To search you have to get a warrant. That's the law. Very simple. Librarian wanted to comply with the law.

When I was in library school, pre-Sept. 11, we were asked what if a patron asked us for information on making bombs.

I jokingly answered "how big a hole do you want?"

That was judged pretty much correct. I remember saying that I felt no obligation to help some miscreant blow something up. Someone responded that I was judging what information they could get. My retort: I doubt if Larry Flynt gave the library five subscriptions to "Hustler" (five to be sure one's always available in the kids area) that the library would actually stock the magazine. So they can't pretend there are no limits on what the library distributes. Yet they like to pose like they do, mainly for their friends.

To search you have to get a warrant. That's the law. Very simple. Librarian wanted to comply with the law.

To search you have to get a warrant. That's the law.

You missed one huge qualifier: To search without consent you have to get a warrant.

Librarian wanted to comply with the law.

All the librarian had to do was give consent to have the computers searched. That also would have been legal. If consent had been given, the FBI would have looked through the logs to see if any evidence was available. When and if the evidence was found, then the FBI would have taken only one computer. Instead, this librarian had to be an ass and the FBI seized three computers. If I were the city, I would fire this person for costing the city money.

Many years ago, I read about a Romanian immigrant who received a speeding ticket. When he went to traffic court, he insisted on a hearing to contest the ticket. Eventually, the judge, the police officer, and the prosecutor all came together for a hearing, where the Romanian immigrant promptly admitted he was speeding. When he was asked why he wanted the hearing, he said, "Where I come from, I didn't have the right to ask for a hearing."

--|PW|--

"You missed one huge qualifier: To search without consent you have to get a warrant."

It is amazing how often legal citations are used incorrectly in this country. All the librarian had to do to help the investigation into domestic terrorism was say "yes" and 9 hours could have been saved.

Today in the news we find out that eight terrorists got phony passports in Columbia, and an uniformed librarian in Massachusetts is being treated as a hero by some people for holding up a terrorist investigation.

Some of them are not just against the war, they are on the other side.

Kbiel GREAT JOB. oleg don't you feel like a idiot now! I'm sick of people who "qoute" the law when they don't have a clue. keep posting though you make me laugh.

That librarian is damn lucky I am not the Agent in charge, because I would have hauled away every single computer within the facility, including the server.

No bombs were found. Clearly there was no actual threat. Did 9 hours make a lot of difference ?

Suppose a guest came to your house and while you were cooking dinner used your computer to look up instructions on how to make a bomb without you even knowing it. A few weeks later he blew up a post office. Next day FBI bangs on your door and wants to search your computer.

I don't know about you wingnuts but I would ask for a proper warrant.

So, what, now you have to let FBI do whatever the fuck they want and all they have to do is say "we are looking for a terrorist" ???

Give me a break. You people deserve neither freedom, nor security.

"I'm sick of people who "qoute" the law when they don't have a clue. keep posting though you make me laugh."

http://www.florida-cracker.org/archives/002697.html

Thank you, B Moe

...and for those of you too lazy to click the link that B Moe left, the gist is that most librarians, by law, *cannot* just hand out information like that requested by the FBI *without* a warrant.

It's the law. She was following it.

Questions?

leelu, they all think that if government men bang on your door saying they want to search your house because they are doing a terrorism investigation you should bow down and comply.

Wake up people. This country is going down the toilet if all that the government needs to do is scare the heck out of the people to get their way.

Oleg, I would put more stock in your assessment were it the government scaring me.

Librarians have consistantly tried to assert their right to run libraries as they wish. They cite professionalism and privacy.

At first glance that seems sensible but in reality they are public employees and should follow instructions of their local governing agency. The librarians association says "not so".

As per any other question the librarian should have phoned her boss or the counsel designated to handle library matters.

If a local government wants to protect library privacy that is fine. I just don't like the lowest level people making the rules as they go. And that is what the librarians want to do.

Suppose a guest came to your house and while you were cooking dinner used your computer to look up instructions on how to make a bomb without you even knowing it. A few weeks later he blew up a post office. Next day FBI bangs on your door and wants to search your computer.

