LONDON — At the Office 365 launch, Gordon Frazer, managing director of Microsoft UK, gave the first admission that cloud data — regardless of where it is in the world — is not protected against the USA PATRIOT Act.
It was honestly music to my ears. After a year of researching the Patriot Act’s breadth and ability to access data held within protected EU boundaries, Microsoft finally and openly admitted it.
The question put forward:
“Can Microsoft guarantee that EU-stored data, held in EU based datacenters, will not leave the European Economic Area under any circumstances — even under a request by the Patriot Act?”
Frazer explained that, as Microsoft is a U.S.-headquartered company, it has to comply with local laws (the United States, as well as any other location where one of its subsidiary companies is based).
Though he said that “customers would be informed wherever possible”, he could not provide a guarantee that they would be informed — if a gagging order, injunction or U.S. National Security Letter permits it.
He said: “Microsoft cannot provide those guarantees. Neither can any other company“.
While it has been suspected for some time, this is the first time Microsoft, or any other company, has given this answer.
Any data which is housed, stored or processed by a company, which is a U.S. based company or is wholly owned by a U.S. parent company, is vulnerable to interception and inspection by U.S. authorities.
Link:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/microsoft-admits-patriot-act-can-access-eu-based-cloud-data/11225
Favorite Quotes
Thursday, June 30, 2011
The Arlington police department is the first to use unmanned aerial drones, more police stations to follow.
ARLINGTON, TX - Aerial drones that were used during the Super Bowl for security purposes will help the Arlington police keep a watchful eye over the city.
Grant money from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security brought the city's first unmanned drone for the Super Bowl, but Arlington hopes to put it to use full-time.
Arlington is the only U.S. city to have been granted a license from the Federal Aviation Administration to fly unmanned aircraft over an urban area.
"The idea is provide an extra level of public safety for the city of Arlington," City Councilman Robert Rivera said. "Any time that we can utilize progressive methods to increase our level of public safety, that's what we're doing, and that's what we're looking at."
But the use of such drones has raised questions about privacy across the country.
"Personally, I'm opposed, here in Arlington, to the drones," Kimberly Frankland said. "There is definitely an invasion of privacy factor with drones flying over and filming or recording whatever is going on down below."
"With terrorist attacks and everything else going on, I don't think it's a bad idea," Arlington resident Eric Vandervoort said.
The drone could be used to help traffic and crash investigations, as well as search-and-rescue missions.
The city is looking into finding funding to operate the drone.
Links:
http://www.wect.com/story/14579902/super-bowl-security-drone-will-remain
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Arlington-PD-Testing-Unmanned-Aircraft-124680969.html
Homeland Security tells the media they are targeting the "homeland as a primary area of our emphasis."
WASHINGTON, DC - President Barack Obama's top adviser on homeland security unveiled a new national strategy for counterterrorism Tuesday, formalizing actions taken over the past two and a half years. The strategy also lays out a vision for U.S. operations going forward given the death of Osama bin Laden and the changing political climate across the Middle East.
Al Qaeda, "its affiliates and its adherents" will be the main focus of operations, said John Brennan, deputy national security adviser for homeland security and counterterrorism.
"This is the first counterterrorism strategy that focuses on the ability of al Qaeda and its network to inspire people in the United States to attack us from within," he said in a speech at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies. "Indeed, this is the first counterterrorism strategy that designates the homeland as a primary area of emphasis in our counterterrorism efforts."
Link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/29/counterterrorism-strategy-revealed-john-brennan_n_886997.html
Al Qaeda, "its affiliates and its adherents" will be the main focus of operations, said John Brennan, deputy national security adviser for homeland security and counterterrorism.
"This is the first counterterrorism strategy that focuses on the ability of al Qaeda and its network to inspire people in the United States to attack us from within," he said in a speech at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies. "Indeed, this is the first counterterrorism strategy that designates the homeland as a primary area of emphasis in our counterterrorism efforts."
Link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/29/counterterrorism-strategy-revealed-john-brennan_n_886997.html
"Should I Change My Password" website? Quickly checks if your password was compromised in a recent hack.
With many sites being compromised and user data released publicly on the web, you may have fallen victim. Should I Change My Password? is a simple webapp can tell you if you may be at risk.
When you visit the site, you just enter the email address you use for various accounts and click "Check it!" A large database of compromised account passwords and their associated email addresses (see the sources here) will be searched and you'll find out if you're in one of them. If you are, you should change your password right away. If not, you're safe for the time being but you'll be reminded to still change your password regularly.
It's worth noting that Should I Change My Password? isn't a surefire way to know if your accounts are completely safe, but it is a good way to find out if they were compromised. As always, you want to make sure you choose a secure password and avoid putting any sensitive information online if you can.
Links: https://shouldichangemypassword.com/
http://lifehacker.com/5814917/should-i-change-my-password-quickly-checks-if-your-password-was-compromised-in-a-recent-hack
When you visit the site, you just enter the email address you use for various accounts and click "Check it!" A large database of compromised account passwords and their associated email addresses (see the sources here) will be searched and you'll find out if you're in one of them. If you are, you should change your password right away. If not, you're safe for the time being but you'll be reminded to still change your password regularly.
It's worth noting that Should I Change My Password? isn't a surefire way to know if your accounts are completely safe, but it is a good way to find out if they were compromised. As always, you want to make sure you choose a secure password and avoid putting any sensitive information online if you can.
Links: https://shouldichangemypassword.com/
http://lifehacker.com/5814917/should-i-change-my-password-quickly-checks-if-your-password-was-compromised-in-a-recent-hack
Can the media continue to help free the wrongfully convicted?
The battle to free someone wrongly convicted of a crime can be long and arduous. Typically, it is waged by attorneys and journalists, with a supporting cast of family members, innocence advocates and others willing to go the distance to help someone who is locked away for years or even decades.
The case of Dale Helmig of Missouri is an example.
Convicted and imprisoned for the 1993 murder of his mother, Norma, Helmig was freed last December after Dekalb County Missouri Circuit Court Judge Warren McElwain found “clear and convincing evidence” of his innocence. But Helmig might well still be in prison—if it had not been for the tenacious efforts of investigative reporters in Missouri and elsewhere in the country.
Ironically, the kind of journalism that helped free Helmig is threatening to disappear, as pressures mount on newsrooms around the country.
Journalists were not the only players in the 15-year battle that began with Helmig’s conviction in 1996. A pro bono legal team which managed to enlist the help of a regional innocence project as well as Helmig’s brother Richard were also instrumental.
Terry Ganey became aware of Helmig’s plight in the summer of 2005.
Then a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, he wrote a three-part series on Dale, published in October. Ganey left the Post-Dispatch shortly afterward, but found the Helmig story so compelling that he promised himself he would continue to write about it whenever possible.
He went on to cover the case for the Columbia, Mo., Daily Tribune from 2005 to 2010, and later as a freelancer for the St. Louis Beacon , an online news site, and the Unterrified Democrat, a newspaper in Helmig’s former home town of Linn, Mo.
“If newspapers do not highlight such injustices, who will?” Ganey said. The press’s highest calling is its watchdog role over what happens in courtrooms,”
Steve Weinberg, a freelance writer, author, and University of Missouri School of Journalism professor, has long encouraged news media coverage of possible wrongful convictions.
Said Weinberg: “Unless journalists get better at covering the justice system, many criminals will continue to go unpunished, free to murder or rape or rob again. So investigating wrongful convictions is not—as perceived by too many police, prosecutors and judges—an assault by soft-on-crime bleeding hearts. Rather, it is an attempt to serve law and order, to improve the administration of justice, and to foster faith in the criminal justice system.”
Overall, however, media resources available for investigative reporting of criminal justice appear to be declining.
The number of stories about possible wrongful convictions is not keeping pace with that of potential cases reported to innocence projects.
Link:
http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/inside-criminal-justice/2011-06-anatomy-of-a-wrongful-conviction-case
The case of Dale Helmig of Missouri is an example.
Convicted and imprisoned for the 1993 murder of his mother, Norma, Helmig was freed last December after Dekalb County Missouri Circuit Court Judge Warren McElwain found “clear and convincing evidence” of his innocence. But Helmig might well still be in prison—if it had not been for the tenacious efforts of investigative reporters in Missouri and elsewhere in the country.
Ironically, the kind of journalism that helped free Helmig is threatening to disappear, as pressures mount on newsrooms around the country.
Journalists were not the only players in the 15-year battle that began with Helmig’s conviction in 1996. A pro bono legal team which managed to enlist the help of a regional innocence project as well as Helmig’s brother Richard were also instrumental.
Terry Ganey became aware of Helmig’s plight in the summer of 2005.
Then a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, he wrote a three-part series on Dale, published in October. Ganey left the Post-Dispatch shortly afterward, but found the Helmig story so compelling that he promised himself he would continue to write about it whenever possible.
He went on to cover the case for the Columbia, Mo., Daily Tribune from 2005 to 2010, and later as a freelancer for the St. Louis Beacon , an online news site, and the Unterrified Democrat, a newspaper in Helmig’s former home town of Linn, Mo.
“If newspapers do not highlight such injustices, who will?” Ganey said. The press’s highest calling is its watchdog role over what happens in courtrooms,”
Steve Weinberg, a freelance writer, author, and University of Missouri School of Journalism professor, has long encouraged news media coverage of possible wrongful convictions.
Said Weinberg: “Unless journalists get better at covering the justice system, many criminals will continue to go unpunished, free to murder or rape or rob again. So investigating wrongful convictions is not—as perceived by too many police, prosecutors and judges—an assault by soft-on-crime bleeding hearts. Rather, it is an attempt to serve law and order, to improve the administration of justice, and to foster faith in the criminal justice system.”
Overall, however, media resources available for investigative reporting of criminal justice appear to be declining.
The number of stories about possible wrongful convictions is not keeping pace with that of potential cases reported to innocence projects.
Link:
http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/inside-criminal-justice/2011-06-anatomy-of-a-wrongful-conviction-case
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
In what world do we defend the right of people to be arrested for non-crimes?
Emily Good was arrested for video-taping a police officer--despite the fact that in Rochester, New York, video-taping cops isn't actually a crime. Accordingly the charges were dropped yesterday. Here's a defense of Good's demonstrably illegal arrest:
The action Monday by the District Attorney's Office showed that "basically it wasn't a crime," Stare said after court. Doorley said the decision to drop the charge should not be read as an indictment of the arrest. "The police put their lives on the line for us every day," she said.
Across the community, people who viewed Good as an agitator also commended the police, noting that the streets they monitor can be dangerous. In 2009, three Rochester police officers were shot, though those incidents were not the offspring of traffic stops.
Rochester Police Locust Club union President Michael Mazzeo said he worries that the case could signal to people that they can interfere with a police stop or police action. "The last thing we need is people interfering or distracting officers in the middle of a situation," Mazzeo said. "It could turn deadly."
I'm really trying to wrap my head around this: In what world do we defend the right of people to be arrested for non-crimes? Obviously this one. But it can't continue this way. I deeply believe, that in a world of viral video, it slowly erodes the brand and legitimacy of law enforcement.
Link:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/in-defense-of-awful-police-work/241196/
NY- Emily Good was arrested by the Rochester police for videotaping them and had her home broken into.Then the police change their story.
After the police charged her would you believe her house was broken into? But wait there's more the police changed their story and now say there were three individuals in the car that night. here are the two links:
While Emily Good visited the library on Thursday afternoon, someone broke into her home and stole the very iPod she had used to make the controversial videotape of a police stop, Good said Monday.
After court and the dismissal of the criminal charge against her Monday, Good revealed that her home was broken into during an hour-long period while she visited the library.
The thieves also stole money, Good said, but other items — such as her roommates' laptops, which were in plain view — were left. She said she thinks someone was watching the house because they knew when she was not there.
Link:
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20110628/NEWS01/106280327/Break-in-at-Emily-Good-s-home-an-oddity?odyssey=tab|mostpopular|text|NEWS
When a Rochester police officer wrote up a report of the May 12 traffic stop that ended with the controversial arrest of Emily Good, he alleged that there were three occupants in the car who were reputed gang members.
The three, the report states, were members of the "Chalkem South" gang, which is known for "drug sales, guns and violence."
But civilians who witnessed the stop say there was only one person in the car.
Ryan Acuff, one witness at the scene, said he questions whether the police claims of multiple gang members in the car were used to justify Good's arrest.
"Why not just say what happened?" said Acuff, a city resident who filmed the video of Good's arrest after she dropped her iPod while being detained. "There was clearly one person there (in the car). ... Now there seems to be an effort to really defend this (traffic stop)."
Good and another person who witnessed the stop also said they saw just one person in the car. Good said she began video-recording the stop as a possible example of racial profiling.
Link:
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20110629/NEWS01/106290332/Questions-remain-about-Emily-Good-arrest?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CNews
While Emily Good visited the library on Thursday afternoon, someone broke into her home and stole the very iPod she had used to make the controversial videotape of a police stop, Good said Monday.
After court and the dismissal of the criminal charge against her Monday, Good revealed that her home was broken into during an hour-long period while she visited the library.
The thieves also stole money, Good said, but other items — such as her roommates' laptops, which were in plain view — were left. She said she thinks someone was watching the house because they knew when she was not there.
Link:
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20110628/NEWS01/106280327/Break-in-at-Emily-Good-s-home-an-oddity?odyssey=tab|mostpopular|text|NEWS
When a Rochester police officer wrote up a report of the May 12 traffic stop that ended with the controversial arrest of Emily Good, he alleged that there were three occupants in the car who were reputed gang members.
The three, the report states, were members of the "Chalkem South" gang, which is known for "drug sales, guns and violence."
But civilians who witnessed the stop say there was only one person in the car.
Ryan Acuff, one witness at the scene, said he questions whether the police claims of multiple gang members in the car were used to justify Good's arrest.
"Why not just say what happened?" said Acuff, a city resident who filmed the video of Good's arrest after she dropped her iPod while being detained. "There was clearly one person there (in the car). ... Now there seems to be an effort to really defend this (traffic stop)."
Good and another person who witnessed the stop also said they saw just one person in the car. Good said she began video-recording the stop as a possible example of racial profiling.
Link:
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20110629/NEWS01/106290332/Questions-remain-about-Emily-Good-arrest?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CNews
U.S. incarceration nation, with only 5% of the world's population we house 25% of the world's prison population.
America’s criminal justice system should keep communities safe, treat people fairly, and use fiscal resources wisely. But more Americans are deprived of their liberty than ever before - unfairly and unnecessarily, with no benefit to public safety. Especially in the face of economic crisis, our government should invest in alternatives to incarceration and make prisons options of last – not first – resort.
Link: http://www.aclu.org/combating-mass-incarceration-facts-0
Philadelphia police settle lawsuit over their "Stop & Frisk" policy.
PHILADELPHIA - A federal judge this week approved a settlement to a federal class action that accused Philadelphia police of targeting black and Latino men for unconstitutional searches on the street.
The practice, colloquially known as "stop and frisk," was the subject of a November 2010 class action brought by eight black and Latino men against the city and Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey.
Those men, which included an attorney, a University of Pennsylvania ethnographer and a state lawmaker, claimed that they were baselessly stopped - either while driving or as pedestrians - and in some cases taken into police custody, primarily because of the color of their skin.
Some of the stops resulted in minor charges - failure to disperse, driving with overly tinted windows - that were subsequently dismissed, according to the suit.
In other cases, no formal charges were brought, court papers show.
U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell certified a class in the settlement agreement signed Tuesday, and said qualified members of the class can sue for damages.
The Philadelphia Police Department has weathered similar accusations of racial profiling and other discriminatory conduct in past years.
A 1996 settlement in NAACP et al. v. City of Philadelphia brought about sweeping changes aimed at addressing alleged racially biased policing. That case involved minority Philadelphians claiming that they were targeted for improper narcotics charges and were subjected to police brutality.
Hundreds of convictions were overturned and the city agreed to pay over $6 million to the wrongfully accused, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which helped litigate the "stop and frisk" suit.
As part of the 1996 settlement, data from thousands of pedestrian and car stops was analyzed to ensure that minority Philadelphians would no longer be subjected to unconstitutional race-based policing.
