Showing posts with label BrooklynPublicLibrary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BrooklynPublicLibrary. Show all posts

Sunday, September 4, 2022

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:
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:
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:
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):
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.'"  
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:
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.'"

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

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Ahmed Khalifa: Library Employee of the Year

Hero Ahmed Khalifa - Source
Ahmed Khalifa is the library employee of the year, in my opinion.  This New York City high schooler has a story that reads like a Clark Kent superhero story.  "Khalifa said he was riding the Q home after working a shift at the public library near Grand Army Plaza."

Read the rest here:
His is obviously a safe library!

URL of this page: 
safelibraries.blogspot.com/2016/12/ahmed-khalifa-library-employee-of-year.html

On Twitter: 
@BKLYNlibrary @FlatbushShomrim

Saturday, January 5, 2013

Debate Challenge to Gothamist Ben Yakas About His False Claim of Right to Porn in Public Libraries

I challenge Gothamist Ben Yakas to debate his false claim of the "constitutional right" to "enjoy" pornography in public libraries.  His highly visible story contains misinformation that is 100% opposite of the law, and it starts with the title:


No, Ben Yakas, the truth is 100% the opposite, and from a far more reliable source:  "public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights...."  United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003).  That your library leaders are misleading you and your readers and your politicians is no excuse.

At a minimum, Ben Yakas should edit the story to remove the flat out false material from the title and the text, or add that such is merely a viewpoint of the libraries, but is not the law and has not been for a decade.

He even links to an article from five years ago discussing "library watchdog Dan Kleinman."  So as Ben Yakas linked to a story discussing me, I have every right to expect him to accept my challenge, debate fairly, then publicize the debate fairly.

Ben Yakas, do you accept my challenge to publicize a debate between you and me on your false claim of a constitutional right to porn in public libraries?  You are going to lose.  As a courtesy, here's why:


It is really sad to see media flat out propagandizing the dogma.  It fools the public and mollifies the politicians who fear to tread on nonexistent First Amendment rights.  The public cries out for redress but the false lies told over and over again for a decade now serves only to keep the population subject to Brooklyn Public Library/American Library Association/ACLU diktat.  Meanwhile, fist fights break out, kids get exposed to porn as even I saw myself when I visited the library, people avoid going to the library and start petitions, library employees are harassed by porn viewers and are afraid to speak up, the porn industry grows that much stronger and harms more "actors," etc., etc.

Now adding to all my other Brooklyn Public Library stories, here is someone viewing porn right out in the open, and at least one child can be seen in the video as well.  It is NSFW.  It grabbed my attention, thanks to Ben Yakas at Gothamist:

[Note: video removed as it is no longer available.  Being replaced with this graphic from the Gothamist story linked.]



Ironically, the Brooklyn Public Library's Twitter account @BKLYNlibrary blocks my @SafeLibraries account.  I suppose hearing that the library is defrauding the federal government of millions and falsely promoting porn while exposing children to harm is worse than actually doing those things.


NOTE ADDED 14 JUN 2015:

Minor edit, remove dead link and replace with graphic, update Twitter account.  FYI, to this day, years later, @BKLYNlibrary still blocks me.



Saturday, May 28, 2011

Libraries Allowing Porn Are Wrong; Donna Rice Hughes of Enough Is Enough Explains Why

Donna Rice Hughes
Donna Rices Hughes of Enough Is Enough has been deeply involved with the Internet safety issues vis-à-vis children for a very long time.   She has worked with the Department of Justice on such issues, appeared on national television on shows such as 20/20 and Oprah, been appointed by Senator Trent Lott to serve on the Child Online Protection Act Commission, co-wrote a season finale for Touched By An Angel that brought Internet dangers to the public's attention in a big way, and has many other significant achievements.  Lately, she has produced Internet Safety 101: Empowering Parents Program.

What Donna Rice Hughes has to say about the libraries allowing unfettered pornography, such as in the Brooklyn Public Library, is highly instructive.  New York City public libraries have been successful in propagandizing the public that anything goes in public libraries.

The truth is the opposite—libraries have successfully removed legal porn and exposed American Library Association dogma.  Let's hear what Donna Rice Hughes has to say that sets the library propaganda about the law straight:


"FIRST PERSON (Donna Rice Hughes):  Porn—In Your Public Library?," by Donna Rice Hughes, Baptist Press, 27 May 2011.

RESTON, VA -- An April fistfight between an impatient person and a porn-viewing patron at the Brooklyn Public Library has reignited an old debate regarding whether adults should have free and easy access to hardcore pornography or illegal adult pornography, known under the law as obscenity, at their local public library.  A spokesperson for the library has explained that the library is complying with patrons' First Amendment rights, and thus provides Internet access to pornography to adult patrons.


While libraries do not stock obscene hard core videos, patrons at the New York Public Library have easy access to this hardcore content through taxpayer-funded Internet access.  Why?  Because this particular library doesn't understand the laws pertaining to this issue.

The library spokesperson stated:  "We comply with CIPA [Children's Internet Protection Act] and our policy forbids users to access materials that are legally defined as obscene, as child pornography, or, in the case of persons under 17, as harmful to minors.  The library is committed to creating a positive experience for everyone, and we expect those who use the library to do so with respect to our policies and to others."

