New Hampshire Legislators Propose Law Banning Warrantless Use Of Tracking Devices

from the incremental-change dept

New Hampshire is continuing to lead the way in privacy. After becoming the first state to ban the use of automatic license plate readers, its legislators are now attempting to rein in warrantless tracking of cellphone users. A couple of false starts (dating back to last year) resulted in no changes (and complaints from app makers that the wording might make some of their offerings illegal).

But it now appears to be moving forward again after the implementation of some changes. The heart of the bill is this paragraph:

No government entity shall place, locate, or install an electronic device on the person or property of another, or obtain location information from such an electronic device, without a warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause and on a case-by-case basis.

As Watchdog.org points out, the spirit of the law is somewhat undermined by the letter of the law.

There are noteworthy exceptions, many of which appeared in previous iterations.

Tracking is permitted without a warrant with the informed consent of a device owner, unless the owner knowingly loaned it to a third party. You can track calls for 911 emergencies. A parent or legal guardian can provide informed consent to locate a missing child. The government can track its own property or employees in possession of that property. And alcohol ignition interlock control devices placed by court order would also be traceable without a warrant.

The other problem with the bill is a problem with all bills introduced by state legislators: it can't lock out federal intrusion, at least not in its present form. The bill states that it does not apply to "federal government agencies." So, if local law enforcement wants to engage in warrantless tracking of cellphones, all it has to do is partner up with a federal agency.

On top of that, there are the loopholes that have always been exploited. Stingray use -- one method of tracking location -- has routinely been hidden under more innocuous paperwork, like pen register orders. Obtaining cellphone records -- including location data -- is primarily done with subpoenas, considering most laws still treat these as third-party business records. While the law would force some of the latter requests to take the form of a search warrant, it doesn't make a clear distinction between real-time tracking and historical data.

What it does appear to outlaw is the warrantless, real-time tracking of GPS location, meaning tracking devices can only be deployed after obtaining a warrant. This is certainly a step forward, one perhaps partially prompted by the Supreme Court's US v. Jones decision. However, this would go against precedent in the First Circuit Court (which covers New Hampshire), which has found that warrantless GPS tracking devices may constitute a "search," but not to the extent that a lack of a warrant should automatically result in suppression of evidence. (Also somewhat aligned with the Supreme Court's reluctance to declare all GPS tracking worthy of a warrant.)

The court then held that it was reasonable for the agents to use the GPS device in Sparks’ case based upon reliance on clear precedent.

However, the court noted that they did not decide the issue of whether any exceptions to the warrant requirement exist for future installation use of the GPS device to monitor suspect’s movements. Therefore, future use of such GPS monitoring is governed under the United States v. Jones.

As such, the court of appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress.

Although this case appeared before the judges after the Supreme Court's US v. Jones decision, the events of the case proceeded that finding. This may change rulings in the future, but for now, the First Circuit has not made it expressly clear that tracking devices require warrants.

As the proposed law pertains to physical tracking devices, it's much more closely aligned with the Supreme Court's decision. Left unclear is its application to Stingray devices and obtaining historical cell site location information from telcos -- both forms of "tracking" that don't involve attaching a monitoring device to a "person or property."

Filed Under: 4th amendment, devices, new hampshire, warrantless tracking, warrants

Upstart, Anti-Corruption Campaigns In NY, NH Don't Win, But Do Show Growing Anger Over Political Corruption

from the a-good-start,-but-not-over-yet dept

To the "savvy" political insiders, political corruption is still not seen as an election issue that people care about or vote over. We've been discussing a number of attempts to change that -- such as with new anti-corruption PACs -- and two of the political races we've discussed ended yesterday. In both cases, the candidates lost, but they way outperformed their expectations, suggesting that there's a real possibility of a better reaction in the future.

