http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/08/sandra-day-oconnor-bushgore-decision-may-have-sparked-131128.html?hp=l7
Sandra Day O'Connor: Bush-Gore decision may have sparked declining approval of SCOTUS
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor suggests that declining public approval of the court dates back to the controversial Bush v. Gore decision, which decided the 2000 presidential race.
"That was one that was widely talked about at the time, as you know, and involved the public in a presidential election," O'Connor said in an interview aired Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation." "And that could be something that triggered public reexamination."
She said she wasn't sure if people thought the court had become too political.
"But I suppose that's part of it, yes," she said. "And of course, anytime you're deciding a case involving a presidential election, it's awfully close to politics."
She cast the deciding vote in the case, but she demurred on taking responsibility.
"I don't see how you can say anybody was the deciding vote," she said. "They all counted."
O'Connor said she has no regrets about her vote.
"No, I mean it was a tough deal; i[t] was a closely fought election; and it's no fun to be part of a group of decision makers that has to decide which side the ball is going to fall on," she said.
Showing posts with label Legal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Legal. Show all posts
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Rock Hill Wants One Of These...
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/offbeat/speed-limit-sign-in-white-lake-too-complicated-question-mark-20120214-ms
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Credit Card Arbitration Trumps Lawsuits, Court Says
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/11/144990644/credit-card-arbitration-trumps-lawsuits-court-says
Consumers who sign credit card agreements that feature an arbitration clause cannot dispute fees or charges in court, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday. The 8-to-1 decision drew immediate fire from consumer advocates.
To get a credit card, a consumer generally must sign a detailed agreement. In the fine print, almost always, is an arbitration clause that says that if consumers want to dispute fees, they must do so through arbitration, not in court.
A 1996 federal law allowed consumers to take their disputes to court. But in its ruling Tuesday, the Supreme Court said arbitration clauses in those agreements trump that law.
Michael Calhoun, president of the Center for Responsible Lending, says the ruling gives companies that provide credit cards, student loans and car loans the ability to exact any fee, because consumers have no legal recourse.
"These arbitration clauses have become a 'get out of jail free' card," he says.
And that's why nearly every loan agreement now includes an arbitration clause. The main exception is for mortgage loans, where such clauses are prohibited.
Lauren Saunders, the managing attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, says the arbitration process itself is unfair because the arbitrators have a financial incentive to rule against consumers.
"Who are you going to favor, the company that might send you more business, or the consumer who you'll never see again?"
The company involved in this case, Synovus Bank, declined to comment. The American Bankers Association said it was not available for an interview.
This may not be the last word on this issue. Consumer advocates say the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau may study arbitration clauses and could ban them from credit card agreements.
Consumers who sign credit card agreements that feature an arbitration clause cannot dispute fees or charges in court, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday. The 8-to-1 decision drew immediate fire from consumer advocates.
To get a credit card, a consumer generally must sign a detailed agreement. In the fine print, almost always, is an arbitration clause that says that if consumers want to dispute fees, they must do so through arbitration, not in court.
A 1996 federal law allowed consumers to take their disputes to court. But in its ruling Tuesday, the Supreme Court said arbitration clauses in those agreements trump that law.
Michael Calhoun, president of the Center for Responsible Lending, says the ruling gives companies that provide credit cards, student loans and car loans the ability to exact any fee, because consumers have no legal recourse.
"These arbitration clauses have become a 'get out of jail free' card," he says.
And that's why nearly every loan agreement now includes an arbitration clause. The main exception is for mortgage loans, where such clauses are prohibited.
Lauren Saunders, the managing attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, says the arbitration process itself is unfair because the arbitrators have a financial incentive to rule against consumers.
"Who are you going to favor, the company that might send you more business, or the consumer who you'll never see again?"
The company involved in this case, Synovus Bank, declined to comment. The American Bankers Association said it was not available for an interview.
