A controversial adultery website is now providing a money-back guarantee if its customers do not have an affair, the Herald Sun reported Tuesday.
Ashleymadison.com founder Noel Biderman -- in Australia to renew his own wedding vows -- said he would personally reimburse cheats who could not find a fling by following the website's guidelines.
But Toronto-based Biderman said Ashleymadison.com, which claims to have around eight million members worldwide and has been widely criticized by family groups, was not "just an online brothel." Affairs had to be worked on, he said.
"If you want to find the right level of success, we think there is the commitment level you need to make, and if it doesn't work out for you then we'll give you your money back."
The dating site's Australian arm has more than 400,000 members. It claims to protect love rats from leaving a trail of "digital lipstick" by deleting personal communication between users and keeping identities secret.
Link:
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/offbeat/adultery-website-founder-promises-sex-or-money-back-while-renewing-his-wedding-vows-ncxdc-072611
Favorite Quotes
Friday, July 29, 2011
How eavesdropping laws are taking away our best defense against police brutality.
Police brutality takes many forms around the country on a regular basis, particularly in poor and minority neighborhoods. Sometimes, the only method of accountability is a victim’s word (if they are still alive) against that of an officer. Unsurprisingly, the police officer’s version of the story is often adequate for a judge to dismiss allegations of wrongdoing, unless there is hard evidence of misconduct, such as a video or audio recording, which can be useful to unravel conflicting versions of police-citizen encounters.
One would think the fear of videographers on every block would be a powerful deterrent to police misconduct. However, legislatures are not taking this newfound power against police abuse lightly. In at least three states, it is illegal to record any on-duty police officer, even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists. The legal justification is usually based on the warped interpretation of existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited.
Illinois, Massachusetts and Maryland are among the 12 states where all parties must consent for a recording to be legal. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested and charged with a felony. Most all-party consent states (except Illinois and Massachusetts) include a "privacy provision" that says a violation occurs only when the offended party has a reasonable expectation that the conversation is private. This is meant to protect TV news crews and people who record public meetings — where it is obvious to all that recording is underway — from accidentally committing a felony.
Massachusetts and Illinois are the only states that do not recognize an expectation-to-privacy provision to their all-party consent laws. While courts in Massachusetts have generally held that secretly recording police is illegal, recording them openly is not. Illinois, on the other hand, is the only state where the legislature specifically amended the state's wiretapping law to make it illegal to record on-duty police officers without their consent, even in public.
Link:
http://www.alternet.org/story/151806/15_years_in_prison_for_taping_the_cops_how_eavesdropping_laws_are_taking_away_our_best_defense_against_police_brutality/
One would think the fear of videographers on every block would be a powerful deterrent to police misconduct. However, legislatures are not taking this newfound power against police abuse lightly. In at least three states, it is illegal to record any on-duty police officer, even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists. The legal justification is usually based on the warped interpretation of existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited.
Illinois, Massachusetts and Maryland are among the 12 states where all parties must consent for a recording to be legal. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested and charged with a felony. Most all-party consent states (except Illinois and Massachusetts) include a "privacy provision" that says a violation occurs only when the offended party has a reasonable expectation that the conversation is private. This is meant to protect TV news crews and people who record public meetings — where it is obvious to all that recording is underway — from accidentally committing a felony.
Massachusetts and Illinois are the only states that do not recognize an expectation-to-privacy provision to their all-party consent laws. While courts in Massachusetts have generally held that secretly recording police is illegal, recording them openly is not. Illinois, on the other hand, is the only state where the legislature specifically amended the state's wiretapping law to make it illegal to record on-duty police officers without their consent, even in public.
Link:
http://www.alternet.org/story/151806/15_years_in_prison_for_taping_the_cops_how_eavesdropping_laws_are_taking_away_our_best_defense_against_police_brutality/
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Homestead, FL- Posse Comitatus is dead. The Air Force now responds to civilian crime in the small city, population around 30,000
In Homestead, Florida, Posse Comitatus is dead. The Air Force now responds to civilian crime in the small city, population around 30,000.
“Here at Homestead Air Reserve Base we have the Crime Stop hotline that allows anyone either on base or off the installation to anonymously report a crime,” explains the Homestead Air Reserve Base website. “If you know of a crime that has been committed, if you see a crime in progress, or if you see a suspicious person, vehicle, or situation that makes you feel a crime may be occurring, call the Security Forces Crime Stop Hotline…”
On July 15, military police – known as Security Forces patrolmen – detained a criminal suspect at a Circle K in until Miami-Dade police arrived.
“Crime prevention is everyone’s responsibility, the better informed we are the safer we can make the installation and the surrounding community,” said t. Juan Lemus, Security Forces Police Services Chief.
Crime prevention off military bases is the responsibility of civilian police, not the military. In 1878, following Reconstruction, the Posse Comitatus Act was passed. It limited the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The statute prohibits Army and Air Force personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.
Link:
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/07/busting-posse-comitatus-military-cops.html
“Here at Homestead Air Reserve Base we have the Crime Stop hotline that allows anyone either on base or off the installation to anonymously report a crime,” explains the Homestead Air Reserve Base website. “If you know of a crime that has been committed, if you see a crime in progress, or if you see a suspicious person, vehicle, or situation that makes you feel a crime may be occurring, call the Security Forces Crime Stop Hotline…”
On July 15, military police – known as Security Forces patrolmen – detained a criminal suspect at a Circle K in until Miami-Dade police arrived.
“Crime prevention is everyone’s responsibility, the better informed we are the safer we can make the installation and the surrounding community,” said t. Juan Lemus, Security Forces Police Services Chief.
Crime prevention off military bases is the responsibility of civilian police, not the military. In 1878, following Reconstruction, the Posse Comitatus Act was passed. It limited the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The statute prohibits Army and Air Force personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.
Link:
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/07/busting-posse-comitatus-military-cops.html
When it comes to Tasers, how can a police department claim to have a near spotless record?
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- When it comes to Tasers, Cleveland police have a record of perfection that some law enforcement experts believe is too good to be true.
Between October 2005 and March 2011, officers chose the electrical-shock devices to gain control of struggling suspects 969 times, according to city data analyzed by The Plain Dealer.
And during that period, Chief Michael McGrath and other police supervisors under his command found the use of a Taser to be appropriate in all but five of the cases they reviewed.
The 99.5 percent clearance rate "strains credibility," said Samuel Walker, a criminal justice professor emeritus at University of Nebraska at Omaha who focuses on police accountability.
"None of us," Walker added, "is perfect."
Geoffrey Alpert, a criminology and criminal justice professor at the University of South Carolina, believes the figure suggests a "rubber-stamp process" by police administrators.
"Any action, such as use of force, that has an approval rate of nearly 100 percent is a bit concerning," said Alpert, whose research has been used by the U.S. Department of Justice.
In an interview last week, police officials, including McGrath, stressed that Tasers have been involved in less than a half-percent of more than 300,000 arrests since 2005. McGrath and others attribute the minuscule number of inappropriate Taser incidents to extensive training.
But Cleveland's police supervisors have a history of clearing officers who resort to any type of nondeadly force, not just the use of Tasers. A Plain Dealer analysis in 2007 found that supervisors reviewed 4,427 uses of force over four years and justified the force in every case.
The newspaper looked at Taser use this year as part of its ongoing examination of Cleveland's police procedures, which have come under fire in response to several recent brutality claims.
Link:
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/07/cleveland_police_boast_near-sp.html
Between October 2005 and March 2011, officers chose the electrical-shock devices to gain control of struggling suspects 969 times, according to city data analyzed by The Plain Dealer.
And during that period, Chief Michael McGrath and other police supervisors under his command found the use of a Taser to be appropriate in all but five of the cases they reviewed.
The 99.5 percent clearance rate "strains credibility," said Samuel Walker, a criminal justice professor emeritus at University of Nebraska at Omaha who focuses on police accountability.
"None of us," Walker added, "is perfect."
Geoffrey Alpert, a criminology and criminal justice professor at the University of South Carolina, believes the figure suggests a "rubber-stamp process" by police administrators.
"Any action, such as use of force, that has an approval rate of nearly 100 percent is a bit concerning," said Alpert, whose research has been used by the U.S. Department of Justice.
In an interview last week, police officials, including McGrath, stressed that Tasers have been involved in less than a half-percent of more than 300,000 arrests since 2005. McGrath and others attribute the minuscule number of inappropriate Taser incidents to extensive training.
But Cleveland's police supervisors have a history of clearing officers who resort to any type of nondeadly force, not just the use of Tasers. A Plain Dealer analysis in 2007 found that supervisors reviewed 4,427 uses of force over four years and justified the force in every case.
The newspaper looked at Taser use this year as part of its ongoing examination of Cleveland's police procedures, which have come under fire in response to several recent brutality claims.
Link:
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/07/cleveland_police_boast_near-sp.html
MA- The Boston police attempt to outlaw citizens from taking pictures of them by claiming it's a violation of the "wiretap law."
MA- The Boston police outlaw citizens from taking pictures of them by using claiming it's a violation of the "wiretap law."
A federal judge refused to issue a restraining order for a man who says Boston police routinely persecute citizens who photograph cops in public, allegedly in violation of wiretap law, but the lawsuit can proceed in its entirety.
Max Strahan claimed to have been taking pictures of a crane truck and construction crew near Boston Commons in August 2008 when out-of-uniform Boston Police Department officer Kenisha Stewart ordered him to stop.
Strahan said he may have inadvertently snapped a picture of Stewart, and she ordered him to delete images of her from his digital camera because it is a violation of the wiretap law to photograph police officers without their consent.
Judge Woodlock agreed to let Strahan proceed in forma pauperis and to consolidate his case with Glik v. Cunniffe, which also alleges threats of arrest for photographing BPD employees in public.
Link:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/27/38496.htm
Court filing:
MAX STRAHAN, vs. JAMES ROWLEY, ET AL.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/27/strahan.pdf
A federal judge refused to issue a restraining order for a man who says Boston police routinely persecute citizens who photograph cops in public, allegedly in violation of wiretap law, but the lawsuit can proceed in its entirety.
Max Strahan claimed to have been taking pictures of a crane truck and construction crew near Boston Commons in August 2008 when out-of-uniform Boston Police Department officer Kenisha Stewart ordered him to stop.
Strahan said he may have inadvertently snapped a picture of Stewart, and she ordered him to delete images of her from his digital camera because it is a violation of the wiretap law to photograph police officers without their consent.
Judge Woodlock agreed to let Strahan proceed in forma pauperis and to consolidate his case with Glik v. Cunniffe, which also alleges threats of arrest for photographing BPD employees in public.
Link:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/27/38496.htm
Court filing:
MAX STRAHAN, vs. JAMES ROWLEY, ET AL.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/27/strahan.pdf
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Student courts ( "Kangaroo courts") at college campuses can have serious repercussions for students.
A Stanford University student accused of sexual assault in an incident that the Palo Alto police and prosecutor investigated and declined to pursue nevertheless was convicted by a student court under relaxed evidence standards introduced by U.S. Department of Education.
In the Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post, Princeton alumna Samantha Harris reports that the student court – which I guess is what you would get if you replaced kangaroos with students in a kangaroo court – changed its standard mid-trial, in response to a letter from Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR):
At the time the student was charged, Stanford was using the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard -- the highest standard of proof, used by courts in criminal cases. But after OCR's letter, Stanford shifted to the "preponderance" standard in the middle of his case.
Plus, the campus panel that heard the case had been "trained" using documents boldly proclaiming that "everyone should be very, very cautious in accepting a man's claim that he has been wrongly accused of abuse or violence" and that one indication of an abuser is that he will "act persuasive and logical."
Perhaps the Stanford student acted too logically: He was promptly found guilty and suspended for two years. But because the OCR's letter forces colleges to permit the accuser to appeal the decision if the accused may do so, she has appealed and is seeking permanent expulsion of her alleged attacker.
On campus today, if you hook up with your date (or even your wife) after she's had a few drinks, you're often automatically guilty of sexual assault.
In the real world, drinking doesn't necessarily destroy your freedom of choice. Many US colleges and universities, however, believe it renders you unable to consent to sex.
At Stanford University, "intoxicated" students can't consent to sexual contact. At Princeton, you need only be "under the influence" of alcohol to lose your ability to consent -- which surely makes many a student both the victim and perpetrator of sexual assault.
The idea that an adult loses all agency upon the first effects of alcohol is bizarre enough. Stranger still, colleges are enforcing these strict regulations in part because they're scared of losing millions in federal funding.
A new mandate from the federal Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights forces all universities that get federal funding to judge claims of sexual assault using a "preponderance of the evidence" standard -- the lowest standard of proof, at about 50.01 percent certainty.
In other words, students on virtually all American campuses will now be found guilty of sexual assault if a hearing panel finds their accuser's story just barely more credible than their own.
Links:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_feds_mad_assault_on_campus_sex_zjUl29Y8d3NmoYOkKchblO#ixzz1SlVnjvdt
http://reason.com/blog/2011/07/21/stanford-so-smart-even-its-rap
In the Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post, Princeton alumna Samantha Harris reports that the student court – which I guess is what you would get if you replaced kangaroos with students in a kangaroo court – changed its standard mid-trial, in response to a letter from Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR):
At the time the student was charged, Stanford was using the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard -- the highest standard of proof, used by courts in criminal cases. But after OCR's letter, Stanford shifted to the "preponderance" standard in the middle of his case.
Plus, the campus panel that heard the case had been "trained" using documents boldly proclaiming that "everyone should be very, very cautious in accepting a man's claim that he has been wrongly accused of abuse or violence" and that one indication of an abuser is that he will "act persuasive and logical."
Perhaps the Stanford student acted too logically: He was promptly found guilty and suspended for two years. But because the OCR's letter forces colleges to permit the accuser to appeal the decision if the accused may do so, she has appealed and is seeking permanent expulsion of her alleged attacker.
On campus today, if you hook up with your date (or even your wife) after she's had a few drinks, you're often automatically guilty of sexual assault.
In the real world, drinking doesn't necessarily destroy your freedom of choice. Many US colleges and universities, however, believe it renders you unable to consent to sex.
At Stanford University, "intoxicated" students can't consent to sexual contact. At Princeton, you need only be "under the influence" of alcohol to lose your ability to consent -- which surely makes many a student both the victim and perpetrator of sexual assault.
The idea that an adult loses all agency upon the first effects of alcohol is bizarre enough. Stranger still, colleges are enforcing these strict regulations in part because they're scared of losing millions in federal funding.
A new mandate from the federal Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights forces all universities that get federal funding to judge claims of sexual assault using a "preponderance of the evidence" standard -- the lowest standard of proof, at about 50.01 percent certainty.
In other words, students on virtually all American campuses will now be found guilty of sexual assault if a hearing panel finds their accuser's story just barely more credible than their own.
Links:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_feds_mad_assault_on_campus_sex_zjUl29Y8d3NmoYOkKchblO#ixzz1SlVnjvdt
http://reason.com/blog/2011/07/21/stanford-so-smart-even-its-rap
Asking the right questions in a depostion can tell you alot about an expert witness.
The typical deposition of an expert witness looks like preparation for a great contest—mano a mano—between lawyer and expert. Like the board game Stratego, each side lines up its pieces and then makes its moves, trying to capture the other side’s flag.
With an expert witness, the enemy’s hidden flag is the expert’s fatal flaw—some awful error of fact or analysis that, if discovered, spells an end to the game.
Where is it? Starting with the witness’s curriculum vitae, the questioner goes on and doesn’t stop until every factual and theoretical stone underlying the expert’s opinion has been turned over. Surely the flag is in there somewhere.
Only it usually isn’t. When there really is a flag a fatal flaw that can destroy the other side’s case it is usually apparent before the deposition if you’ve done your homework and gone over the case with your own experts. Then how and when you reveal the flag becomes one of the keys to your entire case strategy.
But instead of a flag, the typical product of an expert’s deposition is a carload of quibbles that lawyer and expert fight over in the trial to the boredom and annoyance of both judge and jury. What was meant to be mano a mano turns out to be “quibble a quibble.”
This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be thorough—even exhaustive. But if all you do is hunt for the flag, there are too many other things you’ll overlook.
Besides learning the expert’s theory and its factual basis, other things you can do in a deposition include:
• Inquiring about the existence of other respected theories or approaches.
• Evaluating the witness on direct examination.
• Testing the witness’s ability to handle cross-exam.
• Finding out what makes the witness angry.
• Gathering impeachment material.
• Asking what the witness did and was shown and told in preparation for the deposition.
• Evaluating the lawyers on the other side.
• Learning the opponent’s overall theory of the case.
• Forcing an early settlement.
Link:
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/know_what_youre_after_experts_will_tell_you_a_lot_in_depositions_if_you_ask
With an expert witness, the enemy’s hidden flag is the expert’s fatal flaw—some awful error of fact or analysis that, if discovered, spells an end to the game.
Where is it? Starting with the witness’s curriculum vitae, the questioner goes on and doesn’t stop until every factual and theoretical stone underlying the expert’s opinion has been turned over. Surely the flag is in there somewhere.
