Posts From: November, 2011

Congress, Obama Administration Want to Make It a Federal Crime To Lie on the Internet

Wednesday, November 16th, 2011

Sigh.

The way the Justice Department wants to interpret a current law, lying on the Internet would amount to a crime.

Richard Downing, deputy chief of the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section at the Department of Justice, argued that in order to properly protect the country, the part of the CFAA that says a person must exceed their “authorized access” to break the law should include a violation of the terms of service.

This is how DOJ went after Lori Drew, the woman who used a MySpace account to pose as a teenage boy in order to torment a girl who was bullying her daughter. The girl later committed suicide, which led to calls for Drew’s prosecution, even though it wasn’t clear that she had committed any crime. The charges were tossed by a judge, so Congress and DOJ want to give prosecutors more power. But in the name of protecting intellectual property and national security.  Here’s how Downing put it in his testimony.

“These are just a few cases, but this tool is used routinely. The plain meaning of the term ‘exceeds authorized access,’ as used in the CFAA, prohibits insiders from using their otherwise legitimate access to a computer system to engage in improper and often malicious activities. We believe that Congress intended to criminalize such conduct, and we believe that deterring it continues to be important. Because of this, we are highly concerned about the effects of restricting the definition of ‘exceeds authorized access’ in the CFAA to disallow prosecutions based upon a violation of terms of service or similar contractual agreement with an employer or provider.”

The Volokh Conspriacy’s Orin Kerr also testified.

“In the Justice Department’s view, the CFAA criminalizes conduct as innocuous as using a fake name on Facebook or lying about your weight in an online dating profile. That situation is intolerable. Routine computer use should not be a crime. Any cybersecurity legislation that this Congress passes should reject the extraordinarily broad interpretations endorsed by the United States Department of Justice.”

I think we should just bar Congress from passing any law related to the Internet.

Morning Links

Wednesday, November 16th, 2011

Photo of the Day

Wednesday, November 16th, 2011

The Natchez Trace Parkway in Tennessee.

Oxy Babies and Crack Babies

Tuesday, November 15th, 2011

In this hysterical USA Today piece about infants born addicted to prescription painkillers, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi says, “I’m scared to death this will become the crack-baby epidemic.”

I agree. I hope this doesn’t turn into an excuse to pass a bunch of dumb laws that will restrict personal freedom and impose draconian sentences on people who commit nonviolent offenses, all in response to a hyped-up, non-existent problem drummed up by the media and drug warriors. The “Oxy baby” narrative has the added potential to further chill the treatment of chronic pain.

It may well be that this is a huge and growing problem. But I don’t find the USA Today piece all that convincing. In 2009, the New York Times looked at recent studies of what has happened to “crack babies.” Turns out, the consensus seems to be that the biggest hurdle they’ve had to overcome is the fact that they’ve been called “crack babies” all their lives.

A Good Time for Some Prosecutorial Discretion

Tuesday, November 15th, 2011

Ex-drug dealer gets out of prison. Gets his life together. Opens a shoe store. Neighborhood hit with repeated robberies, shootings, and murders. D.C. police can’t protect residents and business owners. Guy’s sister-in-law puts a shotgun in the store for protection. Guy has altercation with customers. Accounts of the altercation differ, but it ends with customers calling the police, who then discover the gun. Guy now faces mandatory minimum three-year prison sentence.

There’s lots to chew on here. Maybe it’s a good idea to bar felons from owning guns, though if so, it should be limited to people convicted of violent felonies. Still, given the circumstances, they didn’t have to charge this guy. And police ineptitude led to him needing the gun in the first place. Post-Heller, the shotgun would have been legal if the guy hadn’t been a felon, but there’s also the question of exactly how residents and business owners in violent neighborhoods like this one are supposed to protect themselves. (Pre-Heller, a D.C. friend of mine once asked his pro-gun ban councilman that very question after a murder in his neighborhood. The councilman recommended my friend wear a whistle around his neck.) And of course this is another example illustrating how D.C.’s decades-old restrictive gun control laws have done little to keep guns away from criminals. Except, I guess, for ex-cons who have opened a business, and are trying to get their lives back together.

Here’s the kicker.

Since Hines’s arrest, there have been some changes at City Beats. Cameras monitor the sales floor. No one works alone in the shop.

But, Hines said, people in the neighborhood know there’s no longer a gun inside. “They gotta have in their mind that if they come in the store, you can’t pull a gun on us,” Hines said. “Without people thinking there’s some repercussions . . . they would definitely try to take advantage.”

On Sunday, his wife, Sherita McLamore-Hines, closed the shop as usual at 5 p.m., then proceeded to review inventory with her son and nephew.