This may not be the last word on this issue. Consumer advocates say the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau may study arbitration clauses and could ban them from credit card agreements.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Immigration crackdown also snares Americans
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45665156/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/#.TuiwMlbNlOs
A growing number of United States citizens have been detained under Obama administration programs intended to detect illegal immigrants who are arrested by local police.
In a spate of recent cases across the country, American citizens have been confined in local jails after federal immigration agents, acting on flawed information from Department of Homeland Security databases, instructed the police to hold them for investigation and possible deportation.
Americans said their vehement protests that they were citizens went unheard by local police and jailers for days, with no communication with federal immigration agents to clarify the situation. Any case where an American is held, even briefly, for immigration investigation is a potential wrongful arrest because immigration agents lack legal authority to detain citizens.
A growing number of United States citizens have been detained under Obama administration programs intended to detect illegal immigrants who are arrested by local police.
In a spate of recent cases across the country, American citizens have been confined in local jails after federal immigration agents, acting on flawed information from Department of Homeland Security databases, instructed the police to hold them for investigation and possible deportation.
Americans said their vehement protests that they were citizens went unheard by local police and jailers for days, with no communication with federal immigration agents to clarify the situation. Any case where an American is held, even briefly, for immigration investigation is a potential wrongful arrest because immigration agents lack legal authority to detain citizens.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Police employ Predator drone spy planes on home front
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-drone-arrest-20111211,0,324348.story
Armed with a search warrant, Nelson County Sheriff Kelly Janke went looking for six missing cows on the Brossart family farm in the early evening of June 23. Three men brandishing rifles chased him off, he said.
Janke knew the gunmen could be anywhere on the 3,000-acre spread in eastern North Dakota. Fearful of an armed standoff, he called in reinforcements from the state Highway Patrol, a regional SWAT team, a bomb squad, ambulances and deputy sheriffs from three other counties.
He also called in a Predator B drone.
As the unmanned aircraft circled 2 miles overhead the next morning, sophisticated sensors under the nose helped pinpoint the three suspects and showed they were unarmed. Police rushed in and made the first known arrests of U.S. citizens with help from a Predator, the spy drone that has helped revolutionize modern warfare.
But that was just the start. Local police say they have used two unarmed Predators based at Grand Forks Air Force Base to fly at least two dozen surveillance flights since June. The FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration have used Predators for other domestic investigations, officials said.
Armed with a search warrant, Nelson County Sheriff Kelly Janke went looking for six missing cows on the Brossart family farm in the early evening of June 23. Three men brandishing rifles chased him off, he said.
Janke knew the gunmen could be anywhere on the 3,000-acre spread in eastern North Dakota. Fearful of an armed standoff, he called in reinforcements from the state Highway Patrol, a regional SWAT team, a bomb squad, ambulances and deputy sheriffs from three other counties.
He also called in a Predator B drone.
As the unmanned aircraft circled 2 miles overhead the next morning, sophisticated sensors under the nose helped pinpoint the three suspects and showed they were unarmed. Police rushed in and made the first known arrests of U.S. citizens with help from a Predator, the spy drone that has helped revolutionize modern warfare.
But that was just the start. Local police say they have used two unarmed Predators based at Grand Forks Air Force Base to fly at least two dozen surveillance flights since June. The FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration have used Predators for other domestic investigations, officials said.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Court imposes limits on class actions
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110427/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_class_actions
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Wednesday limited the ability of people to combine forces and fight corporations together when they want to dispute contracts for cell phones, cable television and other services, a move consumer advocates called a crushing blow.
In a 5-4 ideological split, the high court's conservatives said businesses can block their customers from using class actions. The court said the federal arbitration law trumps state laws that invalidate contracts banning class actions.
The decision came in a dispute between AT&T Mobility and a California couple who objected to being charged around $30 in sales tax for what they were told was a free cell phone.
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Wednesday limited the ability of people to combine forces and fight corporations together when they want to dispute contracts for cell phones, cable television and other services, a move consumer advocates called a crushing blow.
In a 5-4 ideological split, the high court's conservatives said businesses can block their customers from using class actions. The court said the federal arbitration law trumps state laws that invalidate contracts banning class actions.