In NY, the Governor/Lt. Governor primary ticket of Zephyr Teachout/Tim Wu was always a tremendous long shot. Going up against a popular incumbent governor in Andrew Cuomo (who also has tremendous NY name recognition as the son of a former -- also tremendously popular -- NY governor), the media more or less ignored any possibility of Teachout succeeding. The campaign had little money and no real established political base. It ran almost entirely on the basis of "Hey, Cuomo is kind of corrupt and lies a lot." Before the election yesterday, an analysis of similar races suggested that incumbent governors in similar primaries often get over 90% of the vote and anything under 70% would be a political disaster for Cuomo, who is hoping to leverage his success in NY into an eventual presidential run. While he did eventually win, it was with about 62% of the vote. Teachout got 34% -- again, with no political machine and very little money. Wu ended up with just over 40%, and his opponent Kathy Hochul (Cuomo's choice) got under 60%.

Obviously, a win would have been a bigger deal, but to come out of nowhere (in just a couple of months), with no huge campaign war chest or connections to traditional politics -- against such a well-known governor, basing most of their campaign on corruption issues -- this suggests that corruption absolutely can play as an election issue. Teachout and Wu had one paid staffer and four volunteers. Cuomo has a campaign war chest in the many millions. And he still could only barely crack 60% of the vote. That says something. Also interesting is the fact that Teachout and Wu actually won in many rural upstate counties. The campaign had been expecting a weaker showing there (Hochul is from upstate, and Teachout and Wu are based in Manhattan -- which they also won). Again, while losing the overall race, the strong showing is a good sign for future campaigns.

Meanwhile, up in New Hampshire, we'd discussed the campaign of Jim Rubens for the Senate, against carpetbagging Scott Brown (who jumped states from Massachusetts after losing his Senate seat there). Early on, Rubens was basically a complete nobody. While he'd been in NH politics in the past, he hadn't actually occupied a political office since the 1990s. He was basically roadkill for the political machine of Scott Brown. However Larry Lessig's Mayday PAC noted that Rubens was the only Republican candidate running on an anti-corruption platform to limit the influence of money in politics. Mayday PAC spent heavily on campaign ads for Rubens, and he ended up getting around 24% of the vote, with Brown pulling in less than 50%.

In the end, both of these campaigns obviously lost -- but they were interesting experiments with important lessons. Two upstart campaigns from totally different sides of the traditional political spectrum (Zephyr/Wu to the "left" and Rubens to the "right"), both of which made anti-corruption efforts a key plank in their campaigns. Both were considered barely worth mentioning at the beginnings of the campaigns. Both were up against incredibly well-known, well-funded political machines with national name recognition and ambition. Neither campaign had any significant money. And both actually performed decently despite their disadvantages.

In the end, both campaigns definitely did lose, but they showed how there's clearly a dissatisfaction with the traditional political machine. And if two such tiny, out-of-nowhere campaigns could do that, hopefully it means that future campaigns can do even more.

Filed Under: andrew cuomo, corruption, kathy hochul, larry lessig, money in politics, new hampshire, new york, politics, primaries, scott brown, tim wu, zephyr teachout
Companies: mayday pac

New Hampshire Man With 'COPSLIE' License Plate Wins Free Speech Battle, Lifetime Of Police Harassment

from the sir,-do-you-have-any-idea-how-fast-I've-decided-you-were-going? dept

A win for free speech (as expressed by vanity license plates) has just been handed down by the New Hampshire Supreme Court. The plate at the center of the case -- "COPSLIE" -- was originally deemed to be "offensive to good taste" by a lower court, which felt a "reasonable person" would be offended that the driver of this vehicle believed that cops do, in fact, lie.

And they do. They do it more often than most people think. Everyone knows it, even the judges, and yet no one does much about it, because throwing a handful of exculpatory wrenches into the criminal "justice" gears only creates headaches for those least willing to deal with them (prosecutors, judges, DAs -- basically anyone who doesn't get jailed/fined as a result of the lies). Cops lie because they're a) human beings and b) many of their incentives are perverse.

So, when David Montenegro tried to state that fact via a delivery system easily viewable by any cop he drove by, the state told him he couldn't because some "reasonable person" (most likely a cop) would be offended by his factual statement. Montenegro could have made this statement about any group (politicians, priests, parents, kids, school administrators, lawyers, the media), but he chose to highlight this aspect of policing.

