Patents Become A Literal 'Get Out Of Jail Early' Card For Chinese Prisoners

from the gaming-the-system dept

We've written before about China's keenness to boost the number of patents granted -- without worrying too much about their quality. The New York Times reports on a rather unusual scheme for adding to the country's patent pile:

Under Chinese law, prisoners who have come up with useful new technologies can be eligible for sentence reductions.

This is no mere theoretical option: some prisoners have already benefited from the system.

Mr. Nan, who was given a 10-and-a-half-year sentence for corruption and match fixing in 2012, saw a court take one year off his sentence in December for good behavior, including writing science fiction and receiving four patents, China Daily reported. His inventions included a device for controlling desktop monitors, a mobile phone stand and two soccer-related items: a portable goal and a tool for measuring shot accuracy, China Daily said.

The Chinese newspaper that broke the story about prisoners using patents to reduce their sentences, Beijing Youth Daily, also found services that claimed they could provide patents to be used in this way:

One office in Shaanxi Province said it could provide a simple patent for 6,800 renminbi, or about $1,100, with prices rising to nearly $10,000 for more complex patents.

The good news is that if the people running these services are ever caught and sent to prison for trying to game the system, at least they know a good way of getting out early.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: china, jail, jail terms, patents

As Police Get More Militarized, Bill In Congress Would Make Owning Body Armor Punishable By Up To 10 Years In Prison

from the only-the-police-can-be-militarized dept

We've been writing an awful lot lately about the militarization of police, but apparently some in Congress want to make sure that the American public can't protect themselves from a militarized police. Rep. Mike Honda (currently facing a reasonably strong challenger for election this fall) has introduced a bizarre bill that would make it a crime for civilians to buy or own body armor. The bill HR 5344 is unlikely to go anywhere, but violating the bill, if it did become law, would be punishable with up to ten years in prison. Yes, TEN years. For merely owning body armor.

Honda claims that the bill is designed to stop "armored assailants" whom he claims are "a trend" in recent years. Perhaps there wouldn't be so much armor floating around out there if we weren't distributing it to so many civilian police forces... Not surprisingly, the very same police who have been getting much of this armor are very much in favor of making sure no one else gets it:

Honda said it has been endorsed by law enforcement organizations including the California State Sheriffs' Association, the Fraternal Order of Police and the Peace Officers Research Association of California, according to Honda.

Santa Clara County's District Attorney Jeff Rosen and Sheriff Laurie Smith and Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O'Malley and Sheriff Gregory Ahern also attended today's news conference, held at the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office in San Jose.

Santa Clara police Chief Michael Sellers and Milpitas police Chief Steve Pangelinan also attended the news conference.

That all sounds great. But when you read stories about police shooting unarmed teenagers, pointing guns at protesters and reporters, even threatening to kill or shoot them, isn't there at least a reasonable argument that people who are doing perfectly legal things might want to protect themselves from out of control, militarized police officers too? Owning a gun is perfectly legal, but owning a "ballistic resistant" shield gets you 10 years in jail?

Filed Under: body armor, congress, crime, jail, mike honda, police militarization

Many Pulitzer Prize Winners Demand DOJ Stop Threatening Reporter James Risen With Jail If He Protects His Sources

from the chilling-effects dept

For a while now we've been following the troubling story of NY Times reporter James Risen, whom the DOJ has been bullying and threatening with jail for daring to keep his sources confidential. Despite Eric Holder pretending to say that the DOJ won't put a reporter in jail, he's made it quite clear that only applies to a "reporter who is doing his job," and it's pretty clear that the DOJ apparently doesn't think protecting your sources is part of the job. Unfortunately, the court process has gone against Risen, so the only remaining question is if the DOJ will really seek to put Risen in jail.

The Freedom of the Press Foundation has put together a petition for Risen, but perhaps even more interesting is that it further got over a dozen Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists to speak out on Risen's behalf. Here are just a few:

DANA PRIEST, Public Service, 2008 / The Washington Post; Beat Reporting, 2006 / The Washington Post:

If the U.S. government were so concerned about the information revealed in Jim Risen’s stunning chapter on a now 14-year-old CIA operation against Iran gone wrong, it would have moved quickly to resolve this matter eight years ago when it was first published. Instead, it seems obvious now that what officials really want is to hold a hammer over the head of a deeply sourced reporter, and others like him who try to hold the government accountable for what it does, even in secret.

As Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama classified more and more of the government’s actions over the last 14 years, denying the public critical information to judge how its democracy is faring, it has fallen to reporters like Risen to keep Americans informed and to question whether a gigantic government in the shadows is really even a good idea. We will all be worse off if this case proceeds.