Only it usually isn’t. When there really is a flag a fatal flaw that can destroy the other side’s case it is usually apparent before the deposition if you’ve done your homework and gone over the case with your own experts. Then how and when you reveal the flag becomes one of the keys to your entire case strategy.
But instead of a flag, the typical product of an expert’s deposition is a carload of quibbles that lawyer and expert fight over in the trial to the boredom and annoyance of both judge and jury. What was meant to be mano a mano turns out to be “quibble a quibble.”
This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be thorough—even exhaustive. But if all you do is hunt for the flag, there are too many other things you’ll overlook.
Besides learning the expert’s theory and its factual basis, other things you can do in a deposition include:
• Inquiring about the existence of other respected theories or approaches.
• Evaluating the witness on direct examination.
• Testing the witness’s ability to handle cross-exam.
• Finding out what makes the witness angry.
• Gathering impeachment material.
• Asking what the witness did and was shown and told in preparation for the deposition.
• Evaluating the lawyers on the other side.
• Learning the opponent’s overall theory of the case.
• Forcing an early settlement.
Link:
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/know_what_youre_after_experts_will_tell_you_a_lot_in_depositions_if_you_ask
10 ways private investigators can use LinkedIn to find sources, track changes at companies.
The business networking site LinkedIn is more than just a place to find your next job. It’s a powerful and often underused resource for finding news sources and story ideas.
LinkedIn now has more than 100 million members and is gaining more than than one new member every second, said Krista Canfield, LinkedIn’s senior manager of corporate communications and an evangelist to working journalists.
Investigators can find sources and leads through status updates, employee transitions and data that LinkedIn aggregates and analyzes. “There’s a wide variety of different types of professionals that are on the site. which makes it a wonderful resource for journalists,” Canfield said.
Link:
http://www.poynter.org/how-tos/newsgathering-storytelling/137926/10-ways-reporters-can-use-linkedin-to-find-sources-track-changes-at-companies/
LinkedIn now has more than 100 million members and is gaining more than than one new member every second, said Krista Canfield, LinkedIn’s senior manager of corporate communications and an evangelist to working journalists.
Investigators can find sources and leads through status updates, employee transitions and data that LinkedIn aggregates and analyzes. “There’s a wide variety of different types of professionals that are on the site. which makes it a wonderful resource for journalists,” Canfield said.
Link:
http://www.poynter.org/how-tos/newsgathering-storytelling/137926/10-ways-reporters-can-use-linkedin-to-find-sources-track-changes-at-companies/
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that it's ok to collect DNA from those arrested but not convicted.
A closely divided 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has found that the collection of DNA samples from people arrested but not yet convicted of crimes is constitutional, in an opinion released today.
In a precedent-setting ruling, the appeals court rejected U.S. District Judge David S. Cercone's 2009 order finding that law enforcement could not collect DNA from Ruben Mitchell, who faces a federal charge of attempting to possess and distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. Judge Cercone had found that requiring pre-trial detainees to submit DNA samples, which is done under the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, violates the 4th Amendment's search and seizure rules.
In an 8-6 ruling, the circuit judges found that people who are arrested have "a diminished expectation of privacy in their identities." Outweighing their privacy, they found, is the importance to law enforcement of correctly identifying people who are charged with crimes, determining their criminal history, potentially linking them to unsolved crimes and promptly ruling out involvement in a crime in cases in which the DNA does not match that found at the scene.
The majority opinion, by Judge Julio M. Fuentes, said that DNA matching "promptly clears thousands of potential suspects."
"In sum, under the totality of the circumstances, given arrestees' and pretrial detainees' diminished expectations of privacy in their identities and the Government's legitimate interests in the collection of DNA from these individuals, we conclude that such collection is reasonable and does not violate the Fourth Amendment," Judge Fuentes wrote.
Judge Marjorie O. Rendell wrote for six dissenting judges who found that the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 overreached.
"The privacy interests of arrestees, while diminished in certain, very circumscribed situations, are not so weak as to permit the Government to intrude into their bodies and extract the highly sensitive information coded in their genes," Judge Rendell wrote. "Moreover, the Government's asserted interest in this case -- the law enforcement objective of obtaining evidence to assist in the prosecution of past and future crimes presents precisely the potential for abuse the Fourth Amendment was designed to guard against."
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11206/1162858-100.stm
Court Ruling:
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/094718p.pdf
In a precedent-setting ruling, the appeals court rejected U.S. District Judge David S. Cercone's 2009 order finding that law enforcement could not collect DNA from Ruben Mitchell, who faces a federal charge of attempting to possess and distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. Judge Cercone had found that requiring pre-trial detainees to submit DNA samples, which is done under the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, violates the 4th Amendment's search and seizure rules.
In an 8-6 ruling, the circuit judges found that people who are arrested have "a diminished expectation of privacy in their identities." Outweighing their privacy, they found, is the importance to law enforcement of correctly identifying people who are charged with crimes, determining their criminal history, potentially linking them to unsolved crimes and promptly ruling out involvement in a crime in cases in which the DNA does not match that found at the scene.
The majority opinion, by Judge Julio M. Fuentes, said that DNA matching "promptly clears thousands of potential suspects."
"In sum, under the totality of the circumstances, given arrestees' and pretrial detainees' diminished expectations of privacy in their identities and the Government's legitimate interests in the collection of DNA from these individuals, we conclude that such collection is reasonable and does not violate the Fourth Amendment," Judge Fuentes wrote.
Judge Marjorie O. Rendell wrote for six dissenting judges who found that the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 overreached.
"The privacy interests of arrestees, while diminished in certain, very circumscribed situations, are not so weak as to permit the Government to intrude into their bodies and extract the highly sensitive information coded in their genes," Judge Rendell wrote. "Moreover, the Government's asserted interest in this case -- the law enforcement objective of obtaining evidence to assist in the prosecution of past and future crimes presents precisely the potential for abuse the Fourth Amendment was designed to guard against."
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11206/1162858-100.stm
Court Ruling:
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/094718p.pdf
Rental companies could be allowed to spy on their customers.
Some may recall that back in May news broke of an Aaron's Inc. (AAN) franchisee remotely spying on users with a webcam to make sure they were making payments. The incident led to one outraged couple filing suit against the company, seeking class action status.
Unfortunately for that couple -- Crystal and Brian Byrd -- there case was dealt a serious setback by Judge Sean Mclaughlin, a judge with the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Erie District).
In his ruling, the judge refused to grant a preliminary injunction, which would have banned Aaron's and its franchisees from both continuing to monitor users with the "PC Rental Agent" remote webcam spykit and from conducting activities to obfuscate which computers had the spykit installed.
In denying the injunction, Judge Mclaughlin opens the door to continued monitoring of users, and to the company disguising how many users it monitors.
The court rules that that the plaintiffs don't have the computer any more and thus are no longer suffering harm and that they provided insufficient evidence to demonstrate that other members of the potential class are currently suffering harm.
The problem is that while the franchisee is "cooperating" with the investigation, there is a very real possibility that it can obfuscate its current surveillance from investigators. As the court seems content only to consider taking action if additional evidence can be gathered, and will only consider current employees as dependable witnesses, the Byrd family's trial prospects aren't looking too good.
Court Ruling:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0Bymxq92Dj73DYjg1NDJjMjItNTZlNi00MjcyLWExNzAtNDQyYmU4MzQ5NDBk&hl=en_US&pli=1
Link:
http://www.dailytech.com/Rental+Firms+May+be+Allowed+to+Spy+on+Customers+With+Webcams/article22204.htm
Unfortunately for that couple -- Crystal and Brian Byrd -- there case was dealt a serious setback by Judge Sean Mclaughlin, a judge with the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Erie District).
In his ruling, the judge refused to grant a preliminary injunction, which would have banned Aaron's and its franchisees from both continuing to monitor users with the "PC Rental Agent" remote webcam spykit and from conducting activities to obfuscate which computers had the spykit installed.
In denying the injunction, Judge Mclaughlin opens the door to continued monitoring of users, and to the company disguising how many users it monitors.
The court rules that that the plaintiffs don't have the computer any more and thus are no longer suffering harm and that they provided insufficient evidence to demonstrate that other members of the potential class are currently suffering harm.
The problem is that while the franchisee is "cooperating" with the investigation, there is a very real possibility that it can obfuscate its current surveillance from investigators. As the court seems content only to consider taking action if additional evidence can be gathered, and will only consider current employees as dependable witnesses, the Byrd family's trial prospects aren't looking too good.
Court Ruling:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0Bymxq92Dj73DYjg1NDJjMjItNTZlNi00MjcyLWExNzAtNDQyYmU4MzQ5NDBk&hl=en_US&pli=1
Link:
http://www.dailytech.com/Rental+Firms+May+be+Allowed+to+Spy+on+Customers+With+Webcams/article22204.htm
Detroit- Between July 2006 and June 2009, the city spent $19.1 million settling police misconduct cases.
A Detroit Police Gang Squad officer allegedly caught on videotape beating a suburban college student has been sued eight times and cost taxpayers more than $677,000, according to court records.
That figure could rise because the college student has sued Officer Nevin Hughes in federal court, alleging the officer violated his civil rights during the incident outside a Detroit gas station in 2009.
The six-figure settlements are emerging as the department's Internal Affairs unit concludes a probe of Hughes' conduct — an investigation launched after The Detroit News posted surveillance camera footage of the unprovoked attack. Hughes is expected to face disciplinary charges that could range from an unpaid suspension to being fired, police spokeswoman Sgt. Eren Stephens said.
In recent years, Hughes has been sued over a beating during the Downtown Hoedown and accused of illegal searches and seizures, falsifying search warrants and assaulting men at gas stations.
The lawsuits and payouts raise questions about how Hughes has managed to stay on the gang and drug squads, despite a pattern of alleged misconduct in incidents dating back 15 years and despite federal oversight governing use of force by police personnel.
"It raises a lot of concerns," said Gary Brown, the City Council president pro tem and a former deputy police chief who once headed the gang squad. "The city is broke, and we're paying out millions."
Between July 2006 and June 2009, the city spent $19.1 million settling police misconduct cases.
Hughes, 46, did not return a phone message seeking comment. Marty Bandemer, head of the Detroit Police Officers Association, also did not return a call seeking comment.
Link:
http://www.detnews.com/article/20110725/METRO01/107250357/Gang-cop%E2%80%99s-actions-cost-Detroit-$677-000
That figure could rise because the college student has sued Officer Nevin Hughes in federal court, alleging the officer violated his civil rights during the incident outside a Detroit gas station in 2009.
The six-figure settlements are emerging as the department's Internal Affairs unit concludes a probe of Hughes' conduct — an investigation launched after The Detroit News posted surveillance camera footage of the unprovoked attack. Hughes is expected to face disciplinary charges that could range from an unpaid suspension to being fired, police spokeswoman Sgt. Eren Stephens said.
In recent years, Hughes has been sued over a beating during the Downtown Hoedown and accused of illegal searches and seizures, falsifying search warrants and assaulting men at gas stations.
The lawsuits and payouts raise questions about how Hughes has managed to stay on the gang and drug squads, despite a pattern of alleged misconduct in incidents dating back 15 years and despite federal oversight governing use of force by police personnel.
"It raises a lot of concerns," said Gary Brown, the City Council president pro tem and a former deputy police chief who once headed the gang squad. "The city is broke, and we're paying out millions."
Between July 2006 and June 2009, the city spent $19.1 million settling police misconduct cases.
Hughes, 46, did not return a phone message seeking comment. Marty Bandemer, head of the Detroit Police Officers Association, also did not return a call seeking comment.
Link:
http://www.detnews.com/article/20110725/METRO01/107250357/Gang-cop%E2%80%99s-actions-cost-Detroit-$677-000
How soon before your local bar/nightclub broadcasts streaming live footage?
Last Thursday night at Somar Bar in downtown Oakland, the scene was slow but steady: A DJ spun hyphy and old soul, and about twenty patrons clustered on the dance floor, at the bar, and on couches in the narrow, green-walled space. But what they didn't know was that they were on camera the whole time, their likenesses and actions being streamed live through an iPhone app — one which some say is a useful, harmless tool, and which others say is an invasion of privacy.
Founded by a handful of Sonoma County entrepreneurs, the app, BarSpace, and its related web site, BarSpace.tv, employ a simple concept: Install cameras in bars and nightclubs and then streams that video live through a free iPhone app, as well as through the company's website. The cameras are installed and paid for by BarSpace; each bar decided the hours between which they'd like to transmit a video stream.
The idea, according to the company's CEO, Mike Deignan, is that people can use the app to see whether bars are full or empty — or even whether their favorite bartender is working that night or what the dress code is. Essentially, BarSpace makes it possible to find out what you're getting into, in real time and straight from the source — to gauge a bar's atmosphere against your own expectations and inclinations, without ever leaving your home (or, in some cases, paying a cover).
Developed by OutSpring, a Santa Rosa-based app developer, BarSpace currently serves more than two hundred bars, concentrated primarily in the Bay Area — and is expanding fast. Diegnan said he and his team are "constantly" seeking new clients and, eventually, intend to install cameras across the country. According to Jeff Bodean — who is one of the company's owners as well as its director of technology — the app, which is free and available on iTunes, generates about 1,000 downloads a week.
But according to Chris Conley, a technology and civil liberties attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's Northern California chapter, BarSpace — and technology like it — raises serious questions about personal freedom in the digital age. "Broadly speaking, we would be concerned as a civil liberties issue," he said, emphasizing that he wasn't familiar with BarSpace itself and thus couldn't speak about it specifically. "The concerns that we would have are, first, that people are actually aware of what's going on — that people know they're being filmed and that picture is being sent across the Internet to who-knows-where. The bottom line is, people need to be part of the equation."
For their part, Bodean and Deignan said that the company has received some concerns about privacy, and it has done what it can to address them. "When people first hear about it, they're nervous," Deignan admitted. The same hypotheticals always come up, he said: on the more benign end of the spectrum, the wife spotting her husband at the bar or the boss catching an employee drinking while on the clock, or, more seriously, a stalker using BarSpace to surreptitiously follow a victim. But ultimately, Bodean said, "The point of the product is not to make a stalker utility — it's to see what a venue looks like, to get a head count."
For that reason, he and the rest of the BarSpace team try to install cameras at a high, wide angle — "and when you do that, you're going to lose some detail," he said. Moreover, in bars with low ceilings or tables positioned close to the camera, the company can intentionally degrade the picture quality — but he said they typically only do that when a bar comes to them with concerns.
The ultimate effect is something like looking through slightly mottled glass, or at grainy surveillance video — not clear enough to see small details, but probably enough to pick someone out if you're looking for them. Indeed, Patience Thornton, a bartender at Somar, said her boyfriend uses the app to see if she's working, and that she and her co-workers use it before a shift to see which bartenders are on.
Bar Space TV:
http://www.barspace.tv/
Link:
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/smile-youre-on-barspace/Content?oid=2917119
Founded by a handful of Sonoma County entrepreneurs, the app, BarSpace, and its related web site, BarSpace.tv, employ a simple concept: Install cameras in bars and nightclubs and then streams that video live through a free iPhone app, as well as through the company's website. The cameras are installed and paid for by BarSpace; each bar decided the hours between which they'd like to transmit a video stream.
The idea, according to the company's CEO, Mike Deignan, is that people can use the app to see whether bars are full or empty — or even whether their favorite bartender is working that night or what the dress code is. Essentially, BarSpace makes it possible to find out what you're getting into, in real time and straight from the source — to gauge a bar's atmosphere against your own expectations and inclinations, without ever leaving your home (or, in some cases, paying a cover).
Developed by OutSpring, a Santa Rosa-based app developer, BarSpace currently serves more than two hundred bars, concentrated primarily in the Bay Area — and is expanding fast. Diegnan said he and his team are "constantly" seeking new clients and, eventually, intend to install cameras across the country. According to Jeff Bodean — who is one of the company's owners as well as its director of technology — the app, which is free and available on iTunes, generates about 1,000 downloads a week.
But according to Chris Conley, a technology and civil liberties attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's Northern California chapter, BarSpace — and technology like it — raises serious questions about personal freedom in the digital age. "Broadly speaking, we would be concerned as a civil liberties issue," he said, emphasizing that he wasn't familiar with BarSpace itself and thus couldn't speak about it specifically. "The concerns that we would have are, first, that people are actually aware of what's going on — that people know they're being filmed and that picture is being sent across the Internet to who-knows-where. The bottom line is, people need to be part of the equation."
For their part, Bodean and Deignan said that the company has received some concerns about privacy, and it has done what it can to address them. "When people first hear about it, they're nervous," Deignan admitted. The same hypotheticals always come up, he said: on the more benign end of the spectrum, the wife spotting her husband at the bar or the boss catching an employee drinking while on the clock, or, more seriously, a stalker using BarSpace to surreptitiously follow a victim. But ultimately, Bodean said, "The point of the product is not to make a stalker utility — it's to see what a venue looks like, to get a head count."
For that reason, he and the rest of the BarSpace team try to install cameras at a high, wide angle — "and when you do that, you're going to lose some detail," he said. Moreover, in bars with low ceilings or tables positioned close to the camera, the company can intentionally degrade the picture quality — but he said they typically only do that when a bar comes to them with concerns.