Montenegro knew the DMV's lazy rationale was faulty. In fact, he proved it. He submitted a backup request -- GR8GOVT -- which was approved. So, he took his case to the state's Supreme Court, which exposed the arbitrary nature of the DMV's "reasonable person" excuse.

The challenged portion of the regulation prohibits vanity registration plates that “a reasonable person would find offensive to good taste.” The phrase “offensive to good taste” is not defined in the regulation. Further, to the extent the phrase could be construed to prohibit obscene material, we note that a separate provision in the regulation prohibits vanity registration plates that are “capable of an obscene interpretation.” …

Taken together, [the dictionary definitions of the words in the regulation] lead to various potential interpretations of the phrase “offensive to good taste.” For example, one such interpretation could be that no vanity registration plates are allowed that are “insulting to the standard of morality or virtue of individual preference.”

The DMV stated that it had a "reasonable person" standard for offensiveness while also noting that different people would naturally find different things offensive. It's one thing to have a set standard. It's quite another to deploy contradictory stances as official policy. Because when you do that, you don't actually have a policy -- you have an informal straw poll.

To the extent the DMV argues that its reasoning for denying the petitioner’s requested vanity registration plate [COPSLIE] in this case aids in interpreting the phrase “offensive to good taste,” we disagree. The DMV initially denied the petitioner’s request because several DMV employees believed the text to be “insulting.”

There's where the true issue is. The blue team protecting itself and the government in general insulating itself from criticism through arbitrary enforcement of vague policies.

So, Montenegro gets the win and the plates he always wanted. In addition to securing a bit more free speech, Montenegro will also receive a lifetime of hassling by The Man and, quite possibly, the Home Version of said hassling.

Cops may not like someone confronting them (via license plate) with the fact that many citizens don't find them particularly trustworthy. But they'd be better off just letting this plate cruise by (while being passively collected by a license plate reader) without retaliation. Montenegro's already made one point. There's no need to make the rest of his points for him.

Filed Under: copslie, free speech, license plates, new hampshire, police harassment

Time Warner Cable's Contractual Loophole Allows It To Tell Local Politicians It Has Received Zero Complaints

from the which-is-the-least-likely-thing-to-ever-have-happened dept

How plausible is it for a company that routinely ranks at the bottom of customer satisfaction surveys to claim it has had "no complaints?" Time Warner Cable did exactly that on its way to extending its franchise agreement with Keene, New Hampshire through 2023. Broadband Reports has the details:

Last month in Keene, New Hampshire, the Keene City Council was voting on whether to add a second local channel (which would give the city more revenue) through Time Warner Cable. In exchange, Time Warner Cable wanted to extend the franchise agreement with the city for an additional five years, or the year 2023. While the rest of the council agreed to give Time Warner Cable the extension, one Councilor had a bit of an issue with the way that Time Warner Cable was running their business.

Even though the Council voted 4-1 in favor of the second channel, Councilor Terry M. Clark expressed his disappointment with Time Warner Cable on their refusal to adhere to the original franchise agreement signed with the city years back that forces Time Warner Cable to tell the City Council about any complaints that they receive from customers:

"They reported back that they had no complaints," Clark said at last week’s meeting. "I asked, ‘Why?’ They said because they weren't required to write them down."

Yes, that last part is true. TWC's franchise agreement contains some language that allows it to whitewash its horrible track record. Bill Neilson at Broadband Reports spoke with the objecting council member, who forwarded him the no-problems-here contractual clause.

Except as limited by federal law or FCC regulations concerning privacy, Franchisee shall maintain a record of all such complaints and such records shall be available at Franchisee's local offices for at least two years for inspection by the Franchising Authority as it may from time to time request, during regular business hours and upon reasonable notice. Nothing herein shall be deemed to require Franchisee to maintain records of oral complaints, which can be handled to the customer's satisfaction in the course of the initial conversation in which the complaint is made or does not require technical field response. Upon request, the Franchisee shall provide to the Franchising Authority an accounting of the number and nature of such complaints.

