Feds: We will search through your laptop files at the border

Following in the wake of February's news that customs agents were seizing electronics and making copies of all the files on cell phones and laptop hard drives, a federal appeals court has ruled on the legality of such searches.  Basically,customs can do whatever it wants to your computer when you come across the border, without a warrant, and without cause.  Additionally, and what makes this ruling even worse is that it was a unanimous decision by all three appellate court justices.  

However, what is most ironic about this ruling is that it was not made with intent to thwart terrorism but in fact was made regarding an American citizen returning from the Philippines with child pornography on his computer.  Now I'm all for this man rotting in jail for years but this sets a dangerous precedent.  For example, if one is an attorney with confidential attorney client privilege on your computer and now all of the sudden because you choose to leave the United States your information is subject to becoming not so confidential.  More interestingly, how will they handle companies that have government contracts that issue laptops with confidential information?  

This seems to me yet another violation of privacy and illegal search and seizures that has plagued the Bush Administration and the conservative justices that have been appointed by them or previous so called conservatives.  The prevailing wisdom being, if you do not have anything to hide than why worry?  Yet, as I pointed out above this is not simply the case and I can only hope that the Supreme Court realizes this as well.

I guess as always...big brother is watching more and more. 

YouTube's filtering issues still not 'moot'

Youtube has finally started to catch up to the rampant illegal copyrighted content that is uploaded to its site.  

"We are in the process of developing tools which are called 'Claim Your Content,'" Schmidt said at the National Association of Broadcasters 2007 conference. "If people tell us this is a licensed copy, our computers will automatically detect that an illegal copy has been uploaded and then automatically delete it."

This will go a long way in making the site less liable and its users more aware of the content that they post on the site.  Thus, Youtube has taken a positive step in limiting their legal liability and in preventing their users from making them liable as well.  

This is exactly what I would do if I were to run Youtube.  Unfortunately we like in an age in which many people will attempt to get around Youtube's barriers (for example post a movie in ten minute clips to get around the ten minute barrier Youtube originally implemented).  Therefore, this is a great step Youtube has imposed in an attempt to prevent lawsuits. 

Summary

In Robert O'Harrow Jr's article State Groups Were Formed After 9/11, he discusses intelligence centers instituted after 9/11 that, "have access to personal information about millions of Americans, including unlisted cellphone numbers, insurance claims, driver's license photographs and credit reports. Specifically, he cites the Washington Post as being his source in this matter. These centers, dubbed as "fusion centers" give their analysts access to all of this information in order to identify possible terrorist threats and to improve the way information is shared. However, the government refuses to elaborate on the centers activities, simply stressing that they are important to National Security.

Virginia first state to require Internet safety lessons

I went to high school in Virginia so this article immediately caught my eye.  That being said I completely agree with the program that is being implemented throughout the Virginia public school system.  That is, a program run by Web Wise Kids, a nonprofit group funded by the federal government and corporations such as Verizon and Symantec to provide schools with no-cost Internet safety lessons for 11- to 16-year-olds.  Though some of the older high school aged children may find it dull and obvious it is important to reach out and further one understanding of the amount of information that can be left available to anyone via MySpace and Facebook.  This is akin to the first day of class in which Professor Katsh showed everyone their current Facebook photos.  However, I would not stop at just warning children of the danger of child molesters on websites such as Myspace.com but would go a step further in making them aware of the current laws (or lack their of) surrounding such sites.  Much as it was a shock to many members of the class regarding information such as Facebook owns every part of your account, I am sure it would be a shock to these children.  

Thus, integrating internet safety is valuable but it must be expanded.  

Family of sexually assaulted girl pursues MySpace lawsuit

The family of a teenage girl who says she was sexually assaulted by a man she met on Myspace asked a federal appeals court Monday to revive their lawsuit against the social networking Web site.  However, the Federal judge in Austin, Texas, dismissed the $30 million suit in February 2007, rejecting the family's claim that MySpace has a legal duty to protect its young users from sexual predators.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this ruling.  Myspace markets itself to underage children with Facebook being its College counterpart.  Thus, Myspace has a responsible to do what it can to protect their users and deny sexual predators from access to its site.  As a social networking site that allows everything from bands to children accessing its site, Myspace has an obligation to assure that its users are alotted the same amount of safety they would expect at home.  Yes, there are certain degrees of inherent risk even in ones home but as long as Myspace is proving that they are making reasonable and not half-assed or non-existant attempt to project their users then they should not be held libel.  However, this is obviously not occuring and until this does, their feet should be held to the fire.     

Cuba Limits Access

Cuba appears to have limited access from within the island to the nation's most-read Web site, Generacion Y, a highly critical blog written from Havana.

The author of the Web site, Yoani Sanchez, complained in a post Monday that for the last few days, users on the island get an error message when attempting to access her site.

I have always found it fascinating that each country can have its own laws regarding something that is supposed to be the World Wide Web.  Understandably it is tough to regulate something on a global scale.  However, valuable information and potential freedoms are being violated repeatedly by restricting freedom of the press and freedom to post on a global scale.  This begs this question, in an arena without borders, is Cuba violating essential rights for citizens in the US by restricting this website for all to see, or just their citizens? 

Wiretapping Part Two

Ben Franklin once said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”  Due to the aggressive White House stance regarding the war on terror, in particular, the controversy over warrantless wiretapping on American citizens, it is important to identify the value and use of rights. A right is defined as a political resource or a concept.  Therefore, citizens use rights as a resource to safeguard themselves from intrusion by the government upon essential liberty embodied within the Constitution.  That is, citizens combat this intrusion by using rights in various ways by looking to their representatives for protections or through suits brought through courts of law.  With this in mind it is important to beg the question of how the government should balance rights versus the safety of American citizens, particularly with regard to warrentless wiretapping in a time of war? The very premise of the American society is one based upon rights and these rights set it apart from the terrorists America is at war with.  America’s founders believed that society flourished when individuals’ “unalienable rights’ were made paramount to guard against tyranny.   By eavesdropping on Americans without a warrant, the Bush Administration is violating this essential liberty enumerated in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.  Their viewpoint that one has nothing to hide if they are not doing wrong violates the founders premise for America and ones individual liberty.  Therefore, by violating these rights the administration is destroying the very thing the government is sworn and trying to protect through the war on terror.