26 posts tagged “law”

This is unheard of: a form on Facebook actually working.
   As some of you know, since August 3, I have been battling Facebook over its false allegations about copyright infringement that appear on my home page there. The copyright owners have never complained about the videos that Facebook deleted, which according to Facebook itself, is a prerequisite for deletion. (This raises even more privacy concerns: who is making the call on things I am uploading, if the copyright owners have not complained?) I have filled out the form protesting my innocence—effectively getting Facebook to comply with American common law about the presumption of innocence—multiple times daily. Each time, Facebook says there is an error submitting the form. (I know this after over 50 submissions.) Sometimes, it will give me a link to a DMCA form, but filling that out results in nothing, either. I just get taken back to the home page, with no acknowledgement, confronting Facebook’s accusations again (the following is an earlier screen shot):

Facebook persists with false accusations

Form finally went through

I have found out a bit more about the silly rules the US has put in with travelling or even transiting there—where people have to fill in a Department of Homeland Security form 72 hours prior to travel, called an ESTA.
   First up, this was, as Janette suspected, a Bush-era policy, which came into force January 12. I say it’s the death knell for American tourism.
   But one thing I did not know till today, till I confirmed it with my travel agent, is that once completed, you are sorted for two years. Frequent visitors to the US might actually find that a good thing.
   Still, it seems ridiculous—especially for those who are merely transiting through the US.
   The risk of being stung US$545 because one’s passport does not have biometric data on a chip is also ridiculous: effectively meaning my passport is valid anywhere in the world, just not the States, at least not without some special visa.
   I was surprised to find some Americans defending this policy on a Cnet page today.
   One American wrote:

That idiotic idea is necessary because we ARE unique. I don’t know from where in Europe you're from, but because so much goes in and out of the USA, I’m surprised we don't do more. Nobody is making you fly here, but I’d understand and expect the same if I had to go to your country. After all, this is 2009, and why using technology to its advantage is merely being progressive.

   I don’t think so. First up, we realize that transiting and immigrating are two different things. Secondly, we recognize that a valid passport is just that—we don’t discriminate against people just because their passports are a bit older. Thirdly, I’m willing to bet a heck of a lot more goes via Asia, and Hong Kong and Singapore don’t put up barriers like this—and they’re safe from terrorists. This is not being progressive, this is being ignorant and daft.
   Another one wrote:

Euros are far fussyer then Americans when it comes to this kind of stuff and people blow up cafes and markets to repay them for lax security.

I don’t swear generally, but dubya-tee-eff? Seriously. No, they are not fussier than Americans, there are fewer forms to fill out, and what is this writer on? What news programme is (s)he watching? There is a difference between Iraq and Europe but maybe (s)he watches the news and groups all foreign countries into one. Just because there have been bombings doesn’t mean they’re regular occurrences. Anyone remember Oklahoma? Maybe we should say school shootings are commonplace in the States then?
   How about this one?

EU countries similarly require advance Visas from citizens of most countries.

I don’t know but Americans don’t need to apply for an ‘advance’ visa, and no New Zealander or Australian has to.
   How’s this?

If people can’t do something this simple then they don’t deserve to be here.

That’s great, it really is. It’s not about simplicity, it’s about our rights and our freedoms. Some of us prefer not to have them taken away.
   From a very unscientific sample, I can say the people I have spoken to will just opt to fly via Asia to Europe, and miss North America altogether.
   Even flying back from Europe westward, I can go Frankfurt–Montréal–Vancouver–Auckland and visit my Canadian friends.
   And didn’t the 9-11 terrorists get in from Canada, anyway, rather than Europe? I know if I were a villain, that’s what I’d do.
   The Cnet page had these other very good comments from people who feel the same way I do.

