Quotulatiousness

May 17, 2010

He comes not to praise Canadian universities, but to bury them

Filed under: Cancon, Education, Law — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 18:37

The Guardian summarizes an article by Robert Martin:

A mighty steam organ of an article, adorned with the title University Legal Education in Canada is Corrupt Beyond Repair, blasts forth in the October 2009 issue of the scholarly journal Interchange. It’s the handiwork of Robert Martin, professor of law, emeritus, at the University of Western Ontario.

Martin warms up with a little tune about university students: “Each fall, a horde of illiterate, ignorant cretins enters Canada’s universities. A few years later, they all move on, just as illiterate, just as ignorant and rather more cretinous, but now armed with bits of paper, which most of them are probably not able to read, called degrees.”

Then, in deeper tones, Martin sounds off about universities: “Canadian universities are closed and fearful institutions, which actively enforce uniformity on their members.”

[. . .]

Martin brings everything to a rousing conclusion that, one way or another, pretty much explains everything:

“There are two phrases that can be used to describe every law faculty in Canada. The phrases are: ‘feminist seminary’ and ‘psychotic kindergarten’.”

I guess it’s safer to say things like this after your active teaching career is behind you . . .

May 14, 2010

QotD: Western civilization – stick a fork in it

Filed under: Government, Law, Liberty, Quotations, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 13:17

In the history of civilization — and that’s how old terrorism is, it wasn’t invented on Sept. 11, 2001 — terrorists have never, on their own, succeeded in destroying or significantly altering a culture. They utterly lack the resources to do so.

Where they have succeeded, terrorists have done so only by so frightening a society into abandoning its fundamental values.

That guy who tried to fly a plane into the White House? The one who failed to detonate an explosive device in an airplane approaching Metro Detroit International? The shoe bomber? The guy who just failed to set off a bomb in Times Square? The homegrown terrorists at Virginia Tech and Fort Hood?

The combined death toll from their acts is less than 100. The U.S., supposedly the world’s sole superpower, has a population of 308 million.

The distinction between a global superpower and a nation afraid of its own shadow is becoming more difficult to discern with every attack on the U.S. homeland. Each has been met with an over-reaction — in the media and among government officials — that would embarrass the Londoners who stoically endured the Blitz.

David Olive, “The terrorists win”, Toronto Star, 2010-05-14

May 13, 2010

To the drug warriors, this isn’t a bug: it’s a feature

Filed under: Law, Liberty, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:32

Jacob Sullum urges against the adoption of DUID (driving under the influence of drugs) laws:

Under these laws, a driver who has marijuana metabolites in his urine is automatically considered impaired, even though he probably isn’t. Because marijuana metabolites can be detected in urine long after the drug’s effects have worn off (up to two weeks for occasional users, months for frequent users), a “zero tolerance” DUID standard punishes pot smokers who have not harmed or endangered anyone. It is a way of imposing an extra punishment for marijuana use under the guise of traffic safety, sending unimpaired drivers to jail as public menaces because they smoked pot days or weeks before getting behind the wheel. It’s like arresting someone for drunk driving on a Wednesday because he drank a few beers the previous Saturday. And it is completely unnecessary, since a standard based on THC in the blood (analogous to the standard for DUI) would be a much better indicator of impairment.

All this is sensible, logical, and totally irrelevant to the mentality of most “drug warriors”: they love the idea of being able to punish drug users out of proportion to any harm they cause (or, in the vast majority of THC-intoxicated users, total lack of harm to the public).

May 12, 2010

QotD: National Post goes full Anarchist

Filed under: Law, Liberty, Quotations — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 14:14

Speaking of Queen Victoria, the Calgary Herald‘s editorialists are disappointed that Banff National Park is banning alcohol at its campgrounds on the 24th of May weekend. Better enforcement would take care of “the young rowdies in the tents,” they insist, without denying “the family out for the weekend in the motorhome” a glass of wine with dinner. We suggest such families do as we did when we were young rowdies in tents on the 24th of May weekend at parks where alcohol was banned: Ignore it. This land is your land, this land is my land, pass me another Big Rock.

Chris Selley, “Full Pundit: Jesus comes to Ottawa”, National Post, 2010-05-12

May 5, 2010

Three reasons not to remove the Downfall parodies

Filed under: History, Law, Media, WW2 — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:50

3 Reasons YouTube Shouldn’t Censor Downfall Parodies

[. . .]

