Irreconcilable Differences

The Boston Globe editorial page today contains a really puzzling editorial.  In a story you may have heard about, a Newton, MA librarian made the FBI wait 9 hours to produce a warrant before allowing the Feds to seize a computer from which a terrorist threat had been sent.  Today's Globe implores the librarians and the Feds to work together to solve this dilemma in serious situations like this one, but still wrings its hands over loss of library liberty if the Patriot Act were passed.

Here's the setup:

FBI agents arrived at the library Jan. 18 to investigate the e-mail threat, made against Brandeis University, which had been traced to a library computer. Newton library director Kathy Glick Weil directed her staff to help the FBI pinpoint the three computers (out of some 25 in the library) where the threat might have originated. But she sent the FBI back for a warrant before she would relinquish the computers for further investigation. In the meantime, the threat was found to be a false alarm.

The Globe's analysis of the situation:

Once the threat had been made, a crime was committed, and federal investigators should have been given speedy access to the library computers. This was not a fishing expedition by a snooping government, but a response to a specific danger. The fact that the threat turned out to be a hoax is fortunate, but the threat itself is a crime.

"A fishing expedition by a snooping government?"  Give an example.  (Hint: they can't.)  All in all, though, their concern for the threat is commendable.  But the Globe also includes their now-irreconcilable opposition to the library provisions of the Patriot Act, and continues to call for those to be stripped out.

Librarians around the nation are justifiably opposed to provisions of the USA Patriot Act, passed by Congress just after the Sept. 11 attacks, that expanded the search powers of federal law enforcement. They worry that libraries will be forced to reveal what their patrons are reading or accessing on the Internet, inhibiting citizens' free access to library resources.

[...]

The Patriot Act is up for renewal next month, and Congress would be wise to limit the search powers to protect library records. But American libraries offer patrons thousands of personal computers for searching the Web and sending e-mails. Another Newton scenario is a strong possibility.

Why is this wrong?  Because the Globe is calling for librarians to be the responsible parties for assessing what does or does not constitute a threat to the public.  Last time I checked law enforcement was not a part of library training.  In the Globe's world, the librarian needs to protect the viewing and reading habits of library users - public users - by being the final arbiter of when the Feds are justified in looking.  They call for the librarians to immediately allow access when a definite threat exists; the Globe also calls for librarians to stand firm in protecting their patrons privacy.  Question: How are librarians to know when the Feds come calling whether or not a threat exists without the Feds disclosing classified information?  Are the librarians to be the arbiters of whether a true threat exists or whether this is simply "snooping?"

The Globe needs to make a decision.  Are they going to leave law enforcement to the professionals, and support the provisions of the Patriot Act - provisions that in five years have never been used, and regarding which librarians would be in a position to protest and demand review if they were being used inappropriately?  Or are they going to have librarians stand above the FBI and others as a "privacy court" that must be satisfied before an investigation can proceed?

I have a solution.  The next Globe editorial: "Should all librarians be FBI agents?"

Linked to Wizbang's COTT XLVIII.