Librarian Stands up to the Feds 592
Anonymous Coward writes "A librarian at Brandeis University forced the FBI to obtain a warrant to seize computers used to send threats. From the article: 'Federal Bureau of Investigation agents tried to seize 30 of the library's computers without a warrant, saying someone had used the library's Internet connection to send the threat to Brandeis. But the library director, Kathy Glick-Weil, told the agents they could not take the machines unless they got a warrant first. Newton's mayor, David Cohen, backed Ms. Glick-Weil up. After a brief standoff, FBI officials relented and sought a warrant from a judge.'"
Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:2, Insightful)
Relented? The government is supposedly here to protect us and never stomp on our freedoms. When is the government ever NOT supposed to relent to the citizen? I believe that's their job -- to relent to our will if they come onto our property without just cause. In fact, I don't even believe they ever have just cause as the federal government has gone beyond their constitutionally mandated limits of power.
The FBI, to me, is a
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:4, Insightful)
How about the FBI department that handles serial killers? Surely that's an infringement of our freedom?
Of course, the FBI should have gotten a search warrant, but I'm sure they will now and I hope they can determine who sent the threats, because I want to live in a world where I know if someone sends me a death threat (or what-have-you), that they will be found and I won't have to fear my safety on their account.
You don't see a use for the FBI? Pleeease.
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:2, Insightful)
I would hire a private investigator and a lawyer. Also, I don't see how someone could kidnap my child if I was a good parent and actually parented the child at all times, as a parent should.
How about the FBI department that handles serial killers? Surely that's an infringement of our freedom?
There are so many serial killers that we need an unconstitutional department costing us US$5 billion
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would hire a private investigator and a lawyer. Also, I don't see how someone could kidnap my child if I was a good parent and actually parented the child at all times, as a parent should.
It's nice that you seem to have a lot of money to pay for these sorts of things but what about people who aren't so well off?
And while I'm at it.. what's with the blaming the victims here? Not all kidnappings can be prevented by the parents.
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:5, Informative)
The rich already makes and enforce the laws. Look at copyright extensions, software patents, DMCA, and other related legislature. Most libertarians do not support this political bribery at all, and wish it would be done away with.
Why do so many people spew all of this bad crap about libertarianism? Libertarianism is about reducing the government's role to protecting our individual freedoms, and is about promoting free markets, indivudal freedoms, and limited government. You need to start reading about libertarians before you compare a libertarian society to serfdom. (In fact, one libertarian, Friedrich Hayek [wikipedia.org], wrote a book called The Road to Serfdom which describes what happens when socialist and collectivist policies are implemented. Go and read, before you spew anti-libertarian garbage.
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:3, Insightful)
I donate more than 10% of my income to various church organizations locally -- and I hold them ALL accountable for
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet, we can accomplish much more as a group then as a bunch of individuals. If it wasn't for actually putting aside some of that egocentrism, we would not have gotten anywhere, we wouldn't even have survived long enough to get to make the first tools.
Realizing humans have an egocentric tendency is good, but then just accepting that and not lookign any further is just stupid and ignorant of human history.
I have no problem with others performing jobs I shoul
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:3, Interesting)
Within a group of voluntary cooperation, both parties in any transaction profit from the transaction. Within a group that requires government force to extract "cooperation" you often times see one party profiting while the other party is losing. Voluntary
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:3, Insightful)
You have no clue what poverty means if you think that that makes you 'poor'.
Come back with 'not having enough to even live from paycheck to paycheck' or 'not having a paycheck at all' and you get a little bit closer already.
After yet another hurricane, I moved to the Midwest because I couldn't handle the risk. The rewards were terrible. How did I afford the move? I worked an extra job and I saved.
Congratulations,
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why I save. That's why I prepay for insurance. That's why I live in the safest places I can, and that's why I build relationships of trust and accountability with people all over my community and the world. I help those, and I hope they'll help me.
And guess what, in many countries that have a welfare system that actually somewhat works, it is a 'collective insurance', which can quite be held accountable. Now you may not like a mandatory 'collective insuran
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:3, Informative)
I'm currently starting an anarcho-capitalist charity to help families transition from high costs of living to low costs of living
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that those with the most capital tend to profit the most. So left unchecked, over time all the capital gets sucked into the hands of a relatively small percentage of the population, and the others get to be serfs.
Basically, capital is power, and power tends to concentrate if left unchecked.