Oral complaints apparently don't need to be recorded for posterity if they are handled with a single phone call, or if a technician is never sent out. The key here would seem to be "to the customer's satisfaction," but it appears TWC isn't going to let itself get bogged down by discussions about whether or not the end user was actually satisfied. Presumably, "handled in a single phone call" is still valid (and unrecordable) even if the person is bounced from useless rep to useless rep for hours or simply spends an unimaginable amount of time on hold. As long as someone on TWC's end can put a check in the "resolved" box at the end of the conversation (and keep technicians from leaving the building), the complaint is off the record.

If the person calls back, presumably a new record is opened for that single call and, again, dismissed once the problem is "resolved." This is cooking the books on low heat and since TWC is the custodian of the records, there's little anyone can do to point out where complaints are being vanished into the ether.

Councilman Clark strongly feels TWC just isn't being honest.

"It's my contention that most call-in complaints are not resolved in the course of the initial conversation and that they are required to account for the nature of all complaints," said Councilor Terry M. Clark.

But if only one council member is going to ask questions, it's highly unlikely TWC will suddenly become a model of corporate responsibility. Until there's danger of it losing the contract, it's not going to live up to even the most basic level of accountability. This is the other danger of cableco monopolies and duopolies: even cities themselves have no leverage against the only game in town.

It takes a humongous amount of chutzpah to claim you've had no complaints, when all of the following is on the record (gathered by Broadband Reports):

• Ranker.com ranked TWC 2nd worst with customer service.
• Ranker.com youth-users ranked TWC dead last with customer service.
• Consumer Reports stated that TWC ranked "very poorly with consumers when it comes to value for the money and have earned low ratings for customer support" and "Time Warner Cable ranked 16th overall for television service with particularly low ratings for value, reliability, and phone / online customer support."
• According to YouGov, Time Warner Cable has the poorest brand perception of the major pay TV service providers, with a score of -10.
• The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) ranked TWC second to last among Internet service providers. The picture wasn’t much rosier on ACSI’s list of pay-TV providers, with TWC ranking second to last in the subscription television industry.

This statement by TWC is the company daring the city council to call bullshit on its claims. But the city won't. The funds the city collects from every TWC subscriber (much of which goes to support local TV channels) won't be easy to replace, especially if an incumbent cable company poisons the well before leaving town. TWC has a good thing going and has fought the council every step of the way to ensure its profit margins stay intact.

Time Warner offered an adapter box for free through Dec. 18, after which customers had to purchase the adapter from the cable company. The box will also come with a monthly $1 fee beginning Jan. 1, 2015.

Clark convinced his fellow councilors to ask Time Warner to consider waiving the $39.99 installation fee for subscribers who couldn’t install the adapter themselves, but the company refused.

“There are many other things that we’ve asked of Time Warner,” Clark said last week. “They’re not willing to give rate payers anything unless it’s required by law, and even if it is required by law, it has to be pushing and shoving before they’ll acquiesce to that. I don’t think they deserve (a contract extension).”

Clark has been outvoted and TWC has another nine years to continue fighting city hall and tossing complaints in the trash. Does anyone (other than Comcast) think merging it with another cable company with an equally horrendous customer service record will really improve things?

Filed Under: customer complaints, customer satisfaction, customer service, keene, loopholes, new hampshire
Companies: time warner cable

New Hampshire State Legislator Hopes To Push Back Against Police Militarization With New Bill

from the legislative-trench-warfare dept

The militarization of law enforcement agencies is a worrying development. It's not necessarily new. Law enforcement agencies have been converting police departments into quasi-military outfits for years, most of it spurred on by the over-deployment of SWAT teams to handle basic arrests and take down ever-so-dangerous marijuana users.

The push has become a shove in the last decade or so, as the government has handed out grants to purchase military-grade vehicles and equipment, when not just simply handing over the keys to something like Lenco's BearCat to any PD that requests one.

Not pictured: any logical reason a town of 42,000 should have a bulletproof assault vehicle
A New Hampshire state representative, J.R. Hoell, is trying to push back against this and further separate our military and law enforcement entities.

