Librarian bravely stands on principle in the face of the police.
Little girl dies at the hands of a sex offender. The principle is protected.
Congratulations all around.
|
|||||
Hot Mic
Bloggers in Arms
BlogrollContinuous WavePaid to BlogReciprocating EnginesSmarter'n MeWingmen
OmakaseAmazon Search |
Little girl missingBy lex, on July 22nd, 2008
37 comments to Little girl missing |
Targets of Opportunityblog advertising is good for you Credo"Sign on, young man, and sail with me. The stature of our homeland is no more than the measure of ourselves. Our job is to keep her free. Our will is to keep the torch of freedom burning for all. To this solemn purpose we call on the young, the brave, the strong, and the free. Heed my call, Come to the sea. Come Sail with me." -- John Paul Jones "Pardon him, Theodotus; he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature" --George Bernard Shaw, "Caesar and Cleopatra" "And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music."--Friedrich Nietzsche "A kind Providence has placed in our breasts a hatred of the unjust and cruel, in order that we may preserve ourselves from cruelty and injustice. They who bear cruelty, are accomplices in it. The pretended gentleness which excludes that charitable rancour, produces an indifference which is half an approbation. They never will love where they ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate."--Edmund Burke “You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”--General Sir Charles Napier "Μολὼν λαβέ" -- Leonidas "Blogito Ergo Sum" -- Neptunus Lex Amazon AssociateFor the Effort!Winnar! Subscribe CategoriesPagesTagsacademy
afghanistan
Araby
Blogging
buffoonery
culture
Defense Industry
economy
Flying
Friday Musings
geopol
Gratuitous slap
GWOT
Headlines
health care
History
iran
iraq
issues
libya
Media
Memory Lane
Military
Navy
norks
Oz
pakistan
piracy
politicians
politics
Politics and Culture
prc
pundits
science
sea stories
silliness
Small Stuff
SoCal
Tech Lust
technology
UAVs
UK
usaf
usmc
weapons
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2012 Neptunus Lex - All Rights Reserved |
|||||
From the article:
“What I observed when I came in were a bunch of very tall men encircling a very small woman,” said the library’s director, Amy Grasmick, who held fast to the need for a warrant after coming to the rescue of the 4-foot-10 Flint.
Of course, it would have to come down to “tall men” vs. “a very small woman” now, wouldn’t it? Couldn’t just have been concerned cops trying to do their jobs and protect/rescue an even smaller young girl, eh?
IMHO, public access computers are just that – public access. There should be no implied amount of privacy – the computers belong to the city, and therefore the city (or its appointed officials) have every right to take them back and/or pull them as they see fit. Prolly if it’d been me I would’ve cuffed the diminutive librarian, sat her down, and walked off with the computers – warrant or no.
Petite librarians exercising and protecting Constitutional rights don’t kill children; murdering criminals do!
Similarly, guns don’t kill children; murdering criminals do!
Having spent some time defending both the Second and Fourth Amendments, I bristle at those who would arbitrarily and emotionally want to ignore or repeal either of them for their own personal reasons, without due process.
Are we now supposed to make up our own rules as we see fit, related only to the circumstances and regardless of the Constitution? Did my fallen brethren swear to fight for and defend a Constitution that some believe should be so easily and arbitrarily ignored in today’s world?
The way I read it, the 4th Amendment guarantees people the right to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.” So I can’t just frisk someone or enter their house to look for evidence unless I have probable cause backed up by a warrant.
However, the issue at hand is whether those same rights now extend to the public domain – if I do something in public am I still granted the same degree of privacy as if I’d done it in my own home?
I don’t think anyone’s trying to “easily or arbitrarily” ignore the Constitution here, fliterman – it’s a question of domain and reasonable expectations. One person’s “exercising and protecting Constitutional rights” is another person’s obstruction of justice.
Jus’ sayin’…
Most places, cops can get a telephonically approved warrant pretty quickly these days. I figure public library computers are pretty transparent to .gov types anyway, so I never use them to look at stuff on the net unless I think it’s pretty innocuous. DEFINITELY no social networking. Definitely. Definitely.
The public libraries around here seem to err in the opposite direction. Hell, it’s Florida, an awful lot of us _are_ dangerously crazy.
I’m sure that the librarian would be happy to explain to the little child’s parents how she protected their constitutional rights. Likewise, I’m sure the parents will be pleased to hear same.
Cannot. Believe. It.
Would the librarian been as quick to demand a search warrant if it were her 12 year old daughter?
Funny, how anti-authority types like to use authority.
Another angle the police could have used was ensure that each policemen has a library card. Start using the computers as a patron. If four big computer users started to hog the computers, no one would have said anything. Especially the dimunitive librarian.
May not be able to use the info gathered in court, but you would have raw info to rescue the girl.