I’d like to see what Americans would do if they were required to line up for an hour to get questioned, fingerprinted and have any device capable of carrying data (laptops, iPods) searched and the contents sometimes copied by a foreign security officer.
   Sorry but there are far more affordable places to visit that don’t treat every tourist like a criminal and rip off the contents of their hard disks.
   Of course most Americans have no idea how much money is put into their local economies by foreign tourism. I’m sure that’s just what you need right now, more unemployment and businesses going to the wall.

and:

People are right to say that it will result in a decline in visitors. This is not speculation, but fact. Not everybody will stop coming, but many will.
   I chair a committee that works on international communication standards. Since the US started implementing that finger printing system and taking forever to process visas for people from certain countries, we have all but stopped holding meetings in the United States. We can meet anywhere in the world and find that almost any country makes for a better place to go.

   If the US is to stop terrorism via its airports, then I suggest it take lessons from the Israelis, who may subject travellers to more searches, but from what I understand it is done in a very efficient way, without bending accepted conventions surrounding passports and travel.
   These new rules are very bad for US tourism, and it seems I am not alone in thinking so. We already get treated as though we are guilty when we go to the US—even nationals of close US allies such as the UK and Australia—and I just don’t think this is the way one treats one’s friends.

[Cross-posted] This week, for those of you who follow me on Twitter, you will have noticed that I blacked out my avatar in protest of the amendments to the Copyright Act 1994 in New Zealand. The new law—to come in as ss. 92A and 92C—essentially (and I am highlighting only the negative bits here) gives copyright owners the opportunity to make an accusation against a netizen, with the ultimate result being that that person’s internet connection is severed. The opponents to this are touting it as a ‘guilt by association’ principle. The other provision is that anyone who provides internet services becomes an ISP under the law. Even Mr Stephen Fry, the world’s most famous Tweeter, has joined the protest by blacking out his avatar.
   You would think that given my background in fighting piracy I would be all for it. But it is unworkable. I don’t believe in the idea of guilt before innocence. If I find our copyrighted work on a server somewhere, there are already very useful provisions for getting it off, whether one is in the US or in New Zealand. I know, and I have used them, and I get results within a week. The proposed law, as far as I can see it, doesn’t work.
   However, the National Government has no intention of listening to the protest and has indicated, by my reading, that it will allow the new laws to come into effect—even though the EU and the UK have rejected similar laws. The Hon Peter Dunne MP, leader of United Future, is one of the few who have actually said anything against the amendments. (Mr Dunne’s position is protecting authors is OK, but that these go too far.) But the plan for National is to see how it all goes.
   This is a major shortcoming and backs up all my accusations about National lacking a vision. Government, as its all-too-green MPs are going to find out with this law alone, is not a forum for policy experiments. Nor are laws ways to test the waters with the public. When the sections are repealed, as they only must, someone will claim to be a hero or heroine, when the reality is that the party will simply look slow off the mark.
   Juha Saarinen at The Techsploder suggests that the government is not going to listen because:

The reason our politicians won’t listen is because they’re concerned about New Zealand having signed various WIPO treaties and that the country might not get a free trade deal with the US unless the entertainment industry that vigorously lobbies the US Trade Representative gets its way. If that’s the case, then we the voters should be told and not have our sovereignty being sold down the river on the sly like this. Incidentally, my understanding is that the local rights holders people are not in favour of the law, but have to toe the line laid out for them by their overseas masters. Too bad, if that’s true.

