At Librarian.net there is an entry titled “a difficult time, a difficult task”
It opens with: I work occasionally as a fill-in librarian at a local public library that serves a community of about 5,000 people. This is the community I am moving to next month, up the road from where I live now, and while technically it puts me out of the “rural” designation, it’s still pretty rural. Last week and the week before there was a horrible tragedy that rocked the whole community. Short form: a local girl Brooke Bennett, went missing and her body was discovered a few days ago. The most likely suspect at this point is an uncle who is on the state sex offender list.
First off let me say that I’m quoting from news stories only. Our official staff position is “no comment” and I’m sticking to that. Here is why this is a library issue.
Not a library issue at all
If you leave a browsing history on a public computer it is not a private patron record. The police don’t need a warrant to look at a public computer, they can just use their library card and have a seat – or however your library checks out computers.
Any librarian who would not embargo public computers to protect data that may lead to the recovery of a kidnapped child is a scumbag, just slightly above the criminal. Certainly a Court order should be obtained to remove the computers for forensic examination, but to not embargo them from public use is simply disgusting. While the article is not clear on that point, it does say they did not grant the police access until an order was obtained. Why would the police be any different from the public if they want a computer let them use one.
The librarian thinks she was doing the noble thing by not allowing the police access to public computers. They did not ask for confidential patron records, they asked for access to the public computers. Librarians hold some convoluted idea of patron privacy above finding a little girl who had been abducted and was in danger.
The fact that the computers were not directly related to the recovery of the child is not important. Nothing is more important than a child’s life.
There is no one I hate more than child molesters. Stupid librarians who think anything on a public computer is private run a close second.
All I can say…
Mdoneil
This is all I can say about your comment.
Amazing
Try to have a rational discussion and people post links to funny noises.
Why anonymous posting is allowed is beyond me.
Rational discussion?
By “rational discussion” I assume you mean the foaming at the mouth comments that you made? Not only were you ranting it was clear that you had not even read the story very closely.
Not read the story, you are mistaken
Your generalization is incorrect. I did read the story, and several other articles about the case. If you wish to point out any inaccuracies I will be delighted to listen.
The library refused access to publc computers to police. They delayed the investigation into the disappearance of a child. The police did not wish to access confidential patron records.
If you find information that differs from this please present it.
Any librarian who would not
Any librarian who would not embargo public computers to protect data that may lead to the recovery of a kidnapped child is a scumbag, just slightly above the criminal.
And, in many states, following state law. Vermont is ticklish about what requires a warrant and what doesn’t. But it doesn’t look like they exactly have a “come on in officer” attitude. And it is Vermont. They put the stubborn and cantankerous in our national psyche.
Certainly a Court order should be obtained to remove the computers for forensic examination, but to not embargo them from public use is simply disgusting.
Yeah, I’m with you on that one.
They are public computers
Public is the operative word here. There can be no expectation of privacy at public computers. I can stand over your shoulder and watch what you do at the public computers. I can sit down at it after you leave and examine any browsing history you may have left behind.
They are public computers, not patron records, not rental computers, not patron’s laptops, they are public computers funded by taxpayers, using an internet connection funded by tax dollars. Nothing you do on them can be expected to have the same privacy as what you do on your home computer or your internet connection.
I don’t care how cantankerous or obstinate they like to be, this was to save the life of a young girl who police felt had been kidnapped, raped and perhaps murdered.
People who use misguided principles to obstruct the investigation of a violent crime against a child are beneath contempt.
police powers
If it was that urgent they police could have taken and looked at whatever they liked claimed exigent circumstances.
People who exploit a tragedy they had nothing to do with for a booster seat onto a high horse are beneath contempt.
No exigent circumstances would not apply.
There are no exigent circumstances that would justify a forensic examination of computers. Embargoing the computers – certainly, but to suggest that exigent circumstances would allow the police to access the computers any more than any member of the public is simply incorrect.
We have discussed exigent circumstances in depth previously on LISNews in the Newton Free Library debacle (although a search of this site did not yield that thread). In that case there was a threat made from a library computer to a school. In the case instant the life of a young girl was at stake.
If you find the rape and murder of a young girl a ‘high horse’ I have great sympathy for you. I abhore child abusers and frankly patron privacy takes a back seat to the life of a child. If this were a debate about giving out the name of the person who checked out a book found where the young girl was last seen I would break any privacy law to provide that name to the police.