Identity crisis in America: Is the government overstepping its boundaries?

by State Senator Mike Folmer (PA-48)

Every federal and state-elected official took an oath to uphold the U.S. and Pennsylvania constitutions. It is imperative those in public office start taking these oaths seriously, be­cause each day that goes by, more and more of our rights and freedoms are being lost, and government's appetite for collecting personal and private data continues to grow.

I believe the most egregious example of government overreaching into personal lives is the federal Real ID Act. Designed to protect Americans in post-9/11 society, Real ID would create a national identification card. Proponents of the act believe Americans should be stripped of essential liberties for the greater safety of the country.

The federal government says this plan will protect Americans from terror­ists. I disagree. I believe it is a clear violation of the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, redefining privacy as we know it, and creating a mountain of new bureaucracy and increasing fees and taxes—all without making us any safer.

That is why I have reintroduced legislation (Senate Bill 621) that would exempt Pennsylvania from compliance with this unfunded feder­al mandate. Eleven states, including South Carolina, New Hampshire, Maine, Montana and Virginia, have already enacted similar statutes.

If Pennsylvania were to comply with REAL ID, in January 2010, driver's licenses would become a standardized national identification card with a machine-readable zone containing valuable personal information. PennDOT would then be required to link into a massive na­tional database, opening the door to the possibility of major security breaches.

In addition, transportation departments would retain digital scans of identification documents, including birth certificates and Social Security cards, for at least 10 years or seven years for a paper copy.

I understand the threat Pennsylvanians face on our own soil, but under REAL ID, that vulnerability is magnified times 50 and leaves us all exposed.

REAL ID also threatens privacy rights by empowering the Department of Homeland Security to collect biometric data, including fingerprints and eye scans, as well as placing Radio Frequency Identification chips in every American's driver's license. A proposal by State Senator Shirley Kitchen, (D-Philadelphia), Senate Bill 623, would prohibit government bodies from capturing or releasing biometric data without an individual's approval or knowledge and prevent a slippery slope toward rights being stripped away.

Other requirements of REAL ID that take law-abiding citizens down a dangerous path are: what confidential data can be collected from driver's licenses; where and how long it can be stored; and who is authorized to obtain, share, trade or sell that information.

With one swipe of a license, an establishment can collect your personal data and use it for marketing purposes. State Senator John Wozniak's, (D-Clearfield), proposed legislation (Senate Bill 622) would restrict information that can be made available from driver's licenses for marketing or other purposes beyond law enforcement.

If we don't exempt ourselves from REAL ID by the end of 2009, we are in real danger. This act is a major violation of Americans' right to privacy and another example of the federal government overstepping its boundaries with the states -- all with an anticipated unfunded federal mandate cost of $11 billion to already financially strapped states.

The assault on our right to privacy must end. Together, this package of bills can slow the increased flow of data in our daily lives.

Implantable Chip Designed To Kill Dissidents, Hired-Help

Saudi files killer tracking chip patent

German Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA) spokeswoman Stephanie Krüger revealed Friday that the DPMA received an application from a Saudi Arabian citizen for a patent on his new invention.

The invention? Two versions of a subcutaneous chip to be implanted in humans: The first of which, according to the Jeddah-based inventor, is solely for “…the purposes of determining its geographical location.”

The inventor claims the device would use GPS tracking technology and would radio its location—and, therefore, the implantee’s—to a remote tracking center.

Now, I can think of really good uses for such a gadget, such as tracking politicians who are wont to take bribes in the form of free vacations at lavish resorts.

But then there’s the “B” model, which would—in the inventor’s words:

“…be suited for tracking fugitives from justice, terrorists, illegal immigrants, criminals, political opponents, defectors, domestic help, and Saudi Arabians who don’t return home from pilgrimages.

“In recent times the number of people sought by security forces has increased…I apply for these reasons and for reasons of state security and the security of citizens.”

In the “B” version, a controller need but press a button, sending a signal to the implant which then releases a lethal dose of cyanide into the bloodstream of the implantee.

Note that among the potential targets of this ghastly Orwellian device is listed “domestic help.” You return from a hard day’s work sentencing rape victims to torture and prison, to find that the maid hasn’t dusted your favorite beheading sword. Well, a simple touch of a button and her dinner plans are Kaput!

And if you don’t return to Saudi Arabia from your pilgrimage to, say, Las Vegas, a brief radio signal will fix your defecting tuchas.

Need I comment on the immoral, Hitlerian mindset of this—obviously well-educated and intelligent—Saudi? Likely not, but I will anyway.

Apparently, it doesn’t even occur to this lunatic that the Germans might not want to track and kill immigrants and butlers.

