Brooklyn Public Library Steals Ten Million From CIPA Program

The Brooklyn Public Library main branch at Grand Army Plaza has stolen a whopping ten million dollars from the federal government under the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) program. I have written about this theft in 2009 when the damage was only $2.5M but since then it keeps growing year after year with no end in sight.  And that's just in one library.  See:

• P*rn in Brooklyn Public Library; Frustrated Patron Provides Photographic Proof; Library Refuses to Act; Two and a Half Million Dollars in Jeopardy Due to Possible Fraud," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 18 December 2009.

In the past I contacted multiple attorneys about filing a Qui Tam case (False Claims Act) against the library.  They all said there was clear fraud recoverable under the law but that they would not take action against a public library.  This is another way librarians get away with violating law—because they take advantage of the great goodwill built within the government occupation called librarianship.  

Still, if anyone else wants to file a Qui Tam case, it allows whistleblowers to get up to 30% of the recovery of the stolen money for themselves, just use the information I'm reporting here.  30% of $10M = $3M.  Could be a great inflation fighter for enterprising citizens.

In reaction to this reporting on fraud, the Brooklyn Public Library blocked me on Twitter, tossing aside the law yet again.  I had to remind them that is illegal and they have unblocked me as a result:

• "Public Libraries Must Unblock Social Media Participants," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 9 January 2019.

So I returned to the library to investigate how things have changed since 2009.  The theft has been modernized, that is all.  While I was able to get to P*rnHub on only one of three computers, that still shows Internet filters can be removed simply by clicking the right buttons, actually just touching the screen now, without having to ask a librarian as required by the CIPA law.

To comply with CIPA, "Schools and libraries must certify they are in compliance with CIPA before they can receive E-rate funding. ....  An authorized person may disable the blocking or filtering measure during use by an adult to enable access for bona fide research or other lawful purposes."  Source:

• Federal Communications Commission. “Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA).” Federal Communications Commission, May 5, 2011. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/childrens-internet-protection-act.

The "authorized person" is not the "adult" himself from the clear wording of the FCC requirement.  An adult simply may not authorize himself to have unfiltered access.  That would make the sentence and the law meaningless.  No adult patron has "authority" to disable filters for anyone, let alone himself.  An "authorized person" is someone working for the library, like the young lady sitting there in a booth to help the computer users.  By the way, she expressed to me disgust at the men who use the room for p*rnography viewing.  And a security guard told me men can look at Internet p*rnography if they do it discreetly.  What?  Clearly he has been reprogrammed by the librarians violating the law.

And P*rnHub is not "bona fide research or other lawful purposes" when the law creating the library requires libraries be for the use and benefit of the public.  See also "Dismantle P*rnhub" and "Instagram Removes P*rnhub Account After Repeated Calls From NCOSE, International Advocates, and Survivors."

So what I discovered is a simple way to view p*rnography—for free—without having to be authorized by anyone.  Simply go to a Brooklyn Public Library "Self-Service" kiosk.  And right there it says "self-service," indicating a possible violation of the CIPA "authorized person" requirement.  Touch "Guest Pass Services."  Touch "Adult."  Touch a yes/no question about adding money for printing.  Et voilà, your free guest pass prints out.  You type in the numbers to log into a terminal.  You get a desktop.  You open Google Chrome and it opens to bklynlibrary.org.  Simply type in any thing you like, like P*rnHub.com, et voilà.  So the "authorized person" requirement is 100% defeated in violation of CIPA.  See pictures here (and I grabbed the P*rnHub page before the images fully loaded so it should be safe for work):

#AmWriting how @BKLYNlibrary #NYC stole $10M from federal government under CIPA program. Children’s Internet Protection Act.

I’ll be viciously attacked by #librarians for reporting how.

Follow me to learn more. And don’t #FundLibraries.@NYCCouncil @VickieforNYC @BlueBoxDave pic.twitter.com/b1xEqPKu0V

— Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries® 🟧 (@SexHarassed) September 4, 2022

That is a violation of CIPA law.  The person who filed with the federal government is defrauding the government since funding would not have been granted without the lie that the law is being followed.  Librarians will naturally say it does not violate CIPA.  But they would be wrong and would be using a double standard.  You see, librarians cannot both be experts on the law and at the same time ignorant of the law.  Librarians say they cannot determine what is child p*rnography since they are not lawyers.  Suddenly they are CIPA experts?  "'A librarian is not a legal process,' Krug said. 'There is not librarian in the country—unless she or he is a lawyer—who is in the position to determine what he or she is looking at is indeed child p*rnography.'"  

• "Libraries vs. Police In a Suit Sparked by P*rn; Kent Case Centers on People's Rights and Protections," by Jeffery M. Barker, Seattle Post-Intelligencer Reporter, 12 August 2002.

Naturally people will want to confirm my calculations:

CIPA funding for "Internet Access" for Brooklyn Public Library, 

Grand Army Plaza, Brooklyn, NY:

$315,414.00 and $140,400.00 in 2022 

$309,474.00 and $163,857.60 in 2021 

$286,254.00 and $183,427.20 in 2020 

$289,044.00 and $161,827.20 in 2019 

$681,090.88 and $70,113.60 and $70,113.60 in 2018 

$783,143.53 and $155,347.20 in 2017 

$612,806.40 and $165,984.00 in 2016 

$324,000.00 in 2015 

$0 in 2014 

$560,044.80 in 2013 

$553,337.76 in 2012 

$537,284.37 in 2011 

$562,604.80 in 2010 

$428,040.00 in 2009 

$428,040.00 in 2008 

$317,340.00 in 2007 

$423,712.72 and $835.10 in 2006 

$372,564.00 in 2005 

$2,278.80 and $510,000.00 in 2004 

$1,920.00 and $504,000.00 in 2003 

TOTAL: $9,914,299.56

Simple.  To check the numbers and to investigate other libraries similarly stealing funds, simply "Search Commitments" at the Universal Service Administrative Co. website that administers the Federal Communications Commission's CIPA program funding:

• https://data.usac.org/publicreports/SearchCommitments/Search/SearchByYear

So this needs investigation by the proper authorities.  And that $10M stolen money is just from a single Brooklyn Public Library branch in a single New York City library system, I believe (unless they filed as an aggregate, I don't know).  It is possible hundreds of millions are being defrauded from the federal government just in New York City alone while libraries like Brooklyn Public Library get funded by New York City Council for things, illegal in and of themselves in libraries, like Drag Queen Story Hour.

