tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post8432663693276139213..comments2024-03-28T04:49:07.788-04:00Comments on SafeLibraries®: Library Obstructs Child Porn Investigation by State Police in Montrose, NY; Claims Stonewalling is Not StonewallingSafeLibraries®http://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-79723863479582173232009-10-31T12:34:00.774-04:002009-10-31T12:34:00.774-04:00The article you cite explains things quite clearly...The article you cite explains things quite clearly. The library in question is bound by STATE LAW not to release the private information. The refusal to release the information, then, has nothing to do with the policy of the individual library nor with your imaginary ALA monster.<br /><br />The article indicates that the state police "say they don't have enough probable cause to get a warrant at this point." That's mighty peculiar, considering they've got what info they can out of the computer used in the alleged crime. <br /><br />If they've gotten what they can out of the computer and still can't convince a judge to issue a search warrant or subpoena for the patron's records from the library, there's something else wrong with the evidence available for prosecution. <br /><br />Your claim that "they are all on the same team" has a nice emotional appeal, but the fact is that many branches of government are prohibited by various laws from sharing private information with each other. We don't live an a police state, so every agency and department is NOT an extension of law enforcement.<br /><br />Ultimately, the prosecution of this case will not be helped if the police obtain evidence illegally. It is in the best interest of the library, the police, and the public to ensure that every aspect of the investigation complies fully with the applicable law. Otherwise, any halfway capable defense attorney will have the evidence suppressed at trial.<br /><br />And so I reiterate my previous statement: you're blaming the ALA for something they don't have anything to do with. They have no control over the situation at all, and are only explaining typical library policy. You're also portraying the individual library as being uncooperative with law enforcement, when they are, in fact, complying with applicable state law.Non-Censorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07480967648669777010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-76344710698628861382009-10-31T09:05:55.667-04:002009-10-31T09:05:55.667-04:00Public libraries and police are both funded by and...Public libraries and police are both funded by and created to serve the public, said Dan Kleinman of Safelibraries.org.<br /><br />"In this case all they need to [do] is give the police permission to look at the computer they already have in their possession," Kleinman said. "This isn't invading anyone's privacy. They are all on the same team. Libraries are formed by charter to serve a particular purpose. Child pornography is not usually one of these purposes."<br /><br />The above is a direct quote from "<a href="http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009910310351" rel="nofollow">Hen Hud: Court Order May be Required</a>," by <b>Barbara Livingston Nackman</b>, <i>The Journal News</i>, 31 October 2009.<br /><br />And you know what? I just learned from this article that A SUBPOENA WAS ALREADY OBTAINED FPR THE COMPUTER!! SO WHAT'S THE DELAY?? WHY THE NEED FOR A SECOND SUBPOENA??<br /><br />Oh, notice how the ALA says, "I understand they would like to facilitate the investigation, but the library is bound." That's a polite way of saying the ALA opposes the local community's interests as expressed in this and the previous article. Now what were you saying, Non-Censor, about unfairly heaping blame on the ALA? And thanks for commenting.SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-77029293882340343102009-10-30T11:07:01.157-04:002009-10-30T11:07:01.157-04:00So why blame the library, the ALA, ACLU or whoever...So why blame the library, the ALA, ACLU or whoever else you're unfairly heaping the blame on? If the police have enough evidence to convince a judge, they can easily obtain a search warrant. This is not hard to do: it doesn't take a lot of evidence, just a reasonable statement of probability.<br /><br />Of course the library should resist divulging private information to anyone, including law enforcement. The proper procedure is through court order (of which a search warrant is a special case).<br /><br />The most disturbing statement in the article you quoted was one patron saying "They should be more worried about keeping everyone safe than someone's rights." Such a statement can only be made by someone with little or no understanding of how our criminal legal system works.Non-Censorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07480967648669777010noreply@blogger.com