One wonders how typical this insane mentality may be among the rest of Saudi intelligentsia. Or the dimwits, for that matter. From all reports it seems to be the norm, rather than the exception.

But I digress…

DPMA spokeswoman Krüger added:

“Foreigners are allowed to apply for patents in Germany through a native representative, in this case it was a Munich law firm…Most people apply for a patent in several countries, and this inventor probably did too.

“While the application is still pending further paperwork on [the inventor’s] part, the invention will probably be found to violate paragraph two of the German Patent Law—which does not allow inventions that transgress public order or good morals.”

The law firm, DTS Munich, which represented the evil sonuvabitch inventor, "…resigned from representation of this case last week," a spokesman said without stating why.

Why? Well, gee, could it be… I dunno… that they finally read the patent application?

Note: If you would like to read about life in Saudi Arabia from the perspective of someone neither evil or insane and possessed of an excellent command of English, I suggest the Saudi Jeans Blog.

US Supreme Court Restricts Police Searches of Cars

US Supreme Court lays down rule forbidding warrantless car searches except in cases of officer safety or evidence protection

Arizona v. Grant Upheld, 4th Amendment Rights Restored

In a decision which seems to have gone largely unnoticed by the major news media, the US Supreme Court on Tuesday narrowed the permissible scope of warrantless automobile searches.

The high court’s 5-4 decision upheld a 2007 Arizona Supreme Court ruling which cited the 1969 California v. Chimel US Supreme Court case concluding that police must obtain a warrant before searching a car in the absence of any threat to officer safety or ability of the suspect to destroy evidence.

The Arizona ruling went counter to a nationwide trend diminishing constitutional protections against unwarranted searches.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority, citing former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor:

"Lower court decisions seem now to treat the ability to search a vehicle incident to the arrest of a recent occupant as a police entitlement rather than as an exception justified by the twin rationales of Chimel."

Since a 1981 decision, New York v. Belton, effectively threw the fourth amendment out the window—at least where traffic stops are concerned—police have been able to use “officer safety” or “protection of evidence” as an excuse to search a vehicle even though the vehicle is unoccupied and there is, therefore, absolutely no threat to the officer or evidence.

The new ruling does not completely overturn New York v. Belton but narrows its implications, preventing police from using unrelated minor offenses to justify drug searches without probable cause: Car searches without probable cause are valid only "if it is reasonable to believe that evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle" or if the suspect might be able to access the car for weapons.

The case at hand spent nearly a decade bouncing through the Arizona courts, beginning 25 August 1999 when two Tucson police officers received a "tip" that drug activity took place at a certain location. Police went to said location and questioned Rodney Gant who happened to open the door. After leaving, the officers looked up Gant's record and found an outstanding arrest warrant for driving under a suspended license. Big-time criminal, he.

The officers waited for Gant to return to the house, arresting him after he parked his car safely in the driveway. Gant was placed in the back of a squad car within minutes and without incident. Police then proceeded to search Gant's car where they found a small plastic bag containing cocaine.

A majority lead by Justice Stevens found the search of Gant's car unconstitutional.

"The state seriously undervalues the privacy interests at stake. Although we have recognized that a motorist's privacy interest in his vehicle is less substantial than in his home, the former interest is nevertheless important and deserving of constitutional protection. A rule that gives police the power to conduct such a search whenever an individual is caught committing a traffic offense, when there is no basis for believing evidence of the offense might be found in the vehicle, creates a serious and recurring threat to the privacy of countless individuals. Indeed, the character of that threat implicates the central concern underlying the Fourth Amendment—the concern about giving police officers unbridled discretion to rummage at will among a person's private effects."

The high court did leave police with a broad prospect for conducting warrantless searches but closed the door to searches based solely on traffic violations.

"Although it does not follow from Chimel, we also conclude that circumstances unique to the vehicle context justify a search incident to a lawful arrest when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle," Stevens wrote. "In many cases, as when a recent occupant is arrested for a traffic violation, there will be no reasonable basis to believe the vehicle contains relevant evidence."

Less than a day after the decision was released, the Michigan State Police issued guidance to officers on how to bypass the supreme court's new limitations:

"While this ruling will impact how searches of vehicles incident to arrest are conducted, officers may still conduct a full search of a person incident to a lawful arrest… In addition, officers may search vehicles using other exceptions to the warrant requirement.” (e.g. probable cause, inventory, tricking a motorist into giving consent).

A copy of the Supreme Court's decision is available as a PDF file: 07-542 Arizona v. Gant (4/21/2009)

Reason Or Force

A reprint of an article by Marko Kloos

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Marko’s original essay is posted at this link: “Why the gun is civilization.”