   It probably is. What we do have is a government that functions at an operational level, as I have been trying to say for years about the John Key-led bunch.
   I have nothing personal against the Prime Minister, and I will even say he is far more personable in real life than he appears on television—the same can be said of his deputy. However, actions do speak louder.
   Remember when Key, then leading the Opposition, tried to paint himself the local equivalent of a Cool Britannia leader by holding an under-40s’ party in Auckland, inviting trendy types to be seen with him?
   When Labour refused to meet with HH the Dalai Lama during his New Zealand visit, Mr Key decided to stay away, too. Because it was safer, never mind the principles of self-determination.
   When I said it was terrible that the politicians all got a 4 per cent pay rise on the first Monday Key and his MPs took office, nothing was done until President Barack Obama suggested his administration should not get raises. Key didn’t seem to realize it was a good idea till Obama suggested it. A principled stand, or one that looked good that he felt he could pinch? (He said it ‘showed leadership,’ when a two-month delay showed anything but.)
   I’m not sure what Key’s policies really are, even though he is in government, but he looks like a political kleptomaniac to me, ready to get on others’ bandwagons rather than come up with initiatives of his own. I do not mind this too much—but where does he stand?
   Right now the agenda seem to be technocratic: the support of Red China (as I bore witness at the Minister of Ethnic Affairs’ splendid New Year function a few weeks back) and, if Juha is right, support of the United States’ trade policies.
   I have long been pro-American, in terms of the traditional principles of the US, and my family has a long history Stateside, but I will not support any legislation that weakens the freedom of New Zealanders. Such a law would be anathema to Americans, so how would abuse of New Zealand freedoms be appealing to a trade partner? Unless, of course, the government sees New Zealanders’ rights as below that of a foreign country’s—Labour allowed Red Chinese “diplomats” to push our own cops around to bar people they didn’t like, and National, it seems, are quite happy to put New Zealanders second to American trade lobbyists.
   Regardless of who is in the White House, New Zealanders do not enjoy their sovereignty being sold out by their elected officials.
   The American trade lobbies, even in the entertainment industry, should know that copyright law in New Zealand is actually superior already to what they enjoy in the United States, and the mechanisms for pursuing pirates are already workable if they simply had the skills to use them.
   A blanket guilt-before-innocence principle—something that any American would regard as unconstitutional, or perhaps the principles of the Bill of Rights no longer matter to lobbyists these days, when it comes to non-Americans—is not the way forward in this country.
   We had Labour passing ex post facto laws and rules against satire, now we have this. There’s not much difference between the two in their understanding of democratic government.
   But visionless governments cannot see beyond the arguments of their own citizenry. Insistent that pursuing failed technocratic policies is the only way out of a recessionary mess—when sparking innovation and creating jobs are clearly more beneficial—democracy and giving New Zealanders a “fair go” may well take a back seat under Mr Key and his ministers.

This video, by my friend Chelfyn Baxter, who stayed up all night to make it, sums up the proposed amendments to the Copyright Act here. The question: will the government listen to the people, or will it ignore them?
   I guess it depends on whether you believe John Key has any foresight.

[Cross-posted] As if Britain wasn’t already sufficiently heading down the V for Vendetta path (remember how last year, Mr Brown seized Icelandic funds on the grounds of terrorism—anyone know an Icelandic terrorist?), along comes amendments to the big catch-all Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 where people could be arrested and imprisoned if they take a photograph of officers ‘likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’, says the British Journal of Photography.
   Anything could really qualify, couldn’t it? A journalist taking a photograph for a newspaper might fall foul of the provision. One time I photographed two French policemen hassling a street vendor. I never published it but it struck me that the gentleman was being hassled because he was black.
   Could this be helpful to a terrorist? Probably. While my motives were to document possible racism, a terrorist could use this image to show the prejudice against non-whites in the west and encourage attacks on the occident. Lucky I didn’t take the photo in Britain then.
   Equally a photograph of Big Ben with a police officer in front could be helpful to terrorists in figuring out just where policemen walked on their beat. Tourists beware. You could become a crook after taking pics of HM Life Guards (no, not the Baywatch–Alerte à Malibu sort).
   ‘Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer,’ says the Journal.
   ‘The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who “elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members of armed forces) … which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism”.’
   Someone found guilty could be liable for 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine.
   This goes to the heart of civil liberties in the United Kingdom, something already eroded over the years by the European Union and now, under the guise of anti-terrorism. If it were proposed in the United States, some would label it as ‘un-American’, striking at the heart of their First Amendment. Well, this is un-British. Forgive me for having a memory, but when Britain was a regular terror target during the Troubles—when Britons were being blown up by the IRA—no such laws were required and the country muddled through.
   Policies regarded as anathema when I was a child, such as a UK identity card, are now accepted; this is merely another in a long line of Labour policies of late that leave me unsurprised at the number of UK immigrants to New Zealand. Many are documented regularly at Alfred the Ordinary’s blog, which actually has a V for Vendetta (movie) line in its header. It is becoming more appropriate by the day unless the British public stands up—and recent events have shown that, in the words of Bob the Builder (in Neil Morrissey’s finest hour?), ‘Yes we can.’

