constitution
Latest
Hawaii's proposed online tracking law comes under fire from ISPs, civil libertarians
There may be some trouble brewing in paradise, thanks to a seemingly draconian law currently under consideration in Hawaii's state legislature. If passed, H.B. 2288 would require all ISPs within the state to track and store information on their customers, including details on every website they visit, as well as their own names and addresses. The measure, introduced on Friday, also calls for this information to be recorded on each customer's digital file and stored for a full two years. Perhaps most troubling is the fact that the bill includes virtually no restrictions on how ISPs can use (read: "sell") this information, nor does it specify whether law enforcement authorities would need a court order to obtain a user's dossier from an ISP. And, because it applies to any firm that "provides access to the Internet," the law could conceivably be expanded to include not just service providers, but internet cafes, hotels or other businesses. Democratic Representative John Mizuno is the lead sponsor of the bill, though his support already seems to be waning. Not long after H.B. 2288 was introduced, Republican Representative Kymberly Pine told CNET that she would be withdrawing her support for it, adding that her intent was not to track Hawaiian web surfing, but to simply protect "victims of crime." "We do not want to know where everyone goes on the Internet," Pine explained. "That's not our interest. We just want the ability for law enforcement to be able to capture the activities of crime." Pine went on to acknowledge that the proposal has come under fire from many civil libertarians and internet companies within the state, and that the measure will likely be revised. In retrospect, she said, the concept of storing personal information "was a little broad," and Hawaii's lawmakers "deserved" the criticism they received during today's hearing.
Judge forces defendant to decrypt laptop, fuels debate over Fifth Amendment rights
A judge in Colorado yesterday ordered a defendant to decrypt her laptop's hard drive at the prosecution's request, adding new fire to the ongoing debate surrounding consumer technology and the Fifth Amendment. The defendant, Ramona Fricosu, is facing charges of bank fraud, stemming from a federal investigation launched in 2010. As part of this investigation, federal authorities used a search warrant to seize her Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop. Fricosu's legal team had previously refused to decrypt the computer, on the grounds that doing so would violate her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid self-incrimination. On Monday, though, US District Judge Robert Blackburn ruled against the defendant, arguing that the prosecution retained the right to access her device, as stipulated under the All Writs Act -- a law that requires mobile operators to comply with federal surveillance."I conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of the unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer," Blackburn wrote, adding that there was strong evidence to suggest that Fricosu's computer contained information pertinent to the case. Fricosu's lawyer, Phil Dubois, is hoping to obtain a stay on the ruling, in the hopes of taking the case to an appeals court. "I think it's a matter of national importance," Dubois explained. "It should not be treated as though it's just another day in Fourth Amendment litigation." It remains to be seen whether Dubois succeeds in his appeal, though civil libertarians are already paying close attention to the case, since the US Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on the matter.
Federal domain seizure raises new concerns over online censorship
It's been a little more than a year since the US government began seizing domains of music blogs, torrent meta-trackers and sports streaming sites. The copyright infringement investigation, led by US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) authorities, quickly raised eyebrows among many free speech and civil rights advocates, fueling a handful of legal challenges. Few are more compelling, or frightening than a case involving Dajaz1.com. As TechDirt reports, the popular hip-hop blog has been at the epicenter of a sinuous and seemingly dystopian dispute with the feds -- one that underscores the heightening controversy surrounding federal web regulation, and blurs the constitutional divide between free speech and intellectual property protection. Dajaz1 was initially seized under the 2008 Pro IP Act, on the strength of an affidavit that cited several published songs as evidence of copyright infringement. As it turns out, ,any of these songs were actually provided by their copyright holders themselves, but that didn't stop the government from seizing the URL anyway, and plastering a warning all over its homepage. Typically, this kind of action would be the first phase of a two-step process. Once a property is seized, US law dictates that the government has 60 days to notify its owner, who can then choose to file a request for its return. If the suspect chooses to file this request within a 35-day window, the feds must then undertake a so-called forfeiture process within 90 days. Failure to do so would require the government to return the property to its rightful owner. But that's not exactly how things played out in the case of Dajaz1. For more details on the saga, head past the break.
