Our Government at Work

Whether you’re on Israel’s or the Gaza Strip’s side in the recent incident you should agree with my sentiment: why the fuck are we giving either of them taxpayer money:

US President Barack Obama has said the situation in Gaza is “unsustainable” and promised millions of dollars in new aid for the territory.

Seriously we have a massive national debt. I know $400 million isn’t even on the register of our debt by why the fuck are we giving money to other countries when we don’t have any money? Shouldn’t we use every dime we can get to lower our outrageous spending? Cripes!

Crimes vs. Civil Disputes

Apparently the Star Tribune doesn’t realize criminal cases aren’t the only things our court system can be used for. In their effort to sell more papers to avoid their quick spiral into bankruptcy the are trying to scare people into thinking the legal system is being illegally used to collect debts:

You committed no crime, but an officer is knocking on your door. More Minnesotans are surprised to find themselves being locked up over debts.

Apparently the paper is up in arms over the use of what is akin to debtors’ prisons. Honestly this isn’t happening nearly as much as the paper is trying to scare you into believing but alas they’re making a big deal out of this. Let’s step through the article and pull out some interesting quotes:

As a sheriff’s deputy dumped the contents of Joy Uhlmeyer’s purse into a sealed bag, she begged to know why she had just been arrested while driving home to Richfield after an Easter visit with her elderly mother.

No one had an answer. Uhlmeyer spent a sleepless night in a frigid Anoka County holding cell, her hands tucked under her armpits for warmth.

So this woman was arrested and held overnight without being told what she was being arrested for? I believe that’s illegal. I’m pretty sure you must be informed of why you’re being arrested as you’re being arrested. If this case is true maybe she should sue the police department. Oh and I love this:

“They have no right to do this to me,” said the 57-year-old patient care advocate, her voice as soft as a whisper. “Not for a stupid credit card.”

Congratulations you are a potential victim of police abuse. There is a support group down the hall. Cookies and juice are being served. I’m glad your eyes have been opened to what happens when law enforcement is held unaccountable. Or are the police acting illegally?

Remember these people broke no laws right? Not so much:

In Illinois and southwest Indiana, some judges jail debtors for missing court-ordered debt payments. In extreme cases, people stay in jail until they raise a minimum payment. In January, a judge sentenced a Kenney, Ill., man “to indefinite incarceration” until he came up with $300 toward a lumber yard debt.

I asked Bad News Bear about this and he delivered bad news as usual. Get this, if a court orders you to do something and you don’t they can issue an arrest warrant. HOLY SHIT! Did you know if you’re arrested for driving while intoxicated you can be ordered by the court to attend counseling? Did you also know if don’t show up for said counseling an arrest warrant can be issued against you? Yes if you are ordered to do something by the legal system you are legally obligated to do it. Also fire is hot.

On the second page we get this:

How often are debtors arrested across the country? No one can say. No national statistics are kept, and the practice is largely unnoticed outside legal circles.

This is the Star Tribune’s method of saying they found a couple of potential examples that there are a few isolated incidents of something happening but no proof can be found that the trend is increasing. In other words there are no facts to scare people with, not even crappy statistics made up to strike fear into your heart. But they need to sell papers which requires scary stories.

Those jailed for debts may be the least able to pay.

“It’s just one more blow for people who are already struggling,” said Beverly Yang, a Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation staff attorney who has represented three Illinois debtors arrested in the past two months. “They don’t like being in court. They don’t have cars. And if they had money to pay these collectors, they would.”

If that’s the case maybe they shouldn’t have obtained a credit card and used it to the limit. Maybe they should have decided to live within their means. I know a novel concept. Here is a lesson to learn, you don’t need a credit card. It’s that simple. If you can’t pay for something don’t get it. For instance I know you want that super awesome 50″ plasma T.V. but you don’t have the $8,000.00 to spend on it. Know what you can do? Not buy it! You don’t need that television to survive or even get by in life.

This process happens several times a week in Hennepin County. Those who fail to appear can be held in contempt and an arrest warrant is issued if a collector seeks one. Arrested debtors aren’t officially charged with a crime, but their cases are heard in the same courtroom as drug users.

No it’s not a crime, it’s a civil dispute. For instance if you are throwing shit onto your neighbor’s lawn they can take you to court over it. If you don’t show up for the court date a warrant can be issued to retrieve you and bring you to court. Crimes aren’t the only reason our court system is used. No, it’s also used to peacefully settle disputes between two members of society. In this case the court acts as a mediator and attempts to determine if one person has infringed on another person’s life in as neutral of a manner as possible.