As indicated by her statement, the Brooklyn library spokesperson has apparently confused both the definition of CIPA and the legal definitions of obscenity and child pornography covered by CIPA.  Hence, the library's feeble attempt to comply with CIPA has left adult and child library patrons unprotected.

At this point, three lessons are in order, which will hopefully benefit this particular library and others operating under the same misguided misunderstanding of these laws.

— First, a history lesson:  This is déjà vu for Enough Is Enough (EIE).  In the mid-1990s, EIE realized that schools and libraries were not protecting students and library patrons from the deluge of obscenity and child pornography available online.  As an early pioneer of Internet safety efforts since 1994, EIE sprang into action.  I personally prepared a briefing book, containing news stories and pictures of the types of pornography available in both schools and libraries, for Sen. John McCain, then head of the Senate Commerce Committee, and other senators and asked:  Should taxpayers pay for our schools and libraries to be pornography outlets?  Congress didn't think so.  CIPA passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in both the House and Senate and was signed into law by President Clinton.  The American Library Association (ALA), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other groups immediately launched a legal challenge, questioning the constitutionality of CIPA.  Fortunately for the sake of children and families, with the leadership of EIE and other groups, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of CIPA.  As a result, schools and libraries that implement CIPA as intended by Congress are better able to ensure the Internet is safely accessed.

— Second, a CIPA law lesson:  CIPA requires schools and libraries using federal "e-rate" subsidies to dedicate some of those funds to install software that filters out pornography.  Specifically, child pornography, obscenity and softcore content, legally defined as "harmful to minors," must be filtered for those ages 17 or under.  For adult library users, both child pornography and online obscenity should be filtered, since neither of these is constitutionally protected under current federal statutes.  There exists a common misconception that the only type of illegal pornography for adults is child pornography.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  In layman's terms, the First Amendment does not protect obscenity for adults period, whether in the library or anywhere else.  Although CIPA was written to be idiot proof, common misunderstandings emerge from confusion over the legal definitions of pornography, specifically obscenity.

— Hence, the third and final lesson:  Pornography Law 101:  There are three types of pornography legally defined by the Supreme Court, and CIPA refers to all three:

1.  Child pornography -- Child pornography is material that visually depicts children under the age of 18 engaged in actual or simulated sexual activity, including lewd exhibition of the genitals.

2.  Obscenity -- Obscenity is graphic material that focuses on sex and/or sexual violence.  It includes close-ups of graphic sex acts, lewd exhibition of the genitals and deviant activities such as group sex, bestiality, incest and excretory functions.  For clarification, obscenity is not to be confused with softcore pornography, known under the law as harmful to minors/indecent content.

3.  Harmful to Minors (HTM) material -- Harmful to minors material represents nudity or sex that has prurient appeal for minors, is offensive and unsuitable for minors, and lacks serious value for minors.  There are "harmful to minors" laws in every state.

For libraries attempting to correctly implement CIPA, they must not confuse the laws above, which distinctly refer to different types of content.  Obscenity is not protected under the First Amendment for children or adults; however, it is available in abundance, both online and offline.

People often ask:  If it's illegal, why is it everywhere?  Simply put, obscenity laws have not been aggressively enforced, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld federal obscenity laws.

Additionally, individuals should not equate the widespread availability of illegal adult material with community acceptance of hardcore content.  In October, 2009, a national poll by Harris Interactive found that 76 percent of individuals surveyed "totally disagreed" that viewing hardcore adult pornography on the Internet was morally acceptable.  Likewise, 74 percent "totally disagreed" that viewing hardcore adult pornography on the Internet was generally harmless entertainment.

The New York Public Library seems to have been shaped by the misguided (and radical) position of the ACLU, which we successfully battled in the mid-1990s and early 2000s.  While they may be claiming to uphold CIPA in principle, they are failing to uphold CIPA in practice.  Several patrons have testified that they regularly witness individuals viewing hardcore content.  While computer terminals include privacy extensions, many individuals are not using these screens, and even when individuals do use the screens, patrons have complained they can still hear the audio from the hardcore content.  It is clear that the New York Public Library is not in full compliance with CIPA and, as a result, is not fulfilling its responsibility to protect children and adult library patrons.

As the overwhelming majority of Americans understand, the problem with pornography, as with many things, is that it affects more than those who just look at it.  For some individuals, pornography is progressively addictive in nature.  Research shows that pornography affects attitudes, values and behaviors, and pornography has been linked to sex crimes against women and children, innocent victims who did not view pornography.  A number of federal legal precedents have also found that pornography was used as a tool in sexual harassment, and the New York Library should do more to implement responsible policies to protect themselves and taxpayers from legal liability.

.

Friday, April 22, 2011

Porn Fist Fight in Library; The Brooklyn Public Library May Be At Fault, Perhaps the ALA As Well

Porn—summarizes the Brooklyn
Public Library perfectly, no?
There was a fist fight over porn on the Internet computers in the Brooklyn Public Library [BPL]. Two guys were charged.

The real culprits?  The library itself that allows the porn while violating the law in exchange for millions of dollars fraudulently obtained, and the American Library Association [ALA] that advises libraries including the BPL how to sidestep the law.