I have become interested in the story behind Sen. Obama’s birth certificate, now that a suit has been filed against him, forcing him to produce the “long form” version from Hawai’i rather than the reprint, or certification, used to support his birth on US soil in 1961.
   These are my arguments on the issue, as I partly relayed on Twana’s blog last week.
   1. The US Constitution does not give a full definition of ‘natural born citizen’ in Art. II, s. 1. Since we know the Founding Fathers to be smart folks, we also know that if they wanted that term to be defined by 1787 standards, they would have put it in.
   2. Under Art. I, s. 8, the Constitution gives Congress the power to determine laws about naturalization. In other words, matters pertaining to naturalization are not stuck in 1787, but are to be considered in a contemporary sense.
   3. Under these laws, a birthright citizenship exists and it’s also in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
   4. Under US law back in the 1960s, a child doesn’t lose his American nationality just because a parent does. Specifically:

A person having American nationality, who is a minor and is residing in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who loses American nationality under section 404 of this Act, shall at the same time lose his American nationality if such minor has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, That, in such case, American nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of American nationality by the parent unless and until the child attains the age of twenty-three years without having acquired permanent residence in the United States.

   5. Dual nationals are recognized under US law (the Immigration and Nationality Act, and by the Supreme Court).
   6. Because of (3), if Barack Obama was born in Hawai’i, then he qualifies as a natural born citizen. I know there are stories on the web relating to the recollections of his grandmother, Sarah Obama, who recalls:

Obama’s mother, late in her term carrying Obama she went to Kenya with her husband. She was resented by her in-laws and didn't like the way Muslim men treated women so she tried to return to Hawaii. Apparently the airlines refuse to allow her to fly due to her being very late term pregnant. So Obama, Jr. was born in Kenya. His father’s family all verify this version and in Mombassa, Kenya there is registered the birth of one Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. on a date approximating when our Obama was born.

I am not sure how reliable this evidence is, and it is the first I have heard about a Barack Hussein Obama Jr being registered in Mombasa. And where is the copy of that registration? Since we do not have that, then we have to assume that the Hawai’i reprint is genuine (stories about the colour mismatch are ridiculous: since when could two scanners reproduce the same colour?) and that it was registered correctly, because the onus of proof lies on the plaintiff in such a case.
   7. Even if he did travel to Indonesia there is no evidence, to me, that he lost his American nationality. Philip Berg, the gentleman who has filed suit, alleges that Barack Obama would have had to give up his American nationality to attend school in Indonesia. Anyone who has been to Indonesia knows there are problems with graft and corruption and I would more readily believe that his school never checked. Maybe he acquired dual nationality during this time and even if that meant giving up his US nationality under Indonesian law, he might not have been considered to have given it up under US law.
   8. Therefore, when Barack Obama re-entered the US, there was no need for him to become re-naturalized—and the Fourteenth Amendment still held.
   I would love to see the 1961 certificate, as this would end the whole argument once and for all. Most of Mr Berg’s arguments do not find much favour with my analysis, and it’s largely his demand for the 1961 certificate that has my interest piqued.
   The only controversy that I can see, if all is well with the original “long form” certificate, might be that while dual nationality does not preclude Sen. Obama from seeking the office of President, the mere existence of it (which remains a possibility—that he is a dual US–Indonesian national) might discourage the more xenophobic of voters to go with another candidate. This is worth some scrutiny, out of fairness. I personally have no problems with dual nationality, simply because I hold two myself.
   One conspiracy theorist says that the Democrats are waiting to be elected and if things go belly-up for a future President Obama on this subject, his vice-president will ascend to the top job and pardon his predecessor. I have never put anything past Sen. Joe Biden, whom I have always regarded as far more dangerous than the top man on the Dems’ ticket, and have wondered about his relative silence on many of the attacks on Sen. Obama.
   Nevertheless, this is an interesting matter and no less important than the earlier analysis of Sen. McCain’s own birth (which I also answered in the blogosphere a bit earlier).

