MikeBlog

On homosexuality and same sex marriage

2012-01-30T12:22:00.004-05:00

I grew up believing that homosexuality was wrong, from a Biblical standpoint. In large part, I still believe this. Don't get me wrong, I have never believed and advocated for a literal interpretation of Leviticus 20:13 which suggests execution for homosexuals (I would also argue that many other parts of the Bible aren't meant to be read literally, but that's another argument for another day). Rather, I hold it (both the Old Testament and the New Testament) as a general moral prohibition against homosexuality.

Until recently, I uncritically applied this moral code to marriage. For many years, I was one of the many people in our country (mostly on the Right, but in reality of all political persuasions) who believed that as a result of this moral code, homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

The reality of the situation, from a liberty and freedom perspective, is that this argument simply doesn't make sense. I have come to believe that it is perfectly compatible to be opposed to homosexuality and still support same sex marriage.

Marriage is not exclusively a religious compact. In fact, it is a civil contract between two individuals. Truly, it can be one, or the other, or both, depending upon your beliefs.

When conservatives talk about defending traditional marriage, they're talking primarily about a religious contract. This is certainly a common view of marriage, but it's not the only one. People get married in shotgun weddings in Las Vegas. Celebrities get married and divorced months (or even days and hours) later. Neither of these are the traditional marriage that the Right would typically defend, but I don't see them trying to outlaw them, either.

Would those who believe in traditional man/woman religious marriage oppose the concept of a man and woman who wanted to get married, but aren't religious? Of course not. So conservatives don't really seem to be opposed to non-religious, civil marriage, either.

The issue really comes down to whether or not the government has such a power to push a social agenda through public policy. Perhaps there are circumstances when the government should do this; circumstances when the government has a vested interest. In this case, it's difficult to define.

Human beings are free to enter into civil contracts with one another. Whether those human beings are a man and a woman, two men, or two women, seems immaterial to me. From a civil perspective, I don't see any reason why same sex marriage should be outlawed.

This isn't a religious issue, it's a freedom issue. It's about the power of the government vs. the will of the people to do what they choose.

To approach someone who is religiously opposed to homosexuality by arguing that they are wrong, or that the Bible is wrong, is a non-starter. Not only are you putting them on the defensive from the start, but you're arguing on their turf. Rather, consider approaching the discussion from a liberty and freedom perspective. Religious opposition to homosexuality doesn't necessarily mean that this policy must be enforced by the government (if such was the case, the application of the Leviticus moral code to our public policy would be mandatory, no? Either way, it could be argued to absurdity). One (such as myself) can be opposed to homosexuality and still believe that the government does not have the power to outlaw civil marriage between same sex persons. Indeed, asking what authority the government has to prohibit same sex marriage is a preferable starting point.

We should avoid here, as in all discussions, about the "right" to do this or that. When you start talking about rights, people think the government is granting "special rights" to people. Rights are unalienable (or inalienable, they mean the same thing!), not granted by government. The question should never be: "Do we have the right to do this?" but rather, "Does the government have the power to prohibit it?"

Of course, a same-sex couple who wishes a religious marriage can have one, if they find clergy who are willing to do it. But I would always insist that no religious person should ever be forced to officiate a marriage against their own will and personal beliefs (heterosexual or homosexual). I think all of us could agree with that.

Thoughts?

Good morning

2012-01-30T06:02:00.001-05:00

#ShmooCon Travel #ProTips

2012-01-26T07:34:00.001-05:00

For better or worse, I work in DC so here are some travel tips I've put together for your ShmooCon weekend:

Arriving via DCA (Reagan National)? Take the Yellow Line to Gallery Place/Chinatown and then the Red Line to Dupont Circle. Walk three blocks north on Connecticut Avenue to get to the Hilton.

Arriving via IAD (Dulles)? The Metro doesn't reach out that far. Try the Super Shuttle or take a cab to somewhere along the Orange Line. Take the Orange Line to Metro Center and then the Red Line to Dupont Circle. Walk three blocks north on Connecticut Avenue to get to the Hilton.

Arriving via BWI? Take the MARC Penn Line to Union Station, then follow the directions below via Union Station. The MARC Penn Line schedule is here.

Alternate BWI method: Alternatively, you can take the B30 bus from BWI to Greenbelt, then hop on the Metro Green Line. Ride the Green Line to Gallery Place/Chinatown and then the Red Line to Dupont Circle. Walk three blocks north on Connecticut Avenue to get to the Hilton.

Arriving via Union Station? Take the Red Line to Dupont Circle. Walk three blocks north on Connecticut Avenue to get to the Hilton.

A few extra tips:

Metro trains run less frequently on the weekends. You can expect to wait 10-20 minutes (or more) for a train.

"DC Metro Rails" is a useful Android app for Metro arrival times. There are several similar ones for the iPhone.

If you're planning on using the Metro after 10PM on Friday night and anytime during the weekend, please see this maintenance alert. The Red Line north of Dupont Circle will be partially shut down.

The weekend weather forecast calls for rain on Friday and highs in the 50s the rest of the weekend. Compared to previous years it should be very nice!!!

If you have any other questions about travel in the local area, don't hesitate to ask. You can find me on Twitter at @theprez98.

United States v. Fricosu

2012-01-24T07:25:00.002-05:00

United States v. Fricosu

United States v. Jones

2012-01-23T13:21:00.000-05:00

United States v. Jones

Joe Paterno (December 21, 1926 – January 22, 2012)

2012-01-23T07:49:00.005-05:00

Five Ways We’re Killing Our Own Privacy

2012-01-21T10:40:00.000-05:00

That's the title for ShmooCon FireTalks. Here's the abstract:

At DEFCON, I talked about how our privacy rights are under attack. Our sea of liberty is drying up due to the ever-encroaching power of the government. A litany of abuses continue to chip away at the historical foundations of privacy: administrative searches as pretexts to avoid search warrants, national security letter, andsuffocating public surveillance just to name a few. Yet the government alone is not the only source of our ever-diminishing privacy. In this talk, I turn my attention…to you. Yes, believe it or not, you (and me) and the other 310 million of us in this country are also responsible for our diminished expectation of privacy. Why are we responsible? Who wants our information, and why is it so valuable? Is there anything we can do to stem the tide?

See you there!

Opposed to SOPA/PIPA? What about Net Neutrality?

2012-01-18T10:31:00.001-05:00

Today's SOPA/PIPA (herein referred to simply as SOPA) blackouts are raising awareness of the issue. Most of the opposition to SOPA are what I call process arguments. What I mean by that is that most people don't necessarily object to the intent of the legislation, which is to prevent the spread of copyrighted works online. Rather, they object to the process and procedure: the proposed solution is too broad, it won't work, it will break DNS security, it will silence legitimate speech, it will cost businesses, etc. All of these are real and serious objections, but they're largely objections to unintended consequences, not to intent. Much of the opposition is also based upon the very real belief that many people in Congress don't know much about what they're legislating. In fact, some members of Congress seem to take pride in their technological knownothingness.

The real focus of the objection, from my perspective, is the inability of a technologically-inept Congress to translate intent into action without breaking everything else along the way. It is no wonder that this goes hand in hand with the level of trust people have in Congress. Your gut reaction is "get away from my Internets!"

How people can be so outraged over SOPA and at the same time, think net neutrality is just fine, is a mystery to me. Most of the arguments against SOPA, as I stated above, are process arguments, and they work equally well (or better) against net neutrality. Like SOPA, most people don't have any problem with the stated intent of net neutrality; in fact many believe it is an admirable goal. But those same people who fear the heavy-handed involvement of government in SOPA are perfectly OK with the involvement of government in net neutrality.

From a process perspective, people ought to be even more outraged about net neutrality. The FCC net neutrality rules were enacted without congressional authorization, in clear violation of a Court of Appeals ruling that gave them the smackdown. A bunch of political appointees and unelected bureaucrats at the FCC are making rules about the Internet without authorization from Congress. Even many of those in Congress who support net neutrality have warned the FCC to no avail. Imagine SOPA being enacted without a vote in Congress. That's precisely what happened with the FCC's net neutrality rules.

It is perhaps more difficult to clarify the unintended consequences arguments against net neutrality because both sides have already jumped the shark in painting ridiculous consequences. Additionally, those consequences will be felt primarily by businesses (the ISPs), not individuals, so the impact is certainly muted.

That being said, theoretically we're still entrusting net neutrality to Congress (even if the FCC doesn't want to play along). The technologically-inept Congress that will break the Internet with SOPA is the same Congress that wants to regulate the Internet via net neutrality. Why do you trust them on one hand and not on the other?

I know what you're thinking; SOPA and net neutrality are like apples and oranges, right? Sort of. The problem with this thinking is that people aren't arguing about the apple or the orange itself, only about the circumstances of how it got here. But they're both fruit, and for our purposes, that's all that matters.

In short: if your opposition to SOPA is based upon the process, procedure, and unintended consequences, you ought to reconsider why you're not also opposed to net neutrality. Why is your gut reaction to net neutrality not the same as it is to SOPA?

Penn State, Bill O'Brien, and Me

2012-01-06T16:15:00.000-05:00

I've attended three different colleges; well, four if you include two classes at Penn State that I had to drop out of because I was deployed to Iraq. I suppose that is not enough to consider myself an alumnus, so I never have. But I worked at Penn State for three years at the NROTC unit, and I have been a Penn State fan since I can remember. I bleed blue and white. I held season tickets for several years. I consider myself as much as part of the Penn State family as any. Joe Paterno was, and still is, near the top of the list of the men I admire the most.

I felt like I was punched in the gut when Joe was fired. I felt dazed. Begrudgingly, I understood why he had to go. Anyone who has spent any time at Penn States knows that JoePa is legend, but they also quickly understand that Penn State is so much bigger than Joe or even football. So much bigger.

I held onto hope that Tom Bradley would get the job, but I figured he didn't have much of a chance. I hoped that a coach like Chris Peterson could be lured away from Boise State; under any other circumstances, he might have accepted.

So when word came down yesterday that Penn State was hiring Bill O'Brien, I didn't know what to think. Until this week he was a (mostly) anonymous coordinator in the NFL. I suspect few people even knew who he was, if they weren't Patriots fans. I didn't.

Many former players are upset about the process. They are members of a close-knit fraternity that we in the public can never understand, so they ought to have their say.

Under other circumstances, the head coaching job at Penn State is probably one of the top ten coaching jobs in college football. Could you really disagree? But the combination of the Sandusky scandal and following in the footsteps of a legend makes this job a very tough climb.

Bill O'Brien had the guts to step up to a monumental challenge that others passed by, and for that he deserves a clean slate. As a fan, I am ready to lend him my support.

WE ARE

The TSA Not Top Ten Catches of 2011

2012-01-06T08:45:00.003-05:00

In response to the TSA Top 10 Good Catches of 2011, I present to you, the Not Top Ten Catches (or Misses) of 2011 (in no particular order):

1. A cupcake (velvet icing!)
2. A purse with an embroidered gun on it
3. Box cutters (oops, they missed them)
4. A loaded handgun (oops, they missed it!)
5. Another loaded handgun (yeah, they missed that one, too)
6. A 14-inch sword (oops, they missed that, too)
7. C4 (oops, they missed it)! Seriously. This guy was eventually caught, but not after he had already flown with it at least once
8. "An oddly placed iPod and a bag of candy" (highly dangerous)
9. Your bag (as in, actually searching it)
10. Catching a "fake" bomb during a terror drill, and failing to tell the police!

Now, don't you feel safer?

Some thoughts on the Hacker Space Program

2012-01-05T17:43:00.003-05:00

Let me start out this post by laying the groundwork: at the Chaos Communication Camp 2011, Nick Farr, Jens Ohlig, and Lars Weiler make a presentation entitled "Hackers in Space: A Modest Proposal for the Next 23 Years." Here is the abstract (emphasis is mine):

Four years ago, the global Hackerspace movement was kicked off at the 2007 CCCamp, having led to a worldwide, decentralised, collaborative network of hackerspaces on every continent. Fueled by the DIY and hacker spirit, we have come a long way. Now that we have the infrastructure in place, what do we do with it? In times when nation states abandon their space programs, we see the exploration of outer space as our goal for the coming decades.
We propose a three phase Hacker Space program we feel can be accomplished in the next 23 years. Phase one is the launch of an open, free and globally accessible sattelite-based network built by hackers as the ultimate defense against terrestrial censorship of the Internet. If that sounds too easy, let's go to phase two: Put a hacker into orbit. This will be the preparation for phase three. By 2034, we plan on landing a hacker on the moon.
Join us! Participate! Bring your own space suit and inspiration!

Taking inspiration from them, another group of hackers started the Hackerspace Global Grid, which is basically a design for part of phase one of the Hacker Space program:

Design and build a modular terrestrial base-station for satellite communication. Based on open-source hard- and software as well as open standards.

In other words, their project is the ground station for a proposed "globally accessible sattelite-based network built by hackers as the ultimate defense against terrestrial censorship of the Internet." Their shorter term goals are modest (again, the emphasis is mine):

If you're in desperate need to communicate you do not care about watching videos on YouTube nor do you want to download the latest album of your favorite band to have the perfect soundtrack for whatever the hell you're doing. You want to get a message out and receive updates. You want to inform and stay informed yourself. A first step will be providing bare-minimum communication infrastructure for that moment of feaco-rotary intersection that will hopefully never happen. But it did happen, several times during 2011 alone in several places. It will happen again.
Think twitter updates, not video streaming.

Next: let me state up front that I share the desire for an open, free and globally accessible network to prevent censorship of the Internet. I presume that the end goal is more important than the way we get there, no? That is my main area of concern and the focus of this post. If I may, please do not take my criticism of this idea as criticism for being bold; certainly, the HSP is a bold idea worth investigating; but perhaps we should step back and consider a few things before we jump in.

It is my contention that brains, brawn and (mostly importantly) money, allocated toward the Hacker Space Program, with the ultimate goal of placing a hacker on the moon, are a huge misallocation of resources. Now, let me be clear: this isn't to suggest that all of the sub-projects that will inevitably emerge from this program are worthless. I'm not even suggesting that the program itself is worthless (because it isn't). But we're dealing with a relatively fixed amount of resources that do not return nearly enough on investment for this project to be worthwhile.

First, two quick observations from cave explorer Bill Stone's TED talk: space is incredibly expensive, and other people are already trying to do this. So what, you say. I say, these two observations taken together, this program essentially duplicates many things that have already been done, or already happening, or are planned in the near future, by people with a lot more knowledge and experience, at a ridiculously expensive cost. The result is not that we wouldn't get anything for our money, but that we wouldn't get nearly enough for our money for the project to be worthwhile.

Turning to the Hackerspace Global Grid, let us return to the modest idea:

You want to get a message out and receive updates. You want to inform and stay informed yourself. A first step will be providing bare-minimum communication infrastructure...Think twitter updates, not video streaming...

The FAQ (inadvertently, I suppose), answered my next question, which is: can't we already do this, at least sort of? Their suggestion:

There are also ideas of building upon already existing HAM radio packet data networks for this task.

Yes, precisely. Did you know that you can send Twitter updates via APRS? Right now? Now I know that this doesn't answer all the questions, but it's a start, and it doesn't require ground stations or satellites in space.

In summary: I share the goals of phase one of Hacker Space Program, but I think doing via space is perhaps unnecessarily expensive. Is there really no way to do it terrestrially, for significantly less cost, and presumably much better performance? We owe it to the community to investigate ways to allocate our resources in the most efficient way possible.

Phases two and three are further off, but I have less understanding of why they're really desirable. A single Apollo mission in today's dollars would cost $100 million. 23 years from now, all the much more. Even if hackers could do it for a fraction of the price, is that really worth the cost? So we can say "we did it"? Surely, even for hackers, that price tag is far too high.

Your comments and criticisms are certainly welcome.

2011 predictions update

2011-12-31T22:20:00.001-05:00

Everyone makes predictions for the upcoming year, but how many people go back and actually score themselves?

1. The Supreme Court will reverse the Ninth Circuit in Wal-Mart v. Dukes.
TRUE

2. Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida will find the health care reform law to be unconstitutional.
TRUE

3. The FCC will approve new net neutrality rules (that will probably happen in the next week or so), but the federal courts will find that this oversteps their authority (again).
PARTIALLY TRUE (case is still pending)

4. At least one politician (state legislator or above) will resign when a video of their misconduct goes viral.
Thankfully, we didn't get video of Weiner's weiner, but he did resign. PARTIALLY TRUE

5. North Korea's Kim Jong-il will die and his son, Kim Jong-un, will take over.
TRUE and TRUE

6. At least one Philadelphia sports team will make it to the Super Bowl, NHL Finals, or World Series.
FALSE (unfortunately)

7. Patriots' QB Tom Brady will win the NFL MVP and Eagles' QB Michael Vick will finish second.
TRUE (Note: Brady was unanimous; there was no second place)

8. Baltimore (BWI) will record less than 30 inches of snowfall this winter (please)
TRUE (I think the official number was 18-19 inches)

9. I will get accepted to law school (please) and actually go this time!
FALSE (long story)

10. Stuxnet's creator(s) will be revealed (total guess).
FALSE

And one more for the road that I am most certain of:

DEFCON19 will be canceled.
Always TRUE

King's Indian Defense, Six Pawns Attack!

2011-12-31T21:59:00.003-05:00

When a seemingly innocuous move isn't a good move at all

2011-10-09T23:19:00.001-04:00

My seven demands for #occupywallstreet

2011-10-05T17:58:00.003-04:00

In my last post, I talked about some of the reasons why I didn't (and don't) support #occupywallstreet. One of them was the rhetoric, include the use of the word "demands." Another part was the message, and some of the demands clearly fit into that category.

Turning the rhetoric and message on its head, here are my "demands" of those of you who are participating in #occupywallstreet:

1. Obey the law. This is pretty simple actually. Please note: blocking traffic is not obeying the law. You're obstructing the freedom of movement of other people. Resisting arrest is not obeying the law. What you're doing may be peaceful, but peaceful can still be unlawful. If you need to get a permit, then go get one.

I'm not in NYC, but it seems to me that most people are already doing this. So good on you.

2. Vote. I would be willing to bet that probably half (or perhaps even more) of the people at #occupywallstreet either aren't registered to vote, or didn't vote in their last election. Or the one before that, or the one before that. All the statistics show that the younger one is, the less likely it is that they vote. So go register and vote. Because if you don't, I (and others) don't want to hear you complain. If you already vote, then great. You can move on to #3. If you don't vote, or aren't even registered, then this item is for you.

3. Stop making bullshit excuses to get out of jury duty. Along with your rights as a citizen come certain responsibilities. Jury duty is one. So take pride in this responsibility and stop trying to invent ways to avoid it.

4. Patronize the street vendors. The New Republic reported that some of the street vendors in the area are losing a lot of business because of the occupation. Some of you are going to complain that's because the NYPD set up barriers. "It's their fault, not ours!" Fine. Then seek out these hard-working people and patronize them. According to the article I cited above, they're blaming you. So go fix that problem.

5. Promote transparency and accountability. I noted that the wepay.com donation accounts have no transparency or accountability into how donations are being spent. Why should I (or anyone) donate money if I have no idea how that money is being spent? Or if it's being spent in the way I intended, at all? All donations and expenditures should be made public so that people can see how their support is being used.

6. Be a good neighbor. Some of the people who live in the area complained that #occupywallstreet is loud and keeping them up at night. How about having some respect for the people who actually live there (as opposed to your temporary occupation) by being respectful during the hours when most people are usually sleeping.

7. Stop feeling entitled. I recognize that not everyone at #occupywallstreet is young, but from everything I've seen via social media, pictures, etc., younger people make up the biggest percentage of you. Rightly or wrongly, you are viewed as a entitlement generation. Going into McDonald's and getting mad when you ask for, and don't get free food, only reinforces that notion (cited in The New Republic article). Asking for forgiveness from mortgages and student loans, any and all debts? The same thing. Every time you ask for something, you are reinforcing what people already believe about you. Honestly, I don't care about if you truly feel that way or not. That is the perception that people have about you. There are 6,780,000 hits on Google for the entitlement generation. You have to work hard to change that perception. Otherwise you play right into people's perceptions. Instead of asking, highlight the areas where you as citizens have contributed to society.

Take a look back at these seven "demands." Are they really all that much to ask for?

Seven reasons why I don't support #occupywallstreet

2011-10-03T09:46:00.004-04:00

Let me start out with the immediate caveat that I fully support the right to peaceful, non-violent, non-disruptive protest. On the other hand, blocking traffic, for example, is disruptive. It prevents the freedom of movement of other people. It might be peaceful, but it is disruptive and unlawful. So don't be surprised if that gets you arrested. But enough of that.

A second caveat: this is my response to #occupywallstreet as it is seen through social media, specifically Twitter and Facebook, and also some other related Internet sites. I am not on the ground, I haven't been there, and I don't intend to go there. With a few exceptions, I have tried to stay away from the "news" and "MSM" coverage since that itself is a huge issue. So if you have issue with my view of how things are going down, perhaps your independent media types need to do a better of crafting the message.

Let me also state up front that I expect many people to disagree with me. I'm not trying to convince you to abandon your side. I'm just explaining my side. I don't claim to speak for 1% or 99%. I speak only for myself. Oh, and please send your intelligent responses to this guy.

