Ads by Yahoo!

" Finding a child who may be in danger is MUCH more important than hiding a list of names of people who were using the library computers.

Priorities, people!

Bush or no Bush - this is common sense! "

" Big Brother. The answer is no. The search warrant would clearly state what type of information the police may investigate. In this case, it would be only information related to the girl's activities. By the way...if the police did discover other illegal activity not related to the warrant and tried to act upon it, the library is fully liable to any civil lawsuit brought against it by the perpetrator. The huge law that just made it through Congress that give the major phone companies a pass because they allowed the DOJ access to customer records without due legal process is the same thing. Prior to this law change, the phone companies were liable for millions of dollars of potential civil penalities. "

" To Floyd...please quote Vermont state law (search and seizure statutes will be fine) for us since you portray yourself to be an expert. BTW are you advocating the suspension of the constitution? Leave it to a radical conservative to come up with an idea so simplistic as to be ludicrous. "

" If the police had taken the computers anyway and discovered a pediphile from the information would it have been admissable in court? Anyone using a public access computer could not expect blanket security. The fact that the computer is for public use implies that residual information is not protected from other persons. Any person using the computer should automatically understand that the computer may be recording every key stroke in an access log. With this premise the user would not and could not expect this information to be secret to all others. The only reason to have a security protocal that records all user input is to track that information. Common sense tells me that it does not fall under the privacy act!! "

" There are federal and state laws that require law enforcement to first obtain court ordered warrants. This is basic Police 101 and every cop knows it. In this case, the police were lazy trying to work around the system. In fact, they were violating the law--not protecting it. "

" It's Vermont, You know, the state that doesn't protect children but lets predator child molesters get off easy. Isn't this one of the states that voted against Jessica's law? Congratulation to the librarian who stood up to those mean old police who were doing nothing more than to try to find and save a little girls life(sarcasm). ACLU and the liberals would be proud of you! Wait until the karma comes back. "

" Wouldn't have been an issue here. Our Director of the Library would have instantly caved in to the illegal search based on her position on censorship. "

" The CHILD was 12 years of age HER parents could have given the consent on her behalf b/c she was a MINOR. The librarian should have considered that option rather than making them wait precious hours to obtain a search warrant. I wonder how Ms. Flint sleeps at night knowing the delay she caused may have killed a child. The family is in my prayers. "

" I understand the right to privacy - as a former journalist and now as a freelance writer, I would never betray the confidence of an information. BUT, for the record, if any of my young daughters go missing, I give my full consent for law enforcement personnel to search anything, anywhere at any time without waiting hours for a warrant. I would want my daughters back alive...not like Brooke. "

" Why didn't they just go in with a warrent to start with? I do agree there is "spying" of US citizens going on but it didn't start with Bush and it won't end with Bush. As far as those big tall scary men, get over it. What did you want them to do? That is their job, as far as I am concerned she did her job too and very well. She stood up to them so maybe she wasn't scared of the big bad men. "