In this case, the moral outrage of most reasonable people is pretty justified. A mother creating a fake MySpace profile that leads to the death of one of her daughter's friends? Pretending to be a teenage boy and carrying on a cyber "relationship" with this particular girl, who was on anti-depressants and mood stabilizers? The whole story reeks of immaturity and poor judgement and hints that Ms. Drew may have had a few unresolved mental health issues of her own.At the very least, the parents of the deceased teenager might have had a civil cause of action against Ms. Drew on any number of grounds. And they should have availed themselves of legal system. But after a lengthy investigation, Drew was rightfully cleared of any criminal wrongdoing by Missouri state and local officials. However, the case received a fair bit of media attention -- and before long, a U.S. attorney in California had brought a federal criminal complaint against Drew. She was charged with one count of conspiracy and three counts of "accessing a computer without authorization via interstate commerce to obtain information to inflict emotional distress."As Reason's blog correctly asked, "Is Being Mean Online a Federal Crime?" In my view, Lori Drew's repulsive actions fall broadly under an umbrella of free speech. Creating new identities online is a hallmark of the Internet -- imagine a World Wide Web without Internet handles, pseudonyms and Second Life Avatars. As the New York cartoon above points out -- on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. That's a central tenant of Web culture. Surely Drew was conducting herself no differently than millions of other Internet users who create broad, fake identities. I once created a Facebook profile in the name of a minor Seinfeld character. Am I to be charged with "unauthorized access" also? Am I a Federal criminal for violating a minor clause in the Facebook terms of use agreement? As legal scholars have noted, 'unathorized access' laws have a long and sorted history of prosecutorial abuse. And Drew is certainly being tried on a technicality.Wanting to see Lori Drew punished is a completely natural emotional reaction. Responsible, mature adults don't behave in this manner. They don't misrepresent themselves as teenage boys on MySpace and carry on fake cyber-relationships with their children's friends. They don't drive emotionally insecure teenagers to suicide.But the real question we should be asking ourselves is, at what cost does Drew's pending trial represent another blow against freedom of expression? If causing emotional distress over a computer network is a federal crime, could I be punished for breaking up with my girlfriend via email -- if she later committed suicide? What about Second Life? If Second Life users cause emotional distress, will they be running afoul of federal laws? Will people who create fake profiles, or use Internet pseudonyms, or otherwise misrepresent themselves also be charged with "conspiracy"? These are serious and legitimate question that are being forgotten in the scramble to hang this woman from the nearest tree for all in the digital town square to see. Certainly, Drew's case represents an extraordinary one. How many suburban mothers drive neighborhood children to suicide, after all? But it also has the ability to set precedent. It also has the potential to galvanize public support for more stringent controls of the Internet. And it has the ability to further chill free speech and freedom of expression on the Internet. All in the name of protecting children. There are some prices that are too high to pay -- even to protect our young.
I think Byron's words speak for themselves, and I don't really have anything to add to them because I find myself in agreement ( being a damned Speecher and all that ). But I thought I would bring all this up again, because my memory has been jogged by a recent post by Ken over at Popehat, talking about the recent dismissal of Lori Drew's case:
Via Eugene Volokh, I see that United States District Judge George Wu has dismissed the case against Lori Drew, the loathsome woman who drove troubled 16-year-old Megan Meier to suicide through a wantonly cruel MySpace Prank. As I wrote before, the government’s case theory was disturbing: it asserted that Drew had committed a federal crime — computer fraud in violation of 18 USC 1030 — when she violated MySpace’s Terms of Service by creating a false identity there. That apparently finally moved Judge Wu as well:
So, in a way, all's well that ends well. A brief moment of sanity in a world and nation growing increasingly insane, by Speecher standards. Not that everyone's won - in a way, nobody did, not Lori Drew, not the poor girl that she drove to such a bad end. The only ones who really won were those who had a point to make in this case, a point to prove, or an ideology to give partisan support to. I include myself in this heartless category, and I know I'm a real bastard for it, too. Not that it'll stop me from doing it again. I can only comfort myself in that I'm ready to admit that I'm a bastard for it, post-humously and at the time, if necessary.
Read More......