It’s understandable why Downfall’s production company, Constantin Film, might be upset that such a serious movie is being burlesqued, but pushing YouTube to ban the parodies is a terrible idea for at least three reasons:

1. It’s fair use! The parodies, which transform a few minutes of a three-hour movie, are clearly legit under existing copyright laws. Because they clearly transform the original and have no possibility of confusing viewers, the parodies are clearly protected speech.

2. This is free promotion! As George Lucas could tell the filmmakers, fan-generated videos help keep the original source material vital and relevant. Lucas used to try to police all Star Wars knock-offs, until he realized that his audience was promoting his films more effectively than he ever could. More people have surely seen Downfall due to the popularity of the parodies.

3. Let’s keep the Internet creative! The greatest cultural development over the past 20 or so years has been technologies that allow producers and consumers to create and enjoy an ever-increasing array of creative expression in an ever-increasing array of circumstances. This development is nowhere more powerful than on the Internet, which has unleashed a whole new universe of writing, music, video, and more. Indeed, YouTube is itself one of the great conduits of cyberspace. Pulling down the Downfall parodies may be within YouTube’s rights, but it nonetheless strikes a blow to the heart of what is totally awesome about the Internet.

April 23, 2010

QotD: Seeing the justice system through different eyes

Filed under: Cancon, Law, Quotations — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:59

By revealing how a city employee seemed to spend virtually all his time following her in a city truck, she has directed much-needed attention to city’s supervisory practices.

That’s in addition to highlighting, by explaining what it is like to be stalked, the nature of — and remedy for — a crime that can be devastating in its psychological effects, even if nothing worse happens.

De Blois, 40, who works at Youth Court, told The Gazette’s Katherine Wilton that at first she thought she could handle the situation herself. But in the months before the stalker, 49-year-old André Martel, was arrested, De Blois said she felt terrorized. She lost 23 pounds and had trouble sleeping.

Even after Martel pleaded guilty to criminal harassment and was conditionally released on bail, he continued to follow De Blois, she says. The lawyer suddenly saw the justice system through different eyes. “I can’t imagine what it must be like for a regular person who is not a lawyer, who doesn’t have contacts with a police officer or a crown prosecutor,” she said.

“Why were taxpayers subsidizing a stalker?”, Montreal Gazette, 2010-04-23

Senator McCain’s latest assault on “due process”

Filed under: Law, Liberty, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 10:02

Whenever I think badly of President Obama (which is a pretty regular event), I have to remind myself that his main opponent in the 2008 US presidential campaign would have been even worse on civil liberties:

Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) has introduced a bill that would allow the President to imprison an unlimited number of American citizens (as well as foreigners) indefinitely without trial. Known as The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010, or S. 3081, the bill authorizes the President to deny a detainee a trial by jury simply by designating that person an “enemy belligerent.”

Even better, should someone manage to be released, the notion of “return to the battlefield” apparently includes exercising your freedom of speech:

[T]he U.S. military has officially classified many former Guantanamo detainees, such as England’s Tipton Three, as having “returned to the battlefield” for merely granting an interview for the movie The Road to Guantanamo. Another five innocent Uighur (Ethnic Turkish Muslims from China) detainees had been listed as having “returned to the battlefield” after their release because their lawyer had written an op-ed protesting their prolonged detention without trial after they had been mistakenly picked up by a greedy bounty hunter. Writing an opinion or speaking an opinion against the party in power in Washington can — and already has — made some people “enemy belligerents.”

So, thank goodness Senator McCain didn’t become president, even if it means putting up with Barack Obama for at least four years . . .

April 22, 2010

QotD: Ignatieff’s gun registry position

Filed under: Cancon, Law, Liberty, Quotations — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 08:40

Ignatieff feels that by tweaking the system, he can make it more palatable to rural Canadians and less objectionable to the eight Liberals who originally voted for its abolition. He thinks that by dropping the renewal fees registered gun owners pay and making failure to register a ticketing rather than criminal violation for first-time offenders, he has struck a compromise that will allow him to rein in his caucus while still being seen as a champion of gun control.

He hasn’t. Ignatieff’s plan won’t make a single Canadian safer. It will make the dysfunctional, obsolete registry more expensive while simultaneously making it weaker. The registry has already failed and permanently alienated large swaths of voters from the Liberal party. Why is Ignatieff the last person to realize this?

To accomplish his “goals,” Ignatieff has not only decided to write off any hopes for a Liberal expansion into rural Canada for a generation, further relegating his party to also-ran status anywhere outside of downtown Toronto and Montreal, but has also called into question his much-discussed respect for Parliament. Private member’s bills have traditionally been opportunities for all MPs to vote their conscience — an important tradition Ignatieff would set aside just to prop up the long-gun registry.