“I was surprised that the police would waste time on my petty debts,” said Williams, 45, of Minneapolis, who had a $5,773 judgment from a credit card debt. “Don’t they have real criminals to catch?”

The police generally don’t get to determine what crimes they will work on and what crimes they will put on the back burner. If a judge issues an arrest warrant the police have to act on it regardless of what they think. It’s their job. You know what a job is right? It’s where you are paid money by somebody to perform tasks asked of you. If you don’t perform said tasks the person paying you can chose to no longer pay you and find somebody else to perform the task. It’s actually a very simple concept when you get right down to it.

“They may think it’s a mistake. They may think it’s a scam. They may not realize how important it is to respond,” said Mary Spector, a law professor at Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law in Dallas.

But the second you receive a court order you know it’s not a scam. That’s when you realize it’s important to respond. Also I’m just impressed some people have enough use of their brain to continue breathing:

Though she knew of the warrant and unpaid debt, “I wasn’t equating the warrant with going to jail, because there wasn’t criminal activity associated with it,” she said. “I just thought it was a civil thing.”

So you know there was a warrant out for your arrest but didn’t equate it to going to jail? You seriously fail at cognitive abilities. At this point I’m just pointing out stupidity:

“Thank God, the police had mercy and left me and my baby alone,” said Nielsen, who later paid the debt. “But to send someone to arrest me two weeks after a massive surgery that takes most women eight weeks to recover from was just unbelievable.”

Yes because I’m sure they obtained your medical records to see if you had a recent surgery so they knew whether it was OK to have you arrested or not. Oh wait they can’t because medical records are confidential. So they didn’t send the police after you because they knew you recently had surgery, they sent them after you because how the fuck are they supposed to know you just had major surgery? Sorry you aren’t so important that they keep constant updates on your well being.

He still has unpaid medical and credit card bills and owes about $40,000 on an old second mortgage. The sight of a squad car in his rearview mirror is all it takes to set off a fresh wave of anxiety.

“The question always crosses my mind: ‘Are the cops going to arrest me again?'” he said. “So long as I’ve got unpaid bills, the threat is there.”

Maybe you should pay off those bills then huh?

Seriously this article isn’t about abuse of power, it’s about civil disputes. Whether you like this system or not it’s established and if you live in this country you live under the system. This article is a perfect example of the main stream media blowing something out of proportion so they can make money. The actual moral of the story is this: if you owe somebody money and are ordered to appear in court you will be arrested if you don’t show up to court.

Hiring Hackers

I found another good post by Bruce Schneier. This one deals with hiring people with previous criminal histories. More or less Mr. Schneier brings up the fact stating your won’t hire people with a previous criminal history is short sighted and rather ignorant:

The answer, of course, is “it depends.” It depends on the specifics of the crime. It depends on the ethics involved. It depends on the recidivism rate of the type of criminal. It depends a whole lot on the individual.

Then he goes further into the idea of hiring convicted malicious hackers:

Admittedly, there’s a difference between thinking like an attacker and acting like a criminal, and between researching vulnerabilities in fielded systems and exploiting those vulnerabilities for personal gain. But there is a huge variability in computer crime convictions, and — at least in the early days — many hacking convictions were unjust and unfair. And there’s also a difference between someone’s behavior as a teenager and his behavior later in life. Additionally, there might very well be a difference between someone’s behavior before and after a hacking conviction. It all depends on the person.

This is ultimately the key when hiring anybody. Having a criminal history shouldn’t be an instant disqualifies for a job. It all depends on such variables as what the crime was, when the crime was done, what has changed about the person since they committed the crime, etc. Many people with previous criminal backgrounds have very useful skills. It makes sense to hire a person who was convicted of bank robbery to review your bank’s security. The person obviously understands bank security and how to bypass it. Of course it still depends on his character and whether or not he’ll try to rob your bank later. Still he’ll have the hands on experience which is more valuable than theory and book knowledge.

There is also another paragraph that I found very interesting due to previous posts I’ve made about felons on the right to keep and bear arms:

Last winter, a Minneapolis attorney who works to get felons a fair shake after they served their time told of a sign he saw: “Snow shovelers wanted. Felons need not apply.” It’s not good for society if felons who have served their time can’t even get jobs shoveling snow.