Fliterman, what is your address at the ACLU?
Got to love your self-righteousness and pomposity though, “Did my fallen brethren …”.
Go talk to the girls parents and explain again how the Constitution prevented that librarian from possibly helping to save the child. I am sure that Adams, Madison, Paine, Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson and their comrades would agree with you.
Its hard to admit, but these are seperate issues.
The library refusing to surrender access to computers is one issue that has to be argued on its own merits.
No one has proven that the crime would still not have occurred had they gotten the computers-and no one has also proven that it still would have been prevented.
Apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Don’t compare apples to oranges.
Snyder – Adams, Madison, Paine, Franklin, Hamilton and Jefferson are now rolling in their graves.
The Major hit the nail on the head – there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public computer. No expectation of privacy = no need for a searc warrant.
The “petite librarian” was clearly wrong.
Methinks someone was compensating for a perceived personal “shortcoming” at the expense of the safety of a child.
I’m also pretty sure she’s sleeping soundly at night secure in the belief she did the right thing.
[...] my favorite blogs. He posts often and I read him several times a day. Well, Lex has an interesting post about librarians, an abducted little girl and the [...]
“Are we now supposed to make up our own rules as we see fit, related only to the circumstances and regardless of the Constitution?”
As in changing election rules mid stream in 2000?
The police were not refused access to the machines – she refused to let them seize them without a warrant.I struggle to understand a desire for police to be able to walk into a place and just take property because they say they have an idea that it might be useful.
And if it was that urgent – they had physical access in the library. They could have done their work right there. So one cannot argue that the case was delayed because of the library.
And finally – having access to the computers was apparently irrelevant to what actually happened. So arguing that the librarian is somehow responsible or involved in what happened to this little girl is really a stretch.
We just finished a round with our school district’s lawyers discussing this type of problem. In the end, we had to modify our log in screens to put a notice of “no expectation of privacy” in their face and requiring a confirmation before allowing access. Our Acceptable Use Agreement also had to be mod’d to state that we would cooperate with law enforcement with the direction of the District Superintendent. Lastly, we had to cite the Patriot Act and applicable state (Texas) cyberlaws and state that we would prosecute based on those laws. Not perfect, but about as fair a compromise between the two sides of the issue as we mere mortals could come up with. Needless to say, my workload in the logging and monitoring software portion of my network admin job just skyrocketed.
The machines were turned off and any evidence was preserved. The police can’t just demand to seize property no matter how good the reason. There are procedures in place. Once you allow the warrantless searches for one reason you open the door to other searches, of your person or house because of a very good reason.
All those arguing about “seizing” property and “evidence was preserved” are missing the two most salient points here. First, those computers are not private property in one’s home, those are state-owned computers housed in a public facility. If you stashed a brick of cocaine in a fake book in the stacks, the police should not need a search warrent to retrieve it. Second, the police were not looking for evidence to prosecute a murderer, they were looking for information that could have located a still-living, but soon-to-be dead, little girl. Time was of the essence, and this little hag felt her priciples took precedence over a little girl’s life.
The Major hit the nail on the head – there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public computer. No expectation of privacy = no need for a search warrant.
Actually there is. Clearly so, since a warrant is required. And citizens need a place where they can go and gain anonymous access to information, so it is A Good Thing. Are libraries required to keep track of which patrons come and go and when? Or are they prohibited from tracking it?
If we allow police to go in and grab these things on the fly, then we’ll be reading a whole different set of anecdotal stories about overreaching police that will cause outrage in the opposite direction. It’d be like placing webcams in the library to film who comes and goes and watching what books they read while there. Just read about internet access in China to see what that’s like.
Typical Vermont Liberal elitist $#!7 head. It is a public computer with no guarantee of privacy. There is a big difference between public and private property. I would have had the self-rightous twit arrested and charged with obstruction. The computers were not in her home. Wonder if she would have done it if her daughter was the victim? How about your family Flit? What would you to to protect a neice, daughter or granddaughter? Better to curse the darkness than light a candle.
If some juvenile jerk releases a Bengal Tiger from the zoo as a prank and it kills a 5 year old child before it is shot or captured, who is responsible for that child’s death? Oh, the tiger? Right. You people scare me when you get power.
Vermont law did not yet require a warrant to seize library computers for forensic exploitation – work that probably could not have been done at the library itself. The law requiring a warrant would not come into effect until a week later – the day before the girl turned up dead. Five days after she went missing, and now 12-years old forever. The librarian bravely stood up to authority based on, wait for it: library policy.
Potentially the delay in attaining a warrant did not cost the little girl her life. Perhaps she would have died in any case. But neither the police nor the librarian could have known whether forensic exploitation of the computer might have saved her, although that was clearly the constables’ intent.
As against violating library policy.