It is more than likely the incident would not have occurred if the library actually complied with the law it claimed to follow on paper but not in practice.  And the library knew this was a problem, only making its culpability worse, and right from the start as well.  My guess is this fraud and the attention brought to it is why former BPL Director Dionne Mack-Harvin quit for greener pastures in El Paso, TX.

So one guy punching out another over porn in a library?  This library may be at least partially at fault, and perhaps even the ALA.

I will happily assist legal counsel for both fight participants—a library with millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains sounds like deep pockets to me.

Now here is the news and the ridicule—it seems everyone but the library realizes the library is wrong:
  • "Porn Punch-Up in B'klyn Library," by Jamie Schram, New York Post, 20 April 2011.
    A man traded blows with a porn-loving patron at the Brooklyn Public Library and was slapped with assault charges -- while the sex addict got off easy, police sources said.
  • "Library Porn Lover Punched Out By Vigilante," by Sam Biddle, Gizmodo, 21 April 2011. (Note: photo credit goes to this Gizmodo story—it summarizes the Brooklyn Public Library perfectly.)
    Man, sometimes all you want is to just settle in at the library, fire up some internet porn, and have yourself a time.
  • "Brooklyn Public Library No Place To Watch Porn...But Great For Fist Fights!," by Ben Yakas, Gothamist, 20 April 2011. (Cites to a story that called me a "library watchdog.")
    All of the city's libraries, including the Brooklyn Public Library (BPL), have a rich and storied history of creepy dudes checking out porn on their computers.... Obviously, we've been doing something very wrong by masturbating in the comfort, safety and relative anonymity of our own homes.
  • "Brooklyn Library Patrons Exchange Blows Over Porn, Library Computer Use," by Jen Doll, The Village Voice, 20 April 2011.
    It is apparently 'okay'... to watch porn in the Brooklyn Public Library, on the Brooklyn Library computer. What is not okay is becoming impatient while waiting to use the library computer, probably because you have to update your resume or something actually kind of important, while it is being used by someone who is leisurely just watching porn. What is not okay is then 'becoming irate,' and exchanging 'blows' (the fist kind) with that person.
Please comment below on what you think about my opinions and the sources I have linked.

.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

In Defense of Dionne Mack-Harvin; The Brooklyn Public Library Director's Resignation May Be for Laudable Reasons

Dionne Mack-Harvin is resigning as the director of the Brooklyn Public Library.  The media is all aflutter with speculation that she is resigning due to a gaffe that occurred last August.  But there may be another reason, and a laudable one at that.   She may not want to be a part of what may be a continuing conspiracy to commit fraud.

Media Reports Claim Old Flap as Reason for Resignation

These media reports claim the reason for the director's resignation is related to a matter from August 2009:


As I read those stories, I see no direct evidence that the August 2009 kerfuffle is the reason for the resignation.  Indeed, "Mack-Harvin insists that her resignation was a personal decision that had nothing to do with the downsizing scandal...."

Might there be something more recent that caused the director to jump?


Recent Criticism of the BPL and a Call for Production of Exculpatory Documents

Recently, I have disclosed what may be fraud perpetrated by the Brooklyn Public Library.  I called on the director to speak with me publicly and to produce copies of certifications filed with the federal government that would prove or disprove possible fraud. Please see:


Letter from the Brooklyn Borough President

In response to these blog posts and emails based thereon, I have received from the Brooklyn Borough President the following response:

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 5:55 PM, [name, email elided]@brooklynbp.nyc.gov wrote:

To Mr. Kleinman:

The Borough President’s Office has received your issue concerning viewing pornography in Brooklyn Public Library.  In response to your concerns we have contacted the BPL and they have stated that they filter their computers, providing adults the choice to conduct their computer session filtered or unfiltered and children’s computers are automatically filtered.  Further, privacy screens are available for all customers and though the libraries are public spaces library staff is trained to manage customer services issues as they occur.  The BPL states that they ensure that children’s areas are separate from adult areas, and if a customer is viewing controversial material, that the customer use a privacy screen or move to a more secluded location.  Also, the BPL states that an independent audit, conducted two years ago by the international accounting firm KPMG on behalf of the Universal Services Access Corporation (USAC), the organization responsible for dispersing and overseeing E-Rate funds, found that BPL was in compliance with federal E-Rate requirements.

If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at the number provided below.

Sincerely,
[name elided]

[name elided]
Community Liaison
Brooklyn Borough President
Marty Markowitz
209 Joralemon Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone Number: [elided]
Fax Number:     [elided]

The Brooklyn Borough President has reacted to the resignation by lauding the director most graciously.  See:  "Brooklyn Public Library Chief Resigns," by Rich Calder, New York Post, 4 March 2010.

Conspiracy to Commit Fraud

What the above message from the Brooklyn Borough President tells me is that the library misled the President and KPMG, and there may be a conspiracy to commit fraud.  How else does one explain how the library survived the 2007 KMPG audit?  Had the library disclosed that it allows patrons to unfilter the computers for themselves?  There certainly would have been consequences vis-a-vis the E-rate funding received in the past and in the future.  Remember, as I disclosed on my other blog posts, what the library says in writing complies with the law, but differs from what the library allows in practice.