Ok, I'll admit, I'm a sceptic. I mean, I just find it hard to believe that Barack Obama couldn't be an American citizen, and still have run for president - for which reason he is withholding most of his legal documents and the documents from his earlier years from public scrutiny. I just don't think anybody could be so arrogant as to do that.
In fact, I find it a far more likely explanation for this strange behavior that somewhere in the bowels of the Chicago body politik, something shady went down that necessitated that a lot of Obama's documentation be altered, in a way that would be obvious upon closer examination by the official opposition party of America.
And sure, by not releasing these files he's getting some flak, but surely what look like just a bunch of conspiracy theories can't be nearly as harmful as the suspicion of the feds if he were shown to have been engaged in some illicit activities in his past.
And I know that not all of the documents that his campaign is withholding can be adequately explained by my theory. But perhaps they can be explained by other means? For instance, perhaps the reason that Obama's college thesis has not been released to the public is that the Obama campaign saw what the opposition did with Michelle Obama's college-day writings.
Hell - maybe Obama's just a really private guy, who likes to play things close to the vest. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I'm just not quite willing to accept that we've unknowingly stumbled onto the set of The Manchurian Candidate, just yet.
VANCOUVER - An award-winning former news reporter for BCTV has issued a blistering criticism of his former Legislative press gallery colleagues over their coverage – or non-coverage – of the Campbell government’s erasing of emails that might have shed light on the Railgate scandal. The missing e-mails is obviously a huge story, writes Harvey Oberfeld in a post to his blog today. “Thousands of government e-mails involving the premier, cabinet ministers and high-ranking staff members between 2001 and 2005 have [been] destroyed, seemingly contrary to both the law and accepted practices that legal documents should be preserved for seven years. “The media covered the initial story … and then .. NOTHING . . . I think the media are abandoning their responsibility.” He offers a set of questions that reporters should be trying to track down. * Prior to these particular erasures, what exactly was the policy AND PRACTICE in effect for keeping/destroying such e-mails? * On whose specific instructions were the 2001-2005 e-mails destroyed? * WHEN were those instructions delivered? * Were ANY e-mails ordered specifically destroyed AFTER the police raid on the Legislature in Dec. 2003? By who? * Did ANYONE in the public service object to the destruction of the e-mails or recommend they be preserved? Who? And if so, who over-ruled them? * Did the Premier or members of his staff discuss with anyone destroying the e-mails BEFORE the dirty deed was done? With who? On a day when the Vancouver Sun’s web site has published 18 stories about the death of Michael Jackson, Oberfeld urges reporters to pursue the case of the missing emails. “Keep the story alive. The public DOES have a right to know EXACTLY what happened here ... and who made the key decisions to destroy the information.”
But let’s pause for a moment on that word “icon.” It seemed the consensus adjective for the news networks. NBC ran a special on two “American Icons” — Fawcett and Jackson. Every cable network (including Fox, for the record) used the word “icon” to describe him as if this was some sort of safe harbor, a word everyone could agree on. “Love him or hate him,” the implied logic went, “he was an ‘icon.’”Yes, well, maybe so. But that doesn’t let you off the hook. Even though the term sounds neutral, it isn’t. An icon, technically speaking, is a religious symbol deserving of reverence and adoration. The networks may not have intended to use the word that way, but they certainly showed an unseemly amount of reverence and adoration for the man. I think part of it is the narcissism of our celebrity culture. Here was a guy so many of “us” read about in People magazine for so long. His passing, therefore, isn’t a loss in the sorrowful sense of the word, but in the selfish one. It’s a loss of an interesting subject, a creature to gossip about and to fill a few minutes on E! or Entertainment Tonight. Everyone likes to invoke Lord Acton’s axiom that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” But nearly everyone forgets that he coined this phrase not to indict powerful men, but to instruct the historians who write about them. Historians tend to forgive the powerful their transgressions. Likewise, journalists (for want of a better word) tend to forgive the famous. Calling Michael Jackson an icon doesn’t let him off the hook for anything. But to listen to the news anchors you’d think it absolves him of everything. I say: Who cares who his famous friends were? Who cares what a “fascinating” person he was? If you want to talk about his death as an end of an era, have at it. But that’s not what the Barbara Walters set is doing.
