deeje: Law

Open Letter to TPM

Tue, 13 Apr 2004 01:19:20 GMT

Re: Martial Law and Delayed Elections?

Hi Joshua,

I’m a regular regular reader who really appreciates your viewpoints, thx!

This weekend a friend of mine pointed me to this article

"Will the 2004 Election Be Called Off? Why Three Out of Four Experts Predict a Terrorist Attack by November"
http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/04/far04011.html

Now, this may be a far left viewpoint, but I wonder if there is any meat to it? And if so, does it help or hurt to start talking/blogging about it? Is there any law that spells out what a sitting president can or cannot do in such a scenario?

Peace

deeje

The Loop is the Problem

Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:26:18 GMT

The lead summary from this evening's uber-insider Nelson Report ...

Clarke Terrorism Charges...White House must head-off before it gets "outside the Beltway"

Summary: the 9/11 Commission has always been a high risk potential for the Bush Administration, hence the very careful limits put on official cooperation. Hearings this week, "bombshell" book by former WH staffer Richard Clarke, have high risk potential to change attitudes "outside The Beltway". Polls consistently show the public still puts "trust" in double digits for Bush over Kerry on terrorism war. So White House reacts quickly, and very very firmly, to anything resembling a credible criticism of Bush...see the deconstruction of ex-Treas. Sec. O'Neill, UN inspector Blix, and now Clarke. The White House's top terrorism expert going back to the Reagan Administration provides anecdotal and eye-witness testimony apparently corroborating many other sources that Iraq was THE fixation, at the expense of all else. VP Cheney's rebuttal that Clark "out of the loop" is confusing, if Clarke was given the terrorism oversight job by NSC chief Rice. This one will bear watching...the polls will tell the tale.

More soon. And later, the gaggles start flowing ...
[Talking Points Memo]

It seems to me that Cheney's assertion that Clarke was "out of the loop" speaks to the very problem being uncovered here, that the Bush administration had its own loop, its own agenda. Clarke should have been in the loop, but was excluded in favor of Wolfowitz's zeal to take down Hussein. And Bush, being lazy or slow, relies far more on his advisors than a president should.

WARNING: Assertion of First Amendment Rights

Tue, 23 Mar 2004 02:00:17 GMT

fuck.

Breasts

Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:12:00 GMT

Article on SFGate today about a woman who was breastfeeding at the Marin JCC, and was asked to cover up by the staff. This is illegal.

Gessner insists the center's policy is consistent with the law.

"We just requested that she cover up," Gessner said. "If she didn't want to comply, that's her decision. We didn't ask her to leave the building or go somewhere else. I breast-fed my child both in public and in private. There is a discreet way to do it. We feel our policy is a responsible position."

Here's the answer: your policy should be to tell patrons who complain about breastfeeding that "It is legal, and encouraged, to breastfeed children. Period." If the complaining patron doesn't like it, the complainer can leave.

As the articles noted, what's most disturbing is that this happened in a health and fitness JCC. The irony...

the spreading virus of IP law

Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:39:26 GMT

So after being battered down again and again, the database bill is back. Congress is again being pressed by IP extremist lobbyists to "solve" the "problem" of "inadequate legal protection" for databases by adding a raft of IP lawyers into the mix.

This is an awful law, and were the attention of good people everywhere not focused upon the many awful things happening in DC, it would be dead on arrival. But unfortunately, it lives. PublicKnowledge is doing its part to stop it. Please do something to help stop it again.
[Lessig Blog]

Can't amplify this enough!

Kill Bill, Vol. 3

Tue, 17 Feb 2004 20:57:53 GMT

Word on the street was correct: Brandy Karl, who has previously written @ FindLaw about our export of American-style copyright restrictions abroad via free trade agreements, now has a new piece up explaining why it's necessary to kill in its infancy the proposed Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act (DCIMA):
In short, "[The] DCIMA is patently unconstitutional. In addition, from a policy perspective, it is a mistake--and the way it is currently drafted only worsens that mistake." [Copyfight: The Politics of IP]

This is worth amplifying. Please syndicate on your weblogs to get the message out there...

Good Reason to Google on the First Date

Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:43:10 GMT

I sure don't missing being single these days...

The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that a New York City woman decided to Google a man she met on the Internet before meeting him for dinner. Turns out, there was an FBI warrant for his arrest and that he had eluded police for more than a year. She called the FBI, and he ended up in custody at an Applebee's restaurant on Long Island. "We had surveillance there to see if the tip was good, and lo and behold, the tip was good," said Jim Turgal, spokesman for the FBI in Cincinnati.
[this is a summary - go to our web site for the complete entry, links, comments and categories] [Up2Speed]

MoveOn has launched a campaign to convince...

Tue, 27 Jan 2004 03:52:18 GMT

Another amplification:

MoveOn has launched a campaign to convince CBS to change its policy. Here’s the polispam they’d like people to send:

Subject: The ad CBS will not air

Dear friend,

During this year’s Super Bowl, you’ll see ads sponsored by beer companies, tobacco companies, and the Bush White House. But you won’t see the winning ad in MoveOn.org Voter Fund’s Bush in 30 Seconds ad contest. CBS refuses to air it.

Meanwhile, the White House and Congressional Republicans are on the verge of signing into law a deal which Senator John McCain (R-AZ) says is custom-tailored for CBS and Fox, allowing the two networks to grow much bigger. CBS lobbied hard for this rule change; MoveOn.org members across the country lobbied against it; and now the MoveOn.org ad has been rejected while the White House ad will be played. It looks an awful lot like CBS is playing politics with the right to free speech.

Of course, this is bigger than just the MoveOn.org Voter Fund. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) submitted an ad that was also rejected. We need to let CBS know that this practice of arbitrarily turning down ads that may be “controversial” – especially if they’re controversial simply because they take on the President – just isn’t right.

To watch the ad that CBS won’t air and sign the petition to CBS to run these ads, go here

MoveOn.org will deliver the petition by email directly to CBS headquarters.

Thanks.
[Lessig Blog]
[my weblog]

US Senator calls for P2P Summit

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:27:04 GMT

This could be very interesting.

BoingBoing pal John Parres says:
Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) is back in the news. Last fall the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which he chairs, scrutinized the RIAA's crackdown on file-sharers. Last week during a Consumer Electronics Show panel he said, "With the advent of technology such as peer-to-peer networking, law, technology and ethics are now not in synch. We need to find other ways to solve the problems rather than issuing lawsuits and lobbying Congress to pass tougher laws." Now, lo and behold, he is planning to convene a peer-to-peer (P2P) summit within the next two months. (Story link)
The Senator says, "I believe we need the technology experts, the computer industry, the peer-to-peer industry, the software industry, the entertainment industry, the privacy experts and the business experts to come together and discuss positive and meaningful solutions to this challenge facing a major segment of our economy." A voice of reason in the Senate? I for one am hopeful.
[Boing Boing]

the freedom to tape?

Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:57:12 GMT

I wrote this piece for CIO Insight, arguing that companies ought to let customers spy on their customer service agents. But I wonder: When you get a recording while on hold that says, "Calls may be monitored to assure quality assurance," doesn't the passive voice already authorize you, the customer, to tape as well? [Lessig Blog]

I was *just* thinking about this on the drive in to work this morning! Can you give consent to be recorded but be restricted from recording yourself? This thought started with a Jeep radio commercial that played excerpts from a phone interview with a happy Jeep commercial. At the end, the announcer dashed thru a statement saying that interviewees were told their comments might be used on air. The tone and volume of the statement seemed like the whole thing was a bit sneaky.