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.

Comments

No warrant == not legitimate.

[neapolitan]

I am far from a libertarian extremist, and this does not fly with me.

The whole reason that we have *court-ordered* warrants, elected judges, and oversight and accountability is to prevent this -- namely the seizing of records / assets without any oversight.

I am happy when even television shows get it right (Law and Order occasionally), and when the cops / feds do stuff like this, it comes back to jeopardize their case. Illegally seized? Now watch as you just compromised yourself and potentially let somebody go free. Before somebody retorts with the obvious extremes, of course I do think that ridiculous cases of this are ludicrous (e.g. cop didn't sign one piece of paper correctly -> murder goes free), but the case above is clear violation of due procedure and oversight in my books.

The one justification I could see is in truly emergent cases -- e.g. hard drive will purge, but need to preserve data... must... pull... plug... NOW. I would say "do it," and, according to my lawyer friends, there are judges on call that the cop / detective / agent can call that can grant emergency access / warrants shortly after the fact (within hours) to make everything legitimate. It does not appear that this was done here.

I don't want some librarian making the decision on whether to give up these publicly financed assets for snooping by any authority. Any smooth-talking agent can come in, reciting that it is for "terrorism / anthrax" or "the children / child porn" and the intimidated lady will just cave in. I know my friend's 60 year old mother who works as our local librarian would. She is neither lawyer nor judge, and should not function as such.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[m0s3m8n]

You can always ask for something and be given it. Warrants are only needed to forcibly remove an article.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[nasor]

If the people who own the computer (in this case, the library) are fine with handing it over, I don't see why court orders are necessary. Although I would hope that the library administrators would care enough about the privacy of library patrons to tell the feds to get lost and come back with a court order, obviously that's not the case. If you use someone else's computer, remember that the owner might or might not agree to cooperate with the police if they come knocking.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Rene S. Hollan]

You can always ask for something and be given it. Warrants are only needed to forcibly remove an article.

Yes, and the library might well be within it's rights to release those computers.

But, to the extent that the public expects some measure of anonymity in a public library, it strikes me as a very bad PR decision.
 

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Kjella]

It's not illegal to volunteer information, how on earth did you get that idea? If I taped you committing a crime on video, sure I could just give that to the cops. Even if I didn't and the cops went around asking if someone had been shooting a video it would. Warrants are to force you do hand over records/assets you don't want to hand over, and if they take them without permission and without warrant it's illegal. Unless bound otherwise by contract or law, I don't see why the library can't do whatever the hell it pleases. Yes, I think it'd be wrong and that the library should make a policy to only release against warrant, but legally I don't see why they should be bound to require one.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[DeadDecoy]

Yes, but doesn't that assume that they'll follow due process to prosecute whomever their after? What if they just use it to target someone as a suspected terrorist and ship them off to where the laws are somewhat bent to serve their purposes? It seems like nowadays, so much is done to safeguard freedom that it actually jeopardizes it.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[neapolitan]

I probably didn't say it succinctly enough, but that was exactly my point. I like to think that *we* own those computers in the library. My taxes paid for the construction, maintenance, and my overdue fines (sigh) also support it.

I don't want some mildly educated librarian making the decision whether to *give* stuff to a federal official.

That decision is for judges to make. It is not the librarian's decision to make, no more than it would be mine if I were a teenager working there at the time the officials walked in. With public assets comes increased accountability, which is why laws for crimes on public property (city halls, post offices) are generally so draconian.

The librarian should be subject to a thorough questioning of her judgment, with retraining or dismissal as indicated. :)

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Broken Toys]

You've got it the wrong way around.

An officer needs probable cause to get a warrant. This is to prevent an abuse of authority.

If someone wants to forcibly remove an article a warrant is unnecessary.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[vux984]

namely the seizing of records / assets without any oversight.

They weren't 'seized'. They asked for them, and they were given to them by the person responsible for them. He or she could have said no.

I don't want some librarian making the decision on whether to give up these publicly financed assets for snooping by any authority. Any smooth-talking agent can come in, reciting that it is for "terrorism / anthrax" or "the children / child porn" and the intimidated lady will just cave in. I know my friend's 60 year old mother who works as our local librarian would. She is neither lawyer nor judge, and should not function as such.

If the police want security tapes from a local business, for example, they have always just asked for them. The business isn't obligated to hand them over in that situation, but often does anyway, to be helpful. If they chose not to hand them over, then the police can seek a warrant.

This is not like the librarian handing over borrowing records for patrons. They -should- be obligated to protect patrons privacy and require a warrant for that. But if the police want to review the surveillance tapes, or look at a computer, or question the staff... then it is, and should be up to the library staff whether they feel like requiring the police to bring in a warrant before cooperating.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Harinezumi]

Since the library is public, I believe the people who own the computer are the taxpayers of the state of Maryland, and the director is merely their caretaker. By giving them away to people who claimed to be FBI agents without receiving a proper warrant, he has failed at his job.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the agents asked if they could have it and the librarian made the choice to give it to them, that's hardly illegal seizure. I think the agents were perfectly within their rights to ask.

Whether the librarian's cooperation was appropriate depends on how much confidentiality you can expect when using a public computer terminal at a public library. Personally I would expect none so I'm not troubled by the librarian's cooperation at all, although I'm sure there's an argument to be made both ways.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[lbarbato]

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).

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[ksd1337]

Well, it's easier to ask a library director than to ask every taxpayer who paid for the computers in that library.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[cabjf]

Not that it really changes your point, but, I believe, that most "mildy educated" librarians have a masters degree. Plus it was the library director, not just a random librarian.

I disagree with your assessment as I tend to look at it as the public money was spent to put that library together and the public also chooses to allow stewardship of that property to fall the director of that library (who probably reports to some county library director and so on). If he used his judgment to allow the FBI to seize those computers, then I really don't have a problem with it. Just as things you do in public come with no guarantee of privacy, I would expect that things I do while using public property (such as these computers) should not be considered private. Especially when I myself am not the direct steward of that property.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[cpn2000]

I hope you're joking. What the librarian handed over was not his personal property. It was paid for by the taxpayers. If you made a personal tape of a crime you can do what you please with it, but you don't (or at least should not) have the same latitude when the property in question is not your own. There are reasons we have courts and legal processes. They may be inconvenient, but that does not men they can circumvented when it suits us.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Volante3192]

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.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[nasor]

If the taxpayers who "own" the library computer want to create a law that forbids libraries from cooperating with the police unless there is a court order, they should exercise their collective will to make it happen. Until they do, the decision is obviously in the hands of the library employees who are directly responsible for the computer. He has not "failed at his job," unless there was something in his contract about how he was supposed to deal with federal agents.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[RobertM1968]

A public library does not own the computer. They maintain it, house it and control access to it.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[nasor]

Yes, it is their job to control access. And clearly they have decided to give federal agents access.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[BobandMax]

I agree wholeheartedly and would like to add that libraries do not pay well and do not attract the best and brightest. Even so, this "gentleman" seems particularly dull in not recognizing the importance of constitutional adherence. If he was convinced they were correct, he should have sequestered the machines until the agents obtained an appropriate court order.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Orion Blastar]

But in that case, you owned the video tapes. In the article, the librarian does not own the computers and hands them over without even talking to a higher up manager (like a president or chairman/chairwoman) and getting permission to give them over. It is not the library director's computers to give over, and he/she has to follow the chain of command before giving over library property. What if it was two fake FBI inspectors trying to pull a scam via social engineering by posing as FBI officers to scam the library director out of two computers? People do that sort of thing to McDonald's as they pose as police officers and ask the assistant manager to strip search employees. The library director should have at least called the FBI to verify if they sent over two agents and ask what their names are and badge numbers and then given that to his higher ups along with any warrants if they exist.

There is also a federal law of privacy rights of the people who used those computers and aren't suspects. Esp since a library gets funding from the government.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that it really changes your point, but, I believe, that most "mildy educated" librarians have a masters degree. Plus it was the library director, not just a random librarian.

An MLS (or related MLIS or permutations thereof) is one of the most pitiful professional graduate degrees one can earn. It is largely, though not exclusively, a dumping ground for liberal arts majors who can do little else. There are exceptions (law librarians, science librarians, etc), but not many. Coursework in cataloging, collection development, and archives for instance are no more difficult than a solid junior level undergraduate course. They should resurrect the BLS degree as many of the jobs librarians fill are little more than clerks.

And yes, before anybody starts about "scholarly pursuits", I work in an academic library full time with some rather talented folks along with a few extreme duds.

Now, since I've dispatched that issue, one thing I will say about most of the librarians I know is that they'd tell the feds to get bent and get warrant. While many of them may appear to be nerds and geeks, they tend to be champions of equal and complete information access with as little interference by government drones as possible. Most are not fans of thugs in suits or jackboots. While there may be little expectation of privacy in a library, how difficult is it to utter "get a court order"? Especially considering the current administrations overstepping of its bounds on a continuous basis.

I suspect this so-called library "director" will have lost considerable respect amongst his peers. Hopefully if he applies for a position elsewhere this incident will haunt him.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[farnsworth]

The librarian should be subject to a thorough questioning of her judgment

The library director in question is male.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[pacinpm]

It's not illegal to volunteer information, how on earth did you get that idea?

Yes but it's only ok if this information belongs to you. Librarian only manages this information. He doesn't own it. He should keep it secret unless told by the judge.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[brechindo]

"If the police want security tapes from a local business, for example, they have always just asked for them. The business isn't obligated to hand them over in that situation, but often does anyway, to be helpful."

I have personally known 3 business owners in the course of my life who cooperated in similar manner with police "requests". They all admitted to me that they did so out of fear of the well-established (and once plainly-communicated) threat of "slower response times in case of emergency".

This is a game cops play with anyone who has something the cops want - hand it over, or else they'll punish you by refusing to do their job (while still eagerly accepting the pay for that job), while still enforcing each and every law against you that makes it difficult or dangerous to protect you and yours.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[delong]

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

But it won't. Because consent is always sufficient for a search and seizure.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[delong]

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.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Firehed]

Which is why I wonder if this was just a clever social engineering attack. I obviously couldn't be bothered to RTFA, but these days it couldn't be too hard to just show up to any random place looking like you come from the government, make some arbitrary demand, and walk off with hardware or data.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Firehed]

At the expense of everyone else's access. There's a difference between allowing them to ghost the hard drive and walk out with their copy of any relevant data (which I'd say is worse without a warrant, as then nobody even finds out that this has taken place) and removing the system entirely therefore preventing anyone else to use said system.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[lena_10326]

That decision is for judges to make.

It is not the librarian's decision to make, no more than it would be mine if I were a teenager working there at the time the officials walked in.

The one who holds the gun is the one making the decisions. No sane person is going to say "No" to a man with a gun, a badge, and government backed authority to shoot. And, certainly no one is going to argue at length with a cop over a publicly owned computer

The librarian should be subject to a thorough questioning of her judgment, with retraining or dismissal as indicated. :)

It's so easy to condescend when you've not been interrogated by an FBI agent, talking in cryptic legal terms, threatening to arrest you if you resist their investigation.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[the eric conspiracy]

But in that case, you owned the video tapes. In the article, the librarian does not own the computers and hands them over without even talking to a higher up manager

How do you know this library director doesn't have the authorization to make a decision like this? He could easily have that level of authority. TFA states he is the Director of the Frederick County Public Libraries, which may make a decision like this well within his job parameters.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[SpaceLifeForm]

Otherwise, last I heard, it's call theft.

1. Impersonate FBI agent
2. Take computers
3. Profit!

Man, and to think it is that easy and was in front
of our eyes all this time.

(Laptops! Laptops! Get your cheap Laptop here!, Laptops!)

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[poetmatt]

Agreed.

I'd call it a pretty dumb move to have any form of government involvement without warrants/legal documentation to trail back and cover your own ass, but I suppose the library would rather shoot themselves in the foot in this regards.

If in case there is some violation done by the library by willfully handing them over without a warrant that CYA is out the window now. /cue directory getting fired in 5...4....3....

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[blindseer]

But, to the extent that the public expects some measure of anonymity in a public library, it strikes me as a very bad PR decision.

I remember reading another article on how some librarian association or another was fighting tooth and nail about keeping records of what books were checked out by whom away from law enforcement without warrant. It baffled me why they were doing this until I realized they were fighting for their very existence. If goons with badges can go about asking for records of who reads what on a whim the police can effectively shutter a library by flooding it with requests for records. While the staff is running around to satisfy the whims of goons with badges nothing productive can be done and the people will never enter a library again for fear that yet another book was flagged as "bad" for public consumption and anyone reading it must be called in for questioning.

So, I agree, this is a very bad PR move. People expect to be able to read whatever they wish without some government agent looking over their shoulder.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[forkazoo]

They weren't 'seized'. They asked for them, and they were given to them by the person responsible for them. He or she could have said no.

Part of the issue is that the FBI has an enourmously imbalanced amount of power in any FBI - some_guy interaction. So, most people wouldn't just say no to the FBI. They wouldn't because they don't want to get the fucking FBI annoyed at them. They wouldn't because they aren't sure if they are allowed to. They wouldn't because they don't want to deal with the hassle of dealing with the FBI a second time when they show up with a warrant. They wouldn't because they don't want to be known as unpatriotic. Whatever. The simple fact is that there are plenty of people who wouldn't say no to the FBI.

Consequently, the FBI has a responsibility to use their power correctly, gently, and in an absurdly by the book way, in order to avoid even the appearance of abusing that authority. IMHO, that means always getting a warrant instead of going on extrajudicial fishing expeditions.

The librarian is not to blame. Sure, he surrendered what I assume is actually public property to somebody without any need to do so, and adversely effected the available resources at the library. But, the real problem is that FBI agents can go around saying, "Hey, give me this just because I say so. Nobody has double checked me to see if this request is appropriate or related to a case, because I have no warrant. Give it to me anyway." I doubt that abuse of this is widespread, but IMHO, the possibility of it has to be seen as completely unacceptable.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[FelixGordon]

Yeah its interesting that the poster read librarian and immediately assumed female and "mild" education.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[nasor]

You can argue that, but the point was that 1)the feds didn't "seize" anything, they simply asked for it and were granted permission and 2)the guy who gave them permission had the authority to do so. You can complain about how his decision deprived the other library patrons of the computer, but now we're down to discussing a library director who makes a bad decision about how a computer should be used, rather than the FBI illegally seizing computers without warrants.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[zblack_eagle]

If the police want security tapes from a local business, for example, they have always just asked for them. The business isn't obligated to hand them over in that situation, but often does anyway, to be helpful.

The thing is that surveillance tapes are used solely for surveillance. They exist to be used as evidence of any crime that they bear witness to.

But if the police want to review the surveillance tapes, or look at a computer, or question the staff... then it is, and should be up to the library staff whether they feel like requiring the police to bring in a warrant before cooperating.

I agree that it should be up to the library staff whether the police question them or look at surveillance tapes or at computers in the absence of a warrant. But they didn't look at the computers in question. They removed them from the library, depriving the public of their use. It's an unreasonable deprivation of property unless there's a warrant issued for it.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[milkmage]

1) you don't need a warrant to take equipment as long as the owner gives permission 2) the person in question was not just anyone that works at the library. it was the DIRECTOR of the libraries - 100 employees and a budget of 18 million (http://www.co.frederick.md.us/index.asp?nid=90). something tells me that HE (not she, as you assume) is qualified to make the decision. they don't put a "mildly educated" person in charge of that many people and that much money. A librarian is hired, a director is APPOINTED. (http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/36loc/fr/html/fre.html) 3) it's a government instution - not a private individual. I doubt a judge would even inquire about the validity of the 'evidence' presented in order to obtain a warrant.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[dkarma]

You log in with your name and card # at my library...how can I expect privacy again?

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Leiterfluid]

The logic of this escapes me. And mind you, I'm not saying you're wrong but...

Since when is there an expectation of privacy from government agencies when you're using a public library funded by public dollars.

But, what makes this a non-issue is that the FBI asked for information, and the director of that library made the decision he thought was best, and voluntarily provided the agency with what they requested. He might have known that a warrant was inevitable, and didn't want to waste money fighting it.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[vux984]

I agree that it should be up to the library staff whether the police question them or look at surveillance tapes or at computers in the absence of a warrant. But they didn't look at the computers in question. They removed them from the library, depriving the public of their use. It's an unreasonable deprivation of property unless there's a warrant issued for it.

And if you were the librarian in charge, that would have been your decision to make. You could have told the police just that. So, in this case, the librarian made a decision you don't agree with and you are blaming the police for asking, rather than the librarian for agreeing?

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[vux984]

Part of the issue is that the FBI has an enourmously imbalanced amount of power in any FBI - some_guy interaction.

Fair enough. ...Consequently, the FBI has a responsibility to use their power correctly, gently, and in an absurdly by the book way, in order to avoid even the appearance of abusing that authority. IMHO, that means always getting a warrant instead of going on extrajudicial fishing expeditions.

Whereas I drew a completely different conclusion. I would say, 'consequently individuals and businesses have a responsibility to learn what their rights are, how to stick up for them, and how to deal with the police / FBI'.

As anyone can tell you, criminals are much more adept at dealing with the police than the regular public. They know the law better, their rights better, and have much less groundless fear.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[penguin_dance]

Well I don't know what they can get from this other than evidence of a possible crime, but not who was on the computer. Unless the library logs people on and off the computers (unlikely), there is corresponding video (extremely unlikely) or the person can be linked by the library computer and the one in the suspects home, etc.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[zblack_eagle]

No, I'd blame both parties. The police shouldn't have asked for that much without a warrant and the librarian shouldn't have consented

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[ThatsNotFunny]

Elections are funded by public dollars, too. Who did you vote for in the last election?

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[tibman]

You don't know many country folk, i'm guessing.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Scrameustache]

I disagree with you. I also think Firemen should need a court order to remove people from buildings. I mean, these were just computers, but Firemen can move *people*! Our Government is getting out of control.

Ok, mildly funny, but WTF modded that Insightful?

Also: DIAF, fireman hater! : )

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[uncqual]

Warrants, where required, are intended primarily to protect privacy, harassment and the like - not to insure a resource is available. For example, a government employed electrician troubleshooting a short circuit isn't required to get a warrant before making these computers unavailable by unplugging them.

Anyway, is there any evidence that these computers were needed for proper functioning of the library in question?

As others have said, it's a public resource -- you shouldn't have an expectation of privacy unless some specific law insures it. (I would urge legislators to insure that such a law exists of course).

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[LaskoVortex]

You can always ask for something and be given it. Warrants are only needed to forcibly remove an article.

Yes, and they are most definitely not needed by people posing as agents and walking off with some choice computers. I know, I know, "they new an awful lot". But "they knew an awful lot" to a clueless librarian might mean that they could look at the case and know it had Rambus memory or a 3.1 GhZ pentium. I'm putting even chances on the possibility that this library got hoodwinked out of a couple of imacs. And even if the library didn't get hoodwinked, its always best to ask for documentation when men in black suits ask to walk off with your property, lest it end up in a pawn shop somewhere.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[WindBourne]

Why are you a cop? Did you present data to me that would indicate that I should release these computers? How do I know that the evidence was real? What capabilities does the average person have to judge that? If this was about ivers, then the average person has little capabilities of judging it. If about AQ, same thing. The simple fact is, that if these guys had overwhelming evidence, then ask the librarian to set aside the computers (I am sure that nearly ALL librarians would so), and then FOLLOW THE LAW and get a warrent.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[General Wesc]

No sane person is going to say "No" to a man with a gun, a badge, and government backed authority to shoot.

FBI agencies have a government-backed authority to shoot people in some circumstances. This wasn't one of them.

Maybe I'm insane, but I'm just not that scared of cops (or FBI agents). Most of them are reasonable people (yes, they're people!) and they aren't terribly eager to shoot someone without good cause.

The insane people are those who believe they will get shot and stand up for their rights--our rights--anyway. I want more of those guys around. I'd like to say I'd be one of them, but I haven't been put to the test yet.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see how that is at all related.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Rene S. Hollan]

The value of a public library is that it offers the public the opportunity to inform and educate itself -- long recognized as valuable to enable the informed vote of the enfranchised in a democracy.