The ultimate effect is something like looking through slightly mottled glass, or at grainy surveillance video — not clear enough to see small details, but probably enough to pick someone out if you're looking for them. Indeed, Patience Thornton, a bartender at Somar, said her boyfriend uses the app to see if she's working, and that she and her co-workers use it before a shift to see which bartenders are on.
Bar Space TV:
http://www.barspace.tv/
Link:
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/smile-youre-on-barspace/Content?oid=2917119
Google's Street View cars collected the locations of millions of laptops, cell phones, and other Wi-Fi devices.
Google's Street View cars collected the locations of millions of laptops, cell phones, and other Wi-Fi devices around the world, a practice that raises novel privacy concerns, CNET has confirmed.
The cars were supposed to collect the locations of Wi-Fi access points. But Google also recorded the street addresses and unique identifiers of computers and other devices using those wireless networks and then made the data publicly available through Google.com until a few weeks ago.
But it was unclear at the time whether Google's location database included the hardware IDs of only access points and wireless routers or client devices, such as computers and mobile phones, as well.
Anecdotal evidence suggested they had been swept up. Alissa Cooper, chief computer scientist at the Center for Democracy and Technology and co-chair of an Internet Engineering Task Force on geolocation, said her 2009 home address was listed in Google's location database. Nick Doty, a lecturer at the University of California at Berkeley who co-teaches the Technology and Policy Lab, found that Google listed his former home in the Capitol Hill neighborhood in Seattle.
Wi-Fi-enabled devices, including PCs, iPhones, iPads, and Android phones, transmit a unique hardware identifier to anyone within a radius of approximately 100 to 200 feet. If someone captured or already knew that unique address because they had access to the device, Google's application programming interface, or API, revealed where that device was located, a practice that can reveal personal information including home or work addresses or even the addresses of restaurants frequented.
To be sure, it's not always easy to learn a target's MAC address. It's generally not transmitted over the Internet. But anyone within Wi-Fi range can record it, and it's easy to narrow down which MAC addresses correspond to which manufacturer. Someone, such as a suspicious spouse, who can navigate to the About screen on an iPhone can obtain it that way too.
Kim Cameron, Microsoft's chief identity architect until earlier this year, had long suspected that Street View cars vacuumed up the hardware addresses of devices using a Wi-Fi connection. In a June 2010 essay that analyzed an independent report (PDF) of Street View data collection, Cameron said he believed that Google recorded the locations and MAC addresses of far more than just fixed Wi-Fi access points.
Marc Rotenberg, head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C., said he has concerns about the legality of intercepting the hardware addresses of devices using Wi-Fi connections.
"The fact that other companies such as Skyhook may have engaged in this behavior, which seems to be Google's best defense, doesn't make it lawful," Rotenberg said. "What it does suggest is that there's more to the investigation of Street View."
Link:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20082777-281/street-view-cars-grabbed-locations-of-phones-pcs/
The cars were supposed to collect the locations of Wi-Fi access points. But Google also recorded the street addresses and unique identifiers of computers and other devices using those wireless networks and then made the data publicly available through Google.com until a few weeks ago.
But it was unclear at the time whether Google's location database included the hardware IDs of only access points and wireless routers or client devices, such as computers and mobile phones, as well.
Anecdotal evidence suggested they had been swept up. Alissa Cooper, chief computer scientist at the Center for Democracy and Technology and co-chair of an Internet Engineering Task Force on geolocation, said her 2009 home address was listed in Google's location database. Nick Doty, a lecturer at the University of California at Berkeley who co-teaches the Technology and Policy Lab, found that Google listed his former home in the Capitol Hill neighborhood in Seattle.
Wi-Fi-enabled devices, including PCs, iPhones, iPads, and Android phones, transmit a unique hardware identifier to anyone within a radius of approximately 100 to 200 feet. If someone captured or already knew that unique address because they had access to the device, Google's application programming interface, or API, revealed where that device was located, a practice that can reveal personal information including home or work addresses or even the addresses of restaurants frequented.
To be sure, it's not always easy to learn a target's MAC address. It's generally not transmitted over the Internet. But anyone within Wi-Fi range can record it, and it's easy to narrow down which MAC addresses correspond to which manufacturer. Someone, such as a suspicious spouse, who can navigate to the About screen on an iPhone can obtain it that way too.
Kim Cameron, Microsoft's chief identity architect until earlier this year, had long suspected that Street View cars vacuumed up the hardware addresses of devices using a Wi-Fi connection. In a June 2010 essay that analyzed an independent report (PDF) of Street View data collection, Cameron said he believed that Google recorded the locations and MAC addresses of far more than just fixed Wi-Fi access points.
Marc Rotenberg, head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C., said he has concerns about the legality of intercepting the hardware addresses of devices using Wi-Fi connections.
"The fact that other companies such as Skyhook may have engaged in this behavior, which seems to be Google's best defense, doesn't make it lawful," Rotenberg said. "What it does suggest is that there's more to the investigation of Street View."
Link:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20082777-281/street-view-cars-grabbed-locations-of-phones-pcs/
Monday, July 25, 2011
When data breaches occur should law enforcement & private companies withold notifying the public?
TX - Huntsville Police Department, Walker County Sheriff’s Office, University Police Department and the U. S. Secret Service worked together to determine the source of the thefts of debit and credit card numbers by virus-infected computers at Margarita’s Mexican Restaurant.
Margarita’s was hit by a type of “skimming,” in which credit card numbers are stolen before they can be encrypted by the restaurant’s point of sale system.
Skimming debit and credit cards numbers can occur many ways, remotely by computer hacking or on-site by a device placed on a computer, authorities said.
Residents began alerting the police to the problem almost three weeks ago, and a large jump in reported cases occurred about two weeks ago. Victims are still bringing cases to authorities as they find evidence in their bank and credit card statements.
Should law enforcement be withholding information like point of compromise for fear of hurting a business? Law enforcement may take the position that it’s not their place to notify the public and that it’s on the entity to disclose the information, but there’s something that doesn’t sit right about this approach. Doesn’t law enforcement work for us and not for the business? I wouldn’t mind if they tell an entity, “Look, we’ll give you today to get a press release or notice out to the media or on your web site or store door, but after that, we will disclose if you haven’t.” But that doesn’t seem to be what happened here. In this case, law enforcement decided that the risk to consumers outweighed other concerns. But if it hadn’t….. then what?
The banks cancel cards and don’t tell us where a breach occurred – often because they’re not told, either.
Law enforcement may not tell us where a breach occurred.
Breached entities may not tell us when they’ve been breached.
This is really unacceptable.
And no, there’s no notice on Margarita’s web site about the breach as of the time of this posting.
Who's job is it to warn consumers? The restaurant’s, says the feds. Local authorities, however, stepped in front of our popular local restaurant, arguing that the business itself was also a victim. At the time and in a stroke of community paternalism, The Huntsville Item newpaper agreed.
Some Huntsville residents suffered losses, inconvenience and the indignity of having a card declined because of the theft of numbers that occurred at the restaurant they favored with their business. Likewise, banks and credit card companies are out hundreds if not thousands of dollars because of what happened in Huntsville.
The Item warned its readers of this massive case of fraud through the enterprise of its reporters — by following up on rumors and listening to the police scanner. The paper could have —and should have —followed up on early rumors about what business had been linked to the crime.
That way, we might have been able to alert you to the threat that remained even after we reported that the “problem” had been fixed. That buck stops on the desk of the managing editor.
Some of you said you appreciate the quandary The Item and local authorities faced — warning consumers or protecting a victimized business. And yes, we want investigators to investigate and businesses to be accountable to their customers. But, to the best of its ability, the local newspaper should have your back when no one else does. We apologize.
Links:
http://itemonline.com/opinion/x1241072255/Our-View-Whose-job-was-it-to-warn-us
http://itemonline.com/local/x202403217/Police-weigh-risks-when-informing-public-about-credit-card-fraud
Margarita’s was hit by a type of “skimming,” in which credit card numbers are stolen before they can be encrypted by the restaurant’s point of sale system.
Skimming debit and credit cards numbers can occur many ways, remotely by computer hacking or on-site by a device placed on a computer, authorities said.
Residents began alerting the police to the problem almost three weeks ago, and a large jump in reported cases occurred about two weeks ago. Victims are still bringing cases to authorities as they find evidence in their bank and credit card statements.
Should law enforcement be withholding information like point of compromise for fear of hurting a business? Law enforcement may take the position that it’s not their place to notify the public and that it’s on the entity to disclose the information, but there’s something that doesn’t sit right about this approach. Doesn’t law enforcement work for us and not for the business? I wouldn’t mind if they tell an entity, “Look, we’ll give you today to get a press release or notice out to the media or on your web site or store door, but after that, we will disclose if you haven’t.” But that doesn’t seem to be what happened here. In this case, law enforcement decided that the risk to consumers outweighed other concerns. But if it hadn’t….. then what?
The banks cancel cards and don’t tell us where a breach occurred – often because they’re not told, either.
Law enforcement may not tell us where a breach occurred.
Breached entities may not tell us when they’ve been breached.
This is really unacceptable.
And no, there’s no notice on Margarita’s web site about the breach as of the time of this posting.
Who's job is it to warn consumers? The restaurant’s, says the feds. Local authorities, however, stepped in front of our popular local restaurant, arguing that the business itself was also a victim. At the time and in a stroke of community paternalism, The Huntsville Item newpaper agreed.
Some Huntsville residents suffered losses, inconvenience and the indignity of having a card declined because of the theft of numbers that occurred at the restaurant they favored with their business. Likewise, banks and credit card companies are out hundreds if not thousands of dollars because of what happened in Huntsville.
The Item warned its readers of this massive case of fraud through the enterprise of its reporters — by following up on rumors and listening to the police scanner. The paper could have —and should have —followed up on early rumors about what business had been linked to the crime.
That way, we might have been able to alert you to the threat that remained even after we reported that the “problem” had been fixed. That buck stops on the desk of the managing editor.
Some of you said you appreciate the quandary The Item and local authorities faced — warning consumers or protecting a victimized business. And yes, we want investigators to investigate and businesses to be accountable to their customers. But, to the best of its ability, the local newspaper should have your back when no one else does. We apologize.
Links:
http://itemonline.com/opinion/x1241072255/Our-View-Whose-job-was-it-to-warn-us
http://itemonline.com/local/x202403217/Police-weigh-risks-when-informing-public-about-credit-card-fraud
Medical examiner Dr. Jon Thogmartin stresses the need for better investigations of child deaths.
Medical examiner Dr. Jon Thogmartin, another expert we interviewed in The Child Cases, says that when a child dies, people presume it's murder. A prosecutorial mindset sets in. Do you agree?
No, that's not true. When a child collapses unexpectedly, child protective services and law enforcement do get involved. Somebody has to do a scene investigation, and it's not going to be the doctors. I'm not going to go to the house to look for toxins or poisons. No one presumes that child injury is abuse. Abuse is a diagnosis we make after we rule out a long, extensive list of physical and accidental ideologies that would explain the degree and severity of the injuries we see.
Is there a problem with the standards for those who testify as experts?
People are for sale. Obviously not all. Some who testify are extremely ethical and professionally responsible.
There's no quality control. Some of the experts who give the most outrageous testimony are in very high demand. They are making very large amounts of money.
It's an area where there seems to be no downside to irresponsible expert witness testimony. Most of the folks who do it are retired, doing it as a hobby. State medical societies won't take it on for fear of liability or litigation. State medical boards in most states don't consider expert testimony to be "the practice of medicine," so they don't take it on. And most prosecutors are very hesitant to charge anyone with perjury because this is, in fact, their opinion. If you have an opinion, it may be false. But it's not necessarily a lie.
Is there a solution to this?
I think the medical societies should take a more proactive stance. In the OBGYN societies, they've taken on the issue of malpractice testimony—people going around the country, providing false testimony, causing ethical, competent doctors to be sued.
I know the American Academy of Pediatrics won't touch this. It has lots of missions to promote child health. If they had to tie up millions in child lawsuits, it would decrease their resources for other core missions.
The American Academy of Emergency Medicine has taken an interesting stance on this. If their members feel that other members have testified irresponsibly, they will put the transcripts online so that others can read it and comment. It's kind of like a public shaming.
http://www.propublica.org/article/q-a-a-prominent-advocate-presses-for-better-investigations-of-child-deaths
No, that's not true. When a child collapses unexpectedly, child protective services and law enforcement do get involved. Somebody has to do a scene investigation, and it's not going to be the doctors. I'm not going to go to the house to look for toxins or poisons. No one presumes that child injury is abuse. Abuse is a diagnosis we make after we rule out a long, extensive list of physical and accidental ideologies that would explain the degree and severity of the injuries we see.
Is there a problem with the standards for those who testify as experts?
People are for sale. Obviously not all. Some who testify are extremely ethical and professionally responsible.
There's no quality control. Some of the experts who give the most outrageous testimony are in very high demand. They are making very large amounts of money.
It's an area where there seems to be no downside to irresponsible expert witness testimony. Most of the folks who do it are retired, doing it as a hobby. State medical societies won't take it on for fear of liability or litigation. State medical boards in most states don't consider expert testimony to be "the practice of medicine," so they don't take it on. And most prosecutors are very hesitant to charge anyone with perjury because this is, in fact, their opinion. If you have an opinion, it may be false. But it's not necessarily a lie.
Is there a solution to this?
I think the medical societies should take a more proactive stance. In the OBGYN societies, they've taken on the issue of malpractice testimony—people going around the country, providing false testimony, causing ethical, competent doctors to be sued.
I know the American Academy of Pediatrics won't touch this. It has lots of missions to promote child health. If they had to tie up millions in child lawsuits, it would decrease their resources for other core missions.
The American Academy of Emergency Medicine has taken an interesting stance on this. If their members feel that other members have testified irresponsibly, they will put the transcripts online so that others can read it and comment. It's kind of like a public shaming.
http://www.propublica.org/article/q-a-a-prominent-advocate-presses-for-better-investigations-of-child-deaths
Does the Local Agency Compensated Enforcement program encourage police departments to use speeding tickets to pay for their salaries?
The town of Washington owes state government $222,130 from speeding tickets issued by the municipality’s police officers on Interstate 49.
“I can’t make Washington pay it. But what I believe is he has to cut a check,” Daryl G. Purpera, the Louisiana legislative auditor, said Friday.
Washington Mayor Joseph A. Pitre told the Legislative Audit Advisory Council he did not believe the town owes the money.
State law requires fines collected by local law enforcement from motorists exceeding the speed limit by less than 10 miles per hour on an interstate highway to be turned over to the state Treasury. The law applies only to local governments without a home rule charter.
In the meantime, Murray said the audit found Washington police officers wrote tickets on an interstate highway and the fines were not properly turned over to state government.
Pitre said the money had been given to various agencies as part of a program called LACE or Local Agency Compensated Enforcement. The program is not found in state law but has grown up to help forge cooperation between various local government entities, according to an Attorney General’s opinion. The money is used to fund extra duty for off-duty police officers.
Link:
http://theadvocate.com/home/424934-78/auditor-town-must-pay-the.html
“I can’t make Washington pay it. But what I believe is he has to cut a check,” Daryl G. Purpera, the Louisiana legislative auditor, said Friday.
Washington Mayor Joseph A. Pitre told the Legislative Audit Advisory Council he did not believe the town owes the money.
State law requires fines collected by local law enforcement from motorists exceeding the speed limit by less than 10 miles per hour on an interstate highway to be turned over to the state Treasury. The law applies only to local governments without a home rule charter.
In the meantime, Murray said the audit found Washington police officers wrote tickets on an interstate highway and the fines were not properly turned over to state government.
Pitre said the money had been given to various agencies as part of a program called LACE or Local Agency Compensated Enforcement. The program is not found in state law but has grown up to help forge cooperation between various local government entities, according to an Attorney General’s opinion. The money is used to fund extra duty for off-duty police officers.
Link:
http://theadvocate.com/home/424934-78/auditor-town-must-pay-the.html
Friday, July 22, 2011
Little-known firms use tracking data on millions of Americans and there is nothing they can do about it.
Atlanta entrepreneur Mike Mondelli has access to more than a billion records detailing consumers’ personal finances — and there is little they can do about it.
The information collected by his company, L2C, comes from thousands of everyday transactions that many people do not realize are being tracked: auto warranties, cellphone bills and magazine subscriptions. It includes purchases of prepaid cards and visits to payday lenders and rent-to-own furniture stores. It knows whether your checks have cleared and scours public records for mentions of your name.
Pulled together, the data follow the life of your wallet far beyond what exists in the country’s three main credit bureaus. Mondelli sells that information for a profit to lenders, landlords and even health-care providers trying to solve one of the most fundamental questions of personal finance: Who is worthy of credit?
Federal regulations do not always require companies to disclose when they share your financial history or with whom, and there is no way to opt out when they do. No standard exists for what types of data should be included in the fourth bureau or how it should be used. No one is even tracking the accuracy of these reports. That has created a virtually impenetrable system in which consumers, particularly the most vulnerable, have little insight into the forces shaping their financial futures.