But "The data compiled by the City continued to show lack of cause for stops, frisks and detentions, and a highly racially disparate impact on African-Americans and Latinos through to 2005, when monitoring of the 1996 Agreement terminated," according to the 2010 suit.
Link: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/24/stopfrisksettlement.pdf
The practice, colloquially known as "stop and frisk," was the subject of a November 2010 class action brought by eight black and Latino men against the city and Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey.
Those men, which included an attorney, a University of Pennsylvania ethnographer and a state lawmaker, claimed that they were baselessly stopped - either while driving or as pedestrians - and in some cases taken into police custody, primarily because of the color of their skin.
Some of the stops resulted in minor charges - failure to disperse, driving with overly tinted windows - that were subsequently dismissed, according to the suit.
In other cases, no formal charges were brought, court papers show.
U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell certified a class in the settlement agreement signed Tuesday, and said qualified members of the class can sue for damages.
The Philadelphia Police Department has weathered similar accusations of racial profiling and other discriminatory conduct in past years.
A 1996 settlement in NAACP et al. v. City of Philadelphia brought about sweeping changes aimed at addressing alleged racially biased policing. That case involved minority Philadelphians claiming that they were targeted for improper narcotics charges and were subjected to police brutality.
Hundreds of convictions were overturned and the city agreed to pay over $6 million to the wrongfully accused, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which helped litigate the "stop and frisk" suit.
As part of the 1996 settlement, data from thousands of pedestrian and car stops was analyzed to ensure that minority Philadelphians would no longer be subjected to unconstitutional race-based policing.
But "The data compiled by the City continued to show lack of cause for stops, frisks and detentions, and a highly racially disparate impact on African-Americans and Latinos through to 2005, when monitoring of the 1996 Agreement terminated," according to the 2010 suit.
Link: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/24/stopfrisksettlement.pdf
An Illinois federal prosecutor knowingly relied on the false testimony of a witness in order to win a guilty verdict.
CHICAGO, IL. - An Illinois federal prosecutor knowingly relied on the false testimony of a witness in order to win a guilty verdict during a five-week drug conspiracy trial, the 7th Circuit found.
The three-judge panel affirmed district Judge Joan Lefkow's grant of a new trial to four individuals convicted of various drug crimes, including overarching conspiracy which carries a twenty year minimum sentence.
Video surveillance, garbage pulls, and controlled buys in the now-razed Cabrini Green public housing project led to the indictment of fifteen individuals for cocaine charges, including overarching conspiracy. Only five pled not guilty. Rondell Freeman, Brian Wilbourn, Daniel Hill and Adam Sanders were convicted.
Prosecutors alleged that the drug ring was operated by a street gang called the Gangster Disciples under Freeman's leadership. Freeman supposedly purchased over one kilogram of cocaine per week which was turned into crack.
The defendants admitted to being low-level drug dealers, but denied any ties to Freeman.
Testimony of three cooperating witnesses, including a former crack bagger Seneca Williams, allowed the prosecution to paint a picture of an organized drug ring. In exchange for a five year prison sentence, Williams outlined the details of the operation.
His testimony placed Freeman, Wilbourn, Hill, and Sanders at a drug house known as "the penthouse" in 2003. However, Wilbourn was incarcerated from 2002 to 2005.
Wilbourn's attorney sent prosecutors a letter pointing out the contradiction. But prosecutors allowed Williams to testify anyway, encouraging him to specifically detail Wilbourn's participation in Freeman's operation.
When the defense council pointed out the impossibility of Williams's testimony, the government objected saying, "That's not true," in the presence of the jury.
It was a full twelve days after Williams had taken the stand before the government acknowledged that Wilbourn was in prison in 2003. However, the government still relied on Williams's testimony during closing arguments, arguing that he had not lied but was merely imprecise about the dates. The prosecution's own evidence showed that the penthouse was only used in 2003.
Link: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/950HSUVN.pdf
The three-judge panel affirmed district Judge Joan Lefkow's grant of a new trial to four individuals convicted of various drug crimes, including overarching conspiracy which carries a twenty year minimum sentence.
Video surveillance, garbage pulls, and controlled buys in the now-razed Cabrini Green public housing project led to the indictment of fifteen individuals for cocaine charges, including overarching conspiracy. Only five pled not guilty. Rondell Freeman, Brian Wilbourn, Daniel Hill and Adam Sanders were convicted.
Prosecutors alleged that the drug ring was operated by a street gang called the Gangster Disciples under Freeman's leadership. Freeman supposedly purchased over one kilogram of cocaine per week which was turned into crack.
The defendants admitted to being low-level drug dealers, but denied any ties to Freeman.
Testimony of three cooperating witnesses, including a former crack bagger Seneca Williams, allowed the prosecution to paint a picture of an organized drug ring. In exchange for a five year prison sentence, Williams outlined the details of the operation.
His testimony placed Freeman, Wilbourn, Hill, and Sanders at a drug house known as "the penthouse" in 2003. However, Wilbourn was incarcerated from 2002 to 2005.
Wilbourn's attorney sent prosecutors a letter pointing out the contradiction. But prosecutors allowed Williams to testify anyway, encouraging him to specifically detail Wilbourn's participation in Freeman's operation.
When the defense council pointed out the impossibility of Williams's testimony, the government objected saying, "That's not true," in the presence of the jury.
It was a full twelve days after Williams had taken the stand before the government acknowledged that Wilbourn was in prison in 2003. However, the government still relied on Williams's testimony during closing arguments, arguing that he had not lied but was merely imprecise about the dates. The prosecution's own evidence showed that the penthouse was only used in 2003.
Link: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/950HSUVN.pdf
Why expungement of criminal records is a big lie.
The Salt Lake Tribune recently reported that people convicted of crimes many years ago who thought their convictions had been expunged by the Utah courts are finding that their record continues to show up in routine background checks. The problem appears to be that private background-checking companies are not notified when the court expunges a conviction, and so do not purge their databases.
One young mother who volunteered to be a parent helper for her son’s youth football team was mortified when a background check turned up a conviction for check forgery that had been expunged years before.
One might well ask why the football team felt it necessary to do a background check on this volunteer mom. The answer lies partly in post-9/11 paranoia, and partly in the seductive ease with which a record can be checked.
What used to require a trip to the courthouse can now be accomplished by pushing a few buttons on the computer and paying $15. There are now hundreds of background checking companies that harvest data and make it available for a modest fee, and many state records systems are now on line. Most systems allow checking by name and date of birth, which produces many false positives.
One might also ask what rules govern the hundreds of background-checking companies that now control the destiny of the 65 million Americans who have a criminal record.
The answer: very few. Those that exist are both unclear and hard to enforce.
Nowadays, the objections to expungement are far more practical. In addition to broader public posting and private dissemination of criminal history information, the ever-expanding list of individuals and entities given special access to expunged criminal records has further diminished the value of relief mechanisms that depend on concealment. I recently wrote in an article in the Howard Law Journal that expungement schemes produce “understandable anxiety in the community about a remedy many see as premised on a lie.”
Margaret Colgate Love's Scholarly Papers can be downloaded
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=283189
Howard Law Journal, Vol. 54, No. 3, 2011
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1802180
Link:
http://www.thecrimereport.org/viewpoints/2011-06-expungement-of-criminal-records-the-big-lie
One young mother who volunteered to be a parent helper for her son’s youth football team was mortified when a background check turned up a conviction for check forgery that had been expunged years before.
One might well ask why the football team felt it necessary to do a background check on this volunteer mom. The answer lies partly in post-9/11 paranoia, and partly in the seductive ease with which a record can be checked.
What used to require a trip to the courthouse can now be accomplished by pushing a few buttons on the computer and paying $15. There are now hundreds of background checking companies that harvest data and make it available for a modest fee, and many state records systems are now on line. Most systems allow checking by name and date of birth, which produces many false positives.
One might also ask what rules govern the hundreds of background-checking companies that now control the destiny of the 65 million Americans who have a criminal record.
The answer: very few. Those that exist are both unclear and hard to enforce.
Nowadays, the objections to expungement are far more practical. In addition to broader public posting and private dissemination of criminal history information, the ever-expanding list of individuals and entities given special access to expunged criminal records has further diminished the value of relief mechanisms that depend on concealment. I recently wrote in an article in the Howard Law Journal that expungement schemes produce “understandable anxiety in the community about a remedy many see as premised on a lie.”
Margaret Colgate Love's Scholarly Papers can be downloaded
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=283189
Howard Law Journal, Vol. 54, No. 3, 2011
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1802180
Link:
http://www.thecrimereport.org/viewpoints/2011-06-expungement-of-criminal-records-the-big-lie
One study finds sexting to be a common method used by those looking for extra- marital affairs.
A new study finds that the practice of "sexting" -- sending salacious texts or nude photos over the Internet -- is now a key tool for Americans bent on infidelity.
Sexting, which notoriously cost former Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner his job, is "alive and well," said sociologist Diane Kholos Wysocki, the study's lead author. In fact, she said, it's a part of the whole extra-marital mating ritual, according to Wysocki, who said adulterous interactions that begin online seem to follow a regular pattern.
"People meet, then they send pictures, then they send naked pictures, then they proceed and ultimately meet if they find that they're compatible," she said.
The study, based on a survey of almost 5,200 users of a website devoted to extra-marital dating called ashleymadison.com, doesn't say anything about the habits of the American population in general. And, as Kholos Wysocki acknowledged, its value is also limited because it only includes those people who volunteered to take part and were already using the site.
"Any time you get a group of people on the Internet, we can't say it's representative," said Kholos Wysocki, a professor of sociology, University of Nebraska at Kearney. However, she said the survey does offer insight into why people choose to stay married but still have affairs.
As of a year ago, the ashleymadison.com site, whose motto is "Life is short. Have an affair," claimed more than 6 million members. Working with the site, Kholos Wysocki in 2009 posted a survey for members with 68 questions. The results appear in a recent online issue of the journal Sexuality & Culture.
Those who responded tend to be upscale (with a median income of about $86,000), mostly married (64 percent) and highly educated (about 70 percent attended college, and 20 percent had advanced degrees). More than 6 out of every 10 respondents were male.
Sixty percent of the women and close to half of the men said they'd engaged in sexting -- sending naked photos of themselves via email or cell phone. Age was no bar for the practice, since about 40 percent of people over the age of 50 had done so. However, sexting was much more likely among the few surveyed who were aged 19-24.
About three-quarters of people of both genders acknowledged having cheated while in a serious relationship. More than 8 in 10 women and two-thirds of men said they'd met people in person after first encountering them online. That suggests many users plan on consummating an extra-marital relationship, not just looking and flirting online.
Link:
http://yourlife.usatoday.com/sex-relationships/story/2011/06/Sexting-common-for-those-who-cheat/48890542/1
Sexting, which notoriously cost former Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner his job, is "alive and well," said sociologist Diane Kholos Wysocki, the study's lead author. In fact, she said, it's a part of the whole extra-marital mating ritual, according to Wysocki, who said adulterous interactions that begin online seem to follow a regular pattern.
"People meet, then they send pictures, then they send naked pictures, then they proceed and ultimately meet if they find that they're compatible," she said.
The study, based on a survey of almost 5,200 users of a website devoted to extra-marital dating called ashleymadison.com, doesn't say anything about the habits of the American population in general. And, as Kholos Wysocki acknowledged, its value is also limited because it only includes those people who volunteered to take part and were already using the site.
"Any time you get a group of people on the Internet, we can't say it's representative," said Kholos Wysocki, a professor of sociology, University of Nebraska at Kearney. However, she said the survey does offer insight into why people choose to stay married but still have affairs.
As of a year ago, the ashleymadison.com site, whose motto is "Life is short. Have an affair," claimed more than 6 million members. Working with the site, Kholos Wysocki in 2009 posted a survey for members with 68 questions. The results appear in a recent online issue of the journal Sexuality & Culture.
Those who responded tend to be upscale (with a median income of about $86,000), mostly married (64 percent) and highly educated (about 70 percent attended college, and 20 percent had advanced degrees). More than 6 out of every 10 respondents were male.
Sixty percent of the women and close to half of the men said they'd engaged in sexting -- sending naked photos of themselves via email or cell phone. Age was no bar for the practice, since about 40 percent of people over the age of 50 had done so. However, sexting was much more likely among the few surveyed who were aged 19-24.
About three-quarters of people of both genders acknowledged having cheated while in a serious relationship. More than 8 in 10 women and two-thirds of men said they'd met people in person after first encountering them online. That suggests many users plan on consummating an extra-marital relationship, not just looking and flirting online.
Link:
http://yourlife.usatoday.com/sex-relationships/story/2011/06/Sexting-common-for-those-who-cheat/48890542/1
The Nassau County, NY crime lab sends marijuana through Fed Ex and it disappeared.
MINEOLA, N.Y.– Marijuana that was to be used as evidence in a Long Island drug case has disappeared from a truck that was transporting it to a Pennsylvania crime lab.
Marc Gann, head of a committee examining problems at the Nassau County police crime lab, said it appears someone had tampered with and potentially stolen some of the evidence that was placed FedEx’s custody.
He said the district attorney’s office told him a shipping box on the FedEx truck had been opened, the marijuana removed and the box resealed.
“It just calls into question the propriety of dealing with a common carrier, like FedEx, for purposes of delivering evidence,” Gann told 1010 WINS. “Perhaps a better course of action would be to use an employee of the police department or the county. “It raises a broader issue about the credibility of the evidence in those other cases that were being transported along with the marijuana,” he said.
Link:
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/06/27/marijuana-in-long-island-drug-case-disappears-during-transport/
Marc Gann, head of a committee examining problems at the Nassau County police crime lab, said it appears someone had tampered with and potentially stolen some of the evidence that was placed FedEx’s custody.
He said the district attorney’s office told him a shipping box on the FedEx truck had been opened, the marijuana removed and the box resealed.
“It just calls into question the propriety of dealing with a common carrier, like FedEx, for purposes of delivering evidence,” Gann told 1010 WINS. “Perhaps a better course of action would be to use an employee of the police department or the county. “It raises a broader issue about the credibility of the evidence in those other cases that were being transported along with the marijuana,” he said.
Link:
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/06/27/marijuana-in-long-island-drug-case-disappears-during-transport/
Google turns over user data in 94% of United States demands.
The US government filed more than twice as many demands for data about Google users than any other other country in the past six months, according to figures the search behemoth supplied Monday.
What's more, according to the Google Transparency Report, Google fully or partially complied with the US demands in 94 percent of the cases, a rate that was higher than responses to any other government.
From July to December of last year, Google received 4,601 demands from US-based governments for information relating to one or more of its users, Monday's report stated. Brazil and India were second and third with 1,804 and 1,699 requests respectively.
The fact that Google on average complies with 19 of 20 US demands to turn over data about its users is cause for concern, but it's probably no more alarming than the compliance rates from Yahoo, Microsoft, and Facebook. Google was the only major search engine to challenge a 2006 Justice Department subpoena for two months of users' search queries.
Link:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/27/google_user_data_subpoenas/
What's more, according to the Google Transparency Report, Google fully or partially complied with the US demands in 94 percent of the cases, a rate that was higher than responses to any other government.
From July to December of last year, Google received 4,601 demands from US-based governments for information relating to one or more of its users, Monday's report stated. Brazil and India were second and third with 1,804 and 1,699 requests respectively.
The fact that Google on average complies with 19 of 20 US demands to turn over data about its users is cause for concern, but it's probably no more alarming than the compliance rates from Yahoo, Microsoft, and Facebook. Google was the only major search engine to challenge a 2006 Justice Department subpoena for two months of users' search queries.
Link:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/27/google_user_data_subpoenas/
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
MA- Could using your cell phone to record the police get you arrested?
Link:
http://www.wgbh.org/programs/Greater-Boston-11/episodes/June-21-2011Could-your-cell-phone-get-you-arrested-29711
Child abuse cases are we putting innocent people behind bars?
An investigation by NPR, ProPublica and PBS Frontline has found that medical examiners and coroners have repeatedly mishandled cases of infant and child deaths, helping to put innocent people behind bars.