Congressman Calls For Investigation Of DHS Report

US Representative Pete Hoekstra, (Republican, Mich.), the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, asked the Director of National Intelligence Ombudsman to investigate the Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis report on “rightwing extremism” for evidence of unsubstantiated conclusions and political bias.

Congressman Hoekstra stated:

“This report has significant analytic shortcomings and does not deserve to be called an intelligence product… Our nation’s veterans and hardworking families that may be facing tough times should not be viewed as a threat and neither should citizens who oppose out-of-control federal spending and tax hikes.”

The House Intelligence Committee is responsible for authorizing funding for DHS Intelligence and Analysis, as well as conducting oversight of the office. Hoekstra sent his letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano with a copy sent to Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair. The DNI Ombudsman’s office is responsible for reviewing concerns about the quality and potential politicization of intelligence analysis.

Hoekstra was dismayed by the report’s sweeping generalizations about returning combat veterans and the suggestion that they would be susceptible to joining violent extremist groups. Hoekstra, who has sponsored a Constitutional Amendment to protect the rights of parents to raise their children, was also disappointed by the report’s assertion without substantiation that unemployed parents may foster “rightwing extremist” beliefs in their children.

Hoekstra added:

“Beyond apologizing for its obviously offensive references, the administration needs to get to the bottom of how and why a report like this was written, and put standards in place to keep it from happening again.”

You may download or view Congressman Hoekstra's letter to Napolitano as a PDF here.

You may download or view a copy of the DHS report as a PDF here.

Law Center Sues Napolitano Over DHS Report

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced that it filed a federal lawsuit against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. The lawsuit claims that her Department’s “Rightwing Extremism Policy,” as reflected in the recently publicized Intelligence Assessment, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” violates the civil liberties of combat veterans as well as American citizens by targeting them for disfavored treatment on account of their political beliefs.

The Law Center claims that Napolitano’s Department (DHS) has violated the First and Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights of these three plaintiffs by attempting to chill their free speech, expressive association, and equal protection rights. The lawsuit further claims that the Department of Homeland Security encourages law enforcement officers throughout the nation to target and report citizens to federal officials as suspicious rightwing extremists and potential terrorists because of their political beliefs.

Napolitano tried to blunt the public furor over the Report with a half-hearted apology to veterans, but left out of her apology all the other Americans her Department targeted because of their political beliefs.

In fact, officials in DHS now admit that their internal office of civil liberties objected to the language in the extremism report, but the Department issued it anyway.

You may download or view a copy of the report as a PDF here.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center stated:

“Janet Napolitano is lying to the American people when she says the Report is not based on ideology or political beliefs. In fact, her report would have the admiration of the Gestapo and any current or past dictator in the way it targets political opponents. This incompetently written intelligence assessment, which directs law enforcement officials across the country to target and report on American citizens who have the political beliefs mentioned in the report, will be used as a tool to stifle political opposition and opinions. It will give a pretext for opponents of those Americans to report them to police as rightwing extremists and terrorists. You can imagine what happens then.”

Thompson added:

“The Obama Administration has declared war on American patriots and our Constitution. The Report even admits that the Department has no specific information on any plans of violence by so-called ‘rightwing extremists.’ Rather, what they do have is the expression of political opinions by certain individuals and organizations that oppose the Obama administration’s policies, and this expression is protected speech under the First Amendment.”

The Report specifically mentions the following political beliefs that law enforcement should use to determine whether someone is a “rightwing extremist”:

• Opposes restrictions on firearms
• Opposes lax immigration
• Opposes the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs
• Opposes continuation of free trade agreements
• Opposes same-sex marriage
• Has paranoia of foreign regimes
• Fear of Communist regimes
• Opposes one world government
• Bemoans the decline of US stature in the world
• Upset with loss of US manufacturing jobs to China and India
• …and the list goes on

The New White House Enemies List – Are You On It?

DHS brands millions of honest citizens, veterans, as right-wing extremists

Update: Quite a scandal DHS has caused with their hateful document. A law center is suing Napolitano over the report and Congressman Hoekstra, (among others), is demanding an investigation.

There are some disinformationalists on the internet and in the media who are shouting that said report was begun under the Bush administration, (and so it was), and that the report is, therefore, solely a Bush administration document. Nonsense. The DHS report was revised by DHS under the Obama administration, reviewed by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and approved for release by her—despite objections from the DHS Office of Civil Liberties. Whether the report was begun under the Bush, Truman or Washington administrations, it was revised, approved and released by the Obama administration and Napolitano has attempted to stand by all of it. Then most of it. Then some of it.

