Advocating Jury Nullification in public can get you arrested

This case seems really shocking and appalling to me.

Retired professor Julian P. Heicklen was arrested for telling passersby outside the Federal Courthouse in Manhattan about Jury Nullification.  Jury Nullification is the philosophy that says a jury can vote "Not Guilty" in a criminal case if they disagree with the law, even if the the defendant actually broke it.

Some examples might be northern juries voting to acquit fugitive slaves in the pre-civil war era because the jurors opposed slavery. In modern times, it might be acquiting someone of marijuana posession because the jurors feels the Marijuana laws on personal use are offensive. On the darker side, it also includes segregation era juries acquitting those who attack civil rights activists because the jurors favored segregation

It seems that ultimately the reason we have citizen juries is to provide a check on the combined power of our Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches.  If a juror doesn't feel the the defendent's actions are a crime deserving of punishment despite the facts presented by the state, it seems they have an obligation to vote "Not Guilty." There's a reason a jury is asked to vote "Guilty" or "Not Guilty." It's not asked to vote "True" or "False" on the prosecutor's case. Obviously, I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps my understanding of the issue is as thorough at that of legal philosophers.

But the questions of nullification isn't the one I'm really concerned about here. It's that the government arrested someone for telling people about it. He wasn't targeting jurors on a specific case or even jurors specifically.  He was talking to anyone out in public near the courthouse about nullification.

The first amendment is all about protecting speech, especially unpopular opinions. In an Op-Ed on the New York Times website, Paul Butler says:

The prosecutors who charged Mr. Heicklen said that “advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without constitutional protections no matter where it occurred.” The prosecutors in this case are wrong. The First Amendment exists to protect speech like this — honest information that the government prefers citizens not know.
... More

It outrageous that someone can be arrested for talking about this outside a government building.

You can read more about this case here:
Prosecution Explains Jury Tampering Charge
Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No

Obvious Warnings aren't new

We tend to think that obvious warnings (like this one) are a product of our modern litigious society, and that those lawsuits can be traced all the way back to Judge Wapner's People's Court with Doug Llewelyn's admission of "Don't take the law into your own hands; you take them to court."

But silly warning have been around for much longer, as this sign (ostensibly for children) from a 1910 Seattle Cable Car indicates:

Riot Control

I'm starting to get caught up on the "Stuff You Should Know" podcast.  It's a frequently updated show where two host discuss a topic in a casual way.  The topics in th past have inlcuded sleep, Masons, crime scene cleanup, venom, prison, rehab, and more. Sometimes the 30 minute podcast is only enough for a surface look, and other times they go into greater detail.  The discussions feel like the hosts only just learned about their topic in the last few days, which makes it more accessible.

With the recent protests we've seen in Seattle (which were really mild) and with riots around the world (much more serious) getting press, the question of riot control comes up quite a bit.

I found the Stuff You Should Know podcast on riot control fascinating.  They discuss what causes riots and how modern policing practice are designed to end riots with minimal injuries.  I found the discussion of tactical units advancing on rioters particularly interesting.

Each podcast has an accompanying article on the How Stuff Works website.  The article covers most of what is on the podcast, but inlcudes more diagrams and resources.  This one is worth reading.

I'd link to the particular episode of the podcast, but I can't seem to find a program list on the website.  You should be able to find it on iTunes or your favorite podcast agregator.  The home page for the show itself is here.

RIAA To Pursue Mixed Tapes

Ah, the Mix Tape.  It was an icon of 80s youth.

There were 2 kinds. The first kind we made off the radio.  I tried to keep a tape cued up, and the record function just a quick button away.  If I was paying attention, and the DJ didn't banter too much, I could collect all my favorite music without gambling on the invariably scratched 45 RPMs from the record store in the Green Acres Mall.

The second kind was the deliberate one. It was the one you made to collect your deep emotions.  You pulled it together from your radio dubs and your actual purchased tapes. It often involved cables strewn across the living room.  It could be the theme to a friendship or the overly flirtations, trying-to-hard, method of attempting to start a new relationship.