Evidence of Fraud Begins in 2004

Potential evidence of the perpetration of the fraud first appeared in 2004.  That was the first time it was publicly noted that the library may be skirting the relevant law:


By the way, the very means the library uses to defraud the government is the American Library Association's [ALA] recommended means, as discussed in one of my previous posts.  I predict that the ALA will not change its guidance/policy even if violations are eventually proven. 


Mack-Harvin May Have Resigned to Quit Fraudulent Practice

Everything on my blog is my opinion unless backed up with reliable sources.   It is possible that the director resigned to stop playing a role in defrauding the federal government, something that may have been ongoing since at least 2004 and that continues to this day.

It is possible she joined the library when the fraudulent activity was already well underway, and now that I have brought the matter to the public's attention, or now that she has considered what I have said and found it may be valid, she has had the integrity to resign from such an operation.

I could be totally wrong.   I think the August 2009 firings are too remote to cause a resignation now, seven months later and after the matter had quieted down.  And she said they didn't.  On the other hand, I think the Brooklyn Borough President's letter occurring just two weeks before the resignation and all the background that goes with it is coincidentally close, no?


Good Luck to Dionne Mack-Harvin

I wish the director well, no matter what the truth may ultimately be.  But if she resigned to avoid perpetrating a fraud, she will truly be a role model librarian/citizen.  As one commenter ("Concerned Librarian in Brooklyn") on the Library Journal article said:

In the big picture, she did well and is leaving us a better, stronger organization.  Our circulation is the highest it has ever been, many frontline staff are happier than with past administrations, we are more honest and more transparent.  At least for three years it was nice to have one of our own in charge and to see a young, accomplished, African American woman in charge of the fifth largest public library system in the world.  Now we are left to the mercy of the Board of Trustees:  a bunch of clueless, overly political, nasty, corrupt, individuals as only Brooklyn could create.

"Corrupt"!  Coincidence?

What do you think?  Please comment below.

.

Friday, February 12, 2010

Obama Nominee Carla Hayden is Unfit for Administration Post; Dionne Mack-Harvin May Go to Jail for Following Hayden's E-Rate Advice

Dionne Mack-Harvin may be going to jail, along with some members the Brooklyn Public Library Board of Trustees.  Ethics charges may be brought against the attorney members of the board as a result.  Why?  For E-Rate fraud and conspiracy to commit E-Rate fraud.

Dionne Mack-Harvin obviously chooses to allow the matter of a potential $2.5M fraud to drop by ignoring it.  I have asked her for an interview and the production of documents that may reveal the truth, but she has chosen not to respond.

Here is something she cannot ignore:  people who defraud the E-Rate program go to jail.  People who conspire to defraud the E-Rate program also go to jail.  Dionne Mack-Harvin may be guilty of both, in my opinion.

And who may be ultimately responsible?  Carla Hayden, President Obama's choice for the National Museum & Library Services [IMLS] Board, and former American Library Association [ALA] President.   Carla Hayden's ALA recommended, on her orders as ALA President, the very means the Brooklyn Public Library used to defraud the federal government.  And now Carla Hayden is nominated to be a member of the same federal government she advised libraries nationwide to defraud.  To this day the ALA makes the same recommendation.

In 1997, a publisher was held liable for a crime committed by someone who read a book it published on how to commit crime then who followed that advice and killed three people.  Similarly, Carla Hayden published advice on how to circumvent the E-Rate law, libraries follow that advice, and some may now face criminal charges.

I do not blame the Obama administration one iota for nominating Carla Hayden.  I am hoping, however, that people will consider the evidence I am bringing to the fore, connecting the dots as it were, about the unfitness of Carla Hayden to serve in the post for which she was nominated.  I hope Carla Hayden withdraws from the offer or is otherwise prevented from forcing her past actions and inactions on the entire nation.


What is E-Rate?

What is the E-Rate program?  Please read "Overview of the E-Rate Program" in the "Information" filing in U.S. v. Rowner, Case No. 08 CR-20047-01-02 CM/JPO (D. Kan. 23 April 2008).


US v. Rowner E-Rate Fraud

US v. Rowner.  What is that?  That is the case where people were found guilty of defrauding and conspiring to defraud the E-Rate program.  That is the case that supports my speculation that Dionne Mack-Harvin and members of the board of trustees may go to jail.  Here are media clips on the matter:


Look at the specific offenses committed:  please read "Plea Agreement Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(B) [Benjamin Rowner] (07/10/2008)" from U.S. v. Rowner,


Public Libraries May Be Committing E-Rate Fraud

Bearing that in mind, consider how public library directors and public library boards of trustees may be acting in substantially the same manner so as to obtain substantially the same goal.  Consider $2.5M may have been fraudulently obtained by the Brooklyn Public Library.  Consider $0.5M may have been fraudulently obtained by the Brownsville Public Library.  Consider they are the tip of the iceberg.


The American Library Association Aids and Abets E-Rate Fraud

Consider further the role of the American Library Association [ALA] in this fraud.  The ALA actually recommends taking action that it is aware may be illegal, but couches that action with language about checking with local attorneys:

Again, we must caution, however, that the options described above are untested in the courts and in the FCC, and there is no guarantee that they necessarily would be deemed legally sufficient.  Libraries considering these or other options, therefore, must consult their own legal counsel for an analysis of any specific policy. 

