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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[ThatsNotFunny]

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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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."

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

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.

Illegally?

[gbutler69]

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

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?

[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: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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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

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: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.

[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.

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.

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.