Hundreds of millions, people.  Stolen, by librarians, to enable p*rn viewing in public libraries despite the law that requires libraries be for the use and benefit of the public, and that's neither Drag Queen Story Hour nor P*rnHub nor massive theft from the federal government.

The Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Arch sits in plain view of the Brooklyn Public Library at Grand Army Plaza.  You can see President Abraham Lincoln astride a horse, shown top right, from the library's front steps.  Imagine how disgusted that man would be at the thievery going on at the Brooklyn Public Library, just so people could be enslaved to Internet p*rnography in violation of federal law, let alone the victims including children of such websites.  

"The Almighty has His own purposes. 'Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh.'"

• Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1865, "Second Inaugural Address; endorsed by Lincoln, April 10, 1865," The Abraham Lincoln Papers, Library of Congress.

NOTE:  DUE TO BIG TECH CENSORSHIP OF THIS POST, I HAVE ADDED A * INTO THE WORD THAT APPARENTLY TRIGGERED AN INTERSTITIAL ALERT THAT BLOCKED ACCESS TO THIS PAGE.  KIDS CAN GET THIS IN LIBRARIES BUT GOOGLE CAN'T LET ADULTS READ ABOUT IT.  I HOPE MY CHANGE REMOVES THE ALERT.

NOTE ADDED 5 SEPTEMBER 2022:

I have sent the following email to the library seeking documents that were filed by the library with the FCC to obtain the CIPA funding for Internet Access:

Dear Selvon Smith,

Greetings. I'm planning to file an official FOIL request or requests for public documents over which you have direct control and are likely the author. To save us both time and effort, I thought I would contact you first to request the documents that I believe are definitely easy and legal for you to provide to me, preferably as PDF attachments to your response to this email.

It's a very simple request too. And I got your email address from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that shows you are the person who submitted the documents.

Here's what I request:

All forms filed on behalf of the Brooklyn Public Library with the FCC regarding E-rate or the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) and dated any time during 2020, 2021, and 2022.

I'm guessing this will be very easy for you (as the likely author of the documents) to find and gather, perhaps in less time than it takes to read this email. I'm not even asking for any responses from the FCC.

Since these were submissions to the FCC, they are already public documents so they should not be redacted in any way.

See? Easy peasy.

Thank you.

--

----------

Dan Kleinman, Owner of SafeLibraries® brand library educational services

—

URL of this page: 

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2022/09/brooklyn-public-library-steals.html

Follow @SexHarassed

Utah Library Filters Would Protect Children

Utah Library Filters Would Protect Children

Statement by Dawn Hawkins, Executive Director of NCOSE

Washington, DC – Following Utah’s recent resolution declaring pornography a public health crisis, Utah legislators are seeking to protect children from exposure to pornography on the Internet at public libraries. The National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) commends these efforts, and dispels the myth that computer filters infringe on education.

“Childhood exposure to pornography can have devastating effects, and public libraries must do their part to prevent it,” said Dawn Hawkins, Executive Director of the National Center on Sexual Exploitation. “Pornography decreases brain matter in areas related to decision making and motivation, shapes the sexual template of the viewer to accept violence against women, and is dangerous to children who are highly susceptible to developing compulsive behaviors and addictions. Further, when patrons are viewing pornography in a library it turns a once safe community setting into a XXX space. This fosters child sexual abuse, sexual assault, exhibitionism, stalking, and lewd behavior, all of which have occurred in libraries in America after patrons watched pornography at libraries. It is therefore vital that libraries install filtering systems to safeguard children.”

“The main opponents to library filters have warped agendas,” Hawkins continued. “The Free Speech Coalition—a pornography industry lobbying association—makes the outdated claim that Internet filters are unable to distinguish between pornographic websites and educational sites about pregnancy and sex education. This is rubbish. Technology has come a long way since the early 1990s. Today’s filtering systems are highly accurate and allow for authentic educational sites to be accessed by all.”

“Further, the Utah Library Association has claimed that the filters suggested by Utah legislators would be redundant since filters are required for forms of federal and state library funding. However, among some library filtering systems currently in use, filtering mechanisms are easily bypassed. Additionally, the American Library Association (ALA) has systematically misinformed libraries that they would be ‘violating First Amendment rights’ to install said filtering, and so, many libraries refrain from using them. The ALA disseminates this misinformation despite the fact that the Supreme Court has upheld that Internet filters at public libraries do not violate First Amendment rights. For this reason the ALA has been placed on NCOSE’s annual Dirty Dozen List for the past four years.”

“Why are these groups so dead set on exposing children to pornography? The porn industry is a big money business seeking consumers, but that doesn’t give them the right to harm the lives of children in their pursuit of profit. As for the ALA, their reckless policy position is an enigma; they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that the First Amendment is not a license to provide unfettered access to illegal, obscene materials in public settings. Parents, educators, and librarians can learn more about protecting their children and communities for the harms of pornography by visiting our Safe Schools Safe Libraries webpage,” Hawkins concluded.

To learn more about NCOSE’s project calling for filtering at libraries and schools, visit http://endsexualexploitation.org/sssl/



If you would like to schedule an interview, please contact Haley Halverson at (202) 393-7245 or haley@ncose.com.

About National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE)
Founded in 1962, National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) is the leading national organization dedicated to opposing pornography by highlighting the links to sex trafficking, violence against women, child abuse, and addiction. NCOSE embraces a mission to defend human dignity and to advocate for the universal right of sexual justice, which is freedom from sexual exploitation, objectification, and violence.

###

www.EndSexualExploitation.org

National Center on Sexual Exploitation

1100 G St., NW Washington, DC 20005.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 19, 2016

Contact: Haley Halverson
202-393-7245
haley@ncose.com

URL of this page: safelibraries.blogspot.com/2016/05/utah-library-filters.html

On Twitter: @ALALibrary @CreativeLibUtah +fox13now @Fox13Now @Porn_Harms @UtahLibAssoc

Follow @SafeLibraries

Westfield Mom Calls for Filters on All Children's Computers at Library

Westfield Mom Calls for Filters on 

All Children's Computers at Library

By JILL D'AMBROSIO

TAP into Westfield

August 25, 2015 at 9:27 PM

WESTFIELD, NJ – Colby Sheppard, a Westfield mom who said her 11 year-old son stumbled upon pornography on a computer in the children's section of the Westfield Memorial Library in January, plans to create an online petition this fall and drum up local support to install filters on all computers with internet access in the library’s children’s section.

