Monthly Archives: August 2004

Best Guest Blogger of All Time?

Larry Lessig has Judge Richard Posner guest blogging for him next week.

Posted in Blogs | 2 Comments

Bumper Sticker Spotted

Bumper Sticker spotted in the parking lot at Publix (our local supermarket):

In big letters “10 out of 10 Terrorists”, and in the second line, slightly smaller “Support Anyone But Bush”.

Which is really odd, as the evidence is nearly irrefutable that GW Bush is exactly what nutcases like Bin Laden really want: a Western leader who wears his Christianity on his sleeve, who invades a Muslim nation on trumped-up claims, and settles in for de facto occupation. The perfect foil to radicalize a generation. Bonus points for long-time family friendship with the Saudi monarchy, whom bin Laden also would oppose but for their financial support.

How to attempt to educate the displayer of such a sticker? Our suburban society offers no forum that I know of in which any discussion can take place.

Posted in Politics: US: 2004 Election | 8 Comments

In Orlando

I'm in Orlando today, attending a meeting of the Florida Committee on Privacy and Court Records, so don't expect much blogging. We had to move the meeting to an airport hotel due to hurricane damage having knocked out the power at the original venue. I gather from the headlines in the local papers that the power is out all over the area.

This afternoon I'm to do a presentation on the collection and use of consumer data.

Posted in Talks & Conferences | 3 Comments

TPM’s Psychological Insight

I almost never link to Talking Points Memo on the theory that everyone reads it anyway. But today Joshua Micah Marshall has outdone himself.

I think this explains a lot.

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: One way — perhaps the best way — to demonstrate someone's lack or toughness or strength is to attack them and show they are either unwilling or unable to defend themselves — thus the rough slang I used above. And that I think is a big part of what is happening here. Someone who can't or won't defend themselves certainly isn't someone you can depend upon to defend you.

Demonstrating Kerry's unwillingness to defend himself (if Bush can do that) is a far more tangible sign of what he's made of than wartime experiences of thirty years ago.

Hitting someone and not having them hit back hurts the morale of that person's supporters, buoys the confidence of your own backers (particularly if many tend toward an authoritarian mindset) and tends to make the person who's receiving the hits into an object of contempt (even if also possibly also one of sympathy) in the eyes of the uncommitted.

This is certainly what Bush's father did to Michael Dukakis and, sadly, it is what Bush himself did, to a great degree, to Al Gore.

In other ways, Bush's bully-boy campaign tactics play to the his strengths, albeit unstated and unlovely ones. Many of the polls of the president have shown that while people don't necessarily agree with the specific policies he's pursued abroad many also intuitively believe that there's no one who will hit back harder. There's some of that 'he may be a son-of-a-bitch but he's our son-of-a-bitch' quality to the president's support on national security issues.

This meta-message behind the president's attacks on Kerry's war record is more consequential than many believe. So hitting back hard was critical on many levels

This nails, better than anything I've seen elsewhere, why some people you might expect to know better support GWB. Given this, it also explains how Kerry must combat it — despite the conventional wisdom concerning mud-wrestling with pigs.

Posted in Politics: US: 2004 Election | 10 Comments

Grokster, At Last

The 9th Circuit decided the very very long awaited Grokster case today. The decision is MGM et. al. v. Grokster, 03-55894 (9th Cir. August 19, 2004).

C.E. Petit of Scrivener's Error has what seems like a sensible take on it:

It does not, contrary to headlines that I have already seen, mean that “file-sharing software is legal.” It means that the plaintiff record companies didn't (not necessarily couldn't—just didn't) establish intent in the same way as was done in Napster. It also creates an extremely fine line between providing a tool used to infringe, which is subject to apparently more-searching analysis, and providing a forum used to infringe, as the record indicates Napster and AOL did, or at least did enough to require a jury to make a definitive determination. Of course, a tool may well be meaningless without the forum. That, however, is for another time; as Judge Thomas emphasized, the tool alone is not unlawful unless the tool itself constitutes an infringement. Think of this as Internet “gun control”: a handgun is not per se unlawful to possess, unless it is actually used in a crime or is a weapon specifically prohibited (such as a fully automatic weapon).

What this really points out is that Congress has done a piss-poor job of drafting the Copyright Act so that it is not held hostage by changing technology.

Posted in Law: Copyright and DMCA | 1 Comment

‘Free Country’ Datum III–“Material Witness” Detentions

The New York Times reports on the saga of Abdullah al Kidd.

1. Abdullah al Kidd is a US citizen;
2. Mr. Kidd was at no point charged with doing anything wrong, and the NYT reports nothing that suggests there was any reason to suspect him nor that any law enforcement officers ever had a reasonable suspicion he did anything illegal;
3. Mr. Kidd didn't know much of importance;
4. What Mr. Kidd allegedly knew was about another guy who was aquitted of aiding alleged terrorists by working on a web site, and all he supposedly knew was something about the other guy having overstayed a visa;
5. The other guy's prosecution was itself a disgrace—a complete stretch of the law that, had it succeeded, could have made any computer consultant a 'terrorist'.

Mr. Kidd was detained as a material witness for 16 months, some in jail and the rest forced to live with his in-laws where he had been staying temporarily prior to leaving for his scholarship in Saudi Arabia. During this period, he lost his graduate scholarship. The director of the FBI testified to Congress that Mr. Kidd's arrest was a triumph of counterterrorism. Mr. Kidd had to work moving furniture. His wife left him and took his daughter. Now he finds he's as unemployable as if he were a convicted felon.

I believe this abuse of the material witness statute to be incompatible with freedom. It is one more reason why not re-electing George W. Bush is essential to preserving our liberties. And if Congress had any guts, it would amend the material witness statute post haste. (Being something of a realist, I'd even settle for immediately post-election.)

Continue reading

Posted in Civil Liberties | 16 Comments