Matt Gurney, “Michael Ignatieff’s brand new mistake”, National Post, 2010-04-22

April 21, 2010

When copyright goes bad

Filed under: Law, Media, Technology — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:09

H/T to Cory Doctorow.

“The biggest defeat for internet freedom in the UK since it opened for business”

Filed under: Britain, Law, Media, Technology — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 10:12

Andrew Orlowski looks at the overwhelming legislative victory for the music industry in the UK:

Back in January, a senior music business figure explained to me that Clause 17, which gave open-ended powers to the Secretary of State, was unlikely to survive the wash-up. But he didn’t much care; the other sections which compelled the ISPs to take action against infringers were good enough. Anything else was a bonus – possibly even a distraction. Yet to the amazement of the music business, web blocking is now legislation.

I think this is a watershed in internet campaigning. It’s not just a tactical defeat, it’s a full-on charge of the light brigade, and the biggest defeat for internet freedom in the UK since it opened for business. I’ve spent time talking to legislators and protagonists, and concluded that it was avoidable. Much of the argument was already lost when the Bill was introduced last November, admittedly, but campaigners’ tactics made a bad situation worse. This explodes the idea — sometimes called the ‘Overton Window’ in the jargon — that by adopting an extreme position, you pull the centre ground your way. The digital rights campaigners forced waverers into the music business camp, and hardened their support for tougher measures against file sharers.

In the end, the BPI wiped the floor with the Open Rights Group.

April 20, 2010

If this doesn’t anger you, there’s something wrong with you

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Law, Liberty — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:19

Kate Kendell looks at how California’s inhumane and paternalistic Sonoma County government “legally” did horrible things to an elderly gay couple:

One evening, Harold fell down the front steps of their home and was taken to the hospital. Based on their medical directives alone, Clay should have been consulted in Harold’s care from the first moment. Tragically, county and health care workers instead refused to allow Clay to see Harold in the hospital. The county then ultimately went one step further by isolating the couple from each other, placing the men in separate nursing homes.

Ignoring Clay’s significant role in Harold’s life, the county continued to treat Harold like he had no family and went to court seeking the power to make financial decisions on his behalf. Outrageously, the county represented to the judge that Clay was merely Harold’s “roommate.” The court denied their efforts, but did grant the county limited access to one of Harold’s bank accounts to pay for his care.

What happened next is even more chilling.

These men had been married (legally or not) for twenty years, yet the bureaucratic solons of Sonoma County deliberately separated them, stole their joint property, and effectively incarcerated them both in different nursing homes.

The surviving partner has launched a legal action, and I hope his case is decided properly — and that the county and its employees are properly punished for their actions:

With the help of a dedicated and persistent court-appointed attorney, Anne Dennis of Santa Rosa, Clay was finally released from the nursing home. Ms. Dennis, along with Stephen O’Neill and Margaret Flynn of Tarkington, O’Neill, Barrack & Chong, now represent Clay in a lawsuit against the county, the auction company, and the nursing home, with technical assistance from NCLR. A trial date has been set for July 16, 2010 in the Superior Court for the County of Sonoma.

Update, 22 April: According to Radley Balko, Sonoma County has (finally) responded to the report, claiming that the injuries to Harold Scull were actually a result of domestic abuse:

The county says Scull filed a report to that effect, and that the abuse was documented by hospital workers. But the letter adds that no criminal charges were filed against Greene.

I’m not sure what to make of that. I’m not familiar with California law on the matter, but while a report of domestic abuse may be enough to keep Greene from visiting Scull in the hospital (and for that to be a sensible decision), without criminal charges, I don’t know how it allows the county to forcibly intern Greene in a nursing home and auction off all of his belongings. Then again, if the initial lawsuit neglected to mention the domestic abuse report, it’s possible that it also overstated or misstated the county’s actions with respect to Greene’s property and nursing home stay.

Americans’ eroded right to be free from invasive searches

Filed under: Law, Liberty, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 07:23

John Perry Barlow shared a link to this Washington Times editorial, which clearly illustrates how the US federal government has managed to undermine Americans’ right to privacy:

Federal security workers are now free to snoop through more than just your undergarments and luggage at the airport. Thanks to a recent series of federal court decisions, the digital belongings of international fliers are now open for inspection. This includes reading the saved e-mails on your laptop, scanning the address book on your iPhone or BlackBerry and closely scrutinizing your digital vacation snapshots.