Link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/little-known-firms-tracking-data-used-in-credit-scores/2011/05/24/gIQAXHcWII_story.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost
The information collected by his company, L2C, comes from thousands of everyday transactions that many people do not realize are being tracked: auto warranties, cellphone bills and magazine subscriptions. It includes purchases of prepaid cards and visits to payday lenders and rent-to-own furniture stores. It knows whether your checks have cleared and scours public records for mentions of your name.
Pulled together, the data follow the life of your wallet far beyond what exists in the country’s three main credit bureaus. Mondelli sells that information for a profit to lenders, landlords and even health-care providers trying to solve one of the most fundamental questions of personal finance: Who is worthy of credit?
Federal regulations do not always require companies to disclose when they share your financial history or with whom, and there is no way to opt out when they do. No standard exists for what types of data should be included in the fourth bureau or how it should be used. No one is even tracking the accuracy of these reports. That has created a virtually impenetrable system in which consumers, particularly the most vulnerable, have little insight into the forces shaping their financial futures.
Link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/little-known-firms-tracking-data-used-in-credit-scores/2011/05/24/gIQAXHcWII_story.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost
Companies are looking into a person's social media history before hiring them.
Companies have long used criminal background checks, credit reports and even searches on Google and LinkedIn to probe the previous lives of prospective employees. Now, some companies are requiring job candidates to also pass a social media background check.
A year-old start-up, Social Intelligence, scrapes the Internet for everything prospective employees may have said or done online in the past seven years.
Then it assembles a dossier with examples of professional honors and charitable work, along with negative information that meets specific criteria: online evidence of racist remarks; references to drugs; sexually explicit photos, text messages or videos; flagrant displays of weapons or bombs and clearly identifiable violent activity.
“We are not detectives,” said Max Drucker, chief executive of the company, which is based in Santa Barbara, Calif. “All we assemble is what is publicly available on the Internet today.”
The Federal Trade Commission, after initially raising concerns last fall about Social Intelligence’s business, determined the company is in compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, but the service still alarms privacy advocates who say that it invites employers to look at information that may not be relevant to job performance.
And what relevant unflattering information has led to job offers being withdrawn or not made? Mr. Drucker said that one prospective employee was found using Craigslist to look for OxyContin. A woman posing naked in photos she put up on an image-sharing site didn’t get the job offer she was seeking at a hospital.
Other background reports have turned up examples of people making anti-Semitic comments and racist remarks, he said. Then there was the job applicant who belonged to a Facebook group, “This Is America. I Shouldn’t Have to Press 1 for English.” This raises a question. “Does that mean you don’t like people who don’t speak English?” asked Mr. Drucker rhetorically.
Given complex “terms of service” agreements on most sites and Web applications, Mr. Rotenberg said people do not always realize that comments or content they generate are publicly available.
That said, he added that 75 percent of recruiters are required by their companies to do online research of candidates. And 70 percent of recruiters in the United States report that they have rejected candidates because of information online, he said.
Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/technology/social-media-history-becomes-a-new-job-hurdle.html?_r=1
A year-old start-up, Social Intelligence, scrapes the Internet for everything prospective employees may have said or done online in the past seven years.
Then it assembles a dossier with examples of professional honors and charitable work, along with negative information that meets specific criteria: online evidence of racist remarks; references to drugs; sexually explicit photos, text messages or videos; flagrant displays of weapons or bombs and clearly identifiable violent activity.
“We are not detectives,” said Max Drucker, chief executive of the company, which is based in Santa Barbara, Calif. “All we assemble is what is publicly available on the Internet today.”
The Federal Trade Commission, after initially raising concerns last fall about Social Intelligence’s business, determined the company is in compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, but the service still alarms privacy advocates who say that it invites employers to look at information that may not be relevant to job performance.
And what relevant unflattering information has led to job offers being withdrawn or not made? Mr. Drucker said that one prospective employee was found using Craigslist to look for OxyContin. A woman posing naked in photos she put up on an image-sharing site didn’t get the job offer she was seeking at a hospital.
Other background reports have turned up examples of people making anti-Semitic comments and racist remarks, he said. Then there was the job applicant who belonged to a Facebook group, “This Is America. I Shouldn’t Have to Press 1 for English.” This raises a question. “Does that mean you don’t like people who don’t speak English?” asked Mr. Drucker rhetorically.
Given complex “terms of service” agreements on most sites and Web applications, Mr. Rotenberg said people do not always realize that comments or content they generate are publicly available.
That said, he added that 75 percent of recruiters are required by their companies to do online research of candidates. And 70 percent of recruiters in the United States report that they have rejected candidates because of information online, he said.
Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/technology/social-media-history-becomes-a-new-job-hurdle.html?_r=1
Are students cell phone records discoverable and can school administrators search your kids cell phone?
The debate over when officials can search a student's cell phone is an emerging e-discovery issue. This is illustrated in the recent case N.N. v. Tunkhannock Area School District, Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-1080, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
In this case, a student at Tunkhannock Area High School in Tunkhannock, Pa., violated a school policy requiring cell phones to be turned off and stored in lockers during the school day by placing a call from her cell phone while on school property. A teacher confiscated the phone. School officials then examined the contents of the cell phone and discovered what appeared to be inappropriate photographs stored in the phone's memory.
The phone was turned over to the police. The court opinion states that, "Aside from one photograph taken by a female friend, the photographs were taken by [the student] alone, and were intended for the sole consumption of herself and her long-term boyfriend. The photographs were taken off school property, were saved to the cell phone, were never e-mailed or uploaded to the internet, and were not shared with other students."
The court has a long discussion of prosecutorial and qualified immunity issues. But what is significant from my perspective is that the court will allow the claims that the school, police, and the district attorney illegally seized and searched the student's phone.
Expect to see more of these cases. In the Redding case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the strip search of a student to find a prescription drug violated the Fourth Amendment. The court explained that a standard of reasonable suspicion applies to a determination of legality of a school administrator's search of a student, and that any search must be reasonably related to the legitimate school objectives and not excessively intrusive. This means, in plain English, that a school administrator can conduct a limited search when there is a "a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing."
Under this standard, the school administrators probably can search the contents of a cell phone if there is reason to believe that the phone is used for criminal activity, such as bullying, sexting, or threats to safety. However, as with the strip search case, there is a limit to the actions of school administrators. The nature of the suspected illegal activity -- both in terms of the threat to student safety and the exact use of the phone -- will govern how much of the contents of a cell phone can be examined. In this case, the allegation that the student was placing a call probably cannot justify the review of the photographs on her cell phone.
N.N. v. Tunkhannock Area School District Court filing:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11573526442154435350
Link:
http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202503300012&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
In this case, a student at Tunkhannock Area High School in Tunkhannock, Pa., violated a school policy requiring cell phones to be turned off and stored in lockers during the school day by placing a call from her cell phone while on school property. A teacher confiscated the phone. School officials then examined the contents of the cell phone and discovered what appeared to be inappropriate photographs stored in the phone's memory.
The phone was turned over to the police. The court opinion states that, "Aside from one photograph taken by a female friend, the photographs were taken by [the student] alone, and were intended for the sole consumption of herself and her long-term boyfriend. The photographs were taken off school property, were saved to the cell phone, were never e-mailed or uploaded to the internet, and were not shared with other students."
The court has a long discussion of prosecutorial and qualified immunity issues. But what is significant from my perspective is that the court will allow the claims that the school, police, and the district attorney illegally seized and searched the student's phone.
Expect to see more of these cases. In the Redding case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the strip search of a student to find a prescription drug violated the Fourth Amendment. The court explained that a standard of reasonable suspicion applies to a determination of legality of a school administrator's search of a student, and that any search must be reasonably related to the legitimate school objectives and not excessively intrusive. This means, in plain English, that a school administrator can conduct a limited search when there is a "a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing."
Under this standard, the school administrators probably can search the contents of a cell phone if there is reason to believe that the phone is used for criminal activity, such as bullying, sexting, or threats to safety. However, as with the strip search case, there is a limit to the actions of school administrators. The nature of the suspected illegal activity -- both in terms of the threat to student safety and the exact use of the phone -- will govern how much of the contents of a cell phone can be examined. In this case, the allegation that the student was placing a call probably cannot justify the review of the photographs on her cell phone.
N.N. v. Tunkhannock Area School District Court filing:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11573526442154435350
Link:
http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202503300012&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
MA- The Supreme Judicial Court ruled Thursday that "Off The Record" statements are admissible in court.
Although a police officer coaxed a suspected arsonist into making incriminating statements by promising that his remarks were “off the record,” the state Supreme Judicial Court ruled Thursday that the statements were given voluntarily and are, therefore, admissible in court.
“As a general matter, law enforcement officials must exercise caution when employing deception or trickery or when giving assurances to a suspect during an interrogation. With respect to the former, we have, over the years, expressed our disapproval of police tactics that employ the use of false statements during an interrogation because such tactics cast doubt on the voluntariness of any subsequent confession or admission,” Justice Francis Spina wrote in a 5-2 ruling for the majority.
“Nonetheless, we also have repeatedly held that such deception or trickery does not necessarily compel suppression of the confession or admission but, instead, is one factor to be considered in a totality of the circumstances analysis.”
The ruling drew the dissent of Chief Justice Roderick Ireland and Justice Ralph Gants, who contended that statements elicited by police as a result of promises that they are “off the record” should be considered involuntary, if that promise is broken.
“In a thorough and careful memorandum of decision, the motion judge, after canvassing and discussing applicable precedent, found that 'while the defendant was likely misled concerning the ultimate use against him of his more offensive description of his neighbor's alleged sexual preference and conduct, the defendant was voluntarily talking with the investigators before any promise or assurance, and the essence of these comments was voluntarily included in his written statement,” Chernoff wrote in his decision.
“Indeed, the fact that the defendant was sufficiently savvy to ensure that the version which was potentially more harmful to himself was not included in the written statement is another indication of the absence of coercion.”
The state Appeals Court upheld Chernoff’s ruling last August.
In Ireland and Gants’s dissent, Gants wrote that there is “a world of difference between the police remaining silent as to whether a suspect's statement will be used against him and the police affirmatively telling a suspect that his statement will not be used against him.
“It is only through an awareness of these consequences that anything said can and will be used against a suspect that there can be any assurance of real understanding and intelligent exercise of the privilege against self-incrimination,” he wrote.
Gants argued that the majority’s opinion failed to acknowledge “what virtually every court” confronting comparable circumstances had ruled: that statements induced by assurances that they will be “off the record” are not voluntary and should be suppressed.
“The conviction should be reversed because the admission of these statements was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,” Gants concluded.
Link:
http://www.patriotledger.com/news/cops_and_courts/x920802023/State-supreme-court-upholds-use-of-off-the-record-remarks-to-police
“As a general matter, law enforcement officials must exercise caution when employing deception or trickery or when giving assurances to a suspect during an interrogation. With respect to the former, we have, over the years, expressed our disapproval of police tactics that employ the use of false statements during an interrogation because such tactics cast doubt on the voluntariness of any subsequent confession or admission,” Justice Francis Spina wrote in a 5-2 ruling for the majority.
“Nonetheless, we also have repeatedly held that such deception or trickery does not necessarily compel suppression of the confession or admission but, instead, is one factor to be considered in a totality of the circumstances analysis.”
The ruling drew the dissent of Chief Justice Roderick Ireland and Justice Ralph Gants, who contended that statements elicited by police as a result of promises that they are “off the record” should be considered involuntary, if that promise is broken.
“In a thorough and careful memorandum of decision, the motion judge, after canvassing and discussing applicable precedent, found that 'while the defendant was likely misled concerning the ultimate use against him of his more offensive description of his neighbor's alleged sexual preference and conduct, the defendant was voluntarily talking with the investigators before any promise or assurance, and the essence of these comments was voluntarily included in his written statement,” Chernoff wrote in his decision.
“Indeed, the fact that the defendant was sufficiently savvy to ensure that the version which was potentially more harmful to himself was not included in the written statement is another indication of the absence of coercion.”
The state Appeals Court upheld Chernoff’s ruling last August.
In Ireland and Gants’s dissent, Gants wrote that there is “a world of difference between the police remaining silent as to whether a suspect's statement will be used against him and the police affirmatively telling a suspect that his statement will not be used against him.
“It is only through an awareness of these consequences that anything said can and will be used against a suspect that there can be any assurance of real understanding and intelligent exercise of the privilege against self-incrimination,” he wrote.
Gants argued that the majority’s opinion failed to acknowledge “what virtually every court” confronting comparable circumstances had ruled: that statements induced by assurances that they will be “off the record” are not voluntary and should be suppressed.
“The conviction should be reversed because the admission of these statements was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,” Gants concluded.
Link:
http://www.patriotledger.com/news/cops_and_courts/x920802023/State-supreme-court-upholds-use-of-off-the-record-remarks-to-police
Thursday, July 21, 2011
MA- CopBlock founders found not guilty in wiretapping charges.
GREENFIELD, MA - It took a Greenfield District Court jury about two hours on Tuesday to acquit a pair of New Hampshire men accused of illegally filming at the Franklin County Jail last summer.
"We can put this behind us and move on with our other projects," said defendant Pete Eyre, who along with Adam Mueller had been charged with unlawfully filming their encounter with officials at the Greenfield jail last July.
Eyre, 31, and Mueller, 28, both of Keene, N.H., are subscribers of voluntaryism, an anti-government movement that favors natural law over state-sanctioned law. The pair were arrested last July during a confrontation with law enforcement officials outside the jail, where they had gone to bail out friends who were being held at the facility.
A jury of six people and two alternates listened to testimony in the two-day trial, which began Monday and ended with closing arguments Tuesday morning.
When both men were found not guilty of unlawful wiretapping -- the statute used to prosecute them for allegedly surreptitiously recording their encounter with jail officials on July 1, 2010 -- the sound of loud applause filled the courtroom.
Mueller also was found not guilty of resisting arrest, while additional charges initially lodged against Eyre were dropped before the case even made it to trial.
When Eyre and Mueller showed up at the county jail last July, they asked a jail official if they could record the process of bailing out their friends. They initially were told they could film that process, but when they returned with bail money a short while later they were told filming was not permitted on jail property.
Jail officials, however, were unable to show the pair any written policies precluding filming at the jail, a public, taxpayer-funded facility. There also were no posted signs explicitly prohibiting the use of recording devices at the jail, which is why Eyre and Mueller continued filming their encounter with jail officials.
Later, when police were called to the scene, Greenfield Police Sgt. Todd Dodge ordered the pair to either stop filming or leave the premises. Eyre and Mueller refused to stop digitally recording the episode, and both men were handcuffed and arrested.
"Both Adam and myself, we felt that, at the end of the day, we didn't do anything wrong, we didn't hurt anybody," Eyre said.
Links:
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/07/police_accountability_activist.html
http://www.pixiq.com/article/cop-block-founders-not-guilty-on-wiretapping-charges#comment-49574
"We can put this behind us and move on with our other projects," said defendant Pete Eyre, who along with Adam Mueller had been charged with unlawfully filming their encounter with officials at the Greenfield jail last July.
Eyre, 31, and Mueller, 28, both of Keene, N.H., are subscribers of voluntaryism, an anti-government movement that favors natural law over state-sanctioned law. The pair were arrested last July during a confrontation with law enforcement officials outside the jail, where they had gone to bail out friends who were being held at the facility.
A jury of six people and two alternates listened to testimony in the two-day trial, which began Monday and ended with closing arguments Tuesday morning.
When both men were found not guilty of unlawful wiretapping -- the statute used to prosecute them for allegedly surreptitiously recording their encounter with jail officials on July 1, 2010 -- the sound of loud applause filled the courtroom.
Mueller also was found not guilty of resisting arrest, while additional charges initially lodged against Eyre were dropped before the case even made it to trial.
When Eyre and Mueller showed up at the county jail last July, they asked a jail official if they could record the process of bailing out their friends. They initially were told they could film that process, but when they returned with bail money a short while later they were told filming was not permitted on jail property.
Jail officials, however, were unable to show the pair any written policies precluding filming at the jail, a public, taxpayer-funded facility. There also were no posted signs explicitly prohibiting the use of recording devices at the jail, which is why Eyre and Mueller continued filming their encounter with jail officials.
Later, when police were called to the scene, Greenfield Police Sgt. Todd Dodge ordered the pair to either stop filming or leave the premises. Eyre and Mueller refused to stop digitally recording the episode, and both men were handcuffed and arrested.
"Both Adam and myself, we felt that, at the end of the day, we didn't do anything wrong, we didn't hurt anybody," Eyre said.
Links:
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/07/police_accountability_activist.html
http://www.pixiq.com/article/cop-block-founders-not-guilty-on-wiretapping-charges#comment-49574
Casey Anthony case - The chief software developer of CacheBack used by the police to verify computer searches, reported errors in software.
Assertions by the prosecution that Casey Anthony conducted extensive computer searches on the word “chloroform” were based on inaccurate data, a software designer who testified at the trial said Monday.
The designer, John Bradley, said Ms. Anthony had visited what the prosecution said was a crucial Web site only once, not 84 times, as prosecutors had asserted. He came to that conclusion after redesigning his software, and immediately alerted prosecutors and the police about the mistake, he said.