We analyzed nearly two dozen cases in the United States and Canada in which people have been accused of killing children based on flawed or biased work by forensic pathologists, and then later cleared.
Some spent years in prison before courts overturned their convictions. In 2004, San Diego prosecutors moved to dismiss charges against a man who'd been imprisoned for two decades for murdering his girlfriend's son.
The questionable prosecutions identified in our joint investigation had common elements:
Often, authorities had little to go on other than autopsy findings. Many of the doctors who conducted post-mortem examinations failed to consult specialists in childhood injuries or ailments, or to thoroughly review medical records that could have affected their conclusions. In several cases, forensic pathologists worked so closely with authorities, they effectively became agents of law enforcement, rather than objective arbiters of scientific evidence.
Some experts in the field say worries about mistakes in child death cases are overstated. "The vast majority of forensic pathologists recognize a child abuse case when they see it, and it's not because they want to persecute people," said Mary Case, chief medical examiner for four Missouri counties including St. Louis County.
But others say the criminal justice system has yet to confront the full scope of the problem, and that, as a result, more innocent people may be serving time for crimes they didn't commit. "I think it's time to look at these cases again," said Michael Laposata, chief pathologist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, adding that this could "result in the liberation of a number of falsely accused people."
Many of the nation's morgues are staffed by doctors who aren't board-certified in forensic pathology. To become certified, doctors need an extra year of training and must pass a day-long test. Earlier this year, an investigation by NPR, ProPublica and PBS Frontline showed that more than 100 physicians without board certification were working at the country's busiest coroner and medical examiner offices.
Dr. Jon Thogmartin is a medical examiner in Florida and a board certified forensic pathologist. Thogmartin said the charged emotions inevitably triggered by a child's death add another layer of complexity. Forensic pathologists, in his view, can get "caught up in the anger, the emotion, the despair." Their mindset can become prosecutorial, Thogmartin said, until every child death is a "homicide until proven otherwise."
The Child Cases:
As part of an ongoing look into the troubled state of death investigation, ProPublica, PBS "Frontline" and NPR identified nearly two dozen cases in the U.S. and Canada in which people have been accused of killing children based on flawed or biased work by forensic pathologists and then later cleared. These are summaries of the cases:
http://www.propublica.org/special/the-child-cases
Link:
http://www.propublica.org/article/the-hardest-cases-when-children-die-justice-can-be-elusive
We analyzed nearly two dozen cases in the United States and Canada in which people have been accused of killing children based on flawed or biased work by forensic pathologists, and then later cleared.
Some spent years in prison before courts overturned their convictions. In 2004, San Diego prosecutors moved to dismiss charges against a man who'd been imprisoned for two decades for murdering his girlfriend's son.
The questionable prosecutions identified in our joint investigation had common elements:
Often, authorities had little to go on other than autopsy findings. Many of the doctors who conducted post-mortem examinations failed to consult specialists in childhood injuries or ailments, or to thoroughly review medical records that could have affected their conclusions. In several cases, forensic pathologists worked so closely with authorities, they effectively became agents of law enforcement, rather than objective arbiters of scientific evidence.
Some experts in the field say worries about mistakes in child death cases are overstated. "The vast majority of forensic pathologists recognize a child abuse case when they see it, and it's not because they want to persecute people," said Mary Case, chief medical examiner for four Missouri counties including St. Louis County.
But others say the criminal justice system has yet to confront the full scope of the problem, and that, as a result, more innocent people may be serving time for crimes they didn't commit. "I think it's time to look at these cases again," said Michael Laposata, chief pathologist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, adding that this could "result in the liberation of a number of falsely accused people."
Many of the nation's morgues are staffed by doctors who aren't board-certified in forensic pathology. To become certified, doctors need an extra year of training and must pass a day-long test. Earlier this year, an investigation by NPR, ProPublica and PBS Frontline showed that more than 100 physicians without board certification were working at the country's busiest coroner and medical examiner offices.
Dr. Jon Thogmartin is a medical examiner in Florida and a board certified forensic pathologist. Thogmartin said the charged emotions inevitably triggered by a child's death add another layer of complexity. Forensic pathologists, in his view, can get "caught up in the anger, the emotion, the despair." Their mindset can become prosecutorial, Thogmartin said, until every child death is a "homicide until proven otherwise."
The Child Cases:
As part of an ongoing look into the troubled state of death investigation, ProPublica, PBS "Frontline" and NPR identified nearly two dozen cases in the U.S. and Canada in which people have been accused of killing children based on flawed or biased work by forensic pathologists and then later cleared. These are summaries of the cases:
http://www.propublica.org/special/the-child-cases
Link:
http://www.propublica.org/article/the-hardest-cases-when-children-die-justice-can-be-elusive
The argument for privatizing crime labs, could prevent errors and analyst bias.
Scandals have plagued state crime labs in North Carolina, California, Virginia, Illinois, Maryland, West Virginia and Mississippi; the city crime labs in Houston, Cleveland, Chicago, Omaha, Oklahoma City, Washington and San Francisco; the county lab in Nassau County, New York; and even at the FBI and Army crime labs.
What's going on? Most of these scandals were exposed after DNA testing cleared someone who was convicted based on testimony from crime lab analysts. DNA testing, which is actually grounded in solid science, is showing that forensic analysis isn't as certain or as scientific as it is often claimed to be. It's also showing us that forensics is plagued by bias, both intentional and unintentional, and that bias is caused by poorly structured incentives that often reward crime lab workers for helping win convictions, not for sound analysis. The Innocence Project estimates that bad forensic science contributed to about half of wrongful convictions that were later exposed by DNA testing.
Consider the scandal in North Carolina, uncovered last year after a state investigation and follow-up series by the Raleigh News & Observer. The initial investigation found at least 230 cases in which crime lab workers failed to turn over potentially exculpatory evidence, including three cases that resulted in the defendant's execution.
The News & Observer follow-up found even more, often stunning, bias at the lab, including training manuals that taught workers to consider defendants and their attorneys as the enemy. Many lab workers' performance reviews were actually written by prosecutors. In one case, two blood-spatter specialists were caught on video high-fiving one another after running through multiple experiments until they found one that supported the prosecution's theory of a case.
It isn't difficult to see how having experts who present themselves in court as objective, unbiased analysts report directly to prosecutors or police agencies could present some problems. But that's exactly what's happening. According to a 2009 report on forensic science by the National Academy of Sciences, more than half the crime labs in the U.S. report directly to a law enforcement organization. In some cases, this can lead to overt pressure from police officers and prosecutors to produce desirable results. But most of the time the bias is more subtle, and unintentional.
Link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/14/the-case-for-private-crime-labs_n_876963.html
What's going on? Most of these scandals were exposed after DNA testing cleared someone who was convicted based on testimony from crime lab analysts. DNA testing, which is actually grounded in solid science, is showing that forensic analysis isn't as certain or as scientific as it is often claimed to be. It's also showing us that forensics is plagued by bias, both intentional and unintentional, and that bias is caused by poorly structured incentives that often reward crime lab workers for helping win convictions, not for sound analysis. The Innocence Project estimates that bad forensic science contributed to about half of wrongful convictions that were later exposed by DNA testing.
Consider the scandal in North Carolina, uncovered last year after a state investigation and follow-up series by the Raleigh News & Observer. The initial investigation found at least 230 cases in which crime lab workers failed to turn over potentially exculpatory evidence, including three cases that resulted in the defendant's execution.
The News & Observer follow-up found even more, often stunning, bias at the lab, including training manuals that taught workers to consider defendants and their attorneys as the enemy. Many lab workers' performance reviews were actually written by prosecutors. In one case, two blood-spatter specialists were caught on video high-fiving one another after running through multiple experiments until they found one that supported the prosecution's theory of a case.
It isn't difficult to see how having experts who present themselves in court as objective, unbiased analysts report directly to prosecutors or police agencies could present some problems. But that's exactly what's happening. According to a 2009 report on forensic science by the National Academy of Sciences, more than half the crime labs in the U.S. report directly to a law enforcement organization. In some cases, this can lead to overt pressure from police officers and prosecutors to produce desirable results. But most of the time the bias is more subtle, and unintentional.
Link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/14/the-case-for-private-crime-labs_n_876963.html
Know your rights digital guide, easy-to-understand tips on interacting with police officers and other law enforcement officials.
Your computer, your phone, and your other digital devices hold vast amounts of personal information about you and your family. This is sensitive data that's worth protecting from prying eyes - including those of the government.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects you from unreasonable government searches and seizures, and this protection extends to your computer and portable devices. But how does this work in the real world? What should you do if the police or other law enforcement officers show up at your door and want to search your computer?
"With smart phones, tablet computers, and laptops, we carry around with us an unprecedented amount of sensitive personal information," said EFF Staff Attorney Hanni Fakhoury. "That smart phone in your pocket right now could contain email from your doctor or your kid's teacher, not to mention detailed contact information for all of your friends and family members. Your laptop probably holds even more data -- your Internet browsing history, family photo albums, and maybe even things like an electronic copy of your taxes or your employment agreement. This is sensitive data that's worth protecting from prying eyes."
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects you from unreasonable government searches and seizures, and this protection extends to your computer and portable devices. In EFF's "Know Your Digital Rights" guide, we outline various common scenarios and explain when and how the police can search the data stored on your computer or portable electronic device -- or seize it for further examination somewhere else -- and give suggestions on what you can and can't do to protect your privacy.
"In the heat of the moment, it can be hard to remember what your rights are and how to exercise them," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann. "Sometimes police can search your computer whether you like it or not, but sometimes they can't. We wrote this guide to help you tell the difference and to empower you to assert your rights when the police come knocking."
EFF has designed this guide to help you understand your rights if officers try to search the data stored on your computer or portable electronic device, or seize it for further examination somewhere else.
Because anything you say can be used against you in a criminal or civil case, before speaking to any law enforcement official, you should consult with an attorney.
EFF guide talking to police Pdf.
https://www.eff.org/files/EFF_Police_Tips_2011.pdf
Link: https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects you from unreasonable government searches and seizures, and this protection extends to your computer and portable devices. But how does this work in the real world? What should you do if the police or other law enforcement officers show up at your door and want to search your computer?
"With smart phones, tablet computers, and laptops, we carry around with us an unprecedented amount of sensitive personal information," said EFF Staff Attorney Hanni Fakhoury. "That smart phone in your pocket right now could contain email from your doctor or your kid's teacher, not to mention detailed contact information for all of your friends and family members. Your laptop probably holds even more data -- your Internet browsing history, family photo albums, and maybe even things like an electronic copy of your taxes or your employment agreement. This is sensitive data that's worth protecting from prying eyes."
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects you from unreasonable government searches and seizures, and this protection extends to your computer and portable devices. In EFF's "Know Your Digital Rights" guide, we outline various common scenarios and explain when and how the police can search the data stored on your computer or portable electronic device -- or seize it for further examination somewhere else -- and give suggestions on what you can and can't do to protect your privacy.
"In the heat of the moment, it can be hard to remember what your rights are and how to exercise them," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann. "Sometimes police can search your computer whether you like it or not, but sometimes they can't. We wrote this guide to help you tell the difference and to empower you to assert your rights when the police come knocking."
EFF has designed this guide to help you understand your rights if officers try to search the data stored on your computer or portable electronic device, or seize it for further examination somewhere else.
Because anything you say can be used against you in a criminal or civil case, before speaking to any law enforcement official, you should consult with an attorney.
EFF guide talking to police Pdf.
https://www.eff.org/files/EFF_Police_Tips_2011.pdf
Link: https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights
Monday, June 27, 2011
The Louisiana Supreme Court ruling allows police officers to search your vehicle without a warrant.
The Louisiana Supreme Court on Friday gave a green light to police officers looking to search automobiles without a warrant. The court ruled on an interim appeal in the ongoing trial of Derrick R. Kirton, 30, and Crystal N. Strate, 27, who were charged on February 23 with distribution and possession of heroin, respectively. A judge in the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court had ruled that the police search of Kirton's vehicle was unlawful because it was not based on probable cause. The prosecution appealed.
Louisiana law allows for rulings on individual motions to be appealed without waiting for the end of the trial, and the state succeeded in convincing the high court to overturn the motion to suppress the evidence from the vehicle search. New Orleans Police Detective Roccoforte had seen Strate in parking lot of a fast food store using her cell phone and "looking about anxiously." Strate drove a short distance to pull up to Kirton's parked vehicle, remained in it for less than a minute, then returned to her car and drove away. Roccoforte followed and approached Strate after she had parked her car. He noted "furtive movement" of Strate's right hand and decided to perform a warrantless search of her car. The supreme court found this acceptable.
"We simply observe that based on the totality of facts and circumstances known to Detective Roccoforte and his experience in the field of narcotics investigations, there was at least objectively reasonable suspicion of criminal activity when the approach to the car was made," the court wrote in a footnote. The full decision added: "In determining whether reasonable suspicion exists to conduct an investigatory stop, courts must take into account the totality of the circumstances in a process that allows police to draw upon their own experience and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them that might elude an untrained person."
Justice Bernette J. Johnson dissented, arguing the investigatory stop was not based on any reasonable notion that a crime was being committed. She cited a US Department of Justice report that slammed the New Orleans Police Department for its pattern of conducting illegal stops and searches without reasonable suspicion. Johnson's citation suggested she believed this to be an example of the very conduct DOJ seeks to eliminate.
"The defendant did not present any behavior suspicious of criminal activity to warrant an investigative stop under Terry v. Ohio," Johnson wrote. "The threshold issue to be determined in the instant case is whether the officer who conducted the investigatory stop had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity... These facts, even in light of the officer's ten years experience as a narcotics officer, and his claim that the area was known for drug activity, do not provide minimal objective and particularized justification for approaching the defendant in her parked vehicle, and conducting what amounted to an investigatory stop."
Louisiana Supreme Court decision:
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/930I64DF.pdf
Link:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/la-search.pdf
Louisiana law allows for rulings on individual motions to be appealed without waiting for the end of the trial, and the state succeeded in convincing the high court to overturn the motion to suppress the evidence from the vehicle search. New Orleans Police Detective Roccoforte had seen Strate in parking lot of a fast food store using her cell phone and "looking about anxiously." Strate drove a short distance to pull up to Kirton's parked vehicle, remained in it for less than a minute, then returned to her car and drove away. Roccoforte followed and approached Strate after she had parked her car. He noted "furtive movement" of Strate's right hand and decided to perform a warrantless search of her car. The supreme court found this acceptable.
"We simply observe that based on the totality of facts and circumstances known to Detective Roccoforte and his experience in the field of narcotics investigations, there was at least objectively reasonable suspicion of criminal activity when the approach to the car was made," the court wrote in a footnote. The full decision added: "In determining whether reasonable suspicion exists to conduct an investigatory stop, courts must take into account the totality of the circumstances in a process that allows police to draw upon their own experience and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them that might elude an untrained person."
Justice Bernette J. Johnson dissented, arguing the investigatory stop was not based on any reasonable notion that a crime was being committed. She cited a US Department of Justice report that slammed the New Orleans Police Department for its pattern of conducting illegal stops and searches without reasonable suspicion. Johnson's citation suggested she believed this to be an example of the very conduct DOJ seeks to eliminate.
"The defendant did not present any behavior suspicious of criminal activity to warrant an investigative stop under Terry v. Ohio," Johnson wrote. "The threshold issue to be determined in the instant case is whether the officer who conducted the investigatory stop had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity... These facts, even in light of the officer's ten years experience as a narcotics officer, and his claim that the area was known for drug activity, do not provide minimal objective and particularized justification for approaching the defendant in her parked vehicle, and conducting what amounted to an investigatory stop."
Louisiana Supreme Court decision:
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/930I64DF.pdf
Link:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/la-search.pdf
Our Constitutional rights are being signed away.
A few weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion et ux. told corporations that it is okay for them to write clauses into contracts that prevent people from filing class actions.
Most Americans probably haven’t heard about this decision, or don’t think it matters to them — until one day their credit card company charges them a $35 late fee that they believe they shouldn’t have to pay.