But as with all youthful indiscretions, these too, will come back to bite you. Old data doesn't go away.

Today (2010-04-01) I got my demand letter from the RIAA and I was served with a court order.

It seems that back in 1983 my mother bought me a pack of blank tapes with a credit card. Yes, the records apparently are still around from the THUNK-THUNK days of credit card processing.  From that receipt, they knew I had the tapes and tracked me down.  According to the letter:

You have or had blank audio tapes (Brand: Realistic; Length: 90 Minutes (45 minutes/side), Noise Reduction: Dolby B). 

Research shows that tape users such as yourself primarily use them to steal music from artists without paying for it.  Such users created "Party Mixes," "Road Tunes," "Mood Music," and "Mixed Tapes."

Further, interviews with other current and former New York residents known to be  associated with you have confirmed that you are a blatant large scale music pirate and at one point stole music such as:

1. The Russians are Liars (Z100 Morning Zoo parody)
2. Tarzan Boy (Baltimora)
3. When the Rain Begins to Fall (Jermain Jackson and Pia Zadora)
4. Hard Habit to Break (Chicago)
5. I Know You're Out There Somewhere (Moody Blues)
6. I Always Feel Like Somebody's Watching Me (Rockwell)
7. Just a Gigalo (David Lee Roth)
8. Patience (Guns 'N' Roses) (Illegal back yard performance)
9. Elvira (Oak Ridge Boys)
10. Toy Soldiers (Martika)
11. The Rain (Oran "Juice" Jones)
12. A View to A Kill (Duran Duran)
13. Glory of Love (Pete Cetera)

There is no statute of limitations on this craven theft, and we are pursuing this case to the fullest extent of the law. You are hereby notified that this investigation is ongoing. The accompanying court order prohibits you from destroying or damaging any audio recordings or  documentation related to this matter.

Investigators with the appropriate search warrants will arrive within the week to seize the appropriate evidence.

Thank you for your cooperation in this manner.

And it was signed by the appropriate people.  The accompanying court order did just that.

Two hours later I got a phone call from the attorney representing the RIAA.  He was in a conference room with the Federal Prosecutor for Intellectual Property Crimes in the Pacific Northwest.

They laid out the situation for me.  Based on there assumptions of what I had (I, of course, said nothing), they explained the situation was particularly bad.  Not only had I recorded music off the radio, I kept that music for more than 20 years.  And I traveled out of state with it.  They were drafting an International Warrant in case I fled, and flagged my passport so I couldn't leave the country.

If convicted, I could face penalties of up to $150K per song, plus 5 years in prison for each song.  In other words, if I had everything in that list, and if those were the only songs I recorded off the radio as a kid in the 80s, and if they don't find more when they execute the warrant, I will have to pay $1.95 million  and serve 65 years in Federal Prison.

Or I could settle now.  For the low price of $10K I could pay all fines and avoid jail time.  Plus I would need to report everyone else I knew who had a made a mixed tape.

I said I would think about it.

I headed out for coffee, and thought about all this on my walk.  I got to the shop, and the soft tones of Cyndi Lauper's "True Colors" greeted my ears.

Great.  That's just what I wanted to hear now.

Then I made my next mistake.  I began singing under my breath

Show me a smile then
don't be unhappy, can't remember
when I last saw you laughing
if this world makes you crazy
and you've taken all you can bear
you call me up
because you know I'll be there 

BAM! My cell phone rings.  It's the RIAA lawyer again.  It seems they'd been following me.  The coffee shop had a license to play the music, but I didn't have a license to sing it -- to engage in a "Public Performance."  And they have it on surveillance.  Because I am such a recalcitrant thief, the settlement cost now jumps to $20K.

So right now, I'm dealing with all this.  I think I should probably get a lawyer, but I just can't bring myself to get that done yet.  What I really need now is to stop and get some fresh air.  Afterall, "Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it."

Oh, hang on a moment.  My phone's ringing.

It's the MPAA.



Related Posts: 
New times 
An Obituary 
New SeaTac Name 
Are you going to Scarbarough fare...

