For the moment the US Supreme Court has struck down the restriction on states and localities which prevents them from imposing restrictions on registration beyond those for Federal Elections. In spite of the small number of cases of voter fraud, single digits in most states, some states are already enacting new laws making it harder for groups which might vote against the party in power to vote at all.
The interesting this is that a previous court decision, cited on one of the national news programs, says that the Federal requirements are the law for Federal elections. So unless the states wishing to return to voter repression want to have two separate elections and registrations, I suspect another legal battle will happen before the next election.
I look forward to it, it's the closest thing around to classic slapstick comedy, with all parties trying cluelessly to land the knockout blow.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Friday, June 28, 2013
Why the NSA tracking of metadata is a problem
Just because you have nothing to hide doesn't mean you have nothing to fear.
I said that, or expressed that sentiment in slightly different words back in the early days of PGP[1] when I posted something controversial on Usenet[2]. I did a digital sign so that no one could mis-quote me and claim I said (or meant) something else.
To me there are two issues involved in the NSA monitoring, (1) that they do it at all without a warrant for the individuals involved, and (2) that they did it in secret.
The fact that they do this at all bothers me, I'm sure there are some people in other countries who follow my tweets, or Google+, or otherwise can be associated with me, and I would rather not become unable to get a security clearance if I ever need one again. Are some of them of interest because they are in the wrong place? Who knows? But I bet Abdul in Iran is more interesting than Reginald in Britain, the NSA is free to use stereotypes.
The thing which makes me want to yell "how dare they" is keeping this whole program hidden from the public. While the public didn't know this was going on, certainly employees of telcos knew it existed, if not the details. It was gossip back in the 2005-2008 time frame, about the time I left the company then known as at&t. The public didn't know, but I don't see how the bad guys could have been fooled, people working on it, or near enough to physically observe, didn't have security clearances. Therefore I have to conclude that the reason for keeping the program(s) out of the public eye were political rather than operational. If I knew about it with no effort, how could the competent enemies (the ones who might do serious damage) not know. It wasn't until a report from England based on leaked papers that the public became aware that their government was doing things which make 1984 (the novel) look like casual oversight.
So I think that while the implementation details of programs such as these need to be secret, I think their existence should be public. The public should be aware that tracking is possible, what programs are in use, and what use can be made of the data collected. Can a wife get the data to track her possibly cheating husband? Does the government track every car in the USA by reading the RFID chips in the tires? Should the public know that every toll booth on an Interstate records the license number and takes a picture of the driver? [3]
As for Mr Snowden, is he a Patriot, a Traitor, or an Idealist? A topic for another day.
[1] Pretty Good Privacy, early form of GPG encryption and signing.
[2] A predecessor of ARPA net (which became the Internet) which used the UUCP transfer protocol and a "flood fill" distribution implementation which didn't require the source and destination to be connected at the same time. Think store and forward.
[3] Google "Peter Porko" for details on how that evidence was used to convict his murderer.
I said that, or expressed that sentiment in slightly different words back in the early days of PGP[1] when I posted something controversial on Usenet[2]. I did a digital sign so that no one could mis-quote me and claim I said (or meant) something else.
To me there are two issues involved in the NSA monitoring, (1) that they do it at all without a warrant for the individuals involved, and (2) that they did it in secret.
The fact that they do this at all bothers me, I'm sure there are some people in other countries who follow my tweets, or Google+, or otherwise can be associated with me, and I would rather not become unable to get a security clearance if I ever need one again. Are some of them of interest because they are in the wrong place? Who knows? But I bet Abdul in Iran is more interesting than Reginald in Britain, the NSA is free to use stereotypes.
The thing which makes me want to yell "how dare they" is keeping this whole program hidden from the public. While the public didn't know this was going on, certainly employees of telcos knew it existed, if not the details. It was gossip back in the 2005-2008 time frame, about the time I left the company then known as at&t. The public didn't know, but I don't see how the bad guys could have been fooled, people working on it, or near enough to physically observe, didn't have security clearances. Therefore I have to conclude that the reason for keeping the program(s) out of the public eye were political rather than operational. If I knew about it with no effort, how could the competent enemies (the ones who might do serious damage) not know. It wasn't until a report from England based on leaked papers that the public became aware that their government was doing things which make 1984 (the novel) look like casual oversight.
So I think that while the implementation details of programs such as these need to be secret, I think their existence should be public. The public should be aware that tracking is possible, what programs are in use, and what use can be made of the data collected. Can a wife get the data to track her possibly cheating husband? Does the government track every car in the USA by reading the RFID chips in the tires? Should the public know that every toll booth on an Interstate records the license number and takes a picture of the driver? [3]
As for Mr Snowden, is he a Patriot, a Traitor, or an Idealist? A topic for another day.
[1] Pretty Good Privacy, early form of GPG encryption and signing.
[2] A predecessor of ARPA net (which became the Internet) which used the UUCP transfer protocol and a "flood fill" distribution implementation which didn't require the source and destination to be connected at the same time. Think store and forward.
[3] Google "Peter Porko" for details on how that evidence was used to convict his murderer.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Same Sex Marriage and SCOTUS
Being a "News Junkie" I have been following the recent cases before SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) as I do any major news story. And I find that the more I think about the issues, the less I like any definitive solution. It seems that "the right thing" and "having a right" are not in this case the same thing, and that the resolution which seems most correct to me on Constitutional grounds would not please anyone. Warning: I am not a lawyer, constitutional or otherwise, just someone who has had a lot of legalese explained to me over the last three decades or so. I also confess to having friends and acquaintances of various sexual preference, political leaning, and religious belief.