Who would sue for $35? No one. But what if the credit card company unfairly charged 2 million customers that same $35, and fraudulently made $70 million? Who would hold them accountable? No one, according to the new Supreme Court ruling.
Taking away people’s rights to access the courts is not that new for corporations. It has been going on for more than 25 years. It has been done through legislation, judicial elections, contractually and supported by a massive, corporate-funded public relations campaign.
Most Americans, however, have no idea – and, again, don’t seem to care — until something bad happens to them personally. Then, people understand, usually for the first time, how their constitutional rights — which stem from the 7th Amendment — have been taken away.
In fact, we have been unwittingly giving away our rights for years, by voting for politicians who cap damages, by electing judges biased toward corporate interests and by signing contracts with fine print forcing us into mandatory arbitration when a company harms us.
This systematic erosion of our rights to access the court system has been done in the guise of “tort reform,” which some people now consider a good thing. But it is, in fact, a term drummed up by the corporate sector and essentially restricts people’s rights to get justice in a court of law.
A “tort” is any harm caused by someone else. Whether you’re hurt in an automobile collision caused by another driver, by medical negligence or a defective product, the harm you suffer is called a tort. “Tort reform” laws are usually created to keep people with legitimate cases from getting into the court system — thereby allowing wrongdoers to be immune from liability and accountability, keeping people from learning about their unsafe products and practices.
Link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57771.html
Most Americans probably haven’t heard about this decision, or don’t think it matters to them — until one day their credit card company charges them a $35 late fee that they believe they shouldn’t have to pay.
Who would sue for $35? No one. But what if the credit card company unfairly charged 2 million customers that same $35, and fraudulently made $70 million? Who would hold them accountable? No one, according to the new Supreme Court ruling.
Taking away people’s rights to access the courts is not that new for corporations. It has been going on for more than 25 years. It has been done through legislation, judicial elections, contractually and supported by a massive, corporate-funded public relations campaign.
Most Americans, however, have no idea – and, again, don’t seem to care — until something bad happens to them personally. Then, people understand, usually for the first time, how their constitutional rights — which stem from the 7th Amendment — have been taken away.
In fact, we have been unwittingly giving away our rights for years, by voting for politicians who cap damages, by electing judges biased toward corporate interests and by signing contracts with fine print forcing us into mandatory arbitration when a company harms us.
This systematic erosion of our rights to access the court system has been done in the guise of “tort reform,” which some people now consider a good thing. But it is, in fact, a term drummed up by the corporate sector and essentially restricts people’s rights to get justice in a court of law.
A “tort” is any harm caused by someone else. Whether you’re hurt in an automobile collision caused by another driver, by medical negligence or a defective product, the harm you suffer is called a tort. “Tort reform” laws are usually created to keep people with legitimate cases from getting into the court system — thereby allowing wrongdoers to be immune from liability and accountability, keeping people from learning about their unsafe products and practices.
Link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57771.html
Sunday, June 26, 2011
A study conducted by Ponemon Research revealed that 90% of U.S. companies had been hacked last year.
If it sometimes appears that just about every company is getting hacked these days, that's because they are.
In a new survey of 583 U.S companies conducted by Ponemon Research on behalf of Juniper Networks, 90% of the respondents said their companies' computers were breached at least once by hackers over the past 12 months.
Nearly 60% reported two or more breaches over the past year. More than 50% said they had little confidence of being able to stave off further attacks over the next 12 months.
Those numbers are significantly higher than similar surveys and suggest that a growing number of enterprises are losing the battle to keep malicious intruders out of their networks. "We expected a majority to say they had experienced a breach," said Johnnie Konstantas, director of product marketing at Juniper.
"But to have 90% saying they had experienced at least one breach and more than 50% saying they had experienced two or more, is mind blowing," she said. It suggests "that a breach has become almost a statistical certainty," these days.
The organizations that participated in the Ponemon survey cut across both the private sector and government and ranged from relatively small entities with less than 500 employees to enterprises with more than 75,000. The online survey was conducted over a five-day period earlier this month.
Roughly half of the respondents blamed resource constraints for their security woes, while about the same number cited network complexity as the primary challenge to implementing security controls.
Survery Pdf. Link:
http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/additional-resources/ponemon-perceptions-network-security.pdf
Link:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/230937/survey_90_of_companies_say_theyve_been_hacked.html
In a new survey of 583 U.S companies conducted by Ponemon Research on behalf of Juniper Networks, 90% of the respondents said their companies' computers were breached at least once by hackers over the past 12 months.
Nearly 60% reported two or more breaches over the past year. More than 50% said they had little confidence of being able to stave off further attacks over the next 12 months.
Those numbers are significantly higher than similar surveys and suggest that a growing number of enterprises are losing the battle to keep malicious intruders out of their networks. "We expected a majority to say they had experienced a breach," said Johnnie Konstantas, director of product marketing at Juniper.
"But to have 90% saying they had experienced at least one breach and more than 50% saying they had experienced two or more, is mind blowing," she said. It suggests "that a breach has become almost a statistical certainty," these days.
The organizations that participated in the Ponemon survey cut across both the private sector and government and ranged from relatively small entities with less than 500 employees to enterprises with more than 75,000. The online survey was conducted over a five-day period earlier this month.
Roughly half of the respondents blamed resource constraints for their security woes, while about the same number cited network complexity as the primary challenge to implementing security controls.
Survery Pdf. Link:
http://www.juniper.net/us/en/local/pdf/additional-resources/ponemon-perceptions-network-security.pdf
Link:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/230937/survey_90_of_companies_say_theyve_been_hacked.html
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Rochester, NY- Police target citizens who were attending a community meeting to discuss police accountabilty.
Basking in the viral glory bestowed upon one of its officers this week, the Rochester Police Department resorted to petty retaliatory and intimidation tactics against citizens attending a community meeting Thursday afternoon.
The citizens were attending a meeting to discuss the arrest of Emily Good, the 28-year-old woman who was jailed for videotaping cops from her front yard, when they realized cops were outside issuing tickets for having parked more than 12 inches from the curb.
The above video shows cops using a little purple ruler to prove their case.
Cops claimed they were responding to citizens who had complained about the cars being parked more than a foot from the curb!
The citizens who had been ticketed were attending a community meeting to discuss police accountability and to plan support for Good, whose video became a viral sensation after it was uploaded this week.
Link:
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_0eccd0ea-9f33-11e0-b4f1-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1QIiOhKFl
The citizens were attending a meeting to discuss the arrest of Emily Good, the 28-year-old woman who was jailed for videotaping cops from her front yard, when they realized cops were outside issuing tickets for having parked more than 12 inches from the curb.
The above video shows cops using a little purple ruler to prove their case.
Cops claimed they were responding to citizens who had complained about the cars being parked more than a foot from the curb!
The citizens who had been ticketed were attending a community meeting to discuss police accountability and to plan support for Good, whose video became a viral sensation after it was uploaded this week.
Link:
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_0eccd0ea-9f33-11e0-b4f1-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1QIiOhKFl
Friday, June 24, 2011
How technology helped make the 4th. Amendment obsolete.
“We are gathered here today to mourn the loss of a dear friend, the Fourth Amendment. Born on the freedom-loving soil of early America, the Fourth Amendment will be remembered as the bulwark of the liberty we once called privacy. For ye, we mourn.”
As you can see, we’re working on a eulogy for the Fourth Amendment, the part of the Constitution guarding against “unreasonable searches and seizures” — in effect, a privacy provision.
When did the Fourth Amendment die, you ask?
Recently, but it’s been sick for a while.
So why haven’t you heard about it?
Because you’re the murderer. We all are. Our weapon of choice? Most recently, the smartphone, which, with our collective blessing, allows law enforcement to monitor our real-time geographic location. Although a bill recently proposed by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., would require police to obtain a warrant before turning our cellphones into tracking devices, such legislation may come too late to save the Fourth Amendment from this fatal blow.
If you think police have turned a blind eye to this wealth of information, guess again. Without the protections of the Fourth Amendment, the police are free to mine the commercial databases storing our personal information without any suspicion whatsoever. Consider the case of Philip Scott Lyons in 2004: Police arrested the firefighter for arson after discovering he purchased a fire starter with his Safeway Club Card. The charges weren’t dropped until someone else confessed; not everyone will be so lucky.
With so little left private, the Fourth Amendment is all but obsolete. Where police officers once needed a warrant to search your bookshelf for “Atlas Shrugged,” they can now simply ask Amazon.com if you bought it. Where police needed probable cause before seizing your day planner, they can now piece together your whereabouts from your purchases, cellphone data and car’s GPS. Someday soon we’ll realize that we’ve lost everything we once cherished as private. And as we grieve the loss of the Fourth Amendment, we’ll be forced to look deep in our hearts—and at the little pieces of plastic dangling from our keychains — and ask ourselves if it was all worth it. R.I.P.
Link:
http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/06/22/062211-opinions-oped-privacy-kozinski-grace-1-2/
As you can see, we’re working on a eulogy for the Fourth Amendment, the part of the Constitution guarding against “unreasonable searches and seizures” — in effect, a privacy provision.
When did the Fourth Amendment die, you ask?
Recently, but it’s been sick for a while.
So why haven’t you heard about it?
Because you’re the murderer. We all are. Our weapon of choice? Most recently, the smartphone, which, with our collective blessing, allows law enforcement to monitor our real-time geographic location. Although a bill recently proposed by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., would require police to obtain a warrant before turning our cellphones into tracking devices, such legislation may come too late to save the Fourth Amendment from this fatal blow.
If you think police have turned a blind eye to this wealth of information, guess again. Without the protections of the Fourth Amendment, the police are free to mine the commercial databases storing our personal information without any suspicion whatsoever. Consider the case of Philip Scott Lyons in 2004: Police arrested the firefighter for arson after discovering he purchased a fire starter with his Safeway Club Card. The charges weren’t dropped until someone else confessed; not everyone will be so lucky.
With so little left private, the Fourth Amendment is all but obsolete. Where police officers once needed a warrant to search your bookshelf for “Atlas Shrugged,” they can now simply ask Amazon.com if you bought it. Where police needed probable cause before seizing your day planner, they can now piece together your whereabouts from your purchases, cellphone data and car’s GPS. Someday soon we’ll realize that we’ve lost everything we once cherished as private. And as we grieve the loss of the Fourth Amendment, we’ll be forced to look deep in our hearts—and at the little pieces of plastic dangling from our keychains — and ask ourselves if it was all worth it. R.I.P.
Link:
http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/06/22/062211-opinions-oped-privacy-kozinski-grace-1-2/
The U. S. Supreme Court ruled defendants have the right to confront one's accuser in DUI and Lidar speeding cases.
The high court examined the question of whether a lab report could be introduced as evidence by an "expert" who did not actually conduct the tests in question. The prosecution argued that the gas chromatograph machine was the accuser in the case and that Caylor simply wrote down the result without exercising independent judgment. For that reason, Razatos was an equivalent substitute. The court disagreed.
"Suppose a police report recorded an objective fact -- Bullcoming's counsel posited the address above the front door of a house or the read-out of a radar gun," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority. "Could an officer other than the one who saw the number on the house or gun present the information in court -- so long as that officer was equipped to testify about any technology the observing officer deployed and the police department's standard operating procedures? As our precedent makes plain, the answer is emphatically 'No.'"
The court majority noted that using a surrogate witness would conceal any lapses or lies on the part of the certifying analyst. It also noted that the burden on the prosecution from the requirement of live testimony could have been cured by having Razatos retest the blood sample, which was preserved in accordance with New Mexico law.
"As a rule, if an out-of-court statement is testimonial in nature, it may not be introduced against the accused at trial unless the witness who made the statement is unavailable and the accused has had a prior opportunity to confront that witness," Ginsburg concluded.
Supreme Court Ruling:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/us-bullcoming.pdf
"Suppose a police report recorded an objective fact -- Bullcoming's counsel posited the address above the front door of a house or the read-out of a radar gun," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority. "Could an officer other than the one who saw the number on the house or gun present the information in court -- so long as that officer was equipped to testify about any technology the observing officer deployed and the police department's standard operating procedures? As our precedent makes plain, the answer is emphatically 'No.'"
The court majority noted that using a surrogate witness would conceal any lapses or lies on the part of the certifying analyst. It also noted that the burden on the prosecution from the requirement of live testimony could have been cured by having Razatos retest the blood sample, which was preserved in accordance with New Mexico law.
"As a rule, if an out-of-court statement is testimonial in nature, it may not be introduced against the accused at trial unless the witness who made the statement is unavailable and the accused has had a prior opportunity to confront that witness," Ginsburg concluded.
Supreme Court Ruling:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/us-bullcoming.pdf
LulzSec "released ‘classified’ data of alleged ‘racist’ Arizona law enforcement practices.
The group of rogue and jocular hackers known as Lulz Security - or LulzSec -released data Thursday night it claims belongs to Arizona law enforcement in a campaign dubbed "Operation Chinga La Migra."
"We are releasing hundreds of private intelligence bulletins, training manuals, personal email correspondence, names, phone numbers, addresses and passwords belonging to Arizona law enforcement," the group said on their website.
"Every week we plan on releasing more classified documents and embarrassing personal details of military and law enforcement in an effort not just to reveal their racist and corrupt nature but to purposefully sabotage their efforts to terrorize communities fighting an unjust ‘war on drugs,’” LulzSec wrote Thursday.
LulzSec is targeting the state's law enforcement because they are against SB1070, Arizona's controversial immigration enforcement law.
They called Arizona a "racial profiling anti-immigrant police state."
Links:
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2011/06/arizona_department_of_public_s.php
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/06/23/lulzsec-releases-classified-data-of-racist-arizona-law-enforcement/
"We are releasing hundreds of private intelligence bulletins, training manuals, personal email correspondence, names, phone numbers, addresses and passwords belonging to Arizona law enforcement," the group said on their website.
"Every week we plan on releasing more classified documents and embarrassing personal details of military and law enforcement in an effort not just to reveal their racist and corrupt nature but to purposefully sabotage their efforts to terrorize communities fighting an unjust ‘war on drugs,’” LulzSec wrote Thursday.
LulzSec is targeting the state's law enforcement because they are against SB1070, Arizona's controversial immigration enforcement law.
They called Arizona a "racial profiling anti-immigrant police state."
Links:
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2011/06/arizona_department_of_public_s.php
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/06/23/lulzsec-releases-classified-data-of-racist-arizona-law-enforcement/
Thursday, June 23, 2011
The TSA and your local police are treating Americans like criminals by searching people on buses, trains etc.
Think you could avoid the TSA's body scanners and pat-downs by taking Amtrak? Think again. Even your daily commute isn't safe from TSA screenings. And because the TSA is working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol, you may have your immigration status examined along with your "junk".
As part of the TSA's request for FY 2012 funding, TSA Administrator John Pistole told Congress last week that the TSA conducts 8,000 unannounced security screenings every year. These screenings, conducted with local law enforcement agencies as well as immigration, can be as simple as checking out cargo at a busy seaport. But more and more, they seem to involve giving airport-style pat-downs and screenings of unsuspecting passengers at bus terminals, ferries, and even subways.
The trolley is part of the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System. "We believe this is a flagrant violation of human rights, when we have a situation in which children are being separated from their families without the proper due process rights being afforded to them," said a spokesman for the girl's family. The three teens nabbed in the San Diego VIPR operation were deported to Tijuana, but later allowed to re-enter the United States on humanitarian visas.
More children, this time train passengers disembarking at Savannah, Georgia, were treated to questionable TSA treatment in February along with their families. While the passengers (who again, had just gotten OFF a train) were lifting their shirts and having bras handled during pat-downs, their luggage was sitting unattended on the train platform.
According to at least one news report out of Brownsville, Texas, TSA/VIPR has already conducted unannounced inspections of private passenger cars and trucks.
Link:
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/tsa-swarms-8000-bus-stations-public-transit-systems-yearly
As part of the TSA's request for FY 2012 funding, TSA Administrator John Pistole told Congress last week that the TSA conducts 8,000 unannounced security screenings every year. These screenings, conducted with local law enforcement agencies as well as immigration, can be as simple as checking out cargo at a busy seaport. But more and more, they seem to involve giving airport-style pat-downs and screenings of unsuspecting passengers at bus terminals, ferries, and even subways.