DAVID ROHDE, International Reporting, 1996 / Christian Science Monitor; International Reporting, team coverage, 2009 / New York Times (now at Reuters): 

The Justice Department’s pursuit of James Risen puts the lie to President Obama’s claim that he “welcomes” debate regarding his national security policies and leads “the most transparent administration in history.”  The administration should immediately end its pursuit of Risen and respect all journalists’ first amendment rights.

MARCUS STERN, National Reporting, 2006 / Copley News Service:

No press shield, no freedom. It's about the great values embodied in the First Amendment and whether they will be undermined at this moment in history or endure for future generations. The fate of James Risen and his anonymous source is our fate and our grand-children's fate. Please, get it right.

JASON SZEP and ANDREW R.C. MARSHALL, International Reporting, 2014 / Reuters:

It is scandalous that James Risen faces jail time for doing what every good journalist working in the public interest does: protect confidential sources. President Obama and Attorney General Holder should halt all legal action against James to demonstrate that their “war on leaks” is not an assault on the First Amendment and freedom of the press.

It's a travesty that this situation is still occuring. It creates a real chilling effect for both reporters and for sources, and seems like a clear First Amendment violation, even if the courts still disagree on this fact. The DOJ could put an end to this, but has not.

Filed Under: chilling effects, doj, eric holder, jail, james risen, journalism, pulitzer prize, sources

The One Telco Exec Who Resisted The NSA Has Been Released From 4+ Years In Jail

from the tell-it-like-it-is dept

If you were around during the reign of Joe Nacchio at Qwest, you already should be aware that he was not particularly well-liked. He was brash and obnoxious and often rubbed people the wrong way. There's a famous story, for example, of him calling up an executive at US West, a company that Qwest bought, which had a building directly across the street from Qwest's headquarters. Moments after the buyout closed, Nacchio got the exec on the phone and supposedly told him he had 15 minutes to change the sign on the building from US West to Qwest. Qwest collapsed in a somewhat spectacular manner not long after that, with some comparing it to the Enron collapse -- a lot of hype and stock pumping built on very little substance. A few years later, Nacchio was famously convicted of insider trading -- and certainly many people who had witnessed his earlier antics reveled in that result.

However, it was only later that it started to come out that Nacchio was alone among all of the major telco execs to tell the NSA to get lost when they came calling, demanding the ability to basically tap Qwest's entire network. For years, Nacchio has insisted that the entire lawsuit against him was retaliation for his refusal. When he first made those claims, it sounded far fetched and ridiculous. However, in the intervening years, as more and more details of the NSA's activities have become clear, Nacchio's initial arguments seem a hell of a lot more plausible.

It turns out that Nacchio was just released from prison after his 54 month sentence was completed. The WSJ has an odd but entertaining (and unfortunately paywalled -- though, you can get around it if you Google the title) article about his life in prison, where he apparently came out much healthier than he went in (lots of exercise) and is now best buddies with some former drug dealers who had his back in prison. One of whom, who goes by the name Spoonie, calls Nacchio "Joe-ski-luv" and says that they're best friends. "If he ever needs a lung or a bone, I'm there." Right.

But, more interesting is the tidbit further down about the NSA stuff:

Mr. Nacchio said he still believes his insider-trading prosecution was government retaliation for rebuffing requests in 2001 from the National Security Agency to access his customers' phone records. His plans to use that belief as a defense at trial never materialized; some of the evidence he wanted to use was deemed classified and barred from being introduced.

To Mr. Nacchio, the revelations of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who leaked documents saying the agency monitors the email and phone records of Americans, have justified his own stance. He contended the NSA's request was illegal.

"I feel vindicated," he said. "I never broke the law, and I never will."

An NSA spokeswoman declined to comment.

I would imagine that Nacchio could add quite a bit of useful information to the ongoing debate. And, in fact, it appears he intends to do so, with plans to write a book about "Americans' loss of liberty based on his experiences with the NSA and other government agencies." I look forward to reading it.

Filed Under: insider trading, jail, joe nacchio, joseph nacchio, nsa, nsa surveillance
Companies: qwest

Another 'Internet Threat' Results In Six Months In Jail And A Five-Year Ban From Social Media

from the so...-we've-rounded-up-all-the-REAL-criminals,-then? dept

Another person has been arrested for sending out "terroristic threats" via social media. Caleb Clemmons, a (former, obviously) Georgia Southern student, has spent the last six months in jail because of a Tumblr post that said the following:

hello. my name is irenigg and i plan on shooting up georgia southern. pass this around to see the affect it has. to see if i get arrested.