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:3, Insightful)
And my point is that poverty-stricken people (or any people who are unable to care for a child) should not be having children, and anything that results from that lack of planning is their own damn fault.
"Poverty" is not a valid excuse.
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, it's a matter of statistics that most kidnappings are BY one of the parents. Kidnapping by stranger is so rare as to be the exception that makes the news (extra points for young, white, girl).
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:2)
Yea! So we can look forward to kidnapping insurance fraud in your ideal world?
I'm not defending the strong arm tactics of the FBI in the situation, but throwing out the baby with the bathwater seems a bit extreme.
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:5, Insightful)
What planet are you on? A private investigator?? Do you *know* how hard it can
be to track down kidnap victims even with the latest foensic techniques and
hundreds of people working on the case. So how do you think one single gumshoe
is going to manage that on his own with just his notebook?
As for the second comment, thats just so absurb and out of touch that it doesn't
even deserve a reply. When you come back down from the Planet Brainless Hippie
let us know and maybe we can have a proper discussion.
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that's just a heartless thing to say. Many good parents still lose their children, often through no fault of their own.
For example, on our last family vacation we visited a children's museum. While we were building a dinosaur from bones together, my youngest son (only 3 years old!) sneakily departed. We noticed his disappearance pretty quickly, but couldn't find him anywhere in the multilevel facility. Since the facility had no real security, anyone could have picked him up and run off with our child while we were trying to locate him. A kidnapper could have easily attributed his crying to misbehaving rather than apprehension.
Eventually the employees found him in a dark "virtual" batting cage. He got a good lecture for taking off like that, but then managed to sneak out of an ambulence he was "driving" just a few minutes later. (He's a sneaky bugger. I was sitting right next to him, look down at the radio, look up and he's gone.) Thankfully, I found him much quicker this time and kept him on an even tighter leash after that. (Also threatening to take him to the car and keep him there for the rest of the trip unless he kept in my sight at all times.)
Now consider all the parents who have their babies stolen by adoption scams. Or kids kidnapped while they're on the school playground. (Especially by relatives who might seem to be sent by you, but often aren't right in the head.) There are just so many ways that kids can be lost or kidnapped that it just isn't funny. A good parent has a far lower chance of their kid being abducted, but they can't guarantee against it.
So do be a little careful about such sweeping statements, will you?
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you ever considered spanking him? I know this may sound crass, but my father told me that the only time they ever spanked me is when I was in physical danger. One being that I would run out into a b
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:2)
Wow. So, your kid is at school, and someone runs in and grabs the first kid near the door... who happens to be your kid. You view that as a shortcoming on your part as a parent?
dada21 never sleeps! (Score:3, Insightful)
dada21: I don't see how someone could kidnap my child if I was a good parent and actually parented the child at all times, as a parent should.
doughrama: You just lost all credibility.
You got that right! Denial of reality and good parenting are hardware incompatible.
Some of us have to work. And sleep (one of my kids sleepwalks, incidentally, as does my spouse). And some of us have chosen to parent more than one bright, inquisitive child. Human beings can't do these things and simultaneously do 24 hour bo
Your smug pontification makes me angry. (Score:4, Insightful)
#1 - I ADOPT. Do you? No? Then shut up about who has the "right" to have kids. And yes, I am fertile, as is my spouse, although it's none of your business. I have a biological kid too. And no, I don't adopt Chinese or Russian babies, I can't afford to fly to exotic places and rescue children. I go to the closest major city, which happens to be Wilmington.
#2 - I do not ask for or receive any charity from you, the government, or anyone else. Period. I am self-sufficient through 20 years of hard work; I own productive land with game and clean water and I would be fine if every other human on the planet disappeared tomorrow. So shut up about paying for me, you simply don't. I pay for you, though, since you require the business environment that my tax dollars make possible - an environment my family does not require. I have read your blog and posts; you require social support structures far more than I do.
#3 - I don't watch TV, we cook at home, we don't have an X-box, we drive to the beach for vacation, and all your other typical classist and racist arguments don't apply to my family either.
So, I do have a right to have kids. I have demonstrated it by providing a home and education for homeless, parentless kids you clearly don't want to pay for.
You, on the other claw, have not earned the right to even talk about parenting, much less the right to be one. Your snide contempt for poor people's financial mismanagement invalidates whatever good your "churches" do with your donations, as far as I'm concerned; in fact I'd rather you kept your money and grew some compassion.