The finding of 84 visits was used repeatedly during the trial to suggest that Ms. Anthony had planned to murder her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, who was found dead in 2008. Ms. Anthony, who could have faced the death penalty, was acquitted of the killing on July 5.
According to Mr. Bradley, chief software developer of CacheBack, used by the police to verify the computer searches, the term “chloroform” was searched once through Google. The Google search then led to a Web site, sci-spot.com, that was visited only once, Mr. Bradley added. The Web site offered information on the use of chloroform in the 1800s.
The Orange County Sheriff’s Office had used the software to validate its finding that Ms. Anthony had searched for information about chloroform 84 times, a conclusion that Mr. Bradley says turned out to be wrong. Mr. Bradley said he immediately alerted a prosecutor, Linda Drane Burdick, and Sgt. Kevin Stenger of the Sheriff’s Office in late June through e-mail and by telephone to tell them of his new findings. Mr. Bradley said he conducted a second analysis after discovering discrepancies that were never brought to his attention by prosecutors or the police.
Mr. Bradley’s findings were not presented to the jury and the record was never corrected, he said. Prosecutors are required to reveal all information that is exculpatory to the defense.
Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/us/19casey.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=attorney&st=nyt
The designer, John Bradley, said Ms. Anthony had visited what the prosecution said was a crucial Web site only once, not 84 times, as prosecutors had asserted. He came to that conclusion after redesigning his software, and immediately alerted prosecutors and the police about the mistake, he said.
The finding of 84 visits was used repeatedly during the trial to suggest that Ms. Anthony had planned to murder her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, who was found dead in 2008. Ms. Anthony, who could have faced the death penalty, was acquitted of the killing on July 5.
According to Mr. Bradley, chief software developer of CacheBack, used by the police to verify the computer searches, the term “chloroform” was searched once through Google. The Google search then led to a Web site, sci-spot.com, that was visited only once, Mr. Bradley added. The Web site offered information on the use of chloroform in the 1800s.
The Orange County Sheriff’s Office had used the software to validate its finding that Ms. Anthony had searched for information about chloroform 84 times, a conclusion that Mr. Bradley says turned out to be wrong. Mr. Bradley said he immediately alerted a prosecutor, Linda Drane Burdick, and Sgt. Kevin Stenger of the Sheriff’s Office in late June through e-mail and by telephone to tell them of his new findings. Mr. Bradley said he conducted a second analysis after discovering discrepancies that were never brought to his attention by prosecutors or the police.
Mr. Bradley’s findings were not presented to the jury and the record was never corrected, he said. Prosecutors are required to reveal all information that is exculpatory to the defense.
Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/us/19casey.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=attorney&st=nyt
How the drug companies got Americans hooked on anti-psychotic drugs.
Has America become a nation of psychotics? You would certainly think so, based on the explosion in the use of antipsychotic medications. In 2008, with over $14 billion in sales, antipsychotics became the single top-selling therapeutic class of prescription drugs in the United States, surpassing drugs used to treat high cholesterol and acid reflux.
Once upon a time, antipsychotics were reserved for a relatively small number of patients with hard-core psychiatric diagnoses - primarily schizophrenia and bipolar disorder - to treat such symptoms as delusions, hallucinations, or formal thought disorder. Today, it seems, everyone is taking antipsychotics. Parents are told that their unruly kids are in fact bipolar, and in need of anti-psychotics, while old people with dementia are dosed, in large numbers, with drugs once reserved largely for schizophrenics. Americans with symptoms ranging from chronic depression to anxiety to insomnia are now being prescribed anti-psychotics at rates that seem to indicate a national mass psychosis.
It is anything but a coincidence that the explosion in antipsychotic use coincides with the pharmaceutical industry's development of a new class of medications known as "atypical antipsychotics." Beginning with Zyprexa, Risperdal, and Seroquel in the 1990s, followed by Abilify in the early 2000s, these drugs were touted as being more effective than older antipsychotics like Haldol and Thorazine. More importantly, they lacked the most noxious side effects of the older drugs - in particular, the tremors and other motor control problems.
The atypical anti-psychotics were the bright new stars in the pharmaceutical industry's roster of psychotropic drugs - costly, patented medications that made people feel and behave better without any shaking or drooling. Sales grew steadily, until by 2009 Seroquel and Abilify numbered fifth and sixth in annual drug sales, and prescriptions written for the top three atypical antipsychotics totaled more than 20 million. Suddenly, antipsychotics weren't just for psychotics any more.
By now, just about everyone knows how the drug industry works to influence the minds of American doctors, plying them with gifts, junkets, ego-tripping awards, and research funding in exchange for endorsing or prescribing the latest and most lucrative drugs. "Psychiatrists are particularly targeted by Big Pharma because psychiatric diagnoses are very subjective," says Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, whose PharmedOut project tracks the industry's influence on American medicine, and who last month hosted a conference on the subject at Georgetown. A shrink can't give you a blood test or an MRI to figure out precisely what's wrong with you. So it's often a case of diagnosis by prescription. (If you feel better after you take an anti-depressant, it's assumed that you were depressed.) As the researchers in one study of the drug industry's influence put it, "the lack of biological tests for mental disorders renders psychiatry especially vulnerable to industry influence." For this reason, they argue, it's particularly important that the guidelines for diagnosing and treating mental illness be compiled "on the basis of an objective review of the scientific evidence" - and not on whether the doctors writing them got a big grant from Merck or own stock in AstraZeneca.
A remarkable series published in the Palm Beach Post in May revealed that the state of Florida's juvenile justice department has literally been pouring these drugs into juvenile facilities, "routinely" doling them out "for reasons that never were approved by federal regulators." The numbers are staggering: "In 2007, for example, the Department of Juvenile Justice bought more than twice as much Seroquel as ibuprofen. Overall, in 24 months, the department bought 326,081 tablets of Seroquel, Abilify, Risperdal and other antipsychotic drugs for use in state-operated jails and homes for children…That's enough to hand out 446 pills a day, seven days a week, for two years in a row, to kids in jails and programs that can hold no more than 2,300 boys and girls on a given day." Further, the paper discovered that "One in three of the psychiatrists who have contracted with the state Department of Juvenile Justice in the past five years has taken speaker fees or gifts from companies that make antipsychotic medications."
Link:
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/07/20117313948379987.html
Once upon a time, antipsychotics were reserved for a relatively small number of patients with hard-core psychiatric diagnoses - primarily schizophrenia and bipolar disorder - to treat such symptoms as delusions, hallucinations, or formal thought disorder. Today, it seems, everyone is taking antipsychotics. Parents are told that their unruly kids are in fact bipolar, and in need of anti-psychotics, while old people with dementia are dosed, in large numbers, with drugs once reserved largely for schizophrenics. Americans with symptoms ranging from chronic depression to anxiety to insomnia are now being prescribed anti-psychotics at rates that seem to indicate a national mass psychosis.
It is anything but a coincidence that the explosion in antipsychotic use coincides with the pharmaceutical industry's development of a new class of medications known as "atypical antipsychotics." Beginning with Zyprexa, Risperdal, and Seroquel in the 1990s, followed by Abilify in the early 2000s, these drugs were touted as being more effective than older antipsychotics like Haldol and Thorazine. More importantly, they lacked the most noxious side effects of the older drugs - in particular, the tremors and other motor control problems.
The atypical anti-psychotics were the bright new stars in the pharmaceutical industry's roster of psychotropic drugs - costly, patented medications that made people feel and behave better without any shaking or drooling. Sales grew steadily, until by 2009 Seroquel and Abilify numbered fifth and sixth in annual drug sales, and prescriptions written for the top three atypical antipsychotics totaled more than 20 million. Suddenly, antipsychotics weren't just for psychotics any more.
By now, just about everyone knows how the drug industry works to influence the minds of American doctors, plying them with gifts, junkets, ego-tripping awards, and research funding in exchange for endorsing or prescribing the latest and most lucrative drugs. "Psychiatrists are particularly targeted by Big Pharma because psychiatric diagnoses are very subjective," says Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, whose PharmedOut project tracks the industry's influence on American medicine, and who last month hosted a conference on the subject at Georgetown. A shrink can't give you a blood test or an MRI to figure out precisely what's wrong with you. So it's often a case of diagnosis by prescription. (If you feel better after you take an anti-depressant, it's assumed that you were depressed.) As the researchers in one study of the drug industry's influence put it, "the lack of biological tests for mental disorders renders psychiatry especially vulnerable to industry influence." For this reason, they argue, it's particularly important that the guidelines for diagnosing and treating mental illness be compiled "on the basis of an objective review of the scientific evidence" - and not on whether the doctors writing them got a big grant from Merck or own stock in AstraZeneca.
A remarkable series published in the Palm Beach Post in May revealed that the state of Florida's juvenile justice department has literally been pouring these drugs into juvenile facilities, "routinely" doling them out "for reasons that never were approved by federal regulators." The numbers are staggering: "In 2007, for example, the Department of Juvenile Justice bought more than twice as much Seroquel as ibuprofen. Overall, in 24 months, the department bought 326,081 tablets of Seroquel, Abilify, Risperdal and other antipsychotic drugs for use in state-operated jails and homes for children…That's enough to hand out 446 pills a day, seven days a week, for two years in a row, to kids in jails and programs that can hold no more than 2,300 boys and girls on a given day." Further, the paper discovered that "One in three of the psychiatrists who have contracted with the state Department of Juvenile Justice in the past five years has taken speaker fees or gifts from companies that make antipsychotic medications."
Link:
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/07/20117313948379987.html
Automatic license plate recognition devices, leave no doubt we live in a police state.
Civil libertarians are raising the alarm over the state’s plans to create a Big Brother database that could map drivers’ whereabouts with police cruiser-mounted scanners that capture thousands of license plates per hour — storing that information indefinitely where local cops, staties, feds and prosecutors could access it as they choose.
“What kind of a society are we creating here?” asked civil rights lawyer Harvey Silverglate, who along with the ACLU fears police abuse. “There comes a point where the surveillance is so pervasive and total that it’s a misnomer to call a society free any longer.”
The computerized scanners, known as Automatic License Plate Recognition devices, instantly check for police alerts, warrants, traffic violations and parking tickets, which cops say could be an invaluable tool in thwarting crime. The Executive Office of Public Safety has approved 27 grants totaling $500,000 to buy scanners for state police and 26 local departments. The purchases are on hold while state lawyers develop a policy for the use of a common state database all the scanners would feed.
The systems also can be used to create statewide or national databases that would let investigators track the movements of particular vehicles, which raises civil rights concerns.
Link:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2011_0721lawyer_cop_scanner_crosses_line/
“What kind of a society are we creating here?” asked civil rights lawyer Harvey Silverglate, who along with the ACLU fears police abuse. “There comes a point where the surveillance is so pervasive and total that it’s a misnomer to call a society free any longer.”
The computerized scanners, known as Automatic License Plate Recognition devices, instantly check for police alerts, warrants, traffic violations and parking tickets, which cops say could be an invaluable tool in thwarting crime. The Executive Office of Public Safety has approved 27 grants totaling $500,000 to buy scanners for state police and 26 local departments. The purchases are on hold while state lawyers develop a policy for the use of a common state database all the scanners would feed.
The systems also can be used to create statewide or national databases that would let investigators track the movements of particular vehicles, which raises civil rights concerns.
Link:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2011_0721lawyer_cop_scanner_crosses_line/
Huge privacy concerns arise over Iris scans being used by police.
Dozens of police departments nationwide are gearing up to use a tech company's already controversial iris- and facial-scanning device that slides over an iPhone and helps identify a person or track criminal suspects.
The so-called "biometric" technology, which seems to take a page from TV shows like "MI-5" or "CSI," could improve speed and accuracy in some routine police work in the field. However, its use has set off alarms with some who are concerned about possible civil liberties and privacy issues.
The smartphone-based scanner, named Mobile Offender Recognition and Information System, or MORIS, is made by BI2 Technologies in Plymouth, Massachusetts, and can be deployed by officers out on the beat or back at the station.
An iris scan, which detects unique patterns in a person's eyes, can reduce to seconds the time it takes to identify a suspect in custody. This technique also is significantly more accurate than results from other fingerprinting technology long in use by police, BI2 says.
When attached to an iPhone, MORIS can photograph a person's face and run the image through software that hunts for a match in a BI2-managed database of U.S. criminal records. Each unit costs about $3,000.
Some experts fret police may be randomly scanning the population, using potentially intrusive techniques to search for criminals, sex offenders, and illegal aliens, but the manufacturer says that would be a difficult task for officers to carry out.
But constitutional rights advocates are concerned, in part because the device can accurately scan an individual's face from up to four feet away, potentially without a person's being aware of it.
Experts also say that before police administer an iris scan, they should have probable cause a crime has been committed.
"What we don't want is for them to become a general surveillance tool, where the police start using them routinely on the general public, collecting biometric information on innocent people," said Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst with the national ACLU in Washington, D.C.
Meanwhile, advocates see the MORIS as a way to make tools already in use on police cruiser terminals more mobile for cops on the job.
"This is (the technology) stepping out of the cruiser and riding on the officer's belt, along with his flashlight, his handcuffs, his sidearm or the other myriad tools," said John Birtwell, spokesman for the Plymouth County Sheriff's Department in southeastern Massachusetts, one of the first departments to use the devices.
Link:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/20/us-crime-identification-iris-idUSTRE76J4A120110720
The so-called "biometric" technology, which seems to take a page from TV shows like "MI-5" or "CSI," could improve speed and accuracy in some routine police work in the field. However, its use has set off alarms with some who are concerned about possible civil liberties and privacy issues.
The smartphone-based scanner, named Mobile Offender Recognition and Information System, or MORIS, is made by BI2 Technologies in Plymouth, Massachusetts, and can be deployed by officers out on the beat or back at the station.
An iris scan, which detects unique patterns in a person's eyes, can reduce to seconds the time it takes to identify a suspect in custody. This technique also is significantly more accurate than results from other fingerprinting technology long in use by police, BI2 says.
When attached to an iPhone, MORIS can photograph a person's face and run the image through software that hunts for a match in a BI2-managed database of U.S. criminal records. Each unit costs about $3,000.
Some experts fret police may be randomly scanning the population, using potentially intrusive techniques to search for criminals, sex offenders, and illegal aliens, but the manufacturer says that would be a difficult task for officers to carry out.
But constitutional rights advocates are concerned, in part because the device can accurately scan an individual's face from up to four feet away, potentially without a person's being aware of it.
Experts also say that before police administer an iris scan, they should have probable cause a crime has been committed.
"What we don't want is for them to become a general surveillance tool, where the police start using them routinely on the general public, collecting biometric information on innocent people," said Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst with the national ACLU in Washington, D.C.
Meanwhile, advocates see the MORIS as a way to make tools already in use on police cruiser terminals more mobile for cops on the job.
"This is (the technology) stepping out of the cruiser and riding on the officer's belt, along with his flashlight, his handcuffs, his sidearm or the other myriad tools," said John Birtwell, spokesman for the Plymouth County Sheriff's Department in southeastern Massachusetts, one of the first departments to use the devices.
Link:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/20/us-crime-identification-iris-idUSTRE76J4A120110720
Privacy concerns over a free App. police departments are offering, which encourages the public to submit pictures that have GPS capabilities.
Peabody, MA - A smartphone application developed by a Peabody police detective meant to improve communication between police and the community was released this week for the iPhone and Android markets.
It’s an extraordinary innovation,’’ said Peabody Police Chief Robert L. Champagne. “We see this as a very valuable tool to connect with the public we are trying to reach.’’
The app is free and includes features for police news updates, social media postings, finding accident reports, directions, department directory information, feedback and questions, department surveys, submitting crime tips, and other options. In addition, users can submit photos of problems such as a crime being committed, graffiti that needs cleaning, or a broken traffic light.
The app also has GPS capabilities, and users can attach coordinates to a photo, tip, or complaint, police said.
Olson said so far, 30 police departments have signed up since the app’s release, and well over 100 more have expressed interest. Olson donated the app to the Peabody police for free, and other departments can purchase it at an average cost of about $650 per year, depending on the size of the department.
Link:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/07/21/peabody_police_reach_out_to_community_with_new_app/
It’s an extraordinary innovation,’’ said Peabody Police Chief Robert L. Champagne. “We see this as a very valuable tool to connect with the public we are trying to reach.’’
The app is free and includes features for police news updates, social media postings, finding accident reports, directions, department directory information, feedback and questions, department surveys, submitting crime tips, and other options. In addition, users can submit photos of problems such as a crime being committed, graffiti that needs cleaning, or a broken traffic light.
The app also has GPS capabilities, and users can attach coordinates to a photo, tip, or complaint, police said.
Olson said so far, 30 police departments have signed up since the app’s release, and well over 100 more have expressed interest. Olson donated the app to the Peabody police for free, and other departments can purchase it at an average cost of about $650 per year, depending on the size of the department.
Link:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/07/21/peabody_police_reach_out_to_community_with_new_app/
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Will visiting a doctor require your palm to be digitally stored and read?
NEW YORK - Palms have taken on a new meaning at some doctors' offices and hospitals. More unique than fingerprints, palm readings are helping keep patients straight and safe.