To this end, the privacy of what the individual choses to inform him- or herself about has long been upheld by the courts.

Imagine the chilling effect if the public could not inform itself about documents in a library contrary to the present government without scrutiny.

What the public has a right to know, and oversee, is WHAT the library chooses to make available, and not who reads it.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Rene S. Hollan]

I expect that when I pay a merchant in his store (arguably a public place) with a credit card, my credit card number is kept private.

What I do not have is an expectation that others in that place, at that time, do not see me.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[mrchaotica]

Or am I committing a crime when I ask for extra napkins at McDonalds?

You are a private citizen, not a public servant. Different rules should apply: a public servant acting in his official capacity should have considerably fewer rights and privileges than a private citizen.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[LordLucless]

If there was a reasonable indication that the computers were going to be useful, then the officials could have gotten a warrant without too much trouble - the criteria for receiving a warrant aren't too strict.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[delong]

No. The computers are the property of the library/county/state. The custodian of the property can consent.

I'd say nobody can have a reasonable expectation of privacy on a public computer. I mean, you don't even have your own user account in most cases.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[eredin]

A friend of mine is a librarian, and when I asked her what she thought about the issue of reader privacy and releasing records, she told me that the city instructed the library system to comply with any such federal requests, releasing any records they have.

The library response was that they decided not to keep any records beyond who has what book checked out now. When a book is returned, the only information retained is the dates of check out--the reader's name is completely disassociated. They know a book was checked out, but they can't tell you who had it. Nice.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[mog007]

I'm a Floridian, so the issue doesn't bother me. However, if I were a resident tax payer in Maryland, or this event happened in *my* state, then I would be furious. The FEDERAL government has no business taking away locally funded equipment without a warrant or compensating the library by replacing the machines they seized.

I read earlier in the thread about this being a simple request from the FBI and they were given permission, but short of the state of Maryland's legislature, no single entity has the authority to give state funded equipment to the federal government.

But this isn't that big a deal to get in a tizzy over, so my fellow nuts and I will keep our guns locked up for the time being.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[jeepien]

I expect that when I pay a merchant in his store (arguably a public place) with a credit card, my credit card number is kept private

Well, you'd lose that bet. Investigators, both private and public, with and without warrants, routinely gain access to your purchase history.

--
Orwell was an optimist.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[hedwards]

A warrant isn't ever necessary to search a building if the building's owner provides permission. It's just necessary if the officer wants to do so without the owner's OK.

Same deal here, there is definitely an issue of whether or not the librarian was right in saying OK, but there really and truly is no law that says that an officer or agent can't ask anyways, as long as they accept the likely no.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[cptdondo]

I work for a city, and the Librarian most emphatically does not have the right to give away, loan, or otherwise remove any city property. That is a crime.

There is a due process for disposing of City property. No employee can make that decision.

What the FBI has done is sweet talked some innocent person into committing a crime.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[blantonl]

The fact that it was the that FBI showed up and asked for the computer surely means that they are after something really terrible, important, malicious, and off-the-charts out-of-control threatening to national security.

Oh wait...

-
Lb
radioreference

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[SpasticWeasel]

I, believe, that, a, lot, of, commas, make, you, look, like, a, moron

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[iocat]

Say you murder someone. The cops come and ask to look around your house, with no warrent. You say "sure" and they come in and find evidence and they arrest you. Say you murder someone. The cops come and ask to look around and you say "get a warrent" and they go away. [Maybe the come back later, it's immaterial to the story.]

In neither case were your rights violated. Same here. If the FBI asked for RECORDs that might be an issue, but it appeared they asked for public terminals. The Director seems well within his rights to give them what they want, just as if the cops showed up and said "Hey, we think a murderer might have cleaned himself up in your mens' room, can we look and gather some of those bloody towels that are all over the floor?"

A warrent is only required when the authorities can't get permission from the person they need stuff from. No one has any requirement to give permission, but it's not like you can't give permission without a warrent.

IMHO, people are spun up about this because the word "library" was used. If they went to an Internet Cafe and asked the same thing no one would give a shit. FBI? Library? Warrent? OMG!

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Julian2]

I interpreted the article to say that the director made the final call to allow the FBI to take the computers. In a library, it would only make sense for such a decision to be delegated up to that level. The director of the Frederick County Public Libraries is also the current president of the Maryland Library Association (an organization whose primary mission is to serve the public libraries in the state). I am a member of this association, and I do not like how things transpired in Frederick.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[DangerFace]

If the Director of this here library decided to give himself permission to take all of the computers home and make them all his personal property, would that be acceptable? I most certainly think not. He may have the right to allow or refuse access, but not to give them away. If, one day, he just took home all the books, tables, computers and wall hangings, he would be sacked summarily and police would get a warrant to go to his house and take back all the stuff. That's why this is a story - if he had just allowed the Feds to sit at the computer and do what they wanted without a library card, that would be a different story entirely.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[DarkAce911]

For some reason, I don't see him getting re-elected next time. The next membership meeting is going to fun. I think some of the memebers may have a bone or two to pick with him.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[corbettw]

Whenever I think of female librarians, there's nothing "mild" about them. Rwa-oh!

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[dbIII]

FBI agencies have a government-backed authority to shoot people in some circumstances

When they have thrown one rule out and no longer have due process you don't know which others have been thrown out. Just ask anyone in an area that has a corrupt or over-politicised police force. You really cannot stand up to them without witnesses.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[bluemonq]

Ok, I'll bite. How's this? You are ill and go to a public hospital, which is at least in part funded by taxpayer dollars. Your medical records are thus being handled by doctors, nurses, technicians, clerks, etc. on the public payroll. Therefore, you should have no expectations that your medical records will be kept private.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[indiechild]

It's worth pointing out also that, increasingly, library directors are not even librarians but government officials with marketing/business management experience who run the library as a "corporate business" rather than a public service.

They are "CEOs" rather than chief librarians.

I'd love to find out what type this guy is.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[_Sprocket_]

I'll hazard to guess the point being that federal elections are also publicly funded, yet fundamentally involve privacy.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[matria]

And a Library Science degree is one of the toughest degrees to get. My small-town high school counselors didn't bother to look up the requirements, and advised me badly on what path to follow in high school, and it turned out I would need two years of jr. college to catch up on all the required courses I needed in order to enroll as a Library Science major.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[zobier]

...I can say that as a libraian-in-training

#o

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Free the Cowards]

They can ask anything they want. What they can't do is demand.

For example, this is legal: "Can I search your car?" If you say yes, and then they find the cocaine you had hidden under the seat, you have no grounds for complaint.

This, however, is illegal: "I have no evidence of wrongdoing, but let me search your car or I'll arrest you."

It is perfecly legal for the police to ask you something that would be illegal for them to demand without a warrant. It's also perfectly legal for you to refuse such a request. We don't need to make it illegal for the police to ask for things, we need to educate the populace as to their rights and the fact that they can stand up to the police.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Free the Cowards]

By that logic, the director should never do anything without first checking with higher ups. In which case, he has no reason to even be there, the higher ups can do everything themselves.

There's something called delegation of authority. The president or board have powers, and they give these powers to someone more involved in day to day affairs. He was almost certainly acting within the powers delegated to him when he took this action.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[rohan972]

The one who holds the gun is the one making the decisions.

I take it you are opposed to gun bans then, and believe that the citizens of a country should be armed.

No sane person is going to say "No" to a man with a gun, a badge, and government backed authority to shoot.

The SEOL Act hasn't passed yet (Summary Execution Of Librarians) it's still being debated in Congress, so the FBI doesn't yet have authority to shoot librarians for requiring a warrant to search etc.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Free the Cowards]

Sounds like corrupt police, to me.

If the threat is real and the police can be convinced to communicate it (which it sounds like they can), then I'd say the correct response is to get them to do it while on hidden camera, then distribute to the local media. Corruption should be fought, not submitted to.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[kmac06]

For whom you voted is protected, but if you voted, and in most states' primaries, for which party you voted, are both recorded.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Free the Cowards]

Why shouldn't the police have asked? It's standard police procedure to ask for things that they have no right to require. Police will ask to search your car during a traffic stop, or to look inside your house if they have some suspicion but not enough to justify a forced entry. The subject of the search is entirely within his rights to refuse, but many people don't, because they want to be helpful, or they don't know their rights, or whatever reason. The fact that people are overly kind or uneducated is not the police's problem.

Put it this way. If some guy on the street comes up to you and asks for $100, and you give it to him, do you blame the guy for asking? Maybe, if you're spineless and weak-willed, but otherwise no.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Free the Cowards]

Is the life of someone worth YOUR presumed rights to surf anonymously on a public computer?

Well yes. That's kind of the whole point of having rights. You don't get to go around breaking them just because there's some kind of emergency.

If a situation came up where my family was in danger and a possible clue is in library computer that some ALA putz with a stick up their ass refused to release, I would hold them and the ALA personally responsible for any harm that occurred.

And that is precisely why we don't let people whose families are in danger make these kinds of decisions.

If there is reasonable use for such things as evidence or as part of an investigation, get a warrant. They're not hard to get, and they don't take long. The system is in place for a reason. You don't get to violate it just because you think the situation is special and the rules do not apply to you.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[nbauman]

Right. I immediately checked the American Library Association too.

Contrary to what some of the posters are saying, we do have an expectation of privacy when we use the library, since we are guaranteed privacy by the ALA policies (below) that we can reasonably expect every library to follow. The library director was indeed an incompetent putz. He was placing our freedom to read, and our entire Constitution, at risk. He should be removed from any position of responsibility.

There was a long story in the New York Times magazine about a guy who was completely innocent, and a completely assimilated American -- except that he was Muslim and his name was Mohammed. He used the same public computer in Kinko's that one of the 9/11 hijackers had used the same day. (Sure, it's a strange coincidence, but how many people used that public computer?)

The FBI arrested him (although "arrest" implies legal process) and kept him for days (maybe weeks, I forget) and repeatedly refused to let him contact his wife or a lawyer. Finally he got depressed and suicidal. These interrogations can be very brutal, as we've recently found out.

After they figured out that he had nothing to do with 9/11, or terrorism, or any crime, instead of apologizing and letting him go, they subject his immigration documents to Kenneth Starr-type scrutiny and tried to make a case in immigration court (where you have fewer rights) that his marriage was a sham, and that he should be deported.

The moral of this story (and there are others) is that even an innocent person has good reason to avoid the FBI's high false positive dragnet.

(Sorry I don't have the citation of the New York Times story; your librarian can help you find it. :)

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/otherpolicies/default.cfm

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/otherpolicies/developingconfidentiality.cfm

Developing a Confidentiality Policy

Recent years have seen an increase in the number and frequency of challenges to the confidentiality of library records across the United States, and a new dimension has been added to confidentiality concerns. Throughout the 1980s, the Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) received queries from individual librarians who had been pressured by the FBI or local law enforcement agencies for information about library users, or who were afraid of being held liable for a patron's acts after providing information on such topics as bomb construction, weapons, or satanism. Some of these librarians were tempted to maintain special files on patrons who seemed "suspicious" or who made "unusual" requests. These queries revealed a lack of confidence in confidentiality procedures or a misunderstanding of the important links among confidentiality, intellectual freedom, and librarians' professional and legal obligations to uphold the privacy rights of patrons.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[zsau]

Why would that be the cherry on top? If a crime was committed it's always desirable for the guilty party to be tried and found guilty. If someone walks because the cops who did this didn't do the right thing, they should get to walk in the pile of shit they've made, and they should have to answer to any victims.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[techno-vampire]

...FOLLOW THE LAW and get a warrent.

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.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[RobertM1968]

Yes, it is their job to control access. And clearly they have decided to give federal agents access.

Indeed... just stating a correction to make your statement accurate and saving you the time to do so (or tried to) ;-)

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Scratch-O-Matic]

What if the library handed over a security tape showing a crime being committed? Didn't the taxpayers pay for that too?

...They may be inconvenient, but that does not men they can circumvented when it suits us.

No law was circumvented here.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[TeraCo]

"So you volunteer your information to every pair of smooth-talking people in suits and shades who can't produce any documentation?"

Presumably they had a badge and ID card which proved that they were members of the FBI. That's really documentation enough to for one government arm to cooperate with another government arm.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Mr. Capris]

WHOAH. No library card? That would be a different, and very serious story. We can't let just anyone use a library computer without a card. It's, you know, government property and such.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Nulifier]

The problem is not the actual computers but the records that are on them, if someone (like a business) owned these computers (like an internet cafe) then they can do as they wish with them, however these computers were used with the understanding that they had some privacy. In effect the librarian was deciding what to do with the data of all the people who used those computers, not just the computers.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Nulifier]

I shouldn't need to be afraid of the police, they are the ones responsible for upholding the law. My job as a citizen is to contribute to society by paying taxes that pay for these officers. So if I need to know my rights because I have to fear the police taking advantage of me, there is something wrong.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Nulifier]

Well in that case, there are more than one person in on the decision. The problem is not that the library gave up the computers, it is that they did it based on the decision of one person, at the request of the police who didn't even have a warrant. If the police went through the proper channels and got a warrant and asked for the computers, very few people would have issue with this.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[debocracy]

I cannot believe I read this. You mean that you believe that I should have to WORRY about the names of the books I check out from the library? This is the essence of liberty and academic freedom, and you think it's ok to just chuck it. Why don't you just move to Nepal or Iran? Have you ever heard of Big Brother or thought control?

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[MrResistor]

Again, the judge only needs to be involved if the owner, or an authorized agent thereof, is not able or willing to give permission.

I think if you look up the legal definition of "agency", you'll find that your entire argument is baseless.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[DanAnderson26]

Exactly, assuming these 2 computers were not simply stolen, I hope the _public_ employee (FBI agent) gets a chuckle when he reads this on his _public_ computer at his _public_ desk in his _public_ office.

Expecting privacy in a _public_ library is like seeking sanctuary in a _public_ park.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Urkki]

Or am I committing a crime when I ask for extra napkins at McDonalds?

Only if you're a cop and acting without a properly authorized napkin seizure warrant.

This is why they sometimes give you way too many napkins, ketchup, straws and everything at fast food places. It tells you that the place is frequented by cops, and it's not good business if customers run out of napkins and can't ask for more... So they give you more than you need, just in case you're a cop.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Urkki]

I don't see why we can't point out how colossally stupid this is.

And I suspect other /. readers don't see that either, because I don't much arguing about the stupidity of this (which it kind of was, stupid that is). I only see them arguing about illegality (which it apparently was not, illegal that is).

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[jacquesm]

the librarian is *not* the owner of these computers.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[WindBourne]

More importantly, if the directer changes tune about why he turned over the computers, then there is an issue.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[dodecalogue]

Imagine the chilling effect if the public could not inform itself about documents in a library contrary to the present government without scrutiny.

This is already the case, in some ways. I like being autodidactic and make no real bounds on what I should or shouldn't learn, but have often skipped over checking out certain materials on subjects I was interested in, simply due to a potential suspicious glance from a librarian, let alone records being connected to me. I realize mine is a special case of hyper-self-consciousness, but I'm sure this happens to other people, too. In light of this case, I'll probably completely conclude my use of the library beyond fiction and cds/dvds.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[jonadab]

> But, to the extent that the public expects some measure of anonymity
> in a public library, it strikes me as a very bad PR decision.

I suspect that depends where you live. Around here, being uncooperative with the police and making them go back and get a warrant (which can take several days, or hours at the least) would almost certainly be significantly worse PR, especially if the public was under the impression that the case might involve something like Anthrax.

Bear in mind, a library in Maryland probably doesn't care very much what computer geeks in California think about it when they read the news story on slashdot. Insofar as they are concerned about PR, they would mainly be concerned with PR among the people in and around their service area. So in order to predict the PR impact, you'd have to know the local culture in their area.

I don't really know what the PR considerations would be for the library in question, but unless you live near there, you probably don't either.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[jonadab]

> If goons with badges can go about asking for records of who reads what on a whim the police
> can effectively shutter a library by flooding it with requests for records.

That's absurd. If the library was okay with providing the desired information to the police, they could just give them a database connection and let them run whatever queries they want. You'd want to set up a read-only connection, so that would take a few minutes of the sysadmin's time, but it would hardly "shutter" the library.

The library association in question was obviously concerned with the privacy issue -- they didn't want the police to be able to find out what people are reading. You can agree or disagree with that position, but that's obviously what they were fighting for.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[jonadab]

That has consequences, though. There are whole categories of useful data mining that you can't do if you throw away that information. Among other things, your weeding reports can't distinguish between a book that was checked out thirty times in three years always by the same person (a *strong* candidate for the Friends of the Library booksale) versus a book that was checked out thirty times in three years by twenty-five different people (a book you'd want to keep on the shelf). That may not sound important if you don't work at a library, but with finite shelf space and a continuous influx of new books, every library fights a ceaseless battle to identify old books that aren't really needed in the collection. Much time is spent on this. Being able to run automated reports to identify as many of them as possible is an indispensable tool, and being able to base that at least partly on how many different patrons have checked the book out is invaluable.

And that's just *one* example of something you can't do if you throw away the history information.

Statistical correlation for reader's advisory ("people who checked out this book also read books by these authors") is another.

And another, which you'd have no way to know about if you haven't worked at a library, is answering patrons' own questions about what books they have or haven't checked out in the past. I know this is hard to believe (eight years, and I'm still not used to it), but anyone who has worked the checkout desk in a library can testify that a significant minority of library patrons do not remember whether they've checked this book out before, and they want you to tell them. Throw away the history, and you can't. And they will never understand why you can't just look it up in the computer.

And there are more, too many to list. Fundamentally, throwing away data means you lose information. Information is what libraries are all about, so throwing away data is a hard choice to make. And yes, lots of libraries do throw the information away, because they're concerned about the privacy issue. But that decision has consequences.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[dkleinsc]

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.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Dog-Cow]

You can diassociate names without losing how many different people checked out the book.

As for what they checked out, that's the problem. If other people (it should not matter how official they are) can get your records, you have to balance privacy versus convenience.

I'd rather have privacy, as the Federal Government (all branches) have shown themselves to be completely immoral and corrupt.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Apathy451]

I have. After being caught trespassing in a public park after dark, when it was closed, though not doing anything else illegal (drugs, drinking, etc), the police asked us if they could search our car. We told them no, we'd like to get home. They asked if they'd have to bring in drug dogs or hold us up while waiting on a warrant (it was 2am and in the suburbs of Philly). We told them it would be a waste of their time, reiterated our "no," and that was the end of it. We didn't even have to do the community service for trespassing (which at the time they told us was the punishment).

So yeah, I've said no to the police before, and they didn't even "nail" me on what they had all the right and evidence to. They were doing their jobs by asking, and we exercised our rights by saying no to a search. Was rather uneventful.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[sumdumass]

If you knew that going in, then your trip to the library would pretty much be "consent" wouldn't it?

I mean if FBI agent X can seize records a Y, then knowingly going to Y means you allowed it. All through school, I was told that the FBI has watch lists for people who checked out certain books. We actually attempted to figure out which ones they were and get everyone in the school to check it out. Almost every 1st grader joined in with the rest of us an had carried a copy of mein kampf and 1984. Our plan to over work the government didn't have a much support in junior high and highschool because a couple of us got busted with copies of Kitchen improvised plastic explosives and Build Your Own Laser, Phaser, Ion Ray Gun and Other Working Space Age Projects in school. Five of us got 10 days out of school suspension and one guy got 15 days in school suspension over them. This was also well before Columbine, back in the early to mid 80's.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[stewbacca]

I don't want some librarian making the decision

Right, because any librarian worth the weight of their Masters or PhD in Library Science didn't learn a thing about this sort of procedure? My wife takes exception to your overtly dismissive comment towards Library Sciences.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[sm62704]

I am far from a libertarian extremist, and this does not fly with me.

It's a public library. Public. I've had my Constitutional rights violated (caution: strong language) by the FBI and DEA at the same time; I dropped off two friends in the ghetto to collect payment from a slumlord for a vacant hous they had cleaned, and we were searched because the house next door was a dope house.