Don't worry - this isn't a harangue against this fine blog, and I'll be keeping The Blog of Walker going. But I just started up a site focusing on Jennifer Lynch, and her list of 1200 names, called The Lynch Files - sort of a news/opinion aggregator and eventually a place - hopefully - for some guest-posters to share their Lynch-related content.
Jennifer Lynch wants to compile a list of 1200 enemies? Well, I'd like this new site to be cause for number 1201. Help me with this, will you?
Alright, it's all part of the same movement. But I just love a two-parter.
Via CityNews: Proposed New Law Would Let Police Snoop On What You Do Online:
It's not exactly Big Brother and the overall intentions seem to have the public's best interests at heart. But many are very uncomfortable about a proposed new law introduced in the House of Commons on Thursday that could affect anyone using the Internet in Canada. The bill, with the unwieldy name of "An Act Regulating Telecommunications Facilities to Support Investigations," would allow police to force your ISP to hand over any records of your emails, chat room conversations, website history or surfing habits to authorities without a warrant. Police across the country contend it's a necessity because the Worldwide Web has become a haven for criminals, pedophiles, terrorists, drug dealers and scam artists, who use its anonymity and the current regulations to plot and commit criminal acts that take advantage of the public. They point out the old laws were written in a time before the world had ever dreamed of something called "the Internet" and that new rules are needed to fight new enemies and the technology they employ. "It makes crimes easier to commit but harder to investigate," explains Justice Minister Rob Nicholson
[...]
Under the current rules, cops can listen in on private conversations with a warrant, but they have no right to demand access from ISPs. The change would force the providers to let them see what criminals - or you - are up to online.
Interestingly enough, Rob Nicholson apparently didn't feel the need to expound on why, exactly, that is our problem. Other than our browsing habits and personal information being rifled through by the police, on, apparently, the whim of a suspicion. Lovely. Now they can tap our phones and read our emails. Justice in Canada certainly has taken a step forward thanks to the ministrations of its current resident Minister.
But wait, there's more:
What's in the bill? Here's a closer look. The new law would: Allow cops to get access to information on any Internet subscriber, including their name, home address or email, all without a warrant. Force ISPs to keep a copy of the data generated by people under investigation on their company hard drives to prevent suspects from deleting anything incriminating or of evidence. Make all Telecom companies invest in technology that allows for the interception of Internet communications. Critics worry this could prove a financial hardship for smaller ISPs. Let police remotely activate tracking devices that may already be embedded in your cell phone or car without your knowledge. Allow law enforcement to get data on where your communications over the web are coming from and who they're going to. Make it against the law to arrange the sexual exploitation of a child with a second person over the web
Yeah, that's a winner. Kudos, by the way, for tacking in the 'sexual exploitation' thing on the end, to make sure that any opponents of this bill can be labeled as compliant in the act of pedophilia.
You can read the full article here, and you can read the whole bill here ( h/t CityNews. ).
Maybe it's just me, but I get a bit leery whenever a company, especially a company dealing almost strictly with personal information, is asked to further co-operate with the police on a regular basis.
But maybe I just have a suspicious mind, or something.
By Matt Hartley and Omar El Akkad, via the Globe and Mail - Tories seek to widen police access online:
Police will have sweeping new powers to collect information about Canadian Internet users without a warrant, and activate tracking devices in their cellphones and cars under legislation proposed by the Conservative government yesterday and criticized by privacy advocates as excessive. If the government's latest shot at introducing “lawful access” legislation – something successive governments have tried but failed to do for the past decade or so – succeeds, Internet service providers will also be forced to install monitoring technology on their servers to keep track of their users' online activities. Justice Minister Rob Nicholson and Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan yesterday introduced two bills – the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act and the Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act – just before the House of Commons empties out until the fall session.
The Wall Street Journal has a couple of op-eds today that are very much worth reading. The first concerns 'Naturalism' and is written by George Ball of the Burpee Seed Co. and former President of the American Horticultural Society. The second concerns 'Conservativism at the University' and is written by Peter Berkowitz of Stanford's Hoover Institute.