And finally: Listen, I've seen "kill all nigger-lovers" spray-painted on my goddamn sidewalk, when we were the only mixed-race family in the plastic yuppie neighborhood I used to live in. I'm marked for death by the fucking phineas priests because I'm actually doing something meaningful while you grub for money and post clueless tripe about parenting on the Internet. Go adopt some parentless inner-city children, raise 'em up to be productive, self-actualized human beings and then you'll have the right to lecture me.
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about the FBI department that handles serial killers? Surely that's an infringement of our freedom?
Of course, the FBI should have gotten a search warrant, but I'm sure they will now and I hope they can determine who sent the threats, because I want to live in a world where I know if someone sends me a death threat (or what-have-you), that they will be found and I won't have to fear my safety on their account.
You don't see a use for the FBI? Pleeease.
If they were in the news more for finding serial killers and recovering kidnapped children than they were for using the PATRIOTACT, then perhaps. There is a use for an FBI, but not this one.
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is not the FBI, they are the ones who are just stuck enforcing bad decisions from above.
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:2)
The State can (and used to) handle pretty much everything that the feds do now... one should wonder when all the power starts flowing up the chain, away from the individual.
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:5, Insightful)
Until the 1930's or so when organized crime figured out that state run police was terrible at tracking them across borders. The FBI was formed for a reason. Whether or not they've over-stepped their bounds I'm not arguing however.
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people that support the librarian's actions also appreciate the FBI and support its mandate (well, at least I do). You seem to hold the impression that the defense of civil liberties and the
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:3, Funny)
In Adams-Friendship, Wisconsin, there's a store called "Al's Guns and TVs". Does that count?
[insert jokes about replacing the Nintendo Zapper here]
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:2)
No, you need chew and booze too.
-nB
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:2)
The point of warrants is in part to make sure that people cannot go around nicking things by pretending to be police. In this case 30 computers probably represents a good $50,000 worth of capital and another $50,000 or so of installation effort. There has to be a good reason before that amount of money is impounded.
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure we see them handed over in the movies and on tv, but they never go over them and double check them.
Is there a number we can call to confirm that a warrant is actually valid?
A determined criminal could create a fake warrant easier than most other official ID badges purely because we don't know what they look like?
(Of course I'm not American and might be completely wrong, but requiring a warrant in my simplistic eyes is usually just a delaying tactic by the criminal)
Verifying warrants (Score:4, Funny)
Yes - fortunately, though, it's printed on the warrant itself so there's no need to remember it.
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:2)
Nice try, but Troll Tuesday was yesterday.
The point of warrants is that the constitution recognized that the police have more power than ordinary citizens, and that power had to be kept in check by someone else. In the case of warrants that's the court, and more specifically an elected judge. If the cops become "too powerful" and start abusing their search privileges, we the people can
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:2)
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:5, Interesting)
That person is me. I recommend voting for yourself on every ballot, straight ticket, every position. Vote NO to all referenda and judge retentions. Write yourself in and you'll be voting for the only person able to enforce the law the way you want it enforced.
Picture the next presidential election: Condi Rice 7%, Hillary Clinton 8%, Other 85%. I like that. That's my kind of mandate.
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:2)
So normally I'm a fan of you, not because I agree with you (I often do not) but because your comments are clear and unambiguous. This one, however, kind of irks me; so I'm calling you out on it.
Is it that you don't support our troops, the dirt pounders in the field, or is it that you don't support our government and command structure sending the dirt pounders into the field. The disitinction is real and I am quite inter
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:2, Offtopic)
I appreciate your honesty. The sentence wasn't flamebait, but it does open the door for resolving what I meant.
Is it that you don't support our troops, the dirt pounders in the field, or is it that you don't support our government and command structure sending the dirt pounders into the field. The disitinction is real and I am quite interested in your response. The statement sounds like you think the individual GI Joe's are to blame, but your
Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election? (Score:2, Insightful)
You know it's sad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You know it's sad... (Score:2)
Isn't hyped up fear of "terrorism" wonderful? I think the important point here is that, if there really are reasons to be concerned then getting a warrant is not an onerous task! For some reason (maybe it's the joys of TV) people seem to feel that saving people fom getting a warrant really is going to make a difference in how effective they can be - that it really does spare them vast amounts of time and work.
