Is a public school classroom a private space? That seems to be the assertion of school administrators after an 11-year-old student recorded a teacher bullying a student.
A St. Lucie County teacher has been fired after a student used her cellphone to record a teacher bullying another student.
The Samuel Gaines Academy student, 11-year-old- Brianna Cooper, is being praised by her peers. But, she’s still facing punishment from school leaders for recording the audio illegally.
WPTV legal expert Michelle Suskauer says it is illegal in Florida to record anyone without them knowing.
Florida’s two-party consent/wiretapping law is outdated and likely unconstitutional, but for now it stands. It also provides an exception for recording oral communications where the person speaking would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
A classroom, in a public school, would seem to be a place where no one would have an expectation of privacy. Administrators certainly go to lengths to assure their students that nothing they do while at the school is afforded any sort of expectation of privacy, what with random locker/vehicle/cell phone searches and monitoring of computer use. So, why would a teacher be granted an expectation of privacy for something said in a classroom?
Well, it’s not so much Florida’s law implicated here as much as it is the district’s policy on personal devices, even though the school allegedly referred to the recording as “illegal.” According to the policy, “wireless communication devices” may not be used to record anything on school grounds.
Inappropriate use includes, but is not limited to: (1) activation, display, manipulation, or inappropriate storage during prohibited times; (2) texting, phoning, or web browsing during prohibited times; (3) taping conversations, music, or other audio at any time; (4) photography or videography of any kind; and (5) any activity that could in any manner infringe upon the rights of other individuals, including but not limited to students, teachers, and staff members.
Now, using this policy to suspend a student who exposed teacher misconduct is just pure tone-deafness, which explains the district’s decision to quickly reverse the suspension. Not only that, but this “violation” doesn’t even carry with it the penalty of suspension.
Any disruptive, harassing, or other inappropriate use of a wireless communications device while under the School Board’s jurisdiction, shall be cause for disciplinary action under this heading, including confiscation of the device as contraband and, in the event of repeated or serious misuse, loss of the privilege to possess such a device on school property or while attending a school function.
So, the suspension makes even less sense than it would otherwise, given the school’s actual policy on cell phone use — something it seems to have (briefly) ignored in favor of deterring a student from exposing staff misconduct.
But there’s still a link to Florida’s outdated wiretapping law contained in the school policies. This sentence wraps up the paragraph on inappropriate use of cell phones.
The use of a wireless communications device shall be cause for disciplinary action and/or criminal penalties if the device is used in a criminal act.
At which point, we’re back to the question of privacy expectations. Certainly, most schools are quick to cite privacy laws when dealing with the release of student information. Anything to do with minors is inherently more sensitive than that of adults. Not that privacy concerns prevent schools from being as invasive as possible when dealing with their students, requiring signatures on policies that allow administrators to search students’ devices, lockers and vehicles for nearly any reason, as well as the offering of waivers to use photos and student information in news stories and school-produced materials.
But this school also forbids the recording of anything while on campus, even with a personal cell phone, granting an expectation of privacy that doesn’t actually exist under Florida law. Public schools are public and words uttered by educators and administrators in classrooms and assemblies (any place where it’s not “one-on-one”) are very much “public” by definition. Florida’s wiretapping law shouldn’t apply. Unfortunately, school policies take precedent in situations like these, and this district has pretty much assured that the bullying that schools seem so concerned about will only be handled with hearsay, as any recording evidence to back up allegations is forbidden.
Kudos to the school for quickly realizing suspending the student was the wrong way to handle this, but the policies it forces students to follow are just going to make it harder for administrators to deal with misbehaving students and teachers.
Tag: USA
Verizon CEO Pushing Congress For ‘Bipartisan’ Consensus That Government Should Never, Ever Stand Up To Broadband Duopolists
As part of a last ditch effort to derail the FCC’s net neutrality rules, you might recall that Senator John Thune and Representative Fred Upton earlier this year pushed an amendment to the Communications Act that they professed would codify net neutrality into law as part of a “bipartisan” proposal crafted after a painstaking public conversation. What the ISP-dictated amendment actually did was effectively gut FCC authority, pushing forth net neutrality rules significantly weaker than the already-flimsy 2010 rules Verizon sued to overturn.
