State Treasurer Cites Anomalous Kidnapping Case, Office Distraction In Denying Newspaper Access To State Pension Fund Records

from the because-DANGER-and-also-office-gossip dept

In the supposed interest of safety (among other things), Rhode Island's state treasurer is seeking to keep management contracts a secret -- but only for a select group of managers. Here's the impetus:

Citing the case of Eddie Lampert, an investor who was abducted in 2003 by ransom-seeking kidnappers, the letter to Assistant Rhode Island Attorney General Michael Field from Raimondo’s office further argued that disclosing too much information about financial fees and compensation could endanger the lives of hedge fund managers.

Notice that it's only hedge fund management Rhode Island treasurer Gina Raimondo is concerned about. Although upper level management in other industries is likely compensated at rates attractive to ransom-seeking kidnappers, Raimondo just wants this select few to be exempt from public disclosure. This is for several reasons, but mostly this reason:

Raimondo is a Democrat who founded one of the financial firms that manages Rhode Island pension money.

Raimondo's letter, in addition to raising ridiculous kidnapping fears (the thing that happened ONE TIME, more than a decade ago), also claims that publicizing hedge fund managers' compensation makes it hard to get any work done around the office.

"Fund managers keep this information confidential to help preserve the productivity of their staff and to minimize attention around their own compensation..."

These reasons were all cited in the state's refusal to disclose details of hedge fund management contracts to Rhode Island's largest newspaper, the Providence Journal. Not covered in the refusal letter was Raimondo's involvement in steering billions of dollars of state pensions into funds with higher risks and higher fees, or that Raimondo's firm, Point Judith, receives a cut of the $7.7 billion at stake.

Of course, the spokesperson for the treasurer's office claimed the office was all about transparency.

“Rhode Island has become a national leader in disclosing management and performance fees paid to all investment managers, including hedge funds, private equity, equity and fixed income managers." The state has disclosed the total fees paid to financial managers while merely withholding the management contracts, the treasurer's office maintains.

Her office also maintains that Raimondo has done everything possible to insure her position avoids any conflicts of interest. And yet, her office tells journalists it won't be releasing public records about state pensions. If I were a government official foisting some sort of new surveillance on the public, I would say this lack of openness indicates Raimondo has something to hide. But I'm not one of those people. Instead, I'm just more than a little cynical which, oddly enough, brings me to the same conclusion.

It's hardly surprising that a government official would try to use fear (kidnapping!) as an excuse to keep public records away from the public. This tactic informs nearly every FOIA request refusal from our nation's investigative and intelligence agencies. This misdirection is used to excuse all sorts of misconduct from law enforcement officers. This is also used to ensure backroom deals stay hidden in the back room. If Raimondo has truly "taken all recommended steps" to avoid conflicts of interest, then she should have no problem turning over these contracts. But she's gone the other way, surprising no one and further widening the distance between her office and the public it's supposed to be serving.

Filed Under: eddie lampert, foia, gina raimondo, public records, rhode island, state treasurer

Rhode Island Cops Now Using Dogs To Detect Hard Drives, Memory Cards And Other Electronics

from the all-in-the-name-of-the-'worst-of-the-worst' dept

There's good intentions behind it, but the implications are worrying. For years now, dogs have been trained to sniff out drugs by law enforcement agencies. (Well, in most cases, trained by third-party specialists before being turned over to law enforcement agencies.) The problem is that these dogs now ride around in cruisers and give the police "probable cause" to perform vehicle searches and, believe it or not, hours of rectal/vaginal searches, simply by "alerting" to an odor.

Dogs aren't infallible, but law enforcement would prefer us to believe they are. They are animals which are rewarded for performing certain actions. Drug-sniffing dogs have been known to react more to handler cues than actual odors. When this happens, police officers are in essence generating their own justification for a full-blown search. As Jacob Sullum at Reason memorably put it: "Drug Warriors Kidnap and Sexually Assault a Woman After Getting Permission From a Dog."

So, if the targeted criminals are indisputably awful people, why does this news seem like another bad idea? (via slashdot)

The recent arrival of golden Labrador Thoreau makes Rhode Island the second state in the nation to have a police dog trained to sniff out hard drives, thumb drives and other technological gadgets that could contain child pornography.

Thoreau received 22 weeks of training in how to detect devices in exchange for food at the Connecticut State Police Training Academy.

The plus side is that, at least to this point, the dogs are only being used to assist with search warrants, rather than riding along with patrolmen and nosing around vehicles of drivers deemed too nervous to be guilty of nothing more than a traffic infraction.

But like drug dogs, the urge to generate positives is indulged.

Houston demonstrated the dog's skills last month. Houston walked the dog through a room in which he had hidden devices. A second pass went more slowly, with Houston coaxing the dog. "Show me. Show me."

Thoreau furiously sniffed shelves, desks, cabinets. The dog located a hard drive inside a Ziploc bag in the upper shelf of a desk. A flash drive and thumb drive were also found, with the dog zeroing in on their location down to the exact drawer. In exchange, Thoreau got food.

"This is how he eats every day," says Houston, who cares for the dog around the clock.

The stakes get higher when the dogs are deployed in the hunt for child pornography/pornographers. Training a dog to alert on devices makes any device it detects instantly suspect. And when it fails to find anything, the presumption will be adjusted to fit the lack of evidence. Rather than this being a sign of innocence, it will be an excuse to tear everything apart or collect additional warrants to search other locations. Because if the police have decided you're a suspect -- especially a possible child molester -- the searching won't stop until something is uncovered. Starting this chain of events by asking an animal inclined to please its handlers just makes the chain of unfortunate events unfold faster.