CSI: Seattle Center

The GF and I checked out the Seattle Center in December and stumbled on a grisly scene. The Christmas Village in the Center House was the scene of ... a murder!

One person killed and another injured and hauled away to the hospital in a wheel barrow.

The police began questioning their suspects, and, as they usually do, went right to the Iceman.

After getting into an extended argument about profiling, the police finally realized he hadn't done it, because another victim was killed while they were interviewing the Iceman.

It was the boy's father.

The boy's father didn't suffer much. Probably because his BAC was .24

The carnage continued, with the boy's aunt next on the list.  She was brought down in the street, outside of where she worked.

The police were stumped at first, until they go the initial reports from the Medical Examiner's office.  The reports described the wound.  With that information, police quickly identified the murder weapon.

After doing some electronic research, the discovered that the boy and his father had been targeted for some time.  Two weeks earlier, someone broke into their home, stole all their eggs, and left a threatening note on the refrigerator.  Police, finally taking the complaint seriously, went back to the break in to look for fingerprints.  The found the window had already been replaced.

Local business leaders called on the police to handle the matter as discreetly as possible so as not to chase away tourists.

While the police tried to figure out who had been harrassing the family, then turned to their next normal suspect -- the Artist.  He wasn't like everyone else; he always looked at things differently, and the police "knew" how weird and dangerous they could be.

Then they began to learn the whole story.  The Artist would never hurt the boy.  Afterall, he was the boy's father! Yes, he took the eggs, but he needed them for his new piece and show.  He suggested they check out the boy's mother.  Lately she hadn't been happy with the way things went several years ago.  She was having second thoughts about putting the boy up for adoption.  She told the Artist she knew the courts would never give him back to her because of her job.  The boy never knew who she was, or that the Artist was his father.  They kept the secret from the boy -- the secret that the Artist met the mother at her place of business -- the brothel!

When police got there, she was already gone.  They tried to stop the trains before she could leave town.

But they were too late. The train was already gone.

They radioed ahead to the next town, and the local Sherriff stopped and personally searched the train.  She was no where to be found.  How had she escaped?  While the police searched the ground, she took to the air, off to reign terror on another town.

Bike stolen

This is the sight that greeted me when I pulled into the parking garage this afternoon.  It's the remnants of my bike lock.  Apparently, someone stole the bike between 4:00 PM and 5:15 PM Monday afternoon.

It's frustrating because, while it is a secure garage, it's not too difficult to slip in and out as cars come and go.

Fortunately, it wasn't a terribly expensive bike.  I paid about $250 for it new on 2006-09-03.  My intent was to start out cheap because I hadn't owned a bike in several years and haven't ridden regularly since the Reagan administration. I thought I wanted to ride, but wasn't sure if I would get off my tail and just do it.

I haven't ridden it since I bought it.  I always planned to, but I haven't really been in the physical condition required to ride up the hills in my neighborhood, and it has been too many year for me to ride comfortably in traffic without a bit more practice.  To ride I would have had to drive it to a bike trail or other suitable area, unload it from the car, put the wheel back on, ride around, load it back in the car, and drive home.

I never quite got around to doing that.  Instead, it took up space in my apartment, and then later chained to the fence in my building's garage.

This summer, there was probably a 25% chance I would actually get out an ride.  I expected I'd feel like I was in a little better shape, thanks to the Wii Fit, but it's just as likely the hassle would have discouraged me.

Now I have to think about this project again.  Do I want to try actually riding in meatspace again, or should I just stick to the digital world?  Should I try another bike, or will it mainly end up as furniture?

In the meantime, maybe the thief will ride out into traffic illegally and get run over.  I just hope that in the process he doesn't damage the car that hits him.  Because that would be sad.

Warning! This post contains words.

This post seems a bit Jay Leno-y to me, but I'm gonna do it anyway.

I picked up a bag of peanuts at the local QFC. Sure, it was an impulse buy, and I didn't read the label carefully. Then again, I didn't need to. I don't have a peanut allergy, which is why I don't look for warnings about peanut allergies.

