The dangers of arbitration contracts

Having known someone who ran into this, I was especially bothered by the recent story of alleged wide-scale sexual harassment issues left unresolved for years.  An increasing number of companies afraid of lengthy and public legal battles use a legal arbitration service that's appears to them an island to dump and ignore problems.

Unfortunately, this problem appears to be on track for even less accountability.

More on this: fairarbitrationnow.org

"How much money do you have in the car?"

I'm not a lawyer but from now on I might be less than truthful if the cops ask me that question.

Magna Carta? That's one of the Transformers, right?

The ACLU's action page on how to help stop the legalization of indefinite detention.  Its taken almost 800 years, but we'll finally edit out the basic protections set out in the Magna fucking Carta.

Wikileaks defense

After the release of diplomatic cables that didn't seem to have anything to do with anything apart from embarrassing the US, I was under the impression that Wikileaks was dedicated simply anti-US sentiment.  The question of how to rebuke or prevent Wikileaks from doing this came up.  However:

1. Wikileaks itself has not so far broken any laws.  Although laws may have been broken by individuals who leaked the information, Wikileaks has exposed secrets to all, including those who were keeping the secret.  This is journalism, not warfare.
   
2. Embarrassing those in power is all leaks have ever done.  Attacks against leaks have always centered around an anti-nation or anti-those-in-power bias.  Wikileaks and its activities are nothing new or unique.
3. A leak does not have to contain incriminating information.  Ostensibly, the point of leaking information that's subversive, criminal, or immoral is to prevent it or seek justice from who have committed these acts.  Those who are glad that Deep Throat leaked information about Nixon or Daniel Ellis leaked information about the Vietnam War would say those were justified and important leaks.  However, in legal and journalistic terms, its difficult to define a justified or unjustified leak. 
   

Assage himself has said that he believes he is being separated from association with the press, despite membership in press organizations for many years.  The real danger is that Wikileaks is successfully censored or its members assassinated and that, in the future, terrible crimes will go unreported.

Some have come to the organization's defense:

• Ron Paul
• Daniel Ellis

Others have not.  Possible 2012 Presidential candidates have called Wikileaks director a terrorist (Mike Huckabee) and flip-flopped on his status as good or evil (Sarah Palin).

---

Note that one of the diplomatic leaks has been about Monsanto's dangerous products, so the issue more than just about embarrassment.  However, the point still stands.

How to eff up a sexual assault investigation

Having seen this for myself in other places with assault victims who are intimidated into silence, it seems another bad handling of a rape case has surfaced, this time by Notre Dame.  Its reported handling of a charge related to a football player shouldn't just be bad public relations, it should be an attack on the school that ends when they modify how they deal with assault victims, open up the details of the case to public scrutiny, and apologize if the accusations are true.  The prosecutor in the case is keeping this topic alive and going after some of her attackers like a Mr. Sean O'Sea.  If Sean had a sister who got raped, he might be a little less interested in pointing out a the victim had depression and that another public case of sexual assault was a hoax.  Its a little too straw man to even comment on.  Encouraging others not to rush to judgment while you rush to judgment?  Nice one, Sean.

Although the victim (according to what the prosecutor listed) did everything right, the lesson here is get a good lawyer as quickly as possible.  Sadly, the people you think should be there to help you may not.

Fortunately, an investigation is ongoing.

See also: RAINN tips and legislation to help protect rape victims.

Stupid patent lawsuit

So a company (I can't tell if its related to Cygnus, who merged with Redhat) is suing big companies for the most obvious of computer operations: an image preview of files inside a directory.  Its a stupid on par with Amazon's one click purchase patent (addressed by the link author).

Parody checkmate

In the history of catastrophically stupid intellectual property decisions, Constantin Film has issued take down notices concerning the usage of their critically-acclaimed movie Downfall in parodies about all manner of topics.

Fortunately, someone created an outstanding Downfall parody video about the removal of Downfall parody videos.

Related:

• A little history and the one that started it all.

Nerdiest court ruling ever

Often people talk about legalese like its indecipherable, but when court precedent and reasonable doubt are put into comic book terms suddenly its obvious (ignore the comic at the top).