The Department of Homeland Security has released a report titled: Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.

The report, reviewed by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano before its release, has outraged veterans groups, upset Ranking Member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Rep. Bennie Thompson, (Dem. Miss), and appalled just about everyone else.

You may download or view a copy of the report as a PDF here.

Let’s go over some excerpts from the DHS report, such as:

Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment [sic] groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts.

So. The DHS can find no indication that the groups and individuals of which they seem to be concerned, plan to carry out violent acts. Just how does this constitute a “threat?” Well, it doesn’t. Look at the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of threat:

1. an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage
2. one that threatens
3. an indication of something impending <the sky held a threat of rain>

Now look at the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of rhetoric:

1. the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a: the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b: the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion
2. a: skill in the effective use of speech b: a type or mode of language or speech ; also : insincere or grandiloquent language
3. verbal communication : discourse

In other words, people are conversing and they really haven’t made any threats.

Therefore, a copyeditor or English professor might re-write:

Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts.

to read:

There is no evidence that any group—even those we label extremist—is planning unlawful or violent acts.

Um, okay. Well, gee, I’m scared, aren’t you?

“… violent antigovernment groups… have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts.”

Just who are these unnamed “groups,” why are they classified as violent since the DHS says they aren't planning any violence and—if they are really, really, really thought to be such a potential threat—why on Earth aren’t they named in a document intended to brief law enforcement agencies?

Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit…

Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of US jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. [Emphasis mine]

Now wait just a darn minute! In one line the DHS report acknowledges the reality of, “… a prolonged economic downturn… real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit…” and in another line pontificates, “Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of US jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures.”

Perceived? In that first quote, the DHS agrees that the world-wide economic debacle is real, yet in the next quote it is merely perceived. Napolitano actually read this before she released it?

Here’s some “chatter” from the New York Times—not exactly a bastion of “rightwing extremism:”

• Economy Shed 598,000 Jobs in January
• After the Bank Failure Comes the Debt Collector
• Housing Construction Fell in March, Dashing Hopes
• Retail and Price Data Show Continuing Economic Weakness
• Harder-Edged Warnings About Britain’s Economy
• Longer Unemployment for Those 45 and Older
• Russia May Turn to Foreign Banks for Loans to Cover Deficit
• Credit Crisis — The Essentials

I might stress that I have found no reports indicating that the New York Times plans to carry out violent acts. Maybe the DHS will investigate them anyway—just in case, you know?

Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.

I’m a little confused—they’re talking about the Republican Party here, right?

Way back in that first quote, the DHS says, “…and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts” and here, the DHS says, “but they have not yet turned to attack planning…” which seems to presume—based on no evidence whatsoever, according to the DHS’s own report—that they will turn to “attack planning.”

There’s a term for this… let me think… no, don’t tell me.. oh, yeah, that’s it… paranoia.

Or is it just an excuse to limit civil rights?

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and
adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Thus, according to this DHS report, if you are:

• a member of any religion, because—let’s face it—all religions hate the others, but more specifically, perhaps:
  • a Protestant who hates Satanists
  • a Catholic who hates abortion
• a governor who—like Brian Schweitzer, (Democrat, Montana)—rejects federal authority in favor of state or local authority
• a Libertarian who is anti-government

well, Sir—or Ma’am—you are a rightwing extremist! That certainly is a broad definition. Thank you, DHS!

Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

Whether you are a veteran or not, I’m sure you'll agree this outrageous insult to American troops stands on its own.

Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical [sic] election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment.

They’re still talking about the Republicans?

Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president, but stopping short of calls for violent action.

Translation: A lot of people don’t like Obama but they’re not doing anything unlawful. “… but stopping short of calls for violent action” seems to be deceitful, inflammatory rhetoric.

Historically, domestic rightwing extremists have feared, predicted, and anticipated a cataclysmic economic collapse in the United States.

And I guess they were right.

Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico.

And I guess they were right.

Many rightwing extremist groups perceive* recent gun control legislation as a threat to their [Constitutional] right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises. Such activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence.

“Many rightwing extremist groups perceive* recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms…” well, of course it does, and so the US Supreme Court has consistently agreed.

“… combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence.” I think, rather, that the new administration’s heightened level of extremist paranoia is of far greater concern. You think the Patriot Act was a bad idea? This DHS document has Prior Restraint and Unconstitutional written all over it.

* “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

—Inigo Montoya.

This disgraceful report adds:

A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the armed forces.”

This refers to the so-called Southern Poverty Law Center, which is not at all a civil rights organization, but a money-making machine with a bizarre, hateful agenda about which you may read here, here, here and here.

