digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Boston Area Librarian Tells FBI: Want My Computers? Get a Warrant!

boston.com — even after they complied with the warrant request. the FBI essentially says we could have seized them anyway ... are you kidding me?

Who dugg this? Made popular Jan 26, 2006

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

63 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • dhakbar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6How can any American be so stupid as to trash-talk a woman who requests that the FBI follow the law during their investigations?

    What the hell is wrong with ensuring that the government follows laws put in place to protect the citizenry? What issue can there possibly be, with having a government that abides by its own laws?
  • super_structure, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3mogebier: "Nothing good will come from the woman refusing the FBI"

    I for one think both liberty and privacy are good things. However, I suppose that makes me nutbag. As for the FBI, the librarian didn't refuse them. She simply made them follow the law. That's something they, as law enforcement, should be good at. They were still able to follow their lead, as they ended up with the computers. But, I suppose that's all just nutbag logic.
  • scruffles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Stupid move by the FBI. It's probably just a prank by some kid. Had they taken the computers under the pretense that they were "evidence of a crime in plain view", any evidence found in them might easily have been thrown out. While the computers were in plain view, there was nothing in plain view to indicate that the computers were used for a crime. The plain view rules might apply if the school's phone number were taped to the monitor, or a list of bomb making sites were sitting on the keyboard.

    Applying the "plain view" rules here would be like saying, "I can search your house without a warrant, because your house is evidence in plain view". If they have evidence linking the computers to the crime, then they need a warrant... that's what they're there for!
  • bnolsen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Library == government property
    Why should they need a warrant?
    You need a warrant to go through your kid's closet?

    Get a life people.
  • jermwz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Good for her! Another "hysteric" librarian for freedom!
    https://www.ala.org/ala/oif/basics/basicrelatedlinks/librarianfreedom.htm
  • exick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Library == government property"

    Most public libraries are run by local governments. Just because you use the word "government" doesn't mean the FBI has the freedom to do whatever it pleases.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think the greater sign of the times is that, when it comes to rights, the government now feels that it is ordinary to take an aggressive stance (as in, greater than the law provides) and makes you defend yourself against their position. As opposed to just operating within the law.
  • drummerjed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Once again that 4th admendment(the one about touching on search and seizer)is getting in the way. It's a good thing we have the Patriot Act to circumvnet that "Bill of Right".
  • rasbill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1that's cause theres alot of crooked cops in boston we dont treat cops like they probably deserve, but then again i dont know if boston cops in particular deserve any respect, slime ball bastards they all are
  • cplusplus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Land of the free...until Bush.
  • jpyun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent enroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
    - James Madison
  • phuqju, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2she has balls
    the fbi can raid and seize anything on your property and hide behind, "It is a terrorist threat!"
    *****
  • super_structure, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1hypnotiq: "how would this story have gone if a bomb exploded - and had they been able to get the computers they may have caught the suspect prior?"

    Two points: 1) If it was suspected there was a bomb, they'd have called in the bomb squad, not the IT guys. I've been in a campus library (not this one, though) when a bomb threat was called in. They evacuate the building and bring in the little robot. VERY different situation. 2) There's every reason to believe that obtaining the computers was for the purpose of catching a suspect. There's really no reason to think that waiting would necessarily make that more difficult. As the story states, by the time the warrant up, "law enforcement officials had determined there was no imminent danger."
  • xyonz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, technically I don't believe they do need a warrant. Possibly a "warrant" given by "secret court." Either way librarians aren't allowed to say anything about their property being seized. I know of one library that had a giant sign above their computers stating "The FBI has not raided or seized any of our computers or log files," and promptly took it down when it was no longer true.
  • TheSenator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Nobody's ever been hurt by freedom, so why restrict it?
  • caudron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1
    wa3yri said, "Too bad you all didn't live here in the NY city area, have friends die and see it all go down. I sometimes think if it happened on the west coast many of you would have a different philosophy!"


    I am loath to say this, but it needs to be said:


    Quit being a pussy. Seriously. I thought the Republicans were supposed to be the "macho" party that contrasts the Democrats "peacenik hippy flower childness"? What happened? We got one damn attack, that was---granted---pretty serious, and the Republicans are running toward safety as fast as they can while the Demoncrats are standing to fight for out rights?


    And I voted for Bush in 2000, so don't take this as some sort of partisan slam. It's not. It's a slam against anyone who would turn tail and run like a pussy over one attack! Are you seriously so damn scared of Osama that you'd give up all the best things about America just to stay safe from him? Well I'm not...and I'm NOT on the West Coast. I'm in Virginia, where one of the three planes hit.


    If you wanna piss your pants over this, go for it. But don't get all whiney and angry when I don't join you. I'd rather fight for what my country stands for. Even if that means more people die. Better to die for what I believe in than to run in a corner weeping and give up.
  • super_structure, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0MrSketch: "This is exactly what the PATRIOT act was intended for so the FBI could conduct these investigations without wasting time on 'due process'."