Enter State Representative J.R. Hoell, a libertarian Republican who represents Dunbarton, NH, just outside of Concord. Hoell recently introduced a bill, the Police Equipment and Community Engagement (PEACE) Act, in the state legislature.

The proposed legislation is now in committee. If it’s passed and signed into law by the governor, state and municipal agencies in New Hampshire will be barred from buying or even accepting free offers of “military style equipment” for police use, except with the approval of the assembled citizenry at a public town meeting.

That prohibition would include not just MRAPS and BearCats, but also things like fully automatic weapons or anything that is not “available in an open commercial market.”

Why is Hoell doing this? Well, it's because the city of Concord recently ignored its own citizens' wishes and allowed its police department to acquire a surplus BearCat.

Concord, NH has a population of 42,000 and has racked up three murders in the last decade. While its crime rates are higher than nearby towns (towns with populations far below Concord's), its rates are much lower than the national average. The Concord PD had a hard time justifying the acquisition of an armored vehicle based on local criminal activity alone. In order to persuade the city council this vehicle was a necessity, it had to conjure up an existential threat composed of anti-government activists.

In its application for the DHS grant to purchase the $258,000 vehicle, Police Chief John Duval listed the following potential threats to the safety of Concord, NH:

Groups such as the Sovereign Citizens, Free Staters and Occupy New Hampshire are active and present daily challenges…

More non-specifically, he added that various "anti-government clusters" also "challenged" the police on a "daily" basis.

When the news leaked out that the Concord PD was seeking an armored dissent-suppression vehicle, the response from the public was overwhelmingly negative. Activists collected 1,500 signatures against the PD's desired vehicle and presented that to the city council. This led to open public meetings in which many people spoke out against the militarization of their local police force, including a very strong speech from a former Marine Corps officer.


In the end, nothing the public had to say mattered. The city council approved the acquisition with an 11-4 vote. Here's how they justified the armored vehicle's existence in a town of 42,000.

[Liz] Blanchard said she was voting for the Bearcat because it was the replacement of an older piece of equipment and would only be used for defensive purposes. She said in the wake of the Newtown school shooting and the Boston Marathon bombing attack, “we do need to be defensive.”

Ward 2 Councilor Jennifer Kretovic called the issue “a huge civic discussion” but said the calls from her district in support of the Bearcat were "ten-fold." She said recent murders and armed robberies in the northern part of the city showed that it was needed.

(Unless the Concord PD collates stats separately for the "northern" part of Concord, there were zero recorded murders in Concord in 2013 [and zero in 2012 as well] and only 20 robberies, which puts "recent" criminal activity at the same level it's been at for the last half-decade.)

Others stated vagaries such as recent school shootings and one council member expressed the sort of faith usually reserved for evangelical services.

At-Large City Councilor Marc Coen called the last four weeks “very interesting,” especially as he researched the issue and read about the concerns of the rise of the warrior cop. But he said while there were problems in other parts of the country concerning police abuse, he didn’t believe it was happening in Concord.

The Concord City Council apparently felt that "listening" to their constituents meant just literally listening to them. And then thanking them for their input, patting them on the heads and sending them on their way.

Fortunately, a legislator is looking to use the system to fix the system. If Concord's city council is indicative of the mentality surrounding the acquisition of military technology for local PDs, then those opposed to this sort of thing are screwed. The best defense this group could come up with was conjuring up school shootings and citing their lack of awareness in regards to the local crime rate. Hopefully, Hoell's bill will push back against the US government's tireless efforts to turn our local police departments into ad hoc military bases, especially when the justifications portray anti-government sentiments as a threat worthy of a military-grade response.

