Loss of Privacy

Keeping you informed on recent losses to privacy and civil rights worldwide.

Browsing Posts tagged law

The idea of banning hoods is not new to Oklahoma, right now, there is a law banning hoods during crimes that’s been around since the 20’s.

It was originally drafted to help combat crimes from the Ku-Klux-Klan, but people we spoke with say a new amendment of banning hoodies in public could open doors to a bigger problem.

Now, a proposal for an amendment to that law, could make it illegal to hide your identity in public. The fine for your fashion crime? $500.

“I think this is a violation of an individual’s right to choose what they want to wear as long as it doesn’t violate the realm of public decency and moral values, and I think this could be very problematic,” Siderias said.

The proposal provides exceptions for religious garments, protection from weather, parades, Halloween celebrations and numerous other circumstances.

So what is the point of the law if you have plenty of reasons to be exempt?

you can read the full bill and find out more at NewsChannel 4.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+TumblrRedditHacker News

flattr this!

saudi_arabia_admin-2013

If approved, a new draft law from the Shoura Council in Saudi Arabia would set the age of adulthood at 18, requiring women under that age to obtain a court order to marry.

The move comes in the wake of recent reports of girls as young as 10 being married off to men in their 70s which sparked a nationwide debate in Saudi courts compelling critics to denounce the practice. They called upon religious and legal authorities in the country to rule against the phenomenon which, they feel, is dangerous to society.

The Ministry of Justice released in its recommendations that marriages of girls below 18 could only take place upon a court approval in writing. Currently, the Qadi, (person who solemnizes marriages) has the authority to marry girls off at any age.

According to the draft law, the court order is governed by three conditions for allowing girls under 18 to get married. First, the custodian needs to request the court to make an exception for his daughter to get married before reaching 18. He also needs to provide the court with a medical report that marriage will not cause the girl physical or psychological harm and that report will be issued by a specialized committee comprising a gynecologist, physiologist and a social expert stating that the girl is mentally and physically fit for marriage.

Secondly, the court’s judge has to document the approval of the girl and her mother, particularly if the parents are divorced. The final condition is related to a period of waiting after signing the contract enjoining upon the couple to wait for a while before finalizing the marriage procedures. This will give the girl enough time to prepare herself for the new life.

The law also has a media plan in which the public will be educated society, particularly parents. The law would also give women the right to ask the court to overturn the marriage if they were not consulted on the matter.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+TumblrRedditHacker News

flattr this!

privacy

Richard Posner is an influential judge in the United States. In a recent conference, he said the NSA should be able to collect whatever information it needed in the name of stopping terrorism.

“I think privacy is actually overvalued,” Judge Richard Posner, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, said during a conference about privacy and cybercrime in Washington on Thursday.

“Much of what passes for the name of privacy is really just trying to conceal the disreputable parts of your conduct,” Posner added. “Privacy is mainly about trying to improve your social and business opportunities by concealing the sorts of bad activities that would cause other people not to want to deal with you.”

Perhaps Posner would be okay with everyone looking at his private information, following him wherever he travels and knowing what he is up to. Wanting privacy doesn’t mean you are concealing anything unsavory. It means your life is not anyone else’s business to be snooping into just because they can.

Congress should limit the NSA’s use of the data it collects — for example, not giving information about minor crimes to law enforcement agencies — but it shouldn’t limit what information the NSA sweeps up and searches, Posner said. “If the NSA wants to vacuum all the trillions of bits of information that are crawling through the electronic worldwide networks, I think that’s fine,” he said.

Let the vacuuming commence with all of Judge Posner’s activities. He’s made it clear he doesn’t have a problem with this sort of behavior.

In the name of national security, U.S. lawmakers should give the NSA “carte blanche,” Posner added. “Privacy interests should really have very little weight when you’re talking about national security,” he said. “The world is in an extremely turbulent state — very dangerous.”

The world has always been in a turbulent state. It has always been dangerous. I think Posner might have wanted to say, “We’ve always been at war with Eurasia.”

Posner criticized mobile OS companies for enabling end-to-end encryption in their newest software. “I’m shocked at the thought that a company would be permitted to manufacture an electronic product that the government would not be able to search,” he said.

Then let Posner be the one to lead by example and start letting the government search his cell phone at will.

Other speakers at Thursday’s event, including Judge Margaret McKeown of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, disagreed with Posner, saying legal limits on government surveillance are necessary. With much of U.S. privacy law based on a reasonable expectation of privacy, it’s difficult, however, to define what that means when people are voluntarily sharing all kinds of personal information online, she said.

This is true, but for those who choose not to share personal information online, they shouldn’t be subjected to random vacuuming of information because the NSA wants to go on a fishing expedition. The people who advocate for privacy aren’t the ones dumping their personal information online. When they do, they know it’s public information.

David Cole, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center also disagreed with Posner.

Some recent court cases, including the Supreme Court’s 2014 Riley v. California ruling limiting law enforcement searches of mobile phones, have moved privacy law in the right direction, he said.

Posner questioned why smartphone users need legal protections, saying he doesn’t understand what information on smartphones should be shielded from government searches. “If someone drained my cell phone, they would find a picture of my cat, some phone numbers, some email addresses, some email text,” he said. “What’s the big deal?

“Other people must have really exciting stuff,” Posner added. “Do they narrate their adulteries, or something like that?”

This is the problem with Posner. He doesn’t understand why someone other than himself wouldn’t want their information freely available and automatically believes they must be up to no good. Yet, this judge most likely doesn’t have his home address listed publicly for security reasons. People have reasons why they don’t want their information spread, including safety, security and peace of mind.

Smartphones can contain all kinds of information that people don’t want to share, including medical information, visits to abortion doctors and schedules for Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, Cole said. “Your original question, ‘what’s the value of privacy unless you’ve got something to hide?’ that’s a very short-sighted way of thinking about the value of privacy,” he said.

They may also contain information about upcoming political protests. If they cannot organize and protest freely, then this is not a free society. If Posner is not willing to step up and allow collection of his personal and private records at any time and for any reason, then he truly is ignorant or is spouting a government line and knows exactly what agenda he is pushing. Considering Posner tried to hide the name of a trust on his 2013 tax return, he likes his privacy just fine.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+TumblrRedditHacker News

flattr this!

One law for the people. Another for those in charge.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+TumblrRedditHacker News

flattr this!

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

“We cannot criminalize such a large population of society that engage in casual marijuana use,” the chief said in the radio interview. The topics were wide-ranging — but the chief was largely asked about marijuana use. McClelland made it clear he believes enforcing marijuana laws is wasting time and other valuable resources.

“Taxpayers can’t afford to build jails and prisons to lock up everyone that commits a crime,” said McClelland. “We must put more money into crime prevention, treatment, education, job training.”

More at 2 Houston.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+TumblrRedditHacker News

flattr this!