Within three hours, he was. Achievement unlocked: Bull fucked with; horns acquired.

Clemmons attempted to explain his post, calling it "an experimental literary piece and an art project." No sale. The police charged him with "making terroristic threats via a computer," which seems to be on par with doing it over the phone or by mail or in person. Why the delivery system matters, I have no idea.

Now, there's no disputing the utter stupidity of the post and pretty much daring the police to take action only makes it worse. As I've said before, the police should definitely investigate possible threats like these. The problem is that the investigations come and go without turning up any evidence that the person delivering the threat poses a danger. And yet, the arrestee stays locked up.

Although police found no weapons or evidence of an actual plan to attack the school, a judge set Clemmons' bail at $20,000, which was too much for him and his mother to pay. As a result, he spent the full time waiting for his court date in jail.

Not only did the police find nothing, but the administration at Georgia Southern didn't even bother notifying the student body at the time of Clemmons' arrest because it felt "there was no continuous threat." In fact, no statement at all was made until Clemmons' story resurfaced a week ago, over six months since the date of his original post.

At this point, Clemmons is technically free. He's been sentenced to five years probation, along with six months in jail (which he already served). Perhaps more harshly, he's been banned from social media for the entirety of his probation.

Like Justin Carter and Cameron D'Ambrosio, Clemmons said something stupid on the internet and is now paying the price for it -- one that seems to outweigh the "crime" itself. And like the other two, he was investigated (which is good) but still remained imprisoned despite a complete dearth of evidence to support his ability to carry out the threat (which is terrible).

The overreaction of law enforcement to these "threats" is usually justified by pointing to recent school shootings or terrorist attacks. But what's unsaid is that the perpetrators of the Sandy Hook shooting and the Boston Bombing (both cited frequently) didn't deliver threats via social media (or anywhere really) before carrying out their acts of violence. Somehow prosecutors and law enforcement have gotten it into their heads that terrorists and mass murderers will be sending Tweets and lighting up Facebook before carrying out their plans. I think most murderers and terrorists would prefer to carry out their acts of violence unmolested rather than be detained or imprisoned, hence the lack of advance notice.

Not only would this sort of heads-up be an anomaly, but bombers and mass murders generally have some sort of evidence laying around, like stockpiles of weapons or bomb-making components. When these threats are investigated, one would expect the police to find something that backs up the words. But in all three of these cases, they haven't.

Not only that, but the cases are weak enough that law enforcement and prosecutors have resorted to editorializing the actual "threats" made by these individuals in order to make their cases stick. In Ambrosio's case, the police chief repeatedly dropped the part of his Facebook post where he said "Ima be famous rapping," making it appear as though his fame relied solely on some vague allusions to other violent acts. In Carter's case, prosecutors dropped the first part of his response (provoked by another person) -- "I'm fucked in the head alright" -- and presented the rest of the post ("I think I’ma shoot up a kindergarten and watch the blood of the innocent rain down and eat the beating heart of one of them") as a standalone statement in the indictment.

Unfortunately, this sort of thing looks like it will only get more common, rather than just become a time-dependent anomaly due to the proximity to acts of terrorism. The police need to take these statements seriously, but they also need to let it go when their investigations come up empty. To move forward with prosecution is to punish someone for stupidity, something that still isn't a crime no matter how often we wish it was. There's no terrorism prevention going on here -- it's just abuse of an easily-abused law and the end result makes no one any safer.

Filed Under: caleb clemmons, georgia southern university, jail, law enforcement, terroristic threats

DOJ Admits It Had To Put Aaron Swartz In Jail To Save Face Over The Arrest

from the it's-all-about-the-public-perception dept

As the Congressional investigation into the DOJ's prosecution of Aaron Swartz has continued, apparently a DOJ representative has admitted that part of the reason it insisted on having Swartz plead guilty to a felony and go to jail, no matter what, was that it feared the public backlash for the original arrest if they couldn't then show a felony conviction and jailtime. According to a Huffington Post article, quoting various sources:

Some congressional staffers left the briefing with the impression that prosecutors believed they needed to convict Swartz of a felony that would put him in jail for a short sentence in order to justify bringing the charges in the first place, according to two aides with knowledge of the briefing.

