This is a very interesting story. Guy gets charged with a misdomeaner. The charge is dismissed. Clerk at the State doesn't update the file. A million data reporting services copy the bad information. Apartment complex won't rent to him as a result.

Problem 1: Once bad information gets out there about you there is no way to clean it up.

Problem 2: The rapidly falling costs associated with criminal background checks mean that everyone is going to be checked for everything. Renting an apartment? Getting a loan? Applying for a job? Hope you weren't convicted of a misdomeaner 10 years ago. Otherwise you're out of luck.

File this along side eliminating felon's right to vote as a process thats based on the enormously stupid idea that there is a clear distinction between "normal people" and the "criminal class" and if you are part of the "criminal class" you cannot be trusted with anything again for the rest of your life. These policies actually serve to create that class, because the people who are added to it don't have the option of living a legitimate life after the fact. This, of course, produces more crime and social strife, and the cycle continues.

Exhiling people who are still living in your society is a recipie for disaster.

Boing Boing: Bad info in background check database nixes apartment application

President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

Some left bloggers are posting this story around in the wake of the ABC docudrama drama in an attempt to document the left's anti-terror credentials. I remember this. Of course, what I draw from it is slightly different: That neither party actually gives a damn about civil liberties. Its just a role played by whoever the opposition party happens to be, to leverage the fears of anyone who doesn't like the present administration. If anything, Democrats have undermined serious arguements about the Patriot act by turning it into an oversimplified left/right issue, which results in a reflex reaction from the right and kills any possibility of dialog. Republicans assume that people raising questions about it are just partisans who don't understand what they are talking about, and they are usually right. Republicans also assume there is no problem with it and everything is cool. Most Republicans don't know what they are talking about either.

CNN - President wants Senate to hurry with new laws - July 30, 1996

Does encrypting Internet communications create a reasonable expectation of privacy in their contents, triggering Fourth Amendment protection? At first blush, it seems that the answer must be yes: A reasonable person would surely expect that encrypted communications will remain private. In this paper, Professor Kerr explains why this intuitive answer is entirely wrong: Encrypting communications cannot create a reasonable expectation of privacy. The reason is that the Fourth Amendment regulates access, not understanding: no matter how unlikely it is that the government will successfully decrypt ciphertext, the Fourth Amendment offers no protection if it succeeds. As a result, the government does not need a search warrant to decrypt encrypted communications.

The Volokh Conspiracy - Can Encryption create an expectation of privacy

The authoritarian wing of the Democratic party has announced compulsary servitude as the cornerstone of their campaign. So many years of Republican style authoritarianism, I'd almost forgotten what Democratic style authoritarianism felt like. I don't know what scares me more, the fact that something as useless as this is the centerpoint of their plan, or the fact that there must be a huge number of voters out there who think this is a good idea and will vote on it.

The premier component of the new social contract The Plan promotes between citizens and their government is universal citizen service.

I was happy with the old social contract.

John Kennedy was right: A nation is defined not by what it does for its citizens but by what it asks of them.

OK. First of all, Kennedy said that a person is defined by what they do for their country, not that a nation is defined by what compulsary services it requires of its citizens. Second, Kennedy had loftier things in mind than 3 months of disaster preparedness training. Third, by this logic the higher the taxes the greater the country.

If your leaders aren't challenging you to do your part, they aren't doing theirs. We need a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us by establishing for the first time an ethic of universal citizen service. All Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 should be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic civil defense training and community service. This is not a draft, nor is it military. Young people will be trained not as soldiers, but simply as citizens who understand their responsibilities in the event of a natural disaster, an epidemic or a terrorist attack. Universal citizen service will bring Americans of every background together to make America safer and more united in common purpose.

How does "do this community service or you go to prison" create an "ethic of universal citizen service?"

We're the sole superpower and biggest target in a world where the capacity for evil is more decentralized than ever before. For years, we have worked to remake the world in our image by spreading the gospel of democracy, freedom and capitalism. Doing so has been and continues to be in our national interest. But we should not forget: The more the world copies our strengths, the harder we must work to hone those strengths ourselves.

I dunno if you've heard, but disaster preparedness is not one of our strengths.

