Archive for the 'The Law' category

Funniest Conversation Ever

Mar 11 2008 Published by under Bloggers, Business, Craziness, Free Speech, Miscellany, The Internet

I thought I’d share a conversation I had with a lawyer a few minutes ago. It was particularly amusing for what it reveals about the view some people have of what we do.

Me: Hey, did you get a chance to review that document I sent you yesterday.

Lawyer: I sent it to a couple of other people for some additional feedback. I’ll get it back to you shortly. Refresh my memory, what was this for again?

Me: It’s a post for the blog.

Lawyer: Oh, yeah. Right. I forgot about that. That’s a really stupid idea – that blog. People parse every word in legal filings that nobody ever reads and then we go say any damn thing on a blog. (Apparently he senses my shock at his comment) Sorry… I know the blog wasn’t your idea.

Me: Actually, it was.

Lawyer: Oh. Forget it. What do I care. I’m retiring anyway.

So there you have it. The world we occupy and the way the rest of the establishment sees it. Damn the man! Save the empire!

No responses yet

When Is A Crazy Racist Hate Crime Not A Crazy Racist Hate Crime?

Mar 11 2008 Published by under Craziness, Crime, Legislation, Society

If you follow me on Twitter, I apologize for exposing you to this again, but I find the story of Virginia’s latest hate crime (or is it) fascinating.

Authorities in Spotsylvania County, Va., said a woman who struck people with her car in a parking lot made a Nazi symbol and yelled “white power.” …

The victims, who are white, told police that a woman struck several pedestrians and a vehicle. One victim told police that the woman made a Nazi symbol, yelled “white power.”

The assumption in hate crimes is the crazy racist/homophobe/religious zealot has a beef against a specific group and targets members of that group. I’ve always wondered how that would play out if the victims were the same gender, religion, race and sexual preference. Perhaps it’s a older white Jewish kid beating up a younger one. Is it a hate crime if he shouts “you young punk” while administering the beat down? Is ageism respected as a hate crime component? What about two people with all the same characteristics but one is buff and the other is scrawny. Is geekism or skinnyism a component?

So now we may get our answer. It seems a crazy white supremacist has gone on a rampage targeting other white people. Since she attacked them randomly with a car, you can’t really claim she knew their religion or sexual identity. So a crazy white person attacks other white people to express her belief in “white power”.

I really want to follow this one and see if they charge her under hate crime laws or just as a nut. By all accounts, this crime is exactly the sort of thing that compelled the passage of hate crimes bills. Had the victims been black, or had the attack taken place at a synagogue or gay nightclub, you can bet they would be talking hate crimes – despite the fact that we’re obviously dealing with a woman who simply has a head full of bad wiring.

Given that she attacked her own race, will they have a hard time proving racial motivations? All other details of the crime fit the hate crimes mold, but the perp/victim mix is out of whack. Will this be the incident that makes people question hate crimes bills?

No responses yet

142 Sexual Predators Buying Girl Scout Cookies Near Me

Mar 05 2008 Published by under Craziness, Crime, Food, Miscellany, Stuck On Stupid, The Internet

So earlier this morning I posted about selling Girl Scout cookies online when Baby Quip gets old enough to join the cookie mafia. Since then, I have been inundated with e-mails about the prohibition in place on online sales. From the Girl Scout Cookies website:

Q: Can I purchase Girl Scout Cookies online?

A: Girl Scouts of the USA does not allow online sales but its cookie site, GirlScoutCookies.org can help you locate cookie sales in your community. Simply visit GirlScoutCookies.org.

Q: How do you ensure the safety of Girl Scouts who sell cookies?

A: The safety and security of our members is always our chief concern. We have strict guidelines for safety. Girl Scouts, depending on their age, must be accompanied by an adult when selling Girl Scout cookies and always use the buddy system. Our youngest members, Daisy Girl Scouts, who are five and six—are not allowed to sell Girl Scout cookies under any circumstances.

Q: Why can’t Girl Scout Cookies be sold on the Internet?

