Civil Liberties

A group of about twenty people went to the Jefferson Memorial at midnight (it’s open 24/7) on Thomas Jefferson’s birthday to dance silently (with iPods) in celebration of freedom, only to be forced to leave by the Park Police. This exchange then occurred between participant Brooke Oberwetter and a member of the security force: GUARD: Exit, exit, exit. Lady, I’m not going to tell you again. OBERWETTER: I’m just…what did we do? GUARD: Exit. Exit, now… OBERWETTER: What rule are we breaking? It’s against the rules to dance? GUARD: Yes it is. Read the sign inside the memorial. It says quiet. OBERWETTER: I’m standing here being very quiet. GUARD: You’re dancing in here. That’s disorderly. At that point, Oberwetter allegedly asked “Why?” and was arrested. She was taken to jail for the next five hours and charged with “interfering with an agency function." (Via Sinners in the Hands of an Angry Blog and The Agitator. The Agitator has further coverage here, here, and here.)

Atheist Rob Sherman was at the Illinois General Assembly to argue against Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s unconstitutional grant of $1,000,000 to the Pilgrim Baptist Church when this exchange took place between him and Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago): Davis: I don’t know what you have against God, but some of us don’t have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings. And it’s really a tragedy — it’s tragic — when a person who is engaged in anything related to God, they want to fight. They want to fight prayer in school. ...

A very nice sculpture of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has joined other monuments outside a Cumberland County, Tennessee courthouse which is acting in good compliance with the First Amendment. (Apparently NOT an April Fool’s joke–although Wired’s blog posted on April 1, it was announced a day earlier at the official FSM website.)

I’ve put up a post at the Secular Outpost about Dutch MP Geert Wilders’ new film criticizing the Koran, “Fitna,” which has, unsurprisingly, resulted in governmental demands for YouTube to remove the video and calls for boycotts of Dutch goods. Read it at the Secular Outpost. Also see P.Z. Myers’ commentary on it at Pharyngula.

Speechnow.org is being supported by the Institute for Justice and the Center for Competitive Politics in its lawsuit against federal laws and regulations which forbid it from receiving more than $5,000 in donations per year from any individual and require it to file forms and engage in reporting in order to do what it wants to do. What does Speechnow.org want to do? It wants to advocate the view that voters should vote for candidates who support the First Amendment and against candidates who do not. It takes no corporate or union money, it doesn’t donate to or coordinate with individual candidates or political parties. Yet this is sufficient under current law to restrict its activities and entangle it in red tape, so Speechnow.org has filed a federal lawsuit seeking a preliminary injunction.

The March 10 Wall Street Journal contains a fairly detailed description of the data mining operation being run by the NSA. The program described is more data mining than eavesdropping, though it does involve the collection of transactional data like call detail records for telephone calls, and intercepted Internet data like web search terms and email senders and recipients. Also included is financial transaction data and airline data. I think most of this had already been pieced together, but this is a fairly comprehensive summary in one place. The WSJ story reports that leads generated from the data mining effort are then fed into the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which does warrantless eavesdropping. (An earlier version of this post incorrectly referred to the whole operation as the Terrorist Surveillance Program.) ...

The writers of perhaps the best show on television, The Wire, have published an opinion piece in Time magazine in which they advocate that jurors vote to acquit any drug case defendant, and state that they will do so: If asked to serve on a jury deliberating a violation of state or federal drug laws, we will vote to acquit, regardless of the evidence presented. Save for a prosecution in which acts of violence or intended violence are alleged, we will — to borrow Justice Harry Blackmun’s manifesto against the death penalty — no longer tinker with the machinery of the drug war. No longer can we collaborate with a government that uses nonviolent drug offenses to fill prisons with its poorest, most damaged and most desperate citizens. ...

