Blacknell.net

Politics, open government, and safe streets. And the constant incursion of cycling.

Category: Law Page 17 of 27

Hold Obama/Biden To This Promise: We Will Prosecute Criminals

By

On September 3, 2008

In Law, Politics

ABC News notes:

Looking to the future but with one eye on the past, Biden also promised that an Obama-Biden government would go through Bush administration data with “a fine-toothed comb” and pursue criminal charges if necessary.

“If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation,” he said, “they will be pursued, not out of vengeance, not out of retribution – out of the need to preserve the notion that no one, no one, no attorney general, no president, no one is above the law.”

This is, perhaps, one of the most important things that an Obama/Biden administration could do for the American people, in the long term.

Code City: Getting Public Law Out From Behind Private Walls

By

On September 1, 2008

In Distribution, Law, Policy

One day I hope to pen a piece that adequately sings the praises of Carl Malamud’s tireless work to make public work available to, you know, the public.  Today he announced the release of Code City, through which the public can now access -  without having to pay the publisher – many of the building safety codes that are incorporated into the laws of most states, counties, and municipalities (see, e.g., the fire code that is part of Virginia law).   Most anyone who has ever tried to access the building code for a project knows what an accomplishment this is.  For those that don’t know, I highly recommend this brilliant little illustrated explanation (just start with the top left photo and keep clicking through to the next photo).

Reconsidering Minnesota Nice: Raids in Advance of the RNC

By

On August 30, 2008

In Law, Personal, Politics

Looks like even the Twin Cities are trying to live down to GOP standards:

Protesters here in Minneapolis have been targeted by a series of highly intimidating, sweeping police raids across the city, involving teams of 25-30 officers in riot gear, with semi-automatic weapons drawn, entering homes of those suspected of planning protests, handcuffing and forcing them to lay on the floor, while law enforcement officers searched the homes, seizing computers, journals, and political pamphlets. Last night, members of the St. Paul police department and the Ramsey County sheriff’s department handcuffed, photographed and detained dozens of people meeting at a public venue to plan a demonstration, charging them with no crime other than “fire code violations,” and early this morning, the Sheriff’s department sent teams of officers into at least four Minneapolis area homes where suspected protesters were staying.

Now, I’ve seen (with my own eyes) enough high profile protests to know that there is always a dumbass who behaves in such a way as to give the police an excuse to come crashing down.  But it’s the crashing down that ends up *really* starting the ball rolling on the things for which protesters are arrested.  Honestly, if I were sitting in one of those houses this morning, and all of a sudden I had some guy kick in a door and start screaming at me and throwing me on the floor, it’s entirely possible (probable) that I’d be facing an assault and battery charge tonight.  You can’t treat people like this and not expect them to fight back.  And really, the fighting back?  It’s what they’re counting on.  I hope the folks in Minnesota can keep themselves to a higher standard than I could.

Regulatory Capture: Perverse Government Regulation

By

On August 30, 2008

In Law, Policy

“Regulatory capture” is what we call a situation in which an industry has taken practical control of a government agency and used it to serve its own – rather than the public’s – purposes.  This has happened to varying extents with most Federal agencies (say, the FCC and FEC).  Few industries, however, have managed to do it to the extent that the meat industry has done it.  There are, literally, shelves full of books on this subject, but a recent court decision upholding a USDA decision boils it down for us:

A federal appeals court says the government can prohibit meat packers from testing their animals for mad cow disease. Because the Agriculture Department tests only a small percentage of  cows for the deadly disease, Kansas meatpacker Creekstone Farms Premium Beef wants to test all of its cows. The government says it can’t.

Larger meat companies worry that if Creekstone is allowed to perform the test and advertise its meat as safe, they could be forced to do the expensive test, too.

Yes, the agency charged with ensuring your meat is safe has been used to ensure that no one is allowed to voluntarily test all of their meat for safety, because it might turn out that the public wants it.

US Support of Chinese Democracy

By

On August 27, 2008

In Law, Music

Well, I should point out now that this almost certainly isn’t what you were expecting.  See, this is a highlighting of the fact that your taxpayer dollars are being spent to protect Chinese Democracy, and not democracy in China:

Last week, the Internet was rocked when California blogger Kevin Skwerl posted nine newly leaked Chinese Democracy tracks, including three previously unheard songs allegedly from Guns n’ Roses long-awaited album. [ . . . ]

Yesterday Skwerl was surprised to find himself face to face with two FBI agents who paid a visit to his day job.

I’ve never really seen a compelling case for putting public dollars into protecting the private rights of copyright owners.  That isn’t to say that there couldn’t be a case – it’s just that I can think of a 100 other things that are more important to society than that, and I think we should have seen and debated that case before we committed the resources.

Kucinich on “Four more years”

By

On August 27, 2008

In Law, Politics

Seems like the editors’ pens kept what would have been the best line of the DNC thus far away from us:

The campaign struck this line, addressing Republicans, from Kucinich’s speech:

“They’re asking for another four years — in a just world, they’d get 10 to 20.”

Friday Notes: Be Careful What You Ask For Edition

By

On August 22, 2008

In Distribution, Law, Policy, Politics, Tech

Here are a few that may turn out a little differently than its proponents had hoped for:

Scott Cleland over at the PrecursorBlog has an interesting analysis of what the FCC’s recent Report & Order regarding Comcast’s hidden traffic management activities means to the future of Net Neutrality.  While NN proponent Larry Lessig seems to think it a big success, Scott Cleland sees the order as having “reined in the net neutrality movement much more than it advanced their agenda.”  I haven’t had a chance to full parse the R&O, but I suspect that Scott is right.

~

Heard this NPR story on the radio about the Bush Administration’s latest attempt to shoehorn more government regulation into private lives.  This time, it wants to use the power of the government to give special rights to certain minorities bar private employers from taking any disciplinary action against an employee who claims that he doesn’t want to perform his duties because of his religious beliefs.  Can we safely presume, now, that Republicans will be consistent and recognize that it’s legitimate to balance some public interest concerns against the private freedom of contract?  Yes?  No?

Heh.

~

There appear to be a number of people (including lots of Democrats) who support a return of the Fairness Doctrine.  The short description of the Fairness Doctrine is that when a controversial subject of public importance is discussed on broadcast television, a balanced presentation is made. Now, try and clearly nail down a definition of every word in that last sentence after “when”.  Kinda tough, eh?  So who does it?  Why, the FCC, of course!  Do you see the problem?  Well, lots of Dems don’t – which sort of boggles me, considering the lesson in ideological manipulation of the levers of government we’ve gotten in the past 8 years.  Why would you want the government to get involved in even more censorship than it does already?

The original argument was that since they were using the public airwaves, there was a public interest obligation that justified this intervention.   Now, as a legal theory, I find that acceptable (in fact, it’s a theory that underlies a lot of regulation).  But as a practical matter, it’s a really bad idea.  And, apparently, it’s an idea that almost 30% of people in a recent poll would like to see extended to the Internet (and blogs, in general).  Think about that.

~

Update: I figure that this is as good a place as any to put myself on the careful what you ask for hook, wrt the Obama VP selection.  My own worst to first: Clinton (for many many reasons, none of which involve the question of her ability to be President).  Bayh would be an awful choice (primarily for the reason noted here).  Kaine doesn’t inspire me, but would be acceptable (and a good campaigner).  I am surprised to find myself coming around on Biden (but still shudder at the thought of him actually being President).  But I’d still like to see Brian Schweitzer (Governor of Montana) top the list.

*I know, I left off Sebelius, but I still haven’t managed to form an opinion of her.

It *Does* Happen Here

By

On August 9, 2008

In Distribution, Law, Politics, Society

So many times in the course of conversations about privacy and politics, people are otherwise share my same general socio-political moorings express great doubt that the US government would ever spy on people for any reason other than crime prevention.   While I’m never at a loss for counter examples, I’ll have to say that the best documented examples are often a generation or two old, and probably carry a little less currency, as a result.  Well, governments – state and federal – have been obliging me lately.  First we had Maryland police closely tracking the activities of dangerous people like anti-death penalty activists, and now we’ve got a straight admission from the FBI that it spied on reporters from the Washington Post and New York Times.

It not only can happen here, it *does* happen here.

Friday Notes: 08-08-08 Edition

By

On August 8, 2008

In Cycling, DC, Law, Politics

The end of another week.  So much to write about, so little time.  Here’s what I wish I’d talked more about, this week:

Steve Clemons takes Obama to task for abandoning his Muslim-American outreach chief over an absolutely ridiculous issue (brief concurrent corporate board service with a questionable fellow):

I think that this is outrageous — and those on the left who appreciate Obama and what he may mean for this country must become as tenaciously committed to what is right and what is good — and fighting for that — because those on the other side of these debates are trying to compel Obama to dilute himself.

[ . . . ]

Obama should say it. Convince the American public that he’s not setting up a zero sum game between Muslims on one side and Christians and Jews on the other.

Obama is a Christian. I get that. I’m a secularist hard core — but I won’t stand by to watch more good people be flushed down the political drain because they are Muslims trying to work for a balanced and level playing field in America.

The rest is well worth reading.

