Blacknell.net

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

Category: Law Page 18 of 27

DHS: We’ll Be Keeping Your Laptop, Thanks

By

On August 1, 2008

In Law, Policy, Travel

It’s been well-understood for some time (in the legal community, at least) that the border is some sort of no-man’s land, where Constitutional protections really don’t apply.  In practice, however, it hasn’t really been an issue, and the public is generally unaware of just how much power border agents can exercise over them when crossing.  Well, I think that’s been changing, especially in light of the ridiculous practices of the Department of Homeland Security.  The Congressional hearings earlier this month finally wrangled the DHS policy guidelines out of DHS, and, well, look what we have here:

Federal agents may take a traveler’s laptop or other electronic device to an off-site location for an unspecified period of time without any suspicion of wrongdoing, as part of border search policies the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed.

Also, officials may share copies of the laptop’s contents with other agencies and private entities for language translation, data decryption or other reasons, according to the policies, dated July 16 and issued by two DHS agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Anything, anytime, for as long as they feel like it.

You trust them, don’t you?

Bigots Hate It When You Call Them That

By

On July 30, 2008

In Law, Personal, Politics, Society, Virginia

Atrios directs us over to Pandagon, who does a great job of illustrating the penchant of the “family values” crowd to go nuts when someone clearly describes what they’re trying to do. In this case, CA Attorney General Jerry Brown has revised the Proposition 8 ballot question to read (in part):

Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Well, okay. That’s exactly what it proposes to do. The CA Supreme Court recognized a state constitutional right to marriage (regardless of sex) and this proposal seeks to eliminate that right. What’s to be mad about?:

This completely obliterates the conservative framing of the issue (“protecting marriage”, “preserving the traditional family,” etc.) and shows that supporters of the ballot initiative want to repeal a civil right that is now in place. And the fundies are hopping mad. [ . . . ]

Jennifer Kerns of the Protect Marriage coalition told the Los Angeles Times the revised wording is “inherently argumentative.” Kerns said the wording had the potential to ”prejudice voters against the initiative.”

I saw this over and over again in the time leading up to the vote where Virginia showed the world what a backwards place it really is, in many respects. The proponents of the anti-same sex marriage provision would spit out some of the most vile and obscene things – the usual stuff – and then go nuts when you called them bigots (and I’ll note that more than a few Dems were complicit, as they didn’t like hearing the bigotry of their parents (or themselves) called out for what it is). My response?

If you don’t like being called a bigot, don’t act like one.

J. Edgar Google: Threatening Your Privacy

By

On July 21, 2008

In Distribution, Law, Policy

Here’s an interesting analysis of Google’s approach to privacy.  The author, Scott Cleland, summarizes his testimony before Congress thusly:

Why Google’s the single biggest threat to Americans’ privacy today.

Case Study: How Google Systematically Threatens Americans’ Privacy:
1. Google’s radical “publicacy” mission is antithetical to privacy.
2. Privacy is not a priority in Google’s culture.
3. Google gives privacy “lip service.”
4. Google threatens the privacy of more people than most any other
entity.
5. Google collects/stores the most potential “blackmail-able”
information.
6. Google’s track record does not inspire trust.

Information is power. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts
absolutely. Google’s market power over private information is corrupting
Google, just like former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was corrupted by
his power and mastery of personally-sensitive information. Google’s
unprecedented arbitrage of privacy law combined with its exceptional
lack of accountability is fast creating this era’s privacy-invading,
unaccountable equivalent: “J. Edgar Google.”

More on this from me later, but I wanted to pass it on lest it get lost in the ever growing Draft Posts folder . . .

Friday Notes: Remember That? Edition

By

On July 18, 2008

In Cycling, DC, Law, Politics, Virginia

Yesterday was the first day you could register a handgun in DC.  How many people were in line, clamoring to exercise this new right?  Two.  And one forgot his gun.

~

I was never a fan of comics as a kid, but after being introduced to a few really impressive “graphic novels” as an adult (i.e., Maus, Blankets, and Palestine), I’m a little more open to the artform.   So I found myself sucked into the webcomic Yehuda Moon the other day.  Not as serious as those graphic novels, but a bit of light – if occasionally pointed – fun.  If you’re a cyclist, check it out.