RateMyCop.com is a new website that allows you to rate individual police officers on the basis of your interactions with them, on the attributes of authority, fairness, and satisfaction, for which you can rate them poor, average, or good, and leave specific comments about your interactions. The site describes itself like this: Welcome to RATEMYCOP.com, the online watchdog organization serving communities nationwide. RATEMYCOP.com is not affiliated with any government agency; we are an independent, privately managed organization. Our mission is to compile information on cops’ performance and to provide a forum where users can freely share individual accounts. Good, bad or indifferent. Most of all, we would like to hear your stories. Your appreciation and your disapproval. Did you witness a cop doing a good deed, or were you involved in an unfortunate altercation? Tell us about it. Tell others about it. Let it out. Don’t feel intimidated by the badge to remain quiet. While we respect their authority we are also free to question it. You have the right to remain informed.The site has lists of 120,000 individual police officers from 450 departments around the country, which the site obtained directly from police departments, asking only for the names of patrol officers who work with the general public, not undercover officers. There are no photos, addresses, or telephone numbers, only names. The city of Tempe has expressed disapproval and its intention to try to remove this information from the site, according to an ABC 15 News story which claims the site is a danger to officers. Tempe Police Department Officer Tony Miller is quoted in the story raising issues about undercover officers, and the article says that he “feels as though officers like him are scrutinized enough.” The article also states that “Tempe officer Brandon Banks says the department’s chief, human resources and even the city’s prosecutor are looking into the website and fighting it.” I don’t see that they have a case, this information should all be a matter of public record. It seems to me that there is potential for abuse (especially in the form of inaccurate ratings and comments, just as on teacher rating websites), but less so than there is from other kinds of public records about all of us that are published on the web. I disagree with Officer Miller’s opinion that there is already sufficient accountability for police officers; this blog’s previous posts in the “police abuse and corruption” category and the far more numerous and detailed posts from Radley Balko’s The Agitator blog and his article “Overkill” are overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It’s worth noting that the courts have repeatedly ruled that there is no duty of police officers to protect individual members of the public, and many states have statutes which prevent individual officers and departments from being held civilly liable for a failure to provide adequate protection, a fact often used by gun advocates to argue for widespread gun ownership for individual protection (e.g., here, here, and here). The U.S. Supreme Court also eliminated a major protection against police abuse in 2006, when it ruled in Hudson v. Michigan (PDF) that evidence from an illegal no-knock raid need not be excluded from trial, because police officers have entered a new realm of “professionalism” in which they recognize civil liberties and can be trusted to investigate and deter their own abuses. In the wake of such decisions and continuing abuses, a website such as RateMyCop.com seems to me like a good idea. What the site seems to be missing, though, is a way to quickly find officers who have received ratings (very few seem to have any yet), and to sort those in order to find those with favorable or unfavorable ratings. UPDATE (March 12, 2008): Apparently GoDaddy has pulled the plug on RateMyCop.com’s website without notice to the owner, allegedly first for “suspicious activity” and then for exceeding bandwidth limits, and the site is up with a new web hosting provider. It looks like the ratings are now on a single category, and you can see a list of the most-rated and most-recently-rated on the front page. Another feature that would be nice would be a way to allow registered users to rate the raters for reliability, similar to the way Amazon.com book reviews can be rated as helpful or not helpful. That way, ratings could be weighted based on judgments of the reliability of the raters from the user base, and ratings from those with a personal axe to grind could have their weight minimized. Looks like Rackspace has also refused to host ratemycop.com. Interestingly, apparently Gino Sesto of RateMyCop.com was a Bush voter. ...