It seems to me that the answer to both of the cases, the legality of a proposition banning same sex marriage (SSM), and the constitutionality of of DOMA (the defense of marriage act) lies in the "reserved to the states" wording. It has long been the case that while states may allow certain activities, and regulate them or not, each state may choose to do differently, but has to recognize the choice of other states as legal and binding.
What? Example: a corporation is formed in one state, and it operates under the laws and regulations of that state, even in other states where the creation of corporations is regulated in other ways. That doesn't apply to criminal law, or regulation of business practices, disclosure, and such, but in general the rules of the state of incorporation apply.
Example: a contract is drawn and signed in one state, it is normally binding in all states.
Example: some states have a sales tax, and transactions in those states by out of state residents are charged that tax. At the same time, in some cases the buyer's state of residence may attempt to collect their sales tax on a transaction which took place elsewhere.
Example: a couple become lovers in one state, where both parties are over age of consent. No law is broken even if they are not age of consent in their home state. However, transporting a person over a state line for the purpose of sex is illegal, the aptly named "Mann Act."
Example: a couple marries in one state, and is considered married in all other states, even if the marriage would not be legal in some states because of age or relationship. The age to marry in states varies, the legality of first cousins marrying, and in the past marriage between races was prohibited.
It is this last case which seems to apply, and the court, not given to decisions broader than needed, may well decide that in California Proposition eight is perfectly legal and binding, but that all legal marriages performed anywhere must be recognized. And that the section of DOMA which prevents recognition of any marriage other than heterosexual is not valid as written, and the the Federal government must also respect the right of each state to define its own requirements for marriage.
This would please the justices, for they could avoid defining a "right to marry" which overruled the right of states to regulate, and also protects the rights of those who are legally married, in all states and jurisdictions, including Federal tax and inheritance, presumptive health care proxy status, visitation rights, and custodial rights to biological or adoptive offspring.
Those people who believe that all states should be required to allow SSM would be disappointed that what they see as "their rights" were not forced on groups who have different values, for reasons good, bad, or simply inscrutable.
The bigots, fundamentalists, and the clergy and politicians who pander to them for support rather than out of conviction would all be horrified that the court did not allow them not only to eschew those marriages themselves, but to prevent them for others.
That sounds like like a typical court decision, neither creating nor preventing new rights, and affirming the right of people in each state to work it out for themselves. It gives neither party all of what they wanted, but at the same time is not a crushing defeat. That sounds about as good as it gets, given that bother sides of the issue include those with strong beliefs and those who see the issue as a means to some personal gain, be it in money, power, or public standing. All attended by the media, who may have personal views on the topic, but mainly don't want to let a good story die too soon.
It seems to me that the answer to both of the cases, the legality of a proposition banning same sex marriage (SSM), and the constitutionality of of DOMA (the defense of marriage act) lies in the "reserved to the states" wording. It has long been the case that while states may allow certain activities, and regulate them or not, each state may choose to do differently, but has to recognize the choice of other states as legal and binding.
What? Example: a corporation is formed in one state, and it operates under the laws and regulations of that state, even in other states where the creation of corporations is regulated in other ways. That doesn't apply to criminal law, or regulation of business practices, disclosure, and such, but in general the rules of the state of incorporation apply.
Example: a contract is drawn and signed in one state, it is normally binding in all states.
Example: some states have a sales tax, and transactions in those states by out of state residents are charged that tax. At the same time, in some cases the buyer's state of residence may attempt to collect their sales tax on a transaction which took place elsewhere.
Example: a couple become lovers in one state, where both parties are over age of consent. No law is broken even if they are not age of consent in their home state. However, transporting a person over a state line for the purpose of sex is illegal, the aptly named "Mann Act."
Example: a couple marries in one state, and is considered married in all other states, even if the marriage would not be legal in some states because of age or relationship. The age to marry in states varies, the legality of first cousins marrying, and in the past marriage between races was prohibited.
It is this last case which seems to apply, and the court, not given to decisions broader than needed, may well decide that in California Proposition eight is perfectly legal and binding, but that all legal marriages performed anywhere must be recognized. And that the section of DOMA which prevents recognition of any marriage other than heterosexual is not valid as written, and the the Federal government must also respect the right of each state to define its own requirements for marriage.
This would please the justices, for they could avoid defining a "right to marry" which overruled the right of states to regulate, and also protects the rights of those who are legally married, in all states and jurisdictions, including Federal tax and inheritance, presumptive health care proxy status, visitation rights, and custodial rights to biological or adoptive offspring.
Those people who believe that all states should be required to allow SSM would be disappointed that what they see as "their rights" were not forced on groups who have different values, for reasons good, bad, or simply inscrutable.
The bigots, fundamentalists, and the clergy and politicians who pander to them for support rather than out of conviction would all be horrified that the court did not allow them not only to eschew those marriages themselves, but to prevent them for others.
That sounds like like a typical court decision, neither creating nor preventing new rights, and affirming the right of people in each state to work it out for themselves. It gives neither party all of what they wanted, but at the same time is not a crushing defeat. That sounds about as good as it gets, given that bother sides of the issue include those with strong beliefs and those who see the issue as a means to some personal gain, be it in money, power, or public standing. All attended by the media, who may have personal views on the topic, but mainly don't want to let a good story die too soon.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)