Terror threat sparks Newton librarian/FBI standoff

Boston Herald ^ | 01/25/06 | Dan Atkinson

[mysterio]

So the government doesn't need a warrant to search computer files? What else may the government search without warrant, in your opinion? Does this standard cease to apply when a dem is president? Was there a secret footnote somewhere in the Amendment that stated it doesn't apply to computers or a terrorism investigation? Again, why can't you change the Amendment if you want the government to be able to conduct warrantless searches?

[randomnumber]

The library may have been within their rights, but not their right minds. The 4th amendment search rules can be annulled via consent - which is what the librarians withheld, forcing the use of a warrant. Because the library is not a private space, there is arguably no reasonable expectation of privacy on behalf of the user of a computer library.

I hope their obstinancy never causes harm or death to an innocent due to delays in investigating by the police/FBI.

My $.02

Worth more than 2 cents, IMO.

It's common sense, and though I agree with your reasoning, I have a hard time thinking the Constitution should be suspended simply because a government agency deems it necessary to further an investigation.

Where then is the protection of us all.

[Mark was here]

Libraries have computers so that those who don't have computers/printers/internet access are able to have access when they're needed.

And you point is? If I need a set of pipe wrenches should the government keep a set handy so I could use them? If the government maintained a tool shed full of tool for folks to borrow, it would be swell, but that is why there are tool rental places.

They're 'luxuries' that allow members of society to improve themselves. As such, libraries facilitate societal improvement and advancement.

And your point is? People can improve themselves with out a government subsidy.

Libraries main function is to transfer wealth to government workers, provide them with a nice retirement, and free health care for life. All else is secondary. If a library administrator had to choose between paying a retirement benefit or buying a new book the answer is obvious and reflects the priorities of the library.

When these government workers refuse to help track down a potential terrorist, they do not deserve a place at the public trough.

[sure_fine]

if anything happens, I hope it can be traced back to their 'finest hour' and laid in their lap

[randomnumber]

"She is knowingly covering up for a terrorist."

You're assuming facts not in evidence.

She might have been told a threat was generated from one of the library computers, but from the article, I can't say she knew it was a terrorist.

Go read the DOJ page I linked in #58. It's obvious it difficult to get a good handle on this.

[Enchante]

"So the government doesn't need a warrant to search computer files?"

I emphasized a specific set of conditions for which the 4th Amendment language seems obviously not designed to apply: public property not private, imminent terrorist threat issued from said public property, etc. That hardly means warrantless searches of all "computer files" in general. As I said, if I use a public computer AND there is an imminent terrorist threat issued from said computer, I have no reasonable expectation of privacy, nor even a right to expect a warrant when it's not my computer, it belongs to the local government or whatever.... and the local government or librarian, etc. should have no reasonable objection, especially in a case where it was so blindingly obvious that a warrant would have to be forthcoming and all the librarian was doing was to delay the "hot pursuit" of the culprit.

[balch3]

Exactly. If you haven't done anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about.

[tpaine]

4th AMENDMENT:

"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."

4th AMENDMENT:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, [including library records] 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."

Every public official in the USA, [including librarians] are sworn to protect & defend the Constitution..

[Rakkasan1]

good point. as a public domian paid for by taxpayers, I think the feds can enter and get what they want.

[armymarinedad]

What else may the government search without warrant, in your opinion?

The Government does not need a warrant to request to search anything, anywhere, anytime. If you give them permission they still don't need a warrant to conduct the search. They only need a warrant if they are not granted permission.

[mrsmith]

Privacy and Confidentiality Policy

Newton Free Library
Privacy and Confidentiality Policy

Newton Free Library is dedicated to protecting the privacy and confidentiality of our patrons. Our policy complies with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 78, Section 7 (1994 edition): “Part of the records of a public library which reveals the identity and intellectual pursuits of a person using such library shall not be a public record as defined by clause Twenty-sixth of section seven of chapter four.” This policy extends to circulation records (borrowing records, registration records, reserves or fine records), interlibrary loan transactions, registration records, database search records and reference interviews. Except in cases involving the USA Patriot Act, no records can be made available to any inquiries, governmental or otherwise, unless a subpoena has been served by a court of competent jurisdiction and the library administration has consulted with legal counsel to determine if it is proper to release the requested information,

Our staff must support this policy of privacy and confidentiality. Not only is it the law, but it is the library’s long commitment to protecting the patron’s right to access information freely. In accordance with the law, the policy restricts our staff from disclosing information with the cardholder’s family or friends. This applies to the release of information to the parents’ of minors when the minor has their own library card. The Supervisor of the Public Records of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Carolyn Kelly MacWilliam, stated in May 1997, “A public library may not disclose records which reveal a minor’s borrowing information to the minor’s parent, regardless of whether the parent is paying the fine on an overdue item or the parent has signed the child’s library card application form.”

At times our commitment to confidentiality may be an inconvenience. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated by the staff as by everyone who is protected by these laws.

[MiHeat]

I would think that they were trying to get the info/perp as fast as possible - like in an emergency?

What if the threat was real and someone died? Would the librarian be arrested?

[Cindy]

Ditto.

[sure_fine]

has anyone entertained the thought this could have been a setup like the sodomy packers did in TX?

[dinasour]

You're assuming facts not in evidence.

This is the court of public opinion, the rules of evidence are different :-)

Go read the DOJ page I linked in #58

A bit over my head. I am not sure that the fact that these are computers is essential.

Let's say that they found a bomb and there was evidence that the bomb was made in the library's bathroom. Such as, they found a trash can labeled "property of...", in the dumbster outside, with residue on it.

If the police then went to the library and said, "we'd like to look at your facilities". Do you think the library should try to stop them?

[randomnumber]

"good point. as a public domian paid for by taxpayers, I think the feds can enter and get what they want."

So, I'll add another worm to the can.

You're advocating the right for federal authorities to usurp state or city funded institutions simply because they're feds?

[muir_redwoods]

Yep, just like patient record in a municipal hospital

[dinasour]

If you haven't done anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about.

And I think that it would be different if they were really investigating the librarian for, say embezzlement.

It would be different also, if Ted Kennedy were trolling the library's records to see if Judge Alito had checked out "King and King".

It isn't always a sacred duty to obstruct the police.

[dinasour]

When these government workers refuse to help track down a potential terrorist, they do not deserve a place at the public trough.

And just because they can get away with aiding a terrorist, doesn't make it right.

[Rakkasan1]

not because they're the feds, but because it's public,open to anyone and paid for by everyone.I don't see why they couldn't get a warrant. it's not like the librarians or patrons were hiding or smashing hard drives or the library was going any where.