The trolley is part of the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System. "We believe this is a flagrant violation of human rights, when we have a situation in which children are being separated from their families without the proper due process rights being afforded to them," said a spokesman for the girl's family. The three teens nabbed in the San Diego VIPR operation were deported to Tijuana, but later allowed to re-enter the United States on humanitarian visas.
More children, this time train passengers disembarking at Savannah, Georgia, were treated to questionable TSA treatment in February along with their families. While the passengers (who again, had just gotten OFF a train) were lifting their shirts and having bras handled during pat-downs, their luggage was sitting unattended on the train platform.
According to at least one news report out of Brownsville, Texas, TSA/VIPR has already conducted unannounced inspections of private passenger cars and trucks.
Link:
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/tsa-swarms-8000-bus-stations-public-transit-systems-yearly
Florida sells drivers license information to a private company for $62 million dollars.
TAMPA - Few Florida citizens realize it, but your personal information is for sale. The State of Florida has been selling driver’s license information to businesses for years, and the courts have ruled there is nothing illegal about it.
I-Team investigator Michael George caught up with Tampa resident Larry Brindley when he was getting a copy of his driving record at the local Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (HSMV) office. He had already been waiting in line for two and a half hours.
When George asked him if he would be willing to show our cameras his personal information on his driver’s license, he said what most of us would say. “No," Brindley answered, "because it’s my personal information.”
What Larry may not realize is that his information is already out there, on several websites. Almost everything that’s on his driver’s license -- full name, date of birth, address, and driver’s license number -- is online. The state sells millions of Florida drivers’ personal information to companies like Texas-based ShadowSoft, Inc.
“This is an example of the government invading our rights to privacy,” said American Civil Liberties Union attorney Shelbi Day. The ACLU argues just because the practice is legal doesn’t make it right.
“I would assume that most Floridians have no idea that this is even occurring, and I think that most would be deeply disturbed,” Day added.
Through a records request, the I-Team obtained a contract between HSMV and ShadowSoft, Inc.
In the contract, ShadowSoft agrees it won’t sell the data for illegal purposes, such as marketing or advertising. ShadowSoft pays HSMV $.01 per record they requested. Last year, they paid the state approximately $53,000, amounting to more than 5 million records requested.
The company tells us they provide the data to businesses who want to verify their customers’ information. Examples they offered were a hospital trying to track down a patient whose address might have changed, or a business trying to reach a customer to notify them of a product recall.
A copy of the contract:
http://media2.abcactionnews.com/html/documents/ShadowSoft%20Contract.pdf
Link:
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/florida-made-$62-million-by-selling-florida-drivers'-license-information
I-Team investigator Michael George caught up with Tampa resident Larry Brindley when he was getting a copy of his driving record at the local Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (HSMV) office. He had already been waiting in line for two and a half hours.
When George asked him if he would be willing to show our cameras his personal information on his driver’s license, he said what most of us would say. “No," Brindley answered, "because it’s my personal information.”
What Larry may not realize is that his information is already out there, on several websites. Almost everything that’s on his driver’s license -- full name, date of birth, address, and driver’s license number -- is online. The state sells millions of Florida drivers’ personal information to companies like Texas-based ShadowSoft, Inc.
“This is an example of the government invading our rights to privacy,” said American Civil Liberties Union attorney Shelbi Day. The ACLU argues just because the practice is legal doesn’t make it right.
“I would assume that most Floridians have no idea that this is even occurring, and I think that most would be deeply disturbed,” Day added.
Through a records request, the I-Team obtained a contract between HSMV and ShadowSoft, Inc.
In the contract, ShadowSoft agrees it won’t sell the data for illegal purposes, such as marketing or advertising. ShadowSoft pays HSMV $.01 per record they requested. Last year, they paid the state approximately $53,000, amounting to more than 5 million records requested.
The company tells us they provide the data to businesses who want to verify their customers’ information. Examples they offered were a hospital trying to track down a patient whose address might have changed, or a business trying to reach a customer to notify them of a product recall.
A copy of the contract:
http://media2.abcactionnews.com/html/documents/ShadowSoft%20Contract.pdf
Link:
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/florida-made-$62-million-by-selling-florida-drivers'-license-information
Montana- School authorities use drug sniffing dogs in schools, more evidence our students are being treated like criminals.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Montana is looking into the possibility that school authorities in Glasgow violated students' privacy rights this spring during searches of vehicles.
The ACLU received information that at least 15 students' cars at Glasgow High School were searched after being sniffed by a drug-detecting dog, and two were found to contain some kind of prohibited items.
"This is just based on the information we have received," said Betsy Griffing, legal director for the ACLU of Montana. "We are looking at the circumstance of those searches."
The ACLU is asking the Glasgow School District to provide more information about the searches, including reasons for the search, search protocols and procedures, policies concerning such searches, disciplinary action taken as a result of the searches, and complete minutes and a transcript or recording of an April 29 school board meeting where the searches were discussed.
Link:
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20110622/NEWS01/106220302/ACLU-questions-use-drug-dogs-Glasgow-High?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFrontpage%7Cs
The ACLU received information that at least 15 students' cars at Glasgow High School were searched after being sniffed by a drug-detecting dog, and two were found to contain some kind of prohibited items.
"This is just based on the information we have received," said Betsy Griffing, legal director for the ACLU of Montana. "We are looking at the circumstance of those searches."
The ACLU is asking the Glasgow School District to provide more information about the searches, including reasons for the search, search protocols and procedures, policies concerning such searches, disciplinary action taken as a result of the searches, and complete minutes and a transcript or recording of an April 29 school board meeting where the searches were discussed.
Link:
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20110622/NEWS01/106220302/ACLU-questions-use-drug-dogs-Glasgow-High?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFrontpage%7Cs
The Boston police, community ombudsman oversight panel has been stripped of most of it's powers.
Reports that Mayor Thomas Menino has once again tried to eliminate effective civilian oversight over the Boston police department makes you wonder – do the Mayor and Boston Police have something to hide?
If not, why does the Mayor keep resisting efforts to create a strong independent oversight panel for the Boston police?
After years of resisting efforts at any civilian review process whatsoever, Mayor Menino finally agreed in 2007 to set up a panel called the Community Ombudsman Oversight Panel – or COOP. The Mayor didn’t do so willingly. Rather, he was forced to contemplate an independent police review panel when an Emerson College student, Victoria Snelgrove, was shot and killed by an officer who fired a pepper-pellet gun he was not trained to use during a Red Sox celebration.
Even then, it took three years and the Mayor tried to deep-six a report by Northeastern Unviersity researchers on what a strong oversight panel should entail. Only after the Northeastern University report was leaked to the Globe did the Mayor reluctantly agree to set up the COOP.
Moreover, the Mayor’s executive order stripped the board of basic powers of subpoena and ability to call witnesses – two key elements of effective oversight for any civilian review board.
Two years later, researchers at Harvard released a study showing that the civilian review process was failing: only seven of 116 people whose complaints were dismissed by police had sought appeals to the COOP. Apparently, the police failed to tell citizens who believed their rights were violated that appeal was an option.
Link: http://boston.com/community/blogs/on_liberty/2011/06/what_are_mayor_menino_and_the.html?s_campaign=8315
If not, why does the Mayor keep resisting efforts to create a strong independent oversight panel for the Boston police?
After years of resisting efforts at any civilian review process whatsoever, Mayor Menino finally agreed in 2007 to set up a panel called the Community Ombudsman Oversight Panel – or COOP. The Mayor didn’t do so willingly. Rather, he was forced to contemplate an independent police review panel when an Emerson College student, Victoria Snelgrove, was shot and killed by an officer who fired a pepper-pellet gun he was not trained to use during a Red Sox celebration.
Even then, it took three years and the Mayor tried to deep-six a report by Northeastern Unviersity researchers on what a strong oversight panel should entail. Only after the Northeastern University report was leaked to the Globe did the Mayor reluctantly agree to set up the COOP.
Moreover, the Mayor’s executive order stripped the board of basic powers of subpoena and ability to call witnesses – two key elements of effective oversight for any civilian review board.
Two years later, researchers at Harvard released a study showing that the civilian review process was failing: only seven of 116 people whose complaints were dismissed by police had sought appeals to the COOP. Apparently, the police failed to tell citizens who believed their rights were violated that appeal was an option.
Link: http://boston.com/community/blogs/on_liberty/2011/06/what_are_mayor_menino_and_the.html?s_campaign=8315
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Social Intelligence Corp. will store your Facebook, social media pictures for 7 years.
Last week, the Federal Trade Commission gave a stamp of approval to a background check company that screens job applicants based on their Internet photos and postings. The FTC determined that Social Intelligence Corp. was in compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This means a search of what you’ve said or posted to Facebook/Twitter/Flickr/blogs and the Internet in general may become a standard part of background checks when you apply for a job.
No big deal, right? You already knew that employers were Googling you. I argued this was actually better, because Social Intelligence has to make sure its clients inform job applicants if they took adverse action based on something found on the Internet. That way you can delete and change privacy settings accordingly.
But there’s a wrinkle. If something job-threatening pops up on Facebook or Flickr or Craigslist in a search of you, Social Intelligence puts it into your file — and it stays there for seven years.
Social Intelligence had sent me some of the reports they’ve provided to employers so far, including a job applicant who had a photo on a social networking site that featured multiple guns and a sword, and another who was designated racist for joining the Facebook group, “I shouldn’t have to press 1 for English. We are in the United States. Learn the language.” Social Intelligence’s “negative” findings will stay in the files of Workplace-Shooting-Waiting-To-Happen and No-Hablo-Espanol for seven years per the requirements of FCRA, though new employers who run searches through Social Intelligence won’t have access to the materials if they are completely removed from the Internet.
Links: http://www.socialintelligencehr.com/home
http://consumerist.com/2011/06/new-services-adds-your-drunken-facebook-photos-to-employer-background-checks-for-up-to-seven-years.html
http://blogs.forbes.com/kashmirhill/2011/06/20/now-your-embarrassingjob-threatening-facebook-photos-will-haunt-you-for-seven-years/
Rochester police arrest a woman on her front lawn because she recorded them.
Update 6/23/11: USA Today published the story:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/06/woman-in-her-front-yard-arrested-while-videotaping-police-at-a-traffic-stop-at-curb/1
NY- The Rochester Police Department is investigating the arrest of a woman who was videotaping police during a traffic stop in front of a home on Aldine Street.
The video has gone viral and city councilman Adam McFadden received a link this morning. McFadden says while the incident lacks context, he questions why the officer needed to engage the woman. "It did not look well for us in terms of how we police and what it is we're attempting to accomplish for public safety."
Emily Good, 28, was arrested about 10 p.m. May 12 and charged with second-degree obstructing governmental administration. She is scheduled to appear in Rochester City Court for a proceeding on Monday, police said.
Rochester Police Chief James Sheppard issued a statement Tuesday saying he has received a video of a woman's arrest by city officers. "I have researched the incident and determined that the case is currently proceeding through the adjudication process," Sheppard said in the statement. "... With the case still pending and my unfamiliarity with the specific details, any assumptions at this time would be premature."
The incident has drawn the attention of the National Press Photographers Association Inc., based in Durham, N.C.
In a letter dated June 21, to Sheppard and Rochester Mayor Tom Richards, NPPA General Counsel Mickey H. Osterreicher of Buffalo wrote: "While it may be understandable that your officers had a heightened sense of awareness that is still no excuse for them to not recognize a citizen's right to take photographs/video of an event occurring on a public street."
Links:
http://www.whec.com/iteam/stories/S2166487.shtml?cat=565
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20110622/NEWS01/106220324/Emily-Good-arrested-while-videotaping-city-police?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CNews
http://www.pixiq.com/rochester-police-arrest-woman-for-videotaping-them.html
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/06/woman-in-her-front-yard-arrested-while-videotaping-police-at-a-traffic-stop-at-curb/1
NY- The Rochester Police Department is investigating the arrest of a woman who was videotaping police during a traffic stop in front of a home on Aldine Street.
The video has gone viral and city councilman Adam McFadden received a link this morning. McFadden says while the incident lacks context, he questions why the officer needed to engage the woman. "It did not look well for us in terms of how we police and what it is we're attempting to accomplish for public safety."
Emily Good, 28, was arrested about 10 p.m. May 12 and charged with second-degree obstructing governmental administration. She is scheduled to appear in Rochester City Court for a proceeding on Monday, police said.
Rochester Police Chief James Sheppard issued a statement Tuesday saying he has received a video of a woman's arrest by city officers. "I have researched the incident and determined that the case is currently proceeding through the adjudication process," Sheppard said in the statement. "... With the case still pending and my unfamiliarity with the specific details, any assumptions at this time would be premature."
The incident has drawn the attention of the National Press Photographers Association Inc., based in Durham, N.C.
In a letter dated June 21, to Sheppard and Rochester Mayor Tom Richards, NPPA General Counsel Mickey H. Osterreicher of Buffalo wrote: "While it may be understandable that your officers had a heightened sense of awareness that is still no excuse for them to not recognize a citizen's right to take photographs/video of an event occurring on a public street."
Links:
http://www.whec.com/iteam/stories/S2166487.shtml?cat=565
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20110622/NEWS01/106220324/Emily-Good-arrested-while-videotaping-city-police?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CNews
http://www.pixiq.com/rochester-police-arrest-woman-for-videotaping-them.html
Forensic uncertainty in Court affects everyone.
Michigan- That brings me to a case in Mason County Michigan in which 79th Judicial District Judge Peter J. Wadel excluded a blood test for lack of reliability under MRE 702. Statistically, the measurement had no meaning because the lab witnesses insisted that it represented a single or "absolute" value. It predicted nothing and was simply a statement from the prosecutor and crime lab. The judge's opinion and order can be found at http://www. nicholslawyers.com
Judge Wadel spent over 2 years analyzing whether or not the Michigan State Police Crime Lab could validly demonstrate controlled statistical analysis of its data and reliable application of that data to an uncertainty budget. Time and time again during the hearings, the lab director insisted that there was no uncertainty budget and that there will not be one unless the lab is forced to come up with one.
All we need to do is start looking to science to guide us in deciding whether a forensic measurement is sufficiently reliable under the principles of Daubert.
We stain people for life with a conviction because it is easier than measuring data and fully informing juries. "It's just a DUI." Eventually, the whole system will come tumbling down. People will stop abiding by judgments, verdicts and probation orders because no one has faith in a system that ignores science in favor of what is easier for government-paid lab technicians who work for the state police. If we hide behind "come on, you were presumed innocent" and "this is the best imperfect system in the world." Is it? I suggest to you that our arrogance could be our downfall.
Link: http://www.legalnews.com/detroit/970176
Judge Wadel spent over 2 years analyzing whether or not the Michigan State Police Crime Lab could validly demonstrate controlled statistical analysis of its data and reliable application of that data to an uncertainty budget. Time and time again during the hearings, the lab director insisted that there was no uncertainty budget and that there will not be one unless the lab is forced to come up with one.
All we need to do is start looking to science to guide us in deciding whether a forensic measurement is sufficiently reliable under the principles of Daubert.
We stain people for life with a conviction because it is easier than measuring data and fully informing juries. "It's just a DUI." Eventually, the whole system will come tumbling down. People will stop abiding by judgments, verdicts and probation orders because no one has faith in a system that ignores science in favor of what is easier for government-paid lab technicians who work for the state police. If we hide behind "come on, you were presumed innocent" and "this is the best imperfect system in the world." Is it? I suggest to you that our arrogance could be our downfall.
Link: http://www.legalnews.com/detroit/970176
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Altanta- 21 prosecutors have left the Fulton County District Attorney's Office.
Atlanta- Since the beginning of this year, 21 prosecutors -- one-fifth of those on staff -- have left the Fulton County District Attorney's Office.
The exodus has forced District Attorney Paul Howard to plug holes to keep cases moving and frustrated judges who have found new prosecutors in their courtrooms who know little about the cases they must bring to trial.
