcement even contacts us, the data they were interested in has probably been overwritten at least ten times.]