The decision came in a dispute between AT&T Mobility and a California couple who objected to being charged around $30 in sales tax for what they were told was a free cell phone.
Monday, April 25, 2011
N.Y. case underscores Wi-Fi privacy dangers
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2011-04-25-wifi-warning.htm
BUFFALO, N.Y. — Lying on his family room floor with assault weapons trained on him, shouts of “pedophile!” and “pornographer!” stinging like his fresh cuts and bruises, the Buffalo homeowner didn’t need long to figure out the reason for the early morning wake-up call from a swarm of federal agents.
That new wireless router. He’d gotten fed up trying to set a password. Someone must have used his Internet connection, he thought.
“We know who you are! You downloaded thousands of images at 11:30 last night,” the man’s lawyer, Barry Covert, recounted the agents saying. They referred to a screen name, “Doldrum.”
“No, I didn’t,” he insisted. “Somebody else could have but I didn’t do anything like that.”
“You’re a creep … just admit it,” they said.
Law enforcement officials say the case is a cautionary tale. Their advice: Password-protect your wireless router.
Plenty of others would agree. The Sarasota, Fla. man, for example, who got a similar visit from the FBI last year after someone on a boat docked in a marina outside his building used a potato chip can as an antenna to boost his wireless signal and download an astounding 10 million images of child porn, or the North Syracuse, N.Y., man who in December 2009 opened his door to police who’d been following an electronic trail of illegal videos and images. The man’s neighbor pleaded guilty April 12.
For two hours that March morning in Buffalo, agents tapped away at the homeowner’s desktop computer, eventually taking it with them, along with his and his wife’s iPads and iPhones.
Within three days, investigators determined the homeowner had been telling the truth: If someone was downloading child pornography through his wireless signal, it wasn’t him. About a week later, agents arrested a 25-year-old neighbor and charged him with distribution of child pornography. The case is pending in federal court.
It’s unknown how often unsecured routers have brought legal trouble for subscribers. Besides the criminal investigations, the Internet is full of anecdotal accounts of people who’ve had to fight accusations of illegally downloading music or movies.
Whether you’re guilty or not, “you look like the suspect,” said Orin Kerr, a professor at George Washington University Law School, who said that’s just one of many reasons to secure home routers.
Experts say the more savvy hackers can go beyond just connecting to the Internet on the host’s dime and monitor Internet activity and steal passwords or other sensitive information.
A study released in February provides a sense of how often computer users rely on the generosity — or technological shortcomings — of their neighbors to gain Internet access.
The poll conducted for the Wi-Fi Alliance, the industry group that promotes wireless technology standards, found that among 1,054 Americans age 18 and older, 32 percent acknowledged trying to access a Wi-Fi network that wasn’t theirs. An estimated 201 million households worldwide use Wi-Fi networks, according to the alliance.
The same study, conducted by Wakefield Research, found that 40 percent said they would be more likely to trust someone with their house key than with their Wi-Fi network password.
For some, though, leaving their wireless router open to outside use is a philosophical decision, a way of returning the favor for the times they’ve hopped on to someone else’s network to check e-mail or download directions while away from home .
“I think it’s convenient and polite to have an open Wi-Fi network,” said Rebecca Jeschke, whose home signal is accessible to anyone within range.
“Public Wi-Fi is for the common good and I’m happy to participate in that — and lots of people are,” said Jeschke, a spokeswoman for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based nonprofit that takes on cyberspace civil liberties issues.
Experts say wireless routers come with encryption software, but setting it up means a trip to the manual.
The government’s Computer Emergency Readiness Team recommends home users make their networks invisible to others by disabling the identifier broadcasting function that allows wireless access points to announce their presence. It also advises users to replace any default network names or passwords, since those are widely known, and to keep an eye on the manufacturer’s website for security patches or updates.
People who keep an open wireless router won’t necessarily know when someone else is piggybacking on the signal, which usually reaches 300-400 feet, though a slower connection may be a clue.