Texas judge says warrantless cellphone tracking violates Fourth Amendment, saga continues
Rev up the bureaucratic turbines, because a judge in Texas has determined that warrantless cellphone tracking is indeed unconstitutional. In a brief decision issued earlier this month, US District Judge Lynn N. Hughes of the Southern District of Texas argued that seizing cellphone records without a search warrant constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment. "The records would show the date, time, called number, and location of the telephone when the call was made," Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling, linked below. "These data are constitutionally protected from this intrusion." The decision comes in response to an earlier ruling issued last year by Magistrate Judge Stephen Smith, also of the Southern District of Texas. In that case, Judge Smith argued against unwarranted wiretapping on similarly constitutional grounds, pointing out that with today's tracking technology, every aspect of a suspect's life could be "imperceptibly captured, compiled, and retrieved from a digital dossier somewhere in a computer cloud." The federal government appealed Judge Smith's ruling on the grounds that the Fourth Amendment would not apply to cellphone tracking, because "a customer has no privacy interest in business records held by a cell phone provider, as they are not the customer's private papers." Judge Hughes' decision, however, effectively overrules this appeal. "When the government requests records from cellular services, data disclosing the location of the telephone at the time of particular calls may be acquired only by a warrant issued on probable cause," Judge Hughes wrote. "The standard under [today's law] is below that required by the Constitution." The law in question, of course, is the Stored Communications Act -- a law bundled under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, which allows investigators to obtain electronic records without a warrant. This month's decision implicitly calls for this law to be reconsidered or revised, though it's certainly not the only ruling to challenge it, and it likely won't be the last, either.
DoJ: Stingray cellphone tracking device falls under Fourth Amendment, but don't ask about it
In 2008, federal authorities arrested David Daniel Rigmaiden on charges of spearheading a massive identity theft ring in Arizona. Rigmaiden allegedly led this operation from January 2005 to April 2008, harvesting some $4 million off of more than 1,900 fraudulent tax returns. He was ultimately nabbed, however, thanks in part to controversial, and somewhat mysterious tool known as a "stingray" -- a device that effectively acts as a fake cell tower, allowing authorities to locate and track a cellphone even when it's not being used to place a call. Since his arrest, the 30-year-old Rigmaiden has been battling the feds in the U.S. District Court of Arizona, on allegations that their tracking tactics constituted an unlawful search and seizure, thereby violating his Fourth Amendment rights. For more than a year, the Department of Justice has maintained that the use of stingrays does not violate the Fourth Amendment. When it comes to sending data from a mobile device, the DoJ has argued, users should not have a "reasonable expectation" of privacy. Recently, though, the judge overseeing the case has indicated that he will press the feds for more information on how stingrays actually work -- something the government clearly has no desire to disclose. Prosecutors are so reluctant, in fact, that they may be willing to sacrifice their case against Rigmaiden in order to safeguard the stingray's secrecy. Read more about the latest developments, after the break.
Iceland's crowdsourced constitution submitted for approval, Nyan Cat takes flight over Reykjavik
A committee of 25 Icelanders submitted the first draft of a rewritten constitution to the country's parliamentary speaker Friday, and despite our recommendations, Rebecca Black was conspicuously absent from the proceedings. The democratic experiment bravely asked citizens to log on to Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, and Twitter to engage with the committee in a discussion about the nation's future. While the project's Facebook page played host to pleads for free ice cream and more volcanoes, the constitution's creators managed to stay on task, focusing on issues of decentralization and transparency in government. The draft is slated for review beginning October 1st.
PROTECT IP Act called unconstitutional by bipartisan group of law professors
Turns out Eric Schmidt is not alone in his vehement opposition to the PROTECT IP Act, and the resistance is hardly partisan. A group of over 100 law professors signed a letter (jointly authored by Mark Lemley, David Levine, and David Post) arguing that the legislation working its way through congress is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that speech can't be suppressed without the speaker being given an opportunity to defend his or her actions. Yet, under the bill being advocated for by the RIAA the MPAA, a judge can issue a temporary restraining order that will essentially shutdown a site based only on evidence presented by the government. The letter warns that, not only could overseas domain owners be cheated of the right to due process but, plenty of protected speech could be censored based a single piece of infringing material. As we warned, this can only get nastier and this nascent battle is still only just getting started. Check out the full letter at the source.
