From the U.K. comes a new law that its backers claim will ban violent pornography:

Five years ago Jane Longhurst, a teacher from Brighton, was murdered. It later emerged her killer had been compulsively accessing websites such as Club Dead and Rape Action, which contained images of women being abused and violated.

The victim's mother has been campaigning for a law that would ban even the mere possession or viewing of such images, essentially treating some forms of adult pornography as if it involved children.

Then there's the question of just how the law defines the banned material:

"Obviously anything that leads to violence against women has to be taken very seriously," says Baroness Miller. "But you have to be very careful about the definition of 'extreme pornography' and they have not nearly been careful enough."

She has suggested the new act adopt the legal test set out in the OPA, which bans images which "tend to deprave and corrupt".

But the government has sought to broaden the definition and the bill includes phrases such as "an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life".

When asked about how this law will affect people who enjoy a little kinky sex, Mrs Longhurst responds in true nanny form:

There is no reason for this stuff. I can't see why people need to see it.

That's the creed of every petty legislative tyrant in the world: I don't need it, and I don't understand it, so we ought to ban it for my enjoyment.

And make no mistake, this is all about Mrs Longhurst's enjoyment. She can invoke her poor dead daughter all she wants, but her daughter will be just as dead after this law has passed. This law is about making Mrs Longhurst feel good about herself. It makes her feel like she did something to honor her daughter.

While I'd be happy to see her recover control over her life after this terrible tragedy, she has no business hurting other people in the process. This law will subject people with private sexual quirks to intrusive and humiliating investigations. They may even end up in jail.

Next time Mrs Longhurst responds to criticism by playing the dead daughter card, she's likely to be surprised when her critics respond with the cards for their imprisoned spouses, brothers, parents, and children.

(Hat tip: Reason.)

New York Criminal Defense Lawyer Scott Greenfield has some comments about a disturbing Fourth Amendment ruling.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects everyone in the United States from unreasonable searches. And I'm pretty sure that the U.S. government can't conduct arbitrary searches of U.S. citizens outside the country either. But when we cross the border, anything goes.

In the interest of fighting smuggling and preventing the spread of diseases, government agents at a border crossing can search the affects of anyone---even a U.S. citizen---without having to justify the search. Crossing the border is justification enough.

It's getting even worse. The 9th Circuit has just ruled that the government can even search computer hard drives at the border, treating them as just another container entering the country.

As Scott explains in considerable detail, this is an absurd decision. First of all, unlike diseased agricultural products or radiological weapons, there's nothing inherently dangerous about letting hard drives full of data into the country. Vast amounts of unregulated data already enter the country all the time over transoceanic network trunks.

Second, many people have lots of very private data on their hard drives. As Scott puts it,

Judge Pregerson got it when he concluded that computers are like diaries, holding our personal secrets.

If you think you might ever transport a computer over the border, read Scott's post and write your representatives.

Check out the Security Check-in toy set from Playmobil.  Here's the description:

Every single smuggler is caught at the security check-in. With a modern X-ray machine every item not allowed on board is detected. At the same time, the passengers have to pass the passenger check-in under the watchful eyes of the security staff. Only then can they start in their hard-earned vacation.

The ad copy doesn't say if the passenger's shoes are removable.

(Hat tip: Scott Bludorn.)

[This is a little late by now, but I thought I'd put it out there anyway.]

A few days ago, the Wall Street Journal had an editorial about the wiretapping bill in the Senate. Let's sample a few choice phrases:

The Senate takes up wiretapping of foreign terrorists this week, and the stakes couldn't be higher.

Remember that "the stakes couldn't be higher" when we get to the more specific parts of the editorial.

Not long ago Democrats seemed ready to move a bipartisan bill passed by the Senate Intelligence Committee last autumn. But under pressure from the anti-antiterror left, they are now bending and will try to weaken the bill on the Senate floor.

Ah, the "anti-antiterror" left, because wanting to cripple our antiterrorism capabilities is the only reason to oppose the wiretapping bill.

