Slashdot Mirror
FBI Seizes Library Computers Without Warrant
An anonymous reader writes "Two FBI agents walked into a public library in Maryland, without a warrant, and walked out with two computers. The library director agreed to release the machines to these smooth-talking feds. According to the article, the director of Frederick County Public Libraries indicated that this was the third time in his 10 years there that the FBI had requested records, but the first time they had come without a court order. The director seemed to indicate no regrets, stating 'It was a decision I made on my experience and the information given to me.' He further justified his actions, noting that the agents indicated specific computers they needed (of the several dozen in the library) and further that they 'had an awful lot of information.'" The library director speculated whether the raid may have involved the Bruce Ivins / anthrax case, musing "Obviously it coincided with the events everyone is talking about," but he said the agents hadn't mentioned it.
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.
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.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
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."
You can always ask for something and be given it. Warrants are only needed to forcibly remove an article.
Conservative, mod down for violating
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. :)
Slashdotter, ID #101. UIDs are in binary, right?
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.
This goes completely against the American Library Association's issued "Recommended Procedures for Law Enforcement Visits" policy:
"Without a court order, neither the FBI nor local law enforcement has authority to compel cooperation with an investigation or require answers to questions, other than the name and address of the person speaking to the agent or officer. If the agent or officer persists, or makes an appeal to patriotism, the library director should explain that, as good citizens, the library staff will not respond to informal requests for confidential information, in conformity with professional ethics, First Amendment freedoms, and state law.
If the agent or officer presents a search warrant or other judicial process, the library director should immediately call the library's counsel and ask for assistance."
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/confidentiality.cfm
This library director was just a putz (and I can say that as a libraian-in-training).
Dance like no ones looking and love like it's never going to hurt.
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.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
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
Elections are funded by public dollars, too. Who did you vote for in the last election?
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
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.
In Liberty, Rene
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.
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.
The American Library Association, ALA, has a professional code of ethics. It includes the following:
In practice, this means that patron privacy is protected--period. No search warrant, no information, no cooperation. It is not difficult for an investigator pursuing a valid investigation of a legitimate crime to obtain a warrant. They shouldn't even bother showing up without the paperwork. The ALA statement on confidentiality goes into more detail about this.