About two hours later, a familiar customer knocked on the shop’s glass door, cash in hand. McLamore-Hines let him in, hoping to make one more sale. But after the man stepped in, three men wearing ski masks came in behind him. One of the men held a gun to McLamore-Hines’s head and cleaned out the cash register as she crouched behind the counter.

Police had not made any arrests in the case.

In other gun news, a battered wife acquitted of shooting her husband with one of his guns (she claimed self-defense) still faces three years for illegally using the gun. Meanwhile, a deputy who peered through a window, mistook a woman holding a cell phone for a man holding a gun, then shot the woman through her own door . . . is being defended by his sheriff.

Photo of the Day

Tuesday, November 15th, 2011

The Natchez Trace Parkway in Tennessee.

Morning Links

Monday, November 14th, 2011

Photo of the Day

Monday, November 14th, 2011

The Natchez Trace Parkway in Tennessee.

Sunday Links

Sunday, November 13th, 2011

Photo of the Day

Sunday, November 13th, 2011

Leiper’s Fork, Tennessee.

Liam Neeson Would Like To Try Comedy

Saturday, November 12th, 2011

Speaking at Pepperdine on Monday

Saturday, November 12th, 2011

I’m giving a talk at Pepperdine Law School on Monday.

Here are the details.

Photo of the Day

Saturday, November 12th, 2011

Leiper’s Fork, Tennessee.

Saturday Links

Saturday, November 12th, 2011

New at Nashville Byline: The Cold Stares

Friday, November 11th, 2011

I have a new post up at Nashville Byline that profiles Nashville blues band the Cold Stares. It includes the acoustic tunes they played from my couch earlier this year, an interview with the band, and my first attempt at using iMovie, below.

Morning Links

Friday, November 11th, 2011

Local News Hysteria at Its Finest: Rectal Beer Bongs and Vodka-Soaked Tampons

Friday, November 11th, 2011

 

It’s the scariest thing since iDosing.

Yes, I’m calling bullshit on this story. Beware of any hyped-up local news report that involves teenagers, alcohol, and sex. Throw in the Internet, and this one would have been a sensational local news home run.

Note that the reporter doesn’t talk to a single student, either one who has tried it (which would give the station the opportunity to cover them in shadow and give them that creepy disguised electro-voice), or even one who knows other students who have. The only source for this story is a school cop who claims to have overheard kids talking about it all in the hallway. From this, he concludes that the vodka-soaked tampon trend has infested every school, city, and state in America—it’s “everywhere.” So they put him on TV.

They do at least interview one doctor, but the doctor never says he’s actually seen a student who has done it. He only talks about the possible physiological effects if a student were to try it. A Google News search turns up about a dozen stories . . . and all of them lead back to this one news report out of Arizona.

The “rectal beer funneling” seems particularly silly. High school boys tend to be pretty homophobic. I find it hard to believe there’s an epidemic of them dropping trow at parties, then helping one another pour beer into their rectums. (Logistically, I would think this is more than a one-man job.) Especially when they can just, you know, drink the stuff through their mouths.

According to Snopes, an email circulated about vodka-soaked tampons a couple years ago, and it included a number suspiciously similar details to the news story in the video, including the reasons why students claimed to be doing it.  (To pass breath tests, to drink more without vomiting, etc.) Snopes also finds a couple print reports out of Finland in the late 1990s. Booze-soaked tampons were also featured in a 2008 episode of CSI, and the alcohol-delivery method is apparently also part of a rumor about the Scottish band Mogwai.

Photo of the Day

Friday, November 11th, 2011

Here’s another one of Keb’ Mo’ at the Americana Music Fest.

12-Year-Old Prodigy Composer

Thursday, November 10th, 2011

Incredible story. Part of me envies the kid. And part of me feels bad for him.

Morning Links

Thursday, November 10th, 2011

Photo of the Day

Thursday, November 10th, 2011

The Blind Boys of Alabama, in Nashville.

What About Driving While Confused About Distracted Driving Laws?

Wednesday, November 9th, 2011

Slate’s Farhad Manjoo correctly diagnoses the problem with bans on texting, cell phone use, and other forms of distracted driving . . .

During the last five years, 34 states have passed laws that ban texting while driving. The laws in each of those states differ widely—some make it illegal to “send” texts, while others prohibit “electronic communication” as well as “reading” texts. Each of these versions would make Siri-based texting verboten, because even if you dictate a message, you’re still, technically, sending some kind of electronic communication (and if you glance at the screen to make sure Siri correctly transcribed your message, you’re reading it).

This is ridiculous. Sure, it’s a good idea to discourage texting behind the wheel. But the laws’ failure to anticipate voice-texting illustrates the larger problem with legal strictures on automotive technology: The laws are narrow, annoyingly arbitrary, and inconsistent across state lines. What’s more, they’re minimally enforced and consequently ineffective—there is no evidence that texting laws have reduced accident rates…

The worst thing about these laws is their opacity. Because enforcement is spotty—I see people talking into handheld cellphones all the time—and because few of these specific tech questions have been raised in court, nobody knows how we can use our devices. In some ways, the mish-mash of rules makes enforcement more difficult. If you see a guy typing on his phone while driving, should you call the cops? If he’s otherwise driving safely, I wouldn’t—he could just be dialing a number, which is legal.

…but he then proposes a solution that will make all of those problems worse.

A better system wouldn’t make distinctions about what we do on our gadgets, but would instead look at the effects of our actions. The best rule would simply say, Don’t do anything in your car that could be unsafe. In 2009, Maine adopted just such a policy. Its law doesn’t make any particular technology illegal in the car. Instead, it bans “distracted driving”—driving while you’re engaged in any task that could impair you. This obviously includes texting, but the law is expansive enough to outlaw other bad driving habits—eating, applying make-up, or reading a roadmap. Theoretically, it could also allow some safer uses of technology, like punching an address into your GPS while you’re stopped, or asking Siri to remind you to call your doctor when you get home.

Theoretically, sure. But you’ve just taken the problem of too many jurisdictions having varying definitions of distracted and made it exponentially worse. Now whether or a motorist has violated the law is at the individual discretion of every police officer in the country. You now have about 600,000 different definitions of distraction. Some studies have shown that having kids in the back seat is actually more distracting then a .08 BAC or talking on a cell phone. That in theory could now be illegal. So could fumbling with your CD player. Or glancing down to change songs on the iPod that’s plugged into your car stereo. I’d think you’d very quickly be looking at a logjam of cases in which traffic courts are asked to sort out what’s an acceptable distraction and what isn’t.

The idea would also make the enforcement problem much, much worse. How does a police officer look into your car to determine whether or not your eyes are on the road when you’re whizzing by at 55 mph? If the cops is actually driving next to you, isn’t asking cops to gaze into the interiors of other cars on the road itself a pretty significant distraction? Averted eyes aren’t likely to be caught on a police dash cam, either.  In fact, the only time a cop would be able to clearly see what you’re doing, or whether you’re looking squarely at the road, is when you’re driving very slowly or stopped, which of course are the times when driver distraction is least dangerous.

When you put such a vague determination of lawbreaking solely at the discretion of cops, you also open the door to abuse. Pretext stops for drug profiling just got a lot easier. Meeting ticket quotas (yeah I know, those don’t exist!) and blanket revenue generating get easier too. Forget installing speed cameras. If the city needs revenue, just quietly instruct city cops to loosen up their definition of distracted for a while. Given the examples we’ve seen of cities jeopardizing public safety by shortening yellow lights in order to generate revenue, or cops in New York City planting drugs on people to meet arrest quotas, it hardly seems far-fetched.

The simplest solution here is to only pull over and ticket people when they commit actual traffic violations. If you want to raise the fines for people who commit infractions likely caused by driver distraction–swerving into other lanes, for example–go for it. It might even make sense to add some extra punishment for people who cause accidents while distracted, provided you can prove they were distracted at the time of the accident. Or just raise fines and penalties across the board. Though it’s also at least worth asking why we’re having this discussion in the first place. It isn’t at all clear that this is an urgent problem. Roadway fatalities per passenger mile have fallen dramatically over the last 20 years, the same period that all these new driver distractions have become so common.

Another Recording Cops Lawsuit in Massachusetts

Wednesday, November 9th, 2011

From the A.P.:

Maury Paulino said in the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court that one officer punched, kneed, and doused his face with pepper-spray while the other officers stood by and did nothing to stop it.

Paulino, 19 at the time of the November 2009 arrest, said in the lawsuit he sought treatment at a hospital for injuries including abrasions on his neck, bleeding from his mouth, nose, and lips, and a laceration on his scalp.

Paulino originally went to the city police station in Roxbury to bail out a friend, according to his lawyers, Howard Friedman and David Milton. The friend acted belligerently as he was being released and exchanged heated words with one officer.

Paulino started recording when officers allegedly started mistreating the friend outside the station. He was charged with violating the state wiretapping laws. He also was charged with resisting arrest, disorderly conduct and assault and battery on a police officer.

His lawyers said he did not interfere with police while recording, nor did he curse, threaten or act aggressively. The lawsuit said a federal appeals court has ruled that it is legal to record police who are performing their official duties in public.

The illegal wiretapping charge was dismissed by a clerk magistrate; Paulino was acquitted of all other charges at trial.

Morning Links

Wednesday, November 9th, 2011

Photo of the Day

Wednesday, November 9th, 2011

The Jayhakws, in Nashville.