Monthly Archives: January 2005

Acceptable Search?

This entry was posted in Constitution Domestic Terrorism Drug Laws Economics Technology on by

I have no objection to private use of GPS technology to track company vehicles, for geocaching, tracking your teenager’s driving, backtracking your hiking trail, etc., as long as everyone know whats happening. Unmonitored use by law enforcement employees is not acceptable:

When Robert Moran drove back to his law offices in Rome, N.Y., after a plane trip to Arizona in July 2003, he had no idea that a silent stowaway was aboard his vehicle: a secret GPS bug implanted without a court order by state police.
Police suspected the lawyer of ties to a local Hells Angels Motorcycle Club that was selling methamphetamine, and they feared undercover officers would not be able to infiltrate the notoriously tight-knit group, which has hazing rituals that involve criminal activities. So investigators stuck a GPS, or Global Positioning System, bug on Moran’s car, watched his movements, and arrested him on drug charges a month later.
A federal judge in New York ruled last week that police did not need court authorization when tracking Moran from afar. “Law enforcement personnel could have conducted a visual surveillance of the vehicle as it traveled on the public highways,” U.S. District Judge David Hurd wrote. “Moran had no expectation of privacy in the whereabouts of his vehicle on a public roadway.”
Well, I say BS to Judge Hurd.
Why shouldn’t I or Moran have an expectation of privacy? Especially from public employees. And even more importantly as we move through public spaces which we must do to carry on the basic activities of being human.
Given the rapidly changing tools available to capture information about individuals or groups it is time to expand our view of what is considered acceptable search and surveillance practices. If law enforcement folks are not in hot pursuit of someone who just committed a legitimate1 crime then they should be required to have probable cause approved by an independent judiciary before they are allowed to investigate, let alone surveil, any individual or group for any reason. This should apply whether that individual or group is acting in traditionally private spaces or in what are considered public spaces.
1For the purpose of this post I ignore the question of whether methamphetamine sales is a legitimate crime.
Via Declan McCullagh.

Grand Rounds

This entry was posted in Drug Laws Economics Education Government Libertarianism Regulation Taxation on by

isemmelweis finds the health care industry to be the lone victem of special interest corporate-government collusion:

In all other economic sectors free people drive production, and good things happen quickly. In response to the Atkins craze, sodas and even beer cut out the carbs to meet the wants of a fit society. But in healthcare, rather than serve ordinary citizens, producers court the people in power: big insurers, government officials, and academics.
….
So who�s navigating this ship? While it may be enormous fun for managers, officials, and scholars to control how sick people get medicine, it would be much better if free people chose for themselves.
Yes, it should be much better but isemmelweis is mistaken to think that this problem is restricted to health care, e.g., consider communications and the FCC, agriculture, and education to name just a few areas. We would live in a much healthier world, physically and economically, if this phenomenon did not permeate both the American and the world economy.
There is a lot of interesting reading from the medical blogosphere at Chronicles of a Medical Madhouse which is hosting Grand Rounds XV.

Blocking Fox

This entry was posted in Television on by

Television news is some of the worst of the poor material generally available around the dial. Is is usually devoid of adequate context, sophomoric in analysis, and biased. This is pretty much guaranteed by the limited time available to present any particular story or subject.
So, while the Foxblocker is entertaining when viewed from a partisan stance I’d carry Jazz’s suggestion “that you may want to get one if you have children” just a bit farther.
If possible, do not allow your children to watch any television news. If you can’t stop it entirely then make sure you are with them and that you discuss each story in detail. Treat it pretty much like any other X-rated material.
One caveat to the above: when there are major events that are given continous extended coverage most of the news channels seem to do a pretty decent job (the networks tend to go back to regularly scheduled programming too soon). It is best, even during extended coverage, to switch networks regularly. Spend 5-15 minute at each stop. You can learn from both the differences in commentary and camera shots and this can provide plenty of fodder for family discussions.