The odd thing is this little tidbit comes at the very, very end of a longer article, most of which focuses on the DOJ telling Congressional staffers that part of the reason they went after Swartz with such zeal was because of his infamous Guerilla Open Access Manifesto. That might explain why they were so eager to arrest him, but it seems like the much bigger deal, considering all the concern about prosecutor discretion, that after they arrested him, they then didn't want to look bad, which is why they continued to demand jailtime and felony convictions.

Many people have assumed all along that the Manifesto played a big role in the case -- and the Manifesto has certainly been a lightening rod concerning Swartz's activities. If you read the actual "manifesto" it's not quite as extreme as some make it out to be -- with much of it talking about taking stuff that is public domain, but still hidden behind walls, and making that available again. The controversial bit really is this paragraph, which starts out with legal activities, but gets much more ambiguous at the end:

We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world. We need to take stuff that's out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open Access.

Note that initially he's talking about stuff that is out of copyright. When he's talking about databases, note that he talks about buying them for the sake of putting them online, not infringing on the works. It's just that bit about scientific journals. And, yes, if those works are covered by copyright, there's likely infringement there, but it's not entirely clear. Especially in an age where many professors post up free copies of their research any way, and where it looks like we're moving to an age where more and more research is open access anyway. In that context, is what he said really so bad?

Apparently the DOJ thought it was a reason to throw the book at Swartz, even if he hadn't actually made any such works available.

The "Manifesto," Justice Department representatives told congressional staffers, demonstrated Swartz's malicious intent in downloading documents on a massive scale.

Some may agree with that, but it seems like a jump towards "thoughtcrime" since he hadn't actually made any move towards making the JSTOR data available. It's possible that he planned to only make the public domain works (of which there are many) available. It's also possible he planned to leak the whole thing. But, really, you would think that there should be a bit more evidence of that before prosecutors throw the book at him.

More importantly, it suggests that Swartz was arrested and prosecuted for expressing his opinion on how to solve a particular problem. You may or may not agree with it, but I thought the US was supposed to be a place where we were free to express ideas. There's even some famous part of our Constitution about that...

Filed Under: aaron swartz, congressional investigation, doj, jail

IRS Gives $104 Million To UBS Whistleblower... Who The DOJ Put In Jail

from the mixed-messages dept

Sometimes it seems that the federal government's left hand has no idea what it's right hand is doing. Bradley Birkenfeld, a former banker for Swiss banking giant UBS, blew the whistle on UBS practices of helping Americans hide their money offshore. For his troubles, the Justice Department charged him, leading to a plea deal in which he plead guilty to fraud conspiracy and was put in jail for a few years. He just got out a month ago... and now the IRS has handed him $104 million for the whistleblowing, which resulted in UBS paying $780 million to the government to avoid prosecution itself. The IRS claims they're doing this to encourage others to blow the whistle on tax fraud... though they might want to warn the DOJ not to put their whistleblowers in prison. That said... $104 million seems somewhat insane. I realize that it may have resulted in the US government getting a lot more money, but $104 million still seems like a giant sum of money to give a guy who, as the government's own efforts show, participated in fraud. If the idea is to "get the word out" to whistleblowers, you would think that smaller sums, still in the millions of dollars, would do the trick...

Filed Under: awards, bradley birkenfeld, conspiracy, doj, irs, jail, whistleblowers
Companies: ubs

Supreme Court Says You Can Be Strip Searched When Admitted To Jails For Any Offense

from the what-4th-amendment dept

The Supreme Court continues to chip away at whatever is left of the 4th Amendment. A ruling on Monday (with a close 5 to 4 vote) decided that jails can strip search those enrolled for pretty much any offense. However, the reasoning behind this was very suspect. In this case, it was a man who was mistakenly arrested (there was an erroneous warrant out for a fine which he had already paid).

The majority opinion, by Justice Kennedy, basically argues (1) that jails are really dangerous, so we have to search everyone and (2) that some bad people might be arrested for other things, and a strip search might find them out. Neither argument makes much sense when you think about it. As Amy Davidson writes at the New Yorker link above, if jails are so dangerous, why are we sending so many people there? Shouldn't we be working on that part? And as for the other part:

He mentions that one of the 9/11 hijackers got a speeding ticket, though not how strip-searching him might have stopped the attacks, or how many millions of speeders you need to sort through to find a terrorist. Never mind, Kennedy writes: “People detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals.”

And thus, let's strip search everyone!