So I picked up this.



And on the back, I saw this:




Now, I understand that peanut allergies can be deadly, and those unfortunate enough to suffer them must be very careful in their dietary (and even atmospheric) choices.

But if you are smart enough to be able to read the warning, YOU SHOULD BE SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT PEANUTS CONTAIN PEANUTS!

Was there actually some sort of law suit that inspired this? Did someone actually think these were peanut-free peanuts, and therefore okay? The kind of stupidity that requires such a warning is mind-boggling.

At the same time these warnings seek to encourage caution, they actually do the opposite. The more pointless and stupid warnings I see, the less likely I am to read them. Manuals for electronics today start with several pages of warnings that I completely ignore because when I do read them, they are tell me things like "don't put you TV in the bath tub," or "don't hit someone in the head with your computer" because someone might get hurt.

This endemic stupidity hides actual caution information by burying it under pointless tips that seem to be an attempt to discourage the culling of the human herd.

If I do get injured because I missed the 1 valid warning among the 137 idiotic ones I guess I'll just have to sue the lawyers.

CA Supreme Court gets is right

As I wrapped up my work day, I heard the helicopters hovering over my building. They were there to cover the pro-gay marriage protests in downtown Seattle. More than 200 protesters showed up to express their, quite understandable, anger with the California Supreme Court.

However, it seems the court in CA did the right thing.

First, let me say that I do favor equal marriage/civil union rights for same sex and opposite sex couples (actually, I favor civil unions for both, and getting the state out of the marriage business, but that's another post altogether).

Of course, I am not a lawyer, so there may be something escaping me here, but this was not a ruling on gay marriage. This ruling answered the question, "Can a state constitutional amendment be unconstitutional under the state constitution?" And the answer is no.

The role of the state supreme court is essentially to decide whether or not a law or amendment is allowed by the constitution. When you change the constitution, you end up with a new set of rules to apply. And that's what happened with Proposition 8.

Essentially, if you follow the proper procedure to change the state constitution, that new amendment is by virtue of its nature constitutional.

The problem here is that it was too easy to change the state constitution.

A constitution is such an important document that changes to it should require an extremely high burden, to help insulate it from political fads. When a state governs by Citizens' Initiative as California does, you are going to have all sort of problems.

The US Constitution is much harder to amend, and that's important. It takes the approval of 3/4 of the states, among other requirements, to make changes. California didn't require approval of 3/4 of its counties; it required just a popular vote of 50% + 1 vote. And that's the problem.

Some have argued, "Does that mean the state can amend the constitution to ban Mormons or ban interracial marriage?"

The answer is yes. The state can do that -- in theory.

The difference here is that those changes would conflict with the US Constitution. And the US Constitution would trump the changes to the CA state constitution.

At this point, the US Constitution is silent on the matter of gay marriage. And that's why the people of CA can legally enshrine this discriminatory policy in the highest law of the state of CA.

Some people are making arguments that the equal protection clause of the US Constitution may be used to over turn CA Proposition 8. It will be interesting to see how that argument develops.

In the mean time, it seems the best avenue available to advocates of marriage equality in CA is to get another amendment on the ballot to overturn the Proposition 8 amendment. And then someone, please, fix this amendment/initiative process.

And when you're done fixing the initiative process in CA, how about helping us fix it in WA, too?

You can patent perforations?

This actually pretty cool. It's a pizza box designed to be torn apart into plates and then folded up so you can store left over pizza in the fridge.

Bachelors have been doing this for decades. Who knew there was money to be made on something so simple? Or is this a case of patents gone crazy?

Probable cause? We don't need no steenkin' probable cause.

What happens if you buy grow lamps and use them in Odessa, TX? Apparently the police will raid your house.

Activists protesting the behavior of the Odessa police department did just that. The bought grow lights and began growing Christmas trees. In 24 hours, police raided the house.

So using perfectly legal equipment in the manner exactly for which it was intended, is reason enough for the police to raid your house.