By far the worst threat is an amendment from Senator Chris Dodd (D., Conn.) to deny legal immunity to telephone companies that cooperated with the government on these wiretaps after 9/11. The companies face multiple lawsuits, so a denial of even retrospective immunity would certainly lead to less such cooperation in the future.

So, according to the WSJ editorial board, the stakes that "couldn't be higher" are a few civil lawsuits against some communications companies? Really?

As for the lawsuits' causing these companies to cooperate less in the future, I don't see how the two are related. After all, they're being sued because what they did was legally wrong. They had a contractual obligation to protect their customers' data, and I'm pretty sure they were also required to protect the data under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

If they had waited for a legal request from the FISA court like they were supposed to, they wouldn't need immunity now. And if the new wiretap bill becomes law, they'll be free and clear to cooperate. The idea that communications companies will be reluctant to comply with a legal wiretap request is absurd---most of them barely hesitated to comply with an illegal request.

The editorial goes on with a few paragraphs of liberal-bashing political gobbledygook, and then there's this:

[Bush has] also acceded to...Oregon Senator Ron Wyden's amendment requiring the FISA court to approve all overseas surveillance of U.S. citizens. This would go beyond current law, which allows eavesdropping of Americans abroad if the Attorney General makes a finding of "probable cause" of some criminal act. The Wyden provision would transfer that "probable cause" judgment to unelected judges -- which means that Americans abroad who are suspected of aiding terrorists would get more wiretap judicial review than do Americans suspected of drug offenses.

Well, I'll give them that last part. It is absurd that Americans suspected of drug offenses get less due process than Americans suspected of aiding terrorists. Obviously, Americans suspected of drug offenses need better protection. Perhaps we need a bill clarifying that the government has to respect the rights of it's citizens everywhere in the world.

What the hell is this nonsense about "unelected judges"? Aren't all federal judges unelected? More to the point, isn't the Attorney General unelected? Aren't the FBI agents who will be placing and monitoring the taps unelected?

The issue here is accountability. An Attorney General must answer to Congressional oversight, and ultimately to the voters through the President. By contrast, we still don't know which FISA judges were responsible for imposing the infamous "wall" of separation between intelligence and law enforcement that so harmed our ability to fight al Qaeda in the 1990s.

Look, we have an independent judiciary, and this is how the system works. If government agents want to tap people's phones, invade people's homes, or otherwise invade their privacy, they need an independent judge to approve it. Maybe if this system were a little more transparent we wouldn't have these problems.

Mr. Bush would do better by future Presidents if he opposed the Wyden amendment, and any further concessions would amount to an abdication as Commander in Chief. He has the political high ground on this issue. If Congress does more harm, he should declare that to protect the country he'll use his Constitutional war powers to wiretap al Qaeda anyway and toss the issue squarely in the middle of the Presidential campaign.

Reading this, you'd think we were talking about tapping phone calls between al Qaeda cells in the Anbar Province, but the new FISA bill would allow the Bush administration to listen in on conversations by U.S. citizens without a warrant. If they gave up on that seemingly unconstitutional provision, they wouldn't need the cooperation of the telecom companies, because the telecoms won't get sued for complying with a legal court order for a wiretap.

Finally, I can't help being suspicious about the intensity of the Bush administration's efforts to derail the lawsuits against the telecom companies. The supposed justification---ensuring future cooperation---makes no sense, since future cooperation can easily be obtained by future court orders. It's pretty clear the Bush administration has been playing fast and loose with the wiretapping laws, and they're worried the lawsuits will reveal what they've been up to.

I was going to write something about the disgraceful article by Cato's Roger Pilon in The Wall Street Journal extolling the virtues of warrentless wiretapping of U.S. citizens, but Julian Sanchez has got that covered.

The evil lawmaking just keeps on coming.

Automobiles with aftermarket exhaust systems may be seized if they pass through Rossville, Illinois and a police officer thinks the vehicle is making too much noise. The village will also authorize police to grab a vehicle if an unruly passenger "resists" an officer's commands.

This is, of course, another form of profitable punishment that allows towns and cities to make money off of punishing their citizens, but it's also something much worse.

The jurisdictions have also come up with a number of clever ways to accuse motorists of crimes meriting confiscation. Rockford and Peoria will seize cars with loud stereos. Oak Forest will seize the car of anyone accused of crimes like shoplifting that have nothing whatsoever to do with driving. In all jurisdictions, the seizure takes place upon a mere accusation by police -- not after any finding of guilt in a court of law. Kane County will even keep a confiscated car belonging to a motorist later found innocent.

Confiscation without trial is confiscation without law. If any cop can take your car just because he wants to, then you pretty much have to do what the cop says. You no longer have to obey the law, you have to obey the man with the gun.

This is lawlessness.

By passing laws like this, Rockford and Peoria and Kane County and all the other places have have turned their police forces into predatory street gangs, into auto theft rings with badges.

The Transportation Security Agency is training people to look carefully at people's faces to detect signs of fear or anxiety that might indicate a terrorist.

Fear and anxiety at the airport? In the security lines? My God, do you think they'll find anybody like that?

How about rage? If I'm trying to get through the TSA security station and I'm filled with boiling, pent-up, anti-authoritarian rage, do you think they'll notice?

(For the record: I am always filled with boiling, pent-up, anti-authoritarian rage. It's what I do.)

The increased use—and abuse—of Tasers by police has been the subject of some recent controversy. Kip Esquire sums it up perfectly:

A big part of the problem with tasers is that they were originally marketed as a substitute for guns, but have become a substitute for exertion. Tasers are, increasingly, not used to save lives but to merely make cops' lives easier.

Read the whole thing.

John Kass breaks this shocking story about life in the city that banned foie gras:

Window washer Sam Hardison has been charged by City Hall with another crime of the century:

Falling asleep on a CTA train, with a cookbook in his lap. So the poor guy may have to pay City Hall a fine of up to $300 for sleeping dangerously. That's a lot of windows to wash for a nap on the CTA, where payrollers and political hacks have been napping for years, when they're not taking double pensions, golfing and goofing off.

Apparently, it's illegal to sleep in public in Chicago. I can understand that the City doesn't want bums sleeping all over the place, but this guy is a paying rider on the train. He worked hard all day and fell asleep on his ride home, and now the City wants to take several days' wages from him?

"I looked the officer right in the eye and said, 'You've got to be kidding. I have to go to court on this?' And he said, 'Yes, you do,'" Hardison, a West Sider, told us the other day about his June 5 ticket on the Red Line.

The officer's partner didn't like Hardison's attitude, which he says was shock and astonishment, not anger...

"And the other officer said, 'If you don't be quiet, we will take you to jail right now. We'll arrest you,'" Hardison said. "I let them write their citations. I felt that it was not right, but what can I do?"

He's getting free help from a lawyer...and all this publicity might help a bit too.

Update: The city backs down.

Starting July 1, Virginia will have "traffic tickets that come with assessments of up to $3000 in addition to an annual point tax that tops out at $700 a year for as long as the points remain."

Driving as little as 15 MPH over the limit on an interstate highway now brings six license demerit points, a fine of up to $2500, up to one year in jail, and a new mandatory $1050 tax...Although the amount of the tax can add up quickly, the law forbids judges from reducing or suspending it in any way.

Can you imagine getting a $3000 fine for a traffic violation? That would be painful for me, and my income is pretty decent. For a poor person, this would be a devastating financial setback. It's pretty clear this is all about raising revenue and has nothing to do with safety.

It also has nothing to do with justice. Everybody breaks traffic laws all the time, and the cops and the prosecutors have broad discretion over who to charge. If every cop can essentially impose a $3000 fine on any driver who pisses them off, it's just one more nail in the coffin of rule of law.

Read the whole ugly story.

Radley Balko on videotaping the police:

There's been a rash of arrests of late for videotaping police, and it's a disturbing development...

...

As noted, police are public servants, paid with taxpayer dollars. Not only that, but they're given extraordinary power and authority we don't give to other public servants: They're armed; they can make arrests; they're allowed to break the very laws they're paid to enforce; they can use lethal force for reasons other than self-defense; and, of course, the police are permitted to videotape us without our consent.

It's critical that we retain the right to record, videotape or photograph the police while they're on duty. Not only for symbolic reasons (when agents of the state can confiscate evidence of their own wrongdoing, you're treading on seriously perilous ground), but as an important check on police excesses.

There's a deep inconsistancy when the police who have such a broad mission to observe and investigate everyone else are attempting to avoid being watched and investigated themselves.

It's absurd for the police to assert the power to pull people over for a traffic violation, detain them, question them, insist on identification, have a dog sniff around, search people, vehicles, and buildings, and then get upset and vindictive when someone videotapes their own activities.

Police might well argue that it interferes with their job when people make a recording. Even ignoring the implied violation of the laws of physics, this is just special pleading. The rest of us are routinely observed by police and sometimes stopped and questioned. It's no fun, but if we can to put up with it, they can too. After all, somebody has to watch the watchers.

Be sure to read the rest of Radley Balko's article.

A few days ago Kip Esquire posted a terrific article about the likely responses to the Virginia Tech massacre from our politicians, and the dangers we face from that.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't? Sounds like job for — politicians!

Seriously, think back to September 11. The first knee-jerk reactions were "Never again!" and "We must do everything possible to prevent this!" You don't want another 9/11, do you?

The result was the Patriot Act — and much more — which eventually morphed into the current "Terror v. Civil Liberties" morass we now find ourselves in. To the Bush Administration and its apologists, no cost to privacy is too high, no restriction on liberty too extreme. You don't want another 9/11, do you?

Meanwhile, it is almost certain that, before long, calls of "Never again!" and "We must do everything possible to prevent this!" will bellow from the halls of Congress. You don't want another Blacksburg, do you?

Read the whole thing.

The Washington Post has a fascinating anonymous op-ed by someone who received a national security letter (NSL). These letters are demands for information by the FBI (or other agencies, I presume) that have not been approved by any court and which come with a gag order prohibiting their disclosure to anyone.

According to a report by the Justice department's inspector general, the FBI has issued an insane number of these letters, far more than could possibly be justified by legitimate issues of national security.

The author's report of life under the gag order is chilling:

Under the threat of criminal prosecution, I must hide all aspects of my involvement in the case -- including the mere fact that I received an NSL -- from my colleagues, my family and my friends. When I meet with my attorneys I cannot tell my girlfriend where I am going or where I have been. I hide any papers related to the case in a place where she will not look. When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to look them in the eye and lie.

This man has not been convicted of a crime, he's not even a suspect, and no court has ordered his silence. Some FBI employee just decided to force him to do something and not tell anyone about it. As Jim Henley puts it:

This is tyranny. Not “the threat of” tyranny, not “practically” tyranny - the thing itself.

Want more proof? From the op-ed:

I found it particularly difficult to be silent about my concerns while Congress was debating the reauthorization of the Patriot Act in 2005 and early 2006. If I hadn't been under a gag order, I would have contacted members of Congress to discuss my experiences and to advocate changes in the law.

In our democracy, this man was prevented from complaining to his elected representatives about a matter of government that he found disturbing.

That's just not right. I think, also, that it's clearly unconstitutional. And even if it's not ruled unconstitutional, it's still a bad idea to give random FBI employees such unreviewed powers over Americans. That's not how this country is supposed to work, as the anonymous author points out:

I recognize that there may sometimes be a need for secrecy in certain national security investigations. But I've now been under a broad gag order for three years, and other NSL recipients have been silenced for even longer. At some point -- a point we passed long ago -- the secrecy itself becomes a threat to our democracy.

In the unlikely event that anyone with national security responsibilities is reading this, please understand: If you are investigating a legitimate matter of national security—war, espionage, real terrorism—and you think I have some information which will help you, just ask me about it. I would be proud to help catch a terrorist or a spy. I would be proud to help make our nation strong against its enemies. And if you need me to keep my mouth shut, I will do that too. All I ask is that you treat me like a fellow patriot.