It's palm reading, indeed, but not the fortune teller kind. More than 8,000 patients at the NYU Langone Medical Center have already had their palms read as part of their medical visits. The goal is to have every single patient at the hospital and in their doctor's waiting room be "palmed." It's one of the way technology is coming into the medical environment.
When patient Michael Baldwin visits his doctor at the medical center, check in is a breeze. All he needs is his palm, as he's one of the first patients to take part in the new program. It is called Patient Secure, and it uses palms to identify patients and their records.
Palm prints, it turns out, are more than 100 times more unique than fingerprints, so that is the basis of the new security system.
Link:
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/health&id=8194633
It's palm reading, indeed, but not the fortune teller kind. More than 8,000 patients at the NYU Langone Medical Center have already had their palms read as part of their medical visits. The goal is to have every single patient at the hospital and in their doctor's waiting room be "palmed." It's one of the way technology is coming into the medical environment.
When patient Michael Baldwin visits his doctor at the medical center, check in is a breeze. All he needs is his palm, as he's one of the first patients to take part in the new program. It is called Patient Secure, and it uses palms to identify patients and their records.
Palm prints, it turns out, are more than 100 times more unique than fingerprints, so that is the basis of the new security system.
Link:
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/health&id=8194633
How many phony locksmiths are operating in the U.S.?
Joanne Grimes, a retired teacher who owns rental property in Alexandria, Va., says her tenants were told a service call would cost $185, but the bill came to $586.
"You know, I can go to Home Depot and buy a lock and a door for $600," she says.
Grimes contacted the Better Business Bureau, where president Edward Johnson has been trying for five years to get something done about phony locksmiths.
"One of the larger ones that the BBB has identified is a company that poses as a local locksmith in cities across the country. And indeed, they advertise in the Yellow Pages using local phone numbers and fake local addresses," Johnson says. "A consumer might think they're dealing with a local locksmith, but the phone call is actually routed to a call center located in the Bronx of New York City."
But stopping these scammers has been difficult. In Richmond, Va., locksmith Jeff Musser, who founded a company called 1-800-UNLOCKS, says consumers rarely dispute the bill.
"They've got a kid to pick up from school. Their husband is at work. They've got to get that key made," he says. "When they give a credit card, sky's the limit with the credit card."
Locksmiths have been joining a Texas-based trade group — the Associated Locksmiths of America. Their dues help pay for a series of public service announcements — something attorneys general have also tried.
In one such spot, Macie Pridgen of the Virginia Beach Commonwealth Attorney's Office warns the public "to beware of untrustworthy locksmith companies who are ripping off consumers across the country."
The message urges customers to be cautious, noting that most of the locksmiths use an unmarked vehicle and only accept cash.
The locksmiths' group has also hired a lobbyist to promote stricter laws. Fifteen states now regulate locksmiths, and a few have taken con artists to court. The locksmith scam has even caught the attention of the FBI — but so far, the bureau says it's not dangerous or costly enough to warrant a national investigation.
Link:
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/20/138480822/when-you-call-a-locksmith-will-a-con-man-answer
"You know, I can go to Home Depot and buy a lock and a door for $600," she says.
Grimes contacted the Better Business Bureau, where president Edward Johnson has been trying for five years to get something done about phony locksmiths.
"One of the larger ones that the BBB has identified is a company that poses as a local locksmith in cities across the country. And indeed, they advertise in the Yellow Pages using local phone numbers and fake local addresses," Johnson says. "A consumer might think they're dealing with a local locksmith, but the phone call is actually routed to a call center located in the Bronx of New York City."
But stopping these scammers has been difficult. In Richmond, Va., locksmith Jeff Musser, who founded a company called 1-800-UNLOCKS, says consumers rarely dispute the bill.
"They've got a kid to pick up from school. Their husband is at work. They've got to get that key made," he says. "When they give a credit card, sky's the limit with the credit card."
Locksmiths have been joining a Texas-based trade group — the Associated Locksmiths of America. Their dues help pay for a series of public service announcements — something attorneys general have also tried.
In one such spot, Macie Pridgen of the Virginia Beach Commonwealth Attorney's Office warns the public "to beware of untrustworthy locksmith companies who are ripping off consumers across the country."
The message urges customers to be cautious, noting that most of the locksmiths use an unmarked vehicle and only accept cash.
The locksmiths' group has also hired a lobbyist to promote stricter laws. Fifteen states now regulate locksmiths, and a few have taken con artists to court. The locksmith scam has even caught the attention of the FBI — but so far, the bureau says it's not dangerous or costly enough to warrant a national investigation.
Link:
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/20/138480822/when-you-call-a-locksmith-will-a-con-man-answer
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
After five instances of potential prosecutorial misconduct the Appeals Court demands James Simmons have a new trial.
Pittsburg, KS - A case that began with an incident in 2006 and has already seen a trial and a conviction will have to be retried after the Kansas Supreme Court found prosecutorial misconduct.
The Crawford County prosecutor charged James M. Simmons with three counts of rape,one count of aggravated criminal sodomy, one count of misdemeanor theft, and one count of aggravated kidnapping. A Crawford County jury found James M. Simmons guilty of two of the three counts of rape, as well as the count of misdemeanor theft. He was acquitted of the other charges.
Simmons and his attorney, Shawn E. Minihan, of the Kansas Appellate Defender Office, identified five potential cases of prosecutorial misconduct and several other issues in the case, and asked the Court of Appeals for an opinion on the case, which affirmed the original ruling. The Kansas Supreme Court was asked for an opinion, and it investigated the case on the claims of misconduct on the part of the prosecutor. The state included briefs from then-county attorney John Gutierrez, then-assistant county attorney Brian Duncan, and then-Kansas Attorney General Steve Six, but was argued by deputy county attorney Reina Probert.
In order to find prosecutorial misconduct, the state Supreme Court applies a two-prong test. The comments by the prosecutor must be "outside the wide latitude allowed in discussing the evidence" and "constitute plain error," meaning the statement prejudiced the jury and prevented the defendant from receiving a fair trial.
The first instance of prosecutorial misconduct involved the prosecutor asking a series of questions during jury selection related to Stockholm Syndrome, a psychological phenomenon that describes when hostages develop empathy for their captors. The issue involved the prosecutor asking that potential jurors "view that evidence in light of the Stockholm Syndrome..." Furthermore, the prosecutor brought up several relatively famous examples of the syndrome.
The Supreme Court found this went further than probing for potential bias, and eventually did not pertain to any evidence presented at trial. It also warned about the inferences that could have been made by the line of questioning. The court also found that Stockholm Syndrome is a point of contention in the world of psychology, and should not be used as a real diagnosis or a lens through which to view evidence.
The second instance of prosecutorial misconduct was a comment by the prosecutor during closing arguments. The judge in the original case, Donald Noland, immediately called for the comment to be thrown out and for jury members to disregard the comment. The sides both agreed that the comment constituted misconduct but the state argued it was harmless, while the defense argued it interfered with a right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court found that the issue was misconduct, and opted to mull the two instances together in determining Simmons' right to a fair trial.
Link:
http://www.morningsun.net/newsnow/x2028115404/Appeals-court-demands-new-rape-trial
The Crawford County prosecutor charged James M. Simmons with three counts of rape,one count of aggravated criminal sodomy, one count of misdemeanor theft, and one count of aggravated kidnapping. A Crawford County jury found James M. Simmons guilty of two of the three counts of rape, as well as the count of misdemeanor theft. He was acquitted of the other charges.
Simmons and his attorney, Shawn E. Minihan, of the Kansas Appellate Defender Office, identified five potential cases of prosecutorial misconduct and several other issues in the case, and asked the Court of Appeals for an opinion on the case, which affirmed the original ruling. The Kansas Supreme Court was asked for an opinion, and it investigated the case on the claims of misconduct on the part of the prosecutor. The state included briefs from then-county attorney John Gutierrez, then-assistant county attorney Brian Duncan, and then-Kansas Attorney General Steve Six, but was argued by deputy county attorney Reina Probert.
In order to find prosecutorial misconduct, the state Supreme Court applies a two-prong test. The comments by the prosecutor must be "outside the wide latitude allowed in discussing the evidence" and "constitute plain error," meaning the statement prejudiced the jury and prevented the defendant from receiving a fair trial.
The first instance of prosecutorial misconduct involved the prosecutor asking a series of questions during jury selection related to Stockholm Syndrome, a psychological phenomenon that describes when hostages develop empathy for their captors. The issue involved the prosecutor asking that potential jurors "view that evidence in light of the Stockholm Syndrome..." Furthermore, the prosecutor brought up several relatively famous examples of the syndrome.
The Supreme Court found this went further than probing for potential bias, and eventually did not pertain to any evidence presented at trial. It also warned about the inferences that could have been made by the line of questioning. The court also found that Stockholm Syndrome is a point of contention in the world of psychology, and should not be used as a real diagnosis or a lens through which to view evidence.
The second instance of prosecutorial misconduct was a comment by the prosecutor during closing arguments. The judge in the original case, Donald Noland, immediately called for the comment to be thrown out and for jury members to disregard the comment. The sides both agreed that the comment constituted misconduct but the state argued it was harmless, while the defense argued it interfered with a right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court found that the issue was misconduct, and opted to mull the two instances together in determining Simmons' right to a fair trial.
Link:
http://www.morningsun.net/newsnow/x2028115404/Appeals-court-demands-new-rape-trial
New questions cast doubt on the guilt of Bruce Ivins who was accused in the Anthrax case.
WASHINGTON - The Justice Department has called into question a key pillar of the FBI's case against Bruce Ivins, the Army scientist accused of mailing the anthrax-laced letters that killed five people and terrorized Congress a decade ago.
Shortly after Ivins committed suicide in 2008, federal investigators announced that they had identified him as the mass murderer who sent the letters to members of Congress and the media. The case was circumstantial, with federal officials arguing that the scientist had the means, motive and opportunity to make the deadly powder at a U.S. Army research facility at Fort Detrick, in Frederick, Md.
On July 15, however, Justice Department lawyers acknowledged in court papers that the sealed area in Ivins' lab -- the so-called hot suite -- did not contain the equipment needed to turn liquid anthrax into the refined powder that floated through congressional buildings and post offices in the fall of 2001.
Earlier this year, a report by the National Academy of Science questioned the genetic analysis that had linked a flask of anthrax stored in Ivins’ office to the anthrax contained in the letters.
The court papers were uncovered by a reporter for the PBS program FRONTLINE which is working on a forthcoming documentary on the case with McClatchy Newspapers and ProPublica, the investigative newsroom.
In asserting that Ivins was culprit, criminal investigators pointed to his access to the specialized equipment at the laboratory. Officials drew up elaborate charts showing that Ivins’ time in the hot suites spiked in the weeks before the letters were mailed. But Ivins’ colleagues have said in depositions for the Stevens case that the powder could not have been made in the lab without sickening lab technicians and others who had not been vaccinated against anthrax.
Link:
http://www.propublica.org/article/justice-department-filing-casts-doubt-on-guilt-of-bruce-ivins-accused-in-an
Shortly after Ivins committed suicide in 2008, federal investigators announced that they had identified him as the mass murderer who sent the letters to members of Congress and the media. The case was circumstantial, with federal officials arguing that the scientist had the means, motive and opportunity to make the deadly powder at a U.S. Army research facility at Fort Detrick, in Frederick, Md.
On July 15, however, Justice Department lawyers acknowledged in court papers that the sealed area in Ivins' lab -- the so-called hot suite -- did not contain the equipment needed to turn liquid anthrax into the refined powder that floated through congressional buildings and post offices in the fall of 2001.
Earlier this year, a report by the National Academy of Science questioned the genetic analysis that had linked a flask of anthrax stored in Ivins’ office to the anthrax contained in the letters.
The court papers were uncovered by a reporter for the PBS program FRONTLINE which is working on a forthcoming documentary on the case with McClatchy Newspapers and ProPublica, the investigative newsroom.
In asserting that Ivins was culprit, criminal investigators pointed to his access to the specialized equipment at the laboratory. Officials drew up elaborate charts showing that Ivins’ time in the hot suites spiked in the weeks before the letters were mailed. But Ivins’ colleagues have said in depositions for the Stevens case that the powder could not have been made in the lab without sickening lab technicians and others who had not been vaccinated against anthrax.
Link:
http://www.propublica.org/article/justice-department-filing-casts-doubt-on-guilt-of-bruce-ivins-accused-in-an
Monday, July 18, 2011
Why don't police track how many of its officers have been charged with or convicted of crimes.
The Honolulu Police Department doesn't track how many of its officers have been charged with or convicted of crimes. As it turns out, it's a statistic that very few cities keep, national experts say.
“I’m not aware of any police department keeping a separate compilation” of officers who’ve faced criminal investigations, said Karen Kruger, a Baltimore-based attorney who serves on the board of the International Association of Chiefs of Police Legal Officers’ Section.
Civil Beat reported last week that HPD does monitor the cases of individual officers who have been charged or convicted for crimes. But it does not compile that data, and neither does the city Police Commission, arguably making it difficult for the department to put together a complete picture of what's happening within their own walls.
According to Kruger, while “keeping tabs on officer misconduct” — from accusations of on-duty “discourtesy” to off-duty criminal activity — is standard for police departments, calculating aggregate statistics on the officers who've been charged or convicted is rare.
"Generally speaking, I know of no agency that documents the convictions of its sworn personnel," says Thomas Martinelli, a police misconduct expert and former Detroit police officer and attorney who trains agencies across the country in police ethics and liability issues.
Furthermore, Martinelli says legal advisors for police departments across the country likely "do not encourage the keeping of such statistics, on a list or database, as they would then be discoverable in any civil lawsuits filed against the department."
That void is what moved David Packman to set up The National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Project, an independent, one-man campaign that gathers and distributes data on police misconduct.
And “it’s fairly rare that those law enforcement agencies track police misconduct at all or, if they do track it, that they release that info to the public,” says Packman. He calls it a “fundamental lack of information about police misconduct” on his web site.
National Police Misconduct Website:
http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/
Link:
http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2011/07/14/12065-few-cities-track-police-crimes-honolulu-included/
“I’m not aware of any police department keeping a separate compilation” of officers who’ve faced criminal investigations, said Karen Kruger, a Baltimore-based attorney who serves on the board of the International Association of Chiefs of Police Legal Officers’ Section.
Civil Beat reported last week that HPD does monitor the cases of individual officers who have been charged or convicted for crimes. But it does not compile that data, and neither does the city Police Commission, arguably making it difficult for the department to put together a complete picture of what's happening within their own walls.
According to Kruger, while “keeping tabs on officer misconduct” — from accusations of on-duty “discourtesy” to off-duty criminal activity — is standard for police departments, calculating aggregate statistics on the officers who've been charged or convicted is rare.
"Generally speaking, I know of no agency that documents the convictions of its sworn personnel," says Thomas Martinelli, a police misconduct expert and former Detroit police officer and attorney who trains agencies across the country in police ethics and liability issues.
Furthermore, Martinelli says legal advisors for police departments across the country likely "do not encourage the keeping of such statistics, on a list or database, as they would then be discoverable in any civil lawsuits filed against the department."
That void is what moved David Packman to set up The National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Project, an independent, one-man campaign that gathers and distributes data on police misconduct.
And “it’s fairly rare that those law enforcement agencies track police misconduct at all or, if they do track it, that they release that info to the public,” says Packman. He calls it a “fundamental lack of information about police misconduct” on his web site.
National Police Misconduct Website:
http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/
Link:
http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2011/07/14/12065-few-cities-track-police-crimes-honolulu-included/
18 signs show the U.S. public school system is nearly equivalent to life in U.S. prisons.
In the United States today, our public schools are not very good at educating our students, but they sure are great training grounds for learning how to live in a Big Brother police state control grid. Sadly, life in many U.S. public schools is now essentially equivalent to life in U.S. prisons. Most parents don't realize this, but our students have very few rights when they are in school. Our public school students are being watched, tracked, recorded, searched and controlled like never before. Back when I was in high school, it was unheard of for a police officer to come to school, but today our public school students are being handcuffed and arrested in staggering numbers. When I was young we would joke that going to school was like going to prison, but today that is actually true.
The following are 18 signs that life in our public schools is now very similar to life in our prisons....
Link:
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/18-signs-that-life-in-u-s-public-schools-is-now-essentially-equivalent-to-life-in-u-s-prisons
Massachusetts police are using facial recognition technology to build a database of everyone they've arrested.
Sheriff’s departments across Massachusetts are using facial recognition technology to build a database of every suspect they book, an electronic lineup that local police could soon tap remotely with a handheld device attached to a smartphone.
The device, made by a Plymouth firm called BI2 Technologies, weighs about 12 ounces and can scan an iris, take a fingerprint, or assess a face and then immediately check someone’s identity against national and local databases.
“It fits in the palm of your hand; it’s completely noninvasive,’’ said Brockton Police Chief William Conlon, whose department tested a prototype of the device and who hopes to acquire one permanently.
