Archive for the 'Articles' Category

In Regard to Illegal Police Searches

Just doing their job! Right?

The other night a few of my friends were at a local concert. Most were inside or roaming around the parking lot of a privately rented building to host the show. Within minutes the place was swarming with Police cars and officers. A group of a few officers approached a vehicle with a group of kids in it and proceeded to have them get out of the car and place their hands on the roof. The officers began to search the kids, their possessions, and the car all the while ignoring the cries and pleas of each individual. All of them individually exclaimed they had a right to not be searched. The police ignored these proclamations and violated their right to privacy nonetheless.

Situations like this are becoming more and more common. Police, using their monopoly of force have a nearly unregulated existence and with that can freely violate the rights of individuals at will. Cop-out laws like “reasonable suspicion” enable these legal mobsters to take advantage of nearly any situation and sway it to their advantage. Reasonable suspicion is defined as:

“The legal standard by which a police officer has the right to briefly detain a suspect for investigatory purposes and frisk the outside of their clothing for weapons, but not drugs. While many factors contribute to a police officer’s level of authority in a given situation, the reasonable suspicion standard requires facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a suspect has, is, or will commit a crime.

While reasonable suspicion does not require hard evidence, it does require more than a hunch. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually insignificant, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion. For example, police may have reasonable suspicion to detain someone who fits a description of a criminal suspect, a suspect who drops a suspicious object after seeing police, or a suspect in a high crime area who runs after seeing police.”

With loose definitions like this Police have an in at any given moment to detain you and frisk you. The law states it requires “more than a hunch” but what is the legal definition of a hunch? And at what point is a hunch acceptable? This a major problem with State supplied “security”, which is itself a contradiction. Police have little to do with security and much more to do with instability and coercion than any accused “criminal”. The point is these officers violated the 4th amendment rights of everyone in that car. Now the question remains, what can be done?

The short answer is file a complaint, the long answer is nothing. In this country and many others like it we rely on the State to regulate itself. Lets break that down. We count on the State, an entity with unlimited power to regulate itself, in the event it violates a rule that it wrote for itself. Does anyone see the problem with that? What good will filing a complaint do if the complaint is filed with the very company or “police force” that violated you? It is good for nothing! There is no vested interest on the side of the violating police firm because they only have to answer to themselves. Are we beginning to see the severe disconnect here? Asking the State provided monopolistic Police force to punish and regulate themselves is like asking the murderer to think about being less of a murderer “next time”. It just contradicts itself.

So what can really be done? Well unfortunately until there is a massive privatization of security and police not much at all. The best thing to do is educate yourself in the proper procedure when dealing with the countries largest street gang, ie. the police. A great website called Flex Your Rights has many great videos and great tutorials on the proper code of conduct when presented with a police run in. I suggest that every person who steps out of their bed take the time and read or watch the videos there. You can never know too much! The other option is contact your local civil rights organization. Groups like the ACLU may be able to help you.

Remember you don’t ever have to talk to an officer of the law. You have a right to remain silent. If you are asked to allow a search a few simple words like “I’m sorry Officer, I don’t consent to any searches” can save you a lot of trouble! Knowing how to ask if you are free to go is also an important aspect to dealing with these run ins. Arm yourself with knowledge and hope that you only deal with officers who understand and value the rights of citizens. Don’t hold your breath for that though.

“An appeal to the constitution implies that it is the job of the state to solve the problem of the state. Immediate fail.”

The Market and Net Neutrality

A glimpse into the future? Click and see.

I was ranting and raving all day on Twitter in regard to the proposed Google/Verizon net neutrality deal announced today. The Internet as expected is up in arms as they should be. Google and Verizon are effectively attempting to limit the Internet. They would feed the Internet to big business and let them decide what sites you can see, use, and sign up with. So what to do?

People are quick to beg and plead with the government to step in and stop this but the government is the reason this is an issue. Verizon and Google would have no way to monopolize the Internet so long as the government doesn’t grant them the exclusive right to do so! Think about electric companies where you live. How many can you choose from? In most cases only one! Why is that? Nine times out of ten it is because those companies have contracts with the government to monopolize a certain area. Same goes for cable tv, gas, and oil companies. Government is in fact granting these monopoly contracts that completely remove the free market competition and pander to big business. It is *illegal* for another company to provide energy or cable television in those areas. This is precisely what would happen in the event the Internet is more or less “given” to Verizon and Google. We now know that the government is not the answer to the net neutrality problem.

