Public Library Records and the Patriot Act
Posted on February 7, 2006
Hat tip: Michelle Malkin
How many times have we heard the ACLU’s scare tactic that the FBI can look at your library records. Here is why public library records are not protected by the fourth amendment.
“like it or not, once you’ve disclosed information to someone else, the Constitution no longer protects it. This diffuse-it-and-lose-it rule applies to library borrowing and Web surfing as well, however much librarians may claim otherwise. By publicly borrowing library books, patrons forfeit any constitutional protections they may have had in their reading habits.”
In other words, once you do something in public, or using public facilities it isn’t protected as privacy anymore. You would think that this would be common sense, but it is the same complaint about the government “spying” on anti-war groups. It really isn’t “spying” to observe what anyone can see happening live or on the nightly news is it?
Here’s what its about:
Newton, Massachusetts, which this year was named as the country’s safest town, can now add a second designation to its Chamber of Commerce brochures: it can boast of being a town that adamantly protects the privacy rights of would-be terrorists who wish to use its public library.
After a credible terror threat to Brandeis University (in neighboring Waltham, Mass.) was traced to a public computer at the Newton Free Library on January 18th, the FBI and local police, eager to prevent a deadly criminal act and hoping to apprehend the perpetrator, rushed to the Newton Free Library to secure the computer on which the threats had been sent, with the possibility of identifying the nature of the threat and the person behind it.
Several buildings at Brandeis had been cleared, including an adjacent Waltham elementary school. So law enforcement officials were eager to make speedy headway in identifying both the perpetrator and the threat’s credibility, and had quickly moved to secure evidence at the Newton library.
What they had not anticipated, however, was that their search would be abruptly sidetracked when Kathy Glick-Weil, the library’s director, informed them that no one was searching anything without a warrant from a judge — this, despite the obvious urgency to act in an instance when a perpetrator was fleeing, time was passing, and a potentially catastrophic incident became more imminent by the minute.
» Filed Under ACLU, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
9 Responses to “Public Library Records and the Patriot Act”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
“Article [IV.] 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.”
what part of that isn’t clear? It all seems to be in perfectly good English. Anything found in a warrantless search is not (repeat NOT) admissible in court. Therefore if the only evidence they have is from that illegal search, then they are going to have to let a terrorist walk out the door. All for the sake of stupidity.
This is from the FBI agent involved:
“Mr. Cohen said in an interview on Monday that he and Ms. Glick-Weil demanded the warrant because the FBI agents did not indicate that anyone at Brandeis faced a “clear and present danger.” If there had been such a danger, Mr. Cohen added, agents probably would have seized the computers without even asking for them.
“We were able to both protect public safety and also protect the rights of people, the sense of privacy of many, many innocent users of the computers,” he said. “Had we given them the computers, they would have gotten to see e-mails from ordinary citizens doing ordinary things and would not have preserved privacy.”
The link to the above article appears to be broken, but here it is:
http://chronicle.com/temp/email2.php?id=HZs6ytfGjgq2jTYrv2bddZnqv3qYq6rp
looks like the article cited by Jay is a tad less than honest.
While the Fourth amendment protects “people” and not “property”, there must be a reasonable expectation of privacy upon which one may ”justifiably” rely on. A public library does not fall under that category, nor does any demonstration on public property. It is not reasonable to think that actions performed in public settings are private matters.
What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.
Libraries should destroy their records.
Yes, you are so smart actus. The library should destroy their records so that no evidence can be found to capture terrorist activity being perpetrated from it. Then they would be a terrorist sanctuary even more than they are now.
RedSonja has it wrong. Mr. Cohen is MAYOR Cohen, not an FBI agent. He sided with the librarian and SUPPOSES that the FBI would have taken the computer if there was a “clear and present danger.” Buildings were evacuated and a local high school was dismissed.
The FBI agents showed up at the library less than two hours after the threat was emailed. Do you really think they were going to read or care about other emails?
Thank goodness the outcome of this event was that nothing happened. What would people say about the librarian and Mayor if it had turned out otherwise?
NewtonRes:
“RedSonja has it wrong. Mr. Cohen is MAYOR Cohen, not an FBI agent.”
You are correct, my appologies.
I also noted this in that article:
“After a brief standoff, FBI officials relented and sought a warrant from a
judge. Meanwhile, Ms. Glick-Weil allowed an FBI computer-forensics examiner
to work with information-technology specialists at the library to narrow
down which computers might have been used to send the threatening message.
They determined that three computers were implicated in the alleged crime.”
Bottom line is any info gathered without a warrant is inadmissible in court. If frustrates you that warrants are necessary, just imagine how you will feel when a terrorist is allowed to walk out of court scot free.
I would think that there was probable cause. If the email was traced to a computer in a public library, wouldn’t that be probable cause to inspect the computer for evidence? I’m not a lawyer, but that seems to be commonsense. Too bad everyone thinks because they watch CSI or Law and Order they think they can tell the FBI what the rules are. If that building would have been blown up, what would the librarian think about the people who were killeds rights?
And on another note, didn’t the liberals use Clearance Thomas’ library and movie rental records against him in his confirmation hearings??? I think we have yet another double standard here.