If you've read Spawn, you would know what the judge was talking about.  Of course McFarlane is guilty.

I look forward to them going after the awful Eragon for being a near carbon-copy of Star Wars.

(thanks switch)

MPEG-LA patent abuse and anti-trust

After reading about a consortium "MPEG-LA"s monopoly on digital video, I was pleased to hear a German company is filing an anti-trust complain about them.

Note: This is only from reading Slashdot -- a very intellectual property reform so the assumptions about mpeg-la as a patent-troll may be a bit one-sided.  As a result, two lawyer friends have been contacted comment on this story -- hopefully will have a deeper analysis soon.

Law within the law

Recent news about police abuse has not been positive.

• Student brutally assaulted for no reason (video)
• Sci-fi author beaten up, brutally jailed, and now trial for "felony resistance" when witnesses claim otherwise.

Obviously the very publicized examples can't be representative of all officers, but when police abuse their power, they shouldn't just be fired or suspended as in these cases -- they should be treated as criminals.  Backing the police and always giving them the benefit of the doubt is not the solution since bad cops don't just hurt their victims; when citizens feel they can't call the police, they call someone else instead.

"Organized crime most typically flourishes when a central government and civil society is disorganized, weak, absent or untrusted." (Wikipedia)

ACLU's Police information and methods for fighting abuse.  Plus, something to keep in your wallet.

Pennsylvania allows 11 year old to vote, drive, drink?

This headline is accurate only in that 11 year olds are increasingly treated as adults in only one aspect.  So while society has decided that children are fully responsible for their actions in one department, they have decided the others remain absurd.  Children must still attend school, must wait 7 more years to drive, and on no account will be allowed to join the military.

Yet the military is the perfect place to describe how responsibility and freedom are connected: those with great power have greater responsibility and those without power have much less.  A private has only one task: to do as he or she is told and nothing else.  A person with a low rank is not rewarded for doing anything but the task assigned and not accorded with any extra responsibility.  As a person rises in ranks, his responsibility increases as does his freedom.  A General of an army has great freedom to decide the actions of 1,000s and will be held responsible if he or she makes a mistake in judgment.  Thus, judgment and freedom must be proportional.

Additionally, the state frequently takes away the rights of adults as well as their responsibility.  A person who loses their license to drive should never be charged with another crime that would require them to get behind the wheel: that would be contradictory.  Similarly, the mentally ill are disallowed from purchasing firearms, driving, or other activities that a responsible person can be trusted with.  When they violate the law, there is legal recourse to protect them: not guilty by reason of insanity.  So the state takes away the rights of adults and protects them from the full rebuke of the law because they are not responsible for their actions.

So children are responsible for their actions when those actions bring about grievous harm and suffering, but not when for example a child genius solves major world problems.  They cannot drink, cannot drive, and are not treated as adults, and cannot go to college without supervision.

This is a distinction without a difference: Pennsylvania treats 11 year olds as adults only when he or she acts with exceptional violence, not exceptional gifts.  Elsewhere 11 year olds remain as helpless and incapable as they have ever been.  Therefore, the state thinks whoever you are at age 11, you are and must be for the rest of your life.  Yet it does not follow that the decision-making mechanics that put a gun in a boy's hand are and must be the same that in all cases create killers later in life.

Harassment vs. free speech

I'm really torn by this video (very somber stuff). In short: a rape victim who told her story on Youtube (seen by more than a million people) was slandered and lampooned online. On one hand, we preserve Internet freedoms even when they're offensive and therefore must protect the prankster or malcontent. On the other end, supporting crime victims by preventing harassment after their assault.

By posting this video online, did she make herself a public person and thus submit herself to responses by the sophomoric and sociopathic alike? Or by letting these types of responses continue, are we hurting the reporting of and recovery from sexual assault? Whatever your choice, there's a danger in moving too fast.

Hopefully, the Electronic Frontier Foundation discusses her case in some capacity.

Modern day slavery

Unfortunately, despite the deaths of many to try and prevent it, forced working among children remains a persistent reality with no easy answer.  Desperate parents and working conditions that are -- while terrible -- still better than where the children come from make upholding human dignity a difficult task.

Talking to the police

So when to talk to the cops without a lawyer? Never.