Thune, Upton and the mega ISPs hoped their effort would go something like this: table some incredibly weak net neutrality rules under the pretense of consumer welfare, make a few minor concessions, then pass a still-flimsy amendment that would have killed the Title II push in the cradle. The problem is that most neutrality supporters in Congress saw this fairly-shallow ploy for what it was (or at the very least feared the wrath of a SOPA-fueled internet grassroots community). As such, Thune and Upton have had trouble getting neutrality supporters to sign off on the idea — especially without the help of fellow Senate Commerce Committee member Bill Nelson:
“On Wednesday, (Nelson) reiterated what he’s been saying for weeks: That he’s open to working with Republicans on a “truly bipartisan” bill aimed at preventing Internet providers from speeding up, slowing down or blocking Web sites. But he’ll only cooperate, he said, “provided such action fully protects consumers, does not undercut the FCC’s role and leaves the agency with flexible, forward-looking authority to respond to the changes in this dynamic broadband marketplace.”
Except that’s not happening, because that’s precisely what Thune and friends don’t want. Enter Verizon, who like AT&T and Comcast, has been desperately trying to gut FCC authority for years (and had been succeeding until recently). While Verizon did sue to overturn the 2010 rules, it wasn’t the rules themselves the telco was taking aim at (after all, it co-wrote them, and the rules had the full support of companies like AT&T and Comcast). Verizon hoped a legal win would not only gut the rules, but also FCC authority moving forward. That backfired spectacularly, given the FCC only shifted to Title II after Verizon’s lawsuits repeatedly showed you can’t regulate ISPs like common carriers — without first declaring they’re common carriers. The entire shift to title II is, quite literally, thanks to Verizon.
Fast forward to this week, and Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam fired off a letter to Thune, Upton and the other leaders of the House and Senate Commerce committees (pdf), urging Congress to take the reins and
punish the FCC for standing up to wealthy broadband companiesbegin updating “outdated and broken” telecom law. To hear Verizon’s version of history, everything was going great until the FCC came along and decided to destroy the Internet:“The broadband and mobile markets are America’s greatest ongoing success stories: 20 years of bipartisan light-touch policy consensus has led to more than $1.2 trillion in private investment, resulting in a transition from 128 kilobit dial-up connections and analog wireless voice networks in the late 1990’s to today’s near-ubiquitous 4G mobile data coverage and fixed broadband networks capable of streaming simultaneous HD movies. The FCC claimed it was addressing concerns about an open Internet, something that Congress could and can – address with clarity and finality in a two-page bipartisan bill. Instead, the FCC went far beyond open Internet rules, engaging in a radical and risky experiment to change the very policy that resulted in the United States leading the world in the Internet economy.”
Like Thune and Upton, McAdam continues to bandy around the word “bipartisan” when what they’re actually pushing is anything but. In short, Verizon wants the FCC’s authority gutted and all policy making moving forward under the authority of a Congress slathered in telco lobbying cash. Not only does McAdam want Congress to push flimsy net neutrality rules, Verizon is pushing hard for a total rewrite of the 1996 Telecom Act — because the Title II rules Verizon’s successfully used to build a massive wireless empire are “outdated and broken”:
“At its root, these are all symptoms of a problem: the existing legal regime and its accompanying regulatory processes are outdated and broken. Congress last established a clear policy framework almost 20 years ago, well before most of today’s technology was even developed. As a result, regulators are applying early 20th century tools to highly dynamic 21st century markets and technologies. Inefficiencies and collateral damage are inevitable. It is time for Congress to re-take responsibility for policymaking in the Internet ecosystem.”
And by “take responsibility,” Verizon actually means it’s time for Congress to take Verizon campaign contribution cash and write new laws ensuring that broadband industry regulators have the strength of babies, the freedom and authority of an asylum inmate, and the budget of a high-school prom committee.
The real irony of course is that regulators wouldn’t keep intervening in Verizon’s market if the telco didn’t consistently engage in behavior that made it necessary. Again, the FCC only shifted to Title II after Verizon sued to overturn its 2010, industry-friendly net neutrality rules. Similarly, the entire net neutrality conversation wouldn’t be happening if Verizon didn’t have a long, proud history of trying to block every technological innovation it deemed a threat. If Verizon’s honestly looking to affix blame for the regulatory policy chaos of the last few years, it doesn’t have to look very far.
Two feds who investigated Silk Road accused of stealing from it, too
Two federal agents whose work helped to shut down the Silk Road online drug marketplace have been accused of stealing from the Darknet market during the investigation. The criminal complaint, unveiled today, reveals a remarkable level of corruption within the investigation into the drug marketplace, which hosted more than $200 million in transactions.
Government prosecutors have charged former DEA agent Carl Force and former Secret Service agent Shaun Bridges with wire fraud and money laundering. Force is also charged with stealing government property and “conflict of interest.”
The government had multiple investigations into Silk Road. Force and Bridges both worked on one based out of Baltimore. Force was the lead undercover agent in charge of communicating with Dread Pirate Roberts (DPR), the operator of the Silk Road site, while Bridges was a computer forensics expert.
How The TPP Agreement Could Be Used To Undermine Free Speech And Fair Use In The US
We’ve been writing a lot about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement over the past few years. There are many, many problems with it, but the two key ones are the intellectual property chapter and the investment chapter. Unlike some who are protesting TPP, we actually think that free trade is generally a good thing and important for the economy — but neither the intellectual property section nor the investment chapter are really about free trade. In many ways, they’re about the opposite: trying to put in place protectionist/mercantilist policies that benefit the interests of a few large legacy industries over the public and actual competition and trade. We’ve already discussed many of the problems of the intellectual property chapter — which is still being fought over — including that it would block the US from reforming copyright to lower copyright term lengths (as even the head of the Copyright Office, Maria Pallante has argued for).
And, last week, Wikileaks leaked the investment chapter, which is focused on corporate sovereignty provisions, officially known as “investor state dispute settlement” or “ISDS” (named as such, in part, because the negotiators know it sounds boring, so they hope the public won’t pay attention). As people go through the details and the fine print, they’re finding some serious problems with it. Sean Flynn has a very in-depth look at how the combination of these two chapters — the IP chapter and the investment chapter — could very likely threaten fair use (and, with it, undermine the First Amendment).
The full details as to how are a bit tricky to understand, because it involves digging through the leaked versions of both chapters, and understanding some of the subtle language choices, but it’s a serious concern. Flynn’s article also goes through the history of how such corporate sovereignty provisions have been expanded and increasingly used over the past decade or so. But the key part is this: the investment chapter certainly can (and will) be read to cover intellectual property as well, including the idea that a company can invoke the ISDS process if it feels its “intellectual property” has been “expropriated” in some manner. The word “investment” in the investment chapter is defined incredibly broadly and explicitly includes “intellectual property” as well as “other tangible or intangible, movable or immovable property.” It also, importantly, notes that an investment, for the purpose of ISDS, covers:
every asset that an investor owns or controls, directly or indirectly, that has the characteristics of an investment, including such characteristics as the commitment of capital or other resources, the expectation of gain or profit, or the assumption of risk.
Now, it’s no secret that the legacy entertainment industry is no fan of fair use (even if they often rely on it themselves). While fair use is officially part of the law in the US, the entertainment industry just recently fought very hard to block it in the UK and Australia, arguing (ridiculously) that fair use would harm innovation.
Even where there are very strong arguments for fair use — such as in helping the blind access works — the entertainment industry has twisted the so-called “three step” test from the Berne Agreement to argue that that is the most that is allowed for fair use. The three step test is actually really about limiting fair use, rather than enabling it. It is in the Berne agreement (as a relatively recent addition) as one possible “exception” to copyright, but not the only one. However, the haters of fair use like to pretend that it is the only one allowed under that agreement.
Under the three step test, “exceptions” to copyright occur when there are:
limitations and exceptions to exclusive rights to (Step 1) certain special cases (Step 2) which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and (Step 3) do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder
And, of course, in the US, fair use goes way beyond that already. And, as Flynn points out, it appears from the leaked text of TPP, the US would now be opening itself up to an ISDS challenge from a foreign owned company (remember: Universal Music is owned by a French company, Sony Music is owned by a Japanese company and Warner Music is owned by Russians…) that the fair use doctrine itself “expropriates” its “intellectual property” rights by going beyond the three steps test. Here’s Flynn:
And here is a major one lurking in the shadows. Many copyright intensive industries are hostile to the U.S. fair use doctrine and many of the decisions of courts emanating from it. There have been arguments raised from time to time that the doctrine or its applications are contrary to the so-called Berne 3-step test requiring that limitations and exceptions to rights be limited to certain special cases, not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author (see this rebuttal from Gervais et al.). No other country has attempted to sue the U.S. or the nearly dozen other countries around the world that have fair use. But will the content industry be so reticent with such challenges in the future? With the TPP ISDS chapter, they will not have to in 40% of the global economy.
And this isn’t so far fetched. As we’ve been discussing, under existing ISDS/corporate sovereignty provisions in NAFTA, Eli Lilly is currently suing Canada for $500 million because Canada refused to grant it some patents. Eli Lilly is arguing that this “expropriated” Eli Lilly’s “intellectual property” and took away its “expected profits.”
Is it that difficult to believe that a recording studio or movie studio might make a similar argument on a fair use determination on one of its copyright-covered works?
And, if fair use is undermined, so is free speech. As we’ve noted, the Supreme Court itself has long argued that current fair use doctrine is a necessary “safety valve” in making sure that copyright does not violate the First Amendment. In other words, fair use is a key part of your First Amendment rights.
And yet… the USTR is basically putting in place a plan and system to undermine this, because the big copyright players are among the very few people who are allowed to see the negotiating text and to “advise” the USTR on what should be in it. Once again, it would seem like the most obvious way to deal with this would be for the USTR to release the negotiating documents, so that the public would be aware of what’s being negotiated, and could discuss the possible consequences — like how the current rules have the potential to undermine fair use and free speech. But, for reasons that the USTR still will not explain (perhaps because they reveal the USTR’s true reasoning for such provisions), it refuses to do so.
Judge Suggests Attorney General Jim Hood Is Unconstitutionally Threatening Google ‘In Bad Faith’
About a month ago, we noted that a federal court had granted a temporary injunction blocking a subpoena issued by Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, demanding all sorts of information from Google. At the time, the judge only said that Google’s argument was “stronger” than Hood’s, but said a full ruling would come out in time. That full ruling is now out, and boy, does it make Jim Hood’s anti-Google vendetta look questionable — specifically saying that there is “significant evidence of bad faith” on the part of Hood to try to use his government position to unconstitutionally coerce Google into making changes to its service that it has no legal obligation to make.
If you don’t recall, Hood has a long-standing obsession with Google, despite having an astounding level of ignorance about how the search engine actually operates. In his anti-Google rants, Hood makes statements that are blatantly false and repeatedly argues that Google is to blame merely because its search engine finds websites that Hood’s office doesn’t like and doesn’t think should exist at all. And that doesn’t even touch on the now known fact that the MPAA secretly funded Hood’s investigation and wrote nearly every word of the threatening letters sent to Google.
While Hood and various MPAA supporters have insisted that he’s clearly in the right, at least federal judge Henry Wingate doesn’t see much to support that. Hood tried desperately to keep this issue out of federal court, using a variety of claims, including the so-called “Younger Abstention” which argues that federal courts should stay out of certain issues. However, as Wingate notes, that only applies in three specific cases, none of which apply to Hood’s campaign against Google — and, even if any of them did apply, there’s a further exception for “bad faith” — and Wingate is pretty convinced that Hood is acting in bad faith:
Moreover, even if the Younger elements were satisfied here, the court would not be required to abstain here because an exception to the application of the doctrine applies. Indeed, federal courts may disregard the Younger doctrine when a state court proceeding was brought in bad faith or with the purpose of harassing the federal plaintiff… Google has presented significant evidence of bad faith, allegedly showing that Attorney General Hood’s investigation and issuance of the subpoena represented an effort to coerce Google to comply with his requests regarding content removal. As previously discussed, the Attorney General made statements, on multiple occasions, which purport to show his intent to take legal action against Google for Google’s perceived violations. When Google declined to fulfill certain requests, the Attorney General issued a 79-page subpoena shortly thereafter. The court is persuaded that this conduct may evidence bad faith on the part of the Attorney General.
MPAA Wanted Less Fair Use In Copyright Curriculum
During the summer of 2013 we voiced our doubts about an initiative from the Center for Copyright Information (CCI).
The group, which has the MPAA and RIAA as key members, had just started piloting a kindergarten through sixth grade curriculum on copyright in California schools.
The curriculum was drafted in collaboration with iKeepSafe and aims to teach kids the basics of copyright. Unfortunately, the lesson materials were rather one-sided and mostly ignored fair use and the more flexible copyright licences Creative Commons provides.
These concerns were picked up by the mainstream press, creating a massive backlash. The CCI and other partners emphasized that the pilot was tested with an early draft and promised that the final curriculum would be more balanced.
In the months that followed the lesson plans indeed got a major overhaul and last summer the “Copyright and Creativity for Ethical Digital Citizens” curriculum was finalized.
As reported previously, the new and improved version was indeed expanded to discuss fair use principles and Creative Commons licenses. However, as far as Hollywood is concerned it now includes too much discussion on fair use.
TorrentFreak received a copy of a leaked email the MPAA’s Howard Gantman sent to various insiders last summer, explaining what happened. It starts off by mentioning the negative response to the leak and states that the MPAA and RIAA will try to keep a low profile in future, probably to prevent another wave of critique.
G.H.O.S.T. / Hydrogen On-Demand
Let’s see. No explanation for how it works. Not possible to get a device as a reward. A monumental lack of specifics. Not even an explanation for how they’ve overcome the problem with generating hydrogen without a massive energy loss?
About this project
Producing a hydrogen on-demand fuel saving device…
There is always more than one answer to any given challenge, but finding and implementing alternatives takes courage and cooperation.
We have the courage.
We’re asking you for the cooperation.
The long haul trucking industry ( tractor trailers )has been working for some time to reduce its use of fossil fuels, in an effort to curb operational costs and the size of its adverse affects on the environment.
The use of natural gas has been a suggested alternative option, but it is seriously flawed.
Even though it provides some savings in the cost of fuel and emits only one quarter of the CO2 that normal diesel engines produce, the price of natural gas engines conversions are roughly $50,000 more than a diesel engine; and if natural gas does not burn properly, it can be more dangerous to the environment than CO2.
So what’s the safe alternative?
G.H.O.S.T./Generated, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Separation, Technology
G.H.O.S.T. is a fuel savings device we’ve created, that uses the proven process of separating hydrogen from water.
Clean Fuel Technologies would like to clarify that we did not invent extracting hydrogen from water, that discovery came many, many years ago. We did however achieve harnessing the power of hydrogen from water and utilizing it as a form of on-demand fuel, to support all combustion type engines.
The average tractor trailer uses about $100,000 per year in fuel cost, our device would provide an annual savings of nearly $25,000 for every tractor trailer using our G.H.O.S.T. technology.
Think of the possibilities.
Implementation of our G.H.O.S.T. device will cost approximately $6,900 per tractor trailer to implement vs. a minimum of $30,000 to convert an existing diesel engine to natural gas.
And did we mention our device has almost zero emissions?
Our ultimate goal is nothing short of world domination. Which is to say we’d like to makeG.H.O.S.T. available for every gas or diesel operated engine in the world.
We are starting with the tractor trailer industry because it’s the market where G.H.O.S.T. can create the largest and the quickest results.
We have a plan.
We have a product.
We have a place to build it.
What’s more, we have a buyer.
With a business from the government sector committed to the purchase of a minimum of 10,000 units, we need to provide at least 2500 of those in the next 7 months. We have the facility in which to begin manufacturing, we’re poised for success.
Our start up goal is to build those first 2500 units in our first run, using funding to produce proper manufacturing procedures, and EPA approval.
Some of our estimated costs include but are not limited to:
- Proprietary machinery for the internal system of our patented device:$250,200
- Communication driver board technology: $485,000
- Proprietary plastics: $89,000
- Stainless steel for cable: $135,000
- Automotive hose: $13,300
- Injection mold set up for fusion tank: $95,000
- Final EPA, and production integrity testing: $25,000
shipping for 2500 units, estimated: $225,000
Our total budget requirement for first run and set up is $1,400,000.
Once testing is complete and verified, and our first run has been purchased, the funds produced from that will improve our manufacturing, and allow us to fully realize our true potential, with our world changing patented device…
This is only the first step.