For the Buffalo homeowner, who didn’t want to be identified, the tip-off wasn’t nearly as subtle.
It was 6:20 a.m. March 7 when he and his wife were awakened by the sound of someone breaking down their rear door. He threw a robe on and walked to the top of the stairs, looking down to see seven armed people with jackets bearing the initials I-C-E, which he didn’t immediately know stood for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
“They are screaming at him, ‘Get down! Get down on the ground!’ He’s saying, ‘Who are you? Who are you?’” Covert said.
“One of the agents runs up and basically throws him down the stairs, and he’s got the cuts and bruises to show for it,” said Covert, who said the homeowner plans no lawsuit. When he was allowed to get up, agents escorted him and watched as he used the bathroom and dressed.
The homeowner later got an apology from U.S. Attorney William Hochul and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent in Charge Lev Kubiak.
But this wasn’t a case of officers rushing into the wrong house. Court filings show exactly what led them there and why.
On Feb. 11, an investigator with the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees cybersecurity enforcement, signed in to a peer-to-peer file sharing program from his office. After connecting with someone by the name of “Doldrum,” the agent browsed through his shared files for videos and images and found images and videos depicting children engaged in sexual acts.
The agent identified the IP address, or unique identification number, of the router, then got the service provider to identify the subscriber.
Investigators could have taken an extra step before going inside the house and used a laptop or other device outside the home to see whether there was an unsecured signal. That alone wouldn’t have exonerated the homeowner, but it would have raised the possibility that someone else was responsible for the downloads.
After a search of his devices proved the homeowner’s innocence, investigators went back to the peer-to-peer software and looked at logs that showed what other IP addresses Doldrum had connected from. Two were associated with the State University of New York at Buffalo and accessed using a secure token that UB said was assigned to a student living in an apartment adjacent to the homeowner. Agents arrested John Luchetti March 17. He has pleaded not guilty to distribution of child pornography.
Luchetti is not charged with using his neighbor’s Wi-Fi without permission. Whether it was illegal is up for debate.
“The question,” said Kerr, “is whether it’s unauthorized access and so you have to say, ‘Is an open wireless point implicitly authorizing users or not?’
”We don’t know,“ Kerr said. ”The law prohibits unauthorized access and it’s just not clear what’s authorized with an open unsecured wireless.“
In Germany, the country’s top criminal court ruled last year that Internet users must secure their wireless connections to prevent others from illegally downloading data. The court said Internet users could be fined up to $126 if a third party takes advantage of their unprotected line, though it stopped short of holding the users responsible for illegal content downloaded by the third party.
The ruling came after a musician sued an Internet user whose wireless connection was used to download a song, which was then offered on an online file sharing network. The user was on vacation when the song was downloaded.
BUFFALO, N.Y. — Lying on his family room floor with assault weapons trained on him, shouts of “pedophile!” and “pornographer!” stinging like his fresh cuts and bruises, the Buffalo homeowner didn’t need long to figure out the reason for the early morning wake-up call from a swarm of federal agents.
That new wireless router. He’d gotten fed up trying to set a password. Someone must have used his Internet connection, he thought.
“We know who you are! You downloaded thousands of images at 11:30 last night,” the man’s lawyer, Barry Covert, recounted the agents saying. They referred to a screen name, “Doldrum.”
“No, I didn’t,” he insisted. “Somebody else could have but I didn’t do anything like that.”
“You’re a creep … just admit it,” they said.
Law enforcement officials say the case is a cautionary tale. Their advice: Password-protect your wireless router.
Plenty of others would agree. The Sarasota, Fla. man, for example, who got a similar visit from the FBI last year after someone on a boat docked in a marina outside his building used a potato chip can as an antenna to boost his wireless signal and download an astounding 10 million images of child porn, or the North Syracuse, N.Y., man who in December 2009 opened his door to police who’d been following an electronic trail of illegal videos and images. The man’s neighbor pleaded guilty April 12.
For two hours that March morning in Buffalo, agents tapped away at the homeowner’s desktop computer, eventually taking it with them, along with his and his wife’s iPads and iPhones.