~

Perhaps the most entertaining session I attended at the first YearlyKos convention was the one where Dave “Mudcat” Saunders threatened to punch Whistling Past Dixie author Tom Schaller for speaking frankly about some of the uglier sides of the South.   As I’ve previously noted, Tom’s probably not the best messenger, but he’s got an important message.  Vivian Paige just started posting a multi-part review of the book, and I’m looking forward to her take on it.

~

And that post about pettiness, earlier this week?  The Washington Post decided to prove that they can be just as petty as the rest of us.

Screw America

By

On July 17, 2008

In Law, Politics, Society

Screw America is apparently what Newsweek/National Journal’s Stuart Taylor thinks the President should do:

President George W. Bush ought to pardon any official from cabinet secretary on down who might plausibly face prosecution for interrogation methods approved by administration lawyers. (It would be unseemly for Bush to pardon Vice President Dick Cheney or himself, but the next president wouldn’t allow them to be prosecuted anyway—galling as that may be to critics.) The reason for pardons is simple: what this country needs most is a full and true accounting of what took place.

And then the next President should be complicit in the coverup:

The incoming president should convene a truth commission, with subpoena power, to explore every possible misdeed and derive lessons from it. But this should not be a criminal investigation, which would only force officials to hire lawyers and batten down the hatches.

As Sadly, No, puts it:

Yeah, I’m sure Gonzo, Addington and Yoo will be totally willing to tell you the truth about everything if you just promise them that we’ll throw the whole concept of justice down the shitter just to keep them feeling comfortable.

See, Stuart Taylor is laying the groundwork not only for W’s pardoning of every criminal in his administration, but also the partisan attack on Obama if he doesn’t defend W’s actions.  I’ve been worried about exactly that since Obama started looking like a viable candidate, and share Sadly, No’s take, unfortunately:

The sad thing is: I know Obama will do exactly as Taylor recommends. Except he won’t even bother to set up the fucking bogus-assed truth commission. Just sweep this shit under the rug and enjoy his newfound powers to issue warrantless wiretaps and torture orders. Oh, and be sure to give special immunity to people like Nancy Pelosi and Jay Rockfeller, who should also be tossed in the Hague for being complicit in all this bullshit. This isn’t about partisanship, peeps — it’s about restricting the ability of our political class to behave in the most reckless and lawless ways imagineable. If we don’t want to degenerate into a damn banana republic, we have to demonstrate that we won’t let our most powerful politicians get away with breaking the laws they’ve sworn to uphold.

I don’t think Obama would continue the torture, but otherwise, I’ll lay a marker down on this – this is exactly what will happen, barring huge public pressure to the contrary.  And we all know how reliable the American public is when it comes to matters of actual moral import.

Contraception = Abortion?

By

On July 16, 2008

In Law, Policy, Politics

I knew that we could expect some really ridiculous stuff getting shoveled out during the waning days of the Bush Administration, but this surprised even me.

Friday Notes: Full Circle Edition

By

On July 11, 2008

In Distribution, Law, Society, Tech

File this in the Photos I Wish I’d Taken folder.

~

Speaking of photos, the kids over at BoingBoing are having fun with the Iranian missile ‘shop job (and surely I can’t be the only person who wondered if it was Cheney’s office doing the ‘shopping, there?).  My favorite is the “AT&T More Bars in More Places” one.

~

Tim Wu wonders why the answering machine was suppressed for 45 years:

Bell’s engineers had an answering machine invented by 1935.   However it wasn’t until 1980 or so that answering machines became widely available – why?

Interestingly, according to a great paper by Mark Clark that I came across recentlt, internal memos show that Bell was afraid that if there existed recording devices, people would stop using telephones.

~

Susan Crawford finds a nifty bit of analysis on what it means to be a common carrier.