Jeremy Jaynes, the spammer who was convicted and sentenced to nine years in prison in 2003 for violating Virginia’s anti-spam law, has lost his appeal before the Virginia Supreme Court in a 4-3 ruling. Several of the dissents claimed that Virginia’s anti-spam law, which criminalizes unsolicited bulk email with falsified headers, even if it is political or religious in content rather than commercial, is a violation of the First Amendment. The quotations from Justice Elizabeth Lacy and Jaynes’ attorney Thomas M. Wolf both state that the law has diminished everyone’s freedom by criminalizing “bulk anonymous email, even for the purpose of petitioning the government or promoting religion." Both Lacy and Wolf misrepresent the law, which makes it a crime to “Falsify or forge electronic mail transmission information or other routing information in any manner in connection with the transmission of unsolicited bulk electronic mail through or into the computer network of an electronic mail service provider or its subscribers." There is a difference between forging headers and sending anonymous email–the latter does not require the former, and the latter is not prohibited by the law. Jaynes wasn’t just trying to be anonymous–he was engaged in fraud, and falsifying message headers and from addresses to try to avoid the consequences of his criminality. He wasn’t using anonymous remailers to express a political or religious message, and if he had been, he wouldn’t have been able to be charged under this law. UPDATE (September 12, 2008): The Virginia Supreme Court has reversed itself and struck down Virginia’s anti-spam law as unconstitutional, on the grounds that prohibiting false routing information on emails infringes upon the right to anonymous political or religious speech. This is a very bad decision for the reasons I gave above. There are ways to engage in anonymous speech without doing what Jaynes did, falsifying message headers and domain names. The court’s argument that one must falsify headers, IP addresses, and domain names in order to be anonymous is factually incorrect. Anonymity doesn’t require header falsification, it only requires omission of identifying information.

As ZDNet reports, yesterday afternoon, in response to a government order to filter YouTube (AS 36561), Pakistan Telecom (AS 17557, pie.net.pk) announced a more-specific route (/24; YouTube announces a /23) for YouTube’s IP space, causing YouTube’s Internet traffic to go to Pakistan Telecom. YouTube then re-announced its own IP space in yet more-specific blocks (/25), which restored service to those willing to accept routing announcements for blocks that small. Then Pakistan Telecom’s upstream provider, PCCW (AS 3491), which had made the mistake of accepting the Pakistan Telecom /24 announcement for YouTube in the first place, shut off Pakistan Telecom completely, restoring YouTube service to the world minus Pakistan Telecom. They got what they wanted, but not quite in the manner they intended. Don’t mess with the Internet. Martin Brown gives more detail at the Renesys Blog, including a comment on how this incident shows that it’s still a bit too easy for a small ISP to disrupt service by hijacking IPs, intentionally or inadvertently. Danny McPherson makes the same point at the Arbor Networks blog, and also gives a good explanation of how the Pakistan Internet provider screwed up what they were trying to do. Somebody still needs to update the Wikipedia page on how Pakistan censors the Internet to cover this incident. UPDATE: BoingBoing reports that the video which prompted this censorship order was an excerpt from Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders’ film “Forbidden” criticizing Islam, which was uploaded to YouTube back on January 28. I’ve added “religion” and “Islam” as labels on this post, accordingly. The two specific videos mentioned by Reporters without Borders as prompting the ban have been removed from YouTube, one due to “terms of use violation” and one “removed by user." The first of these two videos was supposedly the Geert Wilders one; the second was of voters describing election fraud during the February 18 Parliamentary elections in Pakistan. This blog suggests that the latter video was the real source of the attempted censorship gone awry, though the Pakistan media says it was the former. So perhaps the former was the pretext, and the latter was the political motivator. A “trailer” for Wilders’ film is on YouTube here. Wilders speaks about his film on YouTube here and here. Ayaan Hirsi Ali defends Wilders on Laura Ingraham’s show on Fox News here. (Contrary to the blog post I’ve linked to, Hirsi Ali was not in the Theo Van Gogh film “Submission Part One,” which can itself be found here, rather, she wrote it. Van Gogh was murdered as a result of it. The beginning and end is in Arabic with Dutch subtitles, but most of it is in English with Dutch subtitles.) UPDATE (February 26, 2008): This just in, from Reuters–Pakistan “might have been” the cause of the YouTube outage. Way to be on the ball with breaking news, Reuters! The Onion weighs in on the controversy!