The local police "had a look around" my garage on Mmorial day, the day we commemorate service people who have died defending our rights.

That's a far cry worse than taking a PUBLIC computer.

The US with its secret police we call "undercover" and "plainclothes" has become a police state. Only a police state needs secret police.

With my experiences of having the cops ignore the constitution, this doesn't even annoy me. Teh water is boiling, the frog is dead.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[sumdumass]

So your saying that a librarian can and should tell people who might be doing something illegal and using public resources to accomplish that illegality that the FBI might be on their trail?

This isn't just a matter of if you don't have anything to hide, it is a matter of good guys verses bad guys. And to date, I'm not aware of anytime where the NSA letters or anything concerning a library has bee abused. Just like in this case, there was a specific target and specific information had bee sought after.

OTOH, last winter we had a situation were a lady was pushed or slipped on ice or somehow ended up taking a rise in a rive with below freezing temperatures outside. She went into a coma and the only thing that could identify her with was a library car in her pocket (everything else was gum or something like that and her purse went on down the river when they fished her out). Anyways, the librarian refused to give her name out and said something stupid like "get a warrant". TO make a long story short, that librarian was fired (and rightfully so) and the woman almost died after surviving the near drowning and hypothermia because she didn't have some medication for an infection which lead to organ damage that wasn't apparent until after the brought her out of the Coma. Had they been able to get her medical records, she wouldn't have had to get some transplant.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[elrous0]

That would be great, if they were HIS computers. But those computers belong to the taxpayers who fund that library, not him. They are not his to give away. If the FBI doesn't return them, do you think he's going to pony up the cash to replace them?

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[CapnStank]

Anyone else wonder why the /. immediate reaction is to go on the offensive? I understand what we're all fighting for here but the fact is that not a single one of you would be willing to use a public terminal (such as the library ones in question) for anything private. You would be an idiot to let that thing see your credit card number or other important information.

So if we all agree that these two terminals hold nothing special for ourselves is it so bad that a law enforcement team whose goal is to protect us wants to search these computers for whatever reason?

Again, I see what we're all trying to defend here, but there's situations where it is relivent and there's situations where you could afford to bend a little.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[RealGrouchy]

Don't blame me; I voted for the other librarian!

- RG>

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[dodden]

You expect privacy / anonymity from a public computer in a public library? Really? Do you also have a way to wipe your electronic finger prints from the disk so that you will not be "seen"? Seriously, if you want privacy on a computer, you should use your computer at home or go to websites via an anonymizer. Do not expect public property to maintain your private matters. Example, you write in a book filling in a crossword puzzle and write down a phone number at the library. Pretty safe to say everyone else that grabs that book will then be able to see the phone number and a few may even dial it. Granted not all are savvy computer techies, but expect someone is and don't put your personal information on that computer.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Free the Cowards]

No, I just believe in liberty over safety.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[hesaigo999ca]

But libraries are becoming a thing of the past,
and this is just more proof that this day is coming quicker and quicker.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[stewbacca]

I don't know where your baseless attack came from, considering ALL I'm insinuating is that somebody with a PhD in Library Science is probably more qualified to opine than an Anonymous Coward such as yourself. She also got pissed off when I read the dismissive attitude about "some librarian" making a decision. It's not like you become "some librarian" by going to Community College. You may not realize that most librarian positions require at least a Masters degree....even for crappy public school positions that pay in the 20-30k/year range.

Here's an idea for you Mr. Coward. How about you go get YOUR PhD in something, then let me piss on you for being "just some PhD"...as if you didn't do jack or as if YOUR choice of a PhD isn't worth a shit.

And pray tell, based on what I posted, how in the hell did you come up with this gem of jump-to-conclusion?

the radical-right political discussions she has at home with you?

Guess it's time to take down my Obama 08 signs, since I'm obviously some sort of radical-right winger all of a sudden.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[tinkerghost]

It baffled me why they were doing this until I realized they were fighting for their very existence.

Actually, the biggest case so far was in NJ. NJ has a nice law that explicitly states that library records cannot be released without a court order. Officers in NJ came into the library & demanded access to records from a bunch of computers and records regarding book sign-outs. When reminded of The Law they became quite indignant and abusive to the librarians.

Interestingly enough, when the police were discussing how the librarians were obstructing their investigation, they never made any mention of the fact that to do otherwise would have violated state law.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[supasteev]

I work in the computer forensics industry and I'm going to start by saying that anyone that assumes anonymity in an electronic transaction is sadly mistaken, especially on a public computer. Let's take the electronics out of the picture for a second though... If you are on a public street, and you step into an alley and purchase an illegal substance... do you have any expectation of privacy that this transaction was not witnessed or recorded in any fashion. Both in the legal, ethical, and common senses... the answer is NO. Now, putting the electronics back in... Can you reasonably use a public computer, that you have no idea what is installed on it, what network equipment may be monitoring it, or any idea of who may come use the computer right after you and legitimately expect that what you did was kept 100% confidential? Again, the answer is absolutely not. Can someone freely (and legally) install something such as Tor on a publicly-owned, library computer? Probably not. Can someone freely (and legally) install and configure any sort of encryption program to protect their data? Probably not. Can someone freely (and legally) install anything on a library's computer? Probably not. That being said, there is no legitimate or legal way to secure the information rendering the terminal as "non-secure". Anyone who transacts information on a non-secure terminal is in a sense, making a transaction in plain public view. Also, in a legal issue, you have to look at the computer use agreement that is in place for many publicly-owned systems. There is usually some governing document or policy that states that users are not allowed to install software, access illegal content, pornographic images, and in most cases stipulates a reduced expectation of privacy for the user. I can't say definitively what the Frederick County Public Library's computer user agreement says, so I'll refrain from comment on that. This is the same concept though of using a computer that is owned by a company. The company has, in most states and in the federal government, both explicit and implicit rights and abilities to limit (or completely eliminate) a user's expectation of privacy. This has been upheld time and time again by courts as being a valid exception to the Fourth Amendment. In the absense of a specific law granting privacy to the information stored on the library computer, I don't see where there is any legal violation of any statute or Constitutional Amendment. While there are laws protecting "library records," I believe that public computer terminals are different considering the person walking up behind the current user has an inate ability to see, access, and modify activity artifacts of the previous user whereas another library patron does not have the ability to check out a book as me, does not have the ability to see what books I've checked out, or obtain my address. I just don't see the controversy over this.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[tmosley]

Doctors asking for a name to get medical records is a bit different than FBI agents on an unregulated fishing expedition with little or no oversight, and no legal recourse for the subjects of the investigation.

He who would give up his liberties for a little safety deserves neither and loses both.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[tmosley]

Yeah, but try asking for the contents of the cash register while having a gun, and boy do people tend to overreact!

I was just conducting a private investigation, I swear it!

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Dread_ed]

"You don't get to violate it just because you think the situation is special and the rules do not apply to you."

There is no violation. The police can legally ask for anything they want from the library director. The library director can also legally give the FBI what they are requesting, all without a warrant. A warrant is necessary to compel compliance when someone legally refuses cooperation. Notice the FBI agents are not going to be prosecuted for acquiring evidence without a warrant? That is because it was legally obtained.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Dread_ed]

"It was paid for by the taxpayers."

And just who do you think was paying for the investigation by the FBI?

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[jonadab]

> You can diassociate names without losing how many different people checked out the book.

How, exactly?

Because I'm pretty sure I can prove by mathematical induction that it's impossible.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[cavefrog]

(Laptops! Laptops! Get your cheap Laptop here!, Laptops!)

In most libraries, the majority of computers are desktops. If you want laptops I think you need to impersonate a customs agent...

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Free the Cowards]

You apparently failed to read the context. I was replying to this:

They recently refused to release computers to officials investigating kidnapping of a child. In that case it didn't have an impact, but in the next it, could. Is the life of someone worth YOUR presumed rights to surf anonymously on a public computer?

Which seems to imply that these rights shouldn't exist in "special" circumstances. I was not discussing the incident in the main article.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[techno-vampire]

No, but for this purpose he's acting as the owner's agent, with full authority to permit the FBI to borrow the computers.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[shutdown -p now]

This isn't just a matter of if you don't have anything to hide, it is a matter of good guys verses bad guys.

And, apparently, the NSA guys are good because they say so, and whoever they gather records on are the bad guys because, again, the NSA says so. Nice.

And to date, I'm not aware of anytime where the NSA letters or anything concerning a library has bee abused.

Of course you don't. Why do you think those who receive those NSA letters are forbidden to speak about them?

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[sjames]

It does look like the American Library Association might consider this a breech of professional ethics. What the local government cares to do about that is between it, the librarian, and it's citizens.

The FBI did nothing wrong here (seems amazing to type that these days!) as far as we can tell. If the story they told to get their request granted was untrue, that would be different, but we have no evidence of that.They can always ask. It doesn't sound like they used any sort of coercion here.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[electrictroy]

I agree. The library is a GOVERNMENT entity, and the government doesn't really need a warrant to access its own records. (Granted we're talking about state versus national government, which are separate entities, but one government tends to cooperate with another government... so in effect your library is open season for the FBI to take records.)

The only true security is to obtain your books, videos, whatever from a private source that is not government-owned... and said private source works to protect its customers from searches.

Or just go black market where no records are kept.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[electrictroy]

>>>So your saying that a librarian can and should tell people who might be doing something illegal and using public resources to accomplish that illegality that the FBI might be on their trail? This isn't just a matter of if you don't have anything to hide, it is a matter of good guys verses bad guys.
>>>

How successful would the American Revolution have been if Washington, Jefferson, and so forth had librarians telling the British Secret Service about the American colonists activities? We'd all be drinking tea and complaining about a $300-a-year tv tax.

In order to have TRUE freedom, you sometimes have to keep the government blind to individual's activities, and that requires librarians who will keep silent & protect the right to privacy and freedom of though. Otherwise, as Jefferson pointed-out, a government large enough to protect you from everything.... is also a government large enough to TAKE everything from you.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[easyTree]

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.

What exactly is 'the state' if not an imaginary entity which acts as a proxy for each and every taxpayer?

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[easyTree]

it seems you've failed so say fluffy nice things and so have been modded down :S

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[sumdumass]

How do you make those disctinctions? The common theme around this is that only a judge is smart enough to determine what is legit and what isn't. Of course those FBI fishing expeditions are saving lives too. It isn't like taking someone who mailed military weapons grade anthrax to several different places was concerned about the conservation of life.

What it comes down to is that if the government says let me look around to see if there might be a problem, the answer is to say "no- get a warrant if you disagree". If there is a specific and targeted reasons and they are looking for specific information for whatever reason then the answer is use your best judgment. If I had inside knowledge that you done something potentially wrong, I'm not going to risk my freedoms to protect yours. It isn't the library's nor my job to protect your activities that might run afoul with the law. I personally don't care what expectations otherwise that you might have. There are some people who think they can't be prosecuted for drug dealing if they ask whoever they are selling to if they are a cop and the cop replies "no". But that doesn't stop them from getting arrested and prosecuted. There should be no problem with someone at a public office using their discretion when dealing with law enforcement agencies that have specific requests about specific information concerning specific people.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Reziac]

And it's sad for the individual who gets caught in a corner case, like the drowning victim in your story. But it's a lot sadder when the corner case is expanded to cover everyone. What if libraries were required to identify all patrons all the time?? that's what your corner case expands to.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Reziac]

"If you knew that going in, then your trip to the library would pretty much be "consent" wouldn't it?"

Yes. And is that the sort of society you wish to live in? Do you want information restricted by fear of being caught with the "wrong" publications?

Yeah, it's a thrill for kids to get away with it. But it can be life or death under a repressive government, a chilling effect beyond all others.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[vux984]

I shouldn't need to be afraid of the police,

You shouldn't be. I'm not.

they are the ones responsible for upholding the law. My job as a citizen is to contribute to society by paying taxes that pay for these officers. So if I need to know my rights because I have to fear the police taking advantage of me, there is something wrong.

As a citizen you should know your rights, and have at least a basic understanding of the law, regardless.

The police are *trained* to use every legal avenue to get what they are looking for. They are *trained* in the arts of manipulation, persuasion, interrogation, investigation. Then they are given extraordinary powers, and handguns. Those are their tools, what they need to get the job we've hired them to do done.

Its their job is to investigate crime and they will do that to the best of their ability. Their job is to 'take advantage' of any cooperation they can extract from the public.

Remember: "You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to an attorney..."

If you don't want to be 'taken advantage of': memorize them, exercise them. Its not hard. Those are the rules they are playing by, if you don't want to be taken advantage of you have to play by them too.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[vux984]

No, I'd blame both parties. The police shouldn't have asked for that much without a warrant and the librarian shouldn't have consented

Its the police's job to extract as much cooperation from the public as they can to solve a crime. Its our job, to know that this is EXACTLY what we pay them to do. It our job to KNOW, that just because they've asked for something that we don't have to give it to them. We are paying them to ask for more than they are entitled.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[vux984]

The problem is not the actual computers but the records that are on them, if someone (like a business) owned these computers (like an internet cafe) then they can do as they wish with them, however these computers were used with the understanding that they had some privacy. In effect the librarian was deciding what to do with the data of all the people who used those computers, not just the computers.

If you used a library computer with the expectation that any 'records' you left on it was private, then you are a fool. I would EXPECT a library computer to be monitored.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[sumdumass]

And, apparently, the NSA guys are good because they say so, and whoever they gather records on are the bad guys because, again, the NSA says so. Nice.

Umm.. Yea. You got it. Why? Because if they (the NSA and FBI) were all bad like some people want to claim, they would have been done away with by now.

Of course you don't. Why do you think those who receive those NSA letters are forbidden to speak about them?

To stop providers from tipping off suspects that they are being watched and giving them the opportunity to change their tactics or or escape capture. Do you really think they should be allowed to tell the terrorists that the government is on to them? And yes, the law gives them this power only for national security/terrorism related activities so it would be terrorists and suspected terrorists.

You have to have a certain amount of trust that actions of the government aren't inherently evil by default. You see a few isolated instances and incorrectly assume that it is indicative as a whole which just isn't true. As the article states, the agents came in and asked with specific knowledge about an incident and a specific person dealing with specific devices. It isn't like they went on a fishing expedition or anything of the sorts. The library director was justified in giving the materials over just as they would be if a security camera captured a crime on something. No one was forced to do anything here which is what a warrant would be- force.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[sumdumass]

And it's sad for the individual who gets caught in a corner case, like the drowning victim in your story. But it's a lot sadder when the corner case is expanded to cover everyone. What if libraries were required to identify all patrons all the time?? that's what your corner case expands to.

About the only time law enforcement would ever need to know the identity of a card holder is if the person is incapacitated in some way. It isn't like they are going to ignore a drivers license or a statement by the person. So expanding that would mean opening it up to finding dead bodies, people with injuries that leave them otherwise unidentifiable without the ability to talk and so on.

Or are you suggesting that they would want the name of the card holder if they found the card at a scene of a crime? Again, I don't find fault there. If you have a dead body or a break in somewhere and a library card as the only evidence, then finding out who it belongs to could help solve a real crime. I hope your not suggesting that the library has a duty to protect us from legitimate law enforcement actions over something we actually done?

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[sumdumass]

Yes. And is that the sort of society you wish to live in? Do you want information restricted by fear of being caught with the "wrong" publications?

This is in no way "being caught with the "wrong" publications". It is being investigates for a crime. If you are the subject and you accessed something that you used to commit a crime, then it is a hell of a lot more then being caught with the "wrong" publications.

Yeah, it's a thrill for kids to get away with it. But it can be life or death under a repressive government, a chilling effect beyond all others.

Are we living under a repressive government? I would think your ability to answer that means no. When we cross that reality, I will change my mind. But until then, your hypothetical what ifs pertain to an imaginary land, not the reality that we live in. The FBI has maintained a watched book list since the 50's that I know of. It has always been secrete too. Show me an instance of someone being incorrectly persecuted for access to those books. Hell, the ALA's banned book week lists sexual content and inappropriate sexual content for intended age group as the main reasons on their books that people are attempting to ban. Religious views seem to come in second with racial overtones (To Kill a Mocking Bird. and Huck fin) mixed in there.

The only time the watched book lists come into play is when your already accused of a crime.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Darby]

Are we living under a repressive government? I would think your ability to answer that means no.

Well, it's obviously no surprise to anybody that you're a fool.

When we cross that reality, I will change my mind.

Indeed, you have proven yourself to be deeply fucking stupid.

If you paid any attention to history, you would know we're sliding downhill fast. Since all the intelligent people have been pointing this out for years now in excruciating detail, you have no excuse whatsoever for not being aware of it...well except for your clearly demonstrated stupidity.

Now, it's is really fucking obvious to anybody with any sense at all that it will be far to late for you changing your mind to do anything at that point except to go "durrr I guess I should have pulled my head out of my ass and thought years ago".

Your level of stupidity is truly amazing though.

"We're not in a complete and total police state yet although we're well on our way, but once we are completely fucked I'll then start dealing with it."

Once more for the record. You are a god damned idiot. That is not an ad hominem attack. It is the inevitable conclusion one has to make after reading the idiotic crap you wrote.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[delphi125]

I work for a city, and the Librarian most emphatically does not have the right to give away, loan, or otherwise remove any city property. That is a crime.

How about books?

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[bluemonq]

So you're saying that if it weren't for HIPAA you'd be totally okay with this?

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[porpnorber]

There is a thing I don't understand about American society. When an officer of the law obtains evidence illegally, it appears that the evidence is disallowed and the defendant walks free. But this is not a situation where the defendant did something good; it is one where the law officer did something bad. Why not allow the evidence and then jail the crooked cop? It seems that all of America is being held hostage to a fight between two ideologies, one of which says 'the police are above the law' and the other of which says, 'well, if you think that, then the law itself is wrong and must be opposed.'

Much better, I would have thought, to hold the enforcers of the law, stringently, to the law they supposedly uphold.

The one reasonable exception to the notion that evidence should be admissible however it is obtained is evidence acquired through torture, intimidation, or extortion (such as plea bargaining), since in this case the reliability of the evidence is called into question. Oddly, though, America seems to have little problem with this.

All in all the situation seems baffling, and entirely out of control.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[shutdown -p now]

To stop providers from tipping off suspects that they are being watched and giving them the opportunity to change their tactics or or escape capture. Do you really think they should be allowed to tell the terrorists that the government is on to them? And yes, the law gives them this power only for national security/terrorism related activities so it would be terrorists and suspected terrorists.

But, of course, you do not know that it would only be "terrorists and suspected terrorists" - because there is no proof that anyone even double-checked (e.g., a warrant).

I'm not a libertarian, far from it, and I do understand that the state is an important thing, and that "special" organizations exist for a good reason. However, no matter what, there should always be some paper trail and associated stuff which can be used to at least tell what they were doing and why - if only after the fact - and to hold responsible those who abused their vast privileges. A plain old warrant is a very good tool towards that end, and I see no reason why those organizations (and people who are keen on giving them more powers - such as our old friend Bush Jr) so stubbornly fight the requiremenets to obtain warrants (even with all the special provisions already existing for them, such as the ability to get the warrant shortly after the fact rather than before in cases where time is of essence). Well, that is, unless they do want to abuse their privileges, and don't want to get caught doing so - which sounds like a reasonable explanation, considering that it happened in history before.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[sumdumass]

Well, it's obviously no surprise to anybody that you're a fool.

Lol.. Oh your really oppressed there. Your really feeling the strong arm of the government clamping down on dissent now. Hey, here is a hint, grow the fuck up.

Indeed, you have proven yourself to be deeply fucking stupid.

Oh... Your a real smart one here. Addressing comments with what you think is insults. You know, the age olf substance over matter stuff.. Ah wait.. What did you say again? Oh well, I guess it is the fall back of "mind over matter" I don't mind because you don't matter.

If you paid any attention to history, you would know we're sliding downhill fast. Since all the intelligent people have been pointing this out for years now in excruciating detail, you have no excuse whatsoever for not being aware of it...well except for your clearly demonstrated stupidity.