~

I’m a huge fan of the Creative Commons project.  I release most of my photos at Flickr under a CC license (and lots of people and organizations have found use for them).  If you’re interested in contributing to a study of the Creative Commons license as it applies to photography, take a few minutes and complete this survey.

Senate Democrats FAIL

By

On July 9, 2008

In Law, Politics, Society

I’m going to have to wait a couple of days to write about what epic failures some congressional Democrats have managed to become.  Greenwald notes:

when the Congress was controlled by the GOP — when the Senate was run by Bill Frist and the House by Denny Hastert — the Bush administration attempted to have a bill passed very similar to the one that just passed today. But they were unable to do so. The administration had to wait until Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats took over Congress before being able to put a corrupt end to the scandal that began when, in December of 2005, the New York Times revealed that the President had been breaking the law for years by spying on Americans without the warrants required by law.

For a short (and well done) spoon fed summary of what it was the Democrats accomplished today, here’s Rachel Maddow and GW law professor Jonathan Turley:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmot0aZy4MM[/youtube]

For a more detailed analysis of what went down today, just go read Greenwald.  I’ll be busy here sorting through the epithets.  It may take a while.

FISA: That’s All, Folks

By

On July 9, 2008

In Law, Politics

Speaking of immunity, the Dodd/Feingold amendment to strip the telecom immunity provisions from the FISA bill just failed in the Senate, 32-66.  Obama voted for this amendment, but didn’t make good on his filibuster promise.  Shocker.

Note that Jim Webb, once again, sells us out.  I’m sure it won’t put much of a dent in the near-hero worship that goes on with Webb around here, but this certainly reinforces my happiness with his not being in the running for Vice President anymore.  The man has many fine qualities, but reliable judgment and respect for the Constitution isn’t among them.

Update: Here’s the roll call for the vote.

The GOP’s Responsibility Shell Game

By

On July 9, 2008

In Law, Politics

Congress is holding hearings on the toxic FEMA trailer issue today.  A quick review: the travel trailers that FEMA provided to Hurricane Katrina victims contained high levels of formaldahyde, which can cause respiratory problems and is a known carcinogen.   Congress (and by this, I mean the Democrats in Congress) has asked the heads of the companies that manufactured these trailers to come and explain why they were manufactured like this.

The GOP – party of responsibility, remember – wants to make sure that no one holds these manufactures responsible for their dangerous products.  To wit:

Companies that make recreational vehicles should not be blamed for high levels of formaldehyde in FEMA trailers, according to a report by House Republicans.

The partisan analysis instead points the finger at the federal government for not having standards for safe levels of formaldehyde before Hurricane Katrina victims lived in the trailers.

That’s right. The party that continuously proclaims that the government should keep its hands off of industry is now saying that the government should have regulated this industry, and since it didn’t, the industry couldn’t possibly be expected to ensure that its products were safe.

That’s remarkable only in that it’s the least common tine of the GOP’s three-pronged approach to responsibility in business.  Most often you hear that government has no business setting any kind of safety standards – “let the market sort it out!”  Of course, this means that you end up with things like trailers made with carcinogens.   In this case, the market has clearly decided that it’s okay, but only because trailer residents generally can’t afford to hold the builders responsible for resultant breathing problems or cancer.  And if, by chance, those residents somehow figure out how to do that – say, by trying to hold the builders responsible for their actions in court – the builders can count on the usual GOP mock-outrage over “trial lawyers!”  They’re the Party of Responsibility, but only until it actually comes time to be responsible.

The third approach – which they use when they’ve been unable to shimmy out of responsibility in courts, or have been laughed out of the “the government should have made us!” defense – is resorting to using the machinery of government to provide industries with immunity.  Want to hold an employer responsible for screwing you out of equal pay over your 20 year career?  Immunity.  A gun company responsible for turning a blind eye to the distribution of its products?  Immunity.  Telecom companies for breaking the law that keeps them from sharing your information with anyone without a warrant?  Immunity.

The GOP reliably hits on the theme of responsibility, and it’s the reason a decent number of voters identify as Republicans.  But it’s just a marketing them.  Nothing more.  Too bad its supporters can never seem to figure that out.

Page 18 of 27

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén