Category: Politics

The State Supreme Court of Washington has ruled that children have an expectation of privacy when in phone conversations.  This ruling basically states that information collected while listening-in on your child’s phone conversations in in-admissible in court. 

The case involved a 17-year-old boy who told his 14-year-old girlfriend that he mugged an elderly lady. The girls mother was listening on another phone line and informed the police. The 17 year old was then convicted of a felony.  He had served nine months of his sentence when the judges overturned the conviction, saying: “The right to individual privacy holds fast even when the individuals are teenagers.  The judge basically decided that the mother was acting as an agent of the police (the police informed her that her daughters boyfriend was trouble and that she should watch out for him.)

How dare a mother worry about her 14 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER talking to a 17 YEAR OLD BOY; who just happens to turn out to be a FELON.  </sarcasm>

While this may not sound that bad at first (it doesn’t keep your from listening, just calling the cops) the ruling is ultimately destructive to the ability of parents to raise their children.  If I, for example, overhear my daughter being threatened on the phone by a 35 year old boyfriend; I am unable to use the evidence from that conversation to get a restraining order if my daughter feels it was a private conversation.  In addition that evidence could not be used it the court case the convict the same 35 year old “boyfriend” for rape/murder.

Ultimately, if you call my underage child (at my home) you have lost any reasonable expectation of privacy… PERIOD!

THIS IS THE START OF A PIECE I WAS PUTTING TOGETHER FOR THE 2004 U.S. ELECTIONS: IT IS HERE FOR REFERENCE AND WAS NEITHER FINISHED OR CORRECTED.

I am a fairly opinionated individual, especially when it comes to politics. With the presidential election year in full swing it is only natural that people (myself included) start posting and discussing their œpick for President of the United States of America.

Before I get too far into my thoughts let me first be clear about my particular political leanings, because I don’t believe its possible to be entirely unbiased. It’s makes more sense to be candid about ones biases, thereby letting people weigh your arguments in the light of their source. Having biases doesn’t automatically invalidate someones opinion (because without influences we would have NO opinions) but it does allow us a context for that opinion.

If I were to use commonly defined American political œclassifications I would have to call myself a Libertarian. Generally I am socially Liberal and economically Conservative. In addition, for the last 4 years I have been a registered Republican (although that may change soon enough.) My general rule for the role of government is that; with the exceptions of national defense and law enforcement, it should do very little. I am in favor of a national sales tax and/or a granulated flat tax. I am in favor of smaller (state controlled) government. I am opposed to prayer in public schools. I am in favor of school vouchers. I am opposed to the death penalty. I am opposed to abortion. I am pro gun rights. I am in favor of legalizing most drugs.

Basically my personal beliefs fall pretty much in line with what the founding fathers conceptualized our nation being. My reasons for wanting to see the government get out of almost all aspects of our society is mostly for practical reasons. The government is, almost without exception, bad at doing things. When a dollar is given by private contribution to cancer research it is used a hundred times more efficiently than when the government issued public money’s to the very same cause.

Think Enron and MCI screwed the American people? Every year the Federal Government does more to hurt the economy than Enron and MCI did. The amount of money lost (as in they have no idea where it went) by the federal government in the last decade is in the trillions of dollars. Literally millions of jobs are lost on a regular basis because of government mismanagement. History has shown that Americans do better if the Federal Government get out of their way; instead of trying to help them. The only historical exception to this rule seems to be in the area of civil rights.

This article from the New York Times talks about the slow slide of American technology dominance as the world becomes more advanced. The article is from the NYT so take it with a grain of salt, but the tracking numbers referenced are interesting.

One of my college professors was a lead engineer for the critical path data on the U.S. Super-conducting Super-collider when the government canceled the project. His statement at the time was “this will put the Europeans in the lead in particle physics research for the next 50 years.” Politicians in the U.S. (over the last 50 years) have been thinking more and more in the short term, and I am afraid we are starting to reap the rewards of our inaction.

One of the most distructive pieces of legislation comming out of Congress might be this little beauty, at least for programmers. What is it and what does it to?  Click on the link below to find out more…

Anyone here ever heard of Senator Fritz Hollings the Democrat from South Carolina? This gentleman (along with several other Senators) wants to make all programs have government approved copy protection put in them. Everything from Windows “copy” and “paste” to video games and camcorders. It would have essentially the same effect if you required that all writers to write using only government approved pencils and paper; writing only government approved content.

So why in the world would someone want this kind of draconian law knowing that would virtually stop software innovation within the United States? The Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America feel its the only way to stop IP piracy that has been occurring since the proliferation of the Internet. While it may be true that excessive software regulation may be the only thing to save the MPAA and RIAA, fundamentally the problem comes down to; do we really want to give up our personal software rights to prop-up an obsolete industry structure?

Make no mistake about it, this fight is NOT about wither quality music and movies will be created. Nor is it about wither musicians, actors, and directors will be able to make a living from their content. Music was being created, paid for, and distributed long before the recording industry existed; and it will continue to do so long after. Both the MPAA and RIAA know this.

Computer networks and digital content are changing the way information is available. Fundamentally (regardless of what we thought during the dot com bubble) the Internet is about knowledge proliferation. At no other time in history has information been so easily available at such an inexpensive price. Organizations like the RIAA and MPAA are content (i.e. information) distributors and because there is a much faster, easier, and less pensive way to deliver content, these groups are finding themselves becoming extinct. And they know it. They could change their business models but the sad reality for them is that they will no longer be in control. One way or the other they will forever loose the iron grip (and by extension huge profits) they once had on information.

…and I am not willing to pay the price of my freedoms to keep it from happening.