Yes, the age old slippery slope arguments. You know the if we let gays marry, they will molest children, if we let teachers goto church, they will preach in the classroom, if we let you say nigger, you will end up lynching minorities before the day is done. Those good ol slipery slope arguements. Gotta love them.

BTW, sliding down hill down not in any way mean we are there. It does not in any way meet the statement I said "When we cross that reality, I will change my mind". Also, we live in a different situation then in any other point in time in history where if the people ask for it, they will get it. And when they had enough, they will reject it. Of have you forgotten what a democracy is in all your intelligence? Have you gotten so smart that you don't remember how this republic of ours works? Or is it that you only think your intelligent and really don't have a clue?

Now, it's is really fucking obvious to anybody with any sense at all that it will be far to late for you changing your mind to do anything at that point except to go "durrr I guess I should have pulled my head out of my ass and thought years ago".

Well, tell me mr smarty pants, what has happened that makes it impossible to change anything if the people want the change? I know your presenting yourself as being so smart and that I'm so stupid (probably because it allows you to feel better about your high levels of smart intelligence) but seriously, what has changed that stops change from happening again at any time in the future? And if something has changed, doesn't that make you a little bit like jousting with windmills? I mean seriously, if we are at a point of no return and everything has slid down hill so far, then what good is your complaining and whining about crooks and terrorists getting caught going to accomplish other then potentially set criminals free so there are more victims in the world?

Your level of stupidity is truly amazing though.

Umm... yea. Answer my questions there and I will show your levels of delusion. Why don't you take your meds and come back to reality.

Once more for the record. You are a god damned idiot. That is not an ad hominem attack. It is the inevitable conclusion one has to make after reading the idiotic crap you wrote.

Well, if you have mental problems and everyone is out to get you, I guess you might be right. But like I said, answer those questions and answer what I said instead of making shit up. you go on to point out the conversations in your head which is very telling about your state of mind and the lack of reality your in. BTW, Maybe you should look up what an ad hominem attack actually is before you use it again.

"We're not in a complete and total police state yet although we're well on our way, but once we are completely fucked I'll then start dealing with it."

Once more for the record. You are

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[sumdumass]

But, of course, you do not know that it would only be "terrorists and suspected terrorists" - because there is no proof that anyone even double-checked (e.g., a warrant).

Yes, despite oversight and the reporting that is done concerning them, we don't know that they are terrorists or suspected terrorists so we should be able to tip the terrorists and suspected terrorists off in case one person might not be either. That sort of sounds like the captain poking holes in life boats because not every passenger of the sinking shit can be saved by their use.

I'm not a libertarian, far from it, and I do understand that the state is an important thing, and that "special" organizations exist for a good reason. However, no matter what, there should always be some paper trail and associated stuff which can be used to at least tell what they were doing and why - if only after the fact - and to hold responsible those who abused their vast privileges. A plain old warrant is a very good tool towards that end, and I see no reason why those organizations (and people who are keen on giving them more powers - such as our old friend Bush Jr) so stubbornly fight the requiremenets to obtain warrants (even with all the special provisions already existing for them, such as the ability to get the warrant shortly after the fact rather than before in cases where time is of essence). Well, that is, unless they do want to abuse their privileges, and don't want to get caught doing so - which sounds like a reasonable explanation, considering that it happened in history before.

First and foremost, there are records with NSA letters. How else would there have been a study showing who they were issued against and whether or not they were valid to do so. Second, with all the leaks in this administration and government, do you actually think that a warrant, if obtained for everything, would allow the secrecy needed to get into the middle of a terrorist cell and find out who all is involved? Sure, we can put laws in place mandating secrecy, I'm not sure how they would be any different then the ones already there now. But we can also put laws in place mandating rules for the NSA letter usage and provide punishment for abuses. I'm not sure how different they would be from what we have now either. But it is a lot easier to find an abuse of a NSA letter then it is an anonymous leak about tracking banking records of terrorists or Cell phone usages and locations of terrorists. Of course there is also the problem of using any evidence obtained from the NSA letters if they were abused, in trial, they have to justify their usage and show connections to information obtained from it so it isn't like there are no checks in place.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Rene S. Hollan]

Purchase history yes, CC number, without a subpeona, I'd rather think not.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Darby]

Lol.. Oh your really oppressed there. Your really feeling the strong arm of the government clamping down on dissent now. Hey, here is a hint, grow the fuck up.

It is a childish attitude to assume that everything will be magically fine with no effort or thought on your part. It is mature to pay attention, to learn from history, and to be able to apply those lessons to the present situation. So, quite obviously it is you who has a great deal of growing up to do.

Yes, the age old slippery slope arguments. You know the if we let gays marry, they will molest children, if we let teachers goto church, they will preach in the classroom, if we let you say nigger, you will end up lynching minorities before the day is done. Those good ol slipery slope arguements. Gotta love them.

That's not a "slippery slope" argument. The fact that we are rapidly sliding into fascism is a simple statement of fact. If that is what you're actually trying to deny, then go ahead and try. Just because I used the word "sliding" does not mean that it is a "slippery slope" argument. You should probably learn what those terms mean if you don't want to keep looking like an ignorant fool.

BTW, sliding down hill down not in any way mean we are there. It does not in any way meet the statement I said "When we cross that reality, I will change my mind". Also, we live in a different situation then in any other point in time in history where if the people ask for it, they will get it. And when they had enough, they will reject it. Of have you forgotten what a democracy is in all your intelligence? Have you gotten so smart that you don't remember how this republic of ours works? Or is it that you only think your intelligent and really don't have a clue?

We have a government that has decided that the restrictions in the constitution are meaningless, that they can spy on us at will with zero oversight and zero recourse to the law. They have decided that they can take anybody away to a third world shithole to be tortured and murdered on a whim with zero oversight and zero recourse to the law. So I'm really not sure what world you're living in, but that is quite obviously only possible in a police state. So if they start disappearing dissenters as they've clearly already laid the groundwork for your "change of mind", or more accurately your pulling your head out of your ass and dealing with reality in a rational manner will be meaningless. Given your nature and your character, you'll just roll over and keep licking boots. It's all you're doing at this point, so no reason to suspect you of ever doing anything else.

Of course, it's a little tough to "reject it" when they can tap all communications between those who would reject it. When they can disappear potential "troublemakers" at will. So, again, you claim that if we just wait until all the mechanisms of the police state are in place and accepted by the mass of the people that magically it will all go away. You keep making "arguments" that rely entirely on magic. You should stop doiung that if you don't want to be known as a fool.

The only thing that makes our situation different than any other time is that the power of the state to spy on, manipulate, and control its subjects is unprecedented.

I remember how this Republic is supposed to work, but I, unlike your deeply ignorant self am aware that it is not functioning in that manner. The defenses against tyranny have been systematically weakened, subverted, or destroyed. That means that the Republic is not functional and your "arguments" based on the assumption that it just magically works is entirely baseless. People like me are trying to get it working again. People like you are trying very hard to make sure it never can function again. Your apathy and your clearly demonstrated ignorance are what is helping make that happen.

Well, if you have mental problems and everyone is out to get you, I guess you might be right. But like I said, answer those questions and answer what I said inste

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[sumdumass]

It is a childish attitude to assume that everything will be magically fine with no effort or thought on your part. It is mature to pay attention, to learn from history, and to be able to apply those lessons to the present situation. So, quite obviously it is you who has a great deal of growing up to do.

First of all, I don't have some magically fine expectation. Just because i don't see a fly breaking wind as a sign that all hell is breaking loose and run for the bible to catch up on all the lost religion doesn't mean I have some fantasies about anything being automagically alright. Sure, you pay attention and watch what is happening but you seem to have gone way past that. According to you, because the government was looking at phone calls to catch terrorists with out a warrant, we are all the sudden in some repressed world where you don't even have enough freedom to tell people about the repression. Except that you are which sort of makes your position false.

That's not a "slippery slope" argument. The fact that we are rapidly sliding into fascism is a simple statement of fact. If that is what you're actually trying to deny, then go ahead and try. Just because I used the word "sliding" does not mean that it is a "slippery slope" argument. You should probably learn what those terms mean if you don't want to keep looking like an ignorant fool.

Yes- that is a slippery slope argument. Perhaps you should look the definition up or re-frame your argument. Now to paraphrase your argument so far, when the government does something you don't like, it is so they can screw and oppress you. And to date, you still haven't demonstrated this oppression nor have you showed how a government that is elected by the people is actually being run by any organization that is capable enough to orchestrate this Fascism goal. But your able to make the claims as well as point out that others have been making the same claim all while claiming to be repressed and not able to make those claims. Maybe you should sit back and reevaluate reality a little.

We have a government that has decided that the restrictions in the constitution are meaningless, that they can spy on us at will with zero oversight and zero recourse to the law. They have decided that they can take anybody away to a third world shithole to be tortured and murdered on a whim with zero oversight and zero recourse to the law. So I'm really not sure what world you're living in, but that is quite obviously only possible in a police state. So if they start disappearing dissenters as they've clearly already laid the groundwork for your "change of mind", or more accurately your pulling your head out of your ass and dealing with reality in a rational manner will be meaningless. Given your nature and your character, you'll just roll over and keep licking boots. It's all you're doing at this point, so no reason to suspect you of ever doing anything else.

Ah.. One of those people.. I should have figured as much but you didn't offer much intelligence with your last few posts. First, the constitution doesn't stop the government from spying on you. It hadn't done that ever. What it does is place a burden of "reasonability" on the government. It actually says that it protects you from unreasonable searches. Perhaps you should study it a little out side the realm of conspiracy theorists your part of. Also, the government wasn't spying on everyone, they were spying on people who were terrorists, suspected terrorists, or who had connections to the same. Now in this day and age, I don't find that unreasonable at all.

You might also be thinking this is something new, something that has come around since 1972 or so. But it wasn't until 1968 that the courts said listening in on phone conversations were protected by the search clause. And this is after numerous challenges on those grounds. The court also said that their ruling doesn't

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Darby]

According to you, because the government was looking at phone calls to catch terrorists with out a warrant, we are all the sudden in some repressed world where you don't even have enough freedom to tell people about the repression.

That's a magical belief right there. Unless you can *prove* that the government committed the *crimes* and *acts of treason* that it did for the purpose of "catching terrorists" you have nothing but a demonstrably delusional faith. Given that we know that the government lied about the terrorist threat in order to pursue agendas completely unrelated to any such thing, that they completely overblew the threat of terrorism to make cowards like yourself wet their panties and beg for the destruction of the bill of rights to protect them from a made up threat, it is obvious that you have not paid one damn bit of attention. You are a sheep repeating the nonsense that the media is feeding you.

As soon as you claim that the government criminally violated the constitution since they're really really after terrorists just like they say, then you have proven yourself absolutely and beyond any possibility of a doubt to be a naive fool with no knowledge of history (specifically the times these same *exact* tactics have been used to achieve the same *exact* goals of instituting a totalitarian government). You have yet to come up with anything to differentiate this situation to the one in say Germany as the Nazis were taking power. Same tactics, same goal, with people like Wolfowitz who took their PhDs in Nazi philosophy and "The Big Lie" in particular. You're ignorant of all of that, you don't know a damn thing about who is running the country or their history and you know SFA about history period.

Now, the fact is that all you are doing is repeating blatantly obvious propaganda from *known* liars, criminals and traitors. There is no sane reason to believe the lies you're repeating and I defy you to come up with one. Otherwise just STFU, troll.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[jeepien]

Yeah, I'd rather not think so either. But reality intrudes.

--
Subpeonas? That's sooooooo 20th century.

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[sumdumass]

That's a magical belief right there. Unless you can *prove* that the government committed the *crimes* and *acts of treason* that it did for the purpose of "catching terrorists" you have nothing but a demonstrably delusional faith. Given that we know that the government lied about the terrorist threat in order to pursue agendas completely unrelated to any such thing, that they completely overblew the threat of terrorism to make cowards like yourself wet their panties and beg for the destruction of the bill of rights to protect them from a made up threat, it is obvious that you have not paid one damn bit of attention. You are a sheep repeating the nonsense that the media is feeding you.

LoL.. Your real going now... First, I don't need to prove anything. Your the one stretching the accusations. No one in a position to know (and yes Democrats were/are in a position to know) has ever made the claims that anyone other then terrorists and their contacts were listened to. Also treason has a verspecific definition, I'm not sure what claims your making but I am going to assume this is another make believe thing going on in your head.

I do find it interesting that after asking you again for your rebuttals that you continuously claim to be giving, you have resorted to trolling with name calling and personal attacks again. I guess it is my own fault, when I attempt to talk to a psycho patient, what should I expect. Rash and justified conversations with meaningful points and facts evidently isn't on that list.

As soon as you claim that the government criminally violated the constitution since they're really really after terrorists just like they say, then you have proven yourself absolutely and beyond any possibility of a doubt to be a naive fool with no knowledge of history (specifically the times these same *exact* tactics have been used to achieve the same *exact* goals of instituting a totalitarian government). You have yet to come up with anything to differentiate this situation to the one in say Germany as the Nazis were taking power. Same tactics, same goal, with people like Wolfowitz who took their PhDs in Nazi philosophy and "The Big Lie" in particular. You're ignorant of all of that, you don't know a damn thing about who is running the country or their history and you know SFA about history period.

Lol.. When did I claim the government violated the constitution? If you have had any reading comprehension skills, you would specifically be able to find were I claimed it wasn't against the constitution. Of course this pretty much negates the rest of your paragraph. I mean how often do people rebut your posts by simply telling you to read what they posted again? Seems like it happens a lot. Maybe you should give up. As for differentiating the situation from nazi germany, how about limits on terms and the ability to fucking vote. How about the free speech we still have even though you use it to claim we don't have it.

I also see your back into that secrete government running everything behind the scenes. It's amazing that only the kookiest and most craziest people make those claims. Seriously dood.. Get you meds checked.

ow, the fact is that all you are doing is repeating blatantly obvious propaganda from *known* liars, criminals and traitors. There is no sane reason to believe the lies you're repeating and I defy you to come up with one. Otherwise just STFU, troll.

Lies??? How about you back your accusations up. I have asked you over and over to provide proof or substance to your claims. You have failed to even remotely attempt to do so. Of course your claims to date amount to "your wrong", "your stupid","everybody's out to get me" and now "your a liar". Why is it that you simply refuse to offer any substance to your claims and instist on personal attacks when it is requested? Is it because when you look at it directly, you see how fallacious they a

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Raymand]

I couldn't be more in agreement about library directors caving in. However, you are a tad misogynist and ageist. The director in question, in Maryland, was a dude. Don't assume an older woman doesn't have the spine that's needed to stand up to the FBI. Case in point is 2 women and a man who've been honored recently by the ALA: www.bu.edu/washjocenter/newswire_pg/fall2006/conn/JohnDoe.htm

Re:No warrant == not legitimate.

[Orion Blastar]

The Liberals in congress like Obama that voted to keep the domestic spying. If they didn't like it, why did they vote to keep it?

How Pathetic...

[Anonymous Coward]

If they had an "awful lot of information.." then they could have gotten a damn court order. When you just roll over and accept totalitarianism, don't complain when they come for you next, with nothing more than "an awful lot of information..."

This country and its people are a disgrace.

Re:How Pathetic...

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that totalitarianism? The feds didn't demand the computers; they asked for them. They might have suggested that they had sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant and the library director acquiesced to their request in light of this. They didn't forcibly remove anything, however, which is key.

Assuming the worst of government in every situation is not a good policy, ever.

Re:How Pathetic...

[tmossman]

Assuming the worst of government in every situation is not a good policy, ever.

I would argue that assuming the worst of government in every situation is the best policy, always. It's one of the principles on which the United States was founded. If we do not remain constantly skeptical, how are we to ensure that the government truly has our best interests at the heart of its actions?

Re:How Pathetic...

[cartman94501]

I live in this country, and have lived here all my life, and I would never have given up the computers without a warrant. Not ALL of us are a disgrace. Where do you live?

Data on library computers

[Haoie]

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.

Re:Data on library computers

[Metabolife]

A terrorist may have needed to use the terminal anonymously to contact some buddies.

Re:Data on library computers

[LuxMaker]

What would it be anyway? Most library computers I've used don't even connect to the internet, but rather just their online catalogue.

Actually the ones that provide an online catalogue can provide internet access. I know because I've seen them made to do such a thing. So the online catalogue computers that I have seen are connected to the internet.

Re:Data on library computers

[rachelstorm]

Most libraries do provide internet access to the public. But they don't necessarily filter that access-- some filter only children's access, some filter all the computers, and some filter none. It's a decision made by the individual library board based on what they feel is best for the community.

And at least in my experience (9 years in the Chicago suburban libraries), the computers are not constantly monitored, if at all. More often, monitoring is staff casually glancing at the lab screens while walking by to make sure no one's viewing porn. And there are still other libraries (none that I've been in) that will let people watch the porn too.

So there can potentially be a lot of information stored on a computer. Then again, there could be nothing if the library made the decision to wipe all new information from the hard drive at the end of the day, and the cops/FBI come first thing in the morning.

I do that all the time! why can't they?

[shlompo]

Honestly, with the amount of dust usually inside those things, i don't envy them. Anthrax is made up anyways!

additionally

[someone1234]

They could be fake agents, who know an awful lot of information BECAUSE they are the criminals.
This way without a court order, they can simply clean up after themselves.
Nice.

Re:additionally

[db32]

Or maybe the two guys just wanted two free computers. Seems like two guys only requesting two computers could easily have something to do with the difficulty in getting away with hauling off multiple PCs. Either way, I think you are right on the money.

Re:additionally

[nacturation]

They could be fake agents, who know an awful lot of information BECAUSE they are the criminals.
This way without a court order, they can simply clean up after themselves.
Nice.

So the fake agents should just present a fake court order next time?
 

Its little things like this that matter

[damburger]

A police state isn't erected in one chunk. It is built up brick by brick, and this kind of seizure is one of these bricks.

People will tell you that you are being alarmist when you raise this sort of thing with them. But if you don't pay attention to it when it is at this level then there will be nothing you can do about it when you've completely lost your freedom.

Re:Its little things like this that matter

[kjart]

Maybe I'm a closet fascist, but I don't see the act of asking for something from the owner and being given permission to take it as 'seizure'.

Re:Its little things like this that matter

[Perseid]

If the cops come to your house, ask for your laptop and you say "Here you go!" that's fine, but this was a public library. I would argue that the librarian was far from the owner of the computer and he certainly wasn't the user of it. It's not the computer itself that I worry about, it's the information on it - what it was and what it's going to be used for.

Re:Its little things like this that matter

[inKubus]

Exactly, and no reasonable court would allow a warrant unless they had definite probable cause to search. The government can't just search records for people they "think" might be breaking laws. That's very specific. Now, if they found a library book dropped at the scene of a murder, I would say they have probable cause to see who checked out book, because you might find the murderer. But getting information on a crime that hasn't happened "yet" is illegal. I could go and read books on making bombs just out of interest in high energy chemical reactions and not be a terrorist. But they could spend thousands of taxpayer dollars investigating every aspect of my life just to make sure I'm not a terrorist. That's the slippery slope. It's about MONEY more than FREEDOM.

This massive expansion of "homeland security" is wasteful of tax dollars because they are investigating thousands of people who haven't done anything. Not to mention building dossiers which I'm sure could be used for political means. But it's wasteful when they could be out solving other crimes that have happened. It's amazing that there's so little crime nowadays that they spend this much time trying to prevent things from happening. And the massive amount of money they are spending is not making people feel safer (the real goal). So lets reverse this and take a step back:

All of these policies were put in place during a frantic time when no one knew what was going to happen. Decisions made in a panic are often not the right ones. We need to review ALL of the policies made during the years of 2001-2005 (even if it takes years to review) and decide what we need to keep. There needs to be a massive PUBLIC effort to review the policies and decisions that were made, now that we "have time". And we need to cut costs where we can, because this stuff is extremely expensive and they can't just have a blank check out of fear anymore. If you added up the cost of 9/11, just in terms of government expansion, it's probably well over a trillion. And for what? You can't save people--we're all going to die anyway. The real idea is to maintain American (and global) confidence in the American economy, which is ALL THAT MATTERS if we are here for our purpose--to support future generations. But I question whether these current wasteful policies have really increased confidence all that much! If anything, they have hurt our confidence even more, because they have been wasting so much money on no-bid contracts and just JUNK like these pointless "preemptive" investigations.