The site where the story originally appeared is currently off line due to high traffic; it may be accessible later one. It's here. You can also read about it on Reason.Com here.

Keep in mind, this sort of thing doesn't just happen when someone sets up a sting. It happened in Pullman, WA, too.

The Presidency has limits

On Thursday morning, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in BOUMEDIENE ET AL. v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. and in doing so restored one of them most precious rights to the country.

Petitioners are aliens detained at Guantanamo after being captured in Afghanistan or elsewhere abroad and designated enemy combatants by CSRTs. Denying membership in the al Qaeda terrorist network that carried out the September 11 attacks and the Tali-ban regime that supported al Qaeda, each petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court, which ordered the cases dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Guantanamo is outside sovereign U. S. territory. The D. C. Circuit affirmed, but this Court reversed,holding that 28 U. S. C. §2241 extended statutory habeas jurisdiction to Guantanamo.

This is good news for all of us, not just those out to harm the US as some commentators claim. The decision essentially over turns key parts of the Military Commissions act of 2006, which said in part:

(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

What sometimes gets lost with the phrase Habeas Corpus and assorted Latin terms is what this actually means. Essentially the right of Habeas Corpus means that someone who is arrested gets to go before a judge to challenge that arrest.

Without that right, the President can imprison anyone forever -- not trial, no testimony, no evidence. It's entirely at the executive's whim.

Now many will say that wasn't true. In fact the act above says it only applies to an enemy combatant.

The problem is there was no review.

So say for example, an natural born US citizen says something the President doesn't like. Maybe that person tells jokes on TV or perhaps just blogs occasionally about politics. Or maybe they painted their house an offensive color. It doesn't really matter what they did.

If the President got upset, he could have declared that person a non-citizen enemy combatant and locked them up in Guantanamo. Before this new ruling, that person would be there until the administration changed it's mind.

Some might say this is impossible because the person clearly is not an enemy combatant and is absolutely a US citizen. They can't be detained.

The problem is that without Habeas Corpus, there is no way for that citizen to make that argument. They can't go to court to challenge that detention. They are detained because the President said so and there is no way to object to that. Without Habeas Corpus there is no way to challenge an error by the administration or to challenge wrong doing by the administration.

This is why the ruling was so critical. Independent judicial review is essential to the survival of our country. The long history of separation of powers is what keeps us from turning into Zimbabwe. Our President shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily detain anyone he chooses without independent review.

I'm not saying that President Bush used this power in an aritrary way like the examples is used above. What is terribly frightening is that he could have. He could have thrown Scott McClellan, Cindy Sheehan, Nancy Pelosi, Al Franken, or anyone else in prison with no judicial review.

That is a a power no President should ever have.

That's what she said

Last night I happened across a cool site on Jennifer's Blog.

That's What She Said is a blog by several employment attorneys. Each week, they analyze a recent episode of NBC's The Office and discuss the issues it raises in the context of employment law.

They talk about what Michael Scott, Toby, Jim, Dwight, and the rest of the gang do and examine the potential liability they expose Dunder Mifflin to.

In a recent post, for example, they estimated that Stanly could sue the company for about $450,000.

If you are a fan of The Office or are interested in HR issues, it's a great site.

Thank you,Chris Hansen

These days, if Rian Romoli accidentally bumps into a child, he quickly raises his hands above his shoulders. "I don't want to give even the slightest indication that any inadvertent touching occurred," says Mr. Romoli, an economist in La Cañada Flintridge, Calif.

Ted Wallis, a doctor in Austin, Texas, recently came upon a lost child in tears in a mall. His first instinct was to help, but he feared people might consider him a predator. He walked away. "Being male," he explains, "I am guilty until proven innocent."

...More

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article about the lengths men go to avoid false accusations of child abuse.

The media attention on child predators over the last few years has created the specter of a molester on every corner. The overwhelming "caution" that people adopt in response can be frightening.

If You See and Adult Holding a Child's Hand...

...he must be a pedophile.

At least in Virginia. And you should report him to the authorities.