The ostracization of people with felonies is out of hand in this country. Somebody who served their time shouldn’t have a problem getting a job again. As I’ve mentioned before if a criminal is still considered a danger to society that person shouldn’t be free to roam the streets. Likewise whether you hire a felon should be based on what the felony was. As I’ve mentioned before just because somebody has a felony doesn’t mean they were a violent criminal.

So having a blanket statement saying you will not hire people with criminal histories puts you and your company at a disadvantage. Sure you will run a slightly smaller risk of having a potential offender in your company but you’ll also not be able to hire some of the best people out there.

Math Hard

Apparently the education system in Chicago is a far more dire state than I realized. Basic math operations such as addition and multiplication apparently escape their government officials as Days of our Trailers points out:

Of the 4,050 firearms traded in for gift cards, there were 55 assault weapons and 3,335 handguns, along with 660 replicas, according to the Office of Police News Affairs.

Police gave a prepaid credit card for each weapon turned in: $100 for each assault weapon, $75 for guns and $10 for BB guns, air guns and replica guns.

About $46,000 had been raised so far this year for the program

55*$100 + 3335*$75 + 660*$10 = $262,225.00

In case you’re a victim of Chicago’s apparently abhorrent education system $262,225.00 is larger than $46,000 meaning the program cost more money than was raised.

Why I Hate the Police State

Why do I hate the idea of a police state? Because they will kill your fucking dogs. <a href="“>Every Day, No Days Off links to a video for a SWAT team raid where they bust down the door, storm in, and shoot the man’s dogs one of which was in it’s still in it’s fucking cage! Oh and what offense required such a forceful and zealous response? Possession of weed. Here’s the video:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbwSwvUaRqc]

If that doesn’t infuriate you I don’t know what will. Oh and in the end the police charged the parents with endangering their children. It seems to me the SWAT team did a better job of that than the parents.

More on Laptop Spying Case

I mentioned some time ago about a situation occurring where a school was caught spying on students via webcams built into laptops that were issued to students. Well apparently there is nothing to see here:

An “independent” investigation into the Lower Merion School District laptop scandal has concluded that there’s no evidence that students were being spied on. This is despite the existence of 58,000 photos surreptitiously taken of students on or around their computers and e-mails between district IT people commenting on the entertainment value of the photos. The 72-page report (PDF) from law firm Ballard Spahr claims, however, that most of the photos were not seen by anyone and that the district merely failed to implement proper record-keeping procedures.

Yeah obviously there was no spying. Sure they had 58,000 pictures of kids doing who-knows-what but most of the pictures weren’t actually seen by anybody, scouts promise. After all I’m sure the Ballard Spahr law firm has evidence proving none of the pictures were viewed:

Ballard Spahr admits that there is no way to determine how often the images were viewed, but says it found no evidence that the IT staff had viewed any of the images. Additionally, it says there was no evidence that district administrators knew how TheftTrack worked or even understood that large numbers of images were being collected in the first place.

Oops I guess not. Oh wait there was evidence… of the pictures being viewed:

This, of course, is the problem: because there was very little record-keeping going on and no official policies, there are few ways to know who knew what and when. However, claiming that there’s no evidence whatsoever that IT staff saw the images seems disingenuous, considering the fact that e-mail records were dug up last month that showed at least two IT administrators chatting about the photos. One staffer that has since been put on leave, Carol Cafiero, described the pictures as “a little [Lower Merion School District] soap opera,” while another staffer responded, “I know. I love it!”

Yes the school gave all the students laptops, installed spyware (in the most literal sense) on the machines, but didn’t really document it nor put any polices in place of when the cameras were to be used. That’s doesn’t scream trying to cover your tracks because you knew what you were doing was going to land you in very hot water.

But the fact of the matter is the school went to great lengths to ensure an outside party chose an independent entity to carry out the investigation so no possibility of bias could have entered into the equation:

One detail of note is that Ballard Spahr was hired by the Lower Merion School District itself to carry out the investigation, casting doubts on the true “independent” nature of the report.

Fuck me. I’m still hoping that school district gets sued right into oblivion.

I know quite a few parents who don’t want their kids having a laptop with a webcam because pedophiles may be able to access the camera without anybody’s knowledge and watching everything going on. I usually write such concerns off as over-the-top paranoia but I guess when the school is providing the laptops you should be worried about such things (the cameras being activated remotely without anybody’s knowledge, well and possibly the pedophiles doing it depending on the truth reason for installing that spyware).

My ultimate question here is who requested the installation of the spyware? Did the IT people do it without asking the school administrators or did the school administrators ask the IT people to do it? This will ultimately show the guilty party.