See:  "Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) Legal FAQ," American Library Association, 20 October 2009, emphasis in original.  

What makes this really bad is the ALA took on itself the responsibility of guiding libraries on the proper response to US v. ALA, and that response is to violate the spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law, then tell libraries to get their own legal advice.  


ALA President Carla Hayden

Who initially made this recommendation at the ALA?  Former ALA President Carla Hayden.  She was the ALA President when US v. ALA was decided.  She promised the ALA would guide libraries on how to respond to the law:

In the wake of the CIPA decision, the priorities of the association are to:
  • Provide libraries with authoritative information regarding their choices and CIPA requirements, as they evaluate options and make decisions regarding the new legal requirements.  ....
In order to accomplish these goals, a variety of long and short-term efforts will be pursued by ALA, its committees, divisions and offices. These activities include:
  • Providing information on options available to libraries, including the choice of either applying or not applying for federal funds subject to CIPA provisions....

See : "CIPA Decision Response: A Statement from ALA President Carla D. Hayden and the ALA Executive Board," by Carla D. Hayden, American Library Association, 25 July 2003.

She later restated her responsibility: "'The ALA is committed to providing practical, real-life assistance to our members, as well as developing best practices and ideals for the profession,' said ALA President Carla Hayden."

But guidance was never delivered.  Instead, recommendations were made to skirt the law with the "caveat" to hire lawyers in case the ALA recommendations are wrong.   The ALA recommended the very means the Brooklyn Public Library used to skirt the law:  "The Internet terminals could then offer adult patrons the option of Internet access with the filter enabled or disabled.  ....  Upon the patron's assent, the terminal could provide unfiltered Internet access."  When I called the FCC, I was specifically told allowing patrons to unfilter computers for themselves violates the law.  In seven years since 2003 when US v. ALA was decided the ALA cannot call and make the same determination?  The Brooklyn Public Library uses this ALA means to evade the law.  It knows it is wrong as it says in writing something different that it allows in practice:  "adults may request that the filtering technology be disabled, and they need not explain the reason for the request."  Requesting unfiltered access is legal; clicking an on screen button to obviate the requirement to request access violates the law.

In addition, notice Carla Hayden gets top billing from the White House as a "veteran of the Chicago public library system."  As CBS 2 Investigator Dave Savini exposed:

Online pornography is so clear and evident at Chicago libraries that we could actually see a patron looking at porn simply by standing on a city street and looking through the window. ....  [T]here are no guidelines against viewing pornography at Chicago libraries.  Even convicted sex offenders can use those computers to access sexually graphic images.

Worse, the Chicago public library system actively covers up crimes by not calling the police.  Oh yes, they have a policy to call the police, but the practice is otherwise:

The 2 Investigators obtained three years of internal incident reports from Chicago public libraries.

They reveal sex crimes ranging from flashers to inappropriate touching, and sex acts in bathrooms and men viewing child pornography online.

One-third of the offenses involve people masturbating while at computers.

Other reports include a registered sex offender caught masturbating, another sex offender and his friend trying to take a boy's picture and a man looking at porn while carrying a knife and handcuffs.

"A lot of parents let their children go to the library and do their homework and they have no idea what is going on up there," Hanson said.

Police are called in some cases, but not others.

A couple disrobing in a locked bathroom stall was arrested, but some men caught masturbating in plain sight were simply asked to leave for the day.

"Maybe some people make light of things, but what happens when a child gets abducted and gets killed?" Hanson asked.

Now here comes the stiff arm, the same stiff arm I expect from Carla Hayden:

We repeatedly tried to get an interview with Chicago Public Library officials. Instead, a spokesperson gave us a statement saying the library policy "... Is to call the Chicago Police Department when anything criminal happens."

Also, when staff members fail to properly handle incidents and don't call Chicago Police, they are retrained.

CBS 2 Investigators talked to registered sex offender Michael Connelly about viewing pornography in a Chicago library.  He says what he did was legal.

The source of the above quotations is "How Safe Are Our Kids In Public Libraries?  Convicted Sex Offenders Have Free And Legal Access To Pornography At Chicago Libraries," by Dave Savini, CBS, 21 December 2006, now available in archived format.

What could be worse than not calling the police?  How about thwarting the police, by covering up for a registered sex offender, no less:

The officer then stated he is a registered child sex offender. I had seen this man many times before in the library but had no clue. [Connelly] was later released and not charged with anything because [I was told that] although viewing obscene material in public is against the law, it is perfectly legal in a library -- in plain view of children and adult patrons.

The police were not allowed to retrieve the sites [Connelly] was looking at due to privacy issues with the library, so there was no way to prove that the images were of minors. ....

There are multiple reports of people fondling themselves, [of fondling] children, and even child abductions by these predators in our libraries. There are laws already in place to prevent these things from happening but are not being enforced inside of a library because of the first amendment right of "free speech."

Source:  "IFI's Smith Interviewed for Chicago's CBS Investigative Report on Criminal Activity in Neighborhood Public Libraries, by Illinois Family Institute, 21 December 2006, emphasis added.