Sheppard has lobbied the library board of trustees and the town council on the matter. In April, the library installed filters on two of the four computers in the children’s section, but Sheppard wants to have all children’s computers equipped with filters.

She hoped the board would revisit the issue at its meeting on Aug. 20, but the meeting was canceled, she said. The next board meeting is scheduled for Sept. 24 at 7:30 p.m. in the library’s meeting room.

Sheppard says she has met with resistance from library officials on the question of filters.

“They’ve got their heels really dug into this one,” she said.

....

Enough Is Enough, a non-partisan organization dedicated to internet safety for kids, recommends “a layered approach of monitoring, filtering, time limiting, safe search settings among other tools to protect children," according to its website, www.enough.org, "but remember that these tools are no substitute for parental and adult supervision and guidance online."

....

Dan Kleinman, who co-founded SafeLibraries, a New Jesrey [sic] watchdog group, said that the Westfield library “is acting outside the law by allowing in porn and child porn despite the law.”

“Library law creates libraries for educational and recreational purposes for the use and benefit of the citizens. In other words, there are actual limits on what libraries can do,” Kleinman said. “They cannot do anything outside the law that created them. Porn is neither for the use nor benefit of the citizens, actually it harms the citizens, so it falls outside the law that created libraries. Municipal governments have the right and duty to stop libraries from acting outside the law, and they can do so without violating a library's veil of autonomy.”

....

Source of above excerpts: TAP into Westfield (link) ©TAPinto.net 2015; hyperlinks in original, emphasis mine, original graphic omitted.

URL of this page: http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2015/08/westfield-mom.html

On Twitter: @ALALibrary @BarbStripling @EIETweets @OIF @TownOfWestfield @WestfieldTAP @WMLNJ

Follow @SafeLibraries

Dear Clergy

Dear Clergy:

The town local library allows children access to Internet pornography in the children's section of the library despite the law and the government is doing nothing to stop it.  As one of the houses of worship in or near town,  please get involved in stopping the library from violating the law or getting the government to stop the lawlessness.  Library boards may legally do anything necessary and proper for libraries under the law, but Internet pornography is neither.  Nor is there any use and benefit of Internet porn in public libraries.  Municipalities should not allow lawlessness to fester.  An eleven year old child already saw porn in the children's section and the library's response was to filter only two of the four computers then blame the child when the mom asked why only two.

The best way I know to get involved is to speak up.  To get educated on the issues before speaking up, contact me for private discussion or for a public talk on the issue.  I've been studying this issue for about fifteen years.  The library trustees are well trained in misleading the community so getting a primer from me before they try to mislead you that there's a First Amendment right to porn in public libraries and Internet filters don't work would really help people be more effective in demanding an end to the lawlessness.

Contact me, Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries@gmail.com.  I'm with SafeLibraries in Chatham, NJ, and would be really happy to speak with anyone or give talks on the topics to congregants.  I know it's a topic no one really wants to discuss but if we don't, more children will see more Internet porn in the children's section of the town's public library.  Can you believe I even have to say this?

I got your names and emails from [local media].

Your involvement may help to protect children from Internet pornography being made available by the [Town] Public Library despite the law.  Many people are needed to bring pressure on the library and on the government to end the lawlessness.  I'm making you aware of the situation and offering to provide an education.  No charge.

Here is what the mother of the victim had to say in the local paper, reprinted by me for your convenience: "Pornography Versus Library Bill of Rights" http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2015/04/library-bill-of-rights.html

Here is a survey flyer I distributed during the town fair and posted throughout the downtown area that summarizes the issues and please consider posting this at your own location: http://www.pinterest.com/pin/162622236521532399/ [Contact me for help adapting this to your own community.  It is also pictured top right.  Click to see a larger version.  And I have more suggested flyers.]

Thank you so much for considering this.  I hope to hear from you as soon as possible.  The sooner the better for the children, literally.

Thanks again.

Dan Kleinman
SafeLibraries
SafeLibraries@gmail.com

CC: Local media.

URL of this sample letter to send to clergy in your own communities:
tinyurl.com/DearClergy

On Social Media: +SafeLibraries

Follow @SafeLibraries

Pornography Versus Library Bill of Rights, by Colby Sheppard, Westfield Leader, 9 April 2015

Pornography Versus Library Bill of Rights

Imagine the shock to learn the children’s computers in the Westfield Memorial Library have no pornography filters.  Upon speaking to other parents they had the same reaction, “I thought there were filters!”  No, not the case.

The Westfield Memorial Library is one of the only area libraries to not have filters on the computers with Internet access in the children’s department.

In February, the library begrudgingly agreed to put filters on only two of the four computers in the children’s section.  Allowing pornography on any public library computer is illegal in accordance to New Jersey state law.  Also, the U.S. Supreme Court says blocking pornography from public libraries does not violate the First Amendment.  Why then should the citizens of Westfield settle for filtering only two of four children’s computers instead of filtering all computers in accordance with the law?

I learned the library eschews N.J. law and the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, by choosing to follow the “Library Bill of Rights” of the American Library Association.  (www.wmlnj.org/About/Internet%20Use%20Policy.asp)  Result?  Your child has access to hard-core pornography.

Westfield Memorial Library; Internet Use Policy
wmlnj.org/About/Internet%20Use%20Policy.asp

Is this what we want for the children of Westfield?  It should be Westfield’s duty to ensure the library complies with the law, not the American Library Association.  Is Westfield living up to that duty?

The library’s “mission statement” defines the library as “the community’s destination for discovery and ideas – engages minds, entertains spirits, and facilitates lifelong learning for people of all ages.”  What part of pornography does any of that?  What “ideas” should we be getting from watching sex trafficking victims having the worst days of their lives broadcast on library computers?  Pornography goes against the very mission of the library, it’s about time the library starts complying with its own mission statement.  It’s time we get involved and restore common sense and the law.

I’ll be attending city and library meetings to push for compliance with the law that makes pornography illegal in all N.J. libraries.