Beyond the question of whether police dogs should expand their range from drugs to electronics, there's the hysteria being irresponsibly delivered by law enforcement officials (and reprinted willingly and credulously by the local press -- because who would question someone who's arresting child molesters?) I sincerely hope the Rhode Island police are working with a more specific dataset than this:

Most child pornography offenders are white men with an average age of 41, U.S. Sentencing Commission statistics show. The majority graduated from high school and hold jobs.

No shit. Most men have graduated high school and are now employed. Quite frequently they reach the age of 41, often exceeding it by 30+ years before dying. Dumping an assertion like this into the public domain will only increase the number of people who view any man a certain distance away from children as suspicious. This doesn't help the public better discern who might be a concern while simultaneously expanding the pool of possible suspects to include all white males.

"These folks are out there trolling the Internet, trolling the streets, taking photos at the beach," [former DHS agent Eric] Caron says.

Now, the suspect pool expands to include males who go anywhere near the internet, beach or public streets. Anyone with a camera spotted in these areas is doubly suspect. The DHS has always been suspicious of photographers, and this statement turns any male with a camera (or cell phone) into one of two things: a terrorist or a child molester.

Spreading hysteria isn't going to make the job any easier. It's just going to increase the number of dead end "leads" police officers will be forced to run down. Adding dogs to the mix may make search warrants more productive, but it does carry with it the added baggage of pretending animals are impartial witnesses, rather than entities whose motivations roughly align with law enforcement's.

Filed Under: blank media, child porn, dogs, rhode island, sniffing

Rhode Island Teen Facing 'Domestic Violence' Charges For 'Inappropriate' Facebook Message Sent To A Girl He Met

from the don't-be-a-jerk-online dept

We've seen a growing number of vague and worrisome laws passed over the past few years to try to outlaw being a jerk online. Earlier this year, we noted one such law in Rhode Island, which was technically dubbed an "anti-cyberstalking" law, though we worried about just how vague and open for abuse it was. Well, we've now got the first charges filed under the new law. Kashmir Hill points us to the news that a 15-year-old boy is facing "domestic violence" charges for some "inappropriate" messages he sent via Facebook to a 16-year-old girl he met.

Police say the 15-year-old Barrington boy met a 16-year-old girl while taking classes this summer and they started to talk through Facebook.

But police say the 16-year-old felt uncomfortable when the messages started getting inappropriate.

Police started the investigation in July and now they've charged the minor with cyber stalking, which is now punishable under the domestic violence prevention act.

There are a whole series of issues here. While the text of the messages hasn't been revealed, the fact that the judgment is based on the girl "feeling uncomfortable" leaves open a wide range of possible abuses. If I feel "uncomfortable" about comments on Techdirt, can I really have the police investigate and potentially send someone to jail because of it? Even the RI representative who wrote the law says that this use is "not what she envisioned." However, she then says it's okay because "the law might stop it from happening to someone else."

Really? Stop what exactly? A boy sending a message to a girl that makes her feel uncomfortable? That's called "most of high school" for some boys. And since there's no clear way to determine what is and what is not appropriate here, do we really want to be charging kids under things like domestic violence laws just because they go too far in a Facebook message? I'm not saying that the kid shouldn't be dealt with in some way if the messages really are "inappropriate," but can't they be dealt with in other ways? Block him on Facebook or have parents punish him. Involving the police and charges? Seems "inappropriate."

Filed Under: cyberstalking, domestic violence, rhode island

Rhode Island Says Police Can Decloak Anonymous People Online If They Find Them Offensive

from the anonymity-is-protected-by-the-first-amendment dept

We've been noticing a trend of various states attempting to pass laws against being a jerk online -- with a particular distaste for anonymous jerks. But it seems that Rhode Island is taking it to new levels. Via Copycense, we learn that Rhode Island is pushing forward with a broadly written law (for the children, of course!), which would let police get names and other identifying information from service providers for online speech that they find to be "offensive" or harassing, without requiring that it go through a judge for a warrant first. Technically, the bill allows for law enforcement to issue an "administrative subpoena" on such issues, rather than having to get a judge-approved warrant. While much of the bill is targeted at uncovering those involved in child porn, it uses that fact to mask the broad powers this gives to law enforcement to uncover who's behind all kinds of anonymous speech, without any consideration for the First Amendment protections for anonymous speech. This kind of law seems ripe for abuse by law enforcement, and the ACLU notes that Rhode Island law enforcement has already been known to seek this kind of info under questionable reasons:

Fears about the scope of this bill are not exaggerated. In the past year, there have been two highly publicized incidents of police seeking to track down the posters of comments posted online about political figures. Last fall, the Rhode Island ACLU called on Narragansett's Police Chief to drop criminal “cyberstalking” charges lodged against two town residents in separate incidents. Under this bill, police could unilaterally issue subpoenas to obtain the information.

Filed Under: anonymity, free speech, offensive, rhode island

Amazon Cuts Off Affiliates In Hawaii And Rhode Island... Who Else Wants To Try?

from the you-might-make-them-angry dept

Last week, Amazon decided to cut off North Carolina affiliates due to proposed legislation that would have affiliates (really, advertisers) be considered as local "employees" for the sake of proving that Amazon had a business "nexus" in the state, and thus need to collect state sales tax there. It appears similar legislation is popping up across a bunch of states, and Amazon is cutting off affiliates one by one. Affiliates in both Hawaii and Rhode Island have been told that they can no longer sell via Amazon over this issue. It'll be interesting to see if any states back down. Pissing off a bunch of small business owners who make money selling products via Amazon probably isn't a particularly wise thing to do in the middle of a recession.

Filed Under: affiliates, hawaii, rhode island, sales tax
Companies: amazon