Within three days, investigators determined the homeowner had been telling the truth: If someone was downloading child pornography through his wireless signal, it wasn’t him. About a week later, agents arrested a 25-year-old neighbor and charged him with distribution of child pornography. The case is pending in federal court.
It’s unknown how often unsecured routers have brought legal trouble for subscribers. Besides the criminal investigations, the Internet is full of anecdotal accounts of people who’ve had to fight accusations of illegally downloading music or movies.
Whether you’re guilty or not, “you look like the suspect,” said Orin Kerr, a professor at George Washington University Law School, who said that’s just one of many reasons to secure home routers.
Experts say the more savvy hackers can go beyond just connecting to the Internet on the host’s dime and monitor Internet activity and steal passwords or other sensitive information.
A study released in February provides a sense of how often computer users rely on the generosity — or technological shortcomings — of their neighbors to gain Internet access.
The poll conducted for the Wi-Fi Alliance, the industry group that promotes wireless technology standards, found that among 1,054 Americans age 18 and older, 32 percent acknowledged trying to access a Wi-Fi network that wasn’t theirs. An estimated 201 million households worldwide use Wi-Fi networks, according to the alliance.
The same study, conducted by Wakefield Research, found that 40 percent said they would be more likely to trust someone with their house key than with their Wi-Fi network password.
For some, though, leaving their wireless router open to outside use is a philosophical decision, a way of returning the favor for the times they’ve hopped on to someone else’s network to check e-mail or download directions while away from home .
“I think it’s convenient and polite to have an open Wi-Fi network,” said Rebecca Jeschke, whose home signal is accessible to anyone within range.
“Public Wi-Fi is for the common good and I’m happy to participate in that — and lots of people are,” said Jeschke, a spokeswoman for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based nonprofit that takes on cyberspace civil liberties issues.
Experts say wireless routers come with encryption software, but setting it up means a trip to the manual.
The government’s Computer Emergency Readiness Team recommends home users make their networks invisible to others by disabling the identifier broadcasting function that allows wireless access points to announce their presence. It also advises users to replace any default network names or passwords, since those are widely known, and to keep an eye on the manufacturer’s website for security patches or updates.
People who keep an open wireless router won’t necessarily know when someone else is piggybacking on the signal, which usually reaches 300-400 feet, though a slower connection may be a clue.
For the Buffalo homeowner, who didn’t want to be identified, the tip-off wasn’t nearly as subtle.
It was 6:20 a.m. March 7 when he and his wife were awakened by the sound of someone breaking down their rear door. He threw a robe on and walked to the top of the stairs, looking down to see seven armed people with jackets bearing the initials I-C-E, which he didn’t immediately know stood for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
“They are screaming at him, ‘Get down! Get down on the ground!’ He’s saying, ‘Who are you? Who are you?’” Covert said.
“One of the agents runs up and basically throws him down the stairs, and he’s got the cuts and bruises to show for it,” said Covert, who said the homeowner plans no lawsuit. When he was allowed to get up, agents escorted him and watched as he used the bathroom and dressed.
The homeowner later got an apology from U.S. Attorney William Hochul and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent in Charge Lev Kubiak.
But this wasn’t a case of officers rushing into the wrong house. Court filings show exactly what led them there and why.
On Feb. 11, an investigator with the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees cybersecurity enforcement, signed in to a peer-to-peer file sharing program from his office. After connecting with someone by the name of “Doldrum,” the agent browsed through his shared files for videos and images and found images and videos depicting children engaged in sexual acts.
The agent identified the IP address, or unique identification number, of the router, then got the service provider to identify the subscriber.
Investigators could have taken an extra step before going inside the house and used a laptop or other device outside the home to see whether there was an unsecured signal. That alone wouldn’t have exonerated the homeowner, but it would have raised the possibility that someone else was responsible for the downloads.