United States v. American Library Association, 539 US 194 (2003)
laws.findlaw.com/us/539/194.html

I do not want any kid to see hard-core pornography in the library, and I’m asking those who agree to come out to the meetings as well and speak up.  Also, speak up by writing a letter to the library board and let them know your views.  The library should listen to the citizens of Westfield, N.J. law, and the U.S. Supreme Court, not to the American Library Association.  We just need to let our town and our library know we’re awake now and we’re going to speak up for our community.  It might take time, but we’ll get there.

Please join me in advocating for this positive change.

Colby Sheppard

Westfield

NJ law (NJS 40:54-12 [link]) permits library boards to
"do all things necessary and proper" to run libraries.
US v. ALA says, "public libraries have traditionally
excluded pornographic material...." Clearly, Internet
porn is not "necessary and proper." So allowing
Internet porn is acting outside the law. NJ library
boards have no power to exceed the law; municipal
bodies must act to stop the lawlessness.

Source:

• "Pornography Versus Library Bill of Rights," by Colby Sheppard, Westfield Leader (NJ), 9 April 2015, hyperlink added.
• Reprinted with permission.  All graphics/captions were created by SafeLibraries and are not part of the original publication.

URL of this page: safelibraries.blogspot.com/2015/04/library-bill-of-rights.html

On Social Media: @ALALibrary +TownOfWestfield @TownOfWestfield @wmlnj

Follow @SafeLibraries

Illinois State CIPA

IL Rep. Peter Breen

Illinois HB 2689 (link) "[c]reates the Internet Screening in Public Libraries Act."  Its sponsor is Rep. Peter Breen (link).  So Illinois again seeks legislation to filter the Internet to eliminate pornography from all Illinois libraries.  Read the expected excuses and subterfuge I predict will be used to keep it from passing here:

• "Illinois HB 2689 to Protect Librarians from Sexual Harassment," by Dan Kleinman, Sexual Harassment of Librarians, 22 February 2015, quoting "Breen Files First Bills Promoting Individual Freedom and Open Government," by Illinois Review, Illinois Review, 19 February 2015:

Internet Screening in Public Libraries Act:  HB 2689 requires internet filters on public library computers to prevent the viewing of hard-core pornography on those computers.  Breen emphatically stated that, “I’ve heard from many moms over the years that adult men are regularly viewing hard-core pornography on public library computers, in full view of children and others.  This is an abuse of taxpayer resources and creates a hostile environment for public library employees and patrons.  No child should have to walk past obscene and abusive material in order to take advantage of the educational opportunities available at their public library.”

URL of this page: safelibraries.blogspot.com/2015/02/illinois-state-cipa.html

On Twitter: +IL House GOP @ILHouseGOP +Illinois Review @IllinoisReview

Follow @SafeLibraries

Porn Facilitation in Public Libraries: ALA Guides Librarians to Defy SCOTUS

Source: "The Web is Facili-
tating an Upsurge in Female
Exploitation & Slavery" (link)

It is porn facilitation in public libraries if you are the leading expert in libraries with the power to guide librarians on how to write policy and you guide them to defy the US Supreme Court—the very case you lost.  The American Library Association [ALA] is that leading expert, perhaps the nation's sole expert and provider of model library policy.

US Supreme Court Rules First Amendment Rights Do Not Attach to Pornography in Public Libraries

ALA lost in the US Supreme Court on the issue of pornography in public libraries.  The case was United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003) (link).  The case ruled, "public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights."  In part, this is because: "The decisions by most libraries to exclude pornography from their print collections are not subjected to heightened scrutiny; it would make little sense to treat libraries' judgments to block online pornography any differently."

So it is perfectly legal to block pornography from public libraries and also to keep it blocked even if a patron requests an unblock (link).  Indeed, no library has ever been sued for blocking pornography (link).

ALA Teaches the First Amendment PROTECTS Porn in Public Libraries

But ALA teaches librarians the exact opposite of the US Supreme Court.  It does this in specialized "guidelines" intended to help local libraries write Internet access policy.  The "guidelines" are the very vehicle designed to ensure maximum coverage in libraries nationwide of what is essentially the opposite of the law:

In the millions of Web sites available on the Internet, there are some—often loosely called “pornography”—that parents, or adults generally, do not want children to see.  A very small fraction of those sexually explicit materials is actual obscenity or child pornography, which are not constitutionally protected.  The rest, like the overwhelming majority of materials on the Internet , [sic] is protected by the First Amendment.

Source: "Guidelines and Considerations for Developing a Public Library Internet Use Policy," by Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association, 26 March 2013 (link).

So, according to ALA, pornography web sites that are not ruled to be obscenity or child pornography are "protected by the First Amendment."  Compare with the case it lost a decade earlier where the Court ruled, "Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights."

It is inescapable that ALA guides librarians that blocking porn violates the First Amendment, the exact opposite of what the US Supreme Court ruled in the case named for the ALA, namely, US v. ALA.  And the reliable sources above prove exactly that.

US Supreme Court ruled library filters do not
violate the First Amendment.

ALA not only guides librarians on what is 100% opposite of the law, but ALA teaches new library trustees 100% opposite of the law as well (link).  ALA even teaches this illegality in academic libraries (link)!  ALA is very thorough in ensuring everyone gets the message.

ALA teaches the exact opposite of the US Supreme Court.
Here's a library attorney siding with ALA over SCOTUS.

If you are the leading authority on library policy, and if you lost in the US Supreme Court on the issue of the alleged First Amendment right to pornography in public libraries, and you are teaching librarians and library trustees in public and academic libraries the exact opposite of the case you lost over a decade ago, you are facilitating porn in public libraries.

ALA has even been recognized two years straight for facilitating porn.  See: "ALA Listed As Top Facilitator of Porn in America and a Leading Contributor to Sexual Exploitation of Women" (link).

Conclusion: ALA Facilitates Porn in Public Libraries

The US Supreme Court says "public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights."  Meanwhile ALA, being in a position of authority, teaches "'pornography'... is protected by the First Amendment."  That is 100% the polar opposite of the law.

So ALA is guiding librarians and library trustees in public and academic libraries to defy the US Supreme Court, it is in the very position of power to do so, and communities are being harmed as a direct result (link).  What part of that is NOT facilitating porn in public libraries?