Tim O'Reilly wrote a post a while back about #occupywallstreet and generally lamented that

the people who were there were the wrong people...It seems so odd to me that the Tea Party isn't out in force at this protest. It seems so odd that government largesse aimed at rich corporations seems to be OK with them, while government largesse aimed at the disadvantaged ought to be cut. I would have loved to see blue collar Americans out in force at this protest, not just college students.

I've never self-identified myself as "Tea Party" but I might as well be. I'm a married white male in my mid-30s, a conservative-libertarian who isn't afraid to criticize the Republican Party when they stray too far from the party's principles. I'm one of the types of people that Tim O'Reilly thinks should be out protesting on Wall Street. But I'm not, so this post is meant to explain why.

First, my back-story.

I was born in Reading, Pennsylvania, which had the recent distinction of being named the poorest city in the United States. It wasn't quite that bad when I was born, but Reading is a blue-collar industrial place that rise and fell with the railroad. It has never quite been the same since then.

I was fortunate, at a very young age, when my parents moved us just outside the city limits. Rather than having to survive the rough streets of Reading, I grew up in an otherwise nondescript middle class neighborhood and grew up mostly middle class. By the time my brothers and I were in school, my mom went back to work and both parents worked. We had enough.

Throughout school, I worked; first delivering newspapers. Then at a farmer's market. Then at K-Mart. Then at the local hardware store. None of these jobs were beneath me.

I did well enough in high school to get decent grades without working very hard. I enjoyed sports more than school. My sights, instead, were set on college.

I started college in a small, liberal arts school in Virginia. It was expensive, but there was financial aid and student loans. I could do this. Things started out OK, but very soon it became apparent that a butt-load of the financial aid I had been promised was not going to appear. As a result, after one single semester in Virginia, I transferred to Bloomsburg University, a state school back in Pennsylvania that would cost me considerably less. Despite the transfer, I worked hard and graduated in 3 1/2 years total.

Like most political science majors, I wasn't really sure what I wanted to do. I was leaning toward law school, and that became plan A. Beyond that, there was no plan B. Yet on a whim, I applied to Georgetown University's National Security Studies program and (somehow) got accepted. This was my new plan A, but it was Georgetown. One semester at Georgetown was more expensive than three years at Bloomsburg. I kept working hard, took on a part time job, and got my Master's Degree in only three semesters. But the student loans kept on mounting. I was digging myself into some serious debt by the time I graduated.

That was 1999. Fast-forward 12 years to the present. I'm still paying off my student loans, can you believe it?! I'm paying off a mortgage that is probably worth more than the current value of my house. If I wanted to move now, it would be very difficult, if not impossible. I opposed bailouts across the board.

So why I am not at #occupywallstreet?

1. Rhetoric. I've mentioned this before, but the rhetoric is over-the-top and largely fringe leftist in nature. Revolution, occupation, solidarity, comrades. I grew up at the peak of the Cold War. This language is not foreign to me. Yes, they're just words, but words mean things. And I don't like the things that these words mean. Additionally, the strong anarchist, socialist and anti-capitalist tones aren't going to attract me, either.

Closely related, the other bit of rhetoric that bothers me is the constant class warfare. It permeates everything that I see about #occupywallstreet and ties it all together. 1% vs. 99% is a perfect example of it. Seriously, put down the Karl Marx. It didn't work then and it won't work now.

The rhetoric is so over-the-top that I totally whiffed on @The99Pct, which I understand now (in embarrassed hindsight) is a parody account. Sadly, many of the posts aren't too far from what I've seen (especially online).

Like it or not, this point alone will keep people away. Viva la revolucion! But very few on the Right are going to join you, even if they agree on the core issues.

2. Message. People keep saying that #occupywallstreet is leaderless, but they shouldn't have to. It's pretty obvious. Many groups showed up making sure to get their message out. Against Bush, against the wars, against this or that or the other thing. They, collectively, are against so many things I've lost track. And that's sort of the point. What is the message? The "official" demands keep growing and changing. At one point, the demands included references to Troy Davis and the elimination of the death penalty. It has nothing to do with Wall Street. It's an attempt to link a supposedly populist cause to the "occupation." This is an example of what the military would call mission creep.

I've talked before about the negative connotations you send when you use words like "demand." This goes hand in hand with the point I mentioned above about rhetoric, but it applies equally here.

Among their declaration and demands, they claim that corporations "have sold our privacy as a commodity." Yet they're using corporations to get their message out. Facebook is perhaps the most notorious social network for privacy violations, yet #occupywallstreet has a home there.

3. Hypocrisy. One of the many themes espoused by those at #occupywallstreet is to decry the influence of money in politics. They seem to hate Citizens United and the whole idea of corporate personhood. I understand this. In some ways, I am sympathetic to the cause. However, the same people who despise the influence of money in politics are happy to welcome the support of multiple unions (re-read that Citizens United link; it doesn't just protect corporate funding of independent spending for political broadcasts, but also union funding). And it's known that the biggest spender in the 2008 election cycle were not corporations, but unions. So it seems hypocritical to complain about the influence of corporate political spending, while cozying up to unions, who actually spend more on politics.

And then recently, #occupywallstreet welcomed the support of MoveOn.org. It has been well-documented that MoveOn has been heavily funded by the billionaire George Soros. It seems further hypocritical to scream bloody murder every time the Koch Brothers spend a dime on politics, but just shrug away the same sort of political spending by George Soros. This inconsistency in the message reeks of hypocrisy.

Don't claim (without evidence) that corporate donations to the NYPD are buying off the police, but that Michael Moore and MoveOn support to #occupywallstreet are somehow beyond question.

4. Antisemitism. Despite the "leaderless" claim, there are still groups behind #occupywallstreet. One of them is Adbusters, has been accused in the past of antisemitism. A freelance writer by the name of Nathalie Rothschild wrote an article about her experiences at #occupywallstreet:

But the responses I got to my article were even more astonishing than the carry-ons in the Financial District. I received a string of indignant emails and tweets about my Jewish, kleptocrat banking connections; demands that I reveal the details of my pay checks and that I come clean about my not-so-hidden agenda. I was told that my family name disqualifies me from having any opinion about the protest and that I have 'the karma of a demon'. One reader posted my article online, headlining the post 'Journalist & Jew - Nathalie ROTHSCHILD'.

This is pretty sickening stuff. Please, it's about time for someone at #occupywallstreet to stand up and condemn this stuff. But they won't, because...

5. There is no accountability. I've talked about this before in regards to Anonymous. Anonymity allows people to take credit for anything good that happens while simultaneously reject all bad things as "someone else." Anyone can do something in our name, they say, so we can't be responsible. The same goes for a "leaderless" organization. No one is accountable. No one will stand up to the antisemitism that Nathalie Rothschild faced. Multiple wepay.com pages are set up for #occupywallstreet, collecting thousands of dollars in donations with little or no accountability in how that money is being spent.

6. There is no accuracy. Claiming the top 1% don't pay any taxes is as silly as those people at the town hall meetings a few years back who told the government to stay away from their Medicare. The truth is that the top 1% of earners pay over 38% of all income taxes. They pay 23.27% of their income to federal income taxes. On the other end, the bottom 50% of earners pay less than 3% of all income taxes and are taxed, on average, 2.59%. In fact, most of the bottom 50% pay no federal income taxes at all.

When you start out your argument with a claim like this, it shows you as being uninformed. I stop listening to anything else you have to say. The truth is that we have a highly progressive income tax system already. A Buffet tax (a proposal of the President and also one of the demands) won't even hurt the man it's named after because most of his income is through capital gains, not salary. Your demands are built on claims that wash away like a sand castle built right up against the water at low tide.

7. I have a job. This isn't meant to be cruel to the unemployed, but I do in fact have a job. In fact, I have my own business. I can't spent weeks marching around New York City because I actually go to work everyday. I don't mean this to sound harsh, but sleeping on cardboard and eating pizzas paid for by someone else is not contributing to our economy. From an economic perspective, you are not contributing to the collective, common good. You're not doing your fair share.

Despite signs to the contrary, you do not have a "right" to a job. And the job you might land might be at Wal Mart or McDonald's. If you think working a retail or fast food job is beneath you, then maybe you're at the wrong protest. Wear our your shoes pounding the pavement looking for a job instead of waving a sign. Don't bitch that the 99% pay too much in taxes if you're not working; because if you're not working, you're obviously not paying income taxes.

I welcome your comments, criticisms, and questions below this post or via Twitter.

Good morning

2011-09-29T05:33:00.001-04:00

My very own Metro station

2011-09-24T13:55:00.001-04:00

Dakota Meyer receives the Medal of Honor today

2011-09-15T08:39:00.000-04:00

Citation:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the repeated risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as a member of Marine Embedded Training Team 2-8, Regional Corps Advisory Command 3-7, in Kunar Province, Afghanistan, on 8 September 2009. When the forward element of his combat team began to be hit by intense fire from roughly 50 Taliban insurgents dug-in and concealed on the slopes above Ganjgal village, Corporal Meyer mounted a gun-truck, enlisted a fellow Marine to drive, and raced to attack the ambushers and aid the trapped Marines and Afghan soldiers. During a six hour fire fight, Corporal Meyer single-handedly turned the tide of the battle, saved 36 Marines and soldiers and recovered the bodies of his fallen brothers. Four separate times he fought the kilometer up into the heart of a deadly U-shaped ambush. During the fight he killed at least eight Taliban, personally evacuated 12 friendly wounded, and provided cover for another 24 Marines and soldiers to escape likely death at the hands of a numerically superior and determined foe. On his first foray his lone vehicle drew machine gun, mortar, rocket grenade and small arms fire while he rescued five wounded soldiers. His second attack disrupted the enemy’s ambush and he evacuated four more wounded Marines. Switching to another gun-truck because his was too damaged they again sped in for a third time, and as turret gunner killed several Taliban attackers at point blank range and suppressed enemy fire so 24 Marines and soldiers could break-out. Despite being wounded, he made a fourth attack with three others to search for missing team members. Nearly surrounded and under heavy fire he dismounted the vehicle and searched house to house to recover the bodies of his fallen team members. By his extraordinary heroism, presence of mind amidst chaos and death, and unselfish devotion to his comrades in the face of great danger, Corporal Meyer reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.

For more about Dakota, see here.

What a weird commute

2011-08-29T07:35:00.005-04:00

In the wake of Hurricane Irene, Amtrak service was canceled between Washington, DC and Boston on Sunday giving rise to the real possibility that MARC service on Monday would also be affected (the MARC Penn Line, which I ride to work, uses the same Northeast Corridor as Amtrak). Indeed, the MTA made an announcement on Sunday which told riders to expect the possibility and said further news would come by 6PM.

By 5:30PM, the MTA announced full service for all lines. Good news...for a while. Soon thereafter, the MTA retracted that announcement and said that full service would indeed occur on the Camden and Brunswick lines, but possibly not the Penn Line. Amtrak was inspecting the line and encountered enough issues to warrant the possibility of no service (or at least decreased service) on Monday. And as of 9:30PM last night, that was the story. The MARC Penn Line would run on the "S" schedule, which is the several weather schedule that amounts to about 2/3 of the normal trains. The notice also included some specific issues at stations, including power outages. I checked BWI: no issues; so far, so good.

Numerous traffic lights were out on Aviation Boulevard, and indeed as I headed down Amtrak Way to the BWI parking garage, the power to Garage 1 was out entirely. Other people were leaving. I managed to make my way through an open gate into Garage 1 and parked in my usual area. the "flashlight" feature of my phone came in handy since it was pitch black in the garage!

In the time I arrived, I realized by talking to some fellow passengers that the situation had changed a few more times. People were leaving because the station told people that the entire MARC schedule was canceled. Then, the 5:18 train (not on the S schedule) was just delayed, not canceled. Then, an announcement that MARC was operating on a holiday schedule (note: MARC doesn't operate on holidays!). In reality, it was back to the "S" schedule. The station manager at the BWI MARC station seemed to be suffering from a severe lack of communication. I have no doubt the situation did not change that many times; indeed, it is highly likely MARC was on the "S" schedule since last night, only the station manager didn't know.

Despite the reduced schedule, passenger volume seemed slightly below normal overall (on the other hand, it seems later trains are packed). The train ride was entirely uneventful: BWI, Odenton, Bowie State, Seabrook...until we got to New Carrollton.

A bit of background: the MARC trains have entrances on both ends of the car, and then a door leading into the passenger compartment. The area between those doors is a vestibule, and signs tell people not to stand in the vestibule. Conductors also tell people not to stand there.

That being said, there are occasions when people will stand in the vestibule. After the usual conductor checks tickets after the Bowie State stop, he moves toward the center of the train and passengers in the first two cars begin to queue up in the vestibule as to people to get off the train quickly (and so goes the rat race, but that's for another post). Nine times out of ten, the conductor does not come back and nothing happens. Occasionally, if the conductor does see someone standing in the vestibule, he or she will ask them to move and they do. Additionally (and usually in the afternoon), some conductors are a bit lax in enforcing the vestibule policy, so instead of a hard-and-fast rule, it becomes a wait-and-see rule. People end up following the idea that it's easier to ask for forgiveness rather than permission.

This morning being this morning, the usual conductor was not onboard and the alternate guy just happened to make his way back to the first two cars by New Carrollton. He passed through the vestibule and asked the passengers to move...and nothing. I was standing just inside the door of the the first car and he walked past in frustration, saying that he was giving up because no one listens to him. He even made an announcement of the same manner, explaining it was a safety requirement (it is), but no one moved. We arrived at Union Station without further incident. The passengers had won.

Or had they?

According to Md. TRANSPORTATION Code Ann. § 7-705 (2011):

(f) Obstruction, hinderance or interference with operation of transit vehicle or railroad passenger car. --
(1) It is unlawful for any person to obstruct, hinder, or interfere with:
(i) The operation or operator of a transit vehicle or railroad passenger car; or
(ii) A person engaged in official duties as a station agent, conductor, or station attendant who is employed by:
1. The Administration;
2. An entity that provides transit service under contract with the Administration;
3. A local government agency or public transit authority;
4. A private entity that provides public transit service; or
5. An entity that provides transit service under a transportation compact under Title 10 of this article.
(2) Any person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and is subject to a fine of not more than $ 1,000, imprisonment not exceeding 90 days, or both, for each offense.

Now, I've never seen anyone threatened with this provision (although there are multiple signs posted identifying it), I think you could easily make the argument that not following a conductor's safety instructions is a violation.

I've stood in the vestibule before so I'm just as guilty as everyone else, but in the times that a conductor has asked me to return to the car, I've done so. On the other hand, outward defiance of the conductor is another thing altogether.

The last leg of my commute, the Metro, was (perhaps surprisingly) the least noteworthy because all the trains were back to normal (frequent riders know what "normal" means!). In fact, WMATA never even reduced or changed their schedule at any time during the hurricane. Pretty impressive given shutdowns in other cities and WMATA's past track record.

This afternoon's commute should be interesting to say the least. The "S" schedule only provides for, on average, about one train an hour when I normally travel home, instead of two of three. I may go home early to avoid the expected mess.

Hurricane #irene backyard cam

2011-08-27T13:25:00.000-04:00

Live video for mobile from Ustream

My earthquake timeline

2011-08-26T19:15:00.001-04:00

(All times EDT)

1:51PM: 5.8 earthquake centered near Mineral, Virginia shook most of the eastern seaboard from the Carolinas to New England. I was working in Washington, DC, on the fourth floor of my building. Light rumbling for the first 15 seconds or so, then got progressively stronger. My Twitter feed lit up: "Earthquake!" Washington, DC, Baltimore, Philly, NYC, Bristol, CT...

~2:00PM: Building evacuated. Thousands of people standing on the sidewalks and streets on Connecticut Avenue. AT&T service was almost null. Reviewing both of our phones, I found that most of my text messages got to Tracy within a minute or two, but I didn't get any replies for almost 30 minutes.

~2:30PM: Allowed back into the building. WMATA announced 15MPH restrictions and delays on the Metro. Union Station announced as closed, MARC service suspended. The Washington Monument was reported as tilting (later found out there were cracks found; haven't heard any evidence of tilting since).

3:10PM: Packed up and left the office. Hearing that Union Station reopened and MARC is resuming service with delays.

3:23PM: Farragut North station is filling up fast! Next train was at least 15 minutes away and in that time the station got packed! PID arrival times seemed to be based on normal speeds, not 15MPH. PID occasionally showed "No delay." Seriously! It took until the third train around 4:00PM before I was able to get on a train. No surprise, it was totally packed.

~4:25PM: Arrived at Union Station (my usual MARC train leaves at 4:20PM). Four Metro stops that usually take less than 10 minutes took more like 25 minutes. The MARC schedule was confusing. The platforms for the 4:10 departure (which skips BWI) and my 4:20 depature (which stops at BWI) were both apparently closed; I figure the best bet was the 4:40 departure. As soon as I got to that gate, they announced that the 4:25 departure was still open. I wasn't sure what stops the 4:25 made (hindsight: it's another express train that skips BWI), but the Amtrak conductors (filling in for the MARC conductors) announced that the train would indeed stop at BWI (reasonable considering everything was delayed).

5:02PM: The 4:25 departure finally left Union Station...at 15MPH. The trip was painfully slow. It took almost 30 minutes to get to New Carrollton (normal time: 10 minutes). The Amtrak crew was switched out with a MARC crew, and we spent at least 10 minutes sitting there.

5:35PM: Finally moving again...at 15MPH.

6:06PM: After finally speeding up between Bowie State and Odenton, the train stopped between Odenton and BWI. Waiting, again.

~6:10PM: The train stayed on the center track and blew through BWI. But didn't you guys say you would stop at BWI? Oh wait, those Amtrak guys got off at New Carrollton. Ugh.

6:19PM: Arrived at Penn Station. Considering options: 1) Call Tracy for ride from Penn Station (bad idea; traffic and city driving). 2) light rail to Cromwell, have Tracy pick me up there and drive me to BWI (buying light rail tickets in a rush is not an easy thing to do). 3) investigate next train going south (win!). All the trains are showing delayed, but they announcd a southbound MARC about to depart. I climbed on a mostly empty train and waited...again.

~6:45PM: Departed Penn Station.

6:47PM: Train stopped, delayed again.

7:18PM: Arrived at BWI MARC/Amtrak station.

7:40PM: Home! Finally.

4 1/2 hours: the commute from Hell. :-)

LIGATT's Gregory Evans goes down in flames again

2011-08-25T10:04:00.002-04:00

Dave Lewis (@gattaca) of Liquidmatrix Security Digest made a post on Tuesday lamenting the fact that Gregory Evans had been tapped to be one of the keynote speakers at MIS Training Institute's 2nd Annual ICT Security Africa Summit in Ghana in September. To those that don't know about Gregory Evans (where have you been hiding, seriously?!), check out his sordid history here and here.

Whether to engage Evans (and potentially give him more publicity) is certainly a worthwhile discussion. Some say to ignore him completely, while others (and I find myself in this camp) tend to want to expose him, even if that gives him some of the publicity he's craving, with the idea that eventually he'll fall. Either way, that's an ongoing discussion and not the subject of this post. Also, I should make it clear that Greg Evans has never done anything to me or even communicated with me. My problem with him is who he portrays himself to be, and how that impacts the way people see our community.

Anyways, I decided that the least I could do was to write a letter to one of the conference organizers and let them know who they were dealing with. My guess was that they bought his story (ex-con hacker now turned ethical hacker) and didn't know about his more recent activities. So I sent this:

Good afternoon,

I noted with particular interest on your homepage (http://www.mistieurope.com) that you have Mr. Gregory Evans listed as one of the keynote speakers for your 2nd Annual ICT Security Africa Summit in September (http://www.mistieurope.com/default.asp?Page=65&ProductID=13227).

Mr. Evans proudly claims his status as an ex-hacker (and ex-felon), but there is a much deeper (and more recent) history that you should consider before allowing Mr. Evans to speak. I would like to point you to a web page (http://attrition.org/errata/charlatan/gregory_evans/) that details multiple issues with Mr. Evans conduct over the past few years, including multiple counts of plagiarism, multiple legal and financial issues, multiple lies about the certifications he holds, and much more. Added to that, Mr. Evans has repeatedly threatened those who criticize him, and frequently claims any criticisms of him are attacks against his race.

Additionally, I would like to point you to the video from CBS News Atlanta, who exposed much of Mr. Evans fraud this past February. This video can be viewed here: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3Ms8UZnOoA).

I believe that after learning more about Mr. Evans background, you will come to the conclusion that it is not worth the reputation of your conference to extend him an invitation. Mr. Evans is a stain on the computer security industry and that stain goes with everything he touches. Please do not allow your conference to be blighted by Mr. Evans association.

Please note that I have nothing to gain from writing this email except the assurance that I did the right thing in letting you know about Mr. Evans' past.

Yesterday morning I found out that several other people in the community had also written letters to the conference organizers, and that Greg Evans was no longer speaking at the event. I captured the writing on the wall, so to speak, from the conference website:

As I made clear in my letter, I had nothing to gain from doing this except the assurance that I was doing the right thing. Dave deserves kudos for bringing this issue to the community. All I did was write a letter. If that helped the organizers in even a small way, I feel that I succeeded.