After a search of his devices proved the homeowner’s innocence, investigators went back to the peer-to-peer software and looked at logs that showed what other IP addresses Doldrum had connected from. Two were associated with the State University of New York at Buffalo and accessed using a secure token that UB said was assigned to a student living in an apartment adjacent to the homeowner. Agents arrested John Luchetti March 17. He has pleaded not guilty to distribution of child pornography.
Luchetti is not charged with using his neighbor’s Wi-Fi without permission. Whether it was illegal is up for debate.
“The question,” said Kerr, “is whether it’s unauthorized access and so you have to say, ‘Is an open wireless point implicitly authorizing users or not?’
”We don’t know,“ Kerr said. ”The law prohibits unauthorized access and it’s just not clear what’s authorized with an open unsecured wireless.“
In Germany, the country’s top criminal court ruled last year that Internet users must secure their wireless connections to prevent others from illegally downloading data. The court said Internet users could be fined up to $126 if a third party takes advantage of their unprotected line, though it stopped short of holding the users responsible for illegal content downloaded by the third party.
The ruling came after a musician sued an Internet user whose wireless connection was used to download a song, which was then offered on an online file sharing network. The user was on vacation when the song was downloaded.
Michigan Police Deny Secretly Extracting Mobile Data During Traffic Stops
http://news.yahoo.com/s/zd/20110421/tc_zd/263456
The Michigan Police Force has denied the unlawful use of a device that can extract all your cell phone information, the same technology that is embedded in many of our cell phones.
The data extraction devices (DED) are manufactured by CelleBrite and can quickly extract mobile data, such as contacts, photos, and deleted text messages, from your SD card. CelleBrite counts Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, and other major carriers as customers; the technology is used to transfer data to a new phone when you upgrade.
According to the Detroit Free Press, the Michigan police force bought the devices in 2006. The force justified the purchase as necessary "due to the increasing use of mobile communication devices by criminals to further their criminal activity, and have become a powerful investigative tool used to obtain critical information from criminals."
On April 13 the American Civil Liberties Union wrote a letter (see below) to the MSP asking for an explanation of how the devices are used.
"A device that allows immediate, surreptitious intrusion into private data creates enormous risks that troopers will ignore these requirements to the detriment of the constitutional rights of persons whose cell phones are searched," wrote ACLU attorney Mark Fancher, in his letter to Lt. Col. Kriste Etue of the MSP. "Additionally, if racially disproportionate incarceration rates in the state are the result of racially disproportionate contact with law enforcement officers, then there is reason to be concerned that Michigan residents of color are more likely to have their cell phones searched by Michigan State Police."
On Wednesday the police released a statement outlining how its employees are supposed to use DEDs. Police must hold a search warrant, or obtain consent from the mobile device holder, before using the DED to extract mobile data. Furthermore the DEDs can only be used by "specialty teams on criminal cases, such as crimes against children," the statement read.
"The DEDs are not being used to extract citizens' personal information during routine traffic stops."
The Michigan Police Force has denied the unlawful use of a device that can extract all your cell phone information, the same technology that is embedded in many of our cell phones.
The data extraction devices (DED) are manufactured by CelleBrite and can quickly extract mobile data, such as contacts, photos, and deleted text messages, from your SD card. CelleBrite counts Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, and other major carriers as customers; the technology is used to transfer data to a new phone when you upgrade.
According to the Detroit Free Press, the Michigan police force bought the devices in 2006. The force justified the purchase as necessary "due to the increasing use of mobile communication devices by criminals to further their criminal activity, and have become a powerful investigative tool used to obtain critical information from criminals."
On April 13 the American Civil Liberties Union wrote a letter (see below) to the MSP asking for an explanation of how the devices are used.
"A device that allows immediate, surreptitious intrusion into private data creates enormous risks that troopers will ignore these requirements to the detriment of the constitutional rights of persons whose cell phones are searched," wrote ACLU attorney Mark Fancher, in his letter to Lt. Col. Kriste Etue of the MSP. "Additionally, if racially disproportionate incarceration rates in the state are the result of racially disproportionate contact with law enforcement officers, then there is reason to be concerned that Michigan residents of color are more likely to have their cell phones searched by Michigan State Police."