URL of this page: safelibraries.blogspot.com/2015/01/porn-facilitation-in-public-libraries.html

On Twitter: @ALALibrary @OIF @Porn_Harms

Follow @SafeLibraries

I Feel Sorry For These Librarians: Toledo Library Loaded with Crime and Bedbugs

Toledo-Lucas County Public Library—it is loaded to the gills with crime and bedbugs:

• "Trouble Often Shatters Hush of Local Libraries; Security Report Details 1,000 Incidents in 2014," by Ignazio Messina, The Blade (Toledo, OH), 4 January 2015.

I feel sorry for the librarians and library employees.  Read the 2012 (link), 2013 (link), and 2014 (link) incident reports from the above story.  It is absolutely atrocious what librarians have to go through, including, for example, frightening sexual harassment from porn-viewing patrons:

A librarian in September, 2014, reported a regular patron had made comments about her hair and tried to touch her.  The following month, he made more comments to her.  This time it was about being the head of her fan club. 

"He keep yelling 69, 69, 69 at me because his birthday is 1969, but he was referencing the sexual act," the female librarian said in her report.  "After using the computer he wouldn't leave and kept asking for my number and saying he will miss me."

Truly unbelievable.

Of course the American Library Association says librarians are never sexually harassed and likely never will be (link).  Why does library media not report on such things, both the harassment and the cover up?  Why is it only me?  (If you are a librarian or library employee being sexually harassed, please contact me.  I am basically the only person who will help you, and I'll do so confidentially.)

And notice the library lets the vast majority of those sex criminals including masturbators get off, as my criminal law professor joked, with essentially a slap on the wrist.  See the excerpt below, for example.  What's with that?

Notice how the library defends itself.  After about 1,000 crimes per year for years, a reporter asks for public records of the crimes, and immediately the library director responds.  Not before, mind you, only when caught.  The excuse is the library has acceptable use policies in place.  "We have a code of conduct and policies that we follow as best as we can," said the director.

I have been showing year after year that acceptable use policies NEVER stop library crime.  Library filters properly managed do help stop library crime, however, and the Federal Communications Commission says library filters work really well (link).

Naturally, American Library Association leadership says filters do not work by promoting outdated and misleading misinformation from a censorious hack cited in a slick publication (link).  At the same time they claim filters on computers for children are wonderful and your kids are in a "safe library" even if the adult computers allow child porn (link).  They must think people are stupid—the filters work on the childrens' computers really well but they don't work on the adults' computers.

By the way, the US Supreme Court ruled there is no First Amendment right to constitutionally protected material in public libraries where that material comprises Internet porn (link).  And do people really want the "intellectual freedom" and "freedom of speech" to see victims of sex trafficking having the worst day of their lives as they get drugged and raped and videotaped for guys to masturbate like they do in the Toledo library (link)?

Here an excerpt from that excellent story by Ignazio Messina in The Blade (link):

Porn and computers

Policing computer usage in libraries also has become a regular duty for librarians, [head of security for the library system] Mr. Sabo said.

Looking at pornography on a library computer can result in a one-week ban, while engaging in sexual activity could mean a one-year ban.  In March, a man at the downtown library was eligible to be slapped with both violations for masturbating at a computer station.

"A couple of minutes into my observations, I noticed [the man] watching a video of a partially clothed female being raped by a male with a gun," a report said, and the man began masturbating through his pants.  He ultimately apologized, acknowledged he should not have done that in a public place, and left quietly.

When a patron is found viewing pornography, he or she usually leaves the building quietly.

But on June 28, a man viewing pornography at the downtown library refused to leave when confronted by library security.

"When I told him he has to leave he stood up and walked within inches of me, threatening, 'If he ever sees me on the street he will put me down' and that 'He doesn’t care what badge I have or if we call the police.' "  He was eventually escorted out by two security guards.

After a patron is banned, returning to the library can get him or her slapped with a criminal trespassing charge.  The libraries deal with a lot of repeat offenders.

Source:

• "Trouble Often Shatters Hush of Local Libraries; Security Report Details 1,000 Incidents in 2014," by Ignazio Messina, The Blade (Toledo, OH), 4 January 2015.

NOTE ADDED 6 JANUARY 2014:

This post is right on target.  You can tell when a Systems + Instruction Librarian at Washington State University-Vancouver, Vancouver, WA, named Nicholas Schiller (link) takes time out from work to attack me as "evil" for "malicious harassment"!  I simply tweeted this blog post having to do with sexual harassment of librarians to Twitter hashtag #TeamHarpy that is about sexual harassment of librarians (link).  Here is my tweet:

The only job where #women must tolerate being sexually harassed? #Librarian! Example @ToledoLibrary: http://t.co/8qVyvMJ6Pv #TeamHarpy
— Dan Kleinman (@SafeLibraries) January 6, 2015

Do you see anything wrong with that?  I don't.  That tweet, however, prompted the following response (to another tweet, shown in context at bottom) from the university librarian and ALA member:

.@SafeLibraries Your malicious harassment of #TeamHarpy has lost any & all possible support for your causes. Try not being evil.
— Nicholas Schiller (@nnschiller) January 6, 2015

When I responded that I had no idea what he was talking about and asked why he would be so mean (link), he made further attacks on me for "harassing women" (link), then felt compelled to explain to everyone but me that he really wasn't being mean.  Oh no.  He was just doing a public service.  He was just "publicly pointing out bad behavior" to other librarians generally at #libchat and to the upcoming ALA Midwinter meeting at #alamw15:

Context for tweet. It’s not mean, it’s publicly pointing out bad behavior. http://t.co/4x1eP8IzGN #libchat #alamw15 http://t.co/zaX1tvzPWs
— Nicholas Schiller (@nnschiller) January 6, 2015

What was my "bad behavior"?  Pay attention because this goes to the crux about how some librarians will do absolutely anything to help ALA's "Office for Intellectual Freedom" continue to facilitate child pornography, homophobia, and sexual harassment of women in libraries.  My "bad behavior" was tweeting about my being involved in a SLAPP suit (link), exactly as #TeamHarpy was involved in a SLAPP suit, as a direct result of my reporting on someone else reporting on homophobia by representatives of the Orland Park Public Library (link):

SLAPP suit filed to silence critics of child pornography in a public library via @ECWDogs #libchat #TeamHarpy... http://t.co/arPWhwePXs
— Dan Kleinman (@SafeLibraries) December 1, 2014

And how do we know the #TeamHarpy matter is a SLAPP suit?  Mr. Schiller tells us, "I Am #TeamHarpy; I ally myself with Lisa Rabey and nina de jesus.  Lisa and nina are friends of mine and colleagues who are facing a SLAPP suit to silence their frank and open discussion of another colleague's behavior (link)," hyperlinks omitted.  Similar to TeamHarpy exposing sexual harassment of librarians, I exposed homophobic statements made to protect child pornography facilitation in a library.  For that I was SLAPPed.