Given Greg Evans penchant for lawsuits, I half expect at least the threat of one. And yes, seeing "theprez98" on court documents would indeed be an interesting sight. Hopefully his lawyer talks some sense into him and saves him the time and money.

You might think that I am helping to ruin Greg Evans' reputation by aiding in getting his gigs canceled. Far from it. Greg Evans ruined his own reputation when he decided to lie, cheat and steal. I'm just (one of many people) letting people know. Truth be told, this is a win for the security community. Greg Evans goes down in flames again.

#OpBart Round 2: Anonymous still doesn't get it

2011-08-23T08:16:00.003-04:00

I had intended this to be a much longer post, but there is just so much material to cover that I decided to wrap it up into a short summary. If readers have specific comments or concerns I'll certainly be willing to go into more detail.

A few points:

A week after citing In re Hoffman, protesters don't seem to have actually read the case. Crowding a train platform to protest is in and of itself causing a disruption in service. Blocking escalators (when the police tried to clear out the Civic Center station) is causing a disruption. Neither of these are protected by the First Amendment.
Along the same lines, people seem to still think that peaceful always means lawful. As I explained last week, this is not always the case. There's a reason it's called civil disobedience.
Blocking traffic, as reported on the BART police scanner and tweeted by @YourAnonNews, is certainly not an activity protected by the First Amendment. This is yet another example of the naivete of the protesters in painting their own free speech with an overly broad brush.
Once again, people seemed incredulous that there are limits to the First Amendment. I implored people to read and understand Time, Place and Manner (TPM) restrictions, which are a well-established part of First Amendment law. Look, you have every right in the world to disagree with TPM restrictions (such as permits), but being ignorant of them is a failure on your part. You may think its undemocratic to require a permit to protest, and you have every right to believe that! But the truth is that TPM restrictions are the reality.
Many people expressed shock at the number of police and the fact that they were in "riot" gear with bean bag shotguns, etc. It's called precaution, I'm sure you've heard of it. Like it or not, that long line of police on the street is protecting you from traffic, and other people too. Could you imagine if a protester was hit by a car on a busy street? People would be howling that they police did nothing to protect them.
One woman with a bullhorn who was featured on the ABC News stream decided to unleash her entire political platform in front of the camera. Most of her rant had absolutely nothing to do with BART. People are hijacking your protest for their own causes.
Police repeatedly reported protester numbers around 150-200.
Being accused of trolling by Anonymous and Anon sympathizers is surreal.Now I'll admit there is a gray area between pushing buttons (which I certainly do), and trolling. That being said, putting forth an alternate viewpoint is not trolling, it only helps to diversify the otherwise echo chamber that exists in the Twitter #OpBart stream.Arguing a valid point, even if it provokes a response, is not trolling. Still, given the history of Anonymous and 4chan, I take the accusation of trolling like receiving a gold medal. (Clarification: lest it be thought otherwise, I am most definitely trophy hunting (thanks for the comment). I have said before, and I'll say again, that I support civility in public discourse (recognizing that I am far from perfect). Still, I thought it was ironic to be accused of such from Anons).
A Monday article in SFGate received almost all negative comments concerning the previous protest last week and the (planned) Monday protest. Those interviewed on TV seemed frustrated. In short, there is little or no public sympathy for the #OpBart protests at the train stations. I (and many others) have suggested protesting elsewhere, but that seems to have fallen upon deaf ears. How about then that you consider the words of Jennifer Granick, a well-known lawyer, highly respected in the tech community, who previously worked for the EFF: Protests should be at BART HQ interfering with management business as usual, not at the stations screwing with commuters' work.

In summary: How cool is our First Amendment that we can openly protest government actions? It's awesome, and I fully support the right of people to protest. That being said, do it within the well-established rubric of First Amendment law, especially Time, Place, and Manner restrictions (if you have problems with TPM, that's a fight for another day). Ignorance of the law is not an excuse to do whatever you want. I seriously recommend you consult some good First Amendment lawyers (and stop getting "legal" advice from Twitter, seriously). Get a permit and get a plan together to protest at BART HQ or someone else that doesn't cause disruption. Do all that, and I'll absolutely support your protest. I bet the BART commuters will, too.

There is so much more to cover, but that's enough for now. If you have questions or comments about specific actions, please post them in the questions or hit me up on my Twitter account and I'll be sure to address them. Until next week...

The West Memphis Three, the ACLU, and the death penalty

2011-08-22T17:50:00.000-04:00

The ACLU says that the

[r]elease of wrongly convicted #WestMemphis3 underscores need for death penalty repeal.

If the death penalty was not an option, wouldn't the West Memphis Three still have been in prison until now? In all likelihood, the three would have been sentenced to life in prison. How does the death penalty change that?

What it does show is that our system, however imperfect, does work. Don't get me wrong--if they are truly innocent, they got screwed. But that doesn't have any impact on the death penalty. Using the situation for political gain to abolish the death penalty is a cheap political trick.

In re Hoffman and the limits of protesting in a train station

2011-08-18T13:27:00.002-04:00

The Anonymous protest at BART train stations last week was sitting on top of some pretty nice case law. Namely, In re Hoffman [67 Cal. 2d 845], a California Supreme Court case from 1967. Fifteen protesters were arrested for loitering; specifically, for handing out leaflets opposing the Vietnam War in Union Station in Los Angeles, which at the time was privately owned. The Court likened the train station, despite being privately owned, to a public street or park. As a result, the writ was granted and those arrested were freed.

Generally speaking, the BART protest is even more clear, since BART is a public, governmental agency. The jump from private property to public space doesn't even have to be made.

But the Court also made an important distinction about the protester's activities:

...the test is not whether petitioners' use of the station was a railway use but whether it interfered with that use. No interest of the city in the functioning of the station as a transportation terminal was infringed.petitioners' conduct was also unassailable under statutes aimed at protecting the city's interest in preserving good order, cleanliness, public health, and safety. Nor did their presence violate any legitimate interest of the railroads, their patrons, or employees. It invaded no right of privacy...
Nor was there any other interest that would justify prohibiting petitioners' activities. Those activities in no way interfered with the use of the station. They did not impede the movement of passengers or trains, distract or interfere with the railroad employees' conduct of their business, block access to ticket windows, transportation facilities or other business legitimately on the premises.petitioners were not noisy, they created no disturbance, and did not harass patrons who did not wish to hear what they had to say.

In short:

Had petitioners in any way interfered with the conduct of the railroad business, they could legitimately have been asked to leave... Similarly, had petitioners' activities conflicted with any valid municipal interest, the municipality could have proceeded against them.

Not to belabor the point, but as I stated in my previous post, protesters allegedly (at least according to news reports) tried to hold open the door to a train at the Civic Center Station to prevent it from leaving. Additionally, their self-described "DDoS" attack on the stations blocked access, interfered with railroad business, and raised public safety issues (this last point being quite ironic given the reason for the protest). These two actions, at the least, are not protected by the First Amendment.

This might be the most misleading statistic, ever

2011-08-16T11:43:00.001-04:00

Have you seen this tweet?

"Debt increase by presidents: Reagan 186%, Bush 54% Clinton 41% Bush II 72% Obama 23%"

They say you can use statistics to say anything you want, and this is the perfect example.

Consider the follow numbers (taken from here), which represent the number of trillions in debt added per president during their term:

Reagan: $1.873T or $234 billion per year
Bush I: $1.483T or $370 billion per year
Clinton: $1.419T $177 billion per year
Bush II: $6.106T or $763 billion per year
Obama (through 2010): $1.653T or $826 billion per year

Paints a very different picture, doesn't it!

How is this even possible? Because, as you can see by looking at both sets of numbers, the actual value of a percent for Reagan is different for a percent for Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, or Obama. The unique percentage for each president is taken at that time, so the number of dollars that represents a percent is different for each President. This is more then disingenuous, it's absolutely rigging the numbers for political gain.

Anonymous has a lot to learn about the First Amendment

2011-08-16T08:18:00.010-04:00

Update 2 (1:15PM): This ars technica article estimated the number of protesters at 60, with an equal number of media.

Update 1 (10:49AM): I made a comment in the original post below about crowd size. And YourAnonNews, one of the Anonymous press accounts, just made the following post:

#OpBART: a SF Anon said 200-300 protested, and he/she said that they only saw about 15 in Guy Fawkes masks.

My guess was "a few hundred." Anon deserves kudos for accurately representing the number of protesters (at least as much as I could tell).

Yesterday evening in San Francisco, Anonymous held what was, by all accounts, a successful protest of BART (dubbed #OpBart). There were at least a few isolated incidents (people throwing stones at a train, and a report of a woman with a firearm), but neither of these could be positively attributed to the protest itself. If there were any arrests, they certainly weren't central to the event itself.

The protest was in response to a number of things, but most recently, the decision by BART to turn off cell service in a number of stations with the explicitly stated purpose of thwarting a prior planned protest. From my personal standpoint, I felt like it was unwarranted and asked whether the action constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint. I think it did. From a legal standpoint, IANAL, but this action was, in my opinion, "a very gray issue. Not as black and white as most would like." Still, at the least, very shady.

For about two hours I monitored #OpBart via Twitter, a live ABC News stream (with occasional live reporting), a BART radio scanner feed, and (rarely, when it was working) a ustream feed. I wasn't there (obviously), and I don't claim that the above knowledge gives me total understanding of the events that occurred, but I think these sources (altogether) provided a pretty clear picture.

The Good

From what I saw and heard, combined with news reports, the protest was entirely peaceful. I thought that someone (whether Anonymous or someone else, perhaps a bystander or commuter) might do something stupid which would provoke a more forceful police response, but I didn't see any such action. I said that I would be impressed if someone didn't do something stupid, so I'll stand by my word and say so. Also, I should make it clear at this point that Anonymous (or anyone for that matter) has every right to protest, and I fully support their right to do it. I also, generally speaking, support the reasons they're protesting.

I also thought in large part that the police handled things well. Despite some people suggesting that the BART police were heavy-handed (side note: Jake and I met in Poland a few years back and we agree on a lot of things and disagree on just as many!), I didn't see any evidence of that. And more importantly, I haven't seen any such evidence of police heavy-handedness from people who where actually there.

The Bad and the Ugly

Yesterday, prior to the protest, BART made a statement (I'm still looking for a link) that they had the right to limit free speech with time, place, and manner restrictions. This was met with incredulity that a government agency could actually limit free speech. The problem with this belief is that it is completely ignorant of First Amendment case law. Time, place and manner restrictions are well within the state's power in terms of limiting free speech. The courts require that these restrictions meet an intermediate level of scrutiny, which is to say that they must be content neutral, narrowly tailored, serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternate channels of communication. It's all well and fine if you understand this doctrine and simply disagree with it, but to be ignorant of the reality of First Amendment case law is pretty sad.

There seemed to be a pervasive belief that as long as the protest was peaceful, it was also lawful. Unfortunately for those in attendance, this simply isn't always true. I posted the following question on Twitter:

Is anyone willing to suggest that your free speech allows you to prevent other people from moving around as they please?

This is a purposely probing question to see if people understand that rights are not absolute. Free speech does not give you free reign to do whatever you want. The boundary of your rights exists where they begin to interfere with the rights of others. Commuters headed home from work have every right to move around freely. Mostly, they just want to go home. Unfortunately, several train stations were shut down at various times, preventing them from getting where they were going.

Now it's fair to suggest that it isn't entirely clear why the stations were closed. Did BART close them preemptively, or did the protesters actions force the hand of the BART police? The Civic Center station platform was filled with protesters who (at least according to news reports) tried to hold open the door to a train. In later instances, it appeared that BART police were acting proactively by closing stations before protesters arrived. So from my perspective, it seemed that both were the case. Eventually, the protestors at the Civic Center station were given an "unlawful assembly" announcement and either left on their own, or were more or less forced out of the station (it wasn't clear to me what exactly happened).

No matter how you draw it up, as a result of the protests, Anonymous disrupted public transportation and prevented some people from going about their day. This appears to have been entirely peaceful, and incurred no arrests, but that doesn't make it legal. What's sad is that Anonymous crude understanding of the First Amendment caused them to trample on other people's rights.

Overnight, I got the following reply:

@theprez98 Anonymous did not disrupt your BART experience, Anonymous did not close stations, Anonymous did not kill people.

Smart guy, I suppose! I wasn't in San Francisco so my BART experience wasn't disrupted (but I never claimed that I was). I didn't claim that Anonymous killed people, either. I think (and please, correct me if I am wrong) that this guy is basically saying: "If BART hadn't done what they'd done, we wouldn't have had to protest. Our actions were a reply to what BART did. So their action is responsible for the reaction." If this is in fact the point he's trying to make, it's a disturbing view: "We want the publicity for these actions, but not the responsibility for them." It lacks accountability, which seems to be the hallmark of Anonymous actions (especially when those actions are less than lawful).

Toward the end of the protest (at least in terms of when I was watching), a crowd of protesters (after walking around to and from four different train stations) converged at one of the entrances to the Embarcadero train station. The protestors basically blocked up the entrance. The actions here, and at other stations, led people to say that Anonymous had successfully completed their first "in real life" DDoS.

How ironic that when cell service was shut down, people complained loudly about free speech (and rightly so), but also about public safety and the ability (or inability) to use 911 when cell service was no longer available. Blocking the entrance to a train station is a public safety issue, no? Your question is: What if I needed to call 911 and cell service was off? Completely legitimate question. My question is: What if something happened in that train station and people needed to get out quickly? Your "IRL DDoS" might have prevented that. I think my question is just as legitimate.

Other

The commuters that I saw that were interviewed by ABC News were either confused about the protest or were made that someone had disrupted their commute. I didn't see any sympathy from anyone who was interviewed. This is certainly too small of a sample to be of any scientific use, but at least anecdotally, the protest didn't seem to have much traction with BART riders.

How about crowd numbers? At any given time, I only saw maybe 50-100 people in the ABC News live camera shots. I recognize that there were several actions going on at once, so I'll give the protesters the benefit of the doubt, but I would estimate (again, roughly, based on my limited resources to monitor) that there were perhaps a few hundred protesters. Media, onlookers and police certainly added to those numbers. I'll be curious to see what Anonymous self reports in terms of participation.

Lastly, and more of a contextual comment than anything else. When protesters were blocking the train station entrance, some Anonymous folks on Twitter referred to it (reasonably, IMO) as a peaceful protest (again, keep in mind that peaceful does not always equal lawful). When the police (also reasonably) cleared protesters from blocking the station, police were "stormtroopers" taking an "aggressive stance." Context is important here, guys. If you want to be taken seriously, you're not going to win any friends with this sort of attitude. A similar situation occurred when protesters kept interrupting an ABC News reporter trying to make a report from the scene. It led the hosts in the studio to call the protesters "stupid" for killing coverage of their own protest.

Final Thoughts

Anonymous deserves credit for putting together a peaceful protest. I fully support their right to do so, and I support the reason they chose to do so. But their crude and sometimes ignorant understanding of the First Amendment is a very broad brush that can't seem to stay within the lines. They don't seem to mind or care, but every time they paint over the line, they're walking on someone else's rights.

I have some more ideas about this analogy in general, but I'll save them for a future post. At this point I am more curious to see your thoughts. I welcome your comments, suggestions or critiques. If I got the facts wrong, call me on it (but back it up, too). Just don't be this guy.

Fair game: neighbors, tree limbs, and bird shit

2011-08-11T11:59:00.000-04:00

We have several big trees in our backyard. So big that in some places they extend over the property line with our neighbors. I think they probably grumbled in the past about cleaning up leaves (they have no such trees) in the fall, but in 3+ years we have lived side-by-side, we have peacefully co-existed.

Last week a storm came through and knocked down some branches. Most of the time they come down in our yard, but in this case one came down in the neighbor's yard. It wasn't particularly big; you could pick it up and hold it with one hand. Anyways, they decided to toss the branch over the fence back into our yard. Since it was from our tree.

Let's stop right there for a moment. To be honest, I don't know what to think about that. The branch is from our tree, so maybe we do bare responsibility for cleaning it up. What do you think?

Now let's consider a second bit of information. Our neighbors have a bird feeder and a bird bath. They attract dozens of birds to their yard all the time. These birds also like to hang out in our trees. These birds, at least some of which would not normally be here, also shit all over our yard, patio, kids toys, swingset, and anything else within sight. Now do you see where I'm going?

What do you think?

DEFCON thank you!

2011-08-09T12:12:00.001-04:00

A very gracious "thank you!" to everyone who came out to my privacy presentation at DEFCON, as well as to those of you who or tweeted about it afterwards.

I spoke to some media and also contributed to several documentaries (I hope they turn out well!). I'll keep track of the media and blog interest here:

threatpost: DEFCON Round Up: The Good, The Bad and The Underage:

Another interesting presentation on Web privacy that’s getting a lot of attention on news aggregation and social media sites is Michael "theprez98" Schearer’s “WTF Happened to the Constitution?”

Network World: Privacy and Technology: WTF Happened to Your Constitutional Rights? (this article got aggregated everywhere):

An interesting presentation dealing with privacy and the Constitution was given at DefCon. In "WTF Happened to the Constitution?! The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age," there were six reasons given as "things that should p*ss you off."

In the abstract for the talk, Michael "theprez98" Schearer states, "There is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution, but some aspects of privacy are protected by the first, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments." It lists several ways in which we must deal with "technologically invasive searches" such as at airports or searches and seizures of laptops. Schearer added, "It becomes evident very quickly that searches and seizures are not so clear when it comes to bits and bytes...so where do we go from here?"

I'd like to share with you the six things Schearer said should tick you off.
1. Administrative searches
2. Administrative warrants and subpoenas
3. Public surveillance
4. School and students' rights
5. Legislators, judges and technology
6. It's your fault, too

For each reason, Schearer lists why it's a problem and what we can do about it. For example, he suggests that we should demonstrate that administrative searches are "increasingly intrusive in light of current technology." Since there is very little oversight on National Security Letters, a form of administrative warrants and subpoenas, we should continue to support efforts to publicize abuse.

Regarding surveillance cameras and GPS tracking, Schearer said the technology is "amassing data without suspicion" and we should continue to shout known and obvious abuses from the rooftops. He used the example of the Justice Department saying people have no reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to warrantless GPS tracking. Depending on if the Supreme Court decides such tracking is Constitutional, may also let us know if we are "too far down the slippery slope" when it comes to surveillance.

Schearer said students are "often denied the same basic rights as other citizens." He added that some concerns about "disrupting an education environment" are legitimate but that reasoning is often used "as a pretext to invade students' civil rights." One example he quoted was a creepy "calorie camera" in Texas that is being used to track how much students eat.

According to Schearer, we have way too many legislators and judges who are incompetent. They write poor laws and make poor decisions because they simply do not have the "aptitude for understanding technology." Possible fixes to this problem could be a bunch of totally geeky folks who do grasp tech to run for public office, or just like there are Bankruptcy Courts, there could be specialty Technology Courts.

But also according to Schearer, the problem with privacy is "your fault, too." We share too much information voluntarily like on social networks which then lowers society's expectation of privacy and subjects us to more government intrusion. Schearer says we might be too far down the slippery slope on this one, but "just because we can share, doesn't mean we have to."

In conclusion, Schearer said, privacy isn't dead yet but it is dying fast. "We can reclaim privacy by protecting our information and refusing to share so much voluntarily, and in turn increasing society's expectation of privacy." He added that we should "increase awareness by shining the light on governmental intrusions into privacy rights."

Check out theprez98's slides on Scribd to see more of his talk, "WTF Happened to the Constitution?! The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age."

Tech Republic: Deb does DEFCON: Hacking conference tackles cyberwar and civil liberties:

The second session I attended was titled, in the true spirit of Defcon, “WTF Happened to the Constitution?” Michael Schearer, aka “theprez98,” took us through the history of privacy law and how the U.S. Constitution, legislation, and case law protect our rights to privacy — and how they increasingly don’t.

A short editorial comment: I totally appreciate how she said my title was "in the true spirit of Defcon..." I will admit that was totally my intent.

SANS blog: Hostile Forensics (a mention!):

Seeing a few great presentations today here at DefCon, namely by Christopher Cleary, Michael "theprez98" Schearer, and Wesley McGrew motivated me to get off my duff and finish this thing.

WXPNews: Lowering (and Raising) the Bar for Expectations of Privacy in Technology:

At Defcon, which tends to be a little less formal and a lot more "in your face," Michael Schearer (known in the hacker community as "theprez98") got right to the point in his presentation titled "WTF Happened to the Constitution?" with the unpleasant but oh-so-true statement that we, the people, are at least partially responsible for the erosion of our privacy rights. This was reinforced by the panel of attorneys from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) who fielded questions later in the day at Defcon. A key factor in determining whether a search or seizure is legal under the fourth amendment hinges on whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and by accepting without question or protest ever more intrusive behaviors, we change the definition of what's considered by society to be "reasonable."

The Network World article also got Digg'd.

If you know of other articles or media coverage would you please let me know? Thank you!

Mother Jones article about suicides deserves a closer look

2011-07-26T19:04:00.005-04:00

Update 7/27: I questioned the author about her numbers:

@smencimer your Mother Jones article is confusing; 9 suicides over two years in a 38,000 student district is just about the national average

She responded:

@theprez98 many were clustered in a single school. Also one was of a 13 yr old, which is very rare. National rate is one in every 65000

And she's right: the suicide rate for children age 10-14 is 1 in 65,000. That's not a number I had considered. But what does it prove, especially since she claims that one of the students (of the nine) was 13? It doesn't prove anything.

