Standard Mischief

It looks like the official blog for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership is now requiring that you register before leaving comments. Frankly, with the way they always get hammered on when they post their garbage, I have to wonder what took them so long.

So if you want to post, you need to register. I’d use a “dump” address, but if you don’t keep one of those around try one of the free, no sign-up ones over at Mailinator. You also no longer get the standard rel=”no follow” linkback to your blog next to your comments.

Does a trackback work? It seems to, but I’m going to try an experiment now.

It’s interesting to see the Brady Bunch endorse the No-Fly list. Oh, yea, I understand. Those who endorse the “Mr. and Mrs. American, turn them all in” type of “sensible gun control” would use any tool or any lie available to keep firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

When one rubs two neurons together, however, one comes to the realization that the No-Fly list is a list of people where the government 1) has enough evidence to declare them as too dangerous to allow on a plane, and 2) the government does not have enough evidence to detain them in a prison such as Gitmo. So how much evidence does it take to be detained in a secret prison, that is sometimes in a secret location, where one would be (secretly, of course) be denied the right to appeal ones imprisonment to a secret court? I’m sorry, that’s a secret, but news reports have hinted that some of the detained people are j. random people turned in by other people for the reward money.

All of that is a round-about way of saying we can’t trust the no-fly list. I’m sure the Robert Johnsons, Ted Kennedys, James Moores, Walther Murphys, and a few people named John Lewis would agree with that assessment. All the innocent people who are on the list would agree that it’s a secret how they got on the list, and there is no way to formally get off the list. Thus the list violates the “Due Process” sniff test.

Due Process – that’s another right we pro-freedom people care deeply about.

I don’t have anything to add to this funny story except perhaps Debra might be guilty of “probing” TSA security. That might be a crime, but it’s hard to tell as many of the TSA regs are secret.

If it’s not there yet, I’m sure this will be a winner over on FlyerTalk.

Personally, I think this is a great example of “stretching” a law to cover an unintended “crime”. This actually happens all the time. Wasn’t RICO supposed to only be used against the Mafia? Only in this case this is a “crime” that almost everyone has, at one time or another, probably “committed”. We have constitutions that delegate lawmaking power to organizations for a reason. That reason isn’t just so they can declare the Black-eyed Susan Maryland’s state flower. If there’s a real need to make this a crime where are the legislative-critters? Where is the statutes?

So, the question remains, is using someone else’s WiFi without permission a crime? Exactly how bad a crime have you committed and what kind of penalties should you be subject to? Or is this the equivalent of utilizing your neighbor’s porch light that s/he left on, light that is spilling over onto your property?

Threat Level details an arrest:

A Michigan man got snagged by the cops and slapped with a $400 fine for using an open wireless connection at a cafe without purchasing a drink. He was in his car in the parking lot checking his email when an intrepid lawmen apprehended him. He was charged with “Unauthorized Use of Computer Access,” according to WOOD TV. However, that statute seems to require that the person be using the access to commit a crime. They might also have hit the guy with “Obtaining telecommunications services with intent to avoid charge,” a statute so broad that anyone who tethers their phone to a laptop without carrier permission would be guilty of a misdemeanor.

…and then asks for analogies:

Enjoying the shade cast upon your yard by your neighbor’s tree
by Matt Huggins

Your neighbor planted the tree, waters, fertilizes and prunes the tree. You enjoy its shade, its appearance, possibly its fragrance and/or fruit, if the wind carries it into your yard. The pleasure of the tree (and its drawbacks, in some cases) impacts both his yard and your yard. He would be within his rights to cut down the tree, maybe erect a huge wall, but cannot otherwise curtail your enjoyment.

Music at the bistro
by Drew

Using an open WiFI connection is like standing on the sidewalk outside the local bistro and hearing the band that’s playing inside. Are you loitering? Yes, after a while. Are you stealing? Not even close.

Gas station bathroom

It’s like going into a gas station and using the bathroom without buying gas. Wait, you can’t do that anymore because gas stations lock the bathroom and make you ask the attendant for the key. Hey, that’s ANALAGOUS! Lock the wireless down unless you don’t mind allowing passersby to use the facilities.

Drinking from someone’s water fountain
by PsyDev

I think this is a good example because the flow of water is essentially free. It’s only disruptive if an inordinate amount of people do it (imagine a line up to use the water fountain). This would be akin to bandwidth constriction due to overuse from freeloaders. This is not likely though, and so it is basically just harmless freeloading.

Is Like Listening to Your Neighbor’s Noise Polluting Stereo and Enjoying It
by Tom M

If the coffee shop wants to broadcast in public spaces, they run the risk of people using it.

Like neighbor’s lawn sprinkler watering my lawn
by jimemak

Going into shopping mall just to get out of the heat
by giff

If you don’t buy anything, are you stealing their “cool”?

Taking Candy From A Doctor’s Office Candy Jar W/O A Sign Saying Help Yourself
by Wired News

Using open bandwidth is like taking candy from a reception desk candy jar that has no sign. If it’s open, it’s understood to be free.

enjoying your neighbor’s garden

…from the comfort of your own back porch. Don’t you dare stop to enjoy the flowers!

We did two cycles of Congress sending the President bills that he would not sign. It was also clear that the people in Congress that wanted to withdraw the troops did not have the votes to overturn the President’s veto. There seemed to be a impasse.

It’s at that point, I began to really worry. Having read Claire Wolfe’s Land-mine Legislation. (while the whole thing is worth a read, you might want to skip down to the part that is subtitled STEALTH ATTACKS IN BROAD DAYLIGHT ) and seeing that congressional staffers won’t even get a copy of the complete immigration bill until after they have voted on it, one has to worry what kind of standard mischief our congress-critters have decided to bury in their latest masterpiece.

I got at least part of the answer on the way home from work today. It seems that the troop funding bill has at least some language that contains a raise in the federal minimum wage. Gee, I’m so glad we got a chance to debate the issue and influence our congress-thingys on that.

I’m not entirely sure where I read the idea - perhaps in a comment over at saysuncle.com - but it’s a goodie. How about a 7 day waiting period for all legislation? You know, so Congress does not go off half-cocked. Simply impose a 7 day period from when the full text of a bill gets published over at http://www.thomas.gov/, before congress is allowed a chance to vote on the bill. Perhaps we’ll have a $5000 fine and ten points on the drivers license for any legislator who disobeys this law. That ought to survive a constitutional challenge.

Yep, is seems to be true, Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey seems to have cut way back on the blogging. Seems that the dreaded “Real Life” syndrome (in this case a new job) has intruded on to the scene.

Although the quantity and quality of posts seemed to be declining, I suppose the comment discussion is what really kept me there. Still, I’d probably would have kept her blog in the “guilty pleasures” category regardless.

The part that ticks me off most is that she never blogged about her Health Savings Account (HSA) with a medical High Deductible Health Insurance plan that she had since post-college and probably right up to her new employment opportunity, if not held currently (I understand that her employers are libertarian leaning). She did, however, have quite a few posts about paying cash for excellent care in third world countries.

‘Tis a shame because I could use the ammo against those who want some kind of state run health care, or who confuse the Health Savings Accounts with the use-it-or-lose-it Medical Savings Accounts everyone is more familiar with.

Thankfully, in a post that had gone wildly off-topic, tgirsch doesn’t want to mandate that you participate, only that you are forced into supporting some sort of public health care boondoggle.

We’re veering off-topic now, but I wouldn’t support a Canadian-style Universal Health Care system where all services must be obtained from government providers. I would instead prefer a system where everyone is welcome to use (and, through taxation, help pay for) those providers and services, but could elect to go to a private practice at their own expense. Doing so would not exempt you from helping to pay for the government-run system, any more than sending your kid to private school (or not having kids at all) exempts you from helping to pay for the school system.

Yup, he want a system analogous to our *cough cough* World Famous Public School System. He might as well compare it to Social Security, where everyone (except one white religious minority) is forced to pay into a system that has had its operating surplus funneled right into the nation’s general fund while only having a pocket full of IOUs to show for it.

Oh and for the threat to privacy angle that appears after you have been taxed to the level that forces you into the public health care system?

Regarding personal records, you do what we do now with IRS records and the like: you prosecute the holy hell out of anybody who abuses access to that information. In any case, as Ted implies, your personal medical records are probably already in far more nefarious hands than those of the government.

I’m sorry, but please remind me who is now in jail for when the FBI overstepped their authority in using the perpetual patriot act? How ’bout the AT&T internet peering? When they pass laws like that mandating privacy, they frequently “forget” to add any penalties for breaking the laws, or if they do they ignore them. This is in stark contrast to the usual helmet or seatbelt laws chock full of fines and points.

Left on another blog, about a year ago by myself, after being ripped to shreds about my inexact, but apparently good enough grasp of the Canadian health care system:

…I can only guess that those who would support any kind of government controlled healthcare either think that medical privacy no longer matters, or that the moment we get socialized medicine in the USA, the horns will blow in the heavens; the United States will instantly turn into one of those enlightened European countries, except that it’s really freaking big, and has slightly less cool architecture; oh, and all the “fundies” will melt away like the Wicked Witch of the West.

Am I missing a third option? Please, do tell.

The response to that, oddly enough, was crickets chirping.

Yea, I’ll have to blog about this a bit more.