Filed Under: militarization, new hampshire, police, swat
Companies: lenco

'No Photos From The Sky' Bill Trimmed Back, But Still Could Create Felons Out Of Kids Playing With Toy Drones

from the silly-law dept

A few weeks back, we wrote about an absolutely ridiculous bill that was proposed in New Hampshire that would have made it illegal to do any aerial photography, if the images showed any "residential dwelling." As we noted, this would make things like various mapping services illegal. Given the criticism, it appears that the bill's sponsor, Rep. Neal Kurt, decided to rewrite it, limiting it to just "drones," after admitting that the whole idea for the bill came after he saw a toy drone for sale in the mall. Kurt appears to have an overactive imagination when it comes to those toy drones, because he's worried about them firing lasers, if the text of the bill (HB 619-FN) is any indication:

II. “Drone” means an unmanned flying machine that is capable of:

(a) Capturing images or sounds of objects or people on the ground, in or about buildings or structures, or in the air;
(b) Intercepting communications on the ground, in or about buildings and structures, or in the air; or
(c) Firing a bullet, LASER-type ray, other projectile or any kind of lethal or non-lethal weapon.

Unfortunately, the bill is still way too broad. While mapping programs may be legal, any use of a drone to photograph a person or people becomes a felony. Also if you photograph the inside of a building. From the sky. Maybe that's via the lasers. The only way around this law is to get "prior, written consent" from the person photographed.

This is the kind of bill you get when you have a politician with an overactive imagination, who sees a toy drone and can only think "bad things will happen with this," and refuses to consider the many cool things that can be done with drones today. Chris Anderson built a whole company after being inspired to build drones with his kids. If this bill passes, and he's in New Hampshire with his kids, having fun, teaching them things about building things, physics, aerodynamics and more, they could all become felons if their drone takes a photo of someone without "prior, written consent." That's just silly.

Thankfully, it sounds like most of the people who went to a hearing on the bill spoke out against it -- including a Brigadier General from the US Army who pointed out that the federal government has "exclusive sovereignty" over airspace, and the State of New Hampshire does not.

First to testify was a Brigadier General from the US Army. He began by firmly reminding the committee that the airspace above New Hampshire was not owned by New Hampshire, but by the United States of America, and therefore controlled by the FAA. One of the committee members challenged him as to where that authority came from. The General was kind enough to quote chapter and verse. There were no more questions.

It's a bit disappointing to see that the ACLU is pledging "strong support" for the bill. Yes, I understand the concerns and worries about domestic drone use by governments for surveillance purposes -- and I support efforts by various groups to build transparency and clear rules around such usage -- but this bill goes way beyond that.

Filed Under: airspace, drones, new hampshire, photographs, privacy
Companies: aclu

New Hampshire Politicians Want To Make 'Satellite View' On Maps A Criminal Offense

from the say-what-now? dept

This is insane. Some politicians in New Hampshire have put forth a bill that would make it illegal to do aerial photography of any "residential dwelling." The key text of HB-619-FN is as follows:

A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if such person knowingly creates or assists in creating an image of the exterior of any residential dwelling in this state where such image is created by or with the assistance of a satellite, drone, or any device that is not supported by the ground. This prohibition shall not apply where the image does not reveal forms identifiable as human beings or man-made objects.

If you're thinking that this would make it a misdemeanor (which is still a crime...) for people to work on things like Mapquest, Google Maps and Bing Maps -- all of which have "aerial" views (often called "satellite view," though some are assisted by airplanes as well) -- to even exist, well, then, you have a point. Also, I don't know about you, but I've taken plenty of photographs out the window of an airplane, which have certainly included images of residential dwellings which revealed "forms identifiable as... man-made objects."

This seems like an extremist view of what "privacy" should be about, ignoring the fact that an aerial shot of your house is simply not a privacy issue. I am reminded, not surprisingly, of the story which resulted in the coining of "The Streisand Effect," in which Barbara Streisand sued a photographer for taking an aerial photograph of her house, as part of a project to photograph the entire California coastline from a helicopter (to study the impact of erosion). It was crazy to think of that as a privacy violation, and the court clearly agreed, siding with the photographer over Streisand.

And, it appears, lots of other courts have said that photographing someone's residence is perfectly legal:

Many courts have held that it’s not illegal to photograph a residence, such as the case in California and South Carolina and the issue has been addressed by other lawyers here and here. Usually the issue is whether the photograph invades the privacy of a person, which is difficult to do from the air, but is already addressed by case law.

Hopefully the legislature in New Hampshire realizes this is a complete overreach in the name of bogus privacy claims and drops the bill.