Taxi- No. Not clearly so. Ever hear of the term probable cause?
I’m with Lex on this one. There was no law in place at the time of the request; it was only library policy.
I consider myself a person of high ethics and principle. But, IMO, part of being a principled person is recognizing that someone else’s needs/principles may indeed trump your own.
Like the need to work on the disappearance of a child.
If we are going to talk about this as a privacy issue – what about the Amber Alert system? Doesn’t broadcasting make, model, color and license plate # of a potential kidnapper violate that person’s privacy?
So why didn’t they Just Take It? Why did the police feel they needed to ask, and why didn’t they just override her concerns when she said no? Why did they have so much respect for library policy? Was it because by making it a known policy, patrons of the library (citizens of the government that runs the library) had reasonable expectation that it would be adhered to?
I am extremely wary of anecdotal arguments that take advantage of the heartstrings to give up freedoms or allow increased intrusions in our lives, which I assume is the purpose of this discussion. Otherwise, it’s just a tearjerker movie in print.
I at least recognize that this is an ethical dilemma.
Taxi1 – at the risk of sounding pompous, I spent four years as a police officer before attending and graduating from law school.
In the 16 years since I passed the Bar exam, I have both prosecuted and defended criminal cases.
Your creds, sir?
There is no more reasonable expectation of privacy in using a public computer than there would be in having sex in the library computer room.
The police could have taken the computers. The valid point was also made that they could have done their work right there.
The “ethical dilemma” you speak of is one invented by a woman blindly following “library policy” rather than looking at the big picture.
Your creds, sir?
I’m just a parent, a citizen, a voter, and a mil guy, sworn to support and defend etc., etc.,
Taxi1,
For my part, I am extremely wary of hypothetical arguments of possible future acts that take advantage of the fear of giving up freedoms or increased intrusions in our lives, which I assume is the purpose of the policy enacted unilateraly by unelected librarians. Especially when such fear-mongering is used to cover the tracks of a killer.
It’s far from a perfect world. Did the librarian handle the situation it the best and most compassionate way possible? No. Did the police do their very best possible job? I would say not, given that if there was no legal requirement for a warrant at the time. you have to question why they just didn’t take the computers and do what they had to do. And yes, I realize how easy it is to Wedneseday morning quarterback.
But you don’t want the police *invading* your house without having followed proper procedures to show they are justified. And although I take the point that this is a “public” library, there are still real issues at play when it comes to what is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
So what if it was my child?
It wasn’t that long ago that we had the terrifying experience of someone trying to entice our mentally challenged daughter into their vehicle. So I suppose you could say that I am attuned to the very real issues. But if, God forbid, it was my daughter, I would
expectdemand that the police get a telewarrant immediately. And in the meantime, in all honesty, I would probably storm in there and take the damm machines myself. Who said being rational was a requierment all the time?This is making a connection where it is not.
Where does one draw the line? The next time the police come banging on the door of the library because I was surfing Daily Kos and they want proof of my subversive tendencies? Does the library have to give up records of my checking out Lolita?
There may be no expectation of privacy, but the network owner does get a say in surrendering the contents of the data bases. A company would not surrender its computers without a warrant-or it would offer to do the forensics themselves, something a large corporation has the resources to do. A library not so much. Plus as was pointed out-they do not have to wait eight hours to get a warrant, there are procedures to do it over the phone and follow up the paper work.
Tragic this is to be sure-and it highlights why we need to think through the laws as we march into the brave new world. However for every good example there are 20 police departments that will abuse the new found authority given to them under the law.
Taxi1 is right.
Lex, you know I love your blog, but that “CPU Overloaded” message is really quite annoying. I just wrote a 4 paragraph masterpiece which proved definitively that Fliterman, Taxi, William, et al were all insane. (Skippy is already there!)
Got dumped.
Amazingly, Skippy is the only one that gets the gist of the problem, but he is still completely wrong.
This was not a police “investigation” collecting evidence to be used against known or unknown perp. This was a police search for information leading to the recovery of a lost little girl. We can have the argument later about whether the “evidence” gathered is fruit of the poison tree, and it would be a good argument.
Contrary to popular belief, the Constitution does not guarantee a right to privacy. It only guarantees that the government can’t invade your privacy without reason. (AKA “Probable Cause”)
In this case, on government owned equipment in a government owned building, I don’t think the police were out of line. Schools can search a student’s locker. Prisons can search a convict’s cell. With probable cause and a life at stake, a privacy argument is worthless and weak.
Fliterman, I pray that someone you love is never in grave danger and you have to stand on your principles.
Someone needs to punch the librarian in the face.
Lex, must agree with Nose re: the CPU overload. And I heard from another occasional commentor yesterday that she can’t access comments at all now and pretty well constantly just gets the CPU overload message. Apparently she is too-ocassional of a commentor.