A: Our existing National Girl Scout policy prohibits the sale of Girl Scout cookies or any other Girl Scout approved product on the Internet. The safety of our girls is always our chief concern. Even in supervised settings it is not possible to guarantee that the person purchasing Girl Scout Cookies harbors no harmful intent. Girl Scout Cookie Activities are designed to be face-to-face learning experiences for girls. In an online setting, there is no guarantee that the seller is indeed a girl member of Girl Scouts. We have many ways for girls to explore and experience the benefits of science and technology and the Internet, including our Girls Go Tech initiative.

Here is where the Girl Scout policy and my background in Internet technology crash into one another in an amazing explosion of outrage.

I find it absolutely amazing that the Girl Scouts are so adept at the Internet that they actually have www.GirlScoutCookies.org, yet they’re so clueless about the Internet that they would post something retarded like this.

Sales online is actually much, much safer than the process they have created. If I can take an order, accept payment, and ship said order without my daughter coming into contact with strangers, that’s the safest possible sales channel.

On the other hand, the Girl Scouts allow my daughter to go door-to-door. Well here’s my problem with that:

Sexual Predators in my zip code

This is a map of the 142 convicted sexual predators in my zip code. That’s right! There are 142 people convicted of rape, crimes against children, sexual battery and other miscellaneous sex crimes in my neighborhood. The closest live within a couple of blocks.

Now, I recognize the Girl Scout policies say that kids always have to have a parent with them, and operate on the buddy system. However, as of 2000, the FBI’s National Crime Information Center reported 2,100 kids going missing every day. The number that actually stay missing is much, much smaller. However, the most likely candidate for abduction is an 11-year old with a stable family structure. So who sells Girl Scout cookies?

Q: Who can sell Girl Scout Cookies?

A: Only Brownie and Junior Girl Scouts and Girl Scouts 11-17 (emphasis mine) may sell Girl Scout Cookies. Participation in this Girl Scout program activity is voluntary.

Given that these girls are part of a sorority type organization that fosters a sense of community and civic involvement, I’m guessing they’re likely coming from homes with a stable family situation as well.

So that’s perfect. The Girl Scouts, in order to protect my 11-17 year old daughter will not allow her to sell cookies through the anonymity of the Internet, but will allow her to go door-to-door selling those same cookies to the 142 sexual predators who live near me.

Really solid thinking.

That’s unfortunately the kind of misguided thinking that most people who don’t spend much time online apply to the Internet. I’m seriously amazed at how stupid that is.

4 responses so far

Hollywood Justice

Dec 12 2007 Published by under Craziness, Crime, Miscellany

So let me get this straight… Kiefer Sutherland has two DUI’s in three years, and he gets 48 days. Lindsay Lohan has two DUIs in a weekend, and only gets about 8 1/2 seconds (ok, it was 84 minutes, but still). Paris had a DUI and was sentenced to 45 days, then 23, then released after slightly more than a long weekend.

I guess this just goes to show that stars of successful TV shows get more time than bimbos with less acting talent than a glass of water, and/or more money than common sense. Tough break, Kiefer. If were a crappy actor or an heiress you could have skated.

No responses yet

Yet Another State Prohibits Lojack for Kids

Nov 27 2007 Published by under Craziness, Crime, Technology, The Law

After California’s attempt to limit the potential use of RFID to put an end to missing children, New Hampshire has now acted in a similarly short-sighted way. HB0686 now being considered in the New Hampshire legislature would prevent anyone from using RFID to track another person without their consent.

358-S:5 Electronic Tracking Prohibited. No person may use any electronic means of tracking another person without a valid court order or other legal authorization or the consent of person being tracked. Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a violation. This section shall not be construed to apply to locating technology used by the enhanced 911 system or to commercial mobile radio service pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 332.

Unlike California’s bill, I think that the “other legal authorization” clause might give parents some protection should they use such technologies to monitor their minor children. It’s not certain that’s the case however.

This is yet another case of people harboring an irrational fear of a very useful technology. As I’ve said before, if I can use RFID to protect the family dog, why stop me from using it to protect the lives that really matter? If it’s good enough to save Rover, it should be good enough to save little Janie and Jack.

No responses yet

« Newer posts Older posts »