Nichols said he grew frustrated by often finding himself in the middle of an ongoing feud between Howard and judges on the Fulton bench. For years, the DA's office and the court have criticized each other over how they conduct their business.
Fulton prosecutors also have little to no discretion to resolve cases without approval from a supervisor, Nichols said. He also noted Howard is requiring prosecutors to use sentencing guidelines for recommending prison terms.
"It became layer on top of layer on top of layer," Nichols said. "It got to the point where I felt I had no discretion, that I felt like I wasn't an attorney anymore."
Link:
http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/fulton-da-scrambles-in-979003.html?cxtype=rss_news_128746
The exodus has forced District Attorney Paul Howard to plug holes to keep cases moving and frustrated judges who have found new prosecutors in their courtrooms who know little about the cases they must bring to trial.
Nichols said he grew frustrated by often finding himself in the middle of an ongoing feud between Howard and judges on the Fulton bench. For years, the DA's office and the court have criticized each other over how they conduct their business.
Fulton prosecutors also have little to no discretion to resolve cases without approval from a supervisor, Nichols said. He also noted Howard is requiring prosecutors to use sentencing guidelines for recommending prison terms.
"It became layer on top of layer on top of layer," Nichols said. "It got to the point where I felt I had no discretion, that I felt like I wasn't an attorney anymore."
Link:
http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/fulton-da-scrambles-in-979003.html?cxtype=rss_news_128746
Illinois- A new study reveals, "It is far cheaper to incarcerate the innocent than to compensate them afterward."
Wrongful convictions of men and women for violent crimes in Illinois have cost taxpayers $214 million and have imprisoned innocent people for 926 years, according to a seven-month investigation by the Better Government Association and the Center on Wrongful Convictions.
The joint investigation, which tracked exonerations from 1989 through 2010, also determined that while 85 people were wrongfully incarcerated, the actual perpetrators were on a collective crime spree that included 14 murders, 11 sexual assaults, 10 kidnappings and at least 59 other felonies.
"I am astounded," said former U.S. Attorney Thomas Sullivan, who chaired the Capital Punishment Reform Committee established by the Illinois General Assembly. "Those are astounding numbers in terms of total years in prison and dollars spent."
Moreover, the 94 felonies in that crime spree may be just a fraction of the total number of crimes committed by the actual perpetrators. The investigation found that the 85 exonerations left 35 murders, 11 rapes, and two murder-rapes with no identified perpetrators and thus no way to add up their accumulated crimes.
While the BGA/CWC study revealed that almost all of the wrongful convictions were caused by multiple factors, the cause most commonly alleged was government error and misconduct by police, prosecutors, and forensic officials.
"The study also revealed that it is far cheaper to incarcerate the innocent than to compensate them afterward."
Link: http://www.bettergov.org/investigations/wrongful_convictions_1.aspx
The joint investigation, which tracked exonerations from 1989 through 2010, also determined that while 85 people were wrongfully incarcerated, the actual perpetrators were on a collective crime spree that included 14 murders, 11 sexual assaults, 10 kidnappings and at least 59 other felonies.
"I am astounded," said former U.S. Attorney Thomas Sullivan, who chaired the Capital Punishment Reform Committee established by the Illinois General Assembly. "Those are astounding numbers in terms of total years in prison and dollars spent."
Moreover, the 94 felonies in that crime spree may be just a fraction of the total number of crimes committed by the actual perpetrators. The investigation found that the 85 exonerations left 35 murders, 11 rapes, and two murder-rapes with no identified perpetrators and thus no way to add up their accumulated crimes.
While the BGA/CWC study revealed that almost all of the wrongful convictions were caused by multiple factors, the cause most commonly alleged was government error and misconduct by police, prosecutors, and forensic officials.
"The study also revealed that it is far cheaper to incarcerate the innocent than to compensate them afterward."
Link: http://www.bettergov.org/investigations/wrongful_convictions_1.aspx
US Supreme Court rules exclusionary rule does not apply to unconstitutional car searches prior to 2009.
The US Supreme Court on Friday ruled that evidence from an objectively unconstitutional automobile search can still be admissible in court as long as the search took place prior to court decisions that recognized stronger protections in the Fourth Amendment. Specifically, the April 2009 decision in the case Arizona v. Gant overturned prior precedent and required police to get a warrant to search a car when an arrested suspect posed no realistic threat to officer safety (view ruling). Willie Davis was arrested over two years earlier in Greenville, Alabama when that rule did not apply.
Davis had been riding in a car driven by Stella Owens who was pulled over from drunk driving. During the stop, Davis and Owens were put in the backs of separate patrol cars and searched. Davis, a felon, had a revolver inside the pocket of his jacket. Davis challenged the seizure, and as his appeal was being heard, the Gant decision came down. Nevertheless, the Eleventh US Circuit Court of Appeals found that the search of Davis was indeed unconstitutional, but the evidence should be admitted. The supreme court majority led by Justice Samuel Alito agreed that the exclusionary rule should not apply.
"Exclusion is not a personal constitutional right, nor is it designed to redress the injury occasioned by an unconstitutional search," Alito wrote for the majority. "The rule's sole purpose, we have repeatedly held, is to deter future Fourth Amendment violations."
The majority reasoned that police officers following the binding precedent set by appellate courts could not be deterred from conduct that at the time was neither illegal nor reckless.
"The search incident to Davis's arrest in this case followed the Eleventh Circuit's Gonzalez precedent to the letter. Although the search turned out to be unconstitutional under Gant, all agree that the officers' conduct was in strict compliance with then-binding circuit law and was not culpable in any way," Alito explained. "Under our exclusionary-rule precedents, this acknowledged absence of police culpability dooms Davis's claim.... It is one thing for the criminal to go free because the constable has blundered. It is quite another to set the criminal free because the constable has scrupulously adhered to governing law."
Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a dissent arguing the majority decision ultimately erodes the protections of the Fourth Amendment by creating yet another "good faith" exception to the constitutional right. This, Breyer and Ginsburg argued, would accelerate the number of illegal searches as lower courts followed the high court's lead and allowed more illegally seized evidence to be admitted.
Court Ruling:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/us-davis.pdf
Link:http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3512.asp
Davis had been riding in a car driven by Stella Owens who was pulled over from drunk driving. During the stop, Davis and Owens were put in the backs of separate patrol cars and searched. Davis, a felon, had a revolver inside the pocket of his jacket. Davis challenged the seizure, and as his appeal was being heard, the Gant decision came down. Nevertheless, the Eleventh US Circuit Court of Appeals found that the search of Davis was indeed unconstitutional, but the evidence should be admitted. The supreme court majority led by Justice Samuel Alito agreed that the exclusionary rule should not apply.
"Exclusion is not a personal constitutional right, nor is it designed to redress the injury occasioned by an unconstitutional search," Alito wrote for the majority. "The rule's sole purpose, we have repeatedly held, is to deter future Fourth Amendment violations."
The majority reasoned that police officers following the binding precedent set by appellate courts could not be deterred from conduct that at the time was neither illegal nor reckless.
"The search incident to Davis's arrest in this case followed the Eleventh Circuit's Gonzalez precedent to the letter. Although the search turned out to be unconstitutional under Gant, all agree that the officers' conduct was in strict compliance with then-binding circuit law and was not culpable in any way," Alito explained. "Under our exclusionary-rule precedents, this acknowledged absence of police culpability dooms Davis's claim.... It is one thing for the criminal to go free because the constable has blundered. It is quite another to set the criminal free because the constable has scrupulously adhered to governing law."
Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a dissent arguing the majority decision ultimately erodes the protections of the Fourth Amendment by creating yet another "good faith" exception to the constitutional right. This, Breyer and Ginsburg argued, would accelerate the number of illegal searches as lower courts followed the high court's lead and allowed more illegally seized evidence to be admitted.
Court Ruling:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/us-davis.pdf
Link:http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3512.asp
Oregon- Two DA's resign after alleged misconduct.
BEND, Ore. — Deschutes County District Attorney Patrick Flaherty announced Monday that Chief Deputy District Attorney Traci Anderson and Deputy DA Pat Horton have resigned, effect July 5.
A top Oregon legal regulatory agency has concluded that the Deschutes County district attorney was incorrect in his interpretation that the release of personal information about his employees was illegal.
Further, the Oregon State Bar has suggested that Patrick Flaherty's decision to convene a grand jury to investigate the matter may have violated rules against conflicts of interest, The Bend Bulletin reported.
The agency is investigating the matter, according to a letter from Susan Roedl Cournoyer, the state bar's assistant disciplinary counsel, released Wednesday afternoon to the newspaper.
A key issue involves Flaherty's claim that Deschutes County Legal Counsel Mark Pilliod committed official misconduct and violated the law by releasing personal information about new hires in the district attorney's office following a request by The Bulletin for copies of their applications.
It's the latest development in an often-tumultuous first six months in office for Flaherty, who has become embroiled in issues ranging from a lawsuit by fired deputy DAs to an Oregon State Bar investigation of his response, including subpoenas and a grand jury, to a county lawyer's release of personal information on his office's new hires.
Links:
http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/story/fbdefc7a5e144758994e4225bb28c2ac/OR--Deschutes-DA-Bar/
A top Oregon legal regulatory agency has concluded that the Deschutes County district attorney was incorrect in his interpretation that the release of personal information about his employees was illegal.
Further, the Oregon State Bar has suggested that Patrick Flaherty's decision to convene a grand jury to investigate the matter may have violated rules against conflicts of interest, The Bend Bulletin reported.
The agency is investigating the matter, according to a letter from Susan Roedl Cournoyer, the state bar's assistant disciplinary counsel, released Wednesday afternoon to the newspaper.
A key issue involves Flaherty's claim that Deschutes County Legal Counsel Mark Pilliod committed official misconduct and violated the law by releasing personal information about new hires in the district attorney's office following a request by The Bulletin for copies of their applications.
It's the latest development in an often-tumultuous first six months in office for Flaherty, who has become embroiled in issues ranging from a lawsuit by fired deputy DAs to an Oregon State Bar investigation of his response, including subpoenas and a grand jury, to a county lawyer's release of personal information on his office's new hires.
Links:
http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/story/fbdefc7a5e144758994e4225bb28c2ac/OR--Deschutes-DA-Bar/
U. S. Supreme Court: No automatic right to have a lawyer provided in U.S. civil cases.
WASHINGTON – The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that states did not have an automatic duty to provide counsel in civil courts in the case of a divorced father who was jailed for failing to pay child support.
By a majority 5-4 vote, the justices found that while the South Carolina father's rights had been violated because he was not given free counsel, US states did not have to provide such advice in all civil contempt cases.
The case was being highly watched and had become emblematic of what civil rights groups have called a trend towards "debtors' prisons" in America.
Link:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/06/20/no-automatic-right-to-lawyer-in-u-s-civil-cases-court/
By a majority 5-4 vote, the justices found that while the South Carolina father's rights had been violated because he was not given free counsel, US states did not have to provide such advice in all civil contempt cases.
The case was being highly watched and had become emblematic of what civil rights groups have called a trend towards "debtors' prisons" in America.
Link:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/06/20/no-automatic-right-to-lawyer-in-u-s-civil-cases-court/
A woman hid a mink coat in her underwear for three days while being questioned by police in jail.
BLOOMINGTON, Minn. (WCCO) – A 46-year-old woman pleaded guilty Monday to hiding a stolen mink coat in her underwear.
Stephanie Moreland was arrested New Year’s Eve by Bloomington Police after the Alaskan Fur Company reported a short mink coat was stolen by a woman who had been in the store and acting suspiciously.
Moreland pleaded guilty to one count of felony theft of property. Police say she hid the mink coat in her underwear for three days while being questioned by police in jail.
The coat was valued at $6,500.
According to police, a sales associate accused Moreland of taking the coat, but she denied it and took off. The sales associate took down Moreland’s license plate number and called police. When police located the car a short time later, they found the coat’s hanger but no coat.
They searched Moreland for weapons and booked her into jail for the weekend on possible theft charges. Three days later, a detective interviewed Moreland who admitted she stole the coat but claimed she had already sold it.
When the investigator informed Moreland he would be sending her to the Hennepin County Jail downtown, he was shocked when she lifted up her dress and pulled out the mink coat from her underwear.
Link:
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/06/20/woman-pleads-guilty-to-hiding-stolen-fur-in-underwear/?hpt=ju_bn5
Stephanie Moreland was arrested New Year’s Eve by Bloomington Police after the Alaskan Fur Company reported a short mink coat was stolen by a woman who had been in the store and acting suspiciously.
Moreland pleaded guilty to one count of felony theft of property. Police say she hid the mink coat in her underwear for three days while being questioned by police in jail.
The coat was valued at $6,500.
According to police, a sales associate accused Moreland of taking the coat, but she denied it and took off. The sales associate took down Moreland’s license plate number and called police. When police located the car a short time later, they found the coat’s hanger but no coat.
They searched Moreland for weapons and booked her into jail for the weekend on possible theft charges. Three days later, a detective interviewed Moreland who admitted she stole the coat but claimed she had already sold it.
When the investigator informed Moreland he would be sending her to the Hennepin County Jail downtown, he was shocked when she lifted up her dress and pulled out the mink coat from her underwear.
Link:
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/06/20/woman-pleads-guilty-to-hiding-stolen-fur-in-underwear/?hpt=ju_bn5
Monday, June 20, 2011
David Lundberg a private investigator, tracked down a homeless Utah man and informed him he had inherited a lot of money.
SALT LAKE CITY – A private investigator says he has tracked down a homeless Utah man and delivered some good news: He's inherited a lot of money.
David Lundberg said he found Max Melitzer pushing a shopping cart filled with personal possessions in a Salt Lake City park Saturday afternoon.
Lundberg declined to disclose how much money Melitzer will be receiving, but said the man's brother who died of cancer last year left him a "significant" amount in his will.
"He'll no longer be living on the street or in abandoned storage sheds," he told The Associated Press. "He'll be able to have a normal life, and be able to have a home, provide for himself, and purchase clothing, food and health care."
Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110619/ap_on_re_us/us_homeless_man_rich
David Lundberg said he found Max Melitzer pushing a shopping cart filled with personal possessions in a Salt Lake City park Saturday afternoon.
Lundberg declined to disclose how much money Melitzer will be receiving, but said the man's brother who died of cancer last year left him a "significant" amount in his will.
"He'll no longer be living on the street or in abandoned storage sheds," he told The Associated Press. "He'll be able to have a normal life, and be able to have a home, provide for himself, and purchase clothing, food and health care."
Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110619/ap_on_re_us/us_homeless_man_rich
Are school shooter drills teaching our nation's police to think & act as soldiers?
It was Friday the 13th, and Skylar Walters thought he was going to die.
The 16-year-old inmate of Orangeville Jr.-Sr. High in Illinois was in gym class when a deranged-looking man barged into the school and began firing what appeared to be a handgun at several of the other students.
"I started praying to God and saying my last words," Skylar later recalled. "I was scared. I didn't know what to do."
As the intruder fired his gun, he called out the name of a particular student; the youngster quite sensibly fled the building. Other kids "were just running everywhere and crying and hiding," Skylar recounted. Some of the panicking schoolkids probably attempted to call or text their parents to describe the horror unfolding in front of them. They didn't know that each of the parents had been instructed not to answer if his child issued a desperate plea for help.
That last sadistic touch is what distinguished the May 13 "active shooter drill" in Orangeville from countless other performances of its kind staged in schools across the Soyuz by the Police State Play Actors' Guild. Most of the time, the kids for whose supposed benefit those drills are choreographed -- and the parents responsible for their care, education, and upbringing -- are let in on the joke.
If a bank robber bluffs his way through a heist with a toy gun, he's committed a real crime. The same is true of the people who terrorized the inmates of Orangeville Jr.-Sr. High on May 13. School District Superintendent Randy Otto has submitted his resignation, and some parents have discussed the possibility of a lawsuit -- but the appropriate criminal charges against those responsible aren't forthcoming.
"Our number one goal is to save lives," warbled Leigh Anne Ryals, Emergency Management Director for Baldwin County, Alabama, following a similar school shooter drill in Robertsdale's Central Baldwin Middle School a few years ago. The means such drills employ are incompatible with that goal, since the standard template is based on the "Lockdown" Scenario: The killers conduct the rampage on their own terms, end it at a time of their choosing, and the SWAT team merely cattle-pens the victims.