If there's evidence of a crime, a court will issue a warrant. If there isn't, they cannot seize the data, because there's no warrant. That's why there are warrants and that's the law and that's IT. There are good reasons for these laws and this will get struck down when the ACLU goes after those agents and their boss.

Again, we need to review ALL the policy decisions made during this time period again with clear heads. Otherwise, we may do our children great injustice.

Re:Its little things like this that matter

[jayp00001]

from TFA " "The library's procedure for such requests usually requires a court order, however after the agent described the case and the situation, he was persuaded to give them access, Batson said."

So the librarian made a judgement call- well in theory I would hope that someone that (also theoretically) has a master degree would be able to determine if a law enforcement request for information of any sort was reasonable. The purpose of warrants is not to prevent reasonable requests, it's to prevent unreasonable ones. You do not need a goverment offical to tell you what you can comply with. With freedom like that who needs slavery?

Re:Its little things like this that matter

[taskiss]

Then who should the warrant be served to? The fbi agent is a public citizen too...

Re:Its little things like this that matter

[multiOSfreak]

You should run for office. I would totally vote for you.

Re:Its little things like this that matter

[speedtux]

A police state isn't erected in one chunk. It is built up brick by brick, and this kind of seizure is one of these bricks.

Yes, as Europeans and Asians should well know. A century ago, Europeans were displaying the same kind of smug superiority towards the US as you are displaying now: European philosophers and social scientists and politicians thought they had it all figured out. A few decades later, Europe lay in ruins: almost every European nation had either turned into a police state or been taken over by one.

People will tell you that you are being alarmist when you raise this sort of thing with them

I don't know what "people" you have been talking to, but Americans take this sort of thing very seriously and there is vigorous political debate about it. That's why you hear about this sort of thing in the first place: because Americans care and worry about it.

You can be sure that almost every dirty thing the US government does, European governments are doing as well; it's just that it gets swept under the rug quietly in Europe and nobody finds out about it.

This would not fly in my town.

[Jane Q. Public]

Our city's library director (and the board) declared that they would no longer keep records of ANY patron's activity. The only records they keep are issues currently checked out, and overdues for fines. Other than that, their attitude is: "The Feds can go screw themselves. They can't demand what does not exist."

Re:This would not fly in my town.

[Anonymous Coward]

95% of the libraries in the US follow this policy. That's probably why the director let the computers go voluntarily--there's nothing there.

Re:This would not fly in my town.

[Darkon]

"The Feds can go screw themselves. They can't demand what does not exist."

Oh really?

Re:This would not fly in my town.

[sir fer]

Our city's library director (and the board) declared that they would no longer keep records of ANY patron's activity. The only records they keep are issues currently checked out, and overdues for fines. Other than that, their attitude is: "The Feds can go screw themselves. They can't demand what does not exist."

The fact that this attitude still exists in USA warms my heart, nay, the cockles of my heart. Esp the bit where the Feds can go fuck themselves. I am not an American but you guys have too many federal agencies who could not even protect 3,000 people on 9/11 and now they want more money and power?

Re:This would not fly in my town.

[nbauman]

"The Feds can go screw themselves."

Your post makes me feel good to be an American (which is not always easy these days).

Laws Don't Enforce Themselves

[Doc Ruby]

Cops don't need a warrant to search a private citizen who gives their permission. But of course that citizen has to know they have the right to refuse, and then they have to have the guts to use that right. The Constitution doesn't emit alarm bells from its Smithsonian alcove whenever a government worker violates it.

That library director isn't acting as a private citizen. They're acting as the custodian of that equipment, working for the public. People have an expectation of some privacy when using library records. Courts held for generations that library records, though recorded and kept by a public institution, require due process - like a warrant or court order, based on evidence and probable cause - until Bush's Republican Era started relegislating those rights protections away with Patriot Acts and their ilk.

If those government employees colluded to expose private records without a warrant, whether through "incompetence" or disdain for their obligations (or, as has been the fad this decade, through both), then the evidence they seized is worthless. Yet another terrorism investigation blown by Bush's agencies ignoring the most basic and trivial due process.

Feel safer?

Re:Laws Don't Enforce Themselves

[Kjella]

Yet another terrorism investigation blown by Bush's agencies ignoring the most basic and trivial due process.

First, it's a very old tactic to gather information you can't use so that you know how to "legally" get evidence. Secondly, you assume that any terrorists found would have due process, maybe they'll be so lucky if they're US citizens in the US but otherwise I doubt it.

Re:Laws Don't Enforce Themselves

[louks]

I completely agree. Any lawyer worth his or her salt, and any judge with a reasonable respect for Due Process, would have this evidence thrown out, along with evidence that was obtained as a result of the information obtained on the library's computers.
This isn't "trash left on the curb" by someone, this is information that should have an expectation of privacy (unless, of course, there is an Agreement signed to use the computers in the Library that states any information can be saved and shared with the Authorities/used against you in a court of law).
Our local library has a Policy Statement that must be agreed upon before you can use the computers and wireless access. I didn't even want to read what the terms were, as I fully expected it to not read in my favor.

Re:Laws Don't Enforce Themselves

[Doc Ruby]

Until they're proven terrorists, they're not "terrorists" under the law, whether legal or commonsensical. And who are these "terrorists"? The dozens to thousands of people who used those computers, along with any suspect? We're not rounding up losers from Afghani villages, we're invading the rights of lots of Marylanders.

You might have stopped paying attention when Democrats took control of Congress from Republicans, but since then, the courts have been consistently ruling what America was established on: that rights are inalienable, including the right to be secure in our persons, homes, papers and effects. And that these rights come from our creator, for all people, not from some government whim.

I know "Conservatives" don't believe humans have rights. That "Conservatives" think that authorities bestow rights on people lucky enough to get them, like if they're US citizens. Foreigners have their own governments they create to protect their rights, but the US government has no power created to violate people's rights - only to sometimes compromise with them after due process applying all their rights. "Conservatives" might think that US citizenship magically endows people with rights, rather than entitles them to insist our government protect them. But despite generations of transformation by "Conservatives" in government, we still all have rights. And now the "Conservatives" have blown the grip on power, that kind of un-American tyranny is getting rolled back.

Any evidence that the accused's defense can show, with a reasonable doubt, originated in info on those illegally seized computers is legally "fruit of the poisoned tree". Even if other sources could have led the cops to new, "untainted" evidence, if the tainted evidence can raise reasonable doubt that it was the source, then the other evidence is thrown out, too.

And if those computers do indeed have evidence that one or more of their users are criminals, even "terrorists", then the FBI just destroyed whatever case that evidence could connect to, by converting it into a way to throw out other evidence.

Which, considering the FBI's record in investigating terrorism cases, is not surprising. But still unacceptable. Maybe once their boss, Bush's pet Attorney General Mukasey, is out of a job in January, we can start expecting justice out of the department that inherited that name.

Vee Dont Need No Farrant Schweinhund !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Vee arrrr de F-B-I

Seize... well, kinda.

[Aussenseiter]

"Seize" isn't really the right word here, given they asked the library director for them and had no real force of law behind their request. This is basically the equivalent of a cop stopping you on a highway and asking to search your car. You're within your legal rights to say 'no', but if you say 'yes' he doesn't need a warrant.

Re:Seize... well, kinda.

[Tony Hoyle]

Not quite. The official didn't own the data or the computers... they are owned by the public. He had no right to grant that access and should have told them to go away and come back with a warrant.

Fourth amendment?

[TastelessGarbage]

Is there anything that could now be defined as 'unreasonable' search or seizure? At this point, it really seems as if any objections are automatically overridden by either of:

1) If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

2) Wartime conditions rule (The War On Terror).

There does not seem to be any way of stopping the express train to the complete implementation of authoritarian capitalism.

Openness

[Gonoff]

I have always said that I will help properly identified authorities, if they politely ask me. If they try and sneakily do stuff, I will block then every way I can.

I don't think I would do the same with other peoples information though. In fact, according to the law here in the UK, I am not allowed to do that. We have the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act. Surely you must have something like that?

Re:Openness

[_KiTA_]

I have always said that I will help properly identified authorities, if they politely ask me. If they try and sneakily do stuff, I will block then every way I can.

I don't think I would do the same with other peoples information though. In fact, according to the law here in the UK, I am not allowed to do that. We have the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act. Surely you must have something like that?

Nope. Here int he US, our current Motto is "The Government Can Do No Wrong -- As long as it's Republican."

Your country has a surprisingly large number of rights that we lack, particularly in the consumer protection areas.

Re:Openness

[nedlohs]

Whereas, I would not help them even if they politely ask me.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865

It's the same as the nice police officer knocking on the door. That happens on the doorstep with the door closed behind me - they are not setting foot inside the house.

And I honestly believe there is nothing "in plain sight" that they might see - I don't do drugs (well there's one bottle of scotch) and so on. But who knows what someone visiting left behind, or if they made red socks illegal last week.

The police must always be assumed to be the enemy looking for something to use to take away your freedoms. Yes, usually they aren't - but it's not worth the risk, the consequences are too high and there's no upside anyway.

Re:Openness

[Gonoff]

I think that is the cultural difference between us (USA/UK).

We tend to see the police as the good guys and big business as the danger. There are exceptions to it. There may be corrupt police and there may be a corporation somewhere that wouldn't take money off me for shoddy goods if it could get away with it. Those cases are the exceptions.

The authorities have my co-operation if they are polite and act within the law. I will judge whatever new laws come out as they happen. You may feel that your country is your enemy or something. At present, mine is my friend.

Re:Openness

[nedlohs]

Not the country, but law enforcement.

Yes, I wouldn't want to live in a country in which laws didn't matter and murderers didn't go to jail.

However, the police are trying to put someone in jail whenever they do anything. That someone might be me. Hence best do just the bare minimum, since I'm not smart enough to not make a mistake of the sort described in the video linked previously.

And yes, 99% of the time they aren't looking to put me in jail. But again, risk/reward - there's basically no benefit to doing anything extra but a huge penalty that 1% of the time...

I like that the police do their job and put people in jail, but if they are wanting to talk to me they are no longer on my side. Since there's a chance they want to deprive me of my freedoms (deserved or otherwise).

Re:Openness

[_KiTA_]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_and_British_governments#Civil_liberties_and_rights

Personally I like the fact that the US's rights are enshrined in the basis of our legal system instead of an after thought that could be legislated away easily if a different party came to power.

Yes, if only that were true...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PATRIOT_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA

Print ready...

[NewToNix]

Just about done and ready to print, then me & my shiny new ID are gonna need to find a library(s) with some good hardware.

I love free hardware.

I vote for more librarians like this guy!

/sarcasm

Incorrect headline...

[bigbigbison]

It should read "FBI steals library computers..."

Coward

[Nom du Keyboard]

And here I've been thinking all along that libraries are one of the last bastions of Constitutional rights and privacy. To rollover like this? If this had been my local library and my records were on that computer I'd be demanding his immediate firing.

The FBI Guy Didn't Get a Date?

[Leading Stoker]

...with a librarian there? Thus, the seizure??

Federal government can't just barge in and take things, even from a state government. Separation of power is there to curb exactly these transgressions. Doesn't matter what the excuse is, if the Feds want something they have to produce a valid warrant.

If citizens keep buying the line that the "government is doing this for your own good", the citizens are going to be screwed by the same government starving for more power, and won't stop until they literally own you.

Re:The FBI Guy Didn't Get a Date?

[fnj]

Doesn't matter what the excuse is, if the Feds want something they have to produce a valid warrant.

You're new here, aren't you.

Re:The FBI Guy Didn't Get a Date?

[KGIII]

The library's procedure for such requests usually requires a court order, however after the agent described the case and the situation, he was persuaded to give them access, Batson said.

No, no... They can just ask. It is not illegal to ask and be granted. (It probably should be but it isn't.) The librarian violated no laws. The F.B.I. agents violated no laws. The /. article is misleading intentionally I'm sure so as to drum up interest but there are no legal violations nor due process violations here.

The question is ethics, "Should the librarian have done this without requiring a warrant regardless of the impressions that they had?" In that case I say epic fail. They should not have done so.

Re:The FBI Guy Didn't Get a Date?

[Leading Stoker]

No, no... They can just ask. It is not illegal to ask and be granted. (It probably should be but it isn't.) The librarian violated no laws. The F.B.I. agents violated no laws.

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.

Yep, the FBI violated the 4th Amendment.

Re:The FBI Guy Didn't Get a Date?

[KGIII]

The librarian thought it to be reasonable. Doesn't make it right, just makes it not illegal.

Re:The FBI Guy Didn't Get a Date?

[Leading Stoker]

The librarian can think anything s/he thinks, but the State has to abeit by the Constitution.

Re:The FBI Guy Didn't Get a Date?

[KGIII]

They are the controlling party. They violated no law as unfortunate as that might be. Adding new perceived rights to the Constitution isn't going to help this conversation, what needs to be done is this needs to be effectually prohibited in the future without a warrant and that should be a guaranteed right. The situation as it is now means that no unlawful acts were committed.

Re:The FBI Guy Didn't Get a Date?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, this is not so. The Librarian should not have complied with the "request" and if anyone ever is charged for something and the evidence or later evidence is based on the data on the computers, the defendant(s) in the case can get any such evidence thrown out based on the doctrine of fruit from the poisonous tree. Basically, the government agents knew or should have known the person granting the search/seizure without a warrant being presented did not have the authority to do so. And, no, the librarian does not have the authority without warrant to reveal to the government officer the records of your library activities, which is what the data on the computer, in part, is. A warrant, trivial to obtain, is a necessary part of the equation. A person who used one of the seized computers could probably bring a successful 1983 action against the agents for their blatant disregard of the law in this case. It certainly does not make us safer when they choose to do things the wrong way, particularly when the right way is so very, very easy.

captcha: justice (!) :)

Re:The FBI Guy Didn't Get a Date?

[madcow_ucsb]

How exactly did the state violate the constitution if it was given permission? If a cop knocks on my door, he can ask "May I have a look around?" and if I say "go ahead", well, whatever's in there is fair game. If I say "no" and he looks anyway, that's a whole other story.

The 4th just means the government can't FORCE you to cooperate. It doesn't mean they can't ask.

Re:The FBI Guy Didn't Get a Date?

[Leading Stoker]

The 4th just means the government can't FORCE you to cooperate.

Actually, it means much more...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/03.html#1

Re:The FBI Guy Didn't Get a Date?

[Dirtside]

(It probably should be but it isn't.)

Why? There's a practical problem here -- what's the difference between asking someone to provide an eyewitness account of what happened, and asking (e.g.) a business to provide surveillance tapes of an event? If it would be illegal for them to ask for the second without a warrant, it would also need to be illegal to ask for the first, and so law enforcement would need warrants for every single step of an investigation. I'm the last person on Earth who would ever say that we need to do such-and-such to make law enforcement's life easier, but making it infeasible for them to even perform their most basic investigative functions without a warrant is severe overkill.

Obviously if they request something and the person says no, they have no right to compel that person without a warrant, and that's exactly as it should be. But if cops are investigating a convenience store robbery, and find out there's a tape of the event, why exactly would it be useful to require them to get a warrant just to get the tape, if the store owner is happily willing to give it to them?

Re:The FBI Guy Didn't Get a Date?

[pipingguy]

Not to be a language jerk or anything, but from where does this 'epic fail' term come? It was almost cute at first, but now it's getting really annoying.

Re:The FBI Guy Didn't Get a Date?

[justinlee37]

You don't get how things work. Cops ask citizens if they can look around inside their cars all of the time. Basically, if you give a cop permission, you sacrifice your 4th amendment rights. That might not be the ideal situation but it's how things work.

Re:The FBI Guy Didn't Get a Date?

[techno-vampire]

No, no... They can just ask. It is not illegal to ask and be granted. (It probably should be but it isn't.)

It's not illegal for a number of reasons, but I'll only discuss one. (IANAL, and this is the only non-technical one.) Why should law enforcement be forced to waste time, effort and money getting a warrant for something that the owner was willing to provide without coercion? It only takes a few seconds to ask, and they can always try(!) to get a warrant if they're turned down. It costs nothing, and sometimes they're told, "Sure; go ahead," so why not? What, in the long run is harmed by their asking? If you want to make them dot the I's and cross the T's, you can always tell them to get a warrant, and there's nothing they can do about it. They won't even hold a grudge, because you're just following the law, which is what they'd like more people to do anyway.

Re:The FBI Guy Didn't Get a Date?

[Leading Stoker]

This is why they can even look around in the car. From the Findlaw link above...

It is not lawful for the police in undertaking a warrantless search of an automobile to extend the search to the passengers therein. 70 But because passengers in an automobile have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the interior area of the car, a warrantless search of the glove compartment and the spaces under the seats, which turned up evidence implicating the passengers, invaded no Fourth Amendment interest of the passengers. 71

They don't even need permission, as the Supremes ruled that there's no expectation of privacy in the interior of the car. That's not the case of a computer. In this case, this is exactly what happened. The intent is to search further than what is available in the public domain, worse, without a warrant, even.

Information, and a FC

[Nom du Keyboard]

One question not answered is if these computers contained information necessary for the library to operate? In fact, what information was on them at all?

Btw, had this coincidentally quite appropriate Slashdot FC at the bottom of my page on this article:

Did you know the University of Iowa closed down after someone stole the book?

Re:Information, and a FC

[Scratch-O-Matic]

I believe that almost every story we hear about law enforcement and libraries these days deals with computers that are set up for patrons to access the internet. They probably had information about a suspect using a particular machine (or a particular IP.) I seriously doubt the library itself used these computers for doing business.

Where is the law to require warrants?

[schwit1]

No government official should have the discretion to unilaterally allow the removal of citizen owned assets without a warrant. The government is a property manager for the citizen's assets.

Re:Where is the law to require warrants?

[DaMattster]

I really do like your idealism. No sarcasm. Since, King George W. Bush whittled our freedoms away, a government official need only invoke a security clause. It's easy when we blindly let a tyrant go unchecked because of our fears of another 9/11

Re:Where is the law to require warrants?

[lena_10326]

Doesn't apply when a terrorist is involved. Ever wonder why all suspects and perpetrators are now called terrorists? Now you know.

Re:Where is the law to require warrants?

[bornwaysouth]

It was a library. They issue loans every day. They are supposed to issue loans and let people read stuff. The Feds have promised to read it and return it quite quickly.

So what's different from any other book or DVD or whatever in the library? Things might be on it that the government might not be supposed to know. From what I understand of the law so far discussed here, this is now tainted evidence. Great for eliminating suspects but likely to free the guilty. So what are you complaining about?

Incidentally, the library does appear to be quite honest in its open approach. It seems the Librarian released the information about the seizure to the Press. The original article is a bit vague about that, but the alternative is that the FBI wanted to warn the suspect in advance.

He refused to release details as he had made an agreement about what was being sought, and who knows who could be protected by that. He did indicate that anthrax scares were no more than a co-incidence. The reporting was a bit vague there as well, but increasing public panic is in the interests of the newspaper. Can't fault them on professional competence. Suppose someone had been using it to further some other crime. (Call it kiddy porn.) Release on information about that would taint the reputation of all library users. At least a confused mentioning of anthrax (and a dead suspect) keeps the other users looking innocent.

All in all, the Library Director seems to have done a good job of protecting the innocent, albeit at the expense of letting the guilty go free. Damn near a lawyer in fact.

Re:Where is the law to require warrants?

[Reziac]

It's a lot like calling something a "civil penalty" or "civil asset forfeiture" instead of criminal, because "civil" actions don't seem to fall under Constitutional protections, thus giving the gov't carte blanche.

on the books

[DKP]

The feds can take any records from libraries at any time without notice without warrant and the depending on the situation the library can't even tell the patrons. I know this because I have a relative that works at a library.

"Seized"?

[sanctimonius hypocrt]

"Two FBI agents walked into a public library in Maryland, without a warrant, and walked out with two computers."