Essex County, the first in the state to adopt the facial recognition program in booking suspects more than five years ago, has already assembled a database of more than 70,000 photos and allows detectives from around the county to use it, said Sheriff Frank G. Cousins Jr. The handheld device, known as the Mobile Offender Recognition and Information System, would tap into that database and other national collections to help police identify suspects who are offering fake identities or who are wanted on other charges.
That futuristic capability is enticing law enforcement authorities but worrying privacy rights lawyers who say that technology is outpacing policy that would protect privacy.
A number of questions are unresolved, such as how long the images of suspects will be stored, whether they will be shared with the FBI, and what happens to the images of people who are cleared of charges.
“There’s simply no good reason, in our view, to create detailed dossiers on every American resident,’’ said Kade Crockford of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts. “And increasingly it appears as if all of these surveillance programs and technological programs are doing just that. We want to make sure there are proper protections around these technologies, so they’re not abused.’’
For now, the application is being used to scan images of those being processed at correctional facilities and booking stations.
Link:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/07/18/device_allows_facial_recognition_data_to_be_tapped_remotely/
The device, made by a Plymouth firm called BI2 Technologies, weighs about 12 ounces and can scan an iris, take a fingerprint, or assess a face and then immediately check someone’s identity against national and local databases.
“It fits in the palm of your hand; it’s completely noninvasive,’’ said Brockton Police Chief William Conlon, whose department tested a prototype of the device and who hopes to acquire one permanently.
Essex County, the first in the state to adopt the facial recognition program in booking suspects more than five years ago, has already assembled a database of more than 70,000 photos and allows detectives from around the county to use it, said Sheriff Frank G. Cousins Jr. The handheld device, known as the Mobile Offender Recognition and Information System, would tap into that database and other national collections to help police identify suspects who are offering fake identities or who are wanted on other charges.
That futuristic capability is enticing law enforcement authorities but worrying privacy rights lawyers who say that technology is outpacing policy that would protect privacy.
A number of questions are unresolved, such as how long the images of suspects will be stored, whether they will be shared with the FBI, and what happens to the images of people who are cleared of charges.
“There’s simply no good reason, in our view, to create detailed dossiers on every American resident,’’ said Kade Crockford of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts. “And increasingly it appears as if all of these surveillance programs and technological programs are doing just that. We want to make sure there are proper protections around these technologies, so they’re not abused.’’
For now, the application is being used to scan images of those being processed at correctional facilities and booking stations.
Link:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/07/18/device_allows_facial_recognition_data_to_be_tapped_remotely/
Friday, July 15, 2011
Your slippers & baby diapers can text you and private companies" don't think anything is off limits."
Mr. Arkko, an engineer for Sweden's Telefon AB L.M. Ericsson, uses his home in Finland, which he shares with his wife and three sons, as a lab. He has connected the entire house to a wireless network so he can get updates on his computer or cellphone when the front door opens, when the laundry is dry or when his toast is ready.
"It just shows you these things are very easy and we will see far better ideas," says Mr. Arkko, noting it took him only 20 minutes to connect his toaster's status to Facebook.
He's one of a growing number of engineers, working for giant telecommunications companies or small start-ups, inventing products that can send messages—from a diaper that lets parents know their baby needs changing, to slippers that can tell when your grandmother might be headed for a fall, to a device that lets farmers know when cows are in the mood.
With nearly everyone in America already carrying a cellular phone, companies are thinking outside the box—way outside—to drum up fresh demand for their networks.
U.S. carriers are betting they can get "wireless penetration"—now around 90%—up to 300% or 400%. In plain English, that means they need every man, woman and child in the country to each use three or four wireless products, a goal that can't be accomplished with phones alone.
"From our perspective, we don't think anything is off limits," says Glenn Lurie, head of the emerging devices unit at AT&T Inc., set up last year to work with startups to create wireless products.
Wireless diapers are the brainchild of a startup called 24eight. Embedded with a cellular chip, they can send a "diaper wet" notification via text message to a cellphone. The company says they cost about two cents more apiece than normal diapers. David Schieffelin, chief executive of 24eight, says he's still searching for the right partner to help him commercialize the product.
Mr. Schieffelin was able to join with wireless carriers on another of his inventions: fuzzy slippers.
AT&T is running a clinical trial using "SmartSlippers," produced by 24eight, that are aimed at the elderly. Verizon Wireless recently made an investment in the company, and Mr. Schieffelin hopes to sell the slippers this fall directly to consumers.
The slippers will cost about $100—and a cellular plan that would allow the slippers to send messages would cost $25 a month.
If the wearer gets wobbly, an "accelerometer" in the sole—the same gizmo that makes the iPhone respond to tilts and twists—will sense trouble. The slipper will then send a text over the carrier's network to a family member or the wearer's physician.
Link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303544604576434013394780764.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel_1
"It just shows you these things are very easy and we will see far better ideas," says Mr. Arkko, noting it took him only 20 minutes to connect his toaster's status to Facebook.
He's one of a growing number of engineers, working for giant telecommunications companies or small start-ups, inventing products that can send messages—from a diaper that lets parents know their baby needs changing, to slippers that can tell when your grandmother might be headed for a fall, to a device that lets farmers know when cows are in the mood.
With nearly everyone in America already carrying a cellular phone, companies are thinking outside the box—way outside—to drum up fresh demand for their networks.
U.S. carriers are betting they can get "wireless penetration"—now around 90%—up to 300% or 400%. In plain English, that means they need every man, woman and child in the country to each use three or four wireless products, a goal that can't be accomplished with phones alone.
"From our perspective, we don't think anything is off limits," says Glenn Lurie, head of the emerging devices unit at AT&T Inc., set up last year to work with startups to create wireless products.
Wireless diapers are the brainchild of a startup called 24eight. Embedded with a cellular chip, they can send a "diaper wet" notification via text message to a cellphone. The company says they cost about two cents more apiece than normal diapers. David Schieffelin, chief executive of 24eight, says he's still searching for the right partner to help him commercialize the product.
Mr. Schieffelin was able to join with wireless carriers on another of his inventions: fuzzy slippers.
AT&T is running a clinical trial using "SmartSlippers," produced by 24eight, that are aimed at the elderly. Verizon Wireless recently made an investment in the company, and Mr. Schieffelin hopes to sell the slippers this fall directly to consumers.
The slippers will cost about $100—and a cellular plan that would allow the slippers to send messages would cost $25 a month.
If the wearer gets wobbly, an "accelerometer" in the sole—the same gizmo that makes the iPhone respond to tilts and twists—will sense trouble. The slipper will then send a text over the carrier's network to a family member or the wearer's physician.
Link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303544604576434013394780764.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel_1
North Carolina- Anyone accused - not convicted - of speeding away from a police officer can have their vehicle impounded & sold.
Beginning December 1, North Carolina will join Australia in having laws on the book mandating the seizure of vehicles for certain speeding offenses. On June 23, Governor Bev Perdue (D) signed the "Run and You're Done" bill into law which authorizes a county sheriff to take and hold the car of anyone accused -- not convicted -- of speeding away from a police officer. The state House and Senate passed the measure unanimously.
Under the new law, the confiscation becomes permanent if a judge believes the car or motorcycle was used to elude a police officer while speeding more than 15 MPH over the limit with at least one other aggravating factor, such as having someone under 12 years old in the vehicle or the vehicle was at some point in a highway work zone, regardless of whether any workers are present.
Such charges could apply to drivers who have done nothing seriously wrong. In 2009, a Minnesota State rammed the minivan of a man accused of not using his turn signal, then arrested him for "eluding police" because he took less than a minute to find a place to pull over that was not covered in snow. He had his three small children in the car at the time. In 2008, a woman drove less than 10 MPH over the limit followed the general advice of waiting to find a well-lit area before pulling over. She was arrested by Greene County, Missouri police and only escaped charges when the incident hit the news.
Conviction under "Run and You're Done" brings revenue to the police agency responsible for the seizure. The entity responsible for selling the vehicle will keep seizure fees, storage fees and sales fees. The remainder of the profit is distributed to the county government like a normal fine.
Under the new law, the vehicle can be seized and sold even if the actual owner of the vehicle is unaware of its use for speeding. Police only need to place a legal advertisement in a newspaper on two occasions and paste up three handbills near the place of seizure before selling the car. The process can be done in 24 days. A court clerk has the discretion to release a car to anyone he believes might be an "innocent owner."
A special provision forbids the sale of highly modified performance vehicles. These, instead, are to be "turned over to such governmental agency or public official within the territorial jurisdiction of the court as the court shall see fit, to be used in the performance of official duties only."
House Bill:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/nc-hb427.pdf
Link:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3532.asp
Under the new law, the confiscation becomes permanent if a judge believes the car or motorcycle was used to elude a police officer while speeding more than 15 MPH over the limit with at least one other aggravating factor, such as having someone under 12 years old in the vehicle or the vehicle was at some point in a highway work zone, regardless of whether any workers are present.
Such charges could apply to drivers who have done nothing seriously wrong. In 2009, a Minnesota State rammed the minivan of a man accused of not using his turn signal, then arrested him for "eluding police" because he took less than a minute to find a place to pull over that was not covered in snow. He had his three small children in the car at the time. In 2008, a woman drove less than 10 MPH over the limit followed the general advice of waiting to find a well-lit area before pulling over. She was arrested by Greene County, Missouri police and only escaped charges when the incident hit the news.
Conviction under "Run and You're Done" brings revenue to the police agency responsible for the seizure. The entity responsible for selling the vehicle will keep seizure fees, storage fees and sales fees. The remainder of the profit is distributed to the county government like a normal fine.
Under the new law, the vehicle can be seized and sold even if the actual owner of the vehicle is unaware of its use for speeding. Police only need to place a legal advertisement in a newspaper on two occasions and paste up three handbills near the place of seizure before selling the car. The process can be done in 24 days. A court clerk has the discretion to release a car to anyone he believes might be an "innocent owner."
A special provision forbids the sale of highly modified performance vehicles. These, instead, are to be "turned over to such governmental agency or public official within the territorial jurisdiction of the court as the court shall see fit, to be used in the performance of official duties only."
House Bill:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/nc-hb427.pdf
Link:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3532.asp
Should police expect to be recorded in public.
Should we ever expect to have a right to privacy when we’re in public? I don’t think so; cops are public employees. We can record comments and statements made by suspects/arrestees sitting in the back of our police cars where there’s no expectation of privacy. Thus, there should be an even lower standard of privacy outside the police car. We routinely record and surveil citizens without their permission, so why should there be a separate set of rules regarding them recording or filming us? If a bad guy doesn’t have to consent to being filmed, cops shouldn’t either. Should Internal Affairs be required to get consent to film or record from a cop suspected of criminal or unprofessional conduct?
It’s my understanding wiretapping laws are being applied to such cases where citizens have been arrested for taping officers in the course of their duties. Some states, (Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, Texas and West Virginia) are “2-party consent” states, meaning both (or all) parties must consent before taping. Should this then make all cop surveillance taboo? How slippery of a slope does this need to be?
Law enforcement has been using dash-cams for years, and now recording devices are worn on an officer’s uniform — think TASER’s AXON or EHS’ VIDMIC. I don’t know of any statutes declaring only the police are allowed to collect evidence and that’s the purpose behind these devices. They’re also used to mitigate liability in the event of a misconduct allegation, but it’s still evidence. What’s really disturbing is the officers who appear to be misbehaving are the ones reacting in outrage they’re being videotaped.
The reality is, cops have very public jobs, like it or not. We’re expected to behave professionally even when faced with overwhelming challenges. The public generally knows we’ve got a tough job, but no one is forcing us to do it. Some people have an axe to grind with police tactics, there’s no changing this mindset, and they’ll do their best to catch us making mistakes, misbehaving, abusing our authority or losing control. It happens sometimes to the best of us. It’s best to admit our mistakes and take our lumps.
Look at any of the silly reality cop shows on TV these days. Please tell me how dragging around a film crew is any different than what the average citizen is doing. Recording with high-end, professional cameras nets the same results as some guy with an iPhone or pocket video recorder. It’s not reasonable to believe documenting police activity is only acceptable when it makes you look good. Celebrities put up with all the photographing and videotaping associated with their careers — even when they may look like hell — but it’s all part of their very public lives. Cops need to understand we’re not much different.
Link: http://www.americancopmagazine.com/expecting-privacy-in-public/
It’s my understanding wiretapping laws are being applied to such cases where citizens have been arrested for taping officers in the course of their duties. Some states, (Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, Texas and West Virginia) are “2-party consent” states, meaning both (or all) parties must consent before taping. Should this then make all cop surveillance taboo? How slippery of a slope does this need to be?
Law enforcement has been using dash-cams for years, and now recording devices are worn on an officer’s uniform — think TASER’s AXON or EHS’ VIDMIC. I don’t know of any statutes declaring only the police are allowed to collect evidence and that’s the purpose behind these devices. They’re also used to mitigate liability in the event of a misconduct allegation, but it’s still evidence. What’s really disturbing is the officers who appear to be misbehaving are the ones reacting in outrage they’re being videotaped.
The reality is, cops have very public jobs, like it or not. We’re expected to behave professionally even when faced with overwhelming challenges. The public generally knows we’ve got a tough job, but no one is forcing us to do it. Some people have an axe to grind with police tactics, there’s no changing this mindset, and they’ll do their best to catch us making mistakes, misbehaving, abusing our authority or losing control. It happens sometimes to the best of us. It’s best to admit our mistakes and take our lumps.
Look at any of the silly reality cop shows on TV these days. Please tell me how dragging around a film crew is any different than what the average citizen is doing. Recording with high-end, professional cameras nets the same results as some guy with an iPhone or pocket video recorder. It’s not reasonable to believe documenting police activity is only acceptable when it makes you look good. Celebrities put up with all the photographing and videotaping associated with their careers — even when they may look like hell — but it’s all part of their very public lives. Cops need to understand we’re not much different.
Link: http://www.americancopmagazine.com/expecting-privacy-in-public/
Taking pictures in public may soon become "Suspicious Activity" if the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has their way.
According to page 40 of the LAPD’s “Suspicious Activity Report,” published in June 2008:
Any person who takes pictures or video footage (with no apparent esthetic value, i.e., camera angles, security equipment, security personnel, traffic lights, building entrances, etc.).
This gives police the green light to detain photographers(private investigators and any citizen) who are doing nothing but taking photos.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence wants to make it a “national model.”
Although Special Order No. 11 applies only to the LAPD, as the American Civil Liberties Union points out, "Rather than criticize the LAPD efforts, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said the LAPD program 'should be a national model.' Not surprisingly, in June 2008 the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security teamed with the Major City [sic] Chiefs Association to issue a report recommending expanding the LAPD SAR program to other U.S. cities."
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is a federal agency that serves as “the principal advisor to the President, the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council for intelligence matters related to national security, according to Wikipedia.
Link:
http://www.pixiq.com/article/another-photographer-detained-in-southern-california
Any person who takes pictures or video footage (with no apparent esthetic value, i.e., camera angles, security equipment, security personnel, traffic lights, building entrances, etc.).
This gives police the green light to detain photographers(private investigators and any citizen) who are doing nothing but taking photos.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence wants to make it a “national model.”
Although Special Order No. 11 applies only to the LAPD, as the American Civil Liberties Union points out, "Rather than criticize the LAPD efforts, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said the LAPD program 'should be a national model.' Not surprisingly, in June 2008 the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security teamed with the Major City [sic] Chiefs Association to issue a report recommending expanding the LAPD SAR program to other U.S. cities."
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is a federal agency that serves as “the principal advisor to the President, the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council for intelligence matters related to national security, according to Wikipedia.
Link:
http://www.pixiq.com/article/another-photographer-detained-in-southern-california
Authorities across the nation acquired more wiretap orders in 2010 than any prior year.
Across the nation, police and prosecutors are relying more heavily on wiretaps.
They say listening in on suspects’ cellphone calls is an effective way to combat drug trafficking and gang activity, but defense attorneys say the government should be careful not to go too far.
According to the newly published Wiretap Report by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, authorities across the nation acquired more wiretap orders in 2010 than any prior year — 3,194 cases — which is a 168 percent jump since 1997. Nashville, which accounted for nearly every wiretap order in Tennessee during that same time frame, has gone from zero wiretaps a decade ago to one every 11 days in 2010. That includes both local and federal authorities.
“The government has so much power, and they can get a wiretap to try to show that somebody is involved in drugs, but the defense can’t counter,” said Nashville defense attorney Jennifer Thompson. “The defense has no opportunity to get a wiretap on people to show that they’re not guilty.”
Link:
http://www.citizen-times.com/article/DN/20110714/NEWS03/307140073/Wiretap-usage-soars-Tennessee?odyssey=nav%7Chead
They say listening in on suspects’ cellphone calls is an effective way to combat drug trafficking and gang activity, but defense attorneys say the government should be careful not to go too far.
According to the newly published Wiretap Report by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, authorities across the nation acquired more wiretap orders in 2010 than any prior year — 3,194 cases — which is a 168 percent jump since 1997. Nashville, which accounted for nearly every wiretap order in Tennessee during that same time frame, has gone from zero wiretaps a decade ago to one every 11 days in 2010. That includes both local and federal authorities.