Today it is typical for police agencies to deploy "Resource Officers" to prowl the halls of schools in search of misbehavior that can be treated as criminal offenses, rather than disciplinary problems.
Self-styled tactical and counter-terrorism John Giduck offered a telling glimpse into the mindset of the armed strangers who haunt local government schools.
"You've got to be a one-man fighting force.... You've got to have enough guns, and ammunition and body armor to stay alive.... You should be walking around in schools every day in complete tactical equipment, with semi-automatic weapons.... You can no longer afford to think of yourselves as peace officers.... You must think of yourself as soldiers in a war because we're going to ask you to act like soldiers."
The purpose of "active shooter drills" is not to refine protocols intended to protect inmates of government schools; instead, it is to habituate children to the presence of paramilitary operators in their midst. Parents should ponder that reality as millions of young Americans begin their welcome Summer parole from the government's hybrid school/prison system -- and they should likewise consider the wisdom of making that parole an unconditional pardon.
"Lockdown High: When the Schoolhouse Becomes a Jailhouse"
by Annette Fuentes.
http://www.amazon.com/Lockdown-High-Schoolhouse-Becomes-Jailhouse/dp/1844676811
http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w218.html
The 16-year-old inmate of Orangeville Jr.-Sr. High in Illinois was in gym class when a deranged-looking man barged into the school and began firing what appeared to be a handgun at several of the other students.
"I started praying to God and saying my last words," Skylar later recalled. "I was scared. I didn't know what to do."
As the intruder fired his gun, he called out the name of a particular student; the youngster quite sensibly fled the building. Other kids "were just running everywhere and crying and hiding," Skylar recounted. Some of the panicking schoolkids probably attempted to call or text their parents to describe the horror unfolding in front of them. They didn't know that each of the parents had been instructed not to answer if his child issued a desperate plea for help.
That last sadistic touch is what distinguished the May 13 "active shooter drill" in Orangeville from countless other performances of its kind staged in schools across the Soyuz by the Police State Play Actors' Guild. Most of the time, the kids for whose supposed benefit those drills are choreographed -- and the parents responsible for their care, education, and upbringing -- are let in on the joke.
If a bank robber bluffs his way through a heist with a toy gun, he's committed a real crime. The same is true of the people who terrorized the inmates of Orangeville Jr.-Sr. High on May 13. School District Superintendent Randy Otto has submitted his resignation, and some parents have discussed the possibility of a lawsuit -- but the appropriate criminal charges against those responsible aren't forthcoming.
"Our number one goal is to save lives," warbled Leigh Anne Ryals, Emergency Management Director for Baldwin County, Alabama, following a similar school shooter drill in Robertsdale's Central Baldwin Middle School a few years ago. The means such drills employ are incompatible with that goal, since the standard template is based on the "Lockdown" Scenario: The killers conduct the rampage on their own terms, end it at a time of their choosing, and the SWAT team merely cattle-pens the victims.
Today it is typical for police agencies to deploy "Resource Officers" to prowl the halls of schools in search of misbehavior that can be treated as criminal offenses, rather than disciplinary problems.
Self-styled tactical and counter-terrorism John Giduck offered a telling glimpse into the mindset of the armed strangers who haunt local government schools.
"You've got to be a one-man fighting force.... You've got to have enough guns, and ammunition and body armor to stay alive.... You should be walking around in schools every day in complete tactical equipment, with semi-automatic weapons.... You can no longer afford to think of yourselves as peace officers.... You must think of yourself as soldiers in a war because we're going to ask you to act like soldiers."
The purpose of "active shooter drills" is not to refine protocols intended to protect inmates of government schools; instead, it is to habituate children to the presence of paramilitary operators in their midst. Parents should ponder that reality as millions of young Americans begin their welcome Summer parole from the government's hybrid school/prison system -- and they should likewise consider the wisdom of making that parole an unconditional pardon.
"Lockdown High: When the Schoolhouse Becomes a Jailhouse"
by Annette Fuentes.
http://www.amazon.com/Lockdown-High-Schoolhouse-Becomes-Jailhouse/dp/1844676811
http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w218.html
Bump.com uses license plate recognition to allow businesses and other drivers to identify you.
Bump.com uses license plate recognition to allow both businesses and other drivers to get in touch with you through a few channels, including cell phone, email and other social media sites.
Your identity is your license plate.
"With Bump, any registered license plate has a built in account for that. You have to activate it but you can still communicate," says Michael DeAloia with Invisia
"You could easily find someone's license plate number and follow them online and that online directory will tell them where you're at, what you're doing, when you're doing it and how you're doing it," says DeAloia.
Bump.com touts itself as a watchdog type of website. For example, if you see a car with a tail light out, you can tell the driver. Or you can hold hazardous drivers accountable. The site allows for a 5 star rating system on license plates.
Bump's website says you can create a profile, but opt to have a license plate unlisted.
"The most obvious unique identifier is a license plate, which BUMP decided would be the initial focus. The notion that your license plate could act as your "firewall" when communicating with someone for safety, social or business reasons, without disclosing any personal information, provided the "A-ha!" moment."
Links: http://www.bump.com/
http://www.wkyc.com/news/article/194257/45/Website-allows-fellow-drivers-and-businesses-to-message-you
Will the NSA will be reading every Americans emails?
With a new major hacking incident seemingly daily, the Department of Defense is scrambling to find the right shield against future for attacks. But why hide behind a shield when you can charge onto the battlefield underneath the invisible but ironclad cloak of the National Security Agency? That's exactly how the DoD is mounting it's first strike back at the hackers--a preemptive strike that will increase online surveillance at defense contractors by partnering with internet service providers for privileged access to the rivers of data flowing through their cables. AT&T, Verizon and CenturyLink are all on board.
Giving the NSA more access to the same internet tubes that power your Gmail account sounds a little invasive. At least that's what James X. Dempsey, vice president for public policy at the civil liberties watchdog group the Center for Democracy and Technology. "We wouldn’t want this to become a backdoor form of surveillance," Dempsey told The Washington Post, referring to the pilot program that DoD insists will remain limited to the contractors working closely with the government.
"The U.S. government will not be monitoring, intercepting or storing any private-sector communications," Deputy Secretary William J. Lynn III said Thursday at a global security conference in Paris. However, he added, "We hope the … cyber pilot can be the beginning of something bigger. It could serve as a model that can be transported to other critical infrastructure sectors, under the leadership of the Department of Homeland Security.”
Citing recent attacks on government contractors like Lockheed Martin, Lynn is taking a defensive stance on the privacy issue--pun intended. In other words, the NSA program will test out what some would call surveillance techniques on outside parties, and when the program is ready, it's not out of the question that the government would move it to the private sector. It makes sense that the DoD is being aggressive.
But civil liberties advocates are worried that a provision in the White House’s recent legislative proposal on cybersecurity could open the way to government surveillance through public-private partnerships such as this one. They are concerned that the proposal would authorize companies to share vast amounts of communications data with the federal government.
“The government needs to make up its mind about whether it wants to protect networks or collect intelligence,” Dempsey said.
Links:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/major-internet-service-providers-cooperating-with-nsa-on-monitoring-traffic/2011/06/07/AG2dukXH_print.html
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/06/prepare-have-your-email-read-nsa/38931/
Giving the NSA more access to the same internet tubes that power your Gmail account sounds a little invasive. At least that's what James X. Dempsey, vice president for public policy at the civil liberties watchdog group the Center for Democracy and Technology. "We wouldn’t want this to become a backdoor form of surveillance," Dempsey told The Washington Post, referring to the pilot program that DoD insists will remain limited to the contractors working closely with the government.
"The U.S. government will not be monitoring, intercepting or storing any private-sector communications," Deputy Secretary William J. Lynn III said Thursday at a global security conference in Paris. However, he added, "We hope the … cyber pilot can be the beginning of something bigger. It could serve as a model that can be transported to other critical infrastructure sectors, under the leadership of the Department of Homeland Security.”
Citing recent attacks on government contractors like Lockheed Martin, Lynn is taking a defensive stance on the privacy issue--pun intended. In other words, the NSA program will test out what some would call surveillance techniques on outside parties, and when the program is ready, it's not out of the question that the government would move it to the private sector. It makes sense that the DoD is being aggressive.
But civil liberties advocates are worried that a provision in the White House’s recent legislative proposal on cybersecurity could open the way to government surveillance through public-private partnerships such as this one. They are concerned that the proposal would authorize companies to share vast amounts of communications data with the federal government.
“The government needs to make up its mind about whether it wants to protect networks or collect intelligence,” Dempsey said.
Links:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/major-internet-service-providers-cooperating-with-nsa-on-monitoring-traffic/2011/06/07/AG2dukXH_print.html
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/06/prepare-have-your-email-read-nsa/38931/
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Racial profiling by the TSA is a common practice.
WASHINGTON — The Republican chairman and ranking Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee said they want the head of the Transportation Security Administration to explain how racial profiling became a common practice among TSA screeners at Newark Liberty International Airport.
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) and Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss) are both seeking answers from TSA Administrator John Pistole, after a federal report found several behavior detection officers, or BDOs, had singled out Mexican and Dominican passengers for special scrutiny, bag searches, questioning and document reviews in 2008 and 2009.
"We have been in contact with TSA. We are looking forward to hearing Administrator Pistole’s analysis," King, who is from Long Island, said in a statement "After that, we will determine our course of action."
Thompson said the report confirmed his fears the TSA’s Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques, or SPOT program, was vulnerable to manipulation or abuse.
"TSA should halt the SPOT program immediately until safeguards are put into place to address racial and ethnic profiling concerns," Thompson said in a statement. "I will write TSA and request to see this internal report."
The report, which was ordered by Newark’s former TSA director in the wake of complaints from BDOs, said passengers found to have lapsed visas or expired passports would be referred for additional screening or turned over to immigration officials. It was an easy way, the report said, for the behavior detection unit to boost its referrals and appear productive.
The group of managers and BDOs who engaged in racial profiling were dubbed "the Great Mexican Hunters" by other TSA employees at the airport.
Link:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/06/house_homeland_security_commit.html
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) and Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss) are both seeking answers from TSA Administrator John Pistole, after a federal report found several behavior detection officers, or BDOs, had singled out Mexican and Dominican passengers for special scrutiny, bag searches, questioning and document reviews in 2008 and 2009.
"We have been in contact with TSA. We are looking forward to hearing Administrator Pistole’s analysis," King, who is from Long Island, said in a statement "After that, we will determine our course of action."
Thompson said the report confirmed his fears the TSA’s Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques, or SPOT program, was vulnerable to manipulation or abuse.
"TSA should halt the SPOT program immediately until safeguards are put into place to address racial and ethnic profiling concerns," Thompson said in a statement. "I will write TSA and request to see this internal report."
The report, which was ordered by Newark’s former TSA director in the wake of complaints from BDOs, said passengers found to have lapsed visas or expired passports would be referred for additional screening or turned over to immigration officials. It was an easy way, the report said, for the behavior detection unit to boost its referrals and appear productive.
The group of managers and BDOs who engaged in racial profiling were dubbed "the Great Mexican Hunters" by other TSA employees at the airport.
Link:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/06/house_homeland_security_commit.html
Friday, June 17, 2011
Google's web mapping can track your smart phone.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA - If you have Wi-Fi turned on, the previous whereabouts of your computer or mobile device may be visible on the Web for anyone to see.
Ashkan Soltani, security researcher "Someone who doesn't have a lot of information about me can track me down. You can find where someone lived previously and where someone moved to."
Google publishes the estimated location of millions of iPhones, laptops, and other devices with Wi-Fi connections, a practice that represents the latest twist in a series of revelations this year about wireless devices and privacy, CNET has learned.
Android phones with location services enabled regularly beam the unique hardware IDs of nearby Wi-Fi devices back to Google, a similar practice followed by Microsoft, Apple, and Skyhook Wireless as part of each company's effort to map the street addresses of access points and routers around the globe. That benefits users by helping their mobile devices determine locations faster than they could with GPS alone.
Only Google and Skyhook Wireless, however, make their location databases linking hardware IDs to street addresses publicly available on the Internet, which raises novel privacy concerns when the IDs they're tracking are mobile. If someone knows your hardware ID, he may be able to find a physical address that the companies associate with you, even if you never intended it to become public.
Tests performed over the last week by CNET and security researcher Ashkan Soltani showed that approximately 10 percent of laptops and mobile phones using Wi-Fi appear to be listed by Google as corresponding to street addresses. Skyhook Wireless' list of matches appears to be closer to 5 percent.
"I was surprised to see such precise data on where my laptop--and I--used to live," says Nick Doty, a lecturer at the University of California at Berkeley who co-teaches the Technology and Policy Lab. Entering Doty's unique hardware ID into Google's database returns his former home in the Capitol Hill neighborhood in Seattle.
Here's how it works: Wi-Fi-enabled devices, including PCs, iPhones, iPads, and Android phones, transmit a unique hardware identifier, called a MAC address, to anyone within a radius of approximately 100 to 200 feet. If someone captures or already knows that unique address, Google and Skyhook's services can reveal a previous location where that device was located, a practice that can reveal personal information including home or work addresses or even the addresses of restaurants frequented.
Link:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20070742-281/exclusive-googles-web-mapping-can-track-your-phone/
Ashkan Soltani, security researcher "Someone who doesn't have a lot of information about me can track me down. You can find where someone lived previously and where someone moved to."
Google publishes the estimated location of millions of iPhones, laptops, and other devices with Wi-Fi connections, a practice that represents the latest twist in a series of revelations this year about wireless devices and privacy, CNET has learned.
Android phones with location services enabled regularly beam the unique hardware IDs of nearby Wi-Fi devices back to Google, a similar practice followed by Microsoft, Apple, and Skyhook Wireless as part of each company's effort to map the street addresses of access points and routers around the globe. That benefits users by helping their mobile devices determine locations faster than they could with GPS alone.
Only Google and Skyhook Wireless, however, make their location databases linking hardware IDs to street addresses publicly available on the Internet, which raises novel privacy concerns when the IDs they're tracking are mobile. If someone knows your hardware ID, he may be able to find a physical address that the companies associate with you, even if you never intended it to become public.
Tests performed over the last week by CNET and security researcher Ashkan Soltani showed that approximately 10 percent of laptops and mobile phones using Wi-Fi appear to be listed by Google as corresponding to street addresses. Skyhook Wireless' list of matches appears to be closer to 5 percent.
"I was surprised to see such precise data on where my laptop--and I--used to live," says Nick Doty, a lecturer at the University of California at Berkeley who co-teaches the Technology and Policy Lab. Entering Doty's unique hardware ID into Google's database returns his former home in the Capitol Hill neighborhood in Seattle.
Here's how it works: Wi-Fi-enabled devices, including PCs, iPhones, iPads, and Android phones, transmit a unique hardware identifier, called a MAC address, to anyone within a radius of approximately 100 to 200 feet. If someone captures or already knows that unique address, Google and Skyhook's services can reveal a previous location where that device was located, a practice that can reveal personal information including home or work addresses or even the addresses of restaurants frequented.
Link:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20070742-281/exclusive-googles-web-mapping-can-track-your-phone/
Google can track what people are saying about you online.
In recent years, it’s become easier and easier to publish information about yourself online, through powerful new platforms like social networking sites and photo sharing services. One way to manage your privacy on these sites is to decide who specifically can see this information, determining whether it is visible to just a few friends, family members or everyone on the web. But, another important decision is choosing how you are identified when you post that information. We have worked hard to build various identity options into Google products. For example, while you may want to identify yourself by name when you post an answer to a question in a forum so that readers know the response is reputable, if you upload videos about a controversial cause you may prefer to post under a pseudonym.
However, your online identity is determined not only by what you post, but also by what others post about you -- whether a mention in a blog post, a photo tag or a reply to a public status update. When someone searches for your name on a search engine like Google, the results that appear are a combination of information you’ve posted and information published by others.