No Miranda Rights For You

Dvorak Uncensored lead me to another reason for me to hate most of our politicians. Senator Lindsey Graham wants to deny reading Miranda rights to “suspect terrorists.” This another one of those bills that may look acceptable on paper until you look at what Senator Graham views as a terrorist:

“The homeland is part of the battlefield. So this idea that you get to America, the rules dramatically change, to the benefit of the suspect – the terrorist – makes no sense,” he said.

Yes the suspect is a terrorist. Note that wording. The suspect is not a potential terrorist, he or she is a terrorist. I’ve often argued that terrorism is akin to child molestation in this country in that you are guilty upon accusation. In either of the two cases you are pretty much screwed because even if you are found guilty the stain of the accusation is permanent and is as good as being found guilty. I will note another thing here:

Graham told POLITICO he is working on legislation that would redefine the so-called “public safety exemption” to Miranda warnings. Under current law, police can question a suspect to obtain admissible evidence without informing them of their rights if they believe that there is an “exigent danger” – like a ticking time bomb — that another crime is about to be committed.

If the suspected terrorist is an immediate threat Miranda rights can be ignore. So why do we need another law? Oh that’s right because you could avoid having to inform detainees of their rights simply by accusing them of terrorism.

Now truth be told you’re an idiot if you don’t know your rights. I’m not saying having to read Miranda rights is a good or bad thing here (personally I think they’re a good thing). What I’m saying is we shouldn’t be making exceptions like these to laws. It’s a slippery slope to say the least. The next thing that would be up I believe would be an exemption to a fast and speedy trial for suspected terrorists holding an American citizenship caught within the United States.

Likewise Mr. Graham’s attitude that suspected terrorists are automatically guilty is disturbing. Nobody who is making laws should have this attitude.

What is this Supposed to Be, Some Kind of Sick Joke

Hey want to know a secret? I hate the United Nations. Wait that’s not a secret at all. The U.N. is nothing more than a farce pretending to be an organization working for equal human rights. What they actually mean is equal human rights so long as they’re convenient to government power. That’s the joke of it all really, the U.N. is an organization made up entirely of world governments so you can guess their agenda is slightly slanted.

But this takes the cake:

High off its success in keeping Iran from joining the U.N.’s Human Rights Council, the U.S. appears to have missed its chance to object to Iran’s selection to the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women, which was affirmed during a so-called U.N. vote this week.

Yup Iran was elected to the Commission of the Status of Women. You know because Iran is so big on the rights of women and all.

Arizona’s Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act

There has been a lot of hullabaloo over Arizona’s new law that has claimed to give police the right to ask for your papers so to speak. With all the hysteria surrounding the bill I decided to go read the bill for myself. I’m not a lawyer but I can generally derive laws from text to an extent. It didn’t take long for me to find the clause that’s causing all the uproar:

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

Talk about vague. I found nothing else in this bill that specifies what lawful contact means, what reasonable suspicion means (usually it’s a cheap cop out that gives officers the authority to make up any old reason for searching your person or vehicle), or what they mean by when practicable.

I believe there are always grounds for concern when vague laws are passed. With the wording present seems to make it perfectly legal for an officer to walk up to you and ask for your papers. As no guidelines are in the bill restricting what “reasonable suspicion” is the officer can pretty much make up any old excuse (the suspect was talking in Spanish, etc.). After carousing through the entire bill I can say that yes this is a horrible piece of legislation based on the above mentioned clause.

This law enacts a guilty until proven innocent clause. According the the Supreme Court case Coffin v. United States (and common sense):

The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.

The entire text of the decision can be read here. It’s a good read as it does go over the history of presumption of innocence. And that is my major quarrel with Arizona’s new law. It violates the basic idea that a person is presumed innocent. Remember no proof of a crime needs to exist for an officer to ask for your papers, just reasonable suspicion (which could be anything really).

Whether you want stronger immigration laws and/or stricter laws against illegal aliens in this country I think you can agree that assuming guilt is no sane way to approach this topic in a free country (and if you think the idea of guilty until proven innocent is a good idea may I suggest moving to China). A person should never have to be assumed guilty without hard evidence collected tying them to the said crime. Having “reasonable suspicion” isn’t hard evidence nor does it constitute an investigation. It just means the officer had a hunch or gut feeling and was able to articulate it well enough to be considered “reasonable” (reasonable of course being different depending on the person you talk to).

Personally I think this is a horrible law that goes against the very ideas this country’s justice system is founded on.