I don't know about you wingnuts but I would ask for a proper warrant.

Good for you. I, on the other hand, would asked what it was they wanted to know and why. Once they explained to me that my "guest" was the suspect and they traced his threat to my computer, I would gladly hand it over to them to help their investigation. I don't support or aid people who commit murder.

As for what happened in the case of this librarian, it would seem that her actions were in accordance with the law. So, I think the defect is in the law. I am not saying that library records should be made public, but that public internet terminals used in a library should not be covered under privacy laws.

You people deserve neither freedom, nor security.

And yet another misquote. Franklin wrote that those who gave up essential liberty for a little security deserved neither.

everyone takes the florida cracker statement about the law as a fact. Remember, that is one person making a statement on her own blog. She asserts that 48 states have those laws but does not give any citations. I know a lot of people who "know what the law says" who absolutely no clue about it. They have a blend of things they have heard or wished and those have become amalgamated into "the law."

If you believe that to be "the law," Great. Just provide a statutory citation to back it up. That will put an end to any disagreement on the issue.

Some of these responses seem a little over the top. This was a bomb threat at a college. Not that it shouldn't be investigated, but when's the last time a bomb threat at a school turned out to be anything other than a prank? I realize the librarian didn't necessarily know all of the details, but I think it's a bit much to claim that this story involved "terrorists who want to destroy me and everything I represent." I mean really, do you think al Qaeda's next move is to put bombs in college libraries and then phone in a threat? There were school bomb threats long before 9/11. Everything's not about the terrorists, you know.

So, kbiel, by complying with a warantless search you are not giving up your freedom for a little security ?

BTW, continuing the train of thought started by that story about a Romanian immigrant, I share a similar sentiment. Where I come from (former Soviet Union) KGB or internal affairs could bang on your door in the middle of the night, drag you out of your bed, and search your house, at best. More often than not they would arrest you and if you deny any wrongdoing they would put you into an insane asylum, or a prison, or what not.

Government is the source of all evil. Even the terrorists have more of an issue with our government than with us as American citizens.

It is GOOD to have an issue with the Government. It is patriotic to always suspect the Government of screwing up your country because that is what they do. It is unpatriotic to always comply with the Government actions without questioning.

I'm sorry, but a bomb threat is never a "prank."

General Laws of Massachusetts
CHAPTER 78. LIBRARIES.

Nothing about privacy or inability to consent to a search there. But, I'm not a Mass. Lawyer, either.

Lysander, you didn't give us a link to the document.

So, kbiel, by complying with a warantless search you are not giving up your freedom for a little security ?

Uh, no. If I gave consent, then I am not complying but allowing. I did not say that I would allow the FBI into my house under any circumstance, but under the narrowly defined hypothetical that you raised. I hold no allegience to the ass who used my computer in the commission of his crime.

Government is the source of all evil.

Wow. That is so absolutist and absurd as to not require a reply, but I'll give you the courtesy anyway. So, are you saying that every evil act ever committed is because men have instituted governments? A government the prevents me (or least punishes me) for murdering you is evil? In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, "I don't think that word [evil] means what you think it means."

Even the terrorists have more of an issue with our government than with us as American citizens.

So, if we suddenly became a socialist country or communist country or dictatorship then Osama bin Laden would leave us alone? You are right in this sense, if we would renounce democracy and bow down to a bunch of mullahs, then the Islamist terrorists would leave us alone.

It is GOOD to have an issue with the Government.

Only if the government is violating your rights as a citizen.

It is patriotic to always suspect the Government of screwing up your country because that is what they do.

No, that's called paranoia.

It is unpatriotic to always comply with the Government actions without questioning.

Finally, something we can agree upon. Of course no one should always comply unquestioningly with the government, that is how you get facist dictatorships and Nazism. But one does not have to make every effort to hinder your government's ability to carry out its duties, to prevent an abusive government. Only anarchists would believe that.

are you saying that every evil act ever committed is because men have instituted governments

Yes.

if we suddenly became a socialist country or communist country or dictatorship then Osama bin Laden would leave us alone?