Today we’ve released a new tool to help make it easier to monitor your identity on the web and to provide easy access to resources describing ways to control what information is on the web. This tool, Me on the Web, appears as a section of the Google Dashboard right beneath the Account details.
Savvy web users may already have used Google Alerts to set up notifications for mentions of their name or email address in websites and news stories. If you haven’t set up alerts yet, Me on the Web makes it even easier to do so and even automatically suggests some search terms you may want to monitor.
Me on the Web also provides links to resources offering information on how to control what third-party information is posted about you on the web. These include common tips like reaching out to the webmaster of a site to ask for the content to be taken down, or publishing additional information on your own to help make less relevant websites appear farther down in search results.
Links:
https://www.google.com/accounts/ServiceLogin?service=datasummary&passive=900&continue=https://www.google.com/dashboard/&followup=https://www.google.com/dashboard/
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=164734&hl=en_us
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2011/06/me-myself-and-i-helping-to-manage-your.html
However, your online identity is determined not only by what you post, but also by what others post about you -- whether a mention in a blog post, a photo tag or a reply to a public status update. When someone searches for your name on a search engine like Google, the results that appear are a combination of information you’ve posted and information published by others.
Today we’ve released a new tool to help make it easier to monitor your identity on the web and to provide easy access to resources describing ways to control what information is on the web. This tool, Me on the Web, appears as a section of the Google Dashboard right beneath the Account details.
Savvy web users may already have used Google Alerts to set up notifications for mentions of their name or email address in websites and news stories. If you haven’t set up alerts yet, Me on the Web makes it even easier to do so and even automatically suggests some search terms you may want to monitor.
Me on the Web also provides links to resources offering information on how to control what third-party information is posted about you on the web. These include common tips like reaching out to the webmaster of a site to ask for the content to be taken down, or publishing additional information on your own to help make less relevant websites appear farther down in search results.
Links:
https://www.google.com/accounts/ServiceLogin?service=datasummary&passive=900&continue=https://www.google.com/dashboard/&followup=https://www.google.com/dashboard/
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=164734&hl=en_us
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2011/06/me-myself-and-i-helping-to-manage-your.html
Credit cards for sale in online malls?
To find the online megamall for stolen credit cards, I have to go to Pittsburgh.
That's where Keith Mularski works. He's a cybercrime agent with the FBI, and he's going to show me how to buy thousands of stolen credit card numbers.
Mularski pulls up a login screen on his browser.
To even be able to see this site — to register and get a password here — Mularski had to use an an alias to persuade two criminals already on the inside to vouch for his criminality.
It's sort of the exact opposite of getting two references when you're applying for a job; rather than vouching for you as an upstanding, law-abiding citizen, you're getting people to attest to your deviousness.
Not a problem for us. We're in.
It's the photo-negative version of sites that you've been to like Craigslist or eBay. The background is literally black instead of white. Vendors have banner ads across the top, advertising illegal things like hacking and phishing tutorials.
In order to sell products on the site, you need to be reviewed. So if I was going to sell credit cards, what I would have to do is provide a sample of 50 cards to each reviewer. Then they would test them out and then write a review back, and say, "XYZ provided me 50 cards and there was a good mix of classics and platinum and business cards and there was a 98 percent approval rating. So now I vouch for him to be a vendor on the site."
In order to get in, you have to be a verified credit card thief. But in order to do business, you have to show that you can deal honestly.
Link: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/06/17/137227559/how-to-buy-a-stolen-credit-card:
That's where Keith Mularski works. He's a cybercrime agent with the FBI, and he's going to show me how to buy thousands of stolen credit card numbers.
Mularski pulls up a login screen on his browser.
To even be able to see this site — to register and get a password here — Mularski had to use an an alias to persuade two criminals already on the inside to vouch for his criminality.
It's sort of the exact opposite of getting two references when you're applying for a job; rather than vouching for you as an upstanding, law-abiding citizen, you're getting people to attest to your deviousness.
Not a problem for us. We're in.
It's the photo-negative version of sites that you've been to like Craigslist or eBay. The background is literally black instead of white. Vendors have banner ads across the top, advertising illegal things like hacking and phishing tutorials.
In order to sell products on the site, you need to be reviewed. So if I was going to sell credit cards, what I would have to do is provide a sample of 50 cards to each reviewer. Then they would test them out and then write a review back, and say, "XYZ provided me 50 cards and there was a good mix of classics and platinum and business cards and there was a 98 percent approval rating. So now I vouch for him to be a vendor on the site."
In order to get in, you have to be a verified credit card thief. But in order to do business, you have to show that you can deal honestly.
Link: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/06/17/137227559/how-to-buy-a-stolen-credit-card:
Brady violations by the prosecution are epidemic according to the Harper's Magazine, April 2011 Issue.
In 1985, John Thompson was arrested and charged with two separate crimes: a murder and an attempted armed robbery that took place three weeks later in New Orleans. Prosecutors opted for two separate trials, beginning with the robbery. Their thinking was likely tactical. If they got a conviction at the robbery trial, they could use that conviction against him at the murder trial, improving their chances at obtaining a conviction.
Two days before Thompson’s robbery trial was slated to begin, however, the prosecutor handling the case got a crime lab report showing that the perpetrator had left blood behind at the scene, and the blood was not Thompson’s. The law required the prosecutor to turn this report over to Thompson’s attorneys. Instead, he suppressed it and pressed forward with his case.
Just before Thompson was set to be executed in 1999, his attorney learned of the suppressed lab report and the grave misconduct of the prosecutor. Armed with this, Thompson’s convictions for both the robbery and the murder were overturned. When he was retried for murder in 2003, a jury, armed with much more testimony and evidence, concluded that he was innocent.
The question is whether Thompson is entitled to be compensated for the imprisonment and anguish to which he was subjected as a result of the gross misconduct of a prosecutor. A Louisiana jury decided that he was, and awarded Thompson $14 million in damages. On appeal, the extremely conservative Fifth Circuit divided evenly, affirming the district court. But Clarence Thomas and four of his colleagues on the bench have overturned that award, leaping to the defense of misbehaving prosecutors and creating a new standard that may render them effectively unaccountable.
The majority wants to make the suppression of the lab report into a momentary failing of a single man. Thomas concludes that the prosecutors are guilty of only a single “Brady violation”—that is, a violation of the duty to turnover exculpatory evidence—and that this is not enough to justify the defendant’s case against them. But in fact, the suppression continued over many years and involved faulty judgments by a number of people in the prosecutor’s office. Moreover, misconduct of Orleans Parish law enforcement officials has emerged as an embarrassment to the United States on the world stage, figuring even in discussions before monitoring human rights bodies and triggering federal prosecutions. Justice Ginsburg has the better of the argument, pointing to the majority’s dodgy presentation of the facts:
What happened here, the Court’s opinion obscures, was no momentary oversight, no single incident of a lone officer’s misconduct. Instead, the evidence demonstrated that misperception and disregard of Brady’s disclosure requirements were pervasive in Orleans Parish.
The majority opinion turns a blind eye to the facts of the case as found by the Louisiana jury. Actually hearing the evidence first hand, they had no difficulty determining that the prosecutor fully intended to do what he did and persisted in doing it.
In America today, violations of Brady are epidemic, and they often produce the conviction of innocent defendants like Mr. Thompson. The court has effectively given a wink and a nod to rogue prosecutors, telling them they can put their thumb on the scale of justice from time to time and get away with it. But bad convictions erode confidence in the justice system, and often as not they let the real culprit run free.
Supreme Court decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-571.pdf
Link: http://harpers.org/archive/2011/04/hbc-90008045
Two days before Thompson’s robbery trial was slated to begin, however, the prosecutor handling the case got a crime lab report showing that the perpetrator had left blood behind at the scene, and the blood was not Thompson’s. The law required the prosecutor to turn this report over to Thompson’s attorneys. Instead, he suppressed it and pressed forward with his case.
Just before Thompson was set to be executed in 1999, his attorney learned of the suppressed lab report and the grave misconduct of the prosecutor. Armed with this, Thompson’s convictions for both the robbery and the murder were overturned. When he was retried for murder in 2003, a jury, armed with much more testimony and evidence, concluded that he was innocent.
The question is whether Thompson is entitled to be compensated for the imprisonment and anguish to which he was subjected as a result of the gross misconduct of a prosecutor. A Louisiana jury decided that he was, and awarded Thompson $14 million in damages. On appeal, the extremely conservative Fifth Circuit divided evenly, affirming the district court. But Clarence Thomas and four of his colleagues on the bench have overturned that award, leaping to the defense of misbehaving prosecutors and creating a new standard that may render them effectively unaccountable.
The majority wants to make the suppression of the lab report into a momentary failing of a single man. Thomas concludes that the prosecutors are guilty of only a single “Brady violation”—that is, a violation of the duty to turnover exculpatory evidence—and that this is not enough to justify the defendant’s case against them. But in fact, the suppression continued over many years and involved faulty judgments by a number of people in the prosecutor’s office. Moreover, misconduct of Orleans Parish law enforcement officials has emerged as an embarrassment to the United States on the world stage, figuring even in discussions before monitoring human rights bodies and triggering federal prosecutions. Justice Ginsburg has the better of the argument, pointing to the majority’s dodgy presentation of the facts:
What happened here, the Court’s opinion obscures, was no momentary oversight, no single incident of a lone officer’s misconduct. Instead, the evidence demonstrated that misperception and disregard of Brady’s disclosure requirements were pervasive in Orleans Parish.
The majority opinion turns a blind eye to the facts of the case as found by the Louisiana jury. Actually hearing the evidence first hand, they had no difficulty determining that the prosecutor fully intended to do what he did and persisted in doing it.
In America today, violations of Brady are epidemic, and they often produce the conviction of innocent defendants like Mr. Thompson. The court has effectively given a wink and a nod to rogue prosecutors, telling them they can put their thumb on the scale of justice from time to time and get away with it. But bad convictions erode confidence in the justice system, and often as not they let the real culprit run free.
Supreme Court decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-571.pdf
Link: http://harpers.org/archive/2011/04/hbc-90008045
Karl Vinson is proven not guilty of rape but The Wayne County prosecutor's office defends the rape conviction.
Detroit, MI- The Wayne County Prosecutor's Office is opposing a proposed request for a new trial for a Detroit man who has spent 25 years in prison for a rape that, according to the University of Michigan's Innocence Clinic, he didn't commit.
April 18, Detroit Free Press:"The scientific evidence conclusively proves that this man is innocent," clinic codirector David Moran said of Vinson, a former Detroiter who has spent 25 years in prison.
Moran said Vinson, 56, is the victim of a flawed forensic test and that more recent tests rule him out as a suspect.
But the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office opposes the request because the girl identified Vinson as her attacker.
"Science does not trump the testimony of individuals," Assistant Wayne County Prosecutor Marilyn Eisenbraun said in court documents. She wouldn't discuss the case.
The prosecutor's remark, to me, is as frightening as it is arrogant and ignorant.
How can science—that is to say, physical proof—not absolutely trump someone's testimony if the two are in conflict? How is testimony alone enough to keep a man locked away when the evidence, the science, if you will, says he deserves to be set free?
And how can a prosecutor, someone who's supposedly committed to pursuing truth, defend such a miscalculation so brazenly when it appears to have resulted in a 25-year false imprisonment?
Link: http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2011/04/post_56.html
April 18, Detroit Free Press:"The scientific evidence conclusively proves that this man is innocent," clinic codirector David Moran said of Vinson, a former Detroiter who has spent 25 years in prison.
Moran said Vinson, 56, is the victim of a flawed forensic test and that more recent tests rule him out as a suspect.
But the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office opposes the request because the girl identified Vinson as her attacker.
"Science does not trump the testimony of individuals," Assistant Wayne County Prosecutor Marilyn Eisenbraun said in court documents. She wouldn't discuss the case.
The prosecutor's remark, to me, is as frightening as it is arrogant and ignorant.
How can science—that is to say, physical proof—not absolutely trump someone's testimony if the two are in conflict? How is testimony alone enough to keep a man locked away when the evidence, the science, if you will, says he deserves to be set free?
And how can a prosecutor, someone who's supposedly committed to pursuing truth, defend such a miscalculation so brazenly when it appears to have resulted in a 25-year false imprisonment?
Link: http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2011/04/post_56.html
Waltham, MA- Police officer Paul Tracey is accused of intimidating Edgar Gonzalez.
The attorney general’s office is reviewing a complaint from a Vernon Street resident alleging City Council President Paul Brasco asked a Waltham police officer to intimidate the man – one of Brasco’s tenants – and threatening deportation if the tenant did not pay rent, attorney general spokesman Grant Woodman has confirmed.
Brasco denies doing anything wrong, saying the officer is a friend who went to visit the apartment with him at a late hour, though he did admit to not being initially forthcoming in the Police Department’s internal affairs investigation. He also said he wants the public to know that the matter “in no way, shape or form, had anything to do with my decision not to run for mayor,” adding that he will pull papers to run for City Council, “100 percent guaranteed,” on Friday.
“Whoever is behind this may be trying to run me out of office, and I’m not going to (oblige them),” Brasco said. The deadline to return the papers is June 23.
Edgar Gonzalez, who was living in the basement of 89 Vernon St., which Brasco owns, had refused to pay rent until Brasco made major repairs at the apartment, including malfunctioning heat and lighting, said Gonzalez’s attorney, Tyler Fox.
About one month after Gonzalez refused to pay rent, a man who identified himself as “Joe” called Gonzalez, saying he represented Brasco, and that the rent needed to be paid regardless of the malfunctioning heat and lights, Fox said.
Gonzalez told “Joe” he would not pay the rent until the heat was fixed properly, and ended the call, Fox said.
Then, on Feb. 17, at 10 p.m., Officer Paul Tracey and a second, unidentified man, both wearing police uniforms, showed up at Gonzalez’s apartment, Fox said.
Tracey and the other man asked for Gonzalez’s ID, and told Gonzalez he was “trespassing and the owner did not allow him to rent the space,” according to Fox.
“Officer Tracey then said he would report Mr. Gonzalez and that if Mr. Gonzalez did not have ‘papers’ that Mr. Gonzalez would be deported,” Fox said in a letter to the U.S. attorney’s office.
Link:
http://www.wickedlocal.com/waltham/news/x1260731407/Man-says-Waltham-council-head-Brasco-used-cop-in-rent-squabble#axzz1PX5CUZwj
Brasco denies doing anything wrong, saying the officer is a friend who went to visit the apartment with him at a late hour, though he did admit to not being initially forthcoming in the Police Department’s internal affairs investigation. He also said he wants the public to know that the matter “in no way, shape or form, had anything to do with my decision not to run for mayor,” adding that he will pull papers to run for City Council, “100 percent guaranteed,” on Friday.
“Whoever is behind this may be trying to run me out of office, and I’m not going to (oblige them),” Brasco said. The deadline to return the papers is June 23.
Edgar Gonzalez, who was living in the basement of 89 Vernon St., which Brasco owns, had refused to pay rent until Brasco made major repairs at the apartment, including malfunctioning heat and lighting, said Gonzalez’s attorney, Tyler Fox.
About one month after Gonzalez refused to pay rent, a man who identified himself as “Joe” called Gonzalez, saying he represented Brasco, and that the rent needed to be paid regardless of the malfunctioning heat and lights, Fox said.
Gonzalez told “Joe” he would not pay the rent until the heat was fixed properly, and ended the call, Fox said.
Then, on Feb. 17, at 10 p.m., Officer Paul Tracey and a second, unidentified man, both wearing police uniforms, showed up at Gonzalez’s apartment, Fox said.
Tracey and the other man asked for Gonzalez’s ID, and told Gonzalez he was “trespassing and the owner did not allow him to rent the space,” according to Fox.
“Officer Tracey then said he would report Mr. Gonzalez and that if Mr. Gonzalez did not have ‘papers’ that Mr. Gonzalez would be deported,” Fox said in a letter to the U.S. attorney’s office.
Link:
http://www.wickedlocal.com/waltham/news/x1260731407/Man-says-Waltham-council-head-Brasco-used-cop-in-rent-squabble#axzz1PX5CUZwj
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)