(Hat tip: Balko)

Brooksville, Florida is apparently being run by fascists:

According to the proposed ordinance, a vehicle owner must pay a parking fine within 72 hours if a meter maid claims his automobile was improperly parked, incurring tickets worth between $5 and $250. Failure to pay this amount results in the assessment of a fifty-percent "late fee." After seven days, the city will place a lien on the car owner's home for the amount of the ticket plus late fees, attorney fees and an extra $15 fine. The fees quickly turn a $5 ticket into a debt worth several hundred dollars, growing at a one-percent per month interest rate. The ordinance does not require the city to provide notice to the homeowner at any point so that after ninety days elapse, the city will foreclose. If the motorist does not own a home, it will seize his vehicle after the failure to pay three parking tickets.

Any motorist who believes a parking ticket may have been improperly issued must first pay a $250 "appeal fee" within seven days to have the case heard by a contract employee of the city. This employee will determine whether the city should keep the appeal fee, plus the cost of the ticket and late fees, or find the motorist not guilty.

Fascism is the idea that the state is all that matters and that the people exist only to serve the states interests. Many cries of "fascism" in the blogosphere are hyperbole, but since the Brookeville city council clearly thinks its citizens are little more than a source of money, I think this technically qualifies as the real thing.

(Hat tip: Balko)

Hey gentle readers.

As a new part of the terms and conditions for reading my blog, I'm now requiring every visitor to please pull out your digital camera (cellphone cameras will do just fine), strip naked, take a full-body picture of yourself, and email it to me.

I promise I'll only look at it once, I'll be the only person to look at it, and I'll delete it as soon as I'm done.

I'll wait...

By the way, this is all part of a public service I'm performing to help you get used to some of the new airport scanning techniques the Transportation Security Agency is planning for us.

PHOENIX - Sky Harbor International Airport here will test a new federal screening system that takes X-rays of passenger's bodies to detect concealed explosives and other weapons.

...

The security agency's Web site indicates that the technology will be used initially as a secondary screening measure, meaning that only those passengers who first fail the standard screening process will be directed to the X-ray area.

Even then, passengers will have the option of choosing the backscatter or a traditional pat-down search.

Ooh, good idea. If you don't want to send me a picture, let's just meet somewhere so I can run my hands over you for about a minute. That will work too.

The technology already is being used in prisons and by drug enforcement agents, and has been tested at London's Heathrow Airport.

That's right folks. And here you thought modern air travel couldn't possibly feel any more like being on the prison bus. Soon, the TSA will treat everyone just like a criminal.

Some say the high-resolution images — which clearly depict the outline of the passenger's body, plus anything attached to it, such as jewelry — are too invasive.

But the TSA said the X-rays will be set up so that the image can be viewed only by a security officer in a remote location. Other passengers, and even the agent at the checkpoint, will not have access to the picture.

In addition, the system will be configured so that the X-ray will be deleted as soon as the individual steps away from the machine. It will not be stored or available for printing or transmitting, agency spokesman Nico Melendez said.

That's right, just let the strange man peek for a moment...

Republicans have long made a big deal of the fact that they're the party of Lincoln, that they're the party that ended slavery. It's pure nonsense, of course, to try to rest on the moral superiority of what your party did almost 150 years ago. It's not as if the Democrats are the pro-slavery party.

Or so I used to think befire I read this:

Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way.

You know, the Republicans deserved to lose this last election, for all kinds of reasons. But the problem with throwing out the Republicans is that they're replaced by the Democrats. So we're throwing out one set of crackpot ideas and replacing it with another.

Rep. Charles Rangel..., D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars and to bolster U.S. troop levels insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran, North Korea and Iraq.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.

The focus is entirely on what kind of people are joining the army. This is so typical of the Democrats: It's all about identity politics. Those of us opposed to the War on Drugs have never been able to get the Democrats interested in decriminalization except for the sentencing disparity between powder cocaine and crack cocaine because crack's harsher penalties hurt the black community.

The most reprehensible policies are acceptable to some Democrats as long as they are race-neutral. They think it's better to force everyone equally to enter the military against their will than to allow people to decide freely, because minorities are more likely to decide to enlist.

If politicians like Rangel had been in charge in the 1800's, instead of ending slavery we would have passed a law allowing whites to be enslaved too.