"It was a decision I made on my experience and the information given to me," [the library director] said."

So they asked if they could take the computers, told the librarian why, and he said they could?

LAN Party

[Derosian]

FBI Agent 1: We need two more computers for Dave and Terry.
FBI Agent 2: It's cool let's just grab it from the local library.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

When has the FBI EVER been competent?

[tjstork]

It's fashionable for the left to go and say that Bush has rendered the FBI somehow clueless or incompetent. But I'd like to let it know when it was.

Let's see.

The FBI was originally founded to deal with the likes of Al Capone but despite all the self promotion of Elliot Ness and the Untouchables, it was the Treasury that nailed him. Speaking of Elliot Ness, the famed super-detective never did catch the Cleveland serial killer and while we are at it, the FBI completely missed the rise of organized crime in the 1940s and 1950s and the total corruption of labor unions that continues to this day.

As a measure of domestic counterintelligence, the failures of the FBI are numerous. The Soviets had no problem infiltrating any number of American institutions during the Cold War, garnering everything from the US Navy codes, plans for the atomic bomb, and more.

The FBI has not produced a victory in the war on drugs. If anyone does any drug interdiction its the Coast Guard. The FBI usually only finds serial killers across state lines after they've killed a dozen people. The FBI couldn't put two and two together and prevent either the first WTC bombing and then 9/11, and in the meantime proved its inestimable worth by shooting up a child at Ruby Ridge and burning up 93 people at Waco Texas.

If anything, that the FBI hasn't done a Ruby Ridge or a Waco should be viewed by an improvement of Bush, over Clinton, but even still, with that said, if you hate Bush so much, when was the year and term of President where you thought the FBI was actually good?

Re:When has the FBI EVER been competent?

[Doc Ruby]

The FBI failed to catch Capone through 1931 when the Treasury Department finally nailed him.

During that period, Republicans Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover were president (1921-1933). The 67th through 72nd Congresses (1921-1933) were all Republican majorities in both chambers.

The FBI, like all police agencies, is corrupt and incompetent, largely by design. The "anthrax bomber" investigation has produced nothing after 6.5 years but a dropped investigation of suspect #1 because of incompetence and zero evidence (but lots of wasted work and time), and now the (apparent) suicide of suspect #2. But I didn't just single out the FBI as blowing it. What I said was

Yet another terrorism investigation blown by Bush's agencies ignoring the most basic and trivial due process.

Bush deserves special blame for an FBI incompetent to handle terrorist investigations without blowing them. The main effect that the 9/11/2001 planebombings had on the US government was giving Bush free rein (with his Republican Congress - just like the 1920s) to remake the FBI, and all of the Federal government, into a new system primarily targeting terrorism. The FBI, like the rest of Bush's agencies, has done little but blow every investigation by ignoring or screwing up basic requirements to establish who is a terrorist, and what they actually do to qualify for punishment or legitimate exploitation. The latest news was that Bush's "Justice" Department had Monica Goodling rejecting critical counterterrorism applicants who were supremely qualified, but perhaps married to a Democrat, and giving the job to totally unexperienced and useless Republicans. The rest of the US Attorneys purge for the same reasons is also pretty well documented. As is its unprecedented depths and scope.

Now before you go and cite the mysterious "effectiveness" of this hellishly damaging incompetence at every level (from Lyndie England and company at Abu Ghraib, through Alberto Gonzales and now Mukasey, all the way up through Scooter Libby to Cheney and Bush), citing how the US hasn't been successfully attacked again since 9/11/2001, let's look at the facts that the Bush regime has known since at latest 2003 that the Qaeda's strategy has been to not attack the US, and instead concentrate on attacking allies like Spain and the UK. I'm sure even the geniuses at the FBI got that memo. Though maybe they got it earlier, since they seemed to know they should ignore their field office's warnings that Qaeda terrorists were learning to fly planes but not to land them.

The FBI has never been very good, but under Bush it is unprecedentedly worse. Despite Bush getting unchecked powers to remake the FBI into as effective a force as it needs to be. Which Bush has evidently used to at best keep the FBI, and his other counterterrorism agencies, at least as bad as they were when our country's survival wasn't supposed to depend on them daily.

Re:When has the FBI EVER been competent?

[Thing 1]

I'm sure even the geniuses at the FBI got that memo. Though maybe they got it earlier, since they seemed to know they should ignore their field office's warnings that Qaeda terrorists were learning to fly planes but not to land them.

Hi Doc. I'm currently re-reading Machiavelli's The Prince, and came across an interesting passage which might help to illuminate the current administration's behavior.

"When there are no external enemies, create one, to unite the people and quell unrest."

It's from memory so may not be an exact quote, but the sentiment is uncannily close to what we've been doing since Sept. 10, 2001.

Re:When has the FBI EVER been competent?

[tjstork]

And you know why Al Qaeda's strategy has been not to attack the USA? It's because the USA took the fight to the mideast and has soldiers fighting them, rather than the FBI. We don't need an FBI fighting terrorism at home when we have the Pentagon forcing the enemy to fight to defend his own back yard.

AG's have always been political monkeys. Clinton fired ALL of them, and Bush fired what, a handful? And get this, if Obama gets in and fires all of the AGs or fires some other staff, we're going to hear about how that was entirely justified and in fact, long overdue, when it will be just as politically and ideologically motivated.

And, again, you completely ignored that, the last time I checked, Bill Clinton's FBI KILLED at least 95 people without a trial, on TV, at Waco TX, Ruby Ridge, and who knows where else that we do not know about. Go ahead and bitch about Bush's FBI being incompetent, and it is, but don't say its better, because Bush's FBI isn't lighting buildings on fire to try and flush people out because some bulldike AG wanted to look tough. I'll take Ashcroft over Reno, any day of the week.

Re:When has the FBI EVER been competent?

[plasmacutter]

And you know why Al Qaeda's strategy has been not to attack the USA? It's because the USA took the fight to the mideast and has soldiers fighting them, rather than the FBI.

You're deluded.

Al Quaeda is a nationless organized criminal syndicate. What our military is fighting is the legitimate peoples of other nations, who collectively have taken the butt-end of corruption-driven american foreign policy, and thus have rejected the american way of life.

They may not like despotism, but they don't see democracy as an adequate answer, and they don't want to be ruled by some "america approved" puppet government.

What the bush administration is doing is diligently cultivating several new generations of terrorists for his "fear politics" successors to point to as the next USSR in advancing their agenda to permanently "remove" the impediment to corporate exploit^H^H^H enterprise that the constitution represents.

Re:When has the FBI EVER been competent?

[Doc Ruby]

"It is better to be feared than loved." - Machiavelli's instructions to the prince, in _The Prince_.

Re:When has the FBI EVER been competent?

[tjstork]

Let's kill off some more of the Republican lies you heard on Rush Limbo's show, because they're so easy

Oh, by telling all the lies that you read on moveon.org or dailykos? Oh dear, we could be a long time going back and forth!

As for Waco, the ATF (not the FBI) managed to kill a bunch of religious fanatics who were armed to the teeth and committed to killing and dying for their "messiah".

Ok, so, its ok for Democratic Presidents to kill a bunch of religious fanatics committed to killing and dying for their messiah, even though they are US Citizens, without a trial. But, if Bush holds military tribunals for people at Gitmo and feeds them 3 squares a day, that's unconstitutional. Like I said, its ok for you to bend the constitution to suit your own prejudices, just not anyone else. Thus, the essence of all your claims about the "evil" of Bush are really more about "we're not the ones in power", because, when you are in power, you do the same damned thing.

But Bush's US Attorney purge is unprecedented: he fired a whole load of them because they weren't pursuing political witchhunts hard enough during an election year.

Ah, but you see, the people that Clinton fired WERE persuing investigations into a number of inconvenient things for Clinton. HE fired them to all to provide cover for themselves. And indeed, you have never explained the mass firings of the White House Travel Office.

You Republicans have destroyed everything you've touched

Hardly. Actually, if you are a farmer, an oil worker, a coal miner, a gold miner, you are doing quite well in the Bush economy. In fact, I'm glad to see that the emphasis of the Democratic economy is in fact to bemoan that all of your rich buddies on Wall Street didn't get their bonuses in New York.

And, if you look at the world, when the world was trying out your stupid socialist progressivism, China and India and Asia starved. Now that Republican free trade and capitalism has spread, the standard of living has gone so much that you Democrats now argue that, we have to adopt socialism because people have -too much- (as in, not poor anymore), and its bad for the planet.

You can say we hate America, but its really you guys that do. You talk about the working man, but, you ram through legislation to slow down the development of every commercial good there is in the interests of saving the planet or supposed safety. The fact of the matter is simple, and I'm not a big union guy, but, I will give you three basic lessons:

1. YOU CAN'T UNIONIZE A FOREST DUDE.
2. YOU CAN'T BE FREE IF YOU DO NOT HAVE MONEY.
3. THE CLINTON SERVICE ECONOMY WAS BULLSHIT.

The fact of the matter is, under Bush, manufacturing has gone UP, whereas under Clinton, it went down. Under Bush, exports are now driving economic growth in the country, whereas, under Clinton, it was a bunch of computer programmers getting IPOs for a bunch of stupid software that didn't work.

The real wealth of a nation is in taking natural resources, and converting them into consumer goods. The less you do of that, the less wealthy you are, and, so, every time you adopt a government policy to slow that conversion down, you impoverish people.

Telling people that we can somehow be richer by having less, is a lie, and, blaming your failures on people that have been able to navigate their way through your sick web of losers and thieves to actually achieve something is just wrong.

Americans are tired of your lies, your incompetence, your hating America.

Yeah right. Barrack Obama has yet to cross 50% likely voter, and he's only up in states that have a lot of black people. His strategy is simple and it worked for him now, but it won't work in the general election. He basically tries to get all the blacks to vote for him, then the liberals, and that's his coalition. He was able to win in Illinois and the Democratic Primary doing that, but all he's really done is rebuilt what Mike Dukakis did at the national l

Re:When has the FBI EVER been competent?

[Falconhell]

A fire KILLED at least 95 people-fixed that for ya.

All the rantings about the FBI killed ignore the fact the the people involved refused to follow legally issued instructions from police, apart from being well armed lunatics.

AQ I would guess is simply waiting for the towers to be replaced.

Re:When has the FBI EVER been competent?

[tjstork]

The FBI prosecuted the case stupidly. They charged in like a bull into a china shop when they could have just grabbed the religious leader a few days earlier when he had gone to the grocery store. The whole thing was a stupid display of power, and nothing more, and 95 people died from it. They did not get a trial... nothing.

Conversely, George Bush's FBI hasn't murdered anyone.

Re:When has the FBI EVER been competent?

[laura20]

Um. Ruby Ridge: August 1992. Nothing whatsoever to do with Clinton. All Bush Sr.'s watch.

Re:When has the FBI EVER been competent?

[wilec]

"The FBI, like all police agencies, is corrupt and incompetent, largely by design."

I have come to wonder if one main strategy of the Republican party for the last 12 years or so has been to destroy the public faith in the government. Maybe it is simply a combination of factors like the power drunkenness that comes on those with little opposition to restrain them and the tendency they have for patronage gone crazy, it would of course be really tough to not factor in the actual ineptness at the top levels of late.

Still considering the bold politicizing of agency's along side the gross failures of so many, I cannot help to think maybe they feel they have to prove their old mantra of all "government is inefficient and at best a necessary evil".

wabi-sabi
matthew

Re:When has the FBI EVER been competent?

[Doc Ruby]

Republicans are the public face of corporate power. The main problem for corporate power is that government power can protect the people from the corporations. So yes, when Republicans get government power, they do what they can to destroy it. Permanently - they usually eventually have to let go at least some of their power as political pendulums swing back and forth, especially under the pressure of the political tricks and contrivances Republicans use to get power. While they're in power, they squander as much government money and power to benefit their corporate cronies as either can bear - and usually more.

Proving their mantra "government cannot work" is just the way they keep their echo chamber intact, believing their own BS because it's all they will listen to. Which helps them screw up representative government that has to listen to the people's grievances and ideas for how government must work to protect our rights.

They're not stupid. At least, not so stupid that they screw up getting rich on the catastrophes they create.

Re:When has the FBI EVER been competent?

[tjstork]

Republicans are the public face of corporate power

No, Republicans are the public face of individual rights. It just so happens that we tend to like corporations because they are good transnational institutions for producing products and profits. Of course, Democrats will rail on about terrible profits are. But jeez, if Democrats had their own profits, maybe they wouldn't need to take everyone else's.

Re:When has the FBI EVER been competent?

[Skjellifetti]

The FBI might not be the sharpest agency on the block, but your examples are almost completely bogus. Eliot Ness worked for the Treasury Dept, not the FBI. The nuclear spies such as Klaus Fuchs who gave the Soviets the A-Bomb were brought into the Manhattan Project when it was the military who had primary responsibility for security, not the FBI. The FBI actually did break the back of the Mob in the 1950s and 60s although this was due more to pressure from the Kefauver Committee than to J Edgar Hoover. It is the DEA that handles the war on drugs, not the FBI. Waco was kicked off by a BATF screwup which the FBI only later compunded (no pun intended). You need to understand that the job of the FBI wasn't, until after 9/11, the ex-ante prevention of crimes such as spying or terrorism, it was the ex-post investigation of crimes.

BTW, Have you ever tried to catch a serial killer? What makes you think it is an easy job for any police agency?

Re:When has the FBI EVER been competent?

[Falconhell]

Nah Bush has just been responsible for the deaths of 100's of thousands of Iraqi people, much better.

Ever heard of the Alcohol and tobacco beureau, who were actually the people who were involved at Waco.

Re:When has the FBI EVER been competent?

[neomunk]

I was with you up to the point where you stepped right off the cliff of reason and landed in a big pile of 'foolish'...

...kill a bunch of religious fanatics who were armed to the teeth...

Everything you said up to this point (and in your final paragraph) made perfect sense, and then you go and make it seem okay to murder people for doing things EXPLICITLY PROTECTED IN THE CONSTITUTION.

I suggest that you stop your big-D flag waving, and step that 1% further to realizing that Democrats are just another iteration of the same fist, the only difference being a satin glove. Bill Clinton was just another authoritarian shitstain, though not as organized in his bastardry as Bush. Those people at Waco were murdered, and you justify that by pointing out that they were exercising their rights? Smells too much like Team Spirit to me.

Re:When has the FBI EVER been competent?

[Reziac]

And on that note, don't be so sure the FBI is incompetent. It's a lot easier to catch maldoers (and malcontents) who live in fear than those who have nothing to fear. Incompetence breeds fear, as in "you never know if you might be the next wrongful victim". I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but I'm sure Machiavelli would find it old hat.

Re:When has the FBI EVER been competent?

[bwcbwc]

Hmmm, perhaps for one hour during the Carter administration? I would have to be after J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon, and before Ruby Ridge. Incidentally, the Waco fiasco was BATF (the Treasury dept. you seem to love) not the FBI.

I don't fault the Bush administration for making the FBI incompetent (as opposed to FEMA), but I do blame the Bush administration for giving the FBI and HSA even more latitude to exercise their incompetence against us.

Re:When has the FBI EVER been competent?

[Doc Ruby]

Your Republicans have violated every right they've touched. Just because you haven't got the memo from Limbo, that just means they're shutting down the office now that there's nothing left to steal.

I look forward to your future posts where you say "Democrats are the same as Republicans", and then whine about how Democrats are only in it for the money.

If you Republicans weren't so monotonous and archaic, you'd be funny. Like an Oliver and Hardy movie. Pssst - you're Oliver.

Re:When has the FBI EVER been competent?

[tjstork]

Your Republicans have violated every right they've touched

Keep and bear arms? There, I falsified that for you.

there's nothing left to steal.

What exactly are they "stealing". You know, just because some people work harder and more smartly and get ahead does not mean that they stole it.

The fact is, if anyone in Washington DC has done anything to meaningfully help the working man in the last 20 years, it has been George W Bush. Under George W Bush, the real price of commodities has gone up in the last few years, putting more money into the pockets of the family farmer, the miner and the lumberjack. Everyone who gets their hands dirty working the land to get some resource out of it is doing better than any in any recent administration. Similarly, as much as Democrats bash Bush on "jobs flying overseas", nobody has done more to keep jobs at home by devaluing the dollar than George Bush. Do check the trade statistics. Under Bush, US EXPORTS ARE AT RECORD LEVELS. That's jobs at home dude and ultimately a permanent and fair balance with the rest of the planet so that we can trade as partners in peace.

Your Democrats will completely fuck that up. Obama wants to curtail free trade, but jack up the value of the dollar. So, he's going to piss off his allies and make us even more dependent on the 3rd world while driving out every kind of production out of the USA. No wonder Democrats are getting so much money from foreigners - they've proven themselves traitors so many times that they can credibly say that they will sell the country out to make their rich stock go up.

libraries key to education

[fermion]

The attack on libraries is really an attack on education, innovation, and the basis of what makes the United States great. I can go into a library and read whatever I wish, with no repercussions At least that is the way it used to be. No more enterprising student going to the library to learn beyond what is taught in school. No more entrepreneurs going to the library to check out opportunities in the fertilizer trade. No more anyone going to the library with the freedom of reading whatever he or she wishes.

Not to be melodramatic, but any Librarian(real MLS), who gives up patron records without a fight would really have a tought time justifying their existence in that capacity. If librarians are just going to be glorified shop attendants, we can get them for a whole lot less, and with much less investment in education, than we do know.

We might agree to give up some peripheral rights for perceived safety thinking it is a good deal. However, the greatest risk to the elite is that the at-risk servants might become educated. Therefore, the primary objective of the elite is to minimize the educational opportunities for said servants. Recall that many citizens of Texas, partly because they could not read, were held up to four years after slavery because illegal.

Re:that's why the director was out of line

[tygt]

The board owns the computers? They can sell them and pocket the money?

I highly doubt that, unless the library is an independent corporation.

Even the board of directors of IBM typically don't "own" the company, though they likely represent people who own large parts of the company, though small-stake shareholders may own a majority of it.

Perhaps you meant that the board oversees the librarians and has final oversight of library matters.... final as far as within the library's organization is concerned. Given that the library is most likely a city or county library, then the city or county would be considered to own the computers (and the books).

Who owns the city?

Pedantry

[pjt33]

Who's the (sole, I presume) citizen?

Don't Talk to the Police

[Anonymous Coward]

"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

Re:Don't Talk to the Police

[Tuoqui]

Best 40-50 minutes I've spent on Youtube... Someone mod parent up as informative.

Re:Don't Talk to the Police

[Reziac]

Since no one has modded it up yet, here's the link again:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865

Be sure to also watch the companion piece by a veteran cop, who explains a number of the social engineering ploys that cops routinely use to get information:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912&q=&hl=en

Illegally?

[gbutler69]

What makes it illegal for the FBI to request and be given the computers?

Re:Illegally?

[louzerr]

I guess I missed the part about the gun. Did they have to kill anyone saying "no" before they got to the Library Director? (This is starting to sound like a great "24" episode ...).

If the person responsible for the equipment hands over the equipment at a simple request, no warrant is needed, no "order" is given.

So, where does the fourth amendment enter into this?

Re:Illegally?

[Scrameustache]

What makes it illegal for the FBI to request and be given the computers?

I've been wondering that, I kmow it's creepy, but I'm not 100% sure it's illegal. If it was an abuse of their authority and they overstepped the legal limit granted to their special agent position, then it was a crime. But I don't know if asking for stuff and then walking away with it is illegal per se if you actually tell the person responsible for that property what you intend to do with the material in question, they watch you take it and walk out with it, and they aren't complaining that you took it.

Still, it's a step towards a full and complete police state, and that's bad. There's been too much shuffling in that direction already.

Re:Illegally?

[tmossman]

If the far-too-many hours I've spent watching/reading crime dramas is accurate, then the police (and by extension the FBI) are well within their rights to ask for an item that will assist their investigation. You are also well within your rights to demand they present a valid warrant before allowing them to have it, and you'd have to be either a fool or a fascist not to exercise your rights, particularly when, as library director, you're effectively acting on behalf of the citizenry at large.