Once applied to the commercial transportation sector the possible savings are almost unimaginable. Using the G.H.O.S.T. system on our first prototype, a Pontiac Vibe, our system helped that vehicle achieve an amazing 87 miles per gallon!
We have personally invested everything we have to get here.
That was the courage.
And because of our efforts we have been awarded five patents so far:
Mexico, (2) United States, Canada, and Australia.
The name G.H.O.S.T. has been trademarked
We ask you now for your cooperation so that we can implement an alternative solution that will make the unimaginable a reality.
Please help us bring this to the world, with using one of the worlds most robust and abundant resource, water!
We can help change everything!
Our system is:
greener,cleaner and better!
Thank you very much!
Risks and challenges
There is only one, EPA approval.
The great news is we are already working with a third party testing facility that specializes in EPA compliance and standards. As our device gives off virtually zero emissions, approval is imminent.
TSA Waves Convicted Murderer With Explosives Experience Through Its PreCheck Lane
The TSA’s PreCheck program also expedites security screening for “notorious convicted felons” and “former domestic terrorists.” Who knew? From the sounds of its in-depth pre-screening efforts, you would think (unnamed) convicted felons wouldn’t be able to sail past the checkpoint without even slowing down, but apparently, that’s exactly what happened. And it’s not just any former felon/domestic terrorist, but one who was previously convicted of murder and offenses involving explosives. (via Kevin Underhill/Lowering the Bar)
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) received a whistleblower disclosure alleging a sufficiently notorious convicted felon was improperly cleared for TSA Pre✓ screening, creating a significant aviation security breach. The disclosure identified this event as a possible error in the TSA Secure Flight program since the traveler’s boarding pass contained a TSA Pre✓ indicator and encrypted barcode.
The good news (such as it were) is that the TSA did not grant the unnamed felon/terrorist PreCheck approval through its laborious and intrusive application process. It also didn’t wave him/her through because lines were backing up at the normal checkpoints. (This is called “Managed Inclusion” by the TSA, but it more resembles “For the Hell of It” in practice…) That ends the good news.
It did, however, use its “risk assessment rules” to determine the terrorist/felon to be of no threat. This might be encouraging news for former felons/domestic terrorists, perhaps signaling that government agencies may ultimately forgive some criminal acts and not subject former felons to additional security harassment in perpetuity. Then again, this may just be the TSA’s excuse for waving someone with questionable PreCheck clearance through security because a checkmark — and its own internal bureaucracy — told it to.
We also determined the Transportation Security Officer (TSO) followed standard operating procedures, but did not feel empowered to redirect the traveler from TSA Pre✓ screening to standard lane screening.
The OIG recommends more “empowerment” for rank-and-file. Good luck with that. If officers don’t feel empowered, it’s because management has shown them that questioning the (broken and wildly inconsistent) system isn’t an option. Neither is doing any independent thinking. When this officer attempted to push it up the line, he/she ran into a pretty predictable response.
[T]he TSO knew of the traveler’s TSA Pre✓disqualifying criminal convictions. The TSO followed the standard operating procedures and reported this to the supervisory TSO who then directed the TSO to take no further action and allow the traveler through the TSA Pre✓ lane. As a result, TSA does not have an incident report for this event.
One of the TSA’s Behavioral Detection Officers (highly-trained in the art of the mental coin toss) was also contacted by the concerned officer. And, again, no further action was taken/recommended.
In the end, a felon/terrorist boarded a plane because the TSA’s bureaucratic process can’t handle contradictory variables. The PreCheck approval said “yes,” but the previous convictions said PreCheck approval should never have happened. The TSA deferred to the obviously incorrect checkmark on the boarding pass. And now we have the punchline to the joke that starts, “A murderer with explosives experience walks into a PreCheck lane…”
Congressional Rep. John Carter Discovers Encryption; Worries It May One Day Be Used On Computers To Protect Your Data
Here’s a suggestion: if you’re a Congressional Representative whose job it is to regulate all sorts of important things, and you state in a hearing “I don’t know anything about this stuff” before spouting off on your crazy opinions about how something must be done… maybe, just maybe educate yourself before confirming to the world that you’re ignorant of the very thing you’re regulating. We famously saw this during the SOPA debate, where Representatives seemed proud of their own ignorance. As we noted at the time, it’s simply not okay for Congress to be proud of their own ignorance of technology, especially when they’re in charge of regulating it. But things have not changed all that much apparently.