Filed Under: 4th amendment, jail, scotus, strip search

NinjaVideo Admin Phara Gets 22 Months In Jail, 500 Hours Of Community Service & Has To Pay MPAA $210k

from the well,-well... dept

Today was the sentencing for Hana "Phara" Beshara, the admin for NinjaVideo who has received plenty of attention in the last few months. Just a few hours ago, she was sentenced to 22 months in prison, another two years probation after that, 500 hours of community service and she has to pay back the $209,896.95 that she supposedly made from NinjaVideo to the MPAA. I'm sure they'll be passing that along to moviemakers, right? Either way, what's telling here is that the judge appears to have given Beshara significantly less than what the government asked for.

After receiving what appears to be some pretty bad legal advice, Beshara was indicted, and quickly realized that she was left with little choice but to plead guilty in the case. Just a few weeks ago, we wrote about the fantastic and detailed American Prospect article by Rob Fischer, which detailed Beshara's story in a way where she certainly made it clear that she didn't agree with the reasonableness of the charges against her. Once again, it seems as if Beshara has been on the receiving end of bad legal advice (talking to the press post-guilty plea, but pre-sentencing... not so smart).

The US Attorney, Neil MacBride (who, it's important to note, spent years as the Business Software Alliance's "anti-piracy" boss), asked the judge to throw the book at her, using Fischer's article to repeatedly claim that Beshara's "substantial ego" and "inflated sense of self-importance" justified sending a strong message with the sentencing. Who knew that having a big ego was illegal? MacBride -- as he used to do with the BSA -- totally overplayed the claims of "losses" to the entertainment industry -- insisting that, every week, the MPAA alone was harmed to the tune of $1.5 million, "resulting in a staggering sum if the figure is extrapolated" to cover the 120 weeks that the site was in existence. Here's a tip, Neil, if extrapolating leads you to "a staggering sum," perhaps it's because your assumptions are wrong.

Either way, the judge appears to have decided not to completely buy into these claims of harm. While the government "agreed to limit the loss" to just $1 million, even though "the harm was certainly far more than $1 million," the judge seems to have capped the financial restitution to just her salary from NinjaVideo. The judge appears to have chosen not to also include a fine (which sentencing guidelines would allow between $10,000 and $100,000). On top of that, the judge gave Beshara less time in jail then either what Beshara claimed she expected (3 years) or what the sentencing guidelines and MacBride suggested (46 to 57 months). It seems that the judge didn't buy into all of MacBride's assertions.

Either way, expect the government to play this up as some huge victory against the scourge of online infringement and use it to justify continued censorship of websites.

Filed Under: copyright, hana beshara, ice, infringement, jail, neil macbride, operation in our sites, phara, sentencing
Companies: mpaa, ninjavideo

Guy Who Uploaded Early Version Of Wolverine, Which Appears Not To Have Hurt Movie At All, Gets 1 Year In Jail

from the punishment-=-crime? dept

The ridiculous over-punishment of those caught infringing continues. Earlier this week, Judge Margaret Morrow sentenced Gilberto Sanchez to one year in jail for daring to upload the "workprint" copy of the movie X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Morrow called his crime "very serious." We're still trying to figure out what the evidence is that his crime was serious. As we've discussed, the actual evidence suggests that the leak probably helped the movie at the box office rather than the other way around. Despite dreadful reviews, the movie massively outperformed a number of very similar movies with very similar target audiences (but much better reviews!). The fact that Sanchez uploaded a "workprint" version -- which left out many of the special effects makes it even more ridiculous. That's not going to be an adequate replacement, and many people who saw it would probably be intrigued to see the full film to see how they turn the workprint into the final version.

I still think that Fox missed a huge opportunity in its idiotic response to this leak. It could have acted cool about it, and said something like:

Hey Wolverine fans! We know that you're all looking forward to the release of the movie next month. We're excited too! By now you may have heard that an early totally unfinished version has been leaked online. It's missing a whole bunch of stuff -- including some amazing special effects -- and honestly, this version isn't a finished product at all. We think you'll get a much better overall experience by waiting for the full finished product, but we certainly understand that some of you just can't wait (trust us, we feel the same way!). If that's the case, please, feel free to check it out, but please remember that this isn't even close to the final version. If anything, think of this as a "behind-the-scenes" peek of just what a movie looks like before all the real "movie magic" gets put in there. If you do check it out, we hope you'll join us May 1st to check out the finalized version as well on the big screen the way we intended for you to see this awesome movie. It's just a month away!

Instead, it called in the FBI, who took time and resources away from things like fighting terrorism, to put this guy in jail for uploading a version of the film that wouldn't be a very good substitute, and which appears to have no negative impact on the box office whatsoever.

Filed Under: gilberto sanchez, jail, uploads, wolverine
Companies: fox