Mr. Ball's editorial, based on an entry on his blog, concludes "The political views of the Eco-elitists defy easy categorization, if not also comprehension. Their anti-business stance might mark them as liberals, while their hard-edged fundamentalist views about nature and brittle nostalgia for a lost Peaceable Kingdom are surely conservative." Essentially, he wants to say that people who engage in, his mind, ridiculously over the top concern for plant and non-human animal life are insane.
Having now heard arguments on both sides of the issue I have to say that my position on the issue probably pleases neither side. At once I must concede that 'man is not a cancer,' for he surely evolved alongside other animals, but I must also state that conservation of species is important for we do not know what benefit they might bring to us. I am reminded of the fact that the 'Native Americans' wiped out the wild horses which inhabited the North American Continent before European invasion brought the species back to the Continent. Surely, it is easy to see how horses ended up benefiting the Native Americans after reintroduction. Therefore, on the basis of this an other examples, it is hard to imagine that we should have cause to ourselves wipe out a great number of species which may of yet prove use to us.
Still, when I consider the 'use' of species I don't necessarily restrict that to the conscription under which horses are put. I also mean the need for Ecological Diversity to maintain the complex bio-systems which sustain life on earth. It is hard to argue for the wanton destruction of various species of lowly plankton when many of those same species support species which support us.
Yet, I am forced to concede that some of these arguments go to far. There are cases, such as Haast's Eagle, where, clearly, at the time driving the species extinct was the best course of action to promote the safety of humans (though this can probably be debated). Yet, that does not mean this course of action is the one should whenever there is a threat to human safety.
Nevertheless, Mr. Ball is correct in saying that there is little sustained argument against these, in his words, 'eco-elitists,' who favor equality among species. Sadly, their argument cannot stand for such a philosophy would state, in its converse, the promotion of slavery (for the converse would promote the idea that some are superior to others and, as a result, justify intraspecies slavery). Yet, in today's world, it is not a question that slavery is not justified. And, further, I do not think it can be rationally argued that the 'life' of an individual plankton could be equivalent to the 'life' of a human, or, another multicellular animal, such as a dog. Clearly, we need to to a better job promoting and enacting laws against animal cruelty, there's no question about that, but such extreme and fringe beliefs as espoused by 'eco-elitists' are clearly not helpful when the, inevitably conservative, opposition uses those 'eco-elitists'' beliefs to smear sound and reasonable proposals which promote conservation and humane treatment of animals.
This segways nicely into Mr. Berkowitz's editorial which concludes "Incorporating courses on conservatism in the curriculum may, as students graduate, disperse, and pursue their lives, yield the political benefit of an increase in mutual understanding between left and right. In this way, reforming the curriculum could diminish the polarization that afflicts our political and intellectual classes. But that benefit is admittedly distant and speculative."
If a conservative curriculum was introduced, as on par with a 'liberal' curriculum, at universities and if it did "increase mutual understanding" it would certainly be something to pursue wholeheartedly. Would it not be better that the absurd arguments of polarization take place in the lecture hall rather than on our national airwaves and on the floor of The Congress? It's hard to imagine that the absurd conflation of ideas that causes the comedian Glen Beck to weep on live TV or Rush Limbaugh to claim 'socialism' when the United States Government takes control of less than 0.1% of the national industry in order to prevent the collapse of larger chunks of the economy would stand up to the Socratic debate that takes place in a lecture hall. It's hard to imagine that anyone would serious listen to these clowns (or the ones on the left) who gun for ratings and dine on misinformation, complicating already complex issues with simplistic, uneducated cries.
I am an advocate for an equal standing by a conservative curriculum not because I agree with it, far from it at some points, but, as Sun Tzu said, "It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle." I need not remind you the letdown we, Democrats, felt in 2004 and prior to 1992. Had we known better what we up against we might have been more successful. And that success starts with the right sort of education, an education which does neglect ideas because we disagree with them but includes them so that we may not later be swayed by their seductive nature.
It would be no good, for instance, to ignore Marx's work, as conservative 'commentators' have done, because then they are doomed to repeat it, calling out that "Democracy is the road to socialism!" Such statements play directly into the arms of socialist philosophy, as do attempts to convince the public that the President leads us on a path to socialism. Indeed, such ill-tempered and bane statements work to advance the very sentiments behind socialist philosophy. Such conclusions can then, rightfully, be made that this ignorance displayed by uneducated political "commentators" work far more forcefully and effectively to advance a socialist agenda than any efforts that any single President could make.