Let's do some rough math: Presuming that 38,000 students are split equally in ages from 6-18, we'd have about 2,900 students of each age, and ~14,600 students age 10-14. Over a two year period, this becomes ~29,000 students, one of which committed suicide. So one of 29,000 students committed suicide compared to a national average of one per 65,000. I suppose you could argue that this is "double the national average!" However, it's one student. Again, as tragic as it is, one student does not make an epidemic.

And she agrees:

@theprez98 yes, age group is key. and yes: not an epidemic. bad word choice. but tech. a cluster. First 5 suicides were very close together.

------------
There is a Mother Jones article being passed around on Twitter entitled, "The Teen Suicide Epidemic in Michele Bachmann's District." The article doesn't blame Rep. Bachmann for the suicides, obviously, but suggests that

[s]ome of the victims were gay, or perceived to be by their classmates, and many were reportedly bullied. And the anti-gay activists who are some of the congresswoman's closest allies stand accused of blocking an effective response to the crisis and fostering a climate of intolerance that allowed bullying to flourish.

The article also said that "State public health officials have labeled the area a 'suicide contagion area' because of the unusually high death rate." The article itself cites 9 suicides over the past two years in one particular school district.

Sensing that something might be amiss with the motivation behind this article, I decided to take a closer look at the underlying numbers.

According to the CDC, about 34,000 people commit suicide every year in the United States. Based on the current U.S. population of just over 310 million people, this represents about one suicide for every 9,100 people. This translates to about 11 suicides for every 100,000 people.

The article states that the school district in question has 38,000 students. Mapping the school district against the national average, you would expect that about 4.2 students out of 38,000 would commit suicide in a year; or 8.4 students over a two year period. Again, this is according to the national average, which represents all age groups. So we're looking at 9 suicides vs. 8.4 suicide national average.

As it turns out, you might be surprised that teenagers (well, age group 15-24) actually has a slightly lower suicide rate than the national average (about 10 per 100,000), which translates to 7.6 students out of 38,000 students over a two year period.

Lastly, multiple reports suggest that, while the exact rates are unclear, LGBT youth have a comparatively higher suicide rate than the general population.

So let's recap: The article reported that 9 student suicides (out of 38,000 students) over a two year period was an "epidemic." National and age-group relevant statistics suggests that over a two year period, approximately 8 students would commit suicide out of this population (not even accounting for a higher LGBT rate).

While these suicides are indeed tragic, this article is not newsworthy, and it's purpose must be questioned. It's hard to imagine that this is anything but a dirty political hit piece designed to stain a presidential candidate.

My BSidesLV / DEFCON schedule

2011-07-11T09:45:00.000-04:00

No BlackHat for me this year, for a couple of reasons. First, I am working for myself and I simply can't afford it. Second, I have come to believe that BSides events are simply better time spent.

So yes, I'll be arriving in Las Vegas on Tuesday night and attending BSidesLV on Wednesday and Thursday at the Artisan Hotel. I was fortunate enough to be involved in evaluating the proposals this year and I can say you won't be disappointed.

On Friday, August 5 at 1100 I'll be giving my DEFCON talk entitled "WTF Happened to the Constitution?! The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age." Here is my abstract:

There is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution, but some aspects of privacy are protected by the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments. This presentation will discuss the historical development of the right to privacy, and in particular, the development of the Fourth Amendment; and then compares this historical development to the current digital age. The development of the right to privacy (especially given the historical context of the Fourth Amendment) to our current age requires us to deal with technologically invasive personal searches as airports, searches and seizures of laptops and other computing devices, and how to handle stored communications. It becomes evident very quickly that searches and seizures are not so clear when it comes to bits and bytes...so where do we go from here?

At 1300 on Friday I'll be moderating a Net Neutrality panel. Here is the abstract:

Over the last five years, network neutrality has moved from an abstract buzzword to FCC-enacted policy. Supporters and detractors both contend that their opponents position means "the end of the Internet as we know it!" This panel discussion will present a reasoned discussion of the issue from multiple viewpoints. Among the issues to answer: What is network neutrality and can we even agree on a definition? Does the FCC have the authority to enact net neutrality rules? What is the role of Congress in net neutrality? Lastly, what are the future implications for the Internet? This panel discussion will cover the basics of net neutrality, the role of Congress and the FCC in regulating the Internet, and the future legal and policy implications of the FCC's neutrality rules. Is the future of the Internet really at risk?

Finally, I'll be speaking again at DEFCON Skytalks. My talk is entitled, "Clearances and Chaos: Tales from the Crypt." Here is the abstract:

I spent the last six months looking for a new job. Along the way, I was invited to a ton of interviews, actually attended some of them, was surprised at the lack of technical questions in most of them, received some offers, and came away even more impressed with the value of a security clearance (if that is even possible). In the end, I decided to go out on my own as self-employed independent contractor. This is the story of my job search, but even more, it is a small story of the cleared infosec world: the stars are contractors, clearances and the chaos that ensues.

Unless things change at the last minute, no Toxic BBQ this year, and that's a shame. Otherwise, you can probably catch me at the DEFCON Forums meet. Most of the rest of the time, I tend to just wander from talk to talk and event to event. If you're interested in meeting up anytime that week, let me know!

Finally, since I've already had more than one such inquiry, if you're press and you'll interested in talking to me about any of my talks, please contact me at theprez98-at-verizon-dot-net. Thanks and see you in Vegas!

Top ten update

2011-06-20T17:32:00.000-04:00

With the news this morning that Wal-Mart succeeded at the Supreme Court in having the Dukes class action suit dismissed, it's time to update the top ten predictions for 2011. Here's a look back at the predictions with updates:

1. The Supreme Court will reverse the Ninth Circuit in Wal-Mart v. Dukes. YES

2. Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida will find the health care reform law to be unconstitutional. YES

3. The FCC will approve new net neutrality rules (that will probably happen in the next week or so), but the federal courts will find that this oversteps their authority (again). YES and NO

4. At least one politician (state legislator or above) will resign when a video of their misconduct goes viral. YES and NO (Chris Lee and Anthony Weiner have both resigned, but over pictures and not video)

5. North Korea's Kim Jong-il will die and his son, Kim Jong-un, will take over. NO

6. At least one Philadelphia sports team will make it to the Super Bowl, NHL Finals, or World Series. NO (only the Phillies are left)

7. Patriots' QB Tom Brady will win the NFL MVP and Eagles' QB Michael Vick will finish second. YES (Brady was unanimous)

8. Baltimore (BWI) will record less than 30 inches of snowfall this winter (please) YES (14.4 inches)

9. I will get accepted to law school (please) and actually go this time! NO (wait-listed, blah!)

10. Stuxnet's creator(s) will be revealed (total guess). NO

And of course, the bonus prediction: DEFCON19 will be canceled. YES :-)

The new job

2011-05-27T08:28:00.000-04:00

Almost four years ago, my time in the Navy was quickly coming to a close and I was anxious to find a job. I gave my first-ever talk at DEFCON about my counter-IED work in Iraq, and in the small crowd of people asking questions, a man flashed his Navy ID card, handed me his contact information, and told me that we needed to talk.

I have to admit at the time I was slightly frightened that somehow my talk had attracted the wrong sort of attention (I was still on active duty at the time, and my talk, while unclassified, was nonetheless pretty aggressive). Ultimately, my apprehension was misplaced; he was in the Navy Reserves but more importantly, he worked for Booz Allen and he was offering me an interview. I went through a couple of interviews (my first one didn't go so well, but they saw potential and invited me back for a second), and by December I was thrilled to get (and accept) a job with Booz Allen.

Over the past three plus years I have worked with an amazing team of analysts that would be difficult to top. Through the highs and lows, this team has done amazing work and I am proud to have been a small part of it. Over the course of barely two years, our six member team grew by leaps and bounds (we're about to pass 40 by next month), and it has been a remarkable run. That being said, it was time for a change.

Today, I am happy to announce that I've accepted a new challenge. Effective June 20, I will be working as a Security Engineer and Penetration Tester with TDI Security, a computer security consulting firm based in Washington, DC. I'm working not as an employee of TDI, but as a independent contractor. Going out on my own and being self-employed is a step I've been looking to make for some time now. While my business (Leverage Consulting & Associates) has been around for over a year now, this move effectively marks the beginning of full-scale operations.

For a while now, I have been looking for the right opportunity to move into more direct full-scope penetration testing work, and I believe that this is that opportunity. Additionally, I already know some of the people I will be working with and I am extremely excited for this new direction.

I've very much enjoyed my time at Booz Allen, and I hope to be able stay in touch with those of you who I've met during that time. I am especially looking forward to meeting new folks through this new role.

See you in Vegas!

Exploiting trust as an attack vector in social media

2011-05-02T15:20:00.001-04:00

Earlier today I posted a tweet:

bin Laden autopsy video: http://bit.ly/iXcSQ2 #obl

By now it should be obvious that there is no such video. I did it as a very short and simple experiment in exploiting trust. The news of Osama bin Laden's death has caused traffic to skyrocket on the Internet, and people want to learn anything they can about it. So I chose "autopsy video" although I could have "posted" a link to a video from the raid, the sea burial of his body, or any of a dozen other things. I also didn't take into account the timing of the tweet (to reach a broader audience), so again, just keeping it simple.

As you could tell if you followed the link above, it's just a message on my blog:

There is no bin Laden autopsy video here, but there could have been malware, and then you'd be pwned. You really shouldn't click on such links. :-)

I linked to my blog because I wanted to track the hits, and they came in fast and furious. In barely two hours, it was re-tweeted a dozen times and I counted over 150 unique hits (that's well beyond what I see on a "normal" day even if I've posted a blog entry). Most of my followers are security-conscious folks. Most people got my point (for example, see here), a few didn't understand my point at all, and a few thought it was "cheap" because it was from a trusted source. And it's true: presumably, if you're a follower of mine, you'd place some measure of trust in the content I publish. On the other hand, this is precisely the point I am aiming at: trusted sources can be exploited, they're much more effective than a "random" source, and they're incredibly difficult to defend against. If someone were to hijack my Twitter account, they gain access to my Twitter data (which may or may not be all that valuable), but more importantly they gain access to trust in which my followers place in me. This is hugely important.

This experiment may or may not be "cheap," but if you clicked on the link, you could potentially have been pwned, cheap or not. In this sense, "cheap" is just another word for "not fair." The attacker obviously doesn't care about playing fair, nor does he care what you think about his methods; only that he wins.

bin Laden autopsy video

2011-05-02T12:12:00.000-04:00

There is no bin Laden autopsy video here, but there could have been malware, and then you'd be pwned. You really shouldn't click on such links. :-)

Physical Security, OPSEC, and Killing Osama bin Laden

2011-05-02T11:44:00.002-04:00

One of the primary goals of physical security is deterrence. By showing off visible signs of security, such as signs, fences, barbed wire and other such measures, the idea is to deter a breach by those who may be contemplating it by raising the risk of being caught. The compound in which Osama bin Laden was found and killed certainly exhibited some of the measures--it reportedly had 12-18 feet high fences with barbed wire, internal compartmentalization, only two access points, visible CCTVs, and generally stood out like a sore thumb in the neighborhood.

On the other hand, these very visible measures of security tend to conflict with the concept of operational security--a process by which actions observed by adversaries can be useful to them in gathering intelligence. The very presence of visible security measures in an otherwise non-descript area leads one to wonder what exactly is being protected there. That, together with other reported operational security issues (the burning of trash, no Internet or phone connection despite a presumably upscale compound, the women residents known to speak Arabic) add fuel to the fire.

Another article talked of these measures as "extremely elaborate operational security" but might better be termed "elaborate physical security" as the operational issues noted above were precisely some of the clues that led to bin Laden's discovery. Added to that, the belief that bin Laden had been staying in this compound for at least a year and potentially much longer lends one to believe that the idea of operational security was perhaps not as elaborate as initially supposed.

iPhone location data controversy won't go away, despite no real evidence

2011-04-25T13:42:00.001-04:00

There were two comments to my previous post about the iPhone and iPad's storage of location data that I want to address:

Anonymous said...
Except that apple is not using the location based services (which I can turn off) in this case, but instead is using cell phone tower triangulation that I can not turn off.
I did not agree to that !!!!!!

Anonymous said...
It says "real-time location data". This does not address access to historical location data, which is different.
...and, like the previous reply said, you can't actually turn off the tower triangulation unless you turn the phone off.

Indeed, there is evidence that turning off location services does not actually stop the storage of such information. Hopefully, Apple will address this issue very soon, especially considering that using the term "location services" implies more than just GPS, and presumably includes cell tower triangulation data. Still, as I stated in the previous post, the storage of this data is expressly contemplated in the licensing agreements. The second comment, which suggests that "[i]t says "real-time location data". This does not address access to historical location data, which is different" is actually incorrect, as the license agreement says "...transmit, collect, maintain, process and use your location data, including the real-time geographic location..." Specifying the inclusion of real-time data does not exclude historical data, only that it is a part of a larger body of data.

The bigger issue are the allegations that the "iPhone sends your location to Apple twice a day." Despite this blog post and some rather sensational news reporting of this issue last week and throughout the weekend, no one has actually been able to produce a shred of data that suggests this is true. While no one can prove a negative, @Dakahuna2007 captured 24 hours of his iPhone's traffic this weekend and found no such "phone home" evidence.

In closing, I'll ask the same question I asked last week: Does anyone actually have a capture file showing location data being transmitted to Apple, or are we just repeating unsubstantiated rumors?

Outrage over storage of Apple location data is misplaced

2011-04-20T17:07:00.001-04:00

The infosec community is outraged today that iPhones and iPads are storing location data. Headlines proclaim the travesty: iPhone and iPad 3G caught keeping secret location tracking database andiSpy Conspiracy: Your iPhone Is Secretly Tracking Everywhere You've Been. Two researchers developed an open source application that plots this location data on a map. I too would be outraged, except for the fact that Apple's licensing agreements for the iPad and iPhone expressly address this issue:

(b) Location Data. Apple and its partners and licensees may provide certain services through your iPad that rely upon location information. To provide these services, where available, Apple and its partners and licensees may transmit, collect, maintain, process and use your location data, including the real-time geographic location of your iPad. The location data collected by Apple is collected in a form that does not personally identify you and may be used by Apple and its partners and licensees to provide location-based products and services. By using any location-based services on your iPad, you agree and consent to Apple's and its partners' and licensees' transmission, collection, maintenance, processing and use of your location data to provide location-based products and services. You may withdraw this consent at any time by not using the location-based features or by turning off the Location Services setting on your iPad. Not using these features will not impact the non location-based functionality of your iPad. When using third party applications or services on the iPad that use or provide location data, you are subject to and should review such third party's terms and privacy policy on use of location data by such third party applications or services.

Note that the iPhone agree is virtually identical. The text in bold is Apple's emphasis.

Now I'll be the first to admit that I don't read terms of service and licensing agreements. Very few people do, but the failure to do so doesn't give you a free pass to complain. Ignorance of service agreements does not justify moral outrage. You suck it up and admit to yourself that you didn't read it, and move on.

Bob Parsons 16 Rules for Success in Business and Life in General

2011-04-01T18:55:00.001-04:00

1. Get and stay out of your comfort zone.

I believe that not much happens of any significance when we're in our comfort zone. I hear people say, "But I'm concerned about security." My response to that is simple: "Security is for cadavers."

2. Never give up.

Almost nothing works the first time it's attempted. Just because what you're doing does not seem to be working, doesn't mean it won't work. It just means that it might not work the way you're doing it. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it, and you wouldn't have an opportunity.

3. When you're ready to quit, you're closer than you think.

There's an old Chinese saying that I just love, and I believe it is so true. It goes like this: "The temptation to quit will be greatest just before you are about to succeed."

4. With regard to whatever worries you, not only accept the worst thing that could happen, but make it a point to quantify what the worst thing could be.

Very seldom will the worst consequence be anywhere near as bad as a cloud of "undefined consequences." My father would tell me early on, when I was struggling and losing my shirt trying to get Parsons Technology going, "Well, Robert, if it doesn't work, they can't eat you."

5. Focus on what you want to have happen.

Remember that old saying, "As you think, so shall you be."

6. Take things a day at a time.

No matter how difficult your situation is, you can get through it if you don't look too far into the future, and focus on the present moment. You can get through anything one day at a time.

7. Always be moving forward.

Never stop investing. Never stop improving. Never stop doing something new. The moment you stop improving your organization, it starts to die. Make it your goal to be better each and every day, in some small way. Remember the Japanese concept of Kaizen. Small daily improvements eventually result in huge advantages.

8. Be quick to decide.

Remember what General George S. Patton said: "A good plan violently executed today is far and away better than a perfect plan tomorrow."

9. Measure everything of significance.

I swear this is true. Anything that is measured and watched, improves.

10. Anything that is not managed will deteriorate.

If you want to uncover problems you don't know about, take a few moments and look closely at the areas you haven't examined for a while. I guarantee you problems will be there.

11. Pay attention to your competitors, but pay more attention to what you're doing.

When you look at your competitors, remember that everything looks perfect at a distance. Even the planet Earth, if you get far enough into space, looks like a peaceful place.

12. Never let anybody push you around.

In our society, with our laws and even playing field, you have just as much right to what you're doing as anyone else, provided that what you're doing is legal.

13. Never expect life to be fair.

Life isn't fair. You make your own breaks. You'll be doing good if the only meaning fair has to you, is something that you pay when you get on a bus (i.e., fare).

14. Solve your own problems.

You'll find that by coming up with your own solutions, you'll develop a competitive edge. Masura Ibuka, the co-founder of SONY, said it best: "You never succeed in technology, business, or anything by following the others." There's also an old Asian saying that I remind myself of frequently. It goes like this: "A wise man keeps his own counsel."

15. Don't take yourself too seriously.

Lighten up. Often, at least half of what we accomplish is due to luck. None of us are in control as much as we like to think we are.

16. There's always a reason to smile.

Find it. After all, you're really lucky just to be alive. Life is short. More and more, I agree with my little brother. He always reminds me: "We're not here for a long time, we're here for a good time!"

Copyright © 2004 Bob Parsons. All rights reserverd. Reproduced with permission.

On the legalization of drugs

2011-03-25T22:04:00.001-04:00

My colleagues and I had an interesting discussion this morning regarding the legalization of drugs. This is something that I have never supported, despite having become significantly more libertarian over the past few years.

However, it seems that we have lost this war, at least at far as marijuana. I'm not going to fight or argue over studies regarding harmful effects, or possible medical uses, or its potential as a gateway drug. There's lot of science out there and lots of FUD, too. But when you put it all together, it seems to me that marijuana isn't really anymore harmful than other substances we use and tolerate, like alcohol. It might be less harmful. A number of states have legalized medicinal uses; other jurisdictions look the other way.

Prisons and jails are full of drug users and abusers. Some of them from simple non-violent possession or use of marijuana. I'm not so sure that this is a good idea anymore, or that this is a very efficient use of our increasingly limited resources.

Legalization of marijuana would create an industry that could be regulated and taxed, providing a potentially lucrative source of revenue for governments.

According to a number of studies, marijuana is less dangerous (physical harm to the user, addictive potential of the drug, the drug's overall impact on society) than alcohol or tobacco. I'm sure the drug warriors can find opposing studies, but this just seems like common sense to me.

I have been a long time supporter of the war on drugs, and I think we should continue against hardcore drugs, and especially when violence is involved. Drugs like meth, crack and heroin are dangerous and I think the government has every reason to prohibit their use. But simple, non-violent possession and use of marijuana? Perhaps it's time we give up the ship on this one.

I am curious to hear what those of you think who continue to support the war on drugs against marijuana. What are the costs, what are the benefits? Does the latter really outweigh the former?

Tuesday's Flex Your Rights Night and the Fourth Amendment

2011-03-13T12:27:00.000-04:00

This Tuesday, March 15th, will be the second in our monthly series “Flex Your Rights Night.” The goal of these nights will be to focus on legal issues surrounding our rights and how to protect them as it relates to encounters with police, in the context of technology, or just in the abstract.

For this week's Flex Your Rights Night, we will be starting at 7PM with a short presentation about the history and development of the Fourth Amendment. It reads:

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.

The presentation will focus on the history and development of the Fourth Amendment and its application to the home. We will follow up with a discussion session about the presentation, questions and answers, and your feedback about how we can continue on with Flex Your Rights nights in the future.

We hope to see you at Unallocated Space on Tuesday, March 15th!

Testimony to the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee on SB 803 (3/8/2011)

2011-03-07T20:25:00.000-05:00

March 8, 2011

Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee

Statement of Mr. Michael Schearer on behalf of SB 803

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,

My name is Michael Schearer and I am an Associate for Booz Allen Hamilton, as well as the owner of a small business, Leverage Consulting & Associates LLC, here in Maryland. I appreciate the opportunity to offer testimony today regarding this legislation, and I want to thank Senator Raskin for sponsoring this bill, and especially Senator Simonaire, Ms. Iris Frey, and the Senator’s staff for meeting with me regarding this issue. I am here today on behalf of myself, my wife Tracy and especially our son Andrew.

