No warrant required.
To assist with an investigation of a suspected mass-murderer (my term, since five people died) in an anthrax attack, "Library officials turned over the computers voluntarily to the F.B.I. last week." A warrant was eventually approved to conduct a search of the computers, but the computers were surrendered first. (NYT, August 7, 2008)
I don't know how you feel about what level of privacy library patrons should be guaranteed while using library computers, but there was HUGE discussion at LISNews recently about whether there is ever a greater good when assisting law enforcement with a criminal investigation, or if libraries should not only question authority but occasionally even be openly hostile toward it.
Some of the comments supported a patron's privacy at all costs regardless of any alleged criminal activity, and some believed that there are some "life and death" situations where patron privacy no longer matters, or matters much less.
I would fight to guard the privacy of patron borrowing records, but I don't give a crap about what they do on our public computers. My belief is that if I don't control the data, how can I promise to safeguard it?
But after reading some of the arguments, I was beginning to question my stand on this issue; some were pretty persuasive. But I didn't change my opinion. I mean, our borrower database is used by staff, exclusively, therefore we are able to make that promise that patron data will remain under our control. But public computers are out in hostile territory; unprotected, unwanted, and unloved.
Sometimes I feel that the library is like Rick's Café Américain in Casablanca: sometimes when you beg Rick to protect you and hide you from your enemies, he agrees, but sometimes he turns his back and leaves you to the Nazis.
Yes, sometimes I'm Rick. More often I'm Captain Louis. And on Friday nights, I'm Ilsa. Like you didn't see that coming.