Unlike the more common confiscations of dangerous Evian bottles and fingernail clippers, these searches are not being done in the name of safety. The digital seizures instead are part of a disturbing trend of federal agencies using legal gimmicks to sidestep Fourth Amendment constitutional protections. This became clear in an April 8 court ruling that found admissible the evidence obtained by officials who had peeped at a passenger’s laptop files at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston.

Didn’t you guys fight a war a couple of hundred years back over the 18th century equivalent of this kind of thing?

April 16, 2010

QotD: Blog Post EULA

Filed under: Humour, Law, Quotations, Technology — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 09:05

READ CAREFULLY. By reading this blog post, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (“BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.

Cory Doctorow, “Video-game shoppers surrender their immortal souls”, BoingBoing, 2010-04-16

April 15, 2010

The technical term is “totally insane”

Filed under: Law, Media, Technology — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:12

Cory Doctorow has a horrible dystopian future in mind. No, it’s not the background to his next science fiction novel — it’s what the MPAA and RIAA think our future should be like:

The MPAA and RIAA have submitted their master plan for enforcing copyright to the new Office of Intellectual Property Enforcement. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Richard Esguerra points out, it’s a startlingly distopian work of science fiction. The entertainment industry calls for:

* spyware on your computer that detects and deletes infringing materials;
* mandatory censorware on all Internet connections to interdict transfers of infringing material;
* border searches of personal media players, laptops and thumb-drives;
* international bullying to force other countries to implement the same policies;
* and free copyright enforcement provided by Fed cops and agencies (including the Department of Homeland Security!).

There’s a technical term for this in policy circles. I believe it’s “Totally insane.”

I find the audacity of (as Cory calls ’em) “Big Content” to be breathtaking: it’s as if they’ve never heard of fairness or privacy. If they get their wish, we’ll never hear of ’em again either.

As Greg Sandoval points out, there’s almost no reliable data to quantify the problem all this draconian lawmaking and enforcement is supposed to address:

“Three widely cited U.S. government estimates of economic losses resulting from counterfeiting cannot be substantiated due to the absence of underlying studies,” the GAO said. “Each method (of measuring) has limitations, and most experts observed that it is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the economy-wide impacts.”

In what appears to be a setback for Hollywood and the recording industry, the government said that it sees problems with the methodology used in studies those sectors have long relied on to support claims that piracy was destructive to their businesses. The accountability office even noted the existence of data that shows piracy may benefit consumers in some cases.

[. . .]

“Consumers may use pirated goods to ‘sample’ music, movies, software, or electronic games before purchasing legitimate copies,” the GAO continued. “(This) may lead to increased sales of legitimate goods.”

Properly defining what are “public goods”

Filed under: Economics, Law, Media, Technology — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 07:50

Milena Popova, guest-blogging while Charles Stross is out experiencing Japan, has a long discussion up about public goods and why content (digitally speaking) is a classic example:

There’s a theory in economics about things called “public goods”. To understand the distinction between private goods, public goods and the couple of shades of grey in between, you first need to get your head around two concepts: rival and excludable.

Rival: (Wikipedia seems to call this “rivalrous”, but when I were a young economist lass we used to call it rival so I’ll stick with that.) A good is rival if my consumption of it diminishes the amount of the good that you can consume. Say we had 10 apples, and I ate one. There would now be 9 apples left which you could eat. If we had one apple and I ate all of it, tough luck, no apples for you. Knowing whether a good is rival or not tells you whether you want to use the market (if I were a good economist that would possibly be capital-M Market 😉 to allocate access to that good. If it’s rival, then the market is an efficient way of allocating the good; if it’s not, then you might want to think about other ways of getting your good to people. Remember that scary anti-piracy clip at the start of your DVDs which says “You wouldn’t steal a handbag”? Hold that thought for a minute.

Excludable: A good is excludable if you physically have a way of stopping people from consuming it. Back to the apples: if they’re in my fridge, inside my locked house and you don’t have a key, you can’t have my apples. (Yes, yes, you could break in. The law provides additional protection here, but ultimately there’s probably a better way for you to obtain an apple than breaking into my house, right?) Knowing whether a good is excludable tells you whether you can use the market to distribute the good. If your good is excludable, go ahead and sell it on the open market; if it’s not — you might struggle because you can’t stop people from just taking it for free.

So. Most of the goods you deal with in your day-to-day life are both rival and excludable. We call them pure private goods. But there’s a few things here and there that aren’t as clear-cut, and this is where it gets a little messy.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress