gregh  2008-04-23 08:44  Law  ncsl  privacy  real_id   

NCSL Supports The Identification Security Enhancement Act of 2007:

However, lacking the full policy and financial commitment of the federal government to ensure the success of the state-federal partnership needed to make REAL ID possible, NCSL now calls upon Congress to repeal REAL ID and reinstate the negotiated rule-making process. This approach will achieve our shared goals for security in a manner that respects states’ rights, privacy protections, and fiscal responsibility.

S.717, which I previously covered in its 2006 form, would bring back the negotiated rulemaking and return to the states the authority to preserve their own privacy regimes.

Keep your fingers crossed.

(Via Jim Harper.)

gregh  2008-01-16 23:59  Internet  Law  netneutrality   

The Intellectual Property Law Bulletin at USF is holding a symposium on Net Neutrality. Here are the details:

Net Neutrality refers to free access to the Internet without discrimination based upon content, how often a user accesses the Internet, or the type of services and programs used.

The University of San Francisco School of Law Intellectual Property Law Bulletin is sponsoring The Toll Roads: The Legal and Political Debate Over Network Neutrality, a symposium to increase awareness about network neutrality, bringing together lawyers, academics, economists, and technologists for a balanced debate on the issue. Panelists include Tim Wu, Richard Clarke, Lawrence Spiwak, and many others.

When: January 26th, 2008 8 AM - 7 PM
Where: Fromm Institute on the University of San Francisco main campus
Web: http://www.netneutrality2008.org
Cost: Professionals (6.0 Units MCLE Credit): $100
Non-professionals: Free - $75 (see registration page for details)
Register: http://www.netneutrality2008.org/Registration.html

My current intention is to attend. It should be interesting. I'm not a huge proponent of mandated neutrality, and I'm bothered that most advocates (and some of the statements on the symposium site) suffer from the seeming belief that the Internet is and has been neutral, whereas it isn't and never has been. Hopefully, someone will be trumpeting that side.

gregh  2007-11-11 16:23  information_privacy  Law  privacy   

Definition Changing for People's Privacy:

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information.

How lovely for Kerr to think that way. You silly Americans; let me tell you what you can have. What should happen is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies need to work within the confines of our Constitution and laws. If they can't work within those confines, they need to show why they can't, so we can consider going about the business of amending the Constitution.

One problem with the land grab like the one Kerr describes is that there's been no evidence presented that it's either necessary or useful. Instead, what evidence exists shows that it's a crutch, violating our traditional notions of privacy with little benefit.

The other -- huge! -- problem is that the government cannot be trusted to properly safeguard private communications and financial information. That has been made clear in recent years. Business is even worse, unless it's strategically competitive information, of course.

Perhaps the definition that needs to be changed defines suitable government employees. Rather than the Kerrs and Chertoffs, who feel it is their position to determine what we can demand, we need people who will recognize that a Constitution and body of privacy protection laws exists, and that their inability to do their jobs without dreaming up ways around those things suggests their incompetence, not a need for the American people to change how they live their lives.

gregh  2007-11-06 19:28  blawgging  Law   

My friend Stan Radtke has thrown his hat into the blawgging arena. Check him out at nodeportation.blogspot.com.

Of particular note, Stan has announced that the paper he was slaving over seemingly forever is being published, but even more noteworthy is that, less than 6 months out of law school and awaiting bar results, Stan has worked on his first write of cert for the US Supreme Court.

gregh  2007-10-28 20:29  Law  lawenforcement  surveillance   

It is hard to see much that microscopy, x-rays, database technology, microbiology, infrared imaging, MRI, or numerous other technologies have contributed to criminal enterprises; they have, however, given the police a host of techniques for tracking, identifying, and monitoring both people and physical objects. On balance, the impact of technology is so weighted on the side of law enforcement as to make it remarkable that crime has survived at all.

Whitfield Diffie and Susan Landau, Privacy on the Line: The Politics of Wiretapping and Encryption, Updated and Expanded Edition, page 137.

gregh  2007-09-18 23:19  government  Law  startrek  ufop   

The Volokh Conspiracy - How Federal is Star Trek's Federation?:

I would suggest that it is only Earth that is socialistic, while the other member worlds have free market systems or mixed economies. The human-dominated Star Fleet military is the only Federation military force, and is tasked with collecting tribute from the nonhuman planets for redistribution to Earth. But as long as they pay their taxes, which subsidize Earth's welfare state and Star Fleet itself, they are largely left alone to govern their domestic affairs as they see fit. The Federation is essentially a big protection racket (in both senses of the word: providing external security, and also "protection" against its own depradations).
...
Why don't we ever see Captain Kirk or Capt. Picard on tribute collection runs? Because the Enterprise is one of Star Fleet's most advanced warships, and is therefore reserved for more difficult missions, such as going "where no man has gone before" in search of new wealthy star systems to occupy and tax. Note the term "no man," which further underscores human control of Star Fleet.

From Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home:
Dr. Gillian Taylor: Don't tell me you don't use money in the 23rd Century.
Kirk: Well, we don't.

I wonder if this asks too much of a federal system. While the Federation may not have currency, it definitely has commodities. While Starfleet may not be wholly representative, there may be many explanations beyond it being a non-federal protection racket. It may simply be that Terrans, being rather new to space exploration, are simply more gung ho. Perhaps the location of the Academy on Earth has something to do with it. It may be that in a loosely federated Federation, citizens of most of the planets would prefer just to go about their things as they always have.

Or, it could be that just like the chompers of "Galaxy Quest", much of the political foundations of the "Star Trek" universe are created ad hoc, when they're needed for dramatic purposes. That seems to far simpler explanation for the inconsistencies.

gregh  2007-09-11 20:58  britneyspears  fcc  indecency  Law   

Law.com - 3rd Circuit Judges Grill DOJ Attorney in CBS 'Wardrobe Malfunction' Case:

In his brief, Corn-Revere noted that Jackson and Timberlake were chosen in part because they both had national television experience. But Rendell said the record also included a memo from NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue to CBS President Leslie Moonves that seemed to warn of problems with Jackson.

Corn-Revere disagreed, saying the memo was expressing only "general concerns" that related not to Jackson but to "an earlier incident where the NFL had been embarrassed by a performance by Britney Spears."

The courtroom erupted with laughter when Corn-Revere added: "of course, who hasn't been."

gregh  2007-08-15 09:12  crazylawsuits  dogfighting  Law  terrorism  vick   

I've tried to preserve the following verbatim, though the handwriting was tough to make out. Be sure to check out the actual complaint.

[M]oves this honorable court to issue a TRO Temporary Restraining order against MICHAEL VICK from any further contact with Plaintiff. As Plaintiff is claiming that his Federal and State Constitutional Rights are being violated under the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th amendment of the Constitution. For relief, Plaintiff seeks 63,000,000,000.00 Billion dollars backed by gold and silver delivered via "UPS" United States Parcel Service to the front gates of FCI Williamsburg, Salters S.C., collected from Defendant MICHAEL VICK.
...
On April 20th, 2007 MR. VICK stole two white mixed Pit Bull dogs from my residence in Holiday florida, and used them for dog fighting throughout the Richmond Area. MR. VICK damaged my RFID chips in my dogs collars so I will not be able to track them. these 2 dogs were used for fighting on April 23rd, 24th, and 26th, 2007. On April 28th, MR. VICK sold my dogs on EBAY Auction, and used the proceeds to purchase missles from the Iran Government.
...

• On Feb 10th, 2007 MICHAEL VICK plead Alliengence to Al-qaeda
• MICHAEL VICK subjected me to microwave Testing
• MICHAEL VICK used drugs in school zones
• MICHAEL VICK is in the business of illegal steroids

When it rains it poors. $63,000,000,000.00 billion is a lot. I assume the missiles are for al-Qaeda.

gregh  2007-08-12 18:33  identity  Law  personal_information  usercentrism   

When we empower users to control their identities, do those empowered to release personal information on behalf of a user have a responsibility to ensure the user understands what they're releasing?

I don't know. I do know that most computer interfaces continue to baffle users. Users seem just to want to click to make the dialog box go away. Dialog boxes mean something has happened. How do we train a user to be careful before releasing information?

From a legal standpoint, does a user truly consent to the release of data if the user didn't understand what they were releasing? What would be the standard for determining what a user knew or should have known?

gregh  2007-08-10 14:31  groklaw  ibm  Law  linux  novell  sco   

As Groklaw has reported, Novell won big on its motions for summary judgment. No doubt, we're in for a lengthly appeal. However, until and unless that happens, SCO v. Novell and likely SCO v. IBM is all but dead.

From the ruling:

• "[T]he court concludes that Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights."
• "Novell is entitled . . . at its sole discretion, to direct SCO to waive its claims against IBM and Sequent, and SCO is obligated to recognize Novell's waiver of SCO's claims against IBM and Sequent."
• SCO's ridiculous, and now very costly, slander of title claim, which started this whole action, is dead.
• Novell's cross-claim of slander of title lives on.
• SCO is in breach of its fiduciary duty to Novell, because it failed to properly remit funds to Novell from the licensing of UnixWare to Microsoft and Sun. The amount is still a factual matter.

This likely won't be over for a long time. But this is a huge first step.