US News and World Report has an interesting twist on this story at: DHS Report on Leftists Not Like Napolitano Report on Right-Wing Extremism

For comments or questions related to the content or dissemination of this document, please contact the
DHS/I&A Production Branch at IA.PM@hq.dhs.gov, IA.PM@dhs.sgov.gov, or IA.PM@dhs.ic.gov

I suggest you do so and register your revulsion. You should also contact Janet Napolitano and your Congress Critters:

Write Your Senators

Write Your Representative

Department of Homeland Security Comment Line: 202-282-8495

Secretary Janet Napolitano
Department of Homeland Security
US Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528

And when you do, don’t forget to ask, “How much did this idiot report cost, anyway?”

China Still A Police State - Media Drops The Ball

Inept media concentrates on trivia, ignores human-rights violations

Here is what the Reuters news agency recently reported, verbatim:

Exam cheaters jailed on state secret charges
Reuters

Fri Apr 3, 12:38 pm ET

BEIJING (Reuters) – Eight Chinese who used high-tech communications equipment, including mobile phones and wireless earpieces, to help their children cheat at university entrance exams have been jailed on state secret charges, local media said.

The eight, from the wealthy eastern province of Zhejiang, got together in 2007 to plot how to help their children as "they knew their achievements were not ideal," the official Legal Daily said.

One of the parents hired university students to provide answers which were sent to the children via wireless earphones while they were in the exam room, the report said.

But their ruse was discovered after police detected "abnormal radio signals" near the school, the newspaper said.

The parents were given jail terms ranging from six months to three years after being found guilty of illegally obtaining state secrets, it added, without saying what happened to their children.

China's college entrance exams, or "gaokao," are fiercely competitive tests.

Stories of cheating surface every year, despite stiff penalties. Students reportedly pay for leaked exam papers, smuggle in mobile phones and electronic dictionaries, or pay others to take the exam for them.

Here is the real story, which Reuters completely ignored:

Chinese police are actively engaged in monitoring the cellphone and radio conversations of ordinary citizens—even schoolkids.

Don't depend on the media to keep you properly informed, folks.

Racist Russian Ad Features Obama

Russian PRAVDA notes racism, sloughs it off

An ice cream-making company in Yekaterinburg, Russia, is promoting a flavor of its ice cream in a racist advertisement using Barack Obama’s image.

The slogan of the chocolate-in-vanilla ice cream titled as “Duet” says: “The Flavor of the Week! Black in White!” The image of a black man standing against the background of the US Capitol was considered a manifestation of racism.

The Russian Company Voskhod (Sunrise), which designed the campaign, said that the image was not meant to carry any racist meaning in it. A spokesperson for the company said that the picture simply marked the presence of the black president in the White House.

Andrei Gubaidullin, the author of the advertisement, said his campaign was not linked to racism, because Russia, unlike the West, had a different point of view about ethnicity.

“This is not racism for Russia. It’s just fun,” the creative director of the advertising agency said.

The Russian nationalist online news site Pravda (Правда)—which ironically translates as Truth—noted the racism of the ad, but didn’t think it serious nor did it comment on the obvious insults to the US government.

Draconian Internet Copyright Law Dead, Or Is It?

New Zealand Parliament relents after public outrage

Section 92A scrapped, to be re-written

New Zealand Commerce Minister Simon Power announced today that Section 92A of New Zealand's copyright law will not come into force on 27 March as previously planned.

As outlined in my 16 February 2009 article, Guilt On Accusation - Draconian Internet Copyright Law To Be Enacted, under this ill-conceived law, internet users’ accounts would have been terminated as a result of unproven accusations of piracy. Section 92A stated that if a copyright owner thinks an internet user guilty of repeatedly breaching copyright, the user’s ISP would have been forced the terminate the user's internet connections and websites.

In protest of this law and under encouragement from the Creative Freedom Coalition, thousands of New Zealanders blacked out their websites, Myspace pages, Facebook photos, and Twitter accounts.

In my 13 March follow-up to that article, Draconian New Zealand Copyright Law Foundering?, I noted that New Zealand's Telecommunications Carriers’ Forum (TCF) spent weeks trying to draft a Code of Practice dealing with the implementation of Section 92A, but TCF member TelstraClear stated they would veto that code.

New Zealand Prime Minister John Key said Monday:

"We have now asked the minister of commerce to start work on a replacement section [for 92A]... There is a need for legislation in this area. Some progress was made between copyright holders and the ISPs but not enough to agree a code of conduct... In our view there are a number of issues that made it difficult to complete that code of conduct without fixing the fundamental flaws in section 92a."

