At Techdirt, Mike Masnick notes a curious regulatory smack on the wrist handed telco behemoth Verizon by the FCC:
The big telcos don’t exactly have particularly good records protecting your privacy. And now the FCC has reached an agreement with Verizon to pay the largest ever fine to the FCC to settle a long-term practice of hiding the fact that customers could opt-out of having their private info shared with marketers. Even as the “largest” ever such fine, it’s still pennies for Verizon at $7.4 million.
To start out the fun, the big problem giving rise to this spanking is corporate use of its customers’ personal info to create a secondary revenue stream by selling it to as many other businesses as it can.
At issue was that Verizon is required to have either an opt-in system for sharing information on users with marketers or an opt-out system. But if they have an opt-out system, they have to clearly tell new customers that they can opt-out and how to do so. Not surprisingly, Verizon chose the “opt-out” method… and then conveniently left out the part where they tell customers they have the right to opt-out. And they did this for several years. To approximately two million customers.
The “claim to fame” of empiricism is that it forces us to let go of our bias, our preconceived notions that we usually chalk up to such nonsensical vagaries as “common sense,” and look at the harsh reality as demonstrated by numbers. Campus sexual assault and rape is such an inflammatory issue as to provide a compelling slate for empiricism. Unfortunately, one of the foremost proponents, Kansas Lawprof (who just received tenure) Corey Rayburn Yung, reveals that it just can’t be done.
In a recent post at Concurring Opinions, Yung castigated George Will for politicizing the issue. That view was challenged as being merely the opposite political view of Will, to which Yung responded:
I do think that Will and others are “downplaying” rape on college campuses, but that doesn’t mean I support any particular assessment regarding the magnitude of the problem. My point is that the authors are either assuming their conclusions or cherry-picking data among conflicting reports. That is downplaying regardless of the true level of rape on campuses.
It came as a shock when PACER, Public Access to Court Electronic Records, announced in a cavalier fashion that it was deleting old records.
The administrators of that system recently announced that a huge number of documents from five federal courts have been permanently removed from its database and are no longer publicly viewable. For one circuit court, only documents filed within the last 2.5 years are now available; for two other circuit courts, documents now go back only 4 years.
The problem, according to admins, was the “legacy system.” PACER went live in 1988, back when dedicated terminals were required because there was no viable internet yet. Back then, it was normal for systems to be dedicated. It was true for Lexis and Westlaw, and most people accessed online services via ISPs like AOL and CompuServe. In 2001, PACER went live on the net.
It wasn’t used much in those days. Lawyers still filed hard copy papers, and few actually understood what exactly PACER was there to do. The whole concept of paperless filing was still foreign; after all, how do you get a piece of paper into a computer to upload it to PACER? Scanners were barely a twinkle in a techie’s eye, and what about signing documents? Lawyers used WordPerfect on their word processor, and Adobe pdf sounded like a Mexican side dish. Continue reading
For death penalty supporters, the horrifying facts of the girl’s rape and murder only emphasized the justice of applying the ultimate penalty.
The rape and murder were horrible, indeed.
…Sabrina Buie, 11, who had been raped and suffocated with her underwear crammed down her throat, her body left in a soybean field.
Horrible. Henry Lee McCollum and Leon Brown were outsiders to the small North Carolina community, having recently moved there from New Jersey. They were 19 and 15, respectively, at the time, though McCollum had the mental age of a 9-year-old. Both were mentally challenged.
No physical evidence tied Mr. McCollum or Mr. Brown, both African-American, as was the victim, to the crime. But a local teenager cast suspicion on Mr. McCollum.
So the police went out and got him. Continue reading
Having served as chair of a very active amicus committee for the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers years ago, it became clear how amicus could use its platform to bring issues and arguments to the fore that the parties might otherwise have neglected or been precluded from doing. It was a powerful opportunity.
But one guiding rule was that anything offered had to be accurate in terms of being fully supported. The idea was that claiming a fact not in evidence, or unsupported, would destroy credibility and render the effort worthless. The judges would laugh at us if we didn’t maintain our cred.
Apparently, that’s not exactly the case in all courts, or at least not before the United States Supreme Court. Via Adam Liptak in his New York Times Sidebar column:
The Supreme Court received more than 80 friend-of-the-court briefs in the Hobby Lobby case. Most of these filings, also called amicus briefs, were dull and repetitive recitations of familiar legal arguments.
Others stood out. They presented fresh, factual information that put the case in a broader context.
The justices are hungry for such data. Their opinions are increasingly studded with citations of facts they learned from amicus briefs.
It’s not always easy to get the public to adopt extant technology into their mindset, but one piece of equipment appears to be proving far easier to embrace than others: cameras. This may be a result of a television mentality, where people expect, maybe demand, to see evidence of what a witness claims, or maybe the pervasiveness of images has taken its toll.
A company that makes police cameras, Brickhouse Security, has conducted a survey with some interesting results. While the survey of 500 people may be inherently suspect based on its backer, it nonetheless is worthy of note:
- 72 percent of people polled think police should be required to wear cameras
- Of the over 500 American polled, 360 people thought police body cameras should be turned on whenever on duty and 152 thought they should be turned on during interactions with civilians
- 75 percent of people polled would think an officer is hiding something if the camera is not activated
- 62 percent of people polled said, if they were a cop, they would buy a body camera for themselves, even if they were not required
- 83 percent of people polled don’t think body cams are an invasion of privacy
- 79 percent of people polled think police body cameras will reduce actual use of excessive force; while 81 percent believe it will also reduce accusations
The bullet that struck Hofstra student Andrea Rebello and took her life was a tragedy, but it also set in motion a series of excuses designed to obfuscate what happened and shift blame away from the officer who pulled the trigger at all costs. Her family’s lawyer, David Roth, wasn’t having any of it.