Re:You know it's sad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You know it's sad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Until the American people wake up and start actually seeing what the people they elected are allowing to happen without so much as a protest vote, or even actively participating in them (see Abramoff, DeLay, and other things that non-partisan public interest groups have been screaming about for years) it's going to be an extremely sad state of affairs, so I'd like to see more news of this nature, frankly. It's among the only things that keep me hopeful for this battered country.
Re:You know it's sad... (Score:3, Insightful)
They didn't ask for help, they demanded the ability to deprive the library of its computers without having met the burden of proof that those computers were relevant to the investigation. The library will have to live without those computers for a while.
By requiring that the FBI get a warrant, the librarian basically sai
Congratz (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you, for being a citizen. I wish more Americans would be more like you.
Re:Congratz (Score:5, Interesting)
Oddly enough, it seems Librarians spend a disproportionate amount of time doing such things.
From what I can tell, as a group they're more concerned with your rights and liberties than most everyone else.
Support your local librarian.
Re:Congratz (Score:3, Insightful)
From what I can tell, as a group they're more concerned with your rights and liberties than most everyone else.
I would love to see the results of a study comparing politicians and librarians for knowledge of what the constitution says.
Where's the Fark HERO tag when you need it? (Score:3, Insightful)
She's a t'rrst (Score:5, Funny)
Re:She's a t'rrst (Score:2)
Who, it should be mentioned, loves books so much he married a librarian [wikipedia.org].
President Said that Wiretaps Require Court Order (Score:4, Funny)
In HIS own words:
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
G.W.B. April 20, 2004
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/2
Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people say yes, and the police can legally search with permission.
You can legally say no, and the officer must let you go due to the lack of a warrant. This happens on a daily basis.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:2)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Interesting)
like open the trunk of your car. However, they may ask, and they can
even lie to you ("I heard something moving in that trunk!") in order
to get you to voluntarily comply with their request.
One of the best pieces of advice that I've heard was that if you do
have contraband in your car and a police officer demands to search it
without a warrant, to simply get out of your vehicle, lock all the
doors, and close your door after putting your car keys into the car as
well. Since everything in the car is locked and you cannot get into
it, you have removed any occasion that the police officer may think
there is reasonable danger present to the officer in that he/she must
break into your vehicle (higher standard of proof required).
However, there ARE people that need less burden of proof. For
instance, said police officer may simply radio the Fish and Game
wardens that they suspect you have violated state hunting/fishing
laws. These people have the right to actually use a crowbar and force
your vehicle open without a warrant. Of course, they won't find any
illegal game/fish in your vehicle, but now that the car is opened and
subject to search, those other things in your car can be considered
fair game. (Pun not intended.)
A good lawyer (or perhaps even the public defender) can probably have
the evidence dismissed against you, but it's pretty shaky ground
you'll be standing on. Judges don't like denying evidence against
people that are clearly guilty (despite what you see on crime shows
nowadays).
Now, I'm not advocating people feel free to transport drugs or
automatic weapons. Actually, I'm advocating that people don't
transport illegal things in their vehicles! It's simply stupid to be
lulled into a false sense of security because you THINK the police
will be unable to search your car without a warrant.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:2)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:2)
You can legally say no, and the officer must let you go due to the lack of a warrant. This happens on a daily basis
meanwhile back in the real world...
say no and the cop WILL detain you while he calls in backup, drug dogs etc.
because saying no means you MUST be doing something wrong.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:2)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:2)
Hassling someone enough is bound to provoke him to get nervous or agitated, and then he's "acting suspicious". Then get him worked up enough to contradict a statement he's made, and somehow twist it into reasonable suspicion.
You wouldn't hear about cases where someo
Re:Why is this news? (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably more often than you might think. Defense attorneys really are quite good at challenging fourth amendment violations, because the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine means that one mistake can get the whole case dismissed. Cops know this, and usually give wide berth to someone wh
Not in California. (Score:2, Interesting)
You can say no, but that won't do you any good.
do you have a reference for that? (Score:2)
Re:do you have a reference for that? (Score:3, Informative)
IMO, it's not right, but nobody has enough money to fight it.