“The government has so much power, and they can get a wiretap to try to show that somebody is involved in drugs, but the defense can’t counter,” said Nashville defense attorney Jennifer Thompson. “The defense has no opportunity to get a wiretap on people to show that they’re not guilty.”
Link:
http://www.citizen-times.com/article/DN/20110714/NEWS03/307140073/Wiretap-usage-soars-Tennessee?odyssey=nav%7Chead
Thursday, July 14, 2011
MA - Supreme Judicial Court screws residents by upholding a $275 court filing fee required to appeal parking tickets.
Motorists flummoxed by the $275 Superior Court filing fee required to challenge parking tickets, which rarely exceed $50, were dealt a blow Thursday by the Supreme Judicial Court, which ruled unanimously that the appeal fee is constitutional and doesn’t violate any “fundamental right.”
“There being no fundamental right at stake, the statute survives constitutional review if it is rationally related to a valid government interest,” Justice Robert Cordy wrote for the court.
Cordy acknowledged that the SJC is “not unmindful of the fact that Massachusetts imposes filing fees for judicial review of parking citations in excess of those imposed in most other States.” California, he noted, assesses $25, while Connecticut assesses $35.
“Massachusetts law, which requires an alleged parking violator to initially invest more than $275 before his dispute over a ticket may be reviewed by a judicial officer, violates the state constitutional guarantees of access to courts,” wrote William Newman, an ACLU lawyer representing Gillespie and Hamel, in a brief to the SJC. “Neither the financial barrier to judicial review nor the vesting of jurisdiction over parking tickets in the Superior Court serves a legitimate state objective.
There is no such a thing as a “reasonable non-refundable
fee” to exercise the right to defend one’s self in a legitimate
court of law. The right to defend one’s self is fundamental to
due process and must be unfettered, or as stated in the
Massachusetts Constitution, “freely” provided. Requiring the
payment of non-refundable fees for self-defense is like the poll
taxes that were once employed to hinder and discourage the
exercise of the fundamental right to vote.
The fundamental right to defend one’s self in court requires
particular solicitude when the defense is against state charges.
Appeals in Massachusetts parking cases are almost nonexistent
because the fee renders them virtually pointless.
Further, Massachusetts’ statutory scheme for the adjudication of
parking tickets represents a radical departure from those of the
rest of the states.
National Motorist Association Amicus Brief:
http://www.motorists.org/due-process-brief/due-process-brief.pdf
Link:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20110714court_upholds_275_court_filing_fee_required_to_appeal_parking_tickets/srvc=home&position=recent
“There being no fundamental right at stake, the statute survives constitutional review if it is rationally related to a valid government interest,” Justice Robert Cordy wrote for the court.
Cordy acknowledged that the SJC is “not unmindful of the fact that Massachusetts imposes filing fees for judicial review of parking citations in excess of those imposed in most other States.” California, he noted, assesses $25, while Connecticut assesses $35.
“Massachusetts law, which requires an alleged parking violator to initially invest more than $275 before his dispute over a ticket may be reviewed by a judicial officer, violates the state constitutional guarantees of access to courts,” wrote William Newman, an ACLU lawyer representing Gillespie and Hamel, in a brief to the SJC. “Neither the financial barrier to judicial review nor the vesting of jurisdiction over parking tickets in the Superior Court serves a legitimate state objective.
There is no such a thing as a “reasonable non-refundable
fee” to exercise the right to defend one’s self in a legitimate
court of law. The right to defend one’s self is fundamental to
due process and must be unfettered, or as stated in the
Massachusetts Constitution, “freely” provided. Requiring the
payment of non-refundable fees for self-defense is like the poll
taxes that were once employed to hinder and discourage the
exercise of the fundamental right to vote.
The fundamental right to defend one’s self in court requires
particular solicitude when the defense is against state charges.
Appeals in Massachusetts parking cases are almost nonexistent
because the fee renders them virtually pointless.
Further, Massachusetts’ statutory scheme for the adjudication of
parking tickets represents a radical departure from those of the
rest of the states.
National Motorist Association Amicus Brief:
http://www.motorists.org/due-process-brief/due-process-brief.pdf
Link:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20110714court_upholds_275_court_filing_fee_required_to_appeal_parking_tickets/srvc=home&position=recent
VIPR Searches and the American Citizen: 'Dominate. Intimidate. Control.'
The transition to a police state will not come about with a dramatic coup d'etat, but will creep in softly, one violation at a time. The latest test of our tolerance comes in the form of VIPR (Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response), an omnipresent anti-terrorist task force that, as John Whitehead argues in this week's vodcast, actually serves to reduce the level of protection we receive by the Constitution.
The NSA all but admits to working with Google.
EPIC v. NSA: Agency Can "Neither Confirm Nor Deny" Google Ties
A federal judge has issued an opinion in EPIC v. NSA, and accepted the NSA's claim that it can "neither confirm nor deny" that it had entered into a relationship with Google following the China hacking incident in January 2010. EPIC had sought documents under the FOIA because such an agreement could reveal that the NSA is developing technical standards that would enable greater surveillance of Internet users. The "Glomar response," to neither confirm nor deny, is a controversial legal doctrine that allows agencies to conceal the existence of records that might otherwise be subject to public disclosure. EPIC plans to appeal this decision. EPIC is also litigating to obtain the National Security Presidential Directive that sets out the NSA's cyber security authority. And EPIC is seeking from the NSA information about Internet vulnerability assessments, the Director's classified views on how the NSA's practices impact Internet privacy, and the NSA's "Perfect Citizen" program.
http://epic.org/2011/07/epic-v-nsa-agency-can-neither.html
Court Opinion:
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1533-15
A federal judge has issued an opinion in EPIC v. NSA, and accepted the NSA's claim that it can "neither confirm nor deny" that it had entered into a relationship with Google following the China hacking incident in January 2010. EPIC had sought documents under the FOIA because such an agreement could reveal that the NSA is developing technical standards that would enable greater surveillance of Internet users. The "Glomar response," to neither confirm nor deny, is a controversial legal doctrine that allows agencies to conceal the existence of records that might otherwise be subject to public disclosure. EPIC plans to appeal this decision. EPIC is also litigating to obtain the National Security Presidential Directive that sets out the NSA's cyber security authority. And EPIC is seeking from the NSA information about Internet vulnerability assessments, the Director's classified views on how the NSA's practices impact Internet privacy, and the NSA's "Perfect Citizen" program.
http://epic.org/2011/07/epic-v-nsa-agency-can-neither.html
Court Opinion:
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1533-15
A prelude of things to come? Your local firefighter policing the streets
Washington, D.C. firefighters are being dispatched on late-night patrols to high-crime areas as deterrents and during the day to provide payday protection for residents enrolled in the city’s youth-jobs program, raising safety concerns for the “unarmed” firefighters.
The order was issued by the office of Mayor Vincent C. Gray to prevent problems like those last summer when participants in the Summer Youth Employment Program were targeted for muggings and to cut back on summer crime.
Lon Walls, spokesman for the D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services, said Wednesday the firefighters are not expected to serve as policemen, “but sometimes a uniform presence can be a deterrent.”
However, union officials question why the Gray administration would send firefighters to some of the city’s worst corners and perhaps put their safety at risk.
“They are going to send unarmed, untrained firefighters out into some of the most dangerous areas,” said police union Chairman Kristopher Baumann.
Link:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/13/dc-firefighters-sent-to-protect-youth-workers/
The order was issued by the office of Mayor Vincent C. Gray to prevent problems like those last summer when participants in the Summer Youth Employment Program were targeted for muggings and to cut back on summer crime.
Lon Walls, spokesman for the D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services, said Wednesday the firefighters are not expected to serve as policemen, “but sometimes a uniform presence can be a deterrent.”
However, union officials question why the Gray administration would send firefighters to some of the city’s worst corners and perhaps put their safety at risk.
“They are going to send unarmed, untrained firefighters out into some of the most dangerous areas,” said police union Chairman Kristopher Baumann.
Link:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/13/dc-firefighters-sent-to-protect-youth-workers/
This link shows why you can't hide in a crowd anymore, almost 10,000 people have been identified.
Think you can hide in a crowd? This link shows how far technology has come. They've identified 95000 people and they're close to reaching their goal of tagging 10,000 people.
Link:
http://www.gigapixel.com/image/gigapan-canucks-g7.html
Link:
http://www.gigapixel.com/image/gigapan-canucks-g7.html
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
The National Sheriff's' Association & law enforcement representatives want to force internet providers to keep user logs.
Law enforcement representatives are planning to endorse a proposed federal law that would require Internet service providers to store logs about their customers for 18 months, CNET has learned.
The National Sheriffs' Association will say it "strongly supports" mandatory data retention during Tuesday's U.S. House of Representatives hearing on the topic.
Michael Brown, sheriff in Bedford County, Va., and a board member and executive committee member of the National Sheriffs' Association, is planning to argue that a new law is necessary because Internet providers do not store customer records long enough.
"The limited data retention time and lack of uniformity among retention from company to company significantly hinders law enforcement's ability to identify predators when they come across child pornography," according to a copy of Brown's remarks. Any stored logs could, however, be used to prosecute any type of crime.
The association's endorsement comes nearly two months after Reps. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the head of the House Judiciary Committee, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) introduced legislation that would force Internet companies to log data about their customers. It says they must store for "at least 18 months the temporarily assigned network addresses the service assigns to each account, unless that address is transmitted by radio communication"--language that amounts to a huge and unusual exception for wireless carriers.
The definitions in Smith's bill could sweep in coffee shops that offer wired connections to their customers, as well as hotels, universities, schools, and businesses that offer wired network connections, on top of traditional broadband providers.
Link:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20078653-281/police-internet-providers-must-keep-user-logs/
The National Sheriffs' Association will say it "strongly supports" mandatory data retention during Tuesday's U.S. House of Representatives hearing on the topic.
Michael Brown, sheriff in Bedford County, Va., and a board member and executive committee member of the National Sheriffs' Association, is planning to argue that a new law is necessary because Internet providers do not store customer records long enough.
"The limited data retention time and lack of uniformity among retention from company to company significantly hinders law enforcement's ability to identify predators when they come across child pornography," according to a copy of Brown's remarks. Any stored logs could, however, be used to prosecute any type of crime.
The association's endorsement comes nearly two months after Reps. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the head of the House Judiciary Committee, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) introduced legislation that would force Internet companies to log data about their customers. It says they must store for "at least 18 months the temporarily assigned network addresses the service assigns to each account, unless that address is transmitted by radio communication"--language that amounts to a huge and unusual exception for wireless carriers.
The definitions in Smith's bill could sweep in coffee shops that offer wired connections to their customers, as well as hotels, universities, schools, and businesses that offer wired network connections, on top of traditional broadband providers.
Link:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20078653-281/police-internet-providers-must-keep-user-logs/
The South Carolina Supreme Court faults town for failing to equip squad cars with dashcams.
In 1998, South Carolina lawmakers mandated that police use dashboard mounted cameras to document the arrest of anyone arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). The state supreme court on Monday ruled that the town of Mount Pleasant was not in compliance with this statute, which states a suspect "must have his conduct at the incident site and the breath test site video recorded."
DUI arrests have been a major moneymaker for the town of 67,000. Between 1998 and 2008, Mount Pleasant made 2796 DUI arrests, ranking first among municipalities in the state. It should have had the top priority in receiving cameras from the state Department of Public Safety, but it only asked for and received seven. By comparison, the town of Moncks Corner had nearly twice as many cameras for just 198 arrests. Instead of buying cameras to meet legal requirements, town officials spent $65,145 for a "Town of Mount Pleasant" sign placed at a freeway exit. They also paid $100,000 to a marketing firm to come up with a town slogan and $6 million to buy a parcel of property known as the "O.K. Tire Store."
Mount Pleasant officials believed they could get away with this because the dashcam law was written to take effect gradually as the video equipment was distributed throughout the state. In 2007, the high court referred to this provision as providing "a reasonable grace period." In the present case, the justices saw the town as attempting to evade its legal responsibility with an overly clever reading of the letter of the law.
"We find the town's protracted failure to equip its patrol vehicles with video cameras, despite its 'priority' ranking, defeats the intent of the legislature and violates the statutorily-created obligation to videotape DUI arrests," Justice Donald W. Beatty wrote for the court. "Accordingly, we do not believe that the Town should be able to continually evade its duty by relying on subsection (G) of section 56-5-2953."
The court found that although the city did not necessarily have to spend its own funds for the cameras, it was responsible for requesting them from the state Department of Public Safety.
"We find the town's explanation is disingenuous," Beatty wrote. "Admittedly, the legislature was silent with respect to a time requirement for when vehicles must be equipped with video cameras. However, applying the rules of statutory construction, we find the town's interpretation would defeat the legislative intent of section 56-5-2953 and the overall DUI reform enacted in 1998."
Link:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3531.asp
DUI arrests have been a major moneymaker for the town of 67,000. Between 1998 and 2008, Mount Pleasant made 2796 DUI arrests, ranking first among municipalities in the state. It should have had the top priority in receiving cameras from the state Department of Public Safety, but it only asked for and received seven. By comparison, the town of Moncks Corner had nearly twice as many cameras for just 198 arrests. Instead of buying cameras to meet legal requirements, town officials spent $65,145 for a "Town of Mount Pleasant" sign placed at a freeway exit. They also paid $100,000 to a marketing firm to come up with a town slogan and $6 million to buy a parcel of property known as the "O.K. Tire Store."
Mount Pleasant officials believed they could get away with this because the dashcam law was written to take effect gradually as the video equipment was distributed throughout the state. In 2007, the high court referred to this provision as providing "a reasonable grace period." In the present case, the justices saw the town as attempting to evade its legal responsibility with an overly clever reading of the letter of the law.
"We find the town's protracted failure to equip its patrol vehicles with video cameras, despite its 'priority' ranking, defeats the intent of the legislature and violates the statutorily-created obligation to videotape DUI arrests," Justice Donald W. Beatty wrote for the court. "Accordingly, we do not believe that the Town should be able to continually evade its duty by relying on subsection (G) of section 56-5-2953."
The court found that although the city did not necessarily have to spend its own funds for the cameras, it was responsible for requesting them from the state Department of Public Safety.
"We find the town's explanation is disingenuous," Beatty wrote. "Admittedly, the legislature was silent with respect to a time requirement for when vehicles must be equipped with video cameras. However, applying the rules of statutory construction, we find the town's interpretation would defeat the legislative intent of section 56-5-2953 and the overall DUI reform enacted in 1998."
Link:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3531.asp
Your cellphone voicemail is easily hacked, if you don't use a password.
Breaking into someone’s voice mailbox is done using a readily available online service known as “caller ID spoofing,’’ which can make a call appear to be coming from any phone number. Hackers can use it to access someone else’s voice mail messages by fooling the system into thinking the call is coming from the owner’s cellphone.
To make a spoof call, you go to one of the Web-based spoof services, type in your actual phone number, the number you want to call, and the number you want to appear on the target’s caller ID. Hit enter, and the website calls your phone. On the other end of the line, the number you chose shows up on the caller ID.
If the mailbox is not protected by a password, as is often the case, the attacker can hear and even delete messages in the target’s voice mailbox.
There are numerous spoofing services in the United States; all you need to do is Google them. Although these services are used by hackers to commit crimes, they’re also used legitimately by, for example, battered women who do not want their calls traced, or law enforcement agents operating undercover.
Three of the four major US cellphone carriers - AT&T, T- Mobile, and Sprint - do not require customers who call voice mail on their own phones to use a password to listen to messages, making them vulnerable to malicious spoofers. That is a serious shortcoming, said Meir Cohen, president of Teltech Systems Inc., a caller ID spoofing company in Toms River, N.J., who is aware of how easily the service he provides can be misused.
“They should require a password every time a customer calls in to check their voice mail,’’ Cohen said, adding that unless every cellphone company makes voice mail passwords mandatory at all times, they’re giving customers “a false sense of security.’’
Link:
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2011/07/13/most_cellphone_voice_mail_is_vulnerable/?p1=News_links
To make a spoof call, you go to one of the Web-based spoof services, type in your actual phone number, the number you want to call, and the number you want to appear on the target’s caller ID. Hit enter, and the website calls your phone. On the other end of the line, the number you chose shows up on the caller ID.
If the mailbox is not protected by a password, as is often the case, the attacker can hear and even delete messages in the target’s voice mailbox.
There are numerous spoofing services in the United States; all you need to do is Google them. Although these services are used by hackers to commit crimes, they’re also used legitimately by, for example, battered women who do not want their calls traced, or law enforcement agents operating undercover.
Three of the four major US cellphone carriers - AT&T, T- Mobile, and Sprint - do not require customers who call voice mail on their own phones to use a password to listen to messages, making them vulnerable to malicious spoofers. That is a serious shortcoming, said Meir Cohen, president of Teltech Systems Inc., a caller ID spoofing company in Toms River, N.J., who is aware of how easily the service he provides can be misused.
“They should require a password every time a customer calls in to check their voice mail,’’ Cohen said, adding that unless every cellphone company makes voice mail passwords mandatory at all times, they’re giving customers “a false sense of security.’’
Link:
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2011/07/13/most_cellphone_voice_mail_is_vulnerable/?p1=News_links
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)