On October 3, 2010, at 10:28PM, the vehicle in which our son Andrew was riding was hit and violently spun around--Andrew was thrown from the vehicle and killed almost instantly. Amidst the shock and sorrow of Andrew's death came the news that, according to police, the drivers of both vehicles were reportedly impaired. Now, more than six months later, charges have yet to be filed.

I come before you today not to seek sympathy for the death of our son, but to ask our citizen legislators to act in Maryland's interest so that fewer fathers such as myself will have to return to you in future legislative sessions. I come before you today to support SB 803, the Drunk Driving Elimination Act (the ignition interlock bill).

In the last 30 years, Maryland has made significant progress in reducing alcohol related deaths. In 1983, for example, 58% of all traffic fatalities were alcohol-related, with almost all of these drivers exceeding the legal limit. In 1986, a record 407 fatalities were caused by alcohol. In recent years, these numbers have nearly been cut in half--but we can, and we must, do more.

Maryland has a legitimate, and indeed, a compelling interest of protecting her citizens, and the citizens of our neighbor states, from the dangers posed by Maryland-licensed intoxicated drivers. Requiring DUI offenders to install ignition interlock devices into vehicles they own and drive is clearly and unequivocally related to accomplishing that objective.

It is important for Maryland to learn and react to important lessons from other states that have adopted mandatory ignition interlock laws. In New York, for example, drivers have borrowed vehicles from friends or family. In one case, an intoxicated woman offered money to a stranger to blow into the device. Maryland must be alert to creative drivers trying to bypass the ignition interlock, and must be vigilant to punish those who are found to have circumvented the law. Those who enable drunk driving by helping to bypass ignition interlock technology are, in effect, handing a loaded gun to a drunk and hoping that he or she doesn't pull the trigger.

We must also ensure that the technology we install in vehicles is of high quality to reduce the likelihood of false positive readings. Drivers who experience false positives must be presented with the opportunity to contest these results. While we willingly burden DUI offenders with this program, we must ensure the program is not oppressive. Focusing on, and addressing the potential problems now will help to reduce the litigation that will likely occur as a result of this law.

If Maryland decides to move forward with ignition interlocks, it should not and cannot do so without fully funding the program. To do otherwise would seriously weaken its effectiveness and undermine its credibility. It is true that times are tough, and sources of funding are difficult to come by, but this should not turn you away from furthering a compelling state interest in protecting our citizens. When possible, the program should be paid for by the participants as is currently proposed by this legislation.

While it is not the focus of this bill, some have suggested that ignition interlocks should be installed on all newly-manufactured vehicles—the so-called “universal ignition interlock.” Let me state with conviction that I am equivocally opposed to this idea, and would return here to forcefully oppose such an over-reaching restriction on liberty.

We must recognize that ignition interlocks are not a panacea to fully eliminate drunk driving. The ignition interlock is but one tool at the disposal of the state. We must work to provide tougher sentences, especially for those drivers who negligent actions result in the deaths of others. In that regard, Maryland's laws are among the weakest in the nation. On paper, drivers convicted of manslaughter by vehicle when impaired or under the influence of alcohol are subject to a maximum sentence of 3-5 years. In practice, most convictions are only a few months and a slap in the face to the families of drunk driving victims. This is an embarrassment that must be remedied.

Governor O'Malley has repeatedly expressed support for, and willingness to sign the ignition interlock bill, which has made significant progress in the Legislature before. I strongly urge Governor O'Malley and the members of this committee to call upon your colleagues in the Senate and the House of Delegates to pass this necessary bill.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee on this important issue. I remain available for your questions.

Westboro Baptists prevail at the Supreme Court, but questions remain

2011-03-02T11:51:00.001-05:00

Today's Supreme Court decision in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church is just another indication of how difficult it is to read the Court, especially during oral argument. A good deal of the oral argument focused on the distinction between a public figure and a private one, and public speech vs. private speech, ostensibly in the context of both the Westboro Baptists signs, but also the Internet "epic" posting.

It turns out that, despite its discussion during oral arguments, the "epic" was never even considered by the Court. According to footnote one of Chief Justice Robert's opinion:

A few weeks after the funeral, one of the picketers posted a message on Westboro’s Web site discussing the picketing and containing religiously oriented denunciations of the Snyders, interspersed among lengthy Bible quotations. Snyder discovered the posting, referred to by the parties as the “epic,” during an Internet search for his son’s name. The epic is not properly before us and does not factor in our analysis. Although the epic was submitted to the jury and discussed in the courts below, Snyder never mentioned it in his petition for certiorari.

In the context of this statement, the Court's ultimate result is wholly unsurprising. When I wrote about this case back in January, I thought the Court would lean in Snyder's direction not because of the signs, but because of the epic:

...But it is much more about an "epic" or online posting that the Westboro Baptists made about Matthew Snyder which was personally about him, and directly addressed to him and his parents.

This case is about the clash between free speech and if and when that speech infringes on the Snyder’s personal interests protected by Maryland tort law. To the extent that the Westboro Baptists' "epic" speech was private in nature (in other words, about Matthew specifically, and not public issues) and directed toward a private individual (Albert Snyder), it likely deserves less protection than otherwise pure political speech. And to the extent that they may have intentionally caused emotional distress to Albert Snyder, the Westboro Baptists' speech may be are liable.

[The] oral argument...will give you a better sense of the issues surrounding the case and why it's about more than just the signs.

I have to believe that if the Court considered the epic, as Justice Alito did in his dissent, the outcome may very well have been different. As it was, by focusing solely on the signs, the speech became public and Snyder's burden became that much higher. And as a result, the holding is considerably narrow.

Suit Charges D.C. Police Executed Search Warrant at "Wrong" Apartment

2011-02-19T19:23:00.002-05:00

From The Blog of Legal Times:

A man and his wife are suing the Metropolitan Police Department for $1 million in damages for allegedly barging into and searching the wrong apartment during a drug investigation last year in Southeast Washington.

The suit, filed in Washington's federal trial court this week, alleges civil and constitutional violations. The police did not take anything from the home of Danny Costello and his wife, Gai Nguyen, according to court records.

“The police officers had a duty, before attempting to execute their search warrant, to make sure that they were executing the warrant only for the apartment the warrant authorized entry,” the couples’ attorney, Wendell Robinson, said in the complaint [.pdf]. “But the police officers negligently, intentionally, willfully, wantonly, and maliciously, forcibly entered the plaintiffs’ apartment without sufficient evidence that it was apartment #305.'

My first thought when reading through this article was to shrug off this lawsuit dismissively. On second thought, truly innocent victims don't have an exclusionary rule to protect them. What is the protection against a Fourth Amendment violation for the innocent? A complaint or lawsuit, so this is it. Ok, a little more sympathy for the man and his wife. Enough sympathy that I'm willing to read the complaint.

The man and his wife live in Apartment #305. Except there is no number on their door. The warrant was for #305. The police saw #304 on the door across the hallway and assumed that the door with no number was #305 (as it turns out, it was). So the man and his wife are complaining that that "the police officers negligently, intentionally, willfully, wantonly, and maliciously, forcibly entered the plaintiffs’ apartment without sufficient evidence that it was apartment #305." Except that it actually was #305.

They don't seem to be complaining that the information to get the warrant was invalid (wherever it came from), but that their rights were violated when the police didn't check to be sure that what they thought was #305 was actually #305. I have no idea if they had a "no knock" warrant because of the drug allegations (or even if DC allows "no knock" warrants), but the police did appear to violate their rights by knocking down the door without announcing or warning of their presence.

All in all, a very odd case.

House Passes Amendment to Block Funds for Net Neutrality Order

2011-02-19T13:36:00.000-05:00

From NationalJournal.com:

The House passed an amendment Thursday that would bar the Federal Communications Commission from using any funding to implement the network-neutrality order it approved in December.

The amendment, approved on a 244-181 vote, was offered by Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., to legislation that would fund government agencies for the rest of fiscal year 2011.

Walden and other critics of the FCC's net-neutrality order argue it will stifle innovation and investment in broadband. The order aims to bar broadband providers from discriminating against Internet content, services, or applications.

Would you confuse these products?

2011-02-14T10:12:00.001-05:00

Would you confuse these products? Coca-Cola thinks you might. They filed a trademark and patent infringement lawsuit against Pepsi. "Simply Orange" is a Coke product that has been around for several years; Trop50 is a fairly new product from Pepsi.

Almost another top ten...

2011-02-09T19:05:00.000-05:00

Congressman Chris Lee's resignation almost met the #4 item on my 2011 prediction list:

4. At least one politician (state legislator or above) will resign when a video of their misconduct goes viral.

Alas, I noted video and not Craigslist posting! Close, but no cigar. Still, 325 days to go...

Net neutrality and the Fairness Doctrine

2011-02-06T16:27:00.001-05:00

While I came to this comparison independently, a quick search of Google finds that many others have come to similar conclusions. I say similar conclusions, and not the same conclusions, because I don't consider net neutrality to be the Internet version of the Fairness Doctrine. Rather, I think the concepts are similar and worth exploring. Let's take a quick review before we get to the conceptual similarities. From Wikipedia:

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The 1949 Commission Report served as the foundation for the Fairness Doctrine since it had previously established two more forms of regulation onto broadcasters. These two duties were to provide adequate coverage to public issues and that coverage must be fair in reflecting opposing views.

The Fairness Doctrine was subject to longstanding criticism, and was eventually repealed in the 1980s; yet attempts to legislate the doctrine have been introduced on numerous occasions since then.

And now, net neutrality:

Network neutrality is a principle proposed for users' access to networks participating in the Internet. The principle advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication...In the US particularly, but elsewhere as well, the possibility of regulations designed to mandate the neutrality of the Internet has been subject to fierce debate.

Before we go any further, let's acknowledge upfront that both the Fairness Doctrine and net neutrality are complex and controversial issues, and that it is impossible to properly define them in the space of a paragraph (despite the fact that it's precisely what I have tried to do!). However, as a matter of concept, purpose, and intent, I think we can fairly characterize each:

The Fairness Doctrine was government regulation, via the FCC, over radio to mandate a level of balance and/or equality in content.
Net neutrality is government regulation, via the FCC, over the Internet to mandate neutral treatment over content.

Both are government regulations written by, and enforced by the FCC. In both cases, the policies were written and implemented by the FCC, not Congress. Both control mediums where the expression of free speech is central. Both place the government (in the form of the FCC) as the arbiter of such speech by its view of what is equal or neutral.

Now, the differences: the radio spectrum is limited in nature, the Internet very much less so. The Fairness Doctrine was about equality in content, about ensuring fairness in opposing views. In other words, if you air a segment that is pro-life in nature, you should air something similar that is pro-choice. As a policy, the Fairness Doctrine required the broadcasters to be an active participant in airing opposing views. Net neutrality, on the other hand, is about ensuring that content is not treated differently. Conceptually, net neutrality does not impose restrictions on types of content, or requirements that certain content must be presented in a fair or equitable manner. As a policy, net neutrality requires ISPs to step back and refrain from participating in content discrimination.

Unfortunately, the comparison of these issues has been poisoned by both sides of the political spectrum. U.S. Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) said, "Net neutrality, as I see it, is the fairness doctrine for the Internet." Rush Limbaugh said, "[t]he easiest way to understand [net neutrality] is to think of a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet." And then of course, whatever Rush Limbaugh says becomes a sound bite his opponents. Those opponents have adopted Doomsday scenarios, that the failure to pass net neutrality would be (and I use their quote): "the end of the Internet as we know it."

The truth, of course, is probably somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. My concern is that from my perspective, the weight of the similarities is heavier than the weight of the differences. One branch of the government is using its regulatory powers to enforce its own notion of equality, neutrality or fairness. Neither scheme was specifically authorized by legislation (although, in the case of the Fairness Doctrine, there was little doubt that the FCC had the authority; on the other hand, serious questions exist regarding the FCC's authority or lack thereof, to regulate the Internet). I have argued that the process by which net neutrality is being enacted, is as important (or perhaps even more so) as whether or not it is enacted. In the same vein, I have made the point that some of the supposed net neutrality violations are not really the case.

It seems to me that the nature of our short attention spans indicates that sound bite comparisons to the Fairness Doctrine are probably not fair (no pun intended) without explaining that there are legitimate differences between the two policies. Nevertheless, these issues are not going away, and will only grow in importance. News abroad in Egypt has revived the domestic "Internet kill switch" which will only serve to ripen the debate of these critical issues.

Brady is NFL MVP; top ten update

2011-02-06T14:05:00.000-05:00

Tom Brady was named the Associated Press NFL MVP for the 2010 season by a unanimous vote. This was the #7 item on my 2011 top ten list:

7. Patriots' QB Tom Brady will win the NFL MVP and Eagles' QB Michael Vick will finish second.

I was right, but only partially so: since the vote was unanimous, and since there are only "first place" votes, no one else was mentioned.

Strengthening Maryland's drunk driving laws: an update

2011-02-02T22:02:00.002-05:00

In the wake of Andrew's death and after reports from the police that alcohol was potentially involved, I decided that I would spend my time and effort toward strengthening Maryland's laws against drunk driving. This was especially important to me given that Maryland's punishment for manslaughter by vehicle when impaired by alcohol is among the weakest in the nation.

I met with my state senator (Senator Brian Simonaire, R-District 31) and his staff, who were very much open to the possibility of introducing or sponsoring legislation to strengthen Maryland's laws. Knowing the slow, deliberative nature of legislative bodies, and knowing that compromise is an essential part of getting things done, I set reasonable expectations for myself: while I would love to see the sentences lengthened, I knew that eventually I would support any reasonable effort to curtail drunk driving.

Today, Delegates Eckardt, Afzali, George, Haddaway-Riccio, McComas, McDermott, McMillan, W. Miller, and Stocksdale introduced HB 318 in the House of Delegates; a similar version will soon be introduced in the Senate. This bill would require mandatory participation in the ignition interlock program (currently, the program is available but only installed at a judge's recommendation). Ignition interlocks may not have saved Andrew's live, but it could have saved a life in some cases. I also recognize that this bill is not a panacea, but we must start somewhere. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and the state has a compelling interest in protecting the lives of its citizens by preventing intoxicated drivers from taking to the road.

Senator Simonaire's staff called me yesterday and asked if I would be willing to testify at the committee hearing when the time comes. I told them that absolutely, I would do so! The date of the hearing is TBD.

Last year, this bill passed the Senate but was held up in the House Judiciary Committee. Governor O'Malley has already said he will sign the bill.

Lastly, would my fellow Marylanders do me a favor? Please call your State Delegates and ask them to support and co-sponsor House Bill 318, the ignition interlock bill (I'll have the Senate bill here shortly). To find your elected officials, go here and type in your address. You will have three State Delegates and one State Senator (please note these are your Maryland state legislators, not U.S. Representatives or U.S. Senators).

I will have more to say in the coming days and weeks.

THANK YOU!

Health care ruling

2011-01-31T16:03:00.000-05:00

The text of the decision is available here:
Health Care Ruling by Judge Vinson

Judge rules healthcare reform unconstitutional

2011-01-31T15:58:00.001-05:00

From Reuters:

A judge in Florida on Monday became the second judge to declare President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law unconstitutional, in the biggest legal challenge yet to federal authority to enact the law.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, ruled that the reform law's so-called "individual mandate" went too far in requiring that Americans start buying health insurance in 2014 or pay a penalty.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications," Vinson wrote.

This case was #2 on my "top ten" predictions for 2011. From my perspective, it was entirely likely to happen. This now makes two judges to find the individual mandate unconstitutional, although Judge Vinson was the first to find the entire act unconstitutional.

The text of the decision is currently available via PACER, which unfortunately costs $0.08 per electronic page (seriously). As soon as I find a free version, I'll post it on the blog.

Net neutrality vs. the "Internet kill switch"

2011-01-31T13:26:00.002-05:00

I have previously written at some length about net neutrality. Without rehashing much of that, it should suffice to say that one of the main issues surrounding the issue of net neutrality is the authority of the FCC to regulate the Internet (the FCC classifies the Internet as a Title I information service and not a Title II common carrier). Thus far, Congress has not acted; despite this, the FCC asserted authority to regulate the Internet and issued a net neutrality order (PDF) on December 21st.

Another issue which became newsworthy in the past year or so was the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010, introduced by Senator Lieberman (I-CT). While this bill did not advance in the last Congress, it will undoubtedly be renewed. By its own description, the bill

[c]reates the Office of Cyberspace Policy and National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications to set standards and coordinate cybersecurity efforts within the government. Gives the NCCC broad powers over "critical infrastructure" in the case of a "national cyber emergency" (as declared by the President).

The "broad powers" over "critical infrastructure" given to the President and the NCCC have been termed a supposed "Internet kill switch."

The bill and the kill switch rhetoric rose to new importance in the past week as events in Egypt have unfolded, amid news reports that the Egyptian government was blocking access to, or otherwise obstructing the Internet. PC Magazine then raised the question: After Egypt, Will U.S. Get 'Internet Kill Switch'? which was cited by the Demand Progress campaign to fight the Internet kill switch. This campaign is actively opposed to Senator Lieberman's bill.

Personally, I think it is interesting to see these two issues ripen at the same time. On one hand, implementation of meaningful, enforceable net neutrality requires Congress to grant the FCC power to regulate the Internet. On the other hand, in the case of Senator Lieberman's bill, handing the government "broad powers over 'critical infrastructure'" (the bill's words) is seen as "an affront to basic democratic principles, the First Amendment, and all that is great about America" (Demand Progress's words).

To be sure, I don't suggest that these two situations are equal, but there is a slippery slope there. Handing regulatory control of the Internet to the FCC in one realm could encourage the government to grab hold in other realms. And to be sure, Senator Lieberman's bill (as a separate grant of authority to the NCCC rather than the FCC) wouldn't even require any sort of net neutrality legislation to be in place; but it may certainly be emboldened by it. It seems to me that even the FCC's current overreach, absent Congressional authorization, has to give other regulatory bodies the envious thoughts of control.

Organizations such as the EFF and ACLU support net neutrality, but oppose the kill switch legislation. These organizations, and anyone who shares the same positions, are certainly entitled to them. But I think it becomes important for them to distinguish why you support one, but oppose the other. In discussing the issue with me on Twitter, @no_structure said "the kill switch is indiscriminately destructive but regulation is not, nor is regulation guaranteed to be destructive at all." He argued that he was "concerned" about the potentially for a slippery slope, but not "deterred" by it. I think this is a reasonable position, but these other organizations ought to distinguish the issues themselves, too.

My concern, even with this reasonable position, is the soft despotism that de Tocqueville wrote about:

It covers the surface of society with a net-work of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided: men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described, might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom; and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people. Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions; they want to be led, and they wish to remain free: as they cannot destroy either one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite; they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large that holds the end of his chain. By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master, and then relapse into it again. A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large. This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies less to me than the fact of extorted obedience.

de Tocqueville's slippery slope is so imperceptibly shallow that we may not notice the slope at all. We may recognize the kill switch as far enough along that we can perceive the difference. But regulation of the Internet via net neutrality seems clearly much closer to our current position. It may be only slightly further down the slope, but down the slope it is.

Our important distinction will be where to draw the line such that we no longer push ourselves down the slope. Let us hope that we can even recognize when we're there, and not simply be content to redraw the slope every time we take a step.

Judge rules pregnancy center ordinance unconstitutional

2011-01-31T07:33:00.001-05:00

From the Baltimore Sun:

A federal judge has struck down the city ordinance requiring faith-based pregnancy counseling centers to tell clients upfront that they won't help them get an abortion.

Baltimore drew national attention 14 months ago with the legislation, sponsored by Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake when she was City Council president, that required the centers to post signs saying that they don't refer clients for abortions or birth control.

In a decision issued Friday, U.S. District Judge Marvin J. Garbis wrote that the requirement violates the centers' constitutional right to free speech. Ruling in a lawsuit brought against the city by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore and a counseling center it supports, he declared the ordinance 'unenforceable.'

"Whether a provider of pregnancy-related services is 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice,' it is for the provider — not the government — to decide when and how to discuss abortion and birth-control method," Garbis wrote. "The Government cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, require a 'pro-life' pregnancy-related service center to post a sign."

The text of the decision does not appear to be available on-line yet at the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

63-year-old shot to death in Glen Burnie parking lot

2011-01-31T07:33:00.000-05:00

From the Baltimore Sun:

A 63-year-old retired schoolteacher was found shot to death inside her car in the parking lot of a Glen Burnie shopping center Friday morning, Anne Arundel County police said.

Police were called around 11 a.m. Friday to a parking lot in the 7300 block of Ritchie Highway, where they found Myra Elizabeth Cason of Glen Burnie inside her Suzuki Sidekick with a gunshot wound to the chest.

Cason was last seen leaving Maryland Primary Care Physicians around 7:50 a.m. She was discovered later in the parking lot in front of a Pep Boys and a Gavigan's furniture store, police said.

She was pronounced dead at the scene and was taken to the medical examiner's office in Baltimore.

View Larger Map

Two hit-and-run fatalities in Anne Arundel County

2011-01-31T07:32:00.000-05:00

From the Baltimore Sun:

Glen Burnie woman was killed by a hit-and-run driver Thursday night in the second such fatality in Anne Arundel County within 24 hours, according to police.
...
In the most recent incident, officers found the body of Dawn Lynn Gable, 43, of the 200 block of Cross Creek Drive lying in the area of Cross Creek and Highlander drives about 10:17 p.m., police said.