Update: Here's video and a nice explanation of why this is all just theater.

(Also, I see that Representative Rangel is black. I might have had second thoughts about calling it slavery if I'd known. There are significant differences that make slavery as it was practiced in the United States much worse than conscription. But both of them are moral sinkholes.)

You know how in the Bible the lowest of the low are the tax collectors? I'm no theologian, but I'm pretty sure that's because tax collectors at the time weren't the dreary government bureaucrats we're all used to. They were armed men who came and took people's stuff, often with little law behind them and even less reason.

The D'Alliance refers us to a story in the Daily Record of Morris County, New Jersey:

The Morris County Prosecutor's Office has filed a lawsuit to take control of 11 vehicles and $30,219 seized from suspects during its Operation Painkiller crackdown in July on the use and sale of Oxycodone by young people.

The forfeiture lawsuit, made public Thursday in state Superior Court, Morristown, asks a judge to terminate any property rights the owners have to the money or vehicles because the cash and cars allegedly were obtained through, or used in furtherance of, criminal activity.

The lawsuit targets three vehicles owned by Gerard and Jane Trapp of Whippany. Their 19-year-old son, Gerard Trapp Jr., was one of about 58 young people arrested on or around July 27 in drug raids. Trapp Jr. has resolved a conspiracy to possess Oxycodone charge by being enrolled -- without admitting any wrongdoing -- into the county's Pre-Trial Intervention probationary program for first-time offenders.

In other words, the prosecutor's office wants to take all this stuff even though they haven't proven a crime has occurred. This is not just one crazy prosecutor's bizarre twist to the law. It's something called civil forfeiture, and it happens all the time.

Say you get caught selling drugs. The cops arrest you and take the drugs. Even if you beat the charge, or plea it down, or arrange for some kind of non-punitive intervention, the cops aren't going to give back the drugs. It's the same if they take burglary tools or a murder weapon. These things are the tools of a crime, even if no crime is proven.

Law enforcement—and the legislatures that enable them—have been extending this idea to cover other less-obvious tools of the crime, most notably cars, cash, and homes. If you sell drugs out of your home, the police might take it. If you try to hire a prostitute from your car, and she turns out to be a policewoman, they can take your car. If you have cash on you that you might have used or earned in a crime, they can take your cash.

Civil forfeiture apologists claim this is no different from taking drugs or burglary tools or murder weapons, but they're wrong because of one crucial difference: When the police take dope or burglary tools or guns, they eventually destroy them. But when the cops take someone's car, they use it. When they take someone's cash, they spend it. When they take someone's house, they sell it.

This is one of the most blatantly unconstitutional things that the Supreme Court allows police to get away with. The constitution plainly states that private property cannot be taken for public use without compensation. Destroying the tools of a crime is one thing, but simply taking them and selling them to get the cash can't be right. Not without ever proving a crime has occurred.

And they do get to keep the cash. In almost all states, some or all of the proceeds from the forfeiture will eventually end up in the police budget. This means that the police department has a material stake in the the arrest. Rather than being disinterested investigators, they have a chance to make money.

This inevitably leads to distortion of law enforcement goals. Take down a drug kingpin who owns nothing on paper, you get nothing but the arrest. But take down a kid growing pot in his parents' basement, you just might get yourself a house. Take down 19-year old kid with a bottle of prescription-only painkillers in his pocket, you can get every car he drove in.

(In this case, the charge is actually "conspiracy to possess" which sounds like he may not actually have had any drugs, but was just trying to find a drug deal. I don't really know.)

[Trapp family attorney Timothy] Smith argued that the family, including Gerard Trapp Sr., to whom the four family cars are registered to, were unaware of the younger Gerard's activities in three of the cars.

"To seek to have the people buy back their own cars when they need those cars for their daily activities seems to me to almost rise to the level of extortion," Smith said.

Men with weapons come and take their stuff and demand money to get it back. It is extortion. They can hide behind legal proceedings and explanations, but police departments doing civil forfeiture are the modern equivalent of Biblical tax collectors.

Jennifer continues her one-woman jihad against safe air travel.