We already wrote about FBI Director James Comey’s bizarre Congressional hearing earlier this week, in which he warned those in attendance about the horrible world that faced us when the FBI couldn’t spy on absolutely everything. But the folks holding the hearing were suckers for this, and none more so than Rep. John Carter. The ACLU’s Chris Soghoian alerts us to the following clip of Carter at that hearing, which he says “is going to be the new ‘The Internet is a Series of Tubes'” video. I would embed the video, but for reasons that are beyond me, C-SPAN doesn’t use HTTPS so an embed wouldn’t work here (randomly: Soghoian should offer CSPAN a bottle of whiskey to fix that…).
Here’s the basic transcript though:
Rep. John Carter: I’m chairman of Homeland Security Appropriations. I serve on Defense and Defense subcommittees. We have all the national defense issues with cyber. And now, sir, on this wonderful committee. So cyber is just pounding me from every direction. And every time I hear something, or something just pops in my head — because I don’t know anything about this stuff. If they can do that to a cell phone why can’t they do that to every computer in the country, and nobody can get into it? If that’s the case, then that’s the solution to the invaders from around the world who are trying to get in here. [Smug grin]
FBI Director Comey: [Chuckle and gives smug, knowing grin]
Carter: Then if that gets to be the wall, the stone wall, and even the law can’t penetrate it, then aren’t we creating an instrument [that] is the perfect tool for lawlessness. This is a very interesting conundrum that’s developing in the law. If they, at their own will at Microsoft can put something in a computer — or at Apple — can put something in thatcomputer [points on a smartphone], which it is, to where nobody but that owner can open it, then why can’t they put it in the big giant super computers, that nobody but that owner can open it. And everything gets locked away secretly. And that sounds like a solution to this great cyber attack problem, but in turn it allows those who would do us harm [chuckles] to have a tool to do a great deal of harm where law enforcement can’t reach them. This is a problem that’s gotta be solved.
Texas Bill Would Make It Illegal for You to Film a Cop Beating You
Section 38.15 of the Texas Penal Code makes it an offense to interrupt, disrupt, impede, or otherwise interfere with “public duties,” including those being exercised by a police officer. That’s the law pretty much everywhere, of course, but the question that has arisen in recent years is whether you are “interfering” (etc.) with a police officer just because you are recording what he or she is doing.
Actually, that’s not a serious question, it’s just something bad cops say because they don’t want to be recorded. The argument boils down to, “I had to stop what I was doing and come over and kick your ass because you were recording me, and you therefore interrupted my exercise of a public duty.” It’s a hilariously bad argument that way too many officers have gotten away with.
The Texas statute doesn’t say anything specific about recording, although it does say a person can’t be prosecuted if the interfering acts “consisted of speech only.” That would probably also cover “expressive conduct” (i.e., the middle finger) which also counts as speech under the First Amendment, but what about recording? Yes, say courts who don’t hate freedom, that’s protected too because it is “fundamental and virtually self-evident” that the reason for the recording is so you have proof when you tell somebody what happened. It is therefore unconstitutional to punish someone for doing that, whether via criminal prosecution or the more expedited procedure of just shooting them.
Okay, now along comes Rep. Jason Villalba (R-Dallas) with H.B. 2918. This bill would amend section 38.15 to expressly include within the definition of “interference” the conduct of “filming, recording, photographing, or documenting the officer within 25 feet of the officer,” or doing so “within 100 feet of the officer” if you are also carrying a concealed handgun.
Of course, the officer is always going to be “within 25 feet of the officer,” but let’s assume he meant to say that the person doing the filming must stay more than 25 feet away. (The 100-foot distinction makes no sense to me either, but let’s set that aside.) Villalba says the provision is only meant to provide a buffer zone—or as he insists on putting it, a “halo”—around police officers so they can do their jobs without interference. But the law already precludes actualinterference, so this provision adds nothing in that sense. And by legally defining any recording within 25 feet as “interference,” it plainly authorizes police to arrest anyone who’s doing that, whether they are actuallyinterfering or not.