The bottom-line in all this: Which is ultimately most important? Ensuring above all else that an extra 30-cents go into the pocket of a—likely wealthy—copyright holder, or protecting the rights of all citizens to due process of law in the face of unproven accusations? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Does the New Zealand Parliament—or the government of any nation—first and foremost represent and protect its citizens? Or does it despotically chuck the peoples' rights out the window in order to placate grumbling, paranoid, billion-dollar corporations whose sole reason for existence is to make money? Should the rights of such corporations be protected? Certainly! But NEVER at the expense of the basic civil rights of the people which a government is required to protect!

Such corporations are acting purely in self-interest: By pressuring politicians to enact this and similar draconian laws, they have shown that they have absolutely no interest in the rights of others. These corporations and their representatives, the RIAA, RIANZ and others, are NOT police forces, they don’t know how to be police forces, they cannot be trusted to behave responsibly as police forces, and they must not be given—by any nation—the power to act as police forces. If they have evidence of theft of their products, such evidence should be turned over to appropriate authorities for a proper and lawful investigation—as any other private entity is required to.

Lets hope—indeed, all New Zealanders should expect and require—that in re-drafting this despicable law, New Zealand's Parliament—civil servants, NOT civil masters—will, this time, do their damn jobs: Protecting and ensuring the rights of the people of New Zealand, rather than abrogating those rights—and Parliament's mandate—by giving entertainment guilds, for pity's sake, independent powers of judge and jury over all internet users in New Zealand.

What on Earth were they thinking?

New Zealanders should contact their MPs through instructions and links on this page and let the rascals know you expect them to ensure civil rights and due process of law.

Draconian New Zealand Copyright Law Foundering?

Major player TelstraClear withdraws its cooperation

Update! See follow-up article: Draconian Internet Copyright Law Dead, Or Is It? March 23, 2009

On 16 February 2009, I wrote about the New Zealand Copyright Act (Section 92A) in Guilt On Accusation - Draconian Internet Copyright Law To Be Enacted. This law would allow American and New Zealand film and music industries to pressure Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to terminate any individual or business users solely on their say so.

On 23 February, the New Zealand government suspended Section 92A which had been scheduled to become active on 28 February. For months, the ruthless law has been under fire from many quarters—not the least of which are some of the ISPs themselves.

Members of the Telecommunications Carriers’ Forum (TCF) a New Zealand organization which develops standards and codes of practice for the New Zealand telecommunications industry, have spent many weeks trying to draft a Code of Practice dealing with the implementation of Section 92A: That Code of Practice needs a unanimous vote to pass TCF's board.

Now TCF member and New Zealand Internet Service Provider giant TelstraClear have stated they will veto the code, saying:

"TelstraClear considers that there is a fundamental problem with the TCF being a party to any code of this nature, which is that the code would be based on flawed legislation… In TetstraClear’s view, any industry code would simply be an attempt to tidy up poorly drafted legislation. TelstraClear does not consider this to be the responsibility of the TCF. Indeed the best outcome would be if s92A was repealed. Failing that, it should be amended to address the above concerns."

InternetNZ, the group which oversees the Internet in New Zealand—including the management of the .nz domain name system—says implementation of Section 92A will be impossible without TelstraClear's participation:

...TelstraClear’s decision not to support the Telecommunications Carriers’ Forum Copyright Code of Practice means the Government should promptly repeal Section 92A of the Copyright Act.

“Executive Director Keith Davidson notes that the TelstraClear decision means the TCF cannot now implement the Code.”It is clear that the agreement that the Government sought will not now be reached between ISPs and rightsholders. To attempt to bring 92A into force now would invite disaster,” Davidson says.

“The problems with the Code have come to a head because the Government made the future of Section 92A dependent on agreement between a limited group of rights holders and a small number of ISPs.

“What about everyone else who is affected? Section 92A applies to any business that provides Internet services to its staff or hosts a website, and can be triggered by any rights holder or claimed rightsholder with a genuine complaint or a malicious axe to grind,” says Davidson.

The University of Auckland has expressed its concerns:

"The main problem is in Section 92A of the Copyright Act which we believe should be removed from the Act or, if it is to remain in some form, then substantially redrafted with input from stakeholders as would have happened during a select committee process."

"The activities of a university also make use of third party copyright materials. These activities could be seriously affected by copyright notices from rights owners demanding the termination of the accounts of a staff member or a student who has legitimately downloaded material under the fair dealing and education provisions of the Act or under the many licences [sic] the University holds to copy and use third party copyright materials. Universities largely have processes and penalties in place to deal with any copyright infringement by staff and students, but these may or may not incorporate the termination provisions. The requirement to terminate accounts or comply with a Code which cuts across those policies threatens institutional autonomy. A university may face unreasonable compliance costs and procedures if it adopts the Draft Code."