An education which goes into depth the ideas behind Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative will certainly assist voters to make informed choices in the voting booth and see past the rhetoric and seductive speeches.
But that does not seem likely to happen soon for, as Marx said, “From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need.” And so few people see a need to broaden the next generation's understanding.
Surfing YouTube for an a clip about Creigh Deeds after the Primary, I came across an ad for "The Girl Effect." Naturally, I was curious. Upon clicking the ad I was redirected to www.girleffect.org. This is a review of what I saw.
First, I was given a statement, "The World Is A Mess," and asked to "Agree" or "Disagree." If you click "Disagree" you are met with a giant flashing question mark, then the one word question "Really?" Then another statement, "There are 600 million girls who would disagree with you," rolls across the screen. Your only option after this is to click "Ok. Maybe the world is kind of a mess." This redirects you to a movie. (If you originally clicked "Agree" you are instantly redirected to this movie. The movie is the following:
Now, as you can imagine (considering I'm writing this here), I have some problems with the presumed 'cause' and 'effect' scenario presented in that video. It's not that helping out poor girls (or the poor in general) is bad. But, misrepresentation of facts will not necessarily achieve the intended goal (as people like me are less inclined to like your organization).
My first problem would normally be with the webpage making me agree that the world is a mess but I'll ignore that little difficulty. So, my first problem will come when the word "Girl" is surrounded by the words "flies, husband, baby, hunger [and] HIV." And we are asked to pretend that we can fix this picture. It seems, to me at least, the words "husband" and "baby" are being associated with "flies, hunger [and] HIV." I could concede that "baby" might be associated with a negative, such as flies or hunger or HIV, if we are to concede that the belief is that people should be married before having children. (This I would assume if this video was presented from a 'conservative' to 'moderate' perspective). But, I find it hard to believe anyone aside from radical feminists would say "husband" (or "wife," for that matter) was a negative. I simply fail to see how being able to be married is a negative.
My second problem comes about when the video first reads "lets put her in a school uniform" and quickly follows with "give her a loan to buy a cow." Why, exactly, would we need to spend money to educate her when her goal is to "buy a cow" to "sell the milk" to "help her family." Wouldn't it be more productive to spend that money to buy a few cows, donate them, and teach her how to milk them (and, if she is unaware, how to set up shop to sell the milk)? And, how does it happen that "pretty soon, her cow becomes a herd?" I was not aware of the asexual reproductive abilities of cows. Unless, of course, we mean that she makes enough money to buy a herd which, as I already said, proves we wasted money sending her to school instead of buying her a herd in the first place.
My third problem is that even if we do send her to school, where I assume she'd learn business practices, and she does get the herd of cows why would she bother bringing clean water to the village? If we've taught her well she knows the concept of supply and demand. Here are the conditions, assumptions and the following logic:
Condition 1: People need to drink. Condition 2: There's no clean water in the village. Condition 3: She'd have a monopoly on the milk industry for the village. Condition 4: She makes enough of a profit off of one cow to pay back her loan and buy an entire herd. Assumption 1: There's no source of drink other than dirty water or milk. Conclusion 1: She can sell milk at whatever price she wants. Conclusion 2: People will be compelled to drink milk, so long as the price isn't outrageous, because the water is not safe to drink. Conclusion 3: She will make more money by not investing in village infrastructure to bring clean water to the village because she is already making more than enough money to sustain her herd size, whose lives are shortened because of the bad water, while actually generating excess profit that would be eliminated by supplying the village with water (unless she charged the village for that as well).
So, in reality, she'd become the de facto leader of the village because of her almost complete control of the fate of the villagers. Obviously, to solidify her control she'd want to bring water to the village and charge the villagers for its use, thereby gaining utter control over the fate of the villagers. Thereby, she could exploit the other villagers to a lesser degree than one that would result in the reduction in size of the village either through lack of births or flight. (It's like that scene from Quantum of Solace where James & Camille have discovered that Dominic Greene has complete control over the water supply in Bolivia). (Admittedly, to be sustainable, both scenarios require that the people being exploited make some sort of profit elsewhere in order to assist in the enrichment by the oppressors).