A State Supreme Court judge has ordered Nassau County police to turn over investigative files to the family of a Hofstra student who died in an off-campus police shooting after an armed robber took her hostage.
Andrea Rebello’s family is entitled to access to the records, which include the entire files from the police department’s homicide squad and internal affairs bureau relating to the deadly shooting on May 17, 2013, Justice Karen Murphy’s order says.
“We’re hopeful that this will shed light on what really happened that night,” said Manhattan attorney David Roth, who filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against the county and police in May on behalf of Rebello’s family. “The records will certainly be germane to the claims that we’re making in the case.”
At the outset of every tragedy, there is a call to await the investigation, await the facts, withhold judgment until all the evidence is gathered and then, and only then, will we be capable of assessing fault. Continue reading
For quite a while, I was constrained to accept that my view of what a woman had to endure in her daily life was limited to that of an outsider, and an outsider who wasn’t really around young women very much. While it was necessarily integrated into my commentary, it was from a distance, and perhaps I was missing too much to offer a meaningful view.
When Lawprof Nancy Leong wrote a post about an interesting experience, to show the “cumulative effect of street harassment,” I eagerly followed. Contrary to popular belief, I want to know more, not just confirm my bias.
One of my former classmates at Stanford Law School has started a new Tumblr — Not Your Fucking Sweetheart — that documents the ongoing problem of street harassment. Her immediate goal is to document a month of street harassment in her life in a major metropolitan area (in this case, Washington DC, which is notorious for street harassment).
The experiment went on for the month of August, which struck me as a good month for such an experiment as people would be out on the street, thus eliminating the possibility that harassment was reduced by bad weather. And I was prepared to accept Nancy’s assessment that Washington, D.C. was notorious. Continue reading
The Economist posits a question:
WHO runs the world’s most lucrative shakedown operation?
Yes, that’s right. Of course it’s the United States of America, our beloved government doing what it has to do to regulate business so that it meets the great many rules that we demand of it. Well, perhaps not exactly we, but rather the fact is that a lot of people really hate big business. Liars, cheaters, greedy scum. It needs to be regulated, because how else can we protect the spotted salamander?
Fair enough. Let’s forget the flip side, that it provides the goods and services we rely upon to live, because those iPhones won’t make themselves, and gives us the jobs that allow us to buy the next shiny thing. If they don’t make a profit, they can’t continue to exist, even if that smacks of greed.
But the regulatory system is backed up by criminal penalties, even though the regulation has all the attributes of civil dispute, where the issue is one of monetary penalties should a corporation not meet a baby prosecutor’s expectation of how business ought to happen. Continue reading
When the rules for competence to stand trial were crafted, there was neither concern nor thought about the intellectually challenged. They were then called “retarded,” which has since fallen out of favor though it provided a clearer understanding of what that challenge was. It meant a person whose intelligence was below a certain level, 70 on an IQ Test.
Not all intellectually challenged defendants were incompetent. Some could understand the proceedings and assist in their own defense, but some couldn’t. They lacked the capacity. The rules, however, were created for the protection of a defendant’s rights, to assure that a defendant wouldn’t be put on trial without the ability to defend himself. Like so many rules, they seemed like a good idea at the time, only to later be perverted to serve a different master.
It’s one thing when the rules were applied to the insane, with the potential that they might improve with therapy and medication to the point where they could be competent. But when applied to the intellectually challenged, they reflected systemic ignorance. The mentally retarded do not get unretarded; they cannot be “cured” because they aren’t ill. For better of worse, they are what they are. And what they are is intellectually disabled, and they will be for the rest of their lives.
Dan Sullivan writes in the Tampa Bay Times of the plight of Dreek Drayton. Continue reading
There are a few things that no one disputes. Martin Olin, a 65-year-old lawyer and music industry guy who was riding his bike in the bike lane, was dead. Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Andrew Wood ran Olin down because he was on his computer while driving. And Martin Olin is still dead.
Wood was returning from a fire call at Calabasas High School and was on patrol when the accident occurred.
‘He was responding to a deputy who was inquiring whether the fire investigation had been completed,’ the letter from the prosecutor’s office stated. ‘Since Wood was acting within the course and scope of his duties when he began to type his response, under Vehicle Code section 23123.5, he acted lawfully.
This came in explanation of why Deputy Wood would not be prosecuted for killing Martin Olin. It seems when one is playing with a cop computer rather than an iPad, the guy they kill is official collateral damage. This makes all the difference.
‘Wood briefly took his eyes away from the road precisely when the narrow roadway curved slightly to the left without prior warning, causing him to inadvertently travel straight into the bike lane, immediately striking Olin.’
Christopher Lollie was like most of us. A father who arrived a bit early to gather his kids from school, the New Horizon Academy, so he had ten minutes to kill. A weird phrase, time to kill. So he sat down in the skyway in St. Paul, Minnesota. That’s what good guys do.
Someone apparently didn’t care for his looks. According to Conor Friedersdorf, Lollie had dreads, and the skin to go with them, so the police were called because there was a guy sitting there, black and all, and who knows what terrible things that can mean. And the police came.