So the #FreeSpeech experts who support those who call child pornography "intellectual freedom" (link) say it's "bad behavior," "harassing women," "evil," and "malicious harassment" for me to use a Twitter hashtag.

Who cares about the victims I am trying to help, right?

Some librarians will say and do absolutely anything to perpetuate the facilitation of child pornography in America's libraries and the massive harm caused by so many public libraries being used to consume child pornography and pornography, both against the law in public libraries, both harming sex trafficked victims and the rights and lives stolen away from them (link).

So long as I'm one of the few reporting on these issues, since mainstream library media will not touch it seriously, I'll continue to use "bad behavior" to report on and publicize the matter.

If the "free speech" librarians cannot stand my occasional use of a Twitter hashtag, that's their problem, not mine.  Unbelievable that my using a hashtag is "malicious harassment" but facilitating child porn in public libraries isn't and my saying so must be squelched with broadcast ridicule.  By librarians, of all people.

Helping #women #librarians not be sexually harassed working in #libraries is 'evil'! #TeamHarpy #libchat #alamw15 pic.twitter.com/853junPVvt
— Dan Kleinman (@SafeLibraries) January 6, 2015

URL of this page: safelibraries.blogspot.com/2015/01/sorry.html

On Twitter: @FCC @IgnazioMessina @OIF @ToledoLibrary @ToledoNews

Follow @SafeLibraries

Bridget Bittman Transcript on 89 WLS: OPPL Library Having Child Porn Is a Safe Library

Bridget Bittman is the public relations employee of the Orland Park Public Library [OPPL], Orland Park, IL.  She was interviewed regarding child pornography in that library by Bruce Wolf and Dan Proft on 89 WLS AM.  Below is a transcript of that interview on 6 November 2013, to the best of my ability to discern the fireworks.

Other than noting she calls OPPL a "safe library" affirming my own goal of helping communities achieve safe libraries,  I'll leave out commentary so you can think for yourselves:

TRANSCRIPT OF OPPL'S BRIDGET BITTMAN

89 WLS AM; BRUCE WOLF + DAN PROFT SHOW

6 NOVEMBER 2013
LISTEN ONLINE HERE

Actor Robert Preston: With any librarian such as Marrrrrrrrrrrian. [Singing Marian the Librarian from The Music Man.]

WLS's Bruce Wolf: Marrrrrian. Uh, if you were with us last hour we talked with Megan Fox, uh, who has led this campaign against the Orland Park library for allowing access to pornography at the Orland Park library, and so we wanted to give equal time right now, we’re interested in this controversy, to the Orland Park library, and we are joined right now by Bridget Bittman, who is, uh, spokesperson for the, uh, Orland Park library. Thanks for coming on the show. We appreciate it.

OPPL's Bridget Bittman: Oh, thanks. Good morning Bruce.

Bruce Wolf: So…

Bridget Bittman: Glad to have our, uh, side of the story be heard.

Bruce Wolf: So, okay just to refresh everyone's recollection right here, the complaint is, is that there’s been access, uh, given to, uh, pornography at the Orland Park library, and that, I mean you have like men coming in there and going on, uh, the video screens and, and looking, uh, at pornography while there are children around. Uh, and, and this was brought up at a library board meeting, Megan Fox has made, uh, a video about this, complaining about it, and what is your response to this complaint?

Bridget Bittman: Sure Bruce. You know, the safety of our children at the Orland Park Public Library is really important to us, and we have some very, very key safety measures in place at the library.

Bruce Wolf: And what are those safety measures?

WLS's Dan Proft: Do you have filters on the computers?

Bridget Bittman: Sir, yes we do. As a matter of fact we have filters on our children's computers, at, um, they are on the first floor, and no adults are allowed to use the computers on the first floor.

Dan Proft: What? Wait, wait, okay. So why don't you have filters on the computers that adults have access to?

Bridget Bittman: Well, uh, let, let me explain also that on our teen computers, so that consists of kids who use it from ages, um, probably around 12, 13 to the age of 17, those computers are filtered as well, because we feel that those safety measures for kids are very important, in addition to their parents supervising whatever they look at online. And we also recommend that parents take a look at what their kids are checking out …

Dan Proft: Okay. Can, can you …

Bridget Bittman: … and so they’re okay with what they’re viewing.

Dan Proft: … Can, can you answer my question?

Bridget Bittman: Sure.

Dan Proft: Why don't you have filters on the computers that adults have access to, because the concern is, uh, of course, of adults being predators online.

Bridget Bittman: Okay. Well, the reason is because we believe that adults, ages 18 and over, are, should be responsible and should have the ability to view anything that's not illegal or obscene. And that's why we allow access to adults to make the right choices to view what's responsible and not illegal and obscene.

Bruce Wolf: Okay, here's the thing. You know, would you want your children in the same library? And I understand it's on a different floor, and you’re trying to have, you know, these, whatever, so they can't see what the adults are looking at, but would you want your children in the same building with some guy who’s coming in and looking at porn?

Bridget Bittman: Well, Bruce uf, that's a really good question. I have a 13 year old daughter, she just turned 13 on Monday, and as a parent I know that a library offers safety guards for me, but I'm always going to have an eye on my kids. That doesn't mean that, that adults, whether it's women or men, are coming to the library to access this type of information. I mean that's like saying, you know, and, and what is the definition of, of what Miss Fox calls pornography? Is it a Victoria Secret? Is …

Bruce Wolf: Yeah, I know, I know it's ...

Bridget Bittman: … it a Sports Illustrated magazine? [crosstalk] Let me say it. Let me say it.

Dan Proft: Potter Stewart, you'll know when you see it, right.

Bruce Wolf: But, I mean we can agree on certain things on pornography, that you’re permitting it, that you wouldn't want your daughter to be around anyone, you know, involved with it. I mean why can't you just, you know, cut off access to these kinds of things?

Bridget Bittman: Okay. Well, that's a really good question.

Bruce Wolf: You, you’re not required …

Bridget Bittman: So.