    I hope that since you consider 'due process' a waste of time, you or no one you know is ever arrested. Yes, it happens to completely innocent people. In this country. All the time. Irregardless of your interpretation of the Patriot Act (of which, some parts have expired), the Constitution still trumps it.
  • p3lEr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0wow she got ballss...she could be sent to guantanamo bay for notting...
  • Ravenlock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0wa3yri - I neither live on the West Coast nor, do I think, am I a flower-loving peacenik hippie.

    But I will happily make the claim that "another 9/11 situation," since we're playing with extremes here, would be far preferable to living in a police state. It is quite right that everyone from the President on down be required to either follow the existing laws in pursuit of criminals, or get those laws changed through the proper channels. Circumventing the law because they feel it's "important" isn't good enough.

    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security. (Benjamin Franklin) And indeed they will probably find, at the end, that they have neither.
  • wa3yri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ravenlock- when there is clear evidence that a crime has been committed and life is in imminent danger then the FBI should have the authority to seize the PC immediately to gather s much information as possible to save that life...this is hardly an example of a police state
  • iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Nobody's ever been hurt by freedom, so why restrict it?"

    exactly. no where do i pickup my brand new 50 cal machine gun? i mean, my freedom to own one could NEVER hurt anybody...
  • efisher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How far can you travel in 9 hours? Catching the person who made the terrorist threat (also a crime even without a bomb) is just as important as determining if there is a bomb and where it is. Perhaps this was a test run to see how fast the FBI can trace the location of the computer used to make a threat. Perhaps next time will be the real deal same scenario, different location.
  • tmcleroy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0good for her. way to stick it to the man and ^dude^ STFU!!!!
  • super_structure, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0scruffles: Clearly, with your plain-spoken manner, you're no lawyer like jkfan87.
  • dysfunction, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0wa3yri- No, it's not a police state. But it is a very slippery slope down to that level. We cannot let them take ANY of our civil liberties, else they will believe they can take all of them. People are arguing about this situation now, but fifty years from now everyone will agree that it was the Bush administration who was in the wrong- just as now everyone knows McCarthy and the House Comittee on Un-American Activities were wrong, just as everyone now knows that they were wrong to intern Japanese on the west coast in WWII.
    Being afraid of too-powerful government isn't being a conspiracy theorist, it's just being smart- especially since several of the Founding Fathers specifically warned us to watch out that.
  • caudron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0
    I said, "while the Demoncrats are standing to fight"


    OK, I swear that wasn't a sideways jab at the Democrats. Just a typo. lol!

  • super_structure, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I suspect law schools from around the world send students to read the comments at Digg.com for fine legal analysis such as all this.
  • DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0So if a national government entity wants to get info from a local governement entity, they still need a warrent? I wasn't aware of that.
  • TuxFan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"1) The FBI did NOT need a warrant (PATRIOT act)
    2) The librarian could have been arrested for obstructing a federal investigation (due to 1)
    3) This is exactly what the PATRIOT act was intended for so the FBI could conduct these investigations without wasting time on 'due process'.
    4) The librarian needs to keep in touch more with current events/laws"

    Is it just me or does this smell like Mussolini?
  • caudron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0
    Ravenlock said, "Oh, and caudron - much as I don't like Bush (and didn't vote for him), I'm pretty sure this is the second thread I've agreed with what you've said in, even if it was phrased harshly."


    Yeah. Ya know, I swear I'm not normally so harsh as I have been in my last two postings on digg. Normally, I try to approach people with a milder tone and help them see my point. I must be in a low-tolerance mood this week or something. ;-)


    Just for the record, I did vote Republican in 2000, but I voted Democrat in 2004. I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong. In 2000, I was wrong. I did what I could to rectify my mistake in 2004. If their was a public place of shame at which I could apologize and accept my beatings, I'd do so.

  • dysfunction, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Seizing computers isn't going to prevent the terrorist threat; evacuating the school is. Making the FBI wait nine hours to seize the computers isn't going to stop them from preventing the bomb; all it will do is slow down their investigation of the suspect.
  • ReinMasamuri, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I've noticed everyone jumped to the warrantless part of the story and passed up the fact that there was a terrorist thread against Bradeis. What if hundreds of people had died because they had to wait those nine hours?
    I'd also like to add that the law doesn't require a warrant if the crime has been done in plain view. The computer was in public property, and they could have done whatever analisys they needed to on the spot without one.
  • SanityDreams, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Is it just me, or does anyone else have the suspicion that although "no arrests have been made", they may still have someone in custody, unbeknownst to the general public? I mean, it's so easy to narrow down the where and the when, I'm SURE they could get the "who" as well, ya know? And if they know the "who", and they're so liberal on the torture and illegal confinement nowadays, they may be "questioning" someone for this as we read about it.
  • teamgreen02, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I bet this author, no, I GUARANTEE this author would be the first one complaining if something actually did happen. Bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks.......
  • Ravenlock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0pheifdog - Yeah, I read the article. I expect most people did. Most of the early posts were just congratulating Kathy the librarian on making the FBI officers wait for a warrant, as is right and proper.

