Library says no to FBI

[Kat Kanning]

LIBRARY SAYS NO TO FBI
Thursday, January 26, 2006 - FreeMarketNews.com

A local library in an affluent Massachusetts city is not allowing the Federal Bureau of Investigation to examine library computers without search warrants. According to a Newton TAB article, the Newton Free Library spent nearly 10 hours in a standoff with both local police and FBI agents last week, over the latter's efforts to access computer files without proper paperwork and warrants from a judge. The initial request came from police, who determined that an alleged terrorist threat to nearby Brandeis University had emanated from one of the computers in the library.

However, Library Director Kathy Glick-Weil and Newton Mayor David Cohen denied them access, on the grounds that the officers had no warrant. One officer was quoted as saying he was "totally disgusted" with the city?s attempt to hold up a "time-sensitive investigation of a potential terrorist threat." Mayor Cohen, however, defended the library?s actions, and called it one of Newton?s "finest hours" that "showed you can enforce the law ... without jeopardizing the privacy of innocent citizens."

Meanwhile, Glick-Weil agreed to have her own her information technology worker examine the computers, but refused to allow the FBI or police to go any further, noting later that they had requested for information about the computers without a warrant, even though they were familiar with library privacy laws. "You?ll have to ask them why they did that," she reportedly said. It then took U.S. attorneys several hours to get a warrant, the story says, and they took the computer from the library at about 11:30 that night, after the library had closed. - ST

staff reports - Free-Market News Network

[Kat Kanning]

I wrote to this librarian, thanking her for standing up to the feds, and she thanked me for the support.

[Rhiannon McKinnon]

This has been a long time in coming.  We have not even been inside of a public library since the "patriot act".  This event could easily be turned into a huge nationwide protest.  This library should be contacted and asked if they would accept applications for library cards from the public at large, no matter where they live.  How much would it cost the library to issue cards by mail that read something to the effect of "we guarantee that no information will be turned over to government agencies without a warrant"?  We'd be more than glad to send them an extra $5 over the usual cost of a card, even if we were never able to set foot inside their library and actually use it.  Think of how many people have stopped using libraries in the last few years, and the amount of additional revenue this would bring.  Libraries are ALWAYS short of funding, this would be their chance to get all of the funding they want, not to mention the publicity....if this particular library does it, other libraries will drool over the potential for increased revenue and follow suit.  Note that the government backed down, got a warrant, and did not arrest anyone!

~RM

[Rhiannon McKinnon]

Just called the Newton Public Library and asked if I could apply for a card.  I was told that any resident of MA was welcome to come in and do so.  I explained that I was out of state, and WHY I wanted to support their library, even if I was never able to actually use it.  I suggested that even if they were willing to only issue a symbolic card to out of staters, that their facility would benefit greatly from the additional revenue.  They politely suggested that I support my local library instead.  I responded that I don't support anyone who dosen't support my 4th Amendment rights, that I haven't set foot in a library since the "patriot act" was passed, that I wanted to support THEM for being willing to stand up to government oppression, and was willing to pay an additional fee above the usual cost of issuing a card.  I asked if they would be willing to pass my request up the administrative ladder and consider a change in policy, and was told that they would do so because it did seem like a good idea.  If anyone else would like to make the same request, their numbers are:
(617) 796-1360 main
(617) 796-1400 administration
Perhaps they would be willing to change their policy if they hear from enough of us....

~RM

[Lloyd Danforth]

Well...Lets review.  You are calling a Hero a public employee paid with money stolen from productive individuals who works in an institution supported with money stolen from productive individuals for stopping another public employee from examining computers,that are public property,  not, computer records,, in order to find evidence of an individual who used one of the computers to claim he had hid  a bomb at a local university, with the hope of using any evidence they found to apprehend the individual, as quickly as possible in case he really hid a bomb.
Have I got that right?

[Kat Kanning]

Yes.

[Pat McCotter]

Thank you, Kat, for clearing up, what could have been, a largely, misunderstood, subject.

[Lloyd Danforth]

They could have walked in, sat at each computer as it became available and gotten what they wanted without violating any laws or, for that matter, library rules.

[Lloyd Danforth]

And....ya know, it wouldn't have had to be the FBI.  Brandeis's own security could, after running down where the email originated, gone and asked for access to the computers.