Gable had suffered massive trauma and was pronounced dead at the scene.

View Larger Map

Meanwhile, police reported that the vehicle involved in the earlier death had been located and that a person was in custody.

Early Thursday morning. Richard Francis Oles, 77, of Pasadena was killed as he walked along Mountain Road in an incident they said was related to the overnight snowfall. Police said that the driver of the vehicle that hit him, described as a red Ford F350 pickup with a snow plow attachment, left the scene without stopping.

Lt. Michael Brothers of the county police said Friday afternoon that the vehicle had been located and that a "person of interest" was in custody. That investigation was continuing.

Perhaps a technicality, but MetroPCS plan is not a net neutrality violation

2011-01-24T10:26:00.000-05:00

I wrote a few weeks ago about how MetroPCS offered a new wireless plan, and that net neutrality advocates had already complained about it to the FCC. I wrote then that:

[i]t is unclear whether or not this is a violation, but it's certainly a bold move if MetroPCS is basing their decision on reasonable network management. This is especially so in light of the FCC's focus on technology in determining what is and isn't reasonable. The evolution to 4G, as the FCC notes (PDF, paragraph 95), "puts greater pressure on the concept of 'reasonable network management' for mobile providers..."

It turns out that the issue doesn't even go that far. The only MetroPCS phone capable of working on these 4G plans is the Samsung Craft which isn't really even a smartphone. It would be more accurately referred to as a feature phone. Semantics? Not really. There is a difference. According to the FCC's net neutrality order (paragraph 49), "[m]obile broadband Internet access includes services that use smartphones as the primary endpoints for connection to the Internet." And the FCC recognizes the difference between smartphones and feature phones, as FCC Commissioner McDowell's dissenting statement acknowledges.

Feature phones have limited operating systems that support a more limited functionality than smartphones. The Samsung Craft supports a YouTube widget (their terminology) and access to some social networking sites like Facebook. And while I admit it is not all that clear, the manual seems to suggest that the MetroWEB browser is a rather limited functionality browser. Some video is available via a MetroSTUDIO widget, but it's not capable of supporting Netflix, Skype, or a whole host of other services (although, again, I admit that this is not clear).

So it would be incorrect to say that MetroPCS is blocking access to certain websites or services; more realistically, the plans in question are coupled to a feature phone (not a smart phone) that is not capable of supporting these services. It may be as simple as "there's no app for that" or it may be that the phone's limited operating system does not support some functionality that these applications require. Either way, it's not a matter of blocking, but rather, not supporting. This is an important distinction, because MetroPCS would not be explicitly blocking certain content; only providing a phone that has limited functionality. You may argue that the result is the same, but would a net neutrality proponent argue that all phones must have a certain level of functionality? I would think not.

Snyder v. Phelps, the Westboro Baptists, and free speech

2011-01-23T22:47:00.002-05:00

Sometime this spring, the Supreme Court will rule in the case of Snyder v. Phelps:

The family of deceased Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder filed a lawsuit against members of the Westboro Baptist Church who picketed at his funeral. The family accused the church and its founders of defamation, invasion of privacy and the intentional infliction of emotional distress for displaying signs that said, "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "Fag troops" at Snyder's funeral. U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett awarded the family $5 million in damages, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the judgment violated the First Amendment's protections on religious expression. The church members' speech is protected, "notwithstanding the distasteful and repugnant nature of the words."

If Supreme Court rules, as I believe they will, in favor of Snyder, I suspect there will be outrage among many who are just peripherally following the case. There will be a lot of, "I don't agree with their message, but this is still free speech!" and "We need to protect the free speech of those we don't agree with!" These are true statements, but they're also simplistic because people who are just peripherally following the case are going to think this case is about the signs, "Thank God for dead soldiers" and such. And to some extent, the case is about the signs. But it is much more about an "epic" or online posting that the Westboro Baptists made about Matthew Snyder which was personally about him, and directly addressed to him and his parents.

This case is about the clash between free speech and if and when that speech infringes on the Snyder’s personal interests protected by Maryland tort law. To the extent that the Westboro Baptists' "epic" speech was private in nature (in other words, about Matthew specifically, and not public issues) and directed toward a private individual (Albert Snyder), it likely deserves less protection than otherwise pure political speech. And to the extent that they may have intentionally caused emotional distress to Albert Snyder, the Westboro Baptists' speech may be are liable.

I strongly recommend listening to the oral argument at Oyez. It will give you a better sense of the issues surrounding the case and why it's about more than just the signs. I also recommend Snyder v. Phelps, the Supreme Court's Speech-Tort Jurisprudence, and Normative Considerations by Deana Pollard Sacks in the Yale Law Journal Online, which I believe is the best analysis of the case that I have read.

So if and when the Supreme Court rules against the Phelps (and like I said, I believe they will), take a minute to temper your thoughts before you go all "high and mighty" that we need to protect the speech of people we don't agree with. Sometimes that speech goes too far and intentionally invades the privacy of others. In those cases, the speech is no longer protected. We can disagree about the extent of this protection. But simplifying this case solely to the free speech of their signs should not be your argument.

Man faces attempted murder, assault charges in Pasadena stabbing

2011-01-17T22:31:00.000-05:00

From the Baltimore Sun:

A 29-year-old Pasadena man faces attempted first-degree murder and assault charges after Anne Arundel County police said he and another man fought Sunday inside a home they share near Rock Creek Park.

According to police, officers were called about 4:30 that afternoon to the residence on the first block of Bar Harbor Road, where they found Robert Lee Still, 55, suffering from non-life-threatening stab wounds. Still told officers he and Jesse Lee Allgaier had an argument that turned physical when Allgaier attacked him with a knife and stabbed him in the upper body, then fled.

Still was taken to Maryland Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore for treatment.

View Larger Map

ShmooCon tickets still selling on Ebay; how would you fix the problem?

2011-01-17T11:16:00.001-05:00

Despite the best efforts of the community to shame people for selling ShmooCon tickets, currently 4 of the 6 tickets for sale on Ebay have bids, all in excess of the listed price of $150 and all of them likely to eventually sell for 2x (or more) of that price. As I wrote last month, artificially holding the price below its market value drives up demand for the tickets. Someone will eventually buy those tickets.

To date this month, 29 tickets have been listed, and all but eight attracted bids. When tickets have been sold, the average selling price has been over $400 (in fact, two people paid $500 for tickets). Of those that did not sell, either their starting bid was in excess of $400, or their reserve was not met (or in the case of the latest two, are still open for bids).

Amidst the litany of complaints, there have been very few suggestions for how to "fix" this problem, and the reason is that it's just not easy to fix. From my perspective, the two available options are (1) changing the ticket equation, or (2) changing the ticket process.

(1) Changing the ticket equation is primarily an economic solution. The current situation is one that economists would call "excess demand." The market's response to excess demand is that suppliers want to supply more products to consumers. More supply would bring the price closer to equilibrium. So ShmooCon should sell more tickets. But they don't want to get any bigger. So the market will seek out other suppliers. FireTalks, B-Sides, or other alternate venues, constitute that supply. Those efforts provide some sort of value to the consumer. The problem is that this market solution doesn't really go to the root of the ticket problem. As a matter of fixing the problem, changing the ticket equation is not an option.

Edited to add: As Roamer suggests below in the comments, raising the price of the tickets to the price equilibrium ($400 or whatever that might be) is indeed another solution. In my case, this is just another way of adjusting the ticket equation since in removes the artificially low price, which is the root case of the excess demand in the first place.

(2) Changing the ticket process would involve changing the way that tickets are sold. Currently, the process is more or less random luck. If you're lucky enough to hit F5 at the right time, you (might) get a ticket. If not, try again next month (or not at all). When I say changing the way tickets are sold, I don't mean the technical process of selling the tickets, but determining who should be able to buy a ticket (or not), or having some system of preferences. So in reality, the only ticket process alternatives are random (the way it is now) or preference-based. I have no idea how one would even begin to design a preference-based ticket sale, and I imagine many people (mostly those who aren't high on the list) would have serious objections to that sort of process.

I don't necessarily like the random process, but I suspect that I wouldn't like a preference-based system, either. In other words, the grass is not necessarily greener on the other side.

Andy Ellis wrote: "Someone should give a @shmoocon talk: 'Designing a resilient con registration system.'" There have been few (if any?) complaints about the actual registration system (once you've already reserved your ticket), so I suspect he means the ticket process (please correct me if I am wrong). But what does this mean? What would a resilient system look like? How would it differ from what we have now?

If you don't like the current process, how would you solve it? Are there other options in addition to what I've proposed?

Problems and limitations to the exclusionary rule

2011-01-16T10:51:00.000-05:00

Consider the following situation:

A police officer notices a car driving 43 MPH in a 25 MPH zone. He stops the car and tickets the driver. He then searches the car, and finds a bag of marijuana and a "pot pipe" underneath the driver's seat. The driver is arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance.

Now consider a similar situation:

The same officer returns on his shift and soon again, notices yet another car driving 43 MPH in a 25 MPH zone. He stops the car and tickets the driver. He then searches the car, but does not find any additional evidence. The police officer sends the driver on his way.

Now, what is the difference? We'll answer that eventually, but let's first look at the results of each situation. The first situation actually occurred, and was the subject of a Supreme Court case called Knowles v. Iowa. The Court found that:

[t]he search at issue, authorized as it was by state law, nonetheless violates the Fourth Amendment. Neither of the two historical exceptions for the "search incident to arrest" exception, see Robinson, supra, at 234, is sufficient to justify the search in the present case. First, the threat to officer safety from issuing a traffic citation is a good deal less than in the case of a custodial arrest. While concern for safety during a routine traffic stop may justify the "minimal" additional intrusion of ordering a driver and passengers out of the car, it does not by itself justify the often considerably greater intrusion attending a full field-type search. Even without the search authority Iowa urges, officers have other, independent bases to search for weapons and protect themselves from danger. Second, the need to discover and preserve evidence does not exist in a traffic stop, for once Knowles was stopped for speeding and issued a citation, all evidence necessary to prosecute that offense had been obtained. Iowa's argument that a "search incident to citation" is justified because a suspect may try to hide evidence of his identity or of other crimes is unpersuasive. An officer may arrest a driver if he is not satisfied with the identification furnished, and the possibility that an officer would stumble onto evidence of an unrelated offense seems remote. Pp. 3-6.

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court (which had upheld the search). The case was sent back to the trial court, who re-opened the case and eventually dismissed the case against Knowles. Why? Because the drug evidence would then be suppressed on account of the exclusionary rule, which holds that illegally obtained evidence is (usually) inadmissible at court. Now Knowles has been through a lot! But without the only evidence of the crime, he goes free.

And a quick review of court records shows that Patrick Knowles was not exactly a model citizen, having convictions for multiple counts of domestic abuse, unauthorized possession of weapons, and probation violations.

(Note: It's difficult to find any further details, but I'm not sure why the Iowa courts didn't allow the evidence to be admissible under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule established in United States v. Leon in 1984, since the officer was acting in accordance with established state law.)

Now let's return to the second situation. This is a hypothetical based on the first one, but given the circumstances, is just as likely (or perhaps even more likely) to occur. As the Supreme Court noted, a "search incident to citation" was lawful in Iowa at the time. So it seems likely that many such searches occurred at the time.

If the search was illegal in the first situation, it seems obvious that it should also be illegal in the second situation. However, in the first situation, Knowles has a remedy--the judicially-created exclusionary rule (see Weeks v. United States and Mapp v. Ohio). What is the remedy for the second driver?

He could file suit against the officer, but because the officer was in performance of his official duties, and acting within already established Iowa law, the officer is likely to enjoy some form of immunity from prosecution; and even if he was prosecuted, the search was not illegal at the time (meaning the officer acted in good faith), nor was the officer acting with any malice. So in reality, the second driver has no remedy.

By its name and definition, the exclusionary rule only protects those suspected of criminal behavior--it has no effect on, and is no remedy for innocent victims of illegal searches. A criminal like Knowles is allowed to go free, yet the unnamed drivers who were also stopped but had no contraband have no legal recourse. Theoretically, the exclusionary rule it is also meant as a disincentive to police and prosecutors--"if your searches aren't legal, we'll throw out the evidence"--but there are already now additional limitations on the exclusionary rule. So it's difficult to see if the deterrent factor truly exists in all but the most obvious situations.

An update on the Snowden-DUI-PBJ case

2011-01-14T12:24:00.001-05:00

From the Baltimore Sun:

Anne Arundel County Circuit Judge Ronald A. Silkworth gave Carl O. Snowden a week to decide whether he wants to withdraw his November plea and start over the case with a different judge or have a conviction on his record and possibly a harsher sentence.

I previously wrote about this story here and here.

I ask again: why does this man still have a job for the state's chief law enforcement officer?

One of two sisters accused in killing of man enters Alford plea

2011-01-12T10:20:00.000-05:00

From the Baltimore Sun:

A Laurel supermarket clerk accused, along with her sister, of killing a man who prosecutors say owed her money for drugs entered a plea to second-degree murder Tuesday that will get her between eight and 10 years in prison.

Patrice Rashah Dove, 22, cried as she entered an Alford plea before Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Judge William Mulford II, meaning she did not admit to killing Jamal Medina, 22, of Laurel on Dec. 21, 2009, at the Maryland City Plaza Shopping Center, but acknowledged that prosecutors had enough evidence against her for a conviction.

Dove's sister, Latisha Montia Adams, 23, fatally stabbed Medina, Anne Arundel County Assistant State's Attorney Brian Marsh told Mulford.

Rational choice and common sense in the Giffords shooting

2011-01-12T07:34:00.000-05:00

When a Democrat politician like Rep. Giffords is attacked, it seems rational to blame the action, either directly or indirectly, on the political opposition, whether that be Republicans, conservatives, or the Tea Party. Now to be fair, I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that any of these actors actually pulled the trigger, but there have been suggestions they may have created and fostered a climate in which somehow made this act easier to happen.

Here's one problem. Rep. Giffords is a former Republican, and a rather conservative (Blue Dog) Democrat. In practice, she only votes with the Democrats about 40% of the time. And last week she voted against Nancy Pelosi for minority leader. So from the same political perspective as above, it seems rational, and even just as likely that Rep. Giffords' attack was based upon the fact that she was not liberal enough, and perhaps someone with a left-wing motivation could have created and fostered such a climate. In fact, Rep. Giffords was a "bulls eye" on a Daily Kos "target list," presumably for not being left-wing enough. She was also the target of a Daily Kos post just two days before her attack (now removed, go figure) in which the author suggested that Giffords was "DEAD to me" for not being liberal enough.

In 1963, JFK's assassination was initially blamed on a right-wing culture of hate that supposedly existed in Dallas, Texas at the time (sound familiar?). The problem? Lee Harvey Oswald turned out to be a Castro-sympathizing Communist. Not exactly the right-winger some were hoping for.

The fallacy with all of these conjectures is that they assume rationality. Normal people make decisions based upon facts, often tempered by emotions, but generally speaking those decisions are based in some form of rationality. Criminals, on the other hand, are not constrained by a normal sense of rationality, so why would you expect them to be constrained by laws to prevent such actions?

(In fact, these conjectures also ignore the fact that Jared Loughner had spoken with Giffords back in 2007 before there was a Tea Party or before most of the nation had heard of Sarah Palin.)

There is no evidence in the news since Saturday that suggests any sort of political motivation for this attack. And if you watch Jared Loughner's videos on YouTube, you will rather quickly come to the realization that his head is not screwed on very tightly. Likewise, his "favorite" books are not just Animal Farm and Brave New World, but also Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto, the Wizard of Oz, Aesop's Fables and To Kill A Mockingbird. His rants are about dreaming, currency, grammar, language, and mind control. His ideas are not confined to one side of the political spectrum. Only time will tell, but it seems extremely unlikely to me that this nutcase was motivated in any way by Sarah Palin, Markos Moulitsas or anyone else in any position of power.

Proposing snap legislation (like gun control or restrictions on free speech), or otherwise taking advantage of this tragedy to blame the opposition or further one's own case is shameless. They're all responses to flawed reasoning about how and why this tragedy occurred.

NYT article on "secret subpoenas" misses the issue entirely

2011-01-10T17:21:00.002-05:00

This article in the New York Times is, frankly speaking, terrible (emphases are mine):

THE news that federal prosecutors have demanded that the microblogging site Twitter provide the account details of people connected to the WikiLeaks case, including its founder, Julian Assange, isn’t noteworthy because the government’s request was unusual or intrusive. It is noteworthy because it became public.

For the Twitter request, the government obtained a secret subpoena from a federal court. Twitter challenged the secrecy, not the subpoena itself, and won the right to inform the people whose records the government was seeking. WikiLeaks says it suspects that other large sites like Google and Facebook have received similar requests and simply went along with the government.

This kind of order is far more common than one may think, and in the case of terrorism and espionage investigations the government can issue them without a court order. The government says more than 50,000 of these requests, known as national security letters, are sent each year, but they come with gag orders that prevent those contacted from revealing what the agency has been seeking or even the existence of the gag orders.

Let me rephrase the relevant parts into an explanation:

The government issued or obtained a secret subpoena (without a court order), known as a national security letter, to compel Twitter to provide the details of people connected to the Wikileaks case.

Uh, no. Not even close.

First, as both Christopher Soghoian and I have noted, it is not a subpoena, but a court order, and it makes a difference.

Second, as you can see below, the order is authorized by Title 18, United States Code, Section 2703(d). National Security Letters are authorized by Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2709. The difference is huge. The Twitter court order (see below) is authorized by 2703(d) and signed by a federal magistrate. Section 2709 National Security Letters are administrative subpoenas by the FBI and not signed by a magistrate or judge.

Third, there are distinct words in the order below:

...the Court finds that the applicant has offered specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the records or other information sought are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.

This is not just legal mumbo jumbo. These words are carefully selected because they represent the legal standard required to issue a court order. In fact, the "specific and articulable facts" standard of 2703(d) derives from the Supreme Court's decision in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1. A subpoena, even under 2703(d), would require a lower legal standard called reasonableness.

The entire article is based on the misunderstood claim that the Twitter court order is a National Security Letter administrative subpoena. I am neither a lawyer, nor a journalist, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the New York Times misses the issue entirely.

Twitter 2703d Court Order

Taxes kill jobs in Baltimore

2011-01-10T16:37:00.001-05:00

From the Baltimore Sun (h/t @MMMcDermott):

The Pepsi plant in Baltimore will no longer make soda and other beverages as the company has decided to stop production at the plant, resulting in 70 job losses.

Executives at Pepsi Beverages Co. told the workers today that production would be halted. An additional 318 workers with positions in sales and in the warehouse will keep their jobs.

Kristine Hinck, a company spokeswoman, said a number of factors played into the closing of the production side of the business — including a 2-cent tax on bottled beverages passed by the City Council last year. The need to streamline operations was another factor in the decision.

FCC challenges app makers to protect open Internet

2011-01-10T11:49:00.001-05:00

From Reuters:

U.S. regulators are asking software developers in an 'Open Internet Challenge' to create apps that let Internet users know when their service provider -- fixed or mobile -- is interfering with content.

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is trying to get consumers to help police Internet service providers for network management abuses such as slowing bandwidth-hogging content from movies.

The wants to spur the deployment of innovative technologies to protect the openness of the Internet.

The FCC adopted Internet traffic rules last month that ban landline Internet providers such as Comcast Corp and Verizon Communications Inc from blocking lawful traffic or discriminating against bandwidth-heavy content.

If you want to follow the net neutrality money, follow all the money

2011-01-10T09:28:00.005-05:00

This spreadsheet purports to show, as its title suggests, "The Money Behind Blackburn's Anti-Neutrality Bill." This is a reference to Rep. Marsha Blackburn's bill H.R.96 "To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from further regulating the Internet." The spreadsheet shows the bill's 59 co-sponsors along with a tally of donations from AT&T, Koch Industries, Comcast, Verizon, NCTA, Qwest, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Obviously, AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and Qwest are involved in the telecommunications industry. The National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA) is an industry group, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a pro-business organization. Unless I am mistaken, Koch Industries is not directly involved in the telecommunications industry, but is associated with its founders, the Koch brothers, who are well-known contributors to a variety of conservative causes. So, a small objection here: including this money as "telecom" money isn't really accurate. It would be the equivalent of picking an unrelated union and including their contributions among the net neutrality supporters. But that's a fight for another day, as it has little significance on the outcome.

This information on this spreadsheet comes from (and directly links to) Open Secrets, a website that tracks political contributions. It is important to note the disclaimer regarding these contributions:

The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

The spreadsheet does explicitly include this disclaimer, but curiously not the phrase, "[t]he organizations themselves did not donate..." which is bold, red, and italicized on Open Secrets.

It is also important to note that these contributions go back as far as 1989; these totals are not "new" contributions specifically related to this bill, but the cumulative amounts over (for most of the co-sponsors) multiple terms. Also, all of this money is reported for 2010 and earlier, so no reporting of new money has yet taken place. Yet Blackburn's bill was only introduced this month.

Still, it attempts to show that money from the telecommunications industry is funneled to (mostly) Republican candidates who are attempting to prevent the FCC from regulating net neutrality (the conservative Democrat Dan Boren is a co-sponsor).

But what about those in Congress who explicitly support net neutrality legislation? What does their money trail look like? Let's take our first example, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), who introduced a strong pro-net neutrality bill last session. Using the same Open Secrets data, we find among Rep. Waxman's top 20 contributors:

Time Warner $63,000
NCTA $47,000
AT&T $44,000

These $154,000 in contributions alone would place Waxman 6th on the list of Blackburn's co-sponsors.

The former Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), a strong supporter of net neutrality, amassed aover $150,000 solely from Time Warner and Verizon.

The largest recipient of money from the telecommunications industry in the 111th Congress? Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), a supporter of net neutrality, who received $98,400 in just one session (2009-10).

While net neutrality is not necessarily a purely partisan issue, you'll find that generally speaking, Democrats tend to support legislation to regulate net neutrality, while Republicans tend to oppose it. But, when you look at the party breakdown of total contributions from the telecommunications industry during the 111th Congress, the money is nearly 50/50 to both parties.

I agree that it's important to follow the money in order to help establish connections. But to suggest that years of contributions to just one side of an issue represents the money behind a bill only introduced this month is stretching this connection beyond all recognition. This approach is also simplistic because it supposes that net neutrality is the only issue of importance to telecom donors. Additionally, following the money on one side without regard for the other misuses the data. Money from the telecoms is headed, more or less equally, to both sides of the net neutrality debate, and ignoring one side of the money trail to advance a position on the other side is disingenuous.

On defining "subpoena"

2011-01-09T22:16:00.003-05:00

I'm working on something more substantive right now in relation to the Wikileaks / Twitter / court order situation, but for now I'll point you to Christopher Soghoian's post at his slight paranoia blog. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but he attempts to cover the issue.

I do, however, have to raise an objection to his description of a subpoena. He's trying to make the point that the media has referred to the court order as a subpoena when it is in fact a court order, because he thinks the distinction is relevant (and he's right). He then goes on to define subpoena:

Subpoenas are essentially letters written by law enforcement officers, on official agency letterhead, and have not been reviewed or signed by a judge.

I contend that this is inaccurate, at least in part. A subpoena is an order to compel testimony or produce evidence. When it comes from a court, it is a judicial subpoena. What he describes comes from an agency; it is an administrative subpoena (such as National Security Letters) that does not require a signature (but even then, the Patriot Act allowed for judicial oversight of NSLs). So in fact it is important to distinguish between whether or not the subpoena originates from a court (judicial) or from an agency (administrative, the power of which must be expressly authorized by Congress).

A subpoena is considered the least intrusive method of obtaining information, so it has the lowest standard (what the courts call "reasonableness"). A court order requires that the government show "specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation." Note that a court order is considered more intrusive than a subpoena but less intrusive than a search warrant. A search warrant is the most intrusive method, and requires probable cause. With each higher method of intrusion, the government is required to meet a higher standard, but gains access to additional information.

Neither Chris nor myself are lawyers; so I guess we'll leave it to them to sort out. :-)

Fifth Circuit Permits Warrantless Government Searches Based on Previous Private Search Not Known To Police

2011-01-09T21:14:00.003-05:00

From Orin Kerr at The Volokh Conspiracy:

Last week the Fifth Circuit handed down a significant decision on the “private search” doctrine in Fourth Amendment law, United States v. Oliver. Oliver permits warrantless searches under the private search doctrine even when the police who conducted the search didn’t know about the private search. I don’t think the private search doctrine can extend so far, and in this post I hope to explain why I think the decision is wrong. I also want to explain why a different Fourth Amendment rule, the “apparent authority” doctrine, very possibly applies to the facts of this case. The apparent authority doctrine was not litigated in the Oliver case, but it should have been. If I’m right about that, the Oliver decision may have reached a plausible result but did so using a rationale that is quite troubling and likely to cause more problems in the future.

Follow the link for Kerr's analysis on the case; the text of the decision is below.

United States v. Oliver

MetroPCS and Net Neutrality

2011-01-07T13:24:00.000-05:00

From Ryan Singel at Wired.com's Epicenter blog:

MetroPCS, the nation’s fifth largest mobile carrier, announced earlier this week it was offering new pay-as-you-go mobile data plans for its 4G network that would block online video streaming — except for YouTube — for its lowest level plan, and for all plans, block the use of internet phone calling apps.

While the company says the plans are intended to give customers the choice of levels of service, the plans look to be in conflict with the FCC’s new net neutrality rules. Those controversial rules, passed just before Christmas, prohibit mobile carriers from blocking access to websites or “blocking applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services, subject to reasonable network management.”

It is unclear whether or not this is a violation, but it's certainly a bold move if MetroPCS is basing their decision on reasonable network management. This is especially so in light of the FCC's focus on technology in determining what is and isn't reasonable. The evolution to 4G, as the FCC notes (PDF, paragraph 95), "puts greater pressure on the concept of 'reasonable network management' for mobile providers..."

It seems to me that providers (especially mobile providers, who have a bigger loophole in the FCC's net neutrality rules) are going the route of being intentionally aggressive in order to push the limits of reasonable network management, to force the issue into the courts. As I said previously, much of this litigation will be centered around what is reasonable, which is "perhaps the most litigated word in American history."

Explosive devices at two Maryland state buildings; all mailrooms locked down

2011-01-07T06:22:00.000-05:00

From the Baltimore Sun:

Two small packages, addressed to Gov. Martin O'Malley and another state official, ignited 20 minutes apart in government buildings in Annapolis and Hanover Thursday, launching a wave of concern throughout the state.

The only injuries reported were to the fingers of a state mailroom worker, who refused treatment — yet federal and state officials locked down state government mailrooms indefinitely and responded with a massive public safety effort that captured the focus of the cable news networks.

Highest Court in D.C. Allows Second Amendment Challenges to Long-Ago Convictions for Violating D.C. Handgun Ban

2011-01-06T23:04:00.000-05:00

From The Volokh Conspiracy:

Magnus v. U.S., decided today, concludes that a defendant who pled guilty in 1996 to violating D.C. handgun ban can now have that plea set aside given D.C. v. Heller, assuming his conduct was indeed protected by the Second Amendment (and didn’t, for instance, involve the possession of a gun to facilitate an illegal drug transaction). “A conviction for conduct that is not criminal, but is instead constitutionally protected, is the ultimate miscarriage of justice,” and a defendant can therefore ask to have it set aside (via a petition for coram nobis relief) even many years later.

Magnus v. United States

When I lived with "terrorists"

2011-01-05T12:56:00.000-05:00

In 1997, as part of an effort by President Bill Clinton to reach out to Iran, the United States added the People's Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI, also known as Mujaheddin-e Khalq, or MEK), the largest Iranian exile organization, to the State Department's list of terrorist organizations. This was purely a political move, as the PMOI haven't really engaged in any sort of terrorist actions in recent times and certainly haven't engaged in any action against the United States.

The French Committee for a Democratic Iran or the National Council of Resistance of Iran is the diplomatic front for the PMOI and is a sort of government-in-exile located in France.

The PMOI was in the news again last month:

A group of prominent U.S. Republicans associated with homeland security told a forum of cheering Iranian exiles here Wednesday that President Obama's policy toward Iran amounts to futile appeasement that will never persuade Tehran to abandon its nuclear projects.

The Americans - former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, former secretary of homeland security Tom Ridge, former White House homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend and former attorney general Michael Mukasey - demanded that Obama instead take the controversial Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK) opposition group off the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations and incorporate it into efforts to overturn the mullah-led government in Tehran.

"Appeasement of dictators leads to war, destruction and the loss of human lives," Giuliani declared. "For your organization to be described as a terrorist organization is just really a disgrace."

The four GOP figures appeared at a rally organized by the French Committee for a Democratic Iran, a pressure group formed to support MEK.

Their crowd-pleasing appeals, they said, reflected growing bipartisan sentiment in the U.S. Congress and elsewhere that the 13-year-old terrorist designation of the Paris-based dissident group should be ended because it is unfounded and has not made the Iranian government easier to deal with or halt its nuclear program. In addition, they noted, a Washington federal appeals court in July ordered Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to review the listing, and cast doubt on some of the information brought forward to support it.

The article was brought to my attention by Rob McNealy, who tweeted earlier today that the "GOP leadership officially supporting terrorism when it suits their interests," and cited the article.

It struck a nerve with me because most of my nine months in Iraq were spent at Camp Ashraf, which happens to be the home of the aforementioned PMOI. Yes, you read that correctly: U.S. troops including myself were living inside Camp Ashraf in close proximity to these supposedly-dangerous terrorists (albeit in separate areas of the camp). Rob's comment struck me as naive because, while it is easy to read about an organization as a designated terrorist organization and feign indignation at the Republicans who spoke on their behalf, it is another to have lived beside them and understand them for who they are.

A quick history of the PMOI in one paragraph: they are an Iranian exile organization who were supported by Saddam Hussein and who laid down their arms in 2003 at the outset of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The "prisoners" were held at Camp Ashraf and were later declared "protected persons" under the Geneva Convention.

In reality, very few of the PMOI were held in prison; most of them lived within their section of the Camp (which, in truth, is more like a small town). When they did venture outside of Camp Ashraf, they were escorted by you-know-who: the U.S. soldiers who were stationed at Ashraf. Yes, you read that correctly, too: U.S. soldiers were escorting these supposedly-dangerous terrorists on supply runs into Baghdad (after all, they were protected persons). These were known colloquially as "PMOI runs" and ran from Ashraf down to Baghdad and back several times a week. I went on quite a few of these runs back in 2006. Whether you agree or disagree with what we were doing, you cannot deny that other than having their name on a list, we have not in any stretch of reality treated the PMOI as terrorists.

Over the course of my time at Ashraf, I had opportunities to speak with a number of people within the local PMOI leadership. While I can't say that I necessarily agree with their philosophy, I am fairly certain of the fact that this organization does not being on an official list of terrorists (although after having watched some of their ceremonies, they definitely have a cultish feel to them). The EU started the process to remove the PMOI from their terrorist list back in 2006, and finally removed them officially back in 2009. Last year a federal appeals court ordered Secretary Clinton to review the PMOI's status as a terrorist organization. And while the Post article that Rob cited specifically mentioned the GOP leaders that traveled to Paris, the group of lawmakers that support removing the PMOI as a terrorist organization is decidedly bi-partisan.

I mentioned to Rob that Nelson Mandela's African National Congress was previously on the United States' list of terrorist organizations; were Nelson Mandela's supporters in the United States also officially supporting terrorism? His response disappointed me: "I don't care about Africa, I care about American[sic]." Although in truth I guess this is more-or-less what you would expect from a libertarian.

Among all this, there is no evidence of any terror activity from this supposed terrorist group. That seems to defy explanation.

(In 2009, Ashraf was turned over to Iraq and U.S. forces eventually left; was apparently attacked by Iraqi security forces resulting in numerous deaths.)

Hollywood Unoriginality, Redux

2011-01-04T22:24:00.000-05:00

If you remember back as far as June of last year, I did a short series of posts on what I perceived to be the lack of originality in new movies: they're mostly remakes, sequels, or something (TV, comic book, video-game) to movie. Over the course of that period I found that only about 20% of the movies were realistically original.

So after a break of six months let's take another look at last weekend's top ten:

1. Little Fockers (sequel/series)
2. True Grit (remake)
3. Tron Legacy (sequel)
4. Yogi Bear (cartoon)
5. The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader (sequel/series)
6. The Fighter
7. Tangled (fairy tale)
8. Gulliver's Travels (book, remake)
9. Black Swan
10. The King's Speech

So, more or less, only three "original" movies. Again, this doesn't de-value the potential of the "unoriginal" movies; some or many of them are undoubtedly good movies. They're just not truly original.

1,001 posts, wow

2011-01-04T22:08:00.000-05:00

My previous post was my 1,000th post. Crazy. Looking back, my first post was back on December 23, 2004.

I just realized that I had a bunch of posts in "draft" status from when I was stationed in Iraq. I imagine that when I wrote them, they were somewhat sensitive; but given the time, I don't see any reason why they couldn't be published now. See here for my posts tagged with Iraq. I also did a bunch of cryptograms while I was there--it helped to pass the time!

Warrantless cellphone search OK in California, but not in Ohio

2011-01-04T21:29:00.002-05:00

Earlier today I wrote about the decision by the California Supreme Court to permit warrantless searches of cell phones in searches incident to a lawful arrest. Here is a case from December 2009 from the Ohio Supreme Court which has similar facts but the court ultimately came to a different conclusion. With conflicting rulings from two separate state supreme courts (and a federal district court), the issue will likely to get more attention from the Supreme Court.

State v. Smith

Warantless cellphone search is much ado about nothing

2011-01-04T10:20:00.000-05:00

I linked to the article, Court clears warrantless cellphone searches, over at Assault on Privacy. SFGate has a similar article covering the same decision, entitled Court OKs searches of cell phones without warrant. I've seen both of these articles posted on Twitter today and the headlines are certainly eye-opening. The comments (in particular on the SFGate article) complain about the police state, but here the devil is really in the details (which in this case are the articles themselves).

Both articles explain that the search of the cellphone was a search incident to a lawful arrest, which is one of the clearly defined exceptions to the warrant requirement. Moreover, this isn't some creation of the modern Rehnquist and/or Roberts Court designed to scale back the excesses of the Warren Court. In fact, this exception is firmly rooted in English common law and has continued to the present.

Los Angeles Times is wrong about the Wal-Mart class-action lawsuit

2011-01-04T06:26:00.002-05:00

The Los Angeles Times editorializes about the Wal-Mart class-action lawsuit today, and to no surprise, they've read the issue entirely wrong:

There is currently no limit on the size of a class, nor should there be...In other words, Wal-Mart's size shouldn't immunize it to a lawsuit that otherwise meets legal standards.

But this case isn't simply about the size of the class. Experts acknowledge that a class this large could conceivably go forward if Wal-Mart had a nationwide policy that equally affected all of the women in the class. But as Ted Frank wrote in the Washington Examiner:

...the theory of the Dukes lawsuit is exactly the opposite: the plaintiffs claimed that Wal-Mart's central office did not exercise enough authority over each of its 3,400 stores; each of the individual managers' discretionary employment or promotion decisions--whether made by male or female managers--was, on average, discriminatory; and thus Wal-Mart was responsible for a policy that "fosters or facilitates" discrimination.

...

One can quickly see why this does not work as a class action. In the words of Professor Richard Epstein, the procedural tail is wagging the substantive dog.

The discrimination laws permit Wal-Mart to defend itself by demonstrating that the challenged job decision was made for a reason other than gender. For example, looking at Betty Dukes, the named plaintiff, alone, we learn that she had a female manager and that she was repeatedly disciplined for returning late from lunch breaks.

Yet if a court ties together claims that are not alike, it will have trouble trying the case as a single class action--unless it pretends that the parts that are not alike are not part of the lawsuit. Wal-Mart is stripped of its defense because the individualized defense would be inconvenient to trying the case as a class action.

But that is precisely backwards. If there are too many individualized issues to permit a defendant to defend itself adequately in a class action, that means the correct ruling is not to have a class action.

Emphasis is mine. The case isn't about the size of the class, per se. The size of the case is only relevant because it brings together claims that are not alike, and therefore prevents Wal-Mart from defending itself from disparate, individualized claims.

Quiz time: Can you answer this question?

2011-01-03T13:34:00.001-05:00

See if you can answer this test question:

Q: When operating in a building which uses a standpipe system, it is necessary for a firefighter to maintain adequate pressure at the nozzle of the firefighting stream. The correct nozzle pressure is calculated by adding an additional 5 psi (pound per square inch) for each length of hose that is being used, to a constant starting base of 50 psi.

A firefighting team is operating in a building with a standpipe system and is in the process of using 4 lengths of hose. The correct nozzle pressure that needs to be applied in this situation is: A) 50 psi, B) 60 psi, C) 70 psi, D) 80 psi.

Answer below the break...

If you answered C) 70 psi, you're right.

On the surface, [these questions] seem to require an awful lot of familiarity with firefighting equipment and procedural jargon. But when you look closer, you see that in just about every case, the answer can be determined with straightforward logic. In this example, you really don’t need to know what a “standpipe system” is or how pressure is added at the nozzle of a fire hose. You just need to add 5 psi for every length of hose on top of the base pressure of 50. In other words, this is a simple question requiring only basic math.

So, what is the problem?

It may surprise you to learn, then, that this question (and many others like it) have been found by the federal court system to be part of a virulently racist entrance process that has been designed to keep blacks and other minority New Yorkers from becoming firefighters.

The question above was taken from a test that was discarded as too biased against non-whites.

Really (yes, the Village Voice is the voice of reason).

Diagnosing high oil pressure on my Jeep

2011-01-03T12:57:00.000-05:00

I drive a 2002 Jeep Grande Cherokee. I noticed over the last month that the oil pressure was registering higher than normal and would rise further during acceleration. It was time for an oil change, so I was hoping to see the results of the oil change on this problem. Now on start, the oil pressure rises higher than normal (about three-quarters to the peg). On acceleration, the gauge pegs and stays there; and then only comes down slowly after letting off the gas.

Cold weather would presumably have some impact on oil pressure, but I don't think it would be this significant.

The most recent oil change would seem to eliminate the possibility that there was a problem with the oil filter.

I'm trying to narrow down the possibilities based on these observations and some research. So far I have come up with the following:

(1) Bad oil pressure sending unit (seems to be the most common culprit with like models)
(2) Problem with the oil pressure relief valve

What other factors do you think could cause the symptoms I am seeing?

Snowden argues to keep 2nd DUI probation before judgment

2011-01-01T20:20:00.001-05:00

From the Baltimore Sun:

The director of the attorney general's civil rights office is trying to keep a sentence that could allow him to avoid a drunken-driving conviction for the second time, a punishment that prosecutors now argue is illegal.

Carl O. Snowden's attorneys wrote in court papers that despite a 2009 change in the law barring more than one probation before judgment every 10 years for drunken driving, other laws prevent Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Judge Ronald A. Silkworth from increasing Snowden's sentence.
...
This is Snowden's second probation before judgment in a drunken-driving case in eight years. A third similar charge...was dropped in 2005.

As I wrote about when this snafu first occurred, neither the prosecutor nor the sentencing judge knew that the Maryland law was changed.

Shane Nikolao, an attorney for Snowden, wrote in a December 17th motion that "[t]o allow the state to participate in sentencing after they have agreed to remain silent would throw the entire judicial system into chaos." This is really grasping. It seems unlikely that simply correcting an error could result in such chaos. This one is better:

He also contended that it would be "unfair to prevent Mr. Snowden from receiving probation before judgment when at the time he accepted his first probation before judgment he did so with the understanding that he would be eligible for another one after five years." His third argument is that court rules say that a sentence cannot be increased.

Seriously? "[H]e did so with the understanding that he would be eligible for another one after five years"? Is this an indication that Mr. Snowden was going to continue to drink and drive? The judge shouldn't change the sentence because a defendant is given the expectation (or even the entitlement) of a specific sentence for a future violation? What a joke.

This should already be completely obvious, but regardless of the outcome of this case, it is an outrage that a member of the attorney general's staff could accumulate two DUIs (and have been charged with a third) and still have a job working for the state's chief law enforcement officer. Mr. Snowden should do the right thing and resign.

Anne Arundel judge sanctions prosecutors in murder case

2011-01-01T20:04:00.001-05:00

From the Baltimore Sun:

A judge has ruled that prosecutors violated court rules by withholding witness information from defense lawyers in a pending murder trial of a jockey.

Judge Ronald A. Silkworth told prosecutors that they cannot call at least one, and possibly a second, jailhouse snitch to testify against Francis Eugene Adams because they did not turn over information about one witness for more than five months, and kept information on the other for nearly a month. Silkworth issued his opinion Wednesday afternoon in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court.

A good example of how prosecutors withholding information can potentially damage the case in a murder trial.

Shmoocon Firetalks CFP submission

2011-01-01T19:58:00.002-05:00

Title: Net Neutrality, the FCC, and the End of the Internet as We Know It (in 15 Minutes or Less)

Abstract: On December 21, 2010, the FCC adopted "net neutrality" rules by a closely-watched 3-2 vote. But whether or not you support the idea of net neutrality, other questions remain: First, was the process transparent? And more importantly, why did the FCC act despite the warnings of Congress and despite the Comcast decision, both of which claimed that that FCC lacked such authority? This lighting-fast discussion will cover the basics of net neutrality, the role of the FCC in regulating the Internet, and the future legal and policy implications of the FCC's neutrality rules. Is the future of the Internet really at risk?

Senator wants in-state tuition for illegal immigrants

2010-12-30T09:33:00.000-05:00

A new state senator apparently wants to send Maryland down the same path to bankruptcy as California. According to the Baltimore Sun's Maryland Politics blog:

An incoming state senator said Tuesday that he plans to introduce legislation to give in-state college tuition to illegal immigrants who have attended state high schools.

“After we have invested in their education, it makes sense to treat them equally when it comes to college tuition,” said Victor Ramirez, a Prince George’s County Democrat. He said colleges should focus on residency requirements rather than immigration status.