In Iceland, constitutions are written on Facebook
Ah, Iceland -- home to the Blue Lagoon, Sigur Rós and, most recently, crowdsourced constitutionalism. With its economy still reeling from the 2009 financial crisis, the country has begun hammering away at a brand new constitution, and is asking its online citizenry for help. The draft is being prepared by a democratically elected, 25-member council, but any Icelanders with an internet connection can add their own suggestions, engage in online debates, or follow the proceedings in real-time on Facebook. All suggestions are moderated to weed out the really dumb ones ("FEWER VOLCANOES"), and those approved by the board will be directly added to the draft, due to be completed at the end of this month. It's a fascinating social experiment, but one that could probably only happen in a place where nearly 90 percent of all households have a broadband connection, two-thirds of the entire population is on Facebook -- meaning their politicians are always within poke's reach.
Tennessee law bans 'distressing images,' opens your Facebook inbox
Congratulations Tennessee! Governor Bill Haslam has put your state in the national spotlight and, for once, it has nothing to do with Bonnaroo or how bad the Titans are. The republican executive of the state signed a ban on "distressing images" into law last week that we're sure constitutional lawyers are going to have a field day with. Anyone who sends or posts an image online (and yes, that includes TwitPics) that they "reasonably should know" would "cause emotional distress" could face several months in jail and thousands of dollars in fines. The best part? Anyone who stumbles across the image is a viable "victim" under the law and the government doesn't even have to prove any harmful intent. So, Tennessee residents who aren't cautious enough using Google image search could get a few people in trouble. Another, and perhaps more perturbing, part of the same bill also seeks to circumvent restrictions on obtaining private messages and information from social networking sites without a search warrant. We give it about a month before this gets struck down on obvious grounds that it's unconstitutional.
California Supreme Court says warrantless searches of suspects' text messages are legal
Planning on getting arrested in California any time soon? You'd better make sure your text archives are free from any incriminating information as the state's Supreme Court has now ruled it legal for police to check your missives folder without the need for a warrant. The justification for this privacy intrusion is that a phone search is "incidental" to a lawful arrest and its contents, much like the contents of your pockets or bags, fall within the realm of reasonable search. Two of the judges in the case did dissent, with one noting that "never before has it been possible to carry so much personal or business information in one's pocket or purse," which she argues should afford your iPhone, Droid or BB a higher level of privacy protection than, say, the packet of gummy bears you have in the other pocket. What do you think?
Five hot new Star Trek Online screens
We've got five brand new exclusive Star Trek Online screens fresh from Cryptic to gently glaze over your eyes into a glossy sheen, or not, if that's not your thing. In our opinion, this particular screen of what appears to be a Constitution class that's been heavily customized is definitely a favorite. Or wait, do we prefer the Borg cube exploding into pieces? It's kind of hard to pick a favorite.Would we be nerdy to request some tasty screens of the newly revealed Discovery class vessel? In fact, just a bunch of screens of all the ships blasting hostiles would be just grand. Yep, that's not too demanding, especially considering this is a request coming from a bunch of Star Trek fans.%Gallery-28615%
The Soloist: Why I do it
After this post, I had it in mind to think through why I prefer to solo, and whether the reasons why are valid ones, given that I'm playing in a genre meant to provide a social experience. I'm going to try to list as many reasons as I can think of in favor of grouping and playing with buddies, and provide a counter-argument if I can. Bear in mind, this is not me telling you that you should go solo; this is just me trying to 1) explain why I do it, and 2) understand for myself whether my reasons hold water.Enough said; excelsior!
Paper explains EVE's quasi-democratic council in extreme detail
If you had any doubt at all that EVE Online is the thinking man's MMO, you won't any longer. CCP has released a 20 page paper in PDF format describing the new Council of Stellar Management, and you know you're in for something good when the paper starts off with the social theories of the Greek philosopher Aristotle.This is one of the times when it's particularly clear just how bizarre and interesting it is to be writing about virtual societies. This is the stuff of cyberpunk novels and Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes. CCP has produced something like the first draft of a constitution (with notes) for a representative government, with references to John Locke's social contract theory and everything else you'd expect from such a document. No doubt EVE's scheming political players are already looking through the document for loopholes and potential abuses. It may not be long before EVE players are having debates about campaign finance reform and separation of powers.Richard Bartle doesn't think this will work. Whether it works or not, though, it'll be damned interesting. At the very least, it will be more fodder for discussion relating to Hardcore Casual's EVE Challenge.[Via MMORPG]