It surprises me that O. J.: the Untold Story, the BBC documentary about the likely murderer of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, has never aired in the US, though it has aired in other nations.
   I am no fan of O. J. Simpson (admittedly he was good in Capricorn One) and there was a lot that emerged in the 1995 trial that showed the guy was a slimeball.
   The latest Las Vegas incident shows a man who has flouted the law so many times for other acts that he has become arrogant and callous.
   However, the documentary convinced me that Jason Simpson was the real killer, as I have said on this blog before.
   Perceptions are very different among different groups of people. The majority of white Americans thought O. J. was guilty. The majority of black Americans thought O. J. was innocent.
   As it has come up a few times during the last few days, here is a link to the BBC preview on its website.
   I paste from that article and I admit to taking a lot more than what is reasonable below, but it’s only out of concern that the BBC won’t keep some of these older pieces online, especially as it bears the old layout. (I’ll remove the below on request and I ask readers to click on the above link for the original.)

Wednesday, 4 October, 2000, 11:46 GMT 12:46 UK
New clues in OJ Simpson murder mystery

By Malcolm Brinkworth, producer of a BBC programme which sheds new light on the case of former American football star OJ Simpson.

… OJ—The Untold Story reveals that clues that some believe pointed away from Simpson as the killer were dismissed or ignored …

Dr Lee: Crime scene was "contaminated"

Dr Henry Lee, one of the world’s most respected forensic scientists, states … that the crime scene was “out of control”, was contaminated and that the police had destroyed so much at the murder scene that it was impossible to reconstruct what happened that night.

Dr Lee also reveals that the police failed to take crucial blood samples from Nicole’s back which might have helped solve the case.

Who did kill Nicole Simpson?

It is their view that the evidence was seriously compromised and would have been rejected by the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service.

Potential new suspect

The film also explores new areas, which have not been fully investigated by the authorities. It features private investigator Bill Dear and follows his enquiries into Jason, Simpson’s son from his first marriage …

Jason: History of violence

The programme examines the evidence that shows that six months before her murder, Nicole was put under surveillance.

A man called Bill Wasz, who he says, had supplied cocaine to Simpson, Nicole and friends, had been hired by one of Simpson’s friends to follow her and take photographs of Nicole with any man she might meet.

He recorded his surveillance in a notebook. In an interview from prison, where he is currently serving a jail term for armed robbery, Wasz explained that 10 days after handing over the photographs, he had been asked by Simpson's same friend to a meeting for a new assignment.

At that meeting, Wasz says, Simpson’s friend then hired him as a hitman to kill Nicole.

Police ignored ‘hitman’ claims

The programme reveals that the police were made aware of Wasz’s story just a few weeks after the murders and … the prosecution decided to dismiss it.…

I never heard a response from LinkedIn over its alleged treatment of my friend Vincent Wright, but I was interested in the change to its terms and conditions effective July 31.
   Folks may be interested that the following are not permitted:

• deep-link to the Site for any purpose, (i.e. including a link to a LinkedIn web page other than LinkedIn’s home page) unless expressly authorized in writing by LinkedIn or for the purpose of promoting your profile or a Group on LinkedIn; …
• use manual or automated software, devices, scripts robots, other means or processes to access, “scrape,” “crawl” or “spider” any web pages contained in the site; …
• upload a cartoon, symbol, drawing or any content other than a photograph of yourself in your profile photo; …

   I respect LinkedIn’s right to set whatever terms it wishes, especially since it doesn’t charge us for most of its services.
   The first term cited above might be problematic—it prevents me from recommending a colleague or friend’s LinkedIn profile directly now.
   Unless there’s some agreement to the contrary, the second outlaws Google. You guys are in trouble if you spider the LinkedIn site.
   The third is plain restrictive.
   I’m agreeing to them, but I am not sure how well thought-out two out of the above three are.