I do agree with the conclusion though. As the girl wields an increasing amount of economic power her sociopolitical power increases, resulting in the men of the village 'respecting' her (though probably in a different sense than the video originally intended). But, I doubt she'd help convince people girls are valuable. Instead, she'd most likely start a dynasty and work towards eliminating real and potential threats to her power and status. This would result in a life trajectory that would probably closely follow Junianus Justinus' account of Elissa (Carthage's Dido), in which the girl gains power over the village and is then drawn into regional conflicts with powers she cannot match, resulting, ultimately in her downfall.
If, however, we give the girl quite the gift of altruism or, alternatively, a poor education (so she does not figure out how easily she could exploit the other villagers), we can reasonably expect the village economy to pickup and a lowering in the unemployment rate. I'm not sure that convinces the villagers that girls are "valuable" but it might go a ways towards convincing them that girls are not chattel, not to be bought and sold. And while milk will certainly result in "healthier babies," cows in "food," milk and cows in "commerce" and clean water in "sanitation" the other goals will not go hand-in-hand; "peace, lower HIV, education and stability." For while there will be greater stability and peace in the village itself, the prosperity of the village will almost certainly attract outside powers who will attack and intimidate the village and villagers, given that many third world countries are relatively unable to ensure the safety of their citizens and its unlikely the villagers will be spending their extra cash bulking up militarily and training a militia to ensure their own safety. Further, the education of one girl won't amount to a hill of beans in a third world village unless she can pull of an economic success story and gain considerable economic and, as a result, sociopolitical influence, which will give her credence to use her knowledge to inform others (about issues like HIV, I assume). Then again, it's hard to argue that knowledge itself will stop the spread of HIV (if it did, then why would it be such an epidemic even in 1st world countries?).
Admittedly, if this project were taking place somewhere not prone to complete lawlessness (I'm looking at you Congo and Sudan) then there might be some chance of success. Someplace like India, in one of the more rural villages, where random attacks by militias are not commonplace, might be the best location for a project designed to both promote women and, ultimately, improve the economy.
Yet, the target is "600 million girls" so I've got to assume the ones in the Congo and Sudan are targeted as well. And the end result will be, intentional or not, the artificial enrichment and advancement of certain people over others. This is going to create some form of resentment, though the exact form it takes will depend on the native culture. Further, countries where this project is most successful are going to be ones that are already pretty stable and once these countries advance to or near 1st world status they are going to be the target of their less stable neighbors. The motive for groups seeking power in these countries will be, as Cato's saying goes, "Carthago delenda est." Of course, we already see this pattern in places like Israel, where a, relatively, stable society has become the target for groups like Hezbollah.
To close, I'd like to recount the 'rape (abduction) of the Sabine women' in relation to this project. As I've said above, a prosperous village in an unstable region will be the target of nearly every other group seeking power and advancement. If the project succeeds we might then see a modern abduction like that of the Sabines for rumors will spread about the women of the successful village being the drive behind the success. Any warlord worth his salt and in the region will play the part of Romulus. He will work to abduct the women and, like the Romans did to the Sabine men, kill them, possibly in the process of abduction. Therefore, the result would not necessarily be sustained economic growth and stability but, rather, temporary economic growth and stability punctuated by the violent overthrow and eventual destruction of the society (for who is foolish enough to think the 'warlord' will trust the women and successfully set up a parallel economic success? And who is foolish enough to think another, more powerful, warlord won't then move in on the first?).
So, while I certainly think this is a worthwhile project and womens rights should be encouraged I think that the project directors need to be especially careful where they set their aim. Obviously, aiding in the creation of a future conflict or exploitation of peoples is not something anyone with such good intentions would want. Yet, it is certainly a risk. And, while I may not have provided modern evidence to support my claims, I believe the ancient accounts more than sufficient insights into human nature and more than able to justify my concerns. Further, it hard to imagine that all of 600 million girls this program hopes to help will be as altruistic as this video, disingenuously (probably by mistake), makes the viewer want to believe.
to maintain the complex bio-systems which sustain life on earth. It is hard to argue for the wanton destruction of various species of lowly 
will certainly assist voters to make informed choices in the voting booth and see past the rhetoric and seductive speeches.