If you're brought into an interrogation, they don't automatically provide you with a lawyer, even though you have the right to the presence of legal counsel during questioning. The burden is on us, the citizens, to exercise our rights. Of course, our doing so makes it far more difficult for the constabulary to do their jobs, so investigators will obviously try to take a short cut around these pesky "rights" that seem practically designed to hinder their efforts. That said, I don't begrudge them these tactics, though I find it a bit disheartening that a library director would just roll over like that. Far more encouraging was the example set by those librarians who fought tooth and nail against PATRIOT act intrusions a while back.

Re:Illegally?

[unitron]

Re:Illegally? (Score:-1, Troll)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 03, @06:18PM (#24459891)

A "request" by a government official with a gun is an order. As such, they do need a warrant. Of course they need a warrant to conduct a search, which is what this is. What part of the fourth amendment do you not understand?

Since I just used up my mod points on the fossil pigment story before I saw this one, I'm guerilla modding it up.

Re:Illegally?

[iamhigh]

He did have a point. Cops and FBI agents can easily use their position of power to influence what others give them. There should be an expectation that if a cop asks for documents and such, they have a legal right to do so. Every librarian, school teacher/administrator, small biz owner, etc. knows exactly what to ask, what is legal, what requires a warrant (what if they say "blah blah... Patriot Act... terrorist... bomb... blah blah")? I think not. When the cops step over the bounds they must be slapped back and with force to prevent such actions from becoming the norm.

Re:Illegally?

[techno-vampire]

The FBI did nothing unlawful if (and only if) when they asked the director of the library for permission to take the computers, he granted it. Just asking permission isn't enough; the person you ask has to grant it and, of course, have the authority to do so. As nobody seems to deny that the director did exactly that, I'd have to say that there's no legal problem, although the director's judgment might be questioned.

Re:Illegally?

[Evilest Doer]

and you'd have to be either a fool or a fascist not to exercise your rights, particularly when, as library director, you're effectively acting on behalf of the citizenry at large.

Well, this is really the crux of it. If the FBI asked the library director to turn over his *personal* computer and he did, there would be no issue. However, on his own authority, he turned over city-owned property to the FBI. Does he even have the authority to do this?

Re:Illegally?

[SpecBear]

There should be an expectation that if a cop asks for documents and such, they have a legal right to do so.

I have a friend who's an attorney, and his advice to me indicated precisely the opposite. If a cop asks you for something, it's a reliable indicator that he doesn't have the right to take it. If he did, then he wouldn't be asking, he'd be telling you what to give him.

Re:Illegally?

[jacquesm]

funny how you still consider it to be not the case ('shuffling in that direction'). The US is a full fledged police state, make no mistake about it.

I've visited other 'police states', most notably Poland and Eastern Germany before the iron curtain fell and the similarities are more than just skin deep.

The funniest thing of all is that the US was one of the 'good guys' during the cold war, but since that is over they can't seem to become like their former enemies fast enough.

Re:Illegally?

[tmossman]

As a poster below points out, his actions are counter to the American Library Association's policies. I'd think that this particular library would have a similar stance, but you bring up a very interesting point. Whether he had the authority or not, though, I maintain that he's a fool to have done this.

Re:Illegally?

[tmosley]

Receiving stolen goods is a crime, as is conspiracy to commit theft and fraud (claiming to have a right to take the computers when they don't). If they took the stolen materials across state lines, then you get more counts, these ones federal.

Just because they are the FBI doesn't mean they can just do whatever they like. Any evidence they get from those computers is tainted in any even, fruit of the poison tree and all. This is even worse, because it means that they had NO INTENT to use the information from these computers as evidence for any trial, but are at most looking for people to detain without proper cause.

Re:Illegally?

[Reziac]

Having grown up during the Cold War, and having had college roommates from behind the Iron Curtain -- I agree with you absolutely. Just because you don't have jackbooted thugs roaming the streets doesn't mean it's not a police state. Rather, the measure is what citizens have the right to do, and more to the point, what they FEEL they have the right to do (rights that you are afraid to exercise don't exist).

If you feel that anything you do at the library could be subject to gov't scrutiny, you'll soon stop using the library, and the fact that you still have a "right" to use the library has been made irrelevant (and perhaps even incrimantory).

Someone once pointed out that the measure of a police state is not its overt restrictiveness, but rather, the degree to which it TRACKS its citizens (not only directly, but via paper trails like credit card use, or in this case, library use). We're approaching 100% tracked status.

Re:Illegally?

[Reziac]

Exactly so.

See also "Don't Talk to the Cops" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865 and its supporting companion piece by a longtime city cop, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912&q=source:013978398324611204467&hl=en

Re:Illegally?

[ChrisA90278]

"What makes it illegal for the FBI to request and be given the computers?"

I don't think a library clerk has the authority to give away city property. Same thing as if I walked onto a car dealer's lot and asked someone who worked there. "Can I have this car?" and he said sure and handed me the key. The car is not his to give away.

Re:Illegally?

[iamhigh]

Well, I am a moderate Libertarian and I see an issue with it. If cops know that in the line of the their duty, they would not normally be able to access that data without a warrant (which I am sure they knew, or the boss that told them to do it knew), then they shouldn't be able to waltz in, flash a badge and all nonchalantly ask for some stuff. Then later claim, "Well, we were just some dude's asking for some stuff. What's the big deal?" It is a big deal becuase we expect the cops to enforce the law and therfore they must respect the law in every way. They signed up to a higher standard when they took the oath. Maybe that just my idealist side?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Question...

[BarefootClown]

Am I the only one thinking that the library should have just given them the hard drive rather than the whole computer?

As a matter of fact, yes, you are.

This gives an idea of the scale of library visits

[spagetti_code]

So they've visited this library 3 times in the past 10 years. There are about 120,000 libraries in the US. Lets just focus on the 10k that are public libraries.

If we guess that this library is average, then each of those 10k libs is visited every ~3 years. Or about 10 Libraries per day, every day of the week/year. Thats a crapload of data collection.

Remember that Libraries can't talk about when they get visited if the (un)Patriot Act is used.

Scary.

And they dont even need to visit a judge.

Didn't ask the owner

[zzatz]

There is no problem with the owner turning over his property.

The librarian isn't the owner.

Sad day

[DaMattster]

It is a sad day when the last bastian of free speech and free thought, the library, decides to trample on what little freedom is left in our country and hand over computers to the FBI without court order. And this was done in the name of security or law enforcement?? I am reminded of the very astute saying on the part of Thomas Jefferson: "Those that would sacrifice liberty to gain security get none and deserve neither." One could only hope that a higher level official in the Maryland Public Library System will challenge this. But, I wouldn't hold my breath

Cool! Free computers!

[smchris]

I did a brief stint in retail in my 20's at a new regional mall's opening so everybody was "green". Couple suits walked into the Sears and said "Give us your till. This is a surprise audit." And the kid did.

Librarians may be smarter but I wouldn't bet it won't happen.

No LEGAL violation, but...

[qazwart]

There could be a question of whether the librarian in charge had the power to hand over the computers to the FBI without going to a higher up. However, this is only an issue if the FBI knew that the person they talked to had no power to hand over the computers without a warrant, and specifically attempted to get around having to request a warrant. If the FBI did not know, then the FBI had full rights to seize the computers without a warrant.

For example, my wife gives the police permission to search my business records even though I did not want them searched, most courts will allow anything that is discovered in those records to be used as evidence. It is generally assumed that one spouse can give permission to search another spouse's belongings. However, if the FBI had contacted me earlier about searching my business records, and I told the FBI I wouldn't give over the records without a warrant. And, then the FBI asks my wife for permission, the courts will normally not allow anything discovered by that search to be used in court.

The bigger question is whether the librarian should have cooperated with the police in a search without the FBI first getting a warrant. If I was the librarian, I would tell the FBI I'll take the computers out of service and lock them up, so that whatever is on the computers isn't destroyed, but they must first get a warrant before I can allow them to seize them. That just makes sure that the FBI isn't simply trolling for possible information. I don't mind the library cooperating with authorities. What I do mind is cooperating in a way that doesn't ensure the rights of their patrons.

Getting a warrant isn't difficult. All it takes is a quick phone call by a D.A. to a judge - in emergencies, most judges will allow the paperwork to be filled out later. There have been cases where the police requested a search w/o a warrant, the occupant said "no", the police sit around questioning the subject, and fifteen minutes later, someone comes in with the warrant.

The librarian relinquished the machines.

[DragonTHC]

The FBI came and asked. The Librarian agreed.

The law isn't exactly clear in this case.

Was the seizure illegal? Was it even a seizure?

Do you have an expectation of privacy when using public computers?

The FBI certainly didn't violate the law. The librarian may have.

Maryland Privacy Law...

[SmoothTom]

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

Re:Maryland Privacy Law...

[onionlee]

it may be true that this law does exist. however, it only exists in paper. sure, there may be reprecussions for this director from his higherups, but im SURE as HELL this man will not be prosecuted under this law. its not actual laws that protect us, but the people that enforce the laws. if the director chooses not to follow the law, even with the privacy of the library patrons' on his shoulders, the patrons' privacy is compromised. end of story. if the cops refuse to prosecute that library director, we're screwed, end of story. kinda reminds me of that saying, "if you want to be a cop, you shouldn't be allowed to be one."

Re:Maryland Privacy Law...

[nurb432]

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.
*snip*

That is one of the reasons i stopped checking books out at our local library. Never know who might want to grab those records 10 years from now. Stealing them ( and returning them later of course ) protects ones privacy much better.

Too bad its too late to hide my existing history of things that were considered benign 20 years ago, but now get you put on a list for wanting 'forbidden knowledge'

Re:Maryland Privacy Law...

[nurb432]

Right, polices get you fired, not arrested.

Re:Maryland Privacy Law...

[grandpa-geek]

Just remember that this happened in Frederick County. It would be consistent with some of their other positions if leading politicians there took the view that you shouldn't need a warrant unless you have something to hide. The library director was probably just protecting his job.

Re:Maryland Privacy Law...

[indiechild]

I hope someone sues the director and the library (and wins). Then they will think twice about pulling this sort of rubbish.

Name and shame the guy who did it -- Darrell Batson.

Disclaimer: I am a die-hard library-geek and I hate it when this sort of thing happens. As public servants we have an obligation and duty to protect the rights of our clients. There are privacy and freedom of information laws for a reason.

I would be very surprised if Darrell Batson didn't violate any privacy laws with his actions.

Re:Maryland Privacy Law...

[Phroggy]

Most libraries have recently adopted a policy of destroying your personal information so that it cannot be handed over to the government, even with a warrant. They keep track of who has which items currently checked out, and who owes fines for overdues, but as soon as you return the item (and pay any applicable overdue fine), the record is deleted.

Not all libraries have adopted this policy, and you should check with yours, but as other posters have pointed out, this is the official recommendation of the American Library Association, in reaction to the USA PATRIOT Act. It's too bad, really, because it prevents libraries from being able to do things like allow me to view my own history of what items I've checked out, and it prevents them from turning over records of people legitimately suspected of actual crimes (I'm not sure why such information would be useful to a criminal investigation, but with proper judicial oversight I don't have a problem with it).

Anyway, your history of what you checked out 20 years ago was probably deleted a long time ago, but you should ask your librarian.

Re:Maryland Privacy Law...

[Reziac]

I did ask my local librarian, a couple years ago when this sort of nonsense first started. I'd never seen a librarian actually BRISTLE before!! and for the record, the Los Angeles County Library system follows a "kill data when book is returned" policy.

Sounds like a great way

[JohnnyGTO]

to get free computers :-)

Libraries suck anyway...

[crashandburn66]

This is very disturbing. I stopped using public libraries years ago. I either buy used books, download e-books, or "borrow" books from the library, read them, and return them on my own time. I do not want the federal government knowing what I read about. Why?

Because it's so easy for a list of book titles to be extrapolated into something it's not. Say I check out a copy of The Anarchist Cookbook for research into the rebellious attitudes if the 70's. Say I also check out a book about Osama bin Laden because I want to learn about the most wanted man on earth. Say I also check out a book about the construction of the White House.

What could be extrapolated from that? That I could be a proto-terrorist building a bomb to kill the president. All they would have to do is read my checkout queue. And it seems that those who supposedly stand for free access to information are beginning to go along with Uncle Sam now too. This just convinces me further that I should not be checking out books from libraries.

Re:Asking to voluntarily provide computer != raid

[smchris]

Right, AC. And "asking" for your wallet wouldn't equal robbery.

Mod parent up, please

[WindBourne]

FBI should not even be ASKING for such things without a warrent. Seriously, if this was about ivars, and he was working solo, then nobody else is going to touch the computers. OTH, if he was not working solo, and they obtained data from thee computers, then any actions that even APPEAR to be derived from these will be thrown out in later court. IOW, both FBI and Librarians actions could make it such that more guilty ppl get to walk. Of course, this could just be a clean up job.

Re:Asking to voluntarily provide computer != raid

[X0563511]

No, it wouldn't.

Now, if you were threatened or intimidated into giving your wallet, THAT would then be robbery.

Taxes != Ownership.

[louzerr]

It doesn't matter what you "like to think", the library owns the computers in the library. They even have receipts to prove it.

Taxes != Ownership.

Fees (like overdue fines) != Ownership.

I'm not sure what mildly educated librarian you're referring to, but in the story above, it was the library director. Usually, they get to make decisions regarding the library, it's staff, and it's equipment. (It's kind of like their job, or something).

If this library director made a different decision, then, perhaps a judge could have gotten involved. But in this case, the director allowed the FBI to take a public computer in the interest of solving a crime. Big deal.

It seemed reasonable judgment from where I stand. It would seem foolish, on the other hand, to expect any level of privacy in a public space, on public equipment. You can have the right to privacy, and the right to stupidity, but if you mix them, the former is going to suffer.

Re:Taxes != Ownership.

[jeepien]

But in this case, the director allowed the FBI to take a public computer in the interest of solving a crime. Big deal.

It seemed reasonable judgment from where I stand.

How do you know why the FBI took the computer?
For all you know (and statistically just as likely) the FBI took the computer to supress information implicating them, or the Bush administration, in some wrongdoing.
This is why judges should be making this sort of decision and not the library director (who is arguably no more qualified than you are to decide; and btw, you ain't).
People have an expectation of privacy in libraries because decades of case law have given them the right to just such an expectation.

Re:Taxes != Ownership.

[onecheapgeek]

Yes, because if they are trying to restrict access to information they would have taken only 2 specific computers out of dozens. Absolutely BRILLIANT.

Re:Taxes != Ownership.

[jeepien]

Well, that would depend solely on where the information was stored, and not at all on what the nature of the information was, be it incriminating or exculpatory to the FBI or to any individual(s).

Apparently they believed it was stored on two computers and removed two computers. Your point being?

But no, "Brilliant" is not something I normally associate with the FBI.

The message is "the system works"

[Scrameustache]

I am happy when even television shows get it right (Law and Order occasionally)

Feel good propaganda.
Add some bread, and you've got a population Caesar himself would be proud of.

Remember, subliminal means "below a threshold", and the limit here is coming right out and actually saying "see, the system works!", they just repeatedly show you examples of the system working. That falls below the textual threshold.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Cool! Free computers!

[PPH]

Call the cops. Tell them that a couple of guys are trying to pass themselves off as FBI agents and are trying to steal computers. By the way, I think they have guns and they look pretty nervous. I overheard one say to the other, "I'm not going back to prison. If the cops come, they'll never take me alive."

No regrets?

[nurb432]

So the librarian has no regrets for tossing out the 4th amendment.

Sure its a public facility, but you would think that a librarian would be a bit more concerned about protecting freedoms.

Re:Wow.

[nurb432]

5) The library director was totally within his rights to say "sure, take them." Did he do the right thing? Who cares?

If he did the wrong thing, you should care, or you are part of the problem

So why can't an owner look at the computers?

[SuperKendall]

I probably didn't say it succinctly enough, but that was exactly my point. I like to think that *we* own those computers in the library. My taxes paid for the construction, maintenance, and my overdue fines (sigh) also support it.

WE also ay for the FBI. You may have forgotten this, but the FBI is in fact a part of the government - just like the library. Why on earth SHOULD they need warrant? Does your IT department need a warrant to take the desktop at your company?

Yet another case of absurd expectations of privacy from the government, when using government equipment.

Re:Wow.

[jeiler]

The operative word in your post is "if."

By strict reading, the 4th Amendment only applies to "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." It does not apply to a person's activities in a public place, nor to any records of their activities in a public place. Which means that the librarian, in turning over the computer, did not violate (or assist in violating, or accede to a violation of) anyone's 4th amendment rights.

this bothers me as well...

[luckymutt]

From TFA:
"They had an awful lot of information," he said, but he was not allowed to discuss specifics.

He feels its ok to just hand over two computers, but he is "not allowed" to duscuss anything about it??????
If he was compelled by a warrant to hand over the machines, then fine, I can accept he cannot speak further.
But he wasn't so compelled.
They walk in an talked him into handing it over. How the f-bomb is he compelled to not talk about it???
What a complete and utter wussy.

it's not a seizure..

[timmarhy]

.... if they GIVE the computers to them you tards. and since when the hell is there an expectation of privacy on a PUBLIC computer???? honestly the stories on /. are getting worse by the minute.

Very sad and totally preventable

[mschuyler]

The Library Director may not know what he is talking about, but as an ex-MIS director of a fair-sized library system, I can tell you what I did in the same circumstances. All our public computers had devices in them that erased all activity on a reboot, and most of it on a sign-off (bookmarks, cookies, etc.) When the local police officers decided they wanted to snoop on a computer used by a pedophile, I explained to them that it was useless because the material, if any was automatically erased. They didn't believe me, rather snidely, I thought, so I let them run a DOS-based program that explored the hard drive for images. They were so proud of their little program. I even coached them how to get to a DOS prompt (which they couldn't quite do.) Sure enough--nothing. They wanted the name of the manufacturer of the device, which I gave them readily. They never got anything.

The point here is that if you set up the computers in such a way that they do not retain information, this whole issue is a moot point. Our Director did not understand any of this. I had Wi-Fi up in all our libraries for a year before she understood what it was. She then got a public service award award for being so far-sighted as to start it. I'm retired now. Ha ha.

Re:Very sad and totally preventable

[Fallen Andy]

.. Ha! They took the *wrong* computers. What the parent is saying is that the "public" machines run Deep Freeze or another program which starts out in a clean state every time you reboot. Yes, you would use this for the public workstations (if you have any sense). Either the "agents" were complete twerps or they really took the servers... (which I hope weren't public...)

Andy

Re:Very sad and totally preventable

[avandesande]

It makes sense from a security perspective; there are plenty of legitimate activities such as online banking that you would not want to keep records of on the machine.

Re:Very sad and totally preventable

[mschuyler]

It was the "Centurion Guard," a piece of hardware. I forgot what it was called when I first posted. It's been a few years. I tried Deep Freeze on a couple, but the software stack was so large with all the other crap I had on there that it interfered. New ones are thin clients, so it's no longer quite the issue it was.

BRAVO !

[Adam8g]

And I hope they look carefully. Just think, if we had had this common sense approach to national security earlier, the 911 attacks could have been prevented.

Re:Moonbats Everywhere are Flying into Walls...

[Tuoqui]

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).

Misleading summary (shock! Surprise!)

[Legion303]

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.

Re:Misleading summary (shock! Surprise!)

[tmosley]

I suppose that you blame the victims of con artists and let them get off scott free too, huh? I mean they GAVE them their life savings, so it couldn't have been theft.

Re:Misleading summary (shock! Surprise!)

[Legion303]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you didn't read the fucking article.

Re:Misleading summary (shock! Surprise!)

[tmosley]

I'm not going to go out on a limb here and say that you are using non sequitur so you don't have to give a thoughtful response.

I'm not blaming them because the library director is "stupid" (I would say he is more gullible and/or callow than stupid, but one of these traits does not preclude the other), I'm blaming them BECAUSE THEY BROKE THE LAW. They, members of a federal agency, through deceit or misrepresentation, took city property. Using the badge to commit this crime would probably add a racketeering charge as well.