Emanuel: Time for a new contract on America

The RIAA strategy is an example of a new legal phenomenon that I have dubbed "spamigation" -- bulk litigation that's only become practical due to the economies of scale of the computer era....

The RIAA uses systems to gather lists of alleged infringers, and bulk-sues them. It has set a price that seems to be profitable for it, while being low enough that it is not profitable for the accused to mount a defence, as they do not get the economies of scale involved.

[IP] more on who is to blame -- riaa

Web sites like MemeStreams may soon be inaccessible for many people using public terminals at American schools and libraries, thanks to the U.S. House of Representatives.

By a 410-15 vote on Thursday...

You're not protecting the children, you're totally eviscerating their civil rights!

This is why I can't support either political party. For all the Democrat's discussion of civil liberties and the Republicans discussion of minimal government, when push comes to shove neither political party gives a damn about the fundamental rights that are at the heart of the Constitution. The first amendment protects a right to freedom of speech and a right to freedom of association. These aren't just laws, they are good ideas! There are few values that are more central to this country's identity then these protections, and these ideas ought to be upheld even when the Constitution doesn't explicitly require it.

Congress isn't acting in a way that is narrowly crafted to protect children from online predators, they totally removing children's ability to speak and associate as they desire to the maximum extent they are legally able to!! This demonstrates a massive disrespect for the core values of this country, and sends a clear message to libraries and schools that aren't federally subsidized, as well as parents, that this is a reasonable approach that others should follow.

This is not a reasonable approach. It is an intollerable violation of the fundamental rights of citizens taken without any consideration as to its impact for wholly selfish political marketing reasons. The people who voted for this ought to be ashamed. Some may ask who will protect the children from predators, I ask who will protect the children from this legislature!

MemeStreams banned by federal law | Tech News on ZDNet

Walker's ruling actually makes it less likely that Specter's bill will prevail. Specter's premise is that regular courts cannot handle these extremely secret and sensitive matters. Walker punctured that myth of secrecy in his observation that the administration has discussed the surveillance program at length.

Some more analysis of the NSA state secrets decision.

The courts and NSA snooping. By Patrick Radden Keefe

The Home Office wants to give the police and the courts sweeping new powers which could see suspected hackers and spammers receiving the cyber equivalent of an anti-social behaviour order (Asbo).

The proposed Serious Crime Prevention Order is intended to combat organised crime where the police do not have enough evidence to bring a criminal prosecution. It would enable civil courts to impose the orders on individuals, even if they had not been convicted of a crime.

These people have absolutely lost their minds!

"In the US, this legislation would not be constitutional," said Starnes.

I gather from the quotations that the tone of this comment is critical of the US.

"Hey, look at the great things we can do in the UK! We can administer punishments to people without any evidence of wrongdoing! Isn't that awesome? Wouldn't it be terrible to live in the U.S. where the police actually have to have evidence before they can sanction someone? Evidence is such a waste of time. Obviously the police are always right and can always be trusted. Everyone they suspect is clearly guilty, so why bother with this whole messy judicial process. It just slows things down. Crime victims demand immediate action, and in the UK we can give it to them! The UK is the greatest country in the world! God save the queen!"

If I had to pick an egregiously unreasonable legislative proposal it would be that people who propose legislation like this be dragged out into the town square and stoned to death with history text books.

UK Government goes off the deep end

The candidates who will win elections in the future will be the candidates who build genuinely participative campaigns by generating and expanding genuine communities of engaged citizens.

I am launching today a new Wikia website aimed at being a central meeting ground for people on all sides of the political spectrum who think that it is time for politics to become more participatory, and more intelligent.

Had this idea a long time ago but I don't have the resources to pursue it. Glad the wikipedia guys have taken it up. This is important.

Mission Statement - Central Campaign Wikia

Were SWAT teams carefully observing the spirit of the announcement requirement by giving a vigorous knock, a full-throated announcement, and appropriate time for an occupant to answer, they'd be defeating the purpose of using paramilitary tactics to serve search warrants in the first place.

This article provides a good background on the erosion of the "knock and announce" rule and the problems (and deaths) it causes. There is a good case to be made that congressional action to limit no knock warrants might be a reasonable political response to the recent supreme court ruling (as are state efforts to limit land takings). OK, Democrats, heres your chance to do something I'd really get behind. Democrats? Hello?

No SWAT