    Then people started hammering on it as though she had done something wrong by expecting to see a warrant, and so now there's an argument about that.

    Not that hard to follow if you read through the comments.
  • fredgarvin1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0So, the FBI asked "Can we take you computers - we think we can find out who made this theat?" and the librarian said "you need a warrant", and the FBI said "OK".


    Oh my F'in God!!! How horrible - NOTHING happened!!!!


    Jesus, talk about spinning a non-story into a grand conspiricy....
  • barbobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I've noticed everyone jumped to the warrantless part of the story and passed up the fact that there was a terrorist thread against Bradeis. What if hundreds of people had died because they had to wait those nine hours?"

    It states in the article that the fbi had already done a sweep of the school and found nothing.
  • schwit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0dupe
    http://digg.com/technology/Librarian_refuses_FBI_agents_access_to_computers
  • Ravenlock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0wa3yri says: when there is clear evidence that a crime has been committed and life is in imminent danger then the FBI should have the authority to seize the PC immediately to gather s much information as possible to save that life...this is hardly an example of a police state.

    -----

    Yeah, well, you just said it yourself. "The FBI *should have the authority*" - and when the law allows them to seize property without a warrant, they'll be perfectly within their rights to do so. After it goes through the process and is signed into law, it's fine. Not one day before. Until that day, they follow the procedure that's in place.

    If we are not fighting precisely FOR the ability to keep our freedoms - which only exist so long as power in our society is granted by the rule of law, not someone's "threat assessment" - then we are fighting for nothing.
  • j0keR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Back in 2001 or earlier, I don't really recall-- my uncle's best friend had his computers seized by some government agency for using warez FTP's and other such networks. (Not necessarily running the server, probably only uploading). They just busted in and took everything, no explanations really given. Never got the computer or equipment back... This is an even more common thing today. Just because they have the patriot act now doesn't mean that they didn't do it without warrants before. (Warrants for anything computer-related are pretty much just given away anyhow).
  • pheifdog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0WOW the people on digg are illiterate. not that i agree if this ACTUALLY HAPPENED but noting happened... something on the lines of they waited a few hours before the warrant came and then they search the computers.

    serious question... does anyone even read the articles or do they just look at the headlines?
  • Ravenlock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Oh, and caudron - much as I don't like Bush (and didn't vote for him), I'm pretty sure this is the second thread I've agreed with what you've said in, even if it was phrased harshly.

    Well played.
  • fleischner, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2They had to wait 9 hours to get the warrant. Think all you "anti-" folks would say, "I realize some Islamic person just blew up a bunch of Jewish students at Brandeis University, and it could have been prevented, but it's much more important that the public has privacy in a public library." Or do you think it would actually be something like, "See? There goes the Bush administration again, not protecting the American people."? Get real.
  • FunHeadlines, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Warrants?! We don't need no steenkin' warrants!"
  • mogebier, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0On one hand I can understand the librarians point of view.
    But then the FBI wasn't just walking around casually wanting to search the computers for information.
    They had a lead, and pursued it.
    Nothing good will come from the woman refusing the FBI. The nutbags on both sides will come out of the woodwork with this story.
    And the fact that the ACLU came out in support will not help her case in the eyes of most people.
  • strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Whoever posted this story wrote the title incorrectly. It's supposed to say "Bush wants to know what books you're READING!!!@#!@@!"
  • Ehrgeiz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Oh look even more useless Bush bashing crap on Digg, what have there been like 10 of these in the last 2 days. Atleast this one is almost tech.
  • lazn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2hypnotiq:

    And what if you could have stopped 9-11 by the government killing 10,000 innocent americans - it would have saved those 2000 people's lives. Would that be a good trade off? Of course not. Ok, how about if we had thrown those 10,000 innocent americans into jail for the rest of their lifes? Would that be worth it? Or how about if we took all the worldly goods of those 10,000 innocent americans (as evidence) to save the lifes of 2000 people? Or how about if we just spied on 250 million innocent americans, recorded their every thought, and if they thought G W Bush was dumb we made them dissapear? Where do we draw the line? Where is the potential for abuse too high to allow the activity to happen?

    -Lazn
  • Kman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1How Digg turned into a political-debate forum, I'll never understand.
  • jpyun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0MrSketch, get your ***** facts right. The plain view laws have NOTHING to do with the PATRIOT Act.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.