Law

Bad MATRIX

This entry was posted in Constitution Culture Domestic Terrorism Drug Laws Law Law Enforcement Patriot Act War on Terrorism on by

Some of you may have thought I was being a bit paranoid in my earlier post Canadian Big Brother. Especially since congress cut off funding for Total Information Awareness.
But ashcroft’s Justice Department figures to hell with congress. If we can’t get TIA we’ll go for MATRIX or in normal speak: Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange. Justice and Homeland Security are providing funding for what started out as a state based system in Florida:

The U.S. Justice Department recently provided $4 million and the Department of Homeland Security has pledged another $8 million to expand the MATRIX program nationally. Homeland Security will also provide the computer network for information-sharing among the states.

Still not bothered? Try this:

Phil Ramer, special agent in charge of Florida�s statewide intelligence told a Washington Post reporter in early August that the system could be intrusive and pledged to use it with restraint. “It’s scary. It could be abused. I mean, I can call up everything about you, your pictures and pictures of your neighbors.”

Whew, I feel quite comforted by Phil’s promise to use the system with restraint. But what about Ralph or Mary tomorrow?
Why not link in the Canadian’s Bar Watch info, or, you take your pick of the information source. If Matrix, TIA or other similar systems stay in place their operators will figure out a way to include that information.
Yep, use cash. Start becoming as invisible as you can.

George Bounces Caterpillar

This entry was posted in Culture Law Libertarianism Trademark Law on by

Last week Modulator commented on Caterpillar’s attempt to block Disney from releasing George of the Jungle 2. Today a federal judge ruled against Caterpillar:

The judge said there is no sign Disney sought to “somehow poach or free ride” on Caterpillar’s trademarks to drive up sales of the movie, one of the standards for trademark infringement.
McDade also disputed Caterpillar’s argument that use of its name and logo will make viewers think the company is somehow supporting the movie. He called use of well-known trademarks a “common phenomenon” in films and television.
…..
Along with infringement, Caterpillar alleged that its trademark is diluted by the movie, which describes the equipment as “deleterious dozers” and “maniacal machinery” during a climactic final battle.
McDade countered that “it is clear to even the most credulous viewer” that the bulldozers are operated by humans and are merely inanimate implements of the villains’ “environmentally unfriendly schemes.”

It would have been much less expensive for Caterpillar to have just asked Modulator.

The Supremes

This entry was posted in Constitution Domestic Terrorism Drug Laws Law War on Terrorism on by

They’ve announced the cases they are going to hear this session. For those of you tired of reading the many so, so serious posts on many of the cases head over to the Happy Furry Puppy place to read some serious but laced with humor commentary:

The Goddamned Pledge of Allegiance vs. Some Godless Atheist Commie Freak. You don’t really want to know what I think about this, other than you know that it’s going to be used as a political clubbing tool… as evidenced by subtle-as-a-flying-mallet Press Secretary Scott McClellan yesterday:

Well, head over to read what mcClellan said and what the Furry Puppy person does think about it.

Office Relationships

This entry was posted in Law on by

The Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) is taking the rather typical easy out approach to solving problems: when one or a few folks do something that turns out ‘bad’ make a rule/law that prohibits anyone else from the same action without regard to how it turns out. In the DSHS case:

A new policy in the works at the state’s largest agency requires employees who have intimate relationships with a supervisor or direct subordinate to report the consensual sexual relationship or risk being punished.
“Basically, it just says that if there is a relationship between a manager and one of their employees who reports to them, that needs to be reported to their management,” said Liz Dunbar, deputy secretary for the 18,000-person agency. “Then we will figure out how to separate the two, because we’re not going to allow those kinds of relationships when they are supervisor and subordinate.”

Amitai Etzioni looks at this same issue in academia in an excellent piece entitled Keep the relationship in the classroom. He provides many examples that suggest that one rule does not fit all and closes with:

These kinds of rules are too fungible, and undermine any notion of due process and fairness that should be extended even to old, white males.
Maybe it is impossible to have a close personal relationship with one�s staff or students–without fearing that it might be misunderstood, mischaracterized, or exploited. It is a crying shame.

Etzioni’s examples look primarily at professor-student relationships. Daniel Davies, though, asks this interesting question that applies directly to the opening DSHS example:

It�s all very easy to get all moralistic and say that this, that or the other kind of relationship is �off limits�, but to be frank, with working culture going the way it�s going, where the hell else are we going to meet people our own age?

If current trends continue folks of any combination may not even be able to talk to each other without a fair witness standing by or on their lapels (neither would help with Etzioni’s goggles in the swimming pool example).