That seems to be the message behind this recent ad campaign to raise awarenes.

You can read more about this campaign here.

And you can read one Blogger's view on this here.

There is also an extensive Fark discussion here.

Flying the Flag

This article has an interesting discussion about what it means to fly the flag at half mast.

Half-Staff Flags Stir Meaningful Debate
By GRETCHEN PARKER The Tampa Tribune

Published: Jun 10, 2007

Historically, flying your nation's flag at half-staff meant one thing.

Surrender.

Even before the white flag came to signal a request for truce, lowering the national flag over a battlefield was a darker expression of hopelessness. It meant, simply, a bitter end.

Now, we lower the U.S. flag to signify a nation in mourning. In a way, it's a carryover from the old tradition. It's a symbol of death - the ultimate submission.

... More

Amero to get New Trial

Back in January, I posted the story about Julie Amero, a substitute teacher and novice computer user who was being railroaded into a potential 40 year prison sentence by the state of CT over some pornographic images that appeared on her classroom computer.

Her conviction and sentence appeared to have more to do with a school district trying to cover up its own technological incompetence and officials determined to appear tough on pedophiles, regardless of whether or not there are any actual pedophiles involved in the case.

It looks like cooler heads have prevailed in swell of fierce push back from the Internet community and the public at large.

From the Seattle PI:

Teacher gets new trial on classroom porn
By STEPHANIE REITZ
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

NEW LONDON, Conn. -- A judge granted a new trial Wednesday for a former substitute teacher convicted of allowing students to view pornography on a classroom computer.

Prosecutors did not oppose the defense motion for a new trial for Julie Amero, 40, who had faced up to 40 years in prison after her January conviction. Prosecutors had argued that Amero visited the sites, then failed to shield children from seeing the images.

The computer was sent to a state laboratory after the trial, and the judge said Wednesday that those findings may contradict evidence presented by the state computer expert.

"The jury may have relied, at least in part, on that faulty information," said Judge Hillary B. Strackbein, who granted the request for a new trial.

... More

Based on what I've read of this case, the prosecutor should just drop the ridiculous charges altogether. But for now, not opposing the new trial is at least a start.

The Gender Pay Gap

Steve Chapman writes an intersting article about the gender gap in pay.

New Year's Day is called that because it begins a new year, and Thanksgiving has that name because it's an occasion for expressing gratitude. But Equal Pay Day, observed this year on April 24, is named for something that, we are told, doesn't exist -- equal pay for men and women.

The National Committee on Pay Equity used the occasion to announce that among full-time workers, women make only 77 cents for every dollar paid to men. The three leading Democratic presidential candidates have all endorsed legislation to fix the problem.

...
In reality, that's not clear at all. What we know from an array of evidence, including this report, is that most if not all of the discrepancy can be traced to factors other than sexism. When it comes to pay equity, we really have come a long way.

...more

Link originally found on Fark.com.

Remember When the Constitution Meant Something? No?

A crime in progress?

Did you know that owning a grow light now means the police can come into your home?

Friday, April 6, 2007 · Last updated 12:45 p.m. PT

Police bust tomato grow operation in Pullman apartment
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

PULLMAN, Wash. -- A Pullman landlord notified police about a grow lamp in a closet, and police got a search warrant for a drug raid.

Eight officers with guns drawn surprised three roommates in the apartment last weekend and discovered they were growing tomatoes.

Commander Chris Tennant says it's the department's duty to investigate all credible complaints regarding marijuana growing operations in Pullman.

(From Rory Curtiss, KRPL)

There is so much wrong with what happened here.

Unless the landlord was repairing something in the closet, he has no business going in the closet.

The landlord reported the tenants have a grow light and a plant, and that was enough for a judge to issue a search warrant? Why even bother with judicial review of search warrants if this is all it takes.

They sent 8 cops into the apartment with guns drawn. There are roughly 27 patrol members employed by the Pullman police department. Now, assuming they have 1/3 of the officers on the clock at any given time, that means there were probably 9 officers covering the city the day of this raid. 8 were assigned to this ridiculous raid.

Nearly every cop on patrol was sent to this apartment, with their guns drawn, because someone reported a grow light.

Unfortunately, the article doesn't say whether or not this was a no-knock warrant. I hope they weren't stupid enough to do that, considering there was no evidence of a crime. Unless owning a grow light is now illegal.

Because these tenants grew a tomato plant.

And while Tennant may feel it's his duty to investigate credible complaints, there is a beg difference between investigating an accusation that someone owns legal equipment and busting into an apartment with weapons drawn.

I hope the Seattle Police Department is more sensible. I'm sure there is already a file on me. Since I grow Basil, Oregano, Chives, Parsley, Sage, Thyme, Rosemary, Mint, and assorted house plants indoors, I have 6-8 grow lights running in my apartment. Of course they are in a big window. And you can see my grow lights and herbs from several blocks away, so there's would be no reason to bust down my door.

Hopefully the craziness that infected the Pullman police department isn't infectious.

Fight Piracy With Piracy

The Unintended Consequences of P2P Piracy

ARTICLE DATE: 03.19.07
By John C. Dvorak

...

When you think about this, it's obvious. In fact, online piracy could be used as a strategy by record producers and movie folks to eliminate piracy altogether. But would anyone listen to the idea? And would there be anyone visionary enough to even dream up the concept?


Let me outline the architecture and strategy that the music industry could deploy today. It would cost less than the horrible current strategy of lawsuits and futile threats.

...more

Basically, if we stop fighting piracy, prices fall, and illegal piracy is no longer worth it. It's an interesting idea.

Come to think of it, this isn't that much different than the theories supporting the legalization of most drugs.

Substitute Teacher Faces 40 Years in Prison for Porn Found on Classroom Computer

I found this at dvorak.com/blog.

Here is the original article.

Here is an OPED/Analysis.

...

Piecing together the evidence, we can get an idea as of what happened that day: Teacher Matthew Napp logged [Julie] Amero, a substitute for the day, into the classroom computer, and told her not to turn off the computer, as he was leaving for the day. Amero used the computer briefly, and then allowed students to access the computer.

The children went to an innocuous Web site which, unknown to them, loaded a small program (a "script") that showed pornographic popups. Amero immediately stepped in and shielded the children from the images, pushing them away or physically blocking them from seeing the images.

She reported the incident, telling other teachers about the problem, one of whom promised to get the school principal to help (no assistance ever came).

At the end of the day, she reported the problem to the assistant principal, who told her not to worry.

...

The computer was also found to be riddled with spyware -- programs that generate popups and degrade system stability.

Spyware may or may not have played a direct part in this incident, but the fact it was on the system creates additional damning evidence of the state of this computer system. What is extraordinary is the prosecution admitted there was no search made for spyware -- an incredible blunder akin to not checking for fingerprints at a crime scene.

It was only through the expert forensic examination by W. Herbert Horner it became clear the machine was infected.

Sadly, further critical and exonerating information was not allowed in court.
...

David Smith, the prosecutor, said Amero intended to access the porn sites because she had to "physically click" to "get to those sites."

That is so patently wrong it boggles the mind.

When a popup occurs on a computer, it will get shown as a visited Web site and no "physical click" is necessary. The graphic images in the popup also get stored on the computer.

Was this false statement by Smith why Amero got convicted? No, much of the case apparently came down to the prosecution's self-righteous statement "she should have turned off the computer," which is absurd.

Consider Amero was not computer literate (and not trained on the equipment), working that day as a substitute teacher under orders not to turn off the computer, and was arguably shocked and feeling somewhat helpless by the situation.

It's not hard to protect your computer. Run updated anitvirus (can be automatic). Keep your OS patched (can be automatic). Keep your browser patched (can be automatic). Use a firewall (If you have a wireless router, you probabaly already have a firewall -- not recurring action needed). Run a pop-up blocker or pop-up hostile browser (can be automatic).

It's a shame the school district didn't follow such basic principles and even more ridiculous that a prosecutor is more concerned with headlines than justice.