Annual tuition and mandatory fees at the University of Maryland are $8,416 for state residents and $24,831 for non-residents, according to the school’s website.

Ramirez, who was a delegate for eight years before winning a Senate seat this fall, said his legislation would be similar to a 2007 plan that passed the House of Delegates but faltered in the Senate. Both chambers approved an in-state tuition bill in 2003, but it was vetoed by then-Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., a Republican.

Gov. Martin O’Malley, a Democrat who has referred to illegal immigrants as “new Americans,” has said he would sign an in-state tuition bill.

Anne Arundel County enacts program that targets illegal immigrants charged in crimes

2010-12-30T09:30:00.000-05:00

If there is one nice thing about Anne Arundel County, is it not a sanctuary for illegal aliens (see: Baltimore City). According to the Baltimore Sun:

Anne Arundel County joined a federal program this week that is aimed at helping identify illegal immigrants who have been arrested and accused of other crimes.

The program employs fingerprint identification using federal databases, and officials say it will be implemented nationwide by 2013.

The program, called Secure Communities, was started under the George W. Bush administration but has become a priority in the Obama administration's enforcement efforts for illegal immigration. With the help of local law enforcement authorities and jails, the ability to quickly identify illegal immigrants who have committed crimes or are accused of committing them is improved under the program, supporters say.

Teens facing second set of murder charges in Glen Burnie slayings

2010-12-30T09:21:00.001-05:00

According to the Baltimore Sun, Anne Arundel County police have connected the murders of two individuals in Glen Burnie this past year by their suspected killers:

Two of four teenagers charged in the killing of a man during a holdup at a Glen Burnie take-out restaurant are now facing additional first-degree murder charges — this time in the summertime slaying of a clerk at a 7-Eleven in Glen Burnie.

Vincent Ethan Bunner, 17, of the 100 block of Dunlap Road in Pasadena and Shawn Anthony Johnson, 18, of the 7800 block of Windbourne Drive in Glen Burnie were charged Tuesday in the second fatal shooting, Anne Arundel County police said. Investigators are seeking a third person. Police made the announcement at a news conference Wednesday.

The Sun goes on to mention possible gang affiliations.

For additional coverage, see the Washington Post.

State Senator Mike O'Pake: 1940-2010

2010-12-28T09:23:00.000-05:00

One of my earliest exposures to politics came around eighth grade, well before I could even vote. I had been selected to participate in NAIMUN, the North American Invitation Model United Nations conference, one of the largest and most prestigious model UN conferences in the world. Due to construction and class sizes, our eighth grade was in the high school building, and this gave us some early introductions to high school organizations. Our school was perhaps one of the only ones to have eighth graders in model UN, and it was considered very prestigious to be selected for NAIMUN, much less as an eighth grader.

As a representative of both Muhlenberg High School and Berks County, I was introduced around that time to State Senator Mike O'Pake, who I would come to see fairly often during my time in high school. If there was something going on in the community, Mike O'Pake was there. If you won an award, you were sure to receive a letter of congratulations from Senator O'Pake. At that point in my life I didn't understand Democrats or Republicans, but I did understand Mike O'Pake. He was, as one person said, part of the fabric of the community.

State Senator Mike O'Pake died on Monday due to complications from his recent heart surgery. Today's Reading Eagle has the story of Mike O'Pake's life here.

Now that it matters, where is the EFF on net neutrality?

2010-12-27T14:20:00.003-05:00

Update: Of course, just as I post this, the EFF posts an update. Still, it is not nearly the statement I am hoping to hear from them. They soon need to move on from a "wait and see" attitude to forceful opposition to the process.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has long been a supporter of the concept of net neutrality. Yet on May 3rd, Fred von Lohmann of the EFF wrote an article entitled "Net Neutrality: FCC Trojan Horse Redux." In the article, he argued that basing the FCC's proposed net neutrality rules on the FCC's "mandate from Congress to deploy broadband to all Americans in a timely manner" is "a bad idea, no matter what your views of the wisdom of the FCC's proposed net neutrality regulations." He went on to say:

Whatever your views on net neutrality, this is a terrible idea. If you oppose the proposed FCC net neutrality regulations because you are worried about expansive federal regulation of the Internet, then you should oppose an expansive reading of "Title I ancillary authority," because that reading would be an invitation for even more federal regulations down the road.

The quote above about deploying broadband to all Americans in a timely manner is from Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This is what the EFF called a "terrible idea," and this is precisely the authority the FCC is asserting (see paragraph 117 of the FCC net neutrality order).

To be fair, this article seems to mix Section 706 and "Title I ancillary authority" into the same bucket, and the FCC's new net neutrality rules seem to drop "Title I ancillary authority" in favor of Section 706 (and a hodgepodge of other supposed authority). But the general idea is the same--the FCC is basing their claims of authority on terrible legal ground.

One would assume then that the EFF still thinks this is a terrible idea. The problem is that they have been largely silent. The EFF's "Deeplinks Blogs related to Net Neutrality" has been quiet since December 8th. The only news is an article by Abigail Phillips entitled, "Genachowski Wins on Net Neutrality, Sort of" which spends precisely one paragraph on the "bad" and "terrible" idea, but this time simply calls the FCC's basis for regulation "disconcerting."

The EFF supports the concept of net neutrality, but the arguments made by Fred von Lohnmann are precisely the same procedural arguments that I have made against net neutrality. Arguing the substance of the regulations is fine, as I have already done here, but when the entirety of that substance is based upon a "rotten legal foundation" (the EFF's words, not mine), you would think they would come out more forcefully against the process.

The EFF said back in May: "we don't think that the FCC has—or should have—broad powers to regulate the Internet for any reason..." I agree. I know it's the holiday season and things are slow everywhere, but as the New Year begins I hope we can expect a strong and forceful statement from the EFF against the FCC's net neutrality rules.

Is reading wife's e-mail a crime? Rochester Hills man faces trial

2010-12-27T13:25:00.004-05:00

Update: There's some good discussion here at The Volokh Conspiracy.

From the Detroit Free Press (h/t @packet_storm):

A Rochester Hills man faces up to 5 years in prison -- for reading his wife's e-mail.

Oakland County prosecutors, relying on a Michigan statute typically used to prosecute crimes such as identity theft or stealing trade secrets, have charged Leon Walker, 33, with a felony after he logged onto a laptop in the home he shared with his wife, Clara Walker.

Using her password, he accessed her Gmail account and learned she was having an affair. He now is facing a Feb. 7 trial. She filed for divorce, which was finalized earlier this month.

Legal experts say it's the first time the statute has been used in a domestic case, and it might be hard to prove.

This part is worth quoting:

Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper defended her decision to charge Leon Walker.

"The guy is a hacker," Cooper said in a voice mail response to the Free Press last week. "It was password protected, he had wonderful skills, and was highly trained. Then he downloaded them and used them in a very contentious way."

Walker's defense attorney, Leon Weiss, said Cooper is "dead wrong" on the law.

So using a password he got from her password book sitting next to the computer was "hacking." I will definitely keep an eye on this case.

Do we really even need net neutrality?

2010-12-27T11:32:00.001-05:00

In my post responding to Michael Ciarlo's "A Guide to the Open Internet," my reply was primarily one of procedural objections to processs by which net neutrality regulations were being adopted; while this post is primarily one of substantive objections to the regulations themselves.

I mentioned that one of his motivations for arguing for net neutrality was his personal experiences. He was unable to access ESPN3 on XBOX Live because ESPN didn't have a specific agreement with his ISP, Time Warner Cable. He felt (perhaps justifiably so) that Time Warner shouldn't be blocking content between XBOX Live and his console just because he didn't subscribe to ESPN3.

As I stated in my reply, I was and am sympathetic to his circumstances. But I also argued that these instances were few and far between, and largely solve themselves. I cited, for example, Comcast's interference of p2p traffic. Despite the Court of Appeals ruling in Comcast's favor, and as a result having no FCC regulations requiring them to do so, and despite having no other legal requirement to do so, Comcast agreed to stop interfering in such traffic. Net neutrality did not solve this problem.

Mr. Ciarlo's cause célèbre will soon go the same way. Back in September Time Warner agreed to bring ESPN3 to mobile devices and PCs, and it appears that this will soon extend to XBOX Live (perhaps even within the next few weeks). Net neutrality did not solve this problem.

Perhaps the market forces are not as swift as we would like, but neither of these cases took the hammer of government regulations to solve. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that a government-regulated net neutrality framework would solve these problems any quicker than the market. The current net neutrality rules specify a complaint process involving the FCC, but that could easily spillover into the courts over the "reasonable" nature of an ISP's network management practices. As FCC Commissioner McDowell said (pdf): "'Reasonable' is a subjective term...[I]t is...perhaps the most litigated word in American history..."

The other case he cites is the Fascinate phone locked to the Bing search engine. But the current FCC net neutrality rules carve out exemptions for wireless carriers, so it is unlikely that even these rules could change this. Paragraph 98 of the net neutrality order makes this clear (emphasis is mine):

Further, although we do not require mobile broadband providers to allow third-party devices or all third-party applications on their networks, we nonetheless require mobile broadband providers to disclose their third-party device and application certification procedures, if any; to clearly explain their criteria for any restrictions on use of their network; and to expeditiously inform device and application providers of any decisions to deny access to the network or of a failure to approve their particular devices or applications.

So you have a radical solution (government regulation without congressional authorization) that is either not truly required (because the few problems that do exist tend to solve themselves) or doesn't actually solve the problems that do exist (as in the case of exempting wireless ISPs); or worse, both not required and doesn't solve the problem. Which, not surprisingly, turns out to be the case of many proposed government "solutions."

Returning to the question posed by the title of this blog post: "Do we really even need net neutrality?" I have argued that substantively, we do not. But many of you undoubtedly disagree with me. I'll ask the same question that I did in my previous post: What are your examples that the Internet is broken, now?

A response to "A Guide to the Open Internet"

2010-12-25T19:27:00.005-05:00

I've seen a number of people tweet the "A Guide to the Open Internet" (located at http://theopeninter.net/) argument for net neutrality by Michael Ciarlo. His argument stems from his personal experiences (Time-Warner blocked his access to ESPN3) and I am clearly sympathetic to his circumstances. While it's a nice site, I felt like there were some problems with the argument so I wanted to comment on them.

A few notes before I begin:

Just to be clear, I do not work for an ISP nor do I have no connection to any telecommunications companies or other companies that are impacted by net neutrality. I am not shilling for anyone. I am personally alarmed at the process by which the FCC has disregarded the will of Congress and the authority of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

Let me also state that I don't know Mr. Ciarlo nor is this intended to be any sort of attack on him personally. I shouldn't even have to say this, but sometimes people perceive things differently so I wanted to be clear. I am disputing claims in his argument, that is all. When I refer to "you" I am not referring to Mr. Ciarlo personally or alone, I am referring to you, the reader.

Let's just start with the obvious--TheOpenInter.net is a simple-to-follow, and visually pleasing website which advocates for net neutrality in a graphical manner. The site avoids complicated discussion and presents a pro-net neutrality argument in a way that not many could argue against. But it is this avoidance of the complicated discussion where I have the problem. Net neutrality is not as simple as Mr. Ciarlo would want it to be. As TechCrunch said in their (otherwise-generally positive) article, "there’s a lot more complexity surrounding the issue..." Furthermore, I have problems with the content of his argument and it starts almost immediately:

Network neutrality is the idea that your cellular, cable, or phone internet connection should treat all websites and services the same. Big companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast want to treat them differently so they can charge you more depending on what you use.

Big companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast have a right to responsibly manage the traffic that traverses the portions of the Internet that they own (yes, that's right: most of the Internet is in fact privately owned). For example, do you have FiOS? Do you know who paid to run fiber to your house? It wasn't the government--it was Verizon. You're paying to use their service. They have a right to reasonable management of traffic to ensure their customers are getting a good product. If your use of some bandwidth-intensive product is preventing your neighbors from enjoying their Internet, don't you think your ISP has a right to do something about it? Even better, if your neighbors are using some bandwidth-intensive product that is grinding your Internet experience to a halt, what do you think should be done? Are you going to sit on your hands and be happy that your neighbors are blissfully protected by net neutrality?

And yes, big companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast could in the future conceivably charge you more for different services, but this is already the case now. If they want to do it, why haven't they? Probably because when they do float these ideas (liked tiered pricing schemes for usage) they get shot down by consumers. Sure, there are likely to be some continued ideas along these lines, but consumers tend to prevail. And that amazing FCC net neutrality rule? It more or less exempted wireless carriers from the restrictions.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is currently debating legislation to define limits for internet service providers (ISPs). The hope is that they will keep the internet open and prevent companies from discriminating against different kinds of websites and services.

The FCC is part of the Executive Branch of the government and therefore is charged with executing the laws, not writing them. The FCC does not write or debate legislation, which is the sole role of Congress. What the FCC does, though, is write rules and regulations that are properly authorized by Congressional legislation. Likewise, the FCC cannot simply write rules or regulations that go beyond what has already been authorized by Congress. I suspect that Mr. Ciarlo would willingly substitute the word "rule" or "regulation" in place of legislation, but in this case it is uniquely important because it makes a significant difference. Simply writing that the FCC is debating a rule does not cure this paragraph from the huge omission that the FCC has no such authority. If you truly support net neutrality, then you should oppose the FCC's current net neutrality rules and support legislation in Congress that actually authorizes the FCC to do so. 300+ member of Congress (many of whom actually do support net neutrality) have asked the FCC to forgo any action until Congress acts; yet the FCC forged ahead.

ISPs provide you internet access. You can use it as much as you want, for anything you want.

I won't get too far into technicalities here, but there are some limits on what you can do. This is why you agree to Terms of Service and an Acceptable Use Policy, even if you don't read them (because seriously, who does?). Regardless, I generally agree with this statement.

While they can limit your speeds, ISPs do it mostly to slow illegal downloads.

Comcast was accused of, and eventually admitted to slowing p2p traffic by sending RST packets. They argued that this was an acceptable network management practice. The FCC disagreed and tried to fine Comcast. The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit threw out the case because the FCC did not have the authority to regulate the Internet. If you care at all about net neutrality, and regardless of what side of the debate you find yourself on, you owe it to yourself and those you are debating to read the Comcast decision because it is the foundation for everything else that has happened since. But the larger point is that the Comcast incident is one of the very few such cases of where ISPs have been accused of interfering with traffic.

ISPs want to manage internet access and charge you depending on your usage.

Let's start with the obvious: if this is what ISPs want, why aren't they doing it already? This is where the chart is just too good to be true. Does anyone really think that an ISP is going to get away with charging separate package fees for sites like Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, etc.? Yes? You really believe that consumers won't be outraged? Why aren't the ISPs doing it now? Because right now they have every right to do it.

That means AT&T or Comcast could block a service like Google Maps and charge for their own.

Mr. Ciarlo has been spending too much time with Senator Al Franken, for this Google Maps example is right out of his alarmist playbook. Again, does anyone really think that Comcast is going to say, "Sorry folks, no Google Maps...you'll have to use our brand new Comcast/NBC maps!" Sure, right now they have the right to do this, but with most anything similar to this, it would be a terrible business decision. It's doubly-funny because Senator Franken is now arguing that the rules the FCC passed on December 21 would still allow for this "discrimination" of traffic because it is riddled with exemptions. So even Al Franken, one of the Senate's biggest proponents of net neutrality, is extremely unhappy with the FCC's net neutrality rule.

I recognize there is a sticky point. I'm arguing for no regulation at all, while those who support net neutrality are arguing for government regulation. But that's precisely my point; the Internet has evolved to the point today without government regulation, and I would prefer not to have the government deciding winners or losers. If you want the government to regulate the Internet, and you have a well-founded argument, then so be it. But the process by which this happens is even more important then the end result. If Congress authorizes the FCC to regulate the Internet, and the FCC writes rules and regulations within that specific congressional authorization, then so be it. But the current process is an end-run that ignores current law.

Get the word out and save the open internet.

Let's first define "the open Internet." To save something, I presume we must know what it is exactly that we want to save, so what is "the open Internet?" Is that what the Internet is now? Or what it was, five years ago? Ten? Or what you want it to be? I truly mean this in all sincerety. If what we have now is "the open Internet" then net neutrality is changing the rules mid-game, not saving what we already have. Decades of development without FCC regulation have given us what we have now.

Is the current Internet, as we have it right now, broken? I would argue that it is not, and thus permitting government regulation is unnecessary. If you are indeed arguing that it is broken, cite examples of how it is broken, not just ideas about what might happen in the future. I've already cited Comcast's interference of p2p traffic on your behalf. Even despite the Court of Appeals ruling in their favor, and as a result having no FCC regulations requiring them to do so, and despite having no other legal requirement to do so, Comcast agreed to stop interfering in such traffic. On his "why I created this" page, Mr. Ciarlo cites the example of the Fascinate phone locked to the Bing search engine. But the current FCC net neutrality rules largely exempt wireless carriers, so it is unlikely that even these rules could change this. What are your other examples that the Internet is broken, now? I recognize that Mr. Ciarlo's argument is to "depict a time in the future when ISPs control the Internet and all data is not downloaded equally" but don't the ISPs already control the Internet? Shouldn't ceding government control of the Internet to the government be based upon factual data and not supposition about what might happen?

Does the FCC have the legal authority to do what they did on December 21st? After reading Comcast, I think many people would agree that they do not. The irony of net neutrality is that, to impose the so-called "open Internet", you must subject the Internet to government regulation. Currently, as clarified by the Comcast case, the FCC does not currently have the authority to do so. The net neutrality rules they passed on December 21st exceed their mandate and will be overturned by the courts. If you truly want net neutrality, then you should support legislation in Congress that authorizes the FCC to regulate the Internet, because that's the proper way to do this.

FCC Net Neutrality rules (full text)

2010-12-23T23:26:00.002-05:00

FCC Net Neutrality Rules

FCC Net Neutrality rules (press release excerpts)

2010-12-22T21:47:00.003-05:00

FCC Net Neutrality Rules

Anne Arundel police say man admitted to fatal stabbing outside McDonald's

2010-12-21T07:44:00.000-05:00

The Baltimore Sun has more information on the stabbing in the McDonald's parking lot of the Cromwell Field Shopping Center in Glen Burnie here.

Pizza Delivery Man Robbed, Murdered In Severn

2010-12-20T15:52:00.000-05:00

CBS Baltimore has more details on the stabbing in Meade Village here.

Even if you support net neutrality, you should oppose what's happening tomorrow

2010-12-20T09:29:00.004-05:00

The FCC is scheduled to vote Tuesday on Chairman Julius Genachowski's "net neutrality" proposal. First problem? The proposal is confidential. The public hasn't even seen it, or had a chance to comment on it. Do you support it? How could you, without even knowing the details of what's in it.

Second problem? The FCC has no legal authority to regulate the Internet. When the FCC tried to fine Comcast for throttling bittorrent traffic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC has no powers to regulate any Internet provider’s network, or the management of its practices: “[the FCC] ’has failed to tie its assertion’ of regulatory authority to an actual law enacted by Congress."

Compare these questions: "Do you support net neutrality?" or "Do you support the FCC regulating the Internet?" or even worse, "Do you support the FCC regulating the Internet without Congressional authorization?" I think you'd find very different answers to the last two questions. Net neutrality as the FCC would have it tomorrow, is government-regulated neutrality without express Congressional authority. It is an over-reach of executive authority through the back door, and bad public policy. It is, as the Court of Appeals said, "untrammeled freedom to regulate activities over which the statute fails to confer..."

If you truly support net neutrality, you should oppose this executive agency power grab, and rather, support legislation in Congress that actually gives the FCC authority to regulate the Internet.

Police investigate two Anne Arundel County homicides

2010-12-19T11:14:00.001-05:00

From the Baltimore Sun:

Anne Arundel County police are investigating two homicides — one outside a Glen Burnie shopping center and another in a Severn neighborhood Saturday night.

Officers were called at about 6:40 p.m. to a parking lot of the Cromwell Field Shopping Center in the 7300 block of Baltimore Annapolis Blvd., where two men had been fighting, resulting in one being stabbed, police said. [Note: this is directly across the street from the Cromwell/Glen Burnie Light Rail stop]

The suspect was detained at the scene, police said, and taken into custody. The victim was taken to Maryland Shock Trauma Center, where he died.

His identity is being withheld pending family notification.

View Larger Map

About half an hour later, at about 7:15 p.m., police responded to the 1800 block of Meade Village Circle, where they found a 46-year-old injured man. Police said he suffered trauma and was taken to Maryland Shock Trauma Center, where died.

View Larger Map

Police are investigating both deaths as homicides but did not release additional details.

Anyone with information is asked to call Metro Crime Stoppers at 1-866-7LOCKUP.

Delaware Court Strikes Down Warrantless GPS Tracking

2010-12-18T20:42:00.001-05:00

From the Electronic Privacy Information Center:

The Delaware Superior Court has ruled that police must obtain a warrant before using GPS devices to monitor vehicles. The Court said that the Delaware Constitution protects its citizens' reasonable expectation of privacy from "constant surveillance." "Everyone understands there is a possibility that on any one occasion or even multiple occasions, they may be observed by a member of the public or possibly law enforcement," the Court reasoned, "but there is not such an expectation that an omnipresent force is watching your every move."

Here is the text of the decision:

Delaware v. Holden