Besides all that, Carla Hayden has been a fierce critic of the USA PATRIOT Act:

Hayden was so vocal in her fight against this part of the Patriot Act that U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft personally telephoned her and promised to declassify reports related to FBI surveillance. Undaunted, Hayden was instrumental in leading the ALA to team with the American Booksellers Association for a signature drive and petition to Congress to revise this section of the Patriot Act. For this effort, Ms. Magazine named her one of its ten Women of the Year for 2003.

Source:  "Carla D. Hayden," by Carol Brennan, Answers.com, undated.

Be that as it may, her opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act is shared by a variety of organizations.  So that does not concern me as much as her activities for which the ALA is the lead organization, such as in advising on filtering public libraries.


Liberty Counsel Missed One

Liberty Counsel published a report "document[ing] the beliefs, words and actions of more than 100 radicals that Obama has hand-picked to 'change' our nation."  See "Liberty Counsel Report Documents Obama’s Radical Nominees and Appointments," by Liberty Counsel, LC.org, 27 January 2010.

I read the report only so much as to see if Carla Hayden is in it, and I take no stand on it otherwise.  Hayden is not in the report.  Liberty Counsel missed one!  See, "Obama's Appointees and Nominees," by Mathew D. Staver, Liberty Counsel, undated (circa 27 January 2010).  This report has 72 pages and 862 footnotes—and I thought I heavily linked my research!  I urge Liberty Counsel to consider investigating what I have reported, then add Carla Hayden to its list.


Carla Hayden in the IMLS:  The Fox Minding the Henhouse

This same Carla Hayden has just been nominated by President Barack Obama to have a big say over what goes on in American libraries.  Now the ALA solution of do nothing and skirting the law is coming to the United States government.  Now the Chicago Public Library anything-goes policy is coming to the United States government.  It is like the fox minding the henhouse.

As library law expert Mary Minow has noted, "[U]nder ... the Children's Internet Protection Act, ... the library and IMLS may come to an agreement to bring the library into compliance."

Under Carla Hayden, the IMLS will never bring any library into any compliance.  She was the ALA President at the time the ALA lost US v. ALA and she promised to provide guidance to libraries.  Not only did she not do that, but she advised libraries how to skirt the law.  She then used CYA language to protect the ALA.  Carla Hayden will never bring any library to comply with any filtering law.  She must not be allowed to join the IMLS.



Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors

Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors is a book that advises how to be a hit man.  Someone read the book then murdered three people.  Paladin Press, the publisher of the book, was sued for "aiding and abetting" the murderer.  Rice v. Paladin Enterprises held the publisher liable for the triple murder.

On the night of March 3, 1993, readied by these instructions and steeled by these seductive adjurations from Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors , a copy of which was subsequently found in his apartment, James Perry brutally murdered Mildred Horn, her eight-year-old quadriplegic son Trevor, and Trevor's nurse, Janice Saunders, by shooting Mildred Horn and Saunders through the eyes and by strangling Trevor Horn.

Libraries are readied by Carla Hayden's instructions and steeled by her ALA's seductive adjurations from "Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) Legal FAQ," the substance of which is reprinted on many library web sites.  As a result, children remain exposed to the very harms the law was enacted to stop.

As I read through the case, I found further similarities, and I urge others to take a look as well.  For example, see this:

However, while even speech advocating lawlessness has long enjoyed protections under the First Amendment, it is equally well established that speech, which, in its effect, is tantamount to legitimately proscribable nonexpressive conduct, may itself be legitimately proscribed, punished, or regulated incidentally to the constitutional enforcement of generally applicable statutes. 
[T]he First Amendment does not necessarily pose a bar to liability for aiding and abetting a crime, even when such aiding and abetting takes the form of the spoken or written word.
....

The cloak of the First Amendment envelops critical, but abstract, discussions of existing laws, but lends no protection to speech which urges the listeners to commit violations of current law.  ....  It was no theoretical discussion of non-compliance with laws; action was urged; the advice was heeded, and false forms were filed.


In this E-Rate matter, the false forms filed would be any of these.  "Action was urged; the advice was heeded, and false forms were filed."  This is the very documentation I have asked the Brooklyn Public Library to produce but it has remained silent.

Also, like Paladin Enterprises, Carla Hayden and the ALA intended to assist libraries in skirting the law.  Oh you just have to read the Rice case for yourselves.  The similarities are striking.


Conclusion

Carla Hayden is unfit for the post to which she was nominated.  She promised to guide libraries on following E-Rate law.  Instead, she recommended skirting the law (by advising libraries to allow adults to unfilter computers for themselves) while advising libraries to get their own attorneys.  As a result, some libraries have been skirting the law as the ALA recommends.  Some libraries go further than the ALA recommends, like the Brownsville Public Library which illegally obtains E-Rate funding for Internet access but does not filter "adult" computers.   The result is libraries nationwide continue to endanger children by the very means the E-Rate law was designed to curtail and the US Supreme Court approved.  And it can legitimately be laid at the feet of Carla Hayden.

Carla Hayden must not be confirmed to an administration post having control over libraries nationwide, unless the anything-goes Chicago Public Library is your model library, and unless advising people to skirt a law that protects children is your own goal.  Given that a publisher that published information on how to commit crimes was held liable for the crimes committed thereby, Carla Hayden may similarly be held liable for E-Rate fraud in some future case.

