Saintless

HB 150 is the Utah House Bill that attempts to ignore the 4th amendment. It was defeated in the House yesterday, but Pete Ashdown writes that Rep. Daw wants to bring it back from the dead as a slimmed down version covering kidnapping and cyberstalking.

This is NOT okay! There is a reason we have a legal system that uses warrants. Yes, kidnapping and cyberstalking are bad things. But, a warrant isn’t some kind of undue hardship. It’s a process we have in place for a reason.

So, take a look again at Pete Ashdown’s flier against HB 150, and then call/write your Representatives and ask them to vote no.

Update 2/26/10: This bill made it through the House, and it’s now in the Senate’s hands. Please, please contact your Senator!

So, last year a bill passed into law that gave prosecutors power to get your contact information from your ISP and/or cell phone companies without a judge when they suspect a child sex crime. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, in the time since going into effect,” more than 200 such subpoenas have been issued, or slightly more than one a day.”

This year, the Utah Legislature is considering a bill (HB 150) that would extend that to include suspected felonies, as well as cyber-stalking and cyber-harassment (misdemeanors).

This bill has passed through committee, and will be voted on in the House. Rep. Brian King was the lone vote against HB 150 in committee. He asked Pete Ashdown to help him in pointing out the problems with this bill. Of course, number one was that it’s unconstitutional. The one I wouldn’t have thought of though was that it is anti-business:

It is anti-business. Burdensome regulation against Internet Service Providers, making them a wholesale detective arm of law-enforcement is punitive against small ISPs and favors large ISPs with more resources. There are no nationwide ISPs headquartered in Utah and this law will help drive the already struggling small Utah-based ISPs under. Yahoo has already published their price list for violating your personal privacy. Smaller ISPs are more likely to protect your privacy as long as the law stands with them, they don’t have the money to fight a court battle in your favor.

Pete Ashdown’s blog is definitely worth a read, and I’ll just add this as my rant:

What the hell is it with the GOP being so gung ho to violate basic rights all the time? There’s NO REASON that the Attorney General would need to avoid getting a warrant signed by a judge in order to get information like this. And last year’s bill is proof that it’s not needed. We tend to hear about it when there’s a child porn case in Utah. And I certainly haven’t heard of anywhere near 1 new case per day in the last 6 months, which tells me that it’s either being over used (and abused), or isn’t effective. And with no accountability, all I can think is: “Who will watch the watchmen?”

Contact your Representative and make sure they Vote No on HB 150. (Check your county clerk’s site if the state site doesn’t clearly show your Rep)

Update 2/25/2010: This Bill failed in the House today. Yay!

Update 2/26/2010: Rep. Daw is trying to bring this back from the dead.

According to the Wired News Danger Blog, Texas has come up with quite an interesting new evacuation plan.

Basically, in the event of an emergency requiring evacuation, people are going to have to submit to a background check before being rescued. This is so that sex offenders and those wanted by the police for whatever reason won’t pose a risk to the rest of the evacuees. The Houston Chronicle has this quote:

“This will allow us to help them evacuate,” Colley said of sex offenders and others wanted for crimes. “We’re not going to leave anyone.” 

Oh, and “if you want” they’ll give you an RFID tag to put on your wrist so you can be tracked. Now, you don’t have to show identification to get on one of their evacuation buses, but you do have to give a name and they’re allowed to ask you for ID. And the wrist bands are just to help you find your other family members once you’ve reached safety, that’s all!

The Danger Room blog wraps up their story with this:

But, as evidenced in the comments section of the Chron’s story, privacy advocates are concerned. And what’s not explained is where all the sex-offenders and paroles end up? Their own facility? I’ll be communities are just lining up to host that type of “special needs” shelter. 

Wow, I bet everyone in Texas feels so safe and reassured about their safety next time disaster strikes!

[Update]There’s a movie they stole this idea from, but I can’t think of what it is for the life of me. Anyone else?

From the Guardian Unlimited:

As Congress debates new rules for government eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in the United States changed their definition of privacy.

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people’s private communications and financial information.

Say that with me, out loud this time to make sure you got it right.

Privacy can no longer mean anonymity. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people’s private communications and financial information.

Doh! We were just being silly! Privacy doesn’t mean you get to keep your secrets, it means you just need to trust the government to keep it for you.

We were going off of Webster’s dictionary, which defines privacy as:

Main Entry:
pri·va·cy Listen to the pronunciation of privacy
Pronunciation:
ˈprī-və-sē, especially British ˈpri-
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural pri·va·cies
Date:
15th century

1 a: the quality or state of being apart from company or observation : seclusion b: freedom from unauthorized intrusion (one’s right to privacy)
2 archaic : a place of seclusion
3 a: secrecy b: a private matter : secret

I need to grab the latest version of the George W. Bush English Dictionary, so I can be sure of exactly what “‘is’ is”, since he might change the definition of that, too. Not that he could read it.

When I see a doctor, and I’m given a copy of their Privacy Practices, I think I’ll start reading them.

Cedars Sinai Hospital says they’ll give out your personal information “to protect the president.”
(h/t Cory Doctrow)