Judge David Harvey, former Chair of the New Zealand Copyright Tribunal and author of Internet.law.nz - Selected Issues
has this to say:

"[Section 92A] is poorly drafted and makes a number of unsupported assumptions, but in essence it suggests that an Internet service provider must develop a policy to cancel an existing contract as a result of copyright infringement.

"The reality of the matter is that the cancellation or termination of the contract arises at the behest, not of the Internet service provider, but of copyright owners. Without significant justification in normal circumstances this could amount to an interference with economic relations and raises significant issues about the sanctity of contract... section 92A is unnecessary and gives rise to a situation where a person may be deprived of rights under a contract without proper legal process."

Google voiced its objections in a 6 March 2009 document to TCF:

“Google has a number of concerns around the new section 92A and the impact the section 92A obligation is likely to have on the balance of interests served by copyright law:

"Section 92A undermines the incredible social and economic benefits of the open and universally accessible Internet, by providing for a remedy of account termination or disconnection that is disproportionate to the harm of copyright infringement online.

"Section 92A puts users’ procedural and fundamental rights at risk, by threatening to terminate users’ Internet access based on mere allegations and reverse the burden of proof onto a user to establish there was no infringement. In Google’s experience, there are serious issues regarding the improper use and inaccuracy of copyright notices by rights holders.

"Section 92A could impose significant burdens on ISPs, as it threatens to require enforcement of policies based simply on rights holders’ allegations of infringement."

There are those who maintain that the withdrawal of TelstraClear sounds the death knell for Section 92a, but the New Zealand parliament is still debating courses of action.

The bottom line in all this is that no one—anywhere—should be deprived of their civil rights, of due course of law, particularly when the accuser is a private party with an agenda but no clear evidence of an internet user’s wrongdoing.

The battle for New Zealanders’ civil rights continues.

Quacks Want Patients To Sign Gag order

Doctors and their arrogance! They make you sit in the waiting room half-an-hour past your appointment time, treat your complaints with condescension, charge you $200 dollars to tell you you have the flu and there’s nothing they can do for you, then rush you out of the office before you can ask about that throbbing pain in your duodenum.

Now, they want to deprive you of your First Amendment Rights!

Unnerved by internet websites that rate physicians, some doctors are forcing patients to sign waivers preventing patients from criticizing them. If a patient refuses to sign the agreement the doctor could turn the patient away.

Sites such as RateMDs and Angie’s List feature physician reviews and ratings based on patient feedback.

John Swapceinski, co-founder of RateMDs.com, said that in recent months, six doctors have asked him to remove negative online comments based on patients' signed waivers. He has refused. Kudos to Mr. Swapceinski!

"They're basically forcing the patients to choose between health care and their First Amendment rights, and I really find that repulsive," Swapceinski said.

He said he's planning to post a "Wall of Shame" listing names of doctors who use patient waivers.

RateMds’ postings are anonymous, and the site's operators say they do not know their users' identities. The operators also won't remove negative comments.

Medical Justice, is a physicians’ service based in Greensboro, N.C. For a fee, it provides doctors with a standardized waiver agreement. Patients who sign agree not to post online comments about the doctor, "his expertise and/or treatment." Doctors who sign up for Medical Justice’s service are notified when a negative rating appears on a website, and, if the author's name is known, physicians can use the signed waivers to get the sites to remove offending opinion.

Jeffrey Segal, of Medical Justice, said the waivers are aimed more at giving doctors ammunition against websites than against patients. Still, the company's suggested wording warns that breaching the agreement could result in legal action against patients.

Dr. Josef Mengele He didn’t want his patients talking either

Attorney Jim Speta, a Northwestern University Internet law specialist, questioned whether such lawsuits would have much success.

"Courts might say the balance of power between doctors and patients is very uneven" and that patients should be able to give feedback on their doctors' performance, Speta said.

Angie Hicks, founder of Angie's List, said her company surveyed more than 1,000 of its consumer members last month, and most said they had never been presented with a waiver; only 3% said they would sign one.

About 6,000 doctors reviewed on the Angie's List site also were asked to comment. Only 74 responded, and about a fifth of them said they would consider using them.

Angie's List's operators do know the identities of users and warn them when they register that the site will share names with doctors if asked.

Lenore Janecek, who formed a Chicago-based patient-advocacy group after being wrongly diagnosed with cancer, said she opposes the waivers.

"Everyone has the right to speak up," she said.

While she's never posted comments about her doctors, she said the sites are one of the few resources patients have to evaluate physicians.