On Wednesday the police released a statement outlining how its employees are supposed to use DEDs. Police must hold a search warrant, or obtain consent from the mobile device holder, before using the DED to extract mobile data. Furthermore the DEDs can only be used by "specialty teams on criminal cases, such as crimes against children," the statement read.
"The DEDs are not being used to extract citizens' personal information during routine traffic stops."
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Free Trove of Music Scores on Web Hits Sensitive Copyright Note
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/arts/music/22music-imslp.html?src=me&ref=general
Internet v. Courts: Googling for the perfect juror
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/17/us-courts-voirdire-idUSTRE71G4VW20110217?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews
Feb 17 (Reuters Legal) - When picking a jury, lawyers always try to stack the panel with people likely to take their side. Now, some are taking the vetting process to a new level: they're quietly trawling social networks and other sites to ferret out the most intimate details of potential jurors' lives, from their sexual orientation to their income level and politics.
Feb 17 (Reuters Legal) - When picking a jury, lawyers always try to stack the panel with people likely to take their side. Now, some are taking the vetting process to a new level: they're quietly trawling social networks and other sites to ferret out the most intimate details of potential jurors' lives, from their sexual orientation to their income level and politics.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Hal, the Speed Camera
http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/08/asset-speed-camera-also-checks-your-seatbelt-insurance-can-cal/
Speed cameras have dubious legality in many places here in the States, but over in Europe they're an ugly fact of life. Now they're getting smarter, and the first is going into deployment in Finland. It's called ASSET, the Advanced Safety and Driver Support for Essential Road Transport, which confusingly abbreviates to ASDSERT and is the product of £7 million in government funding and years of development. Each of the £50,000 (about $80,000) cameras can naturally tell just how fast you're going and, if you're speeding, take a picture of you and your license plate number. That's just the beginning. It can also look up the status of your insurance, tell if you're wearing a seatbelt, and ding you for tailgating, all while sitting alone on the side of the road, relying on a wireless data connection and an internal generator to be totally self-sufficient. Whether or not this is scary depends largely on your propensity for speed, but know that the things will be getting built into police cars soon and will shortly be heading over here to our big, wide American highways
Speed cameras have dubious legality in many places here in the States, but over in Europe they're an ugly fact of life. Now they're getting smarter, and the first is going into deployment in Finland. It's called ASSET, the Advanced Safety and Driver Support for Essential Road Transport, which confusingly abbreviates to ASDSERT and is the product of £7 million in government funding and years of development. Each of the £50,000 (about $80,000) cameras can naturally tell just how fast you're going and, if you're speeding, take a picture of you and your license plate number. That's just the beginning. It can also look up the status of your insurance, tell if you're wearing a seatbelt, and ding you for tailgating, all while sitting alone on the side of the road, relying on a wireless data connection and an internal generator to be totally self-sufficient. Whether or not this is scary depends largely on your propensity for speed, but know that the things will be getting built into police cars soon and will shortly be heading over here to our big, wide American highways
Monday, July 5, 2010
Jury Duty Just Got Worse In Missouri
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_1358015c-2124-5147-83d1-6b39cdc1c89e.html
I've served on five juries. Nothing like being a resident of the St. Louis Metro area.
I've served on five juries. Nothing like being a resident of the St. Louis Metro area.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Another Reason Not To Text
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/06/17/4522654-omg-careful-what-you-text-at-work
Your boss now has permission from the Supreme court to read your texts.
Your boss now has permission from the Supreme court to read your texts.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
More Excellent Lawyer Conduct
http://www.abajournal.com/news/high-functioning_alcoholic_lawyers_may_defy_stereotypes/
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Another Reason To Avoid Sports Betting
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/laworder/story/81771BA7A74F202F8625758C0001C9A1?OpenDocument
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Even The Gnomes Of Zurich Are In Trouble!
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/df9ce572-1a36-11de-9f91-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=9788f55e-07e0-11de-8a33-0000779fd2ac.html
Friday, March 27, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