Filed Under: aerial photography, free speech, new hampshire, privacy

Another Attempt To Make TSA Searches Open To Sex Offender Charges

from the touching-junk dept

Back when the TSA's new search procedures went into effect last year, there were a few efforts to subject TSA agents involved in screenings or patdowns to claims of sex offense or sexual assault laws. While I'm not convinced that this truly makes sense, I do know that I've now had conversations with a few different people who have had extremely emotional reactions to having to go through the patdowns, where they truly felt abused afterwards. Some of the accounts are downright frightening, of people who clearly were seriously impacted by the experience.

harbingerofdoom alerts us to the news of a proposed law in New Hampshire that would make the TSA search a sexual assault, where penalties would mark those convicted as Tier III sex offenders. The bill specifically "makes the touching or viewing with a technological device of a person's breasts or genitals by a government security agent without probable cause a sexual assault."

I have to admit that I'm a bit torn about this. As mentioned, I know some people who certainly have felt sexually abused by the searches/patdowns. And I have no doubt that emotional abuse is real and horrifying. I also have serious questions about the usefulness or appropriateness of these searches, and think we'd certainly be best without them. But labeling a TSA agent a sex offender for doing what the TSA requires seems like a pretty extreme response. I recognize the goal here probably isn't to get TSA agents branded sex offenders, but to create a situation that leads to a policy change. But the whole "sex offender" list concept has been abused over the years in dangerous ways, labeling all sorts of people "sex offenders" and branding them for life, even if their "crime" wasn't what one would normally consider a traditional "sex" offense. I'm not convinced that expanding that list, even if to drive a policy change, is a good idea.

Filed Under: new hampshire, patdowns, sex offenders, sexual assault, tsa

Police Claim Burglars Used Facebook To Target Empty Homes; Proof Lacking

from the is-there-some-evidence? dept

Earlier this year, we noted that there was a moral panic brewing around the idea that burglars would monitor social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook to determine when people weren't home, and then strike. This seemed not only incredibly convoluted, but highly impractical. After all, just knowing that someone is going says little about how long they'll be gone or (more importantly) if there is still anyone else left in the house. It seemed that basic in-person surveillance could often be more productive.

However, the NY Times is now claiming that a series of burglary arrests in New Hampshire involve a group who used Facebook to pick their targets. The NYT report is based on a local press report in New Hampshire, which quotes the police making those claims. They offer no additional evidence that this is what the burglars actually did, so until there's a bit more proof, color me skeptical. We've seen police make similarly outrageous claims in the past, and this just has the sound of an urban legend rather than anything legit.

Filed Under: burglars, new hampshire, social networks
Companies: facebook

New Hampshire Supreme Court Recognizes That New Media Can Be News Media

from the good-news dept

We've seen a lot of cases lately concerning whether or not certain new media sites or participants were actually covered by various journalism shield laws (which are all at the state level, currently). In some recent cases judges have ruled against the idea, saying "new media should not be confused with news media." However, up in New Hampshire, it appears that state Supreme Court has overturned a lower court ruling, and noted that a new media site absolutely can be considered part of the press.

The case involved a website graphically named The Mortgage Lender Implode-O-Meter, which had apparently published a document that mortgage lender, Mortgage Specialists, had filed with the state, but which Mortgage Specialists did not want public. So it sued Implode-O-Meter and demanded it reveal its source, claiming that New Hampshire's journalist shield law did not apply, because:

"the newsgathering privilege is inapplicable here because Implode is neither an established media entity nor engaged in investigative reporting."

While the lower court agreed and ruled that the source should be revealed, the state Supreme Court rejected that claim, noting that:

It explained that "[t]he fact that Implode operates a website makes it no less a member of the press," and that "Implode's website serves an informative function and contributes to the flow of information to the public." ... Therefore, the court concluded, "Implode is a reporter for purposes of the newsgathering privilege."

Of course, as Sam Bayard's writeup notes, New Hampshire's newsgathering privilege law is limited, so the courts might still force the site to cough up the source, but at least some courts are recognizing that not being "an established media entity" doesn't mean you can't be press.

Filed Under: journalism, new hampshire, new media