One notorious incident involving filming the police happened in Nashua, Massachusetts. Michael Gannon, who filmed police’s interaction with his son during an arrest, took the video down to the police station to file a complaint against the officers. Instead of being able to file a report, Gannon was instead charged with felony wiretapping. Only after what amounted to international outrage (on the internet), police dropped the charges. It also helped that the video proved his case, and the felony charge was basically just retaliation.

The problem occurs when the video is erased or destroyed in some fashion. This puts the police and the citizens in a bad situation. The real solution is to allow the average citizen record police actions. Now, don’t get me wrong. If a person recording is obstructing the job of the police, then naturally there would be an exception. These exceptions, however, need to be spelled out very clearly. If evidence is “lost”, then you can’t prosecute the person.

This would also be greatly helped if prosecutors wouldn’t be so eager to make a name for themselves. Wiretapping charges? Seriously? It makes them look petty,  and it comes across as a blatant attempt to make them look tough on crime. The people need a police force that is accountable. They need a district attorney’s office that looks out for them as well. Here’s to hoping that they finally get around to doing all of that.

I’m really not sure how the TAMU System thought this wouldn’t look bad. Or, maybe they just don’t care. Either way, journalism professors have to be able to instruct their students. Public information requests are an invaluable tool for journalists to do their work. It is also a big part of the government’s contract with us. Freedom of the press is a time honored tradition, and law, in this country, and it’s troubling to see it trampled in this way.

Texan’s tax dollars are paying for the TAMU System, and they should be able to know what’s going on. Their students should also be able to learn from their professors how to tell the public what’s going on.

Most of what the TSA does in security lines really does seem like “security theater”. However, the agency seems to be tone deaf. Rather than work with the public to come up with a solution, they would prefer we just trust them. Sorry, Mr. Pistole, that’s not going to happen. Government agencies cannot just be trusted without asking basic questions. Such as, is touching someone’s genitals really necessary?

Frankly, I find John Pistole comes across as a sanctimonious jerk. However, I don’t want to paint the picture that all, or even most, TSA agents are bad people. They’re usually hard working people put in an impossible situation. That’s why I reserve my harshest criticism for their boss. He needs to understand that civil rights do not need to sacrificed for security. We can have both.

First, I’ll explain the COICA bill a little further. It has been proposed as a bill that would give the Justice Department the power to shut down any web site they deemed to be “pirate sites” worldwide. COICA does not allow for due process. Quite simply, it would be up to the whims of the government to determine whether a site has infringing content or not. The bill no doubt came at the behest of Hollywood and the record companies.

The Chamber’s, the RIAA’s and the Senators’ reasoning is pretty scary:

some foreign countries have engaged in political censorship long before this bill was introduced and they will continue to do so regardless of whether this legislation is enacted.

So basically, they think that since China, Iran or North Korea censors, then it must be okay for the U.S. to do so. Why should we stand above those nations, and show a strong commitment to personal freedom? Why should due process be a bedrock of our justice system? These are the questions I want to ask the Senators.

They should be standing up for us and those ideals. Instead, they stand up for the big money organizations. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Money always seems to hold more sway than ideals. I just wish they wouldn’t feign altruism. It makes it hard not to be a cynic.

Craigslist is a recent recipient of moral panic backlash. Once the “Craigslist Killer” was arrested for allegedly killing a young woman he met on Craigslist, state attorney’s general went into overdrive. They appeared on news programs ad nauseum to decry the evil of Craigslist’s adult services section. The end result was the site censoring itself to avoid the hassle. Lately we’ve had police warning about potential robbers lurking on Facebook to see when you might not be at home, and then stealing from you. There’s not been any evidence that this is an actual problem.

At best, these moral panics raise people’s anxieties for no reason. At worst, they can cause people to be concerned with the trivial, and neglect the real dangers out there.

Part of the broadcasters plan is to get Congress to force all cell phone makers to include an FM transmitter in each phone. Naturally, the cell phone makers oppose this. Gary Shapiro, of the Consumer Electronics Association, said, “We are completely, inalterably opposed to this.” He went on to say, “Rather than adapt to the digital marketplace, NAB and RIAA act like buggy-whip industries that refuse to innovate and seek to impose penalties on those that do.”

I have to agree with Mr. Shapiro. It seems absurd to require new and innovative devices to carry an outdated and antiquated technology. In this age of constant innovation, legacy businesses are lashing out at those who threaten their way of life. Hopefully Congress won’t pacify these backward thinking people. The only way we can be a world leader is to be forward thinking.

The easy illustration of this is Fox News. They are unashamedly biased toward the right, and their “Fair and Balanced” tagline is, to put it mildly, misleading. The recent revelation that News Corp., parent company of Fox News, donated $1 Million to the Republican Governors Association further raised eyebrows about Fox’s ability to fairly report the news. Other media outlets also struggle to uphold their journalistic integrity. The New York Times, once the bastion of this country’s newspapers, has committed a series of gaffes in recent years. One startling example was how their editorial department handled the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case. The young men were assumed guilty, and their side of the story was ignored.

In many ways, it feels like the media has returned to the days of yellow journalism in the early 20th century. They allow themselves to be manipulated by politicians, celebrities and dozens of PR firms. I just wonder whether there are any journalists that have the guts to go for the truth. We sure do need it.

The problem we are increasingly facing is the invasion of privacy that many governments commit. From the U.S. to Saudi Arabia, several countries are guilty. Our communications providers are no longer fighting the government when it comes to protecting our privacy. They are simply giving them free reign.

People are now left wondering whether their communications have any way of being private. In all honesty, probably not anymore. Here in the U.S., legislation like the Patriot Act have given the government sweeping powers to spy on the populace. It’s highly unlikely their going to give up that power any time soon.

If I were in leadership at RIM, I would have stood up to the Middle Eastern governments. If more communications companies would do that, it might actually make a difference. Then again, their commitment to profit trumps everything.

This is a surprising ruling to say the least. On the jailbreaking issue, the government had this to say:

When one jailbreaks a smartphone in order to make the operating system on that phone interoperable with an independently created application that has not been approved by the maker of the smartphone or the maker of its operating system, the modifications that are made purely for the purpose of such interoperability are fair uses.

On the DVD front, consumers may now make non-commercial and educational copies of copyrighted works. These exceptions are very limited, and it would be wise to read up on them. This has to be considered a win for the average consumer. Big business has long tried to limit how you can use your own devices. Let’s hope there’s no backtracking on the part of the government.

His grandstanding moment du jour is the video game industry. He would like there to be more stringent laws regarding violent video games. He states:

“In the face of continued industry inaction–enabling unattended children to buy such games–states must preserve their critical right to protect children.”

What he seems to be ignorant of (or outright ignores) is the fact that the gaming industry has been doing this for years already. He even goes on to suggest that the industry take some cues from the film industry’s efforts to keep kids away from objectionable content. If he cared to get his facts straight, he’d realize it’s much harder to get a violent video game than to sneak into a rated R movie. Retail outlets like Walmart and Bestbuy already check the ID’s of customers purchasing rated “M” games.

This blatant grandstanding for votes is off-putting and gross. It plays into our cynicism, and erodes our confidence in government.