Bruce Wolf: … to show porn …

Bridget Bittman: Yes.

Bruce Wolf: … are you?

Bridget Bittman: Well, that's an excellent question. But we do support the First Amendment right for people to view what they want, adults, ages 18 and up. But let's say Miss Fox came to the library to research a story of another library that supposedly was showing pornography or she wanted to know what kind of pornography was offensive or what have you. Guess what? If she came to our library and we filtered that, she wouldn't be able to research what she really needed to research.

Bruce Wolf: She's willing to pay that price.

Dan Proft: What about the, the reports that she FOIA’d, uh, uh, about, uh, uh, incidence of public masturbation at the library. Were those true or not?

Bridget Bittman: Okay. So we have had 12 years, she FOIA'd requests. In the past 12 years we have 7 incidents. Okay, so 12 years span, 7 incidents where we have had inappropriate behavior at the library, okay? The police have looked at these. Of those 7 incidents, only one, only one, was not handled in the way that we should have, and the library appreciates that and has changed the way that we respond to that. Now. Over 12 years, these were some of the … these were some of the things. We had mentally challenged teenager in the bathroom that said the joke, "Oh, they should have a sign, library penises should hang out here." Then, this is what he did, …

Bruce Wolf: Well, uh, uh, okay …

Bridget Bittman: … he went to the, wait, he went to the urinal and he pulled his pants down …

Bruce/Dan: All right, all right, we don't need to hear this story [crosstalk]. We don’t need to hear the details of that story. We’re not talking about isolated incidents. We‘re talking about access to porn. The bottom line is she FOIA’d a report …

Bridget Bittman: Wait, no, no, no, no. This is what she FOIA’d. And this is what she called a sex crime. A young disabled man …

Dan Proft: That's not what she, that’s not what she’s [crosstalk] …

Bridget Bittman: … that’s pulling his pants down …

Dan Proft: Let’s, let’s, let’s, let’s, let’s tamp down the demagoguery. That is not what she is saying is a sex crime. That is specifically not what she is saying is a sex crime …

Bridget Bittman: That is exactly what she’s saying is a sex crime.

Dan Proft: She is, she is … what are the other 6 incidents then? Is, are any of the incidents that, in the seven, …

Bridget Bittman: There was one incident, there was ...

Dan Proft: … that you described consistent with what she described?

Bridget Bittman: There was one incident of child pornography that was reported to us …

Dan Proft: … oh …

Bridget Bittman: … an hour after the person had reported it to us …

Dan Proft: Oh, huh, child porn.

Bridget Bittman: … child porn …

Bruce Wolf: Oh okay, child porn, there you go …

Dan Proft: Bridget, Bridget …

Bridget Bittman: Okay, so that’s, let me give you an idea, that’s one incident in 12 years, there’s no reasonable illegal item that happened.

Bruce/Dan: No, I understand, I understand. One incident, when it was caught.

Bruce Wolf: Here Bridget, I mean, you know, we appreciate you coming on, and thank you so much for doing that. But I mean, why can't we use our common sense here? Why can't you use your discretion and say, "We're not going to show, uh, you know Hustler or whatever, and we're not going to have this because, you know, our kids are around here. Why don't you just do that?

Bridget Bittman: So you want us to start making choices for what adults get to view.

Bruce Wolf: Yeah I do.

Bridget Bittman: Okay.

Bruce Wolf: I want to use your discretion as an adult, like you do it for your daughter. Use your daughter as the standard. That’s what …

Bridget Bittman: Wait, no.

Bruce Wolf: … I want you to do, Bridget.

Bridget Bittman: Okay, you want, you want the government and you want librarians to start [crosstalk] …

Bruce Wolf: Yeah I want my local library to do that at Orland Park. I don't want the national government to do it, I want Orland Park to do it, and I want to move in to your neighborhood, right now. I like you.

Bridget Bittman: You're welcome. We have a great library, and we have a safe library, and we don't have [crosstalk] …

Bruce Wolf: GET RID OF THE PORN AND I'LL MOVE IN THERE! Thanks Bridget, we appreciate it.

Dan Proft: So we want one that reflects community standards, that's all.

Bruce Wolf: Thank you Bridget Bittman, library spokesperson.

Announcer: This episode contained brief nudity. Viewer discretion is advised. 89 WLS.

URL of this page: safelibraries.blogspot.com/2015/01/wls.html

On Twitter: @BruceAndDan @IntolerantFox @OrlandPkLibrary @WLSAM890

Follow @SafeLibraries

Commonwealth v Crayton: Librarians Report Child Porn and Preserve Computer Evidence for Police

Commonwealth v. Crayton provides a good example of a librarian reporting child pornography to the police and the library providing police with specially preserved electronic evidence of child porn viewing.  I have to say this because the American Library Association [ALA] works hard to convince librarians to ignore child porn and to delete evidence before police can access it, as I noted in my previous post, among others.

So below are relevant parts from the case I would like people to see showing this library and librarians doing the right thing by reporting the crime and preserving evidence, then providing police with that evidence, as opposed to librarians who adhere to ALA diktat.  Admirably, these Massachusetts librarians go so far as to preserve the evidence before it gets automatically deleted each night.  Really outstanding but really against what ALA advises.  These outstanding librarians who help protect their communities will never win ALA awards; such awards go to librarians who help facilitate child porn such as at the Orland Park Public Library in Illinois, as I proved in my previous post.

We are talking about school children seeing child pornography in a public library.

Also, since ALA policy as applied locally is often directly related to the facilitation of child pornography in public libraries, ALA media such as American Libraries magazine rarely discusses such matters or does so superficially.  I doubt it will report on Commonwealth v. Crayton, except to the extent I have made this prediction, so it might want to prove me wrong.

By the way, this case again illustrates that "Acceptable Use Policies" do not work.  ALA says acceptable use policies work and Internet filters do not.  In reality, it is the exact opposite.  The Cambridge Public Library policy is "Using library computers for illegal activity is strictly prohibited and will result in the loss of library privileges and possible criminal prosecution."  Clearly that had no effect.  On the other hand, the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] has just revealed library Internet filters work exceedingly well.  Such filters would have prevented the school children from seeing the child porn ALA facilitates.  I urge Cambridge Public Library to follow FCC advice and consider using Internet filtering software and tossing aside previous misconceptions ALA keeps promoting.