~

The Lori Drew case is a case full of disgusting facts – appalling adult behavior (on all sides) contributed to circumstances that drove a young girl to suicide.  One of those adults is now being prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for violating the MySpace.com terms of use agreement.  That’s right, Federal prosecutors are trying to treat not complying with those ridiculous click-through agreements on nearly every web site you use a crime.  Thankfully not everyone is losing their mind over this (horrible) situation, and the EFF, Public Citizen, and others have stepped in with an amicus brief demonstrating just what a bad idea this is.

~

There is an art to writing interesting reviews, and John Brownlee demonstrates it in this review of Monkeylectric . . . uh, bike lights.

~

The more I read about the Bruce Ivins/anthrax story, the less I know.  Serious coverup vibes coming from that.

~

Here’s a test – which one of these are jokes? Bike Commuter Banned for EPO or Race Walker Banned for EPO?

You Did *What*? Searching “Criminal” Records Online

By

On August 3, 2008

In Law, Policy, Society

This NYTimes is carrying an interesting essay about a new site called CriminalSearches.com (you’re welcome to cut and paste it to see it – I’m just not giving it the benefit of a link).   The author explains:

Last month, PeopleFinders, a 20-year-old company based in Sacramento, introduced CriminalSearches.com, a free service to satisfy those common impulses. The site, which is supported by ads, lets people search by name through criminal archives of all 50 states and 3,500 counties in the United States. In the process, it just might upset a sensitive social balance once preserved by the difficulty of obtaining public documents like criminal records.

Go ahead, you can search me.  You’ll find both an incomplete (I must admit that I have received more than two speeding tickets in my lifetime) and an incorrect result.  As much as I do regret getting those two tickets, I’m not particularly embarrassed by them.  But I am bothered by the incorrect component – one lists me as “guilty in absentia”  (for a ticket I got in Front Royal, doing 44 in a 30, I believe).  Now *this* bothers me greatly.  I may be morally corrupt enough to drive 44 in a 30, but I certainly do understand and meet my obligations to answer any resulting traffic summons.  And yet we’ve now got a publicly accessible resource which certainly makes it look as if I didn’t.  The NYT essay notes this problem of accuracy (and context):

A quick check of the database confirms that it is indeed imperfect. Some records are incomplete, and there is often no way to distinguish between people with the same names if you don’t know their birthdays (and even that date is often missing).

To further test the site, I vetted some of my colleagues at The New York Times. One, who shall remain nameless, had a recent tangle with the law that the site labeled a “criminal offense,” while adding no other information. Curious, I called my colleague with the date and city of the now very public ignominy. The person was stunned to know that the infraction — a speeding ticket — was easily accessible and described as criminal.

“I went to traffic school so this wouldn’t appear on my record. I’m in shock. This blows me away,” my colleague said, demanding that I ask PeopleFinders how to have the record removed. “I don’t necessarily want you all knowing that I’m a fast driver.”

The site’s owners remain unfazed:

PeopleFinders’ response: take it up with the authorities. When they update their records, the change will automatically appear on CriminalSearches.com.

So maybe the source of my particular problem is with the Virginia records themselves, and not CriminalSearches.  But it’s CriminalSearches that made it matter, because *anyone* can now pop my (rather uncommon) name in and see what comes up, without any contact with me.   The implications – legal, political, social – are worth considering.   Some of these concerns *were* considered, fairly recently:

In the past, Congress carefully considered how the public should use criminal records. Amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act in 1997 required that employers who hire investigators to obtain criminal records from consumer reporting agencies advise prospective employees of the search in advance, and disregard some types of convictions that are older than seven years.

“I don’t think Congress stuck that in there randomly,” says Daniel J. Solove, a professor of law at the George Washington University Law School and author of “Understanding Privacy.” “Congress made the judgment that after a certain period of time, people shouldn’t be harmed by having convictions stick with them forever and ever.”

So, legally, some of the information you can find on individuals via CriminalSearches.com is off the table for certain uses.  But with such easy access, observance of these restrictions is doubtful:

Jurors can and almost certainly will be tempted to look up criminal pasts of defendants in their cases. And employers can conduct searches themselves without hiring investigators. Mr. Lane of PeopleFinders says that employers cannot legally use the database in making hiring decisions — but there is nothing to stop them.

And speaking of hiring decisions, let’s remember that even the Department of Justice – which we should expect to be as scrupulous an observer of the law as ever there was – used information it wasn’t legally entitled to use:

A recent investigation at the Justice Department demonstrates how once-obscure, now easily accessible public information can be abused in egregious ways. The investigative report by the department’s inspector general and internal ethics office said government lawyers mined sites like Tray.com and OpenSecrets.org, which report on individual political contributions, to discover political affiliations of job candidates.

The traditional walls that have kept information like political contributions, traffic offensive, and long-past criminal convictions from the casually curious have all but crumbled.  Maybe we should talk about privacy while we still remember it.

Page 17 of 27

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén