Friday, November 30th, 2007 |
A recent article from The Raw Story includes some disturbing information about the new face of domestic spies. The worst of it; the government is exploiting the people you should trust most in an emergency. They are now using firefighters and EMS providers.
While these two professions have been told for quite some time to be alert for terrorism, this is new. The new mission (Only in New York for the moment) is to report any expression of hatred of the government or discontent back to authorities. This could pose a number of ethical as well as legal issues.
Firefighters and EMT’s are not law enforcement. First, they have more important things to be doing, namely the jobs they already have. They should be alert to the dangers of terrorism so that they can do their jobs safely, not to be a new line of reporters to big brother. Second, they do not have the training to take on this sort of role. They are not experts on evidence, search procedure, or the laws regarding searches. Third, they can enter a home without a warrant for a number of reasons.
This poses both a risk to our privacy and security and to these hard workers themselves. It is already hard enough to be one of these brave men or women without worrying that the next house you show up to will be ready to attack you as a ’spy’ for the government.
Things must change. Put law enforcement back in the hands of law enforcement. And make sure what you tell those equally hard working police officers is part of the law.
Posted in Laws and Rights | No Comments »
Monday, August 6th, 2007 |
A law that would prevent the sale or rental of some video games to minors was killed by a federal court judge in California. Assembly Bill 1179 was signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005 and was to take effect January 2006.
U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte agreed that the law was an unconstitutional breach of the 1st Amendment. The judge cited the vague definition of what constituted a “violent videogame” and that the wording was too broad.
Some of the wording was as follows:
“the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being.”
The bill went into much more detailed specifics acts and types of violence.
This case demonstrates the continuing efforts of “concerned parents” to censor their homes for them. Where it used to be the responsibility of parents to control what their children had access to, it is now apparently up to corporations to make up for their lack of time and concern to look after their children. Luckily there are judges who would rather see our freedom lay untouched than limit what companies can create for any audience which willingly takes it into their homes.
Posted in Laws and Rights | No Comments »
Monday, August 6th, 2007 |
On Sunday, 5 August President Bush signed legislation to extend the powers of the government to conduct wiretaps without warrant. This seems to primarily target phone switches in the US that service international calls, both international-to-domestic and international-to-international. The calls to be targeted by the NSA would be those calls which are between other foreign nations. There is also a push to put much more of this program under the supervision of the already controversial and distrusted Alberto Gonzales.
Wiretapping has a long and colorful history. Most notably it gained popularity and support after being used to gather evidence to convict powerful Mob bosses. However, the practice of listening in to others has always been under very strict guidelines and suspicion in the criminal justice system. It has generally been very difficult to obtain permission to tap phones for very good reasons. Judges are afraid of the 4th Amendment. Not because they dislike it, but because it presents a very clear and correct limit to how searches and surveillance can be conducted. They are afraid of the consequences of stepping over that line.
To be clear, this is what is stated by the 4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
– From Find Law
It has some rather specific things to say about warrants for searches.
(more…)
Posted in Laws and Rights | No Comments »
Tuesday, February 6th, 2007 |
Colorado congress and senate recently passed a bill to “clean-up politics” by removing all those exciting money incentives. The bill is the Ethics in Government ballot measure.
Problem:
Lobbyists dominate Colorado politics. They spend millions of dollars each year to influence public officials. As a result, moneyed special interests have access to decision makers that most Coloradans do not.
• In 2005, Colorado lobbyists spent more than $1.6 million in gifts, trips, meals, golf lessons, Broncos tickets and other expenses to influence public officials.
• In the past decade, the income of lobbyists has nearly tripled to more than $22 million per year, increasing by 191%.
Solution:
Amendment 41 will raise the ethical bar in Colorado by:
• Banning gifts from lobbyists to public officials and setting reasonable limits on gifts from non-lobbyists;
• Creating a two-year “cooling-off” period before legislators can become paid lobbyists;
• Establishing an independent ethics commission.
(from - http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1761425)
It boils down to limiting the size of any gift to an elected official to $50 in value, along with the limiting private employment, and the ethics commission. At least that was how the spirit of this new law was expressed to the public.
The reality of the law is much more sweeping. No state employee or any member of their family may receive any gift of over $50 for any purpose. The high cost of this sort of ill thought out legislation can be seen in a story published in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel.
The Daily Sentinel, Jan. 31 2007, P.1 Sec. A
When Alex Hurd was told he was ineligible for a prestigious Daniels Fund scholarship, his grades and test scores were not to blame. Instead, Hurd’s eligibility problem was spurred by Colorado’s recently passed “Ethics in Government” ballot measure. …
Because Hurd’s mother, Sheila, works as a secretary at the Grand Junction office of the Colorado Public Defender, a state-funded agency, her son’s scholarship search has become a matter of constitutional concern.
Amendment 41 bars public officials, public employees and their dependents from receiving any gifts worth more than $50 every year. …
For example, a memo prepared by legislative attorneys at the Capitol, informed lawmakers that their children arguably cannot accept any scholarship funds in excess of $50.
In the world where we hope that our elected officials read the legislation that is written up for them, this is a terrible wake-up call. The obvious disregard for the wellbeing of state workers and there children is almost chilling. While it would be nice to believe that the politicians who approved this amendment to the state constitution were doing so out of the goodness of their hearts, it would be interesting pass out a query to find out how many of their children would need scholarship funding to be able to go to college.
The limiting clause keeping currently elected officials from joining any special interest groups also seems sincere. However, as much as it is distasteful for politicians to set up private enterprises through their positions it is their right. Certainly non-competition contracts as setup by companies to protect proprietary information are needed. Even politicians should not transfer to “a competing team” as it were. But these men and women have every right to work where they want after they leave office, so long as it does not breach any condition of security (if on any committee that dealt with such information). If we do not wish our politicians to spend their time developing a business relationship with special interest groups while they are in office; perhaps we should elect people with higher notions of integrity.
This new issue in Colorado will test her citizens patience with government. It will also test the ability of the middle class’s ability to meet financial demands with ever shrinking purchasing power. Perhaps Colorado will be the test bed of the survivability of our formerly robust middle class. And all the while we can view the success or failure of this new challenge in at the cost of our new generation.
Posted in Laws and Rights | No Comments »
Friday, June 9th, 2006 |
The US Senate once again (by a narrow margin) decided that it might still be alright to be gay. I guess we should be happy, but what does this debate really mean? I feel the need to air my opinion on this topic, because I believe it to be of great importance to our nation.
(more…)
Posted in Laws and Rights | 10 Comments »