Here is the Commonwealth v. Crayton case, followed by an excerpt describing the factual background I would like people to read as an example of libraries working effectively to record and report child pornography viewing—too bad they did not use Internet filters to prevent such viewing in the first place but it is never too late to update policies:

Commonwealth v. Crayton, 

470 Mass. 228, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 

17 December 2014, 

pp. 230-233, underline emphasis in original, bold emphasis mine, footnotes omitted:

https://web.archive.org/web/20141228072055/http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/sjc/reporter-of-decisions/new-opinions/11639.pdf

Background.  We summarize the evidence at trial, reserving discussion of the evidence that pertains to the issues on appeal.  On January 21, 2009, between approximately 3:30 p.m. and 4 p.m., an eighth grade student, M.S., was doing homework at a computer in the basement technology center of the Central Square branch of the Cambridge Public Library. [FN 4]  A man she described as short, white, and bald, with a “little beard” and eyeglasses was sitting at an adjacent computer to the right of her. [FN 5]  She went to the library “[m]ostly every day,” but had never seen the man before.  When she looked at his computer screen, she saw an image of “a girl about ten years old, covering her chest.”  She could not tell whether the girl was wearing any clothes, because she saw only a “top view” and the man was “cover[ing] the computer screen” with the “umbrella-type” cover that was on it. [FN 6]  She “waved” at her friend, R.M., a ninth grade student, who was also in the technology center of the library, and urged him to look at the man's computer. R.M. testified that he “just got a quick glimpse of the computer,” and could only see “a small portion” of the screen, which displayed a young child wearing no clothes.  He saw only the side of the man's face; he described the man as bald with a goatee.  He went to the library every day after school, but had not seen the man before.  During trial, both M.S. and R.M.  identified the defendant as the man that they had seen at the computer on January 21.

M.S. and R.M. walked over to Ricardo Negron, a library employee who was working at the staff desk in the technology center that afternoon, and they told him that a person was looking at children wearing no clothes on the computer. [FN 7]  Before M.S. and R.M. approached him, Negron had observed M.S. at computer no. one and a white male, “perhaps” in his “early thirties,” bald, with eyeglasses, whom he had seen before at the technology center, at computer no. two. [FN 8]  The police later showed Negron an array of photographs, but he was unable to identify anyone from the array. [FN 9] [FN 10]

Library users were required to log on to a computer by entering their library bar code, so when the two teenagers alerted Negron to what they had seen, Negron looked up the log-in information for computer no. two.  While he was doing so, the man using computer no. two logged off and left the room.  The log inquiry revealed that a person using the library card of an eighteen year old male, “perhaps of Asian descent,” had logged on to computer no. two at 3:08 p.m. and logged off at 3:55 p.m. [FN11]  At some time after 3:55 p.m., Negron went upstairs to speak to the library manager, Esme Green.  Green went downstairs to the technology center, looked at two “video clips” saved on computer no. two, saw that they depicted an approximately twelve year old girl, “either naked or almost naked, masturbating,” and telephoned the police.

When Negron went upstairs, another library employee, Ricardo Ricard, went downstairs to staff the technology center.  Having learned of the allegation, Ricard logged on to computer no. two, saw a folder on the computer with the label “W,” and looked at a video file inside the folder, which showed a nude female child.  Because he was concerned that the library computers deleted all files when they were shut down for the night, Ricard transferred the folder containing the file to a universal serial bus (USB) drive, which he later gave to Green.  He then disabled the computer's “reboot” software so that the computer would retain the files that were then on it.

Ricard had not seen the man who used computer no. two on January 21, but he was aware of the man's physical description.  On January 22, when he saw a man who matched that description in the library lobby, he told Green of the man's presence, and Green notified the police.

Detectives Brian O'Connor and Pam Clair of the Cambridge police department arrived at the library and saw the defendant at a computer with another individual.  The detectives observed the defendant for approximately twenty to thirty minutes at a computer that displayed a “MySpace” profile page, “looking at MySpace.”  As the defendant was leaving the library, Detective O'Connor asked to speak with him, and the defendant agreed.  The defendant admitted that he had been in the library's computer room the previous day.  He said he had used one of the computers for five minutes and then switched to another computer, which he identified as computer no. two, to check his electronic mail (e-mail).  The defendant said that his e-mail address was cblizzard@yahoo.com.  He also said that he did not have his own MySpace profile, but used his friend's profile.

After this conversation, Detective O'Connor obtained the USB drive that Ricard had given to Green, seized computer no. two, and copied the folder labeled “W” onto a compact disc.  After obtaining a search warrant, Detective O'Connor conducted a forensic search of the hard drive of computer no. two.  That search revealed twenty-seven “cookies,” which O'Connor described as “text file[s]” that store information on an Internet browser regarding a Web site that a particular user has visited on the Internet. [FN 12]  The first of these cookies, entitled “magic-Lolita(1).txt,” was created at 3:14 p.m. on January 21; the last, entitled “www.innocentgirls(1).txt,” was created at 3:48 p.m. that day.  Detective O'Connor also uncovered “Yahoo searches” on computer no. two that had been conducted between 3:14 and 3:25 p.m. on January 21 using such search terms as “One hundred percent Lolita” and “Top Lolita.”  Detective O'Connor also located temporary Internet files on the computer's hard drive in which images were automatically downloaded by the Internet browser from a Web site that the user visited.  In those temporary files, he found approximately 210 photographs where children were engaged in sexual acts, of which seven were printed out and admitted as exhibits at trial.  These seven images were created on the computer between 3:27 and 3:50 p.m. on January 21.  The detective also located six video files on the hard drive of the computer, of which two video files were located in a temporary Internet file folder and four video files were located in a folder entitled “W.”  The four video files in the “W” folder, which were played for the jury, were created on the computer between 3:43 and 3:54 p.m. that day. Detective O'Connor also located a MySpace page in the temporary Internet files reflecting a log-in date and time of January 21 at 3:13 p.m.  The MySpace page identifies the user as “Walter”; the e-mail address associated with the MySpace page was C-Blizzard69@MySpace.com.


NOTE ADDED 23 MAY 2016:

Updated the judicial opinion link to an archived version.

URL of this page: safelibraries.blogspot.com/2014/12/commonwealth-v-crayton.html

On Twitter: @ALAlibrary @AmLibraries @CambridgePL @CambridgePolice @OIF

Follow @SafeLibraries