Perhaps, but then some other wacko would take an issue with us. However, I would guess that if we abandon any form of large, powerful, centralized government and move towards a pure libertarian anarcho-capitalist soceity we would be generally better off.

It seems to me that the librarian in question was following the law. Her actions were assenine, but that was due to the law, not her preferrence. She should get a pass. The law that required it is another matter....

Just wondering, but why would a government who supplies free access to resources be oppressive if they wanted to review how people were using those resources? If you're worried about privacy from the government, maybe you shouldn't be using government resources?

Finally, if the government is evil can we abolish all welfare programs? They're evil by association, right? And are you finally admitting publicly that liberals view the military as evil? Thanks for making it official.

My ears were burning, so here I am.

Here's a citation about the 48 states. I've added it to my post as well. There are links there to all those states' laws. Have at it.

The link to the Florida statute was already in my post.

See link above and follow through to MA:

"That 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."

Perhaps now a librarian defender can explain how using the library's public internet access to send bomb threats qualifies as an 'intellectual pursuit'.

brainy435:

Did you know there are free public libraries in China, Cuba, Iran, etc. ? Why would the government that provides these resources for free be repressive ? I dunno. Beats me.

Of course, if you want to ensure privacy you should not be using government resources. Then perhaps the "government" should get out of business of providing libraries which may very well be a private enterprise. It works for movie rentals, why not also books ?

Can we abolish welfare programs ? Sure, why not. Welfare program on its own is not evil, but when run by an incompetent government it is. Military as a tool of an incompetent evil government is not only evil, it is dangerous.

Look, my position is to minimize the government to the point of doing nothing more than managing the flow of money between individuals and businesses.

And please don't call me liberal if you mean to associate me with democrats.

So... some police show up at my house. They say, "Mrs. Pascal, we believe you may have an intruder. Let us search your house."

If I *let* them search my house I have given up neither my freedom nor my authority over what happens in my house.

There is no, "I *must*" require a search warrant or I've given over to the jack booted thugs.

"Mrs. Pascal. We think that someone used your computer to send a bomb threat. We want to search your computers."

If someone *did*, well I darn well want to *know*. It's my house after all. I can see the librarian not having the same concern. Someone could be setting up a child molestation and exploitation ring from her "public" computers and it's not going to make any difference to *her* *personally* if it's true. It's sort of a safe place to get all self-righteously legalistic, isn't it.

Sure, you suspect that the coppers don't have a warrant because they can't *get* one and they're fishing for some way to get you... that's different.

"Mrs. Pascal. We're from child protective services. May we come inside?"

The answer to that one is "No. Not today, not tomorrow, and you can't get a warrant without showing a judge cause. I will be calling a lawyer. Have a pleasant day."

Oleg,

Sorry, I didn't realize you were using Google China.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/gl-78-toc.htm

Thank you B Moe and Donnah. I have been hearing about this a lot today!!

Although not every librarian supports the increasing leftist moonbattery of the aging hippie slobs who run the American Libraries Association, the association still has a policy of fighting law enforcement efforts to protect Americans from some of the most vicious and demonic threats in our country's history.

I'd like to draw your attention to a button being sold in the ALA store:

http://www.makingsenseofjihad.com/2006/01/public_records_.html

I'd link directly to it, but the site - ala.org - is not responding right now.

Regarding Massachusetts libraries: Here's something to read.

--|PW|--

Synova:

The situation you cite is a very specific exception to the warrant requirement. It's called "hot pursuit."

--|PW|--

Pennywit,

Does that mean if an officer wants to look in my back yard for any reason that satisfies me, and I let him, and he doesn't have a warrant, all our freedoms just went to hell?

Joann:

If you'd like some sense of the limits of Fourth Amendment protections, I suggest a trip to your local law library, or else a quick and dirty Internet search for a student's CrimPro outline.

I sometimes relish a good scrap, but I have no desire to debate long-settled Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

--|PW|--