Guilt On Accusation - Draconian Internet Copyright Law To Be Enacted

The New Zealand Parliament Wins Our 'Useless Git of the Week' Award

Three Strikes and You Are Terminated

Will It Happen In The US?

Update! See follow-up articles:
Draconian New Zealand Copyright Law Foundering? March 13, 2009
Draconian Internet Copyright Law Dead, Or Is It? March 23, 2009

A new draconian law in New Zealand allows the American and New Zealand film and music industries to pressure Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to terminate any individual or business users solely on their say so. If an ISP resists, they may be sued for not complying with the new law--as has happened in Australia.

Under a new provision in the New Zealand Copyright Act (Section 92A), which comes into force on 28 February, internet users’ accounts can be terminated as a result of unproven accusations of piracy. Section 92A states that if a copyright owner thinks that an internet user is guilty of repeatedly breaching copyright, then the user’s ISP will be forced the terminate their internet connections and websites.

In an internet version of the Salem Witch Hunts, the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” will be thrown out the window. Termination of Internet access will occur without any evidence, without a fair trial, without any right of appeal, and with no punishment for anyone making erroneous or malicious accusations of copyright infringement.

A "copyright holder" can get you kicked off an ISP without having to provide any evidence of an actual infringement. Having to [provide evidence] is apparently "impractical" and "ridiculous" in the words of RIANZ [Recording Industry Association of New Zealand] chief executive Campbell Smith. What happens when the "you" above is a public library, or a school? Or if the "copyright holder" makes a mistake or a malicious accusation?

--ComputerWorld Magazine (New Zealand)

Making mistakes can be an easy thing to do. 25% of computers are infected with viruses that download and distribute material without the owners knowledge, interaction or consent. What happens to computer users whose wireless internet connection is compromised? What if that user is a school or hospital?

Already, New Zealand Internet Service Provider giant TelstraClear's head of corporate services, Matthew Bolland, has stated that from 1 November 2008, TelstraClear is taking down websites upon a single accusation of copyright breach. "We don't check or verify," Bolland said "We take it down." ISPs like TelstraClear do not and cannot identify copyright infringement which is why this law forces them to take such actions.

Too bad if the IP has been spoofed, or the accusation is unfounded or even malicious--there is no right for contesting the claim. Too bad too, if the IP is being used by a school, library, university, hospital, business or even a government office!

Justin Graham of the New Zealand law firm Chapman Tripp confirms that the act fails to differentiate between individual accounts (home users) and internet accounts with multiple users such as businesses.

Rick Shera, a partner in law firm Lowndes Jordan, says ISPs have to decide whether material infringes copyright after receiving a complaint. If ISPs choose to leave the material up they have no protection from liability for secondary copyright infringement. The risk of not removing material is, therefore, greater than the risk of taking that material down, Shera says.

Effectively, a single person's bad behavior can bring down an institution, all because certain elements of the recording, videogame and movie industries can't solve their own piracy problems.

"Businesses support the need to protect intellectual property, and we are sympathetic to the significant problems the music, movie and gaming industries face. However, balance is the key. Protecting one person's interests at the expense of others is completely inappropriate," Telecommunications Carriers Forum chief executive Ralph Chivers said.

More sadly, it's symptomatic of a technologically uneducated group of political decision makers being taken for a ride by lobbyists putting their interests ahead of the nation.

--National Business Review (New Zealand)

"What it does is it forces internet service providers to cut off the internet of anyone who's accused of infringing copyright, not found guilty, just accused," said Bronwyn Holloway-Smith of New Zealand’s Creative Freedom Coalition.

Until August, Elliott Smith had over 100 videos on YouTube. Then, he made the mistake of uploading Olympics footage without permission and within 12 hours his account was suddenly deleted.

"I emailed YouTube and they didn't get back to me. So I ended up just setting up a new account. It's probably easier than going back but I didn't have any of my old videos or anything saved to my hard drive so it's a bit of a hassle," said Smith.

The new law forces New Zealand ISPs into the untenable position of being the police, judge, jury and executioners for the entertainment industry. “Three-strike” laws--as proposals to force ISPs to terminate internet users merely accused of illegally downloading copyright material have been called--are being pushed globally by “Big Content” representatives of the entertainment industries. Australia and France recently caved-in and agreed to enact such laws, though the Parliaments of the European Union and the UK have rejected them.

In protest, the Creative Freedom Coalition and others have organized an “internet blackout” February 16-23, during which they encourage internet users to: “Join thousands of New Zealanders already against this law by blacking out your Facebook photo, your websites, your Myspace pages, your Twitter account, in protest against this unjust new law that may come into effect on February 28.”

How long before it happens where you live?