Regarding the Brooklyn Public Library, it appears the library is acting in a manner that may result in the jailing of several of its members along with the return of huge amounts of money fraudulently obtained.  The recent US v. Rowner E-Rate fraud and conspiracy jailings strengthen this opinion.  If Dionne Mack-Harvin continues to evade my request for an interview and the production of documents, I will consider following up on this other request: 

Anyone with information concerning violations of the E-Rate program or other related anticompetitive conduct is urged to call the Antitrust Division's Chicago Field Office at 312-353-7530 or visit http://www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm.
Dionne Mack-Harvin may go to jail for following Carla Hayden's E-Rate fraud scheme that has become standard ALA policy.  Incidents like this will only increase with Carla Hayden in the IMLS.

That's my opinion, backed up with reliable sources.  What is your opinion?  Are people supposed to accept defrauding the federal government just because it the local public library that is doing it?  Should the ALA continue to advise libraries to skirt the law?  Should ALA policy become national policy?  Please comment below.


Best Wishes to President Clinton

President Clinton is recovering from a serious heart procedure.  I wish him a speedy recovery, and it will be important for him to continue to follow his cardiologist's advice as the years go on and despite his feeling better. 

It was President Clinton who signed the Children's Internet Protection Act into law in 2000.  President Clinton, get well soon.

.

Monday, January 4, 2010

Janet Napolitano vs Dionne Mack-Harvin; Open Request for Interview with Brooklyn Public Library Director Regarding CIPA Internet Filters and $2.5M in Undue Federal Funding

Janet Napolitano versus Dionne Mack-Harvin.  One is the US Department of Homeland Security [DHS] Director and the other is the Brooklyn Public Library [BPL] Director.  Both have provided obviously false misinformation either themselves or through their organizations.  But what separates them is that one corrected herself within days to help protect people and the other has never made corrections, leaving people in the very danger the law was designed to stop.  Who's who?


Janet Napolitano, the DHS Director

First, Janet Napolitano.  The United States suffered a Christmas 2009 terrorist attack, but hundreds of its citizens narrowly averted death by the sheer luck of a faulty explosive device that only operated as an incendiary device on board an airplane over Detroit.  This is the "panty bomber" case, explosive underwear pictured at top right.

The first reaction from the DHS Director was to say "one thing I'd like to point out is that the system worked."

No, the system failed completely.  The terrorist just had a bad chemistry or bad timing day.  "The passengers reacted correctly," the Director said, as if our defense systems should depend on the passengers instead of the very system set up to defend the passengers.

But two days later the DHS Director correctly and appropriately changed her message:  "Our system did not work in this instance,' Napolitano said on the TODAY show this morning. 'No one is happy or satisfied with that. An extensive review is under way.'"

The DHS Director deserves credit for changing her story, and quickly, to one that reflected reality.

Compare her actions to those of the BPL Director.


Dionne Mack-Harvin, the BPL Director

Dionne Mack-Harvin's actions stand in stark contrast to Janet Napolitano's.  The BPL Director has never acknowledged the problem with porn in her library.  This problem was revealed weeks ago in "Porn 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," among other places.

The BPL has suffered numerous incidents, including a retarded girl raped in the bathroom and no one even knowing this happened, porn clips inserted into numerous videos for children, and most recently, in news I broke, porn viewing in the presence of children with the library refusing to take action.  Yet the BPL Director has taken little action, if any, as evidenced by the continual nature of such incidents, the statements made by the library staff, and the failure to make changes such as changing the BPL filtering policies.

I notified the BPL, including the BPL Director herself, weeks ago.  I have received no response.


Passengers and Patrons ARE the Safety Systems, Supposedly

The DHS Director said the passengers's actions meant the system to protect passengers worked correctly.  In a strikingly similar policy, that same reasoning apparently applies in the BPL—the patrons's actions mean the system to protect the patrons worked correctly, at least according to a recent comment I got on my blog from "Jeff."

Jeff, a Brooklyn librarian, explained in a comment on my previous blog post that circumventing the law is not circumventing the law because of the excuse that the library delegated to the patrons the ability to disable Internet filters:

Paragraph 4: actually "an administrator, supervisor, or person authorized by the responsible authority..." can disable.  Doesn't have to be staff.  BPL authorizes the individual patron to disable.
Yes anyone on an adult computer can disable the filter without assistance.  And only adults can sign onto an adult computer.
[Source.]

Law Requires Library Personnel to Disable CIPA Filters, Not Patrons Themselves

Compare this with the law—"An authorized person may disable the blocking or filtering measure during any use by an adult to enable access for bona fide research or other lawful purposes."  It does not say the adult may disable the blocking or filtering measure during any use by himself.  The "authorized person" and the "adult" are separate people.

Compare this with US v. ALA—"Justice Kennedy concluded that if, as the Government represents, a librarian will unblock filtered material or disable the Internet software filter without significant delay on an adult user's request, there is little to this case."  As can be seen, a "librarian" does the unblocking "on an adult user's request."

Compare this with common sense—if an adult can disable a filter just by clicking a button on the pretext that the library authorized him to do so, then the law is being circumvented and becomes essentially worthless.