I know, I know. Demanding souls we are.
The librarian is and was a twit. Public computers are not subject to privacy concerns.
TSA can and does sieze computers from travelers all the time and searches through them looking for evidence of criminal activity. I work for a company that encrypts the entire disk and requires a login every time the computer is restarted. From what I understand of the law, if the TSA wants to look at my files I must give them my login and password if I want to keep the computer. No warrant required.
Have you ever wondered how incredible it is that in this country sworn officers are rarely cited for slipping out at night and burning down the houses of twits like the librarian in this case?
Librarian idiocy aside, if the girl had an uncle who was a known sex offender, why weren’t the police immediately on him? He clearly had enough time to leisurely alter the girl’s accounts, and according to the article, “was later arrested”. It doesn’t sound like he was being looked at during the critical time period when the girl might have been saved.
The librarian may have been wrong-headed, but doesn’t it seem that the officers should have been checking their own computer records a little more closely as well? Better to blame little librarians than question the direction of the police investigation? Reading between the lines, seems like someone had decided it must be an internet molester instead of the family molester and he worked the preconception to his benefit.
Again, I may be missing something here.
Curtis wrote: sworn officers are rarely cited for slipping out at night and burning down the houses of twits like the librarian in this case?
You haven’t been to New Orleans if you think all sworn officers tend to impeccability.
What a hero by today’s popular standards! Does she get the ACLU Medal of Honor?
Seriously, Vermont ain’t a safe place for kids..Recommend all parents with children move out. The dinks will die out and the gay marriages will produce ZPG. In a generation normal folks can repopulate…
BTW, I have another plan for Bagdad-on-the-Bay.
b2
First, I have to agree with the KM as to why the uncle wasn’t immediately checked out…isn’t that part of why we keep track of sex offenders? Second, there seems to be some other parts of the story missing – did the police attempt to contact MySpace for assistance? It’s easy to sit back and do post-mortem on this, but if 5 state police detectives came to retrieve the computers (that probably 1 or 2 detectives could have retrieved, freeing up the other detectives to conduct the missing persons search), couldn’t one of these detectives have been assigned to obtain the search warrant as quickly as possible rather than driving to the library? Besides, in the age of telephonic warrants this shouldn’t have taken any time (especially considering that the state police were involved as opposed to the local department). It’d be interesting to see why the warrant took so long to obtain. As I mentioned, 5 detectives (not officers, but detectives) to retreive public access computers that need to be taken to the forensic analysts seems like a bigger time waste in a time sensitive situation than the time delay over the warrant.
There appears to be enough blame to go all around on this one. Whether she was right or wrong, I think I’m most appalled by the fact the Librarians are cheering her on, making this an us vs. them/Authority… all after the fact that a child did die. Whether she was right or wrong, there should be no cheering of any kind. A child is dead.
Controversial, you bet. We can all rip each other’s hearts out, but how does that solve the problem? We can look at this as a “best lessons learned process”. MajHarvey made an accurate statement about the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “It guarantees people the right to be ‘secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects.’” Now, would somebody please define the word, “effects” in the time and the culture, of when it was written? Let’s do the same thing with the same word, only for today. I would submit the following, as our culture changed as did our technology. Now, in my lifetime, I’ve seen the wired telephone be assumed as in every home. As time progressed, our laws caught up with our technology. When law-enforcement wanted to tap a phone, they had to show probable cause to get a search warrant. As times progressed, we went to wireless phones, but there was a problem. They found that some of the older police radio scanners owned by members of the general public could hear the calls. The public was told to tune out those frequencies by the F.C.C.. The reason was this, no matter where they were calling from or to, they had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
In situations like this, any evidence would have been thrown out of court. I don’t like it, but I believe the best thing would have been to get a search warrant. States should have a rotating on-call judge for the issuance of search warrants telephonically.
Sometimes, when debating large issues, it’s easy to lose site of the smaller details. I think the comments in this thread can be divided into two categories: those who are debating the large-scale social/constitutional issues; and, those who are concerned with the specific hows and whys of the case at hand. We are united in our outrage that a child’s life was needlessly lost, presumably under tortured circumstances.
With that in mind, Brooke, we mourn the loss of your light from the world. As a society, we failed you.
As for why librarians should cheer their “victory” when a child’s death lies at the center of it? Why anyone should gloat over scoring a “point” in an ideological victory when human suffering is/has been involved or invoked…that, I’m afraid, is the basis for a much longer discussion: one that involves a much larger population than just librarians.
If I remember correctly there is a Supreme Court case that found that if one puts one’s garbage out on a public sidewalk or in a public alley-way one does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy as regards the contents of the garbage can. (This was a paparazzi case of rifling for scandal, I believe) I would think this case might bear tangentially on the issue insofar as expectations of privacy are concerned.