There was one instance that I saw on Cops or something like that, where some guy's ex girlfriend called in an anonymous tip to the cops saying a guy had drugs, the guy just finished packing to move. They made him unpack everything that he owned while they looked
Re:do you have a reference for that? (Score:3, Insightful)
That would make an interesting Supreme Court case. It's pretty easy to argue that if there are severe penalties for exerting your fourth amendment rights, then essentially you don't have fourth amendment rights. A state law that says "If you don't let us search your hou
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Interesting)
I was annoyed with the coverage of this when it first ran because many news articles portrayed the library director as having a choice in the matter and choosing to impede the FBI. It would have been nice to see an article that ran that essentially said, "Library Director follows law and demands warrant so evidence not later thrown out of court or abused."
Isn't this expected? (Score:2, Insightful)
Ook (Score:5, Funny)
*for those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, you have my pity and should click here [wikipedia.org] or here [wikipedia.org] for more information.
Warrantless Searches Are Unreasonable (Score:4, Informative)
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, before you get out your boolean logic analyzers for a legal statement with centuries of precedent built on it, grok the fact [findlaw.com] that
"searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment--subject only to a few specially established and well-delineated exceptions."
Re:Warrantless Searches Are Unreasonable (Score:3)
THANK YOU! I can't even count the number of times just this week that I have seen or heard people refer to the NSA wiretapping as "warranted" because we're in a "state of war". (Amazing how we can be in a state of war w/o having declared such, the authorization of the use of force bein
Not a brandeis librarian... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not a brandeis librarian... (Score:2)
Because it's a public library, they should expect a warrant, or they shouldn't expect a warrant.
Or a private library should or shouldn't expect one?
To me it doesn't really matter, it didn't matter to the FBI wanting to take the stuff without a warrant.
Equality before the law (Score:2, Funny)
Clear and Present Danger (Score:4, Interesting)
And as for oversight of the FBI, the fact is that if the computers had been obtained illegally and against procedures, the evidence that they provided would have been thrown out in court. No FBI agent is looking to have an arrest dismissed due to a technicality such as that.
I suppose you don't have to like the FBI, and certainly they got to where they were today due to a lot of PR and manuvering in the Hoover years, but they were responders, likely called in by the local authorities to help with the issue. They weren't sitting in FBI HQ spying on personal emails and suddenly decided to descend on Newton in black cars and helicopters....
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Summary WRONG (Score:5, Informative)
I should know, that library is about a mile away from where I live.
*Newton* librarian, not Brandeis librarian (Score:2, Redundant)
The messages were sent from a Newton public library and allegedly threatened the Heller School at Brandeis.
The librarian works for Newton, not Brandeis.
--Pat
Hot Pursuit Laws?? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hot Pursuit Laws?? (Score:2, Informative)
Two sides (Score:4, Insightful)
Clearly, some nut out to stir things up, but who knows? If you receive such a threat, in this day and age, wouldn't you have to take it seriously?
But she [Gail Marcinkiewicz, a spokesman for the FBI's Boston branch] said the FBI had a right to seize the computers because the agents who went to the Newton library thought Brandeis students, professors, and staff members were in immediate danger. "We could have done this," said Ms. Marcinkiewicz. "It is supported by case law."Nonetheless, she said, the FBI decided to seek a warrant. By the time agents had determined that they needed to seize only three of the computers, about 5 p.m., they realized that people at Brandeis were not about to be killed, she added.
So there was an apparent threat, the FBI determined (who knows how) that it came from the library, was ready to seize the computers until the librarian intervened, and then the FBI backed off, got a warrant, and everyone went home happy. Where's the news?
Perhaps everyone sees the FBI as the US Government's stormtroopers (remember Waco?), but the fact is they are charged with the duty of protecting all citizens of the US from harm. They saw a threat and were prepared to act accordingly. They could have simply taken the computers and have been off and no one could have done a thing about it, but they chose retsraint, perhaps wondering how credible the threat really was. In the end, no one gets hurt, Democracy is safe, and the Republic goes on.
Re:Two sides (Score:5, Insightful)
When the police/fbi/black suits come for you, demand to see the warrant. Don't agree to anything unofficial, don't agree to anything causal.
Demand a warrant.
Democracy and freedom only remain vibrant through active participation of the citizenry. This means more than "you have to vote". You have to actively stand up for your rights; rights that go unexercised you will most likely loose.
Correction - Newton Free Library (Score:4, Informative)
Because, evidently, no one has read TFA. (Score:5, Insightful)
The key to this story is the "clear and present danger" issue. According to Mayor Cohen and an FBI representative, the law actually would have permitted the agents to go ahead and just take the computers if they had believed the situation to be an emergency. And that's why there was a standoff: because FBI agents paused to evaluate the situation, balanced the risks of waiting for a warrant with the benefit of having the assistance of library IT staff, and decided to get the warrant.