[Rhiannon McKinnon]

Pat, even without Lloyd so eloquently pointing out what is probably obvious to everyone participating in this forum, what is there to be misunderstood?  Everything in this story seems to be pretty factual....

We would certainly consider someone, no matter who they are, or who they work for (even if they happen to accept a salary of stolen tax dollars), standing up to and backing down the feds to be a hero....especially if they're successful in doing so.....  Note that this would also seem to establish a legal precedent that could be used to defend against similar applications of the "patriot act", would it not?  (Any legal experts out there have an opinion on this?)

Collectively, we could sit around and sneer at the stupidity of the fbi, condemn this woman for taking stolen tax dollars as her salary, let the story quietly die, and say that the glass is half-empty.....and thus be reasonably assured that no other library director would be willing to risk standing up to the feds, lest they be reminded how evil they are for accepting stolen tax dollars as their salary....

OR....we could say that the glass is half-full, make this story a big enough news item (it should be, and IS, important news that the feds have been successfully stood off and backed down) to actually get attention in the mainstream press, encourage other library staff elsewhere to do the same in the future, and reduce that reliance on stolen tax money for those who are willing to stand up for the 4th Amendment.....

Which action better serves the cause of Freedom, and protecting our Constitution?  Is the glass half-empty, or half-full?

We'll be making a follow-up phone call to this library tomorrow....if they aren't willing to symbolically issue us a library card, we'll be sending them a small donation, with a letter explaining that not only do we wish to directly show our support for their actions, but to also reduce their reliance on taxpayer funding....

Has anyone else besides Kat and ourselves offered their support in any way?

~RM

[Kat Kanning]

This is from Lloyd who wants to stand outside holding signs for stinkin' politicians who steal our money   

[lildog]

Well...Lets review.  You are calling a Hero a public employee paid with money stolen from productive individuals who works in an institution supported with money stolen from productive individuals for stopping another public employee from examining computers,that are public property,  not, computer records,, in order to find evidence of an individual who used one of the computers to claim he had hid  a bomb at a local university, with the hope of using any evidence they found to apprehend the individual, as quickly as possible in case he really hid a bomb.
Have I got that right?

Lloyd, you summed up what I was thinking on this exactly.

We aren?t talking about blocking government from looking at records of a PRIVATE company like Google here, we?re talking about one government agency blocking another from access to PUBLIC information on a computer already owned by the government.

If you don?t want the government to have access to where you surf on the Net, here?s a big suggestion for everyone? don?t use a government owned computer!

That librarian should be slapped then fired.  End of story!

[Lloyd Danforth]

This is from Lloyd who wants to stand outside holding signs for stinkin' politicians who steal our money   

Seeing as those polititions are going to be holding office when I die, and, unless there is some kind of catastrophe, which you might not survive, when you die too, I'm trying to get the best polititions I can in office.

Rhiannon, A public library has no 4th amendment protections.  This was not about records of any kind, it was about fingerprints.  You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public building or for that matter when you leave your house.

[JonM]

The federal government doesn't own the local library.  Do we not stand for state sovereignty?  What good are laws and procedures if you only follow them when they are convenient?

[Eli]

Well...Lets review.  You are calling a Hero a public employee paid with money stolen from productive individuals who works in an institution supported with money stolen from productive individuals for stopping another public employee from examining computers,that are public property,  not, computer records,, in order to find evidence of an individual who used one of the computers to claim he had hid  a bomb at a local university, with the hope of using any evidence they found to apprehend the individual, as quickly as possible in case he really hid a bomb.
Have I got that right?

Lloyd, you summed up what I was thinking on this exactly.

We aren?t talking about blocking government from looking at records of a PRIVATE company like Google here, we?re talking about one government agency blocking another from access to PUBLIC information on a computer already owned by the government.

If you don?t want the government to have access to where you surf on the Net, here?s a big suggestion for everyone? don?t use a government owned computer!

That librarian should be slapped then fired.  End of story!

Actually, I think we're talking about federalism.  A local government employee following local law and forcing the federal gestapo to do the same.  It's not the anarcho capitalism that some here advocate, but it's not notithing.  In my opinion librarians are generally honorable people, and less worthy of slapping than some libertarians who cheer for an ideal but never for any of the steps on the path to that ideal, or any lesser (but better than the status quo) solution.