Re:Misleading summary (shock! Surprise!)

[Legion303]

"They, members of a federal agency, through deceit or misrepresentation, took city property."

If you *had* read the fucking article, you would know that it said nothing about either deceit or misrepresentation. I'm not sure how that can be a non sequitur when it's clear you're basing your argument on the summary, which I already noted is incorrect.

I don't see the problem...

[93 Escort Wagon]

... as long as the FBI agents had up-to-date library cards. But if the computers aren't back by the due date, those agents are going to face hefty fines!

fire and arrest all involved

[TRRosen]

first off these computers contain confidential information. neither the librarian or the library has the right to disclose it.

example: if I ask a IRS agent to give me your tax return it would be illegal for him to give it to me (unless your an elected official)

second the FBI agents had no right to ask for the information and that act was itself illegal as they knowingly asked the library director to commit a crime.

example: if i asked you to steal something for my I would be guilty of a crime too.

Perhaps they do now.

[Jane Q. Public]

And perhaps most of them already did. But our city's libraries did not... at least, not until the government declared library records fair game a few years ago. This move was directly motivated by those changes in the law.

Really.

[Jane Q. Public]

I get your point, but that was a judge's order regarding a case in progress.

There is currently no federal law stating that libraries have to keep records. The law only states that if they DO have records, they are required to turn them over. So... no records, no turnover. It is that simple.

Re:Really.

[Reziac]

Imagine if the Feds changed the law and libraries were required to keep full records. The "Librarians Revolt" isn't a great name for a resistance movement, but I think we'd see it -- at least among the older set, who as a group are remarkably strong-minded about this sort of thing. (You should have seen the spines raised when I asked a local librarian about such record-keeping!)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Dear Frederick County Library Board

[Ophion]

Fire Mr. Batson before the end of the month and immediately retrieve your stolen property for the good of the public; nothing else will serve.

And

[cynagh0st]

"We," also employ the librarian. Usually hired by your local government (the people you should be MOST familiar with when it comes to government officials because they are generally your neighbors).

Home rule on this one: If the librarian has dealt with the Feds on 3 occasions before chances are he has hashed the subject with her bosses. In this case, and maybe even in this community it may have been more of not wanting to be associated with defending/protecting a pedophile/terrorist. That is publicity I'm sure the Feds are well aware of when it comes to persuasion on getting what they want.

Oh Librarians have Masters degrees. That's a hair better than being "mildly," educated.

What you should be more worried about is those letters that say, "We are taking machine 013, 037. They don't exist anymore and you never got this letter. Thanks!"

Re:Thank you for your co-operation.

[khallow]

FBI = Federal Bureau of Investigation. They are the HIGHEST authority on domestic snooping, and they are also publicly financed. This wasn't social engineering and seizure, this was government enforcement making a request for a reason, likely to prevent a crime.

No, in the US the HIGHEST authority on domestic snooping or any other matter of law is the US Constitution. It's not clear to me why any business or public institution should be able to turn over its records to law enforcement without a search warrant.

In general I think most of us are interested in stopping (dangerous) crimes from happening. If the police could produce photo evidence that drug dealers were stealing your car each night for heroin runs, would you say no they can't inspect it for the benefit/safety of yourself, or the dealers' right to privacy, or so that the public can feel safe drug enforcement has to follow due process? Meanwhile your car is developing a strange odour...

Why aren't they issuing a search warrant on my car? I would say "no" at first while quickly getting myself a lawyer. The more you deny the police the less they can do to you. If they find drugs in my car no matter who put them there and I'm not legally prepared, then I can get into major prison time or have my property seized.

Except child porn. We as a society have decided there are no absolute freedoms when those freedoms harm the defenseless.

We must always have an excuse to disregard the laws of the land. Something repellant that every right-thinking individual can rally against. Something easy to plant or nebulous. Child porn and terrorism serve the purpose well.

RTFA. The Library Director was there to function as oversight. Library procedure normally involves court orders, but the agents explained the situation. If the Director felt intimidated with the agent, he is fully able to write a stronger policy. No warrant, no deal.

One of the key things a warrant does is restrict the scope of what the FBI can do. The Library Director cannot act in that capacity. How did he determine that the FBI had a reasonable request or decide on the scope of the FBI's investigation of the contents of that computer? Only a judge writing a warrant is in a position to oversee such a seizure. "Explanation" is not an adequate substitute for proper procedure. Writing a stronger but toothless policy is not going to help if the Library Director "feels intimidated" in the future. There has to be real punishment to the Library Director for exposing private data about library patrons.

It's funny how libraries uphold patron privacy (ie. you shouldn't know if I borrow copies of 2600 magazine), yet with anything online like Google or Netflix or Amazon, it's part of the feature set to keep track of a user's history, and that's where more and more of the subpoenas are going. When /. reported the Youtube user log demands, did you go and flush your view/comment/rating history? Oh, you can't? Darn.

Did you say "subpoena"? So it's not actually relevant to the current problem.

Re:Thank you for your co-operation.

[ScreamingCactus]

mod parent up.

The issue here is that the library director just gave away other people's private information, without even blinking an eye. What really bothers me, is that this being a public library, shouldn't all the computers wipe their caches/logs between users? While it's stupid to use a public library computer to shop eBay, I imagine a lot of people will be checking their mail on them. The FBI should have no reason to be looking on those computers, because there should be nothing on them. If they can recover useful information from these computers, then who's to say that any two-bit hacker can't come in and access that same information when the attendants aren't looking?

I also wonder if they're going to do a fresh OS install when they get the computers back. I guess it doesn't matter; I heard the FBI only uses hardware keyloggers anyway.

Dean Wormer?

[s_p_oneil]

Maybe that library was on double-secret probation.

Re:Thank you for your co-operation.

[WgT2]

It's not clear to me why any business or public institution should be able to turn over its records to law enforcement without a search warrant.

Read past the demagoguery of the Slashdot title:

'It was a decision I made on my experience and the information given to me.'

The librarian willing GAVE the computers - they didn't have to.

But, the funny thing is that your statement, as fully quoted, is actually saying that the librarian, that is, an institution or business, shouldn't be able to cooperate with an investigation unless there is a 'search warrant'. Taken literally that would mean we should be run by a judicial oligarchy. Meaning: that unless a judge said so, I, as a business owner, couldn't cooperate with an investigation - I guess you're saying because I wouldn't know, myself, whether I should cooperate with them or not.

I know your argument only extended to a 'public' librarian, but they have to go by policies of their own. If that policy allows such cooperation then a judge isn't needed. After all, the director was hired with not only the capacity to make these decisions but with the authority as well.

What's really grievous that you think only a judge has a right to tell someone whether they can or cannot cooperate with any kind of investigation unless they give their intellectual blessing. It's not only what you stated but what you later explained.

Library director was later interviewed:

[bazorg]

and stated that "information wants to be free".

The title is misleading

[TheLink]

The slashdot title is very misleading: "Seizes Library Computers" is very different from what the cops did.

Re:The title is misleading

[khallow]

I don't know. One could say that the Library Director was consenting to a search. But the FBI took possession of the computer. That looks to me to be a seizure no matter that permission was given to do it.

Re:The title is misleading

[TheLink]

I think with the normal usage of "seize" implies you don't ask permission. You take stuff either using your power (force) or authority.

If the Director gave permission without duress (which seems to be his version of events), it sure does not seem like "seize" to me.

Re:The title is misleading

[khallow]

Can the Director change his mind and get those computers back before the FBI is done with them? I doubt it.

Re:The title is misleading

[WgT2]

I doubt it would matter: give sufficient priority those hard drives could be copied within a day's work.

Re:The title is misleading

[TheLink]

If you loan your lawnmower to your neighbour you often can't get it back before your neighbour is done with it - especially if he's already in the middle of mowing his lawn.

And I believe it is usually considered unreasonable to "seize it" even though it is your property (unless in exceptional circumstances).

I am assuming the Director's intent was the FBI _temporarily_ have those computers.

If I were the Director I'd insist the FBI bought the computers for book value + margin (to cover replacement expenses, downtime, etc).

"You're the FBI and want the computers and don't have a warrant? Sure, they are yours for $$$$, otherwise bring a warrant".

Then the library would soon have new (and maybe even better) computers to use and the FBI can keep those old computers for as long as they want.

Re:Thank you for your co-operation.

[khallow]

But, the funny thing is that your statement, as fully quoted, is actually saying that the librarian, that is, an institution or business, shouldn't be able to cooperate with an investigation unless there is a 'search warrant'.

I don't think I was clear here. I meant that they can voluntarily cooperate to an extent, but they shouldn't be allowed to release information that has an expectation of privacy like customer information or web browser logs without a warrant or subpoena.

What's really grievous that you think only a judge has a right to tell someone whether they can or cannot cooperate with any kind of investigation unless they give their intellectual blessing. It's not only what you stated but what you later explained.

There are already plenty of cases where that is the case. For example, releasing medical records and client confidentiality.

I can partly understand why this happend

[houghi]

Many people want to help. Also there are people who think that if it is the police (or FBI or whatever) they will be in the right to know.

And then there are people from police or the like who will try to get data by social engineering. Basically they try to bully it out of you. You then must be pretty strong and care for things like privacy to block the person from getting the data without a warrent.

I have been in a situation where they called and told me they were from the police and that they have the court order. I basically told then to FOAD until I had the court order. They phoned back and tried with somebody else who then almost gave the data.

Luckily I just past, asked for the phone and told them that I wanted to file a complaint for industrial espionage and if they could give me their supervisor.

Two days later I finally got the court order dated on a time after they called us. So at the moment of asking they did not have a warrant. To me it is very simple. No court order, no information. Unfortunately not everybody thinks like that.

Re:Thank you for your co-operation.

[khallow]

only a judge has a right to tell someone whether they can or cannot cooperate with any kind of investigation

I wouldn't term it "has a right", but rather "has the authority as granted them by the US or state constitutions". Significant difference there. Not every power is a "right".

ALA (professional org.) policies/positions

[jim_deane]

The American Library Association, ALA, has a professional code of ethics. It includes the following:

III. We protect each library user's right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information sought or received and resources consulted, borrowed, acquired or transmitted.

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.

Re:ALA (professional org.) policies/positions

[DrLang21]

Mod parent up. This is the most insightful response I've read yet. I wonder if there is some kind of review board for violations of ethical practice for librarians. I know with Professional Engineer certifications, they are very strict about demanding ethical conduct from engineers, and have a review process in place for investigating violations of the Professional Engineer ethical code.

Re:ALA (professional org.) policies/positions

[sumdumass]

The ALA is a trade union. They don't run libraries and they only accredit libraians with masters degrees so they don't even represent the lot of librarians.

I have a feeling that you might be mislead over their roles and are overstating their importance. The ALA has no control over policy in any library other then the influence they have on the members employed there. And that is easily over ruled by politicians and management.

Re:ALA (professional org.) policies/positions

[WgT2]

I don't feel like looking it up. So, I'll ask you: what jurisdiction does the ALA have over a city employee, the librarian, or over the jurisdiction of a city over its libraries?

Re:How can they establish identity?

[roguetrick]

That particular library, you merely enter in a card number. It isn't hard to bypass(the library is down the street from me).

how is this different from wiretapping?

[SethJohnson]

This wasn't social engineering and seizure, this was government enforcement making a request for a reason, likely to prevent a crime.

That's the same as the warrantless wiretaps performed by the NSA with cooperation from AT&T & other telcos. "Oh, they're probably trying to do something good. Go ahead. Abuse all these people's right to privacy. I'm willing to make that judgment call." It doesn't sound like the Library Science curriculum includes any sections covering constitutional law....

Seth

Re:how is this different from wiretapping?

[Dog-Cow]

It's not the same. Warrantless wiretaps on 3rd parties is completely illegal. Period. There are no exceptions.

It is, however, perfectly legal, in most cases, to assist with an official investigation of one's own free will, without a warrant being served.

Re:how is this different from wiretapping?

[SethJohnson]

Warrantless wiretaps on 3rd parties is completely illegal.

You got a reference for what law specifically forbids warrantless wiretaps? My understanding is that the fourth amendment forbids unreasonable search and seizure, which court precedence has held that wiretaps are unreasonable unless a judge grants a warrant. The bill of rights does not use the word 'wiretap' as they didn't have phones at the time of publication.

In this case, a librarian allowed the FBI to perform a search without a warrant, thereby ignoring library users' rights to privacy. This is the same as what AT&T did when they allowed the NSA to install wiretapping equipment on their switches to listen to all phone calls routed through their network.

Seth

my own theory

[SethJohnson]

Well I don't know what they can get from this other than evidence of a possible crime, but not who was on the computer.

It could have been that the FBI had traced a message back to this computer's NIC. They probably have a good idea who the sender of the message was, but they want to corroborate it with physical evidence. By grabbing the computer, they can check the keyboard for fingerprints (unlikely, but possible) and DNA. If they find a match, then it's strong evidence supporting their claim that a particular individual is responsible for a given communication.

Seth

oblig dog joke

[nozzo]

Two FBI agents walked into a public library in Maryland. They see a dog and said to the man, "does your dog bite" The man said, "no!" They patted the dog and it bit them. Surprised, they cried "I though you said your dog doesn't bite?" The man said "that's not my dog.."

Re:Thank you for your co-operation.

[Dog-Cow]

It's not clear to me why any business or public institution should be able to turn over its records to law enforcement without a search warrant.

Then you are a complete idiot. Do you really believe that I should have no control over the records I hold? That I cannot, of my own free will, decide to pass them on to others?

There are classes of records for which this is actually illegal. HIPPA covers medical records, for example. For anything else, it's completely legal. It would be an abuse of MY rights for it to be otherwise.

My tax dollars

[Bayoudegradeable]

Not flamebait, but hey, it was my tax dollars that funded the agents, and my tax dollars were hard at work as these men went about "fighting" crime. So the point is a bit sarcastic. The sad truth being that in this PATRIOT ACT world we now live in, compliance keeps you open for business, non-compliance can get you closed down, or worse. Think any page-shuffling librarian really wants to risk a vacation at Gitmo?

Re:Wow.

[thedistrict]

I was under the impression that things accessed on a public computer were the rights of the public more or less. Not to mention the libraries are operated by the government more or less so they are the definition of public property. And to be quite honest..if this is an after the fact collection of evidence against that guy, I don't have a problem with it. The problem arises when at the drop of a hat they are searching people's things looking for problems. In this case, they claimed to already have information about what he had done..which is probable cause to me..

I'm a library board member and ...

[jhutch2000]

... if my library director did this, I'd be calling for her job the next day. No if ands or buts.

That said, I know how our director feels about stuff like this and *she'd* be calling for her own head on spike if this happened. There is NO way anyone in my library would give up those computers without a warrant.

Show a warrant and you've got all the cooperation in the world. No warrant, no dice.

JHutch

Once upon a time in Sweden...

[Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki]

... I was getting curious about how many times i had actually loaned a particular book so i asked the librarian if she could look it up. What did she do? She said "no go, mr!" (well not exactly, but you get the drift). Why? Because once a book is returned they're not legally allowed to store who loaned it. Basically they can't make lists of who loaned specific books because the names connected are removed once the book is returned.

Re:This would not fly in my town.THIS IS GOOD

[neomunk]

You're right. I suggest we just burn all the books that we find offensive. Oh, that's too hard to agree upon you say, well I bet you'd be happy if we just burned all the books YOU found offensive.

Then we wouldn't have to worry about tracking down everyone who checks out the Terrorist Cookbook, and you can still feel safe!

Re:Thank you for your co-operation.

[zip_000]

I'm a librarian. All of our public access computers wipe themselves at each restart to prevent any of these problems.

Re:Thank you for your co-operation.

[khallow]

As I mentioned in another thread, if the information you hold is information about others, and if they have an expectation of privacy, then law enforcement should require a search warrant before they can peruse this information. Personally, I think you should be liable, if you release such information to law enforcement without a search warrant.

Re:Thank you for your co-operation.

[sumdumass]

Actually, that should be authority to enforce. The constitution only gives the judges the ability to force compliance with a warrant. It does nothing whatsoever to otherwise restrict cooperations with investigations without warrants.

Are you saying that someone who committed murder should never turn himself in without a judge ordering them to? I would simply says hogwash to that.

Re:Thank you for your co-operation.

[khallow]

Elsewhere I elaborate on what I meant. If you control information about others, and there's an expectation of privacy, then police should need a warrant before they can view your information. Judges are the authority that issues the warrant.

Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

And what if the FBI agent and his buddy decide they want to seize other things? What if they decided to start seizing books? Will the librarian just hand everything over without a warrant or court order?

How does the librarian know that these agents had an actual need for or case involving those computers? How do they know they were acting on behalf of the government and not in their own interest?

If you surrender your property (or the property of the People) to anyone who flashes a badge, you teach those with badges that that is to be expected.

Liberty is a not something that you are entitled to without sacrifice. It is something that every individual has a responsibility to preserve and we must fight tooth and nail every day to preserve it. There are no magic Liberty fairies scattering Liberty pixie-dust everywhere. It makes me very sad that people have fought and died to secure Liberties that others would mindlessly toss away. A librarian should know better.

 

Re:This would not fly in my town.THIS IS GOOD

[Nom du Keyboard]

You're right. I suggest we just burn all the books that we find offensive. Oh, that's too hard to agree upon you say, well I bet you'd be happy if we just burned all the books YOU found offensive.
Then we wouldn't have to worry about tracking down everyone who checks out the Terrorist Cookbook, and you can still feel safe!

You clearly fail to understand sarcasm when it slaps you right in the face. The stupid terrorist would be identified because overdue lists are still kept and he would have not returned the book before killing himself and others. Besides, AFAIK, there is no Terrorist's Cookbook.

The library in question needs better policies

[Anonymous Coward]

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.]

It definitely exists...

[Jane Q. Public]

unfortnately, a few people with lots of power have been overruling the majority of people with more sense. For example, Congress lately has passed a number of Orwellian laws that it KNOWS the voters do not want or support.

By the way, "the Feds can go screw themselves" was not an official pronouncement by the library board, but it does accurately reflect their feelings on the matter.

Re:Thank you for your co-operation.

[electrictroy]

Define "child porn"

Are we going to start arresting nudists because they took family photos of their children? How about married couples who take videos of themselves in the bedroom, and those married couples are aged 16 or 17? I prefer another phrase, one that has far more priority than the child porn phrase:

"freedom of individuality"

When the government officials start harassing/arresting innocent individuals, then it is the *government officials* who have become the true criminals.

Re:Thank you for your co-operation.

[bwcbwc]

There was no violation here by the FBI. They requested and the librarian complied.

I have to wonder what the written policies of the library system are, though. It could easily be that the library director violated the policies of the library system itself by not requiring a search warrant, and could face dismissal on those grounds. The ALA is a very libertarian organization in matters of information access for the public and constitutional limits on the powers of government. If this library system adheres to the ALA Code of Ethics and other policies, our friendly library director could be in big trouble.

Google Say

[bill_mcgonigle]

And to date, I'm not aware of anytime where the NSA letters or anything concerning a library has bee abused.

FBI Found to Misuse Security Letters

They didn't "sieze" the computers.

[John Hasler]

They were voluntarily handed over.

Another instance, with different response.

[rachelstorm]

While I read through many replies, I did not read them all-- so sorry if this was already posted. But here is a situation where the opposite happened: the librarian refused to give up the computers, and some people wanted her head for it.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/wireStory?id=5409499

As a librarian myself, I disagree with what the library director did in the story posted here on Slashdot. I suppose in reality, what I would do depends on my employer's policy-- but I wouldn't be comfortable working for a library that handed over records without requiring a warrant.

Re:Thank you for your co-operation.

[WgT2]

There are already plenty of cases where that is the case. For example, releasing medical records and client confidentiality.

That's good: a specific example. What was written, though, was a statement so generalize it was easy for me to draw blanket conclusions.

You're clarification is appreciated.

Re:Thank you for your co-operation.

[khallow]

I apologize for that. I didn't realize how inaccurate my origin statements were at the time.

Re:Thank you for your co-operation.

[khallow]

Er, I mean original statements.