So, kudos for Ms. Glick-Weil for requesting the warrant. And kudos to the FBI for considering the request and deciding it was the best course of action. Had they thought the threat was credible and immediate, I'm sure they would have responded differently, and I would have a hard time faulting them for it.
Having read the article... (Score:5, Informative)
The article instead gives me the impression of over-reacting investigators being greeted with a question of "Hold on a minute, tiger, where's your warrant?" followed by "Well, without a warrant, you can't cart off any of the computers. But I'll tell you what we can do -- we'll let you look at the computers here to figure out which ones you might need to grab, while you get a judge to issue a warrant. Is that workable?"
It wasn't black-hat-vs.-white-hat, it was a voice of reason calming down a couple of (rightfully) concerned FBI agents. It wasn't a stand-off, it was a prevented stand-off... which strikes me as better all around. So let's not generate hysteria after the fact, but let us be grateful that there are people willing to tell City Hall, if not to get lost, then to slow down and wait for its own papers.
Librarian Stands up to the Feds..... (Score:5, Funny)
In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
"clear and present danger" is NOT VALID (Score:5, Interesting)
Uh...that's not how "clear and present danger" was ever meant to be used. The phrase comes from a 1919 US Supreme Court case on first amendment protected speech [wikipedia.org].
Incidentally, that case was overturned in 1969.
"Clear and present danger" was specifically NOT, as of 1969, a legitimate reason for punishing someone for speech. It certainly is not a legitimate reason for illegal search and seizure (ie, bypassing the court system.)
I hate it when people romanticize unconstitutional action; happens in the movies all the time. "You can't do that!" "Oh? Are you going to make me get a warrant to search this place? Little Timmy could be dead by then!"
Re:"clear and present danger" is NOT VALID (Score:4, Informative)
It's been replaced with "Imminant Lawless Action", as stated from the Wikipedia link. Regardless of it's legality, it can easily be used to encourage cooperation between the FBI and the library to have a forensics team analyze the exact source of the message without having to do an unnecessary bulk processing of 30 computers.
How the events turned out is exactly how things should be processed. Instead of a bulk request for 30 computers, it should be narrowed down to a smaller cluster that can be more easily analysed. In terms of evidence, it is quality, not quantity.
Always demand due process (Score:3, Insightful)
The government, with less and less of the will of the people (and more so rich investors and coprorations) cannot be trusted. Cooperation is not required, the law has already given the government whatever powers it requires to do the job (all too often too many powers, IMHO). Much like the 5th amendment allows one to deny testimony, and the mere use of the 5th admendment cannot constiute an admission of guilt, your demanding due process should be expected, not your cooperation.
Example: the IRS. So many people give into their notice of deficientcies and levies, despite the IRS not obtaining the proper court order. You can cooperate, but any action until that court order is voluntary. Also, I recently read a disturbing ruling that you may actually give up to your rights to anything they acquire from you voluntarily. So, you better demand due process and double check everything!!!
Re:Good Call (Score:2)
Re:Good Call (Score:2)
Re:Did they GET the warrant? (Score:5, Insightful)
And you know, just because they went and tried to ask for the computers without a warrant doesn't mean they didn't have just cause to obtain one. Getting a warrant takes a bit of time, and it's not unreasonable to assume that they were merely trying to be expeditious and hoping the librarian would cooperate. They ended up conceding the point, however, and went to a judge. And as the article says, if the danger had been clear and present, they could have legally taken the computers without a warrant anyways.
In the end, they ended up only getting a warrant to take some of the computers, anyways, not all of them. But the fact that they got a warrant at all is more likely to be an indication that they had just cause to take the computers in the first place than it is that the judge that issued it was corrupt.
Most important (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Librarians (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Alternate version? (Score:4, Informative)
No no, if Brandeis blew up the headline would have been: "Authorities fail to evacuate, results in death of 50." Finding the source of the email isn't going to necessarily get you anywhere closer to the (hypothetical) killer bomb. If they thought there was such [i]clear and present danger[/i] there'd have been noone at the threatened place to begin with.
Seriously, the whole "but the terrorist are after us!!!1" scaremongering to trample all over the citizen's rights is geting really really old.