What we need is a market response. Should these policies be enacted one would hope that the market response would be negative. This would bring about a large spike in DSL service. Independent companies that provide Internet service that don’t piggy back from Verizon or Google equipment would see a huge spike in subscribers. As the old saying goes “necessity is the mother of invention” and in this event much like the early 90′s cable and satellite battles, and the current telecom battles which saw a rise in VOIP services (Vonage, Skype, Fring). One would be safe in assuming that new technology would naturally arise to combat these corporatist evils. Keeping all of this in mind it leads us to one natural conclusion and battle plan.

Do nothing. Let Google and Verizon attempt to corner the Internet, their fate will be worse than anything they could propose. Their fate will see market shares disappear. They are doing more harm than good. I for one (and I know there are many more like me) would refuse to use such a service. I would no longer remain a patron of Google, simple as that. I don’t use Verizon so I am already all set with that. As they lose users they lose profits. These companies will suffer the same fate that any corporation which doesn’t respect the free market suffers. They will simply be replaced by a new Google and a new Verizon.

Allow them to alienate themselves to their entire user base  and just hope a pray that big nanny government doesn’t grant them these exclusive monopolies! That is the true evil and the true danger. Trust the market.

To jump-start your Anti-Google movement start using http://www.startpage.com and have your privacy protected!

BP: Keeping it in Perspective

Update: Pro tip, actually READ the article and not just the first paragraph before you call me names lol! If you come away from this thinking I am advocating BP get away free and clear PLEASE see the entire paragraph dedicated to 100% liability as I make no such claims. As a matter of fact (if you read you would know) 100% liability is FORBIDDEN by the government. LOL! Amateurs.

It has been about a month since the BP “Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill” first shook the headlines of every major news source across the globe. At every turn we have heard about the chaos and destruction that has been caused by this oil spill but not once has anyone talked about the real victim in all of this, BP.

It is very easy to vilify BP for this oil spill. Even our government is advocating we take a hard line on BP. US press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said that the government intended to keep “its boot on BP’s neck.” However what many people fail to realize is this spill is an accident not an act of environmental terrorism. BP is not profiting from this spill. As a matter of fact 11 people lost their lives, where is the media coverage of that?

It is easy to lambast a company when events like this occur, but one must see beyond the media spin. It’s easy to splash some images of birds covered in oil and point a finger at a successful multinational company like BP and let the environmentalists go wild. Let’s keep in mind that BP is losing hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil daily. Their stock prices have plummeted and a company that has provided excellent service for many years to power our lives is at risk of collapsing. This means that small time subcontractors will suffer to feed their families, jobs will be cut, and entire industries will feel the shock as gas and oil prices will shoot sky-high. We rely on oil to live our lives and as such any event like this affects all of us on an economic level. It is because of this that BP is a victim and I feel bad for them. No one in this scenario profits.

Actually that’s not entirely true. It just so happens that environmentalists and government profits the most in these situations. Environmentalists who jump at the bit to berate a company like BP have done the most profiting. They are on all the media networks expressing deep remorse while other members of these groups are lobbying in Washington. Now with a chance to coin this a “disaster” they can leverage to get their agenda through on the hill.

What is this agenda? More regulation, less productivity for companies, a potential ban on offshore drilling, and increased taxes. Their fear mongering will do little to help animals. These companies that put the life of an animal above the life of a human aren’t the least bit concerned with the animals. They want to tell you what to be afraid of, and who you can blame for it; all the while making sure they manage to gain from it. If they have their way oil would be nonexistent. Life would be somewhere in the middle ages and all the good that oil does would be wiped away. This is unacceptable.

The other profiteer is Government. If anyone is to blame it is the government. Setting legislation for limited liability creates moral hazards, much like the TARP bailouts! United States federal law limits BP’s liability for non-cleanup costs to $75 million unless gross negligence is proven. Why isn’t liability 100%? A 100% liability cost would match a companies need to make sure it was doing business as safe and as efficient as possible. Government doesn’t encourage this, it creates a chance for companies to cut corners. Keep in mind that it is also government regulation that forces these companies to dig in deep water to begin with. Government interference prevents more sensible drilling on land or close to shore.

Government also profits because it now has a platform to steal more money in taxes. Without question taxes will be on the rise so bureaucrats who have no idea about oil spills can fund their proposed bills and social programs through “Oil Spill Prevention Acts”. These acts will do nothing to prevent oil spills and everything to assault civil and commercial liberties. There is even talk of ending tax breaks for oil companies. Seems like a nice way to increase the price we pay for oil and drive more companies away from doing business in the United States, really productive ::sarcasm::.

Government meddling with business drives companies out, taxing them into oblivion won’t clean up oil, it will hurt Main St. All of this does one thing and that is hinder the free market. Let free market forces determine the fate of BP, the market will correct this, like everything else. The government can’t sop up oil any faster than private industry can. All government can do is give it a lackluster effort and bill you for the cleanup. If we vote with our money than BP will do whatever it takes to satisfy its investors and customers. Not to mention what private individuals will come up with as a solution.