BPL Acknowledges Library Employees Must Disable Filters

Even apart from the law and common sense, the BPL itself acknowledges that CIPA-compliant filters must be disabled by library employees.  Read the following from BPL's "Internet Use Q & A," emphasis added:

3. Why is BPL using Internet filtering software on its public access computers?

The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requires libraries receiving federal support for online technology to implement filters that block material considered obscene, child pornography, or, in the case of persons under the age of 17, harmful to minors. In September 2003, the BPL Board of Trustees decided to comply with CIPA. The U.S. Supreme Court held that CIPA is constitutional: unlimited adult access to the Internet will be possible, since adults may request that the filtering technology be disabled, and they need not explain the reason for the request. Thus, adult library users can continue to benefit from federal e-rate discounts, without experiencing undue interference with public Internet access.

Adults do not need to "request that filtering technology be disabled" if all they need to do is click an onscreen button.  Clearly, they must make that request of a person.

The BPL is fully aware that requests for disabling filters must be made to library employees.  It even says so in writing. 


Either Have CIPA-Compliant Filters Or Don't, But You Can't Have Both

A library is entitled to refuse filters or to use them in a non-CIPA compliant fashion, and it need not apply for CIPA funding, but it is not entitled to claim compliance in writing when it is not in compliance in practice.  It is not entitled to defraud the federal government by $2.5M.  In my opinion, when the library says one thing in writing, does another thing in practice, then claims $2.5M in funding based on what it does not practice but has in writing, that's fraud.


Privacy Screens Suffer from Similar Written Word/Actual Practice Dichotomy

And it is not the only example of things written being different from things in practice.  Recall the picture I displayed in the last blog post showing the man looking at porn.  Here it is again to the right.  Notice no "privacy screen" is being used.  Yet library policy requires, "All adults using computers designated for adults must use privacy screens."

The repeated nature of the BPL saying one thing in writing but doing another in practice is another factor that, in my opinion, tends to lead one to conclude the library's actions regarding CIPA compliance are not inadvertent.


The DHS Director Corrected Her Misstatements While the BPL Director Has Not

So, to sum up the issue of Janet Napolitano versus Dionne Mack-Harvin, the DHS Director got caught in a big lie but righted the wrong two days later, whereas the BPL Director got caught in a big lie (not personally but on the theory that she is responsible for what is happening in her library that she directs) and has yet to respond at all.  This is likely in an effort to wait till the matter blows over.  As an ALA Councilor recommended to another community, "The storm will die down when the media becomes bored and moves on to other issues."  Maybe it is the lack of press attention in the first place that is enabling the Director at this time.  I sure hope it is not just media ennui with another BPL porn story.


Dionne Mack-Harvin is Beloved In Her Community

I understand that BPL Director Dionne Mack-Harvin is truly beloved in her community.  She deserves a lot of respect.  That does not excuse either defrauding the federal government or misleading BPL patrons about the use of CIPA-compliant Internet filters.  Right now it appears to me that she is doing or allowing both.


Simple Honesty Would Evidence Community Interest by the BPL Director

Simple honesty like that exemplified by the DHS Director would go a long way toward showing the BPL Director's actions were community-minded instead of being in apparent furtherance of anti-filtering attitudes by some losing parties in US v. ALA.  Indeed, Janet Napolitano's honesty may be part of her possible elevation to the US Supreme Court.

It is a shame that a BPL patron, being put off by BPL staff, had to approach me for assistance.  Obviously something is wrong.  The DHS Director admitted security "failed miserably."  Now it is time for the BPL Director to admit claimed CIPA-compliant Internet filters have failed miserably as well in that they are not being deployed in a CIPA-compliant fashion.  Now is the time for the library to comply with its own written policy or return $2.5M to the federal government.  "It is insulting that the Obama administration would make such a claim...."  It is also insulting that the BPL administration claims the library is CIPA-compliant when it is not. 


Open Letter to BPL Director Seeking Public Informational Interview

Dear Dionne Mack-Harvin,

I respectfully request an informational interview with you to discuss the matter of CIPA-compliant Internet filters.

This matter became known to me when one of the Brooklyn Public Library's patrons approached me directly after BPL staff refused to act satisfactorily.  I have posted that contact on my SafeLibraries blog at "Porn 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."

I have confirmed with the federal agency responsible for awarding E-rate grants under the CIPA program that CIPA-compliant filters are not CIPA compliant if they are disabled by the patrons themselves.  It is my understanding that BPL, allowing patrons to disable CIPA filters for themselves in practice, though not in writing, is not in compliance with CIPA.  Since 2003 when CIPA was found constitutional in US v. ALA and BPL claimed compliance with CIPA, BPL has obtained about $2.5M in federal funding by claiming the existence of CIPA-compliant filters when they may not have been in compliance.

These and related issues are the ones I wish to ask you, and I seek your permission to make our discussion public.  I would like to record our conversation and make a transcript, making either or both public.  I also ask for copies of all applications made from 2003 to the present for federal CIPA funding, including the identity of each person who signed the applications.

May I meet with you for discussion given the above information and requests?

Thank you for your consideration.



Dan Kleinman
SafeLibraries.org

.