Let us keep in mind that these events are rare. Government does not need to step in and destroy the American oil industry. We don’t stop buying cars because people get in accidents, we don’t stop flying because a plane goes down, and we don’t need more regulations on the oil industry that will only hurt average everyday Americans at the pump. We need to understand this was a terrible accident, lives were lost, and a company hangs in the balance. The animal life will undoubtedly suffer and that is terrible. Let it be known that I feel for these animals, they did nothing to deserve this. However, it must be noted that government cannot protect them better than free individuals can. This is a true tragedy of the commons.

Finally, BP is not a terrorist organization hell-bent on destroying the American way of life, it is a company trying to turn a profit. Couple that with asinine limited liability  (government intervention) and you are left with what you have today, a company doing what it can to fix the mess it made within its legislated ability. Had the free market been in place this oil spill would have been 100 times less damaging, if it even happened at all.

From Mr. Lew Rockwell Ron Paul’s former Chief of Staff:
The abstraction called the “ecosystem” – which never seems to include humans or their civilization – has done far less for us than the oil industry. So let us not forget that the greatest tragedy here is BP’s and its subsidiaries’ and subcontractors’, and the private enterprises affected by the losses that no one intended. If the result is a shutdown of drilling and further regulation of private enterprise, people will lose. And that is what counts.

5 Improvements that need to hit TweetDeck

I love Twitter. I have tweeted since 2006 and I honestly don’t plan on stopping anytime soon. As time progressed and all the excellent Twitter apps hit the market one really stood out (ignoring the fact that I use Tweetie from my iPhone). TweetDeck really hit a home run when it launched. It is without a doubt the total Twitter App package. Columns and all sorts of little features that make it my default to interact with the service.

Truth be told though it needs some updating. Thanks to a faithful tweet I made about this issue it was confirmed that a new update was coming and some of my wish list items would be included. Either way, there are a few more. Here is a list of the top 5 TweetDeck improvements I would love to see.

Continue reading ’5 Improvements that need to hit TweetDeck’

Some talking points on the Times Sq. Bomber

There is no question that an act of aggression towards innocent people is unacceptable. I do no condone the actions of the alleged suspect and never would. This little blurb isn’t here to debate the situation. Rather, I want to make a few notes about some observations and worries I have for the present and future. Things that might affect our daily lives. Please feel free to chime in with the comments.

– “Anti-Terrorism” laws and the increased power of the State (things like the Patriot Act) don’t seem to be working. The potential bombing was thwarted because a street vendor reported seeing smoke coming from a car. This speaks volumes and provides proper evidence that increased restriction on our civil liberties to weed out potential “terrorists” is not the answer. Something like a National ID card will do nothing to stop potential acts of aggression by enemies. It will only make average everyday citizen’s lives more complicated. As well as raise tons of privacy issues nation wide and increase State power as a whole. State power did not stop this bombing. A concerned and responsible citizen did.

– As a Connecticut resident I worry that now we will see an increase in legislation for firearms. The suspect purchased a gun, later found in the car in Connecticut. I have an inkling that this will lead anti-gun advocates to scream to the heavens that we need tighter regulation and more strict laws to scrutinize potential candidates for carry permits. What I feel they fail to understand is that a criminal who seeks to commit a crime doesn’t care what specific laws are in place to stop him from obtaining a gun. One way or another the potential criminal will obtain a weapon. All more regulation will do is make it harder to obtain a license to carry for free citizens seeking to protect themselves.

– The word Terrorism has taken on a life of its own. After all, what exactly is a Terrorist? What is the proper definition? People give meaning to words and eventually if we aren’t careful those words take on a life of their own. We do the same thing with symbols. I fear that “Terrorism” and “Terrorist” have transcended actual crimes themselves. Whenever we hear of a madman on the loose we default to the idea that they are Muslim and “obviously” support a terrorist organization. The media spin on this is dangerous. We must define these crimes as the acts of criminals based on our laws and regulation. Some of them may be mentally disturbed or not, however the idea of branding anyone who now commits a serious crime a “terrorist” will only leave the country in a panic. When common, middle class, average Americans panic I fear some of most important civil liberties will be abandoned in the name of “safety” and “security”. This is a mistake. The State cannot stop individuals from carrying out heinous acts of aggression. See #1.

That’s it for now, obviously just some of my immediate concerns. These actions which lead to the theft of innocent lives are never acceptable. These criminals do not have a right to take anyone’s life but their own. However to protect the nation from these criminals, no State has a right to hinder your freedom and liberty. Keep that in mind.

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” — Franklin