FTL2010-03-31

On March 31, 2010, by Free Talk Live

The So-Called Fair Tax :: Public Trials? :: Census :: Relationship Question :: The State of Talk Radio :: Ecstasy and your Kids :: Ecstasy and Brain Damage :: OTN Sam in Jail :: Multiple Free Stater Trials :: Going to Jail Ineffective? :: Talking to a cop results in an arrest. :: Reformer’s Fantasy

New Libertarian Papers Facebook Page

On March 31, 2010, by Stephan Kinsella (Editor)

Note All subscribers to the Libertarian Papers Facebook GROUP: I have migrated that group to this Facebook PAGE instead. Please become a fan of this instead of the old group.

Disastrous Economic Fallacies

On March 31, 2010, by admin

Do natural disasters, earthquakes, or wars stimulate an economy and create growth? Did World War 2 get the US out of the Great Depression? Frederic Bastiat explained why such thinking is fallacious. More information on the Bastiat Legacy Project is available at www.AtlasNetwork.org/BastiatLegacy, and for more videos like this from Atlas view www.vimeo.com/atlasagi

FTL2010-03-30

On March 30, 2010, by Free Talk Live

Undercover Cops Spotted :: Census Response Rate :: Really Helping Communities :: Legalization :: Silly Strike Idea :: The Confused We the People Organization :: National Debt :: Is there a time for violence? :: Disobedience and Noncooperation as an Alternative to Violence :: Corruption :: Cannabis Addictive? Nonsense! :: Why they don’t want people using mind altering substances. :: Understanding Addiction :: Mark Interviews Kail Padgitt

145. Ron Paul

On March 30, 2010, by editor

Lew Rockwell garners updates from Ron Paul, the great libertarian Congressman, whose public life has inspired so many. First we want to know the current state of Paul’s Audit the Fed Bill. But then, just who is the Congressman from the Bank of Americ…

Digital Due Process: Protecting Americans’ Privacy by Restoring Constitutional Limits to Government in ECPA

On March 30, 2010, by Ryan Radia

By Ryan Radia and Berin Szoka

Today a broad array of civil liberties groups, think tanks, and technology companies launched the Digital Due Process coalition. The coalition’s mission is to educate lawmakers and the public about the need to update U.S. privacy laws to better safeguard individual information online and ensure that federal privacy statutes accurately reflect the realities of the digital age.

Over 20 organizations belong to the Digital Due Process coalition, including such odd bedfellows as AT&T, Google, Microsoft, the Center for Democracy & Technology, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, The Progress & Freedom Foundation (where Berin works), the Competitive Enterprise Institute (where Ryan works), the Internet Technology & Innovation Foundation, Citizens Against Government Waste, and Americans for Tax Reform. The full member list is available at the coalition’s website.

Amidst the heated tech policy wars, it’s not every day that such a diverse group of organizations comes together to endorse a unified set of core principles for legislative reform. Over two years in the making, the Digital Due Process coalition, spearheaded by the Center for Democracy & Technology, is a testament to the broad consensus that’s emerged among business leaders, activists, and scholars regarding the inadequacies of the current legal regime intended to protect Americans’ privacy from government snooping and the need for Congress to revisit decades-old privacy statutes. It also represents a revival of a bipartisan consensus on the need for reform reached back in 2000, when the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee voted 20-1 to approve very similar reforms (HR 5018).

Today, in the digital age, robust privacy laws are more important than ever. That’s because U.S. courts have been unwilling to extend the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure to individual information stored with third parties such as cloud computing providers. Thus, while government authorities must get a search warrant based on probable cause before they can lawfully rifle through documents stored in your desk, basement, or safe deposit box, information you store on the cloud enjoys no Constitutional protection. (Some legal scholars argue this interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, referred to as the Third Party Doctrine, is outdated and deficient. See, for example, Jim Harper’s excellent 2008 article in the American University Law Review.)

To be sure, this doesn’t mean that data stored in the cloud is completely without legal protection. In 1986, Congress enacted the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), a then-forward-looking law that established several new privacy protections limiting governmental access to consumer data stored or transmitted by “remote computing service providers” and “electronic communications service providers.” Thanks to this law, along with earlier statutes such as the Wiretap Act, most electronic communications transmitted today enjoy some degree of legal protection. Unfortunately, the law’s provisions don’t reflect the reality of modern digital communications, nor do they offer sufficient protections for sensitive items like emails, mobile device locational information, and instant messages.

To remedy these deficiencies, the Digital Due Process coalition has offered four principles for Congress to consider as it revisits ECPA. In essence, they would require that government obtain:

  • A search warrant from the court, upon the showing of “probable cause” required by the Fourth Amendment, before compelling “cloud” providers to disclose most kinds of private communications or mobile location information;
  • A court order subject to meaningful judicial review before compelling providers to disclose dialed number information or email to and from information; and
  • Judicial approval, rather than a mere subpoena, before compelling providers to disclose non-particularized information about individual accounts.

These proposed reforms, if enacted, would go a long way toward ensuring that individuals enjoy the same legal protections online that the Fourth Amendment has long provided in the offline world. The principles would also empower cloud computing and mobile service providers to offer more robust privacy assurances to users. Such assurances will help strengthen user trust in of cloud computing and, consequently, may spur innovation in cloud computing services that involve highly sensitive data like health information.

This call to action is also a reminder that restricting the power of government, not the private sector, is the solution to the privacy challenges of the digital age. Privacy advocates and zealots alike often focus on the risks of private data collection. Yet the greatest, and most demonstrable, of these risks comes not from private firms but from the real Big Brother: the risk that government will get its hands on private data without meaningful judicial oversight.

As we’ve long argued (see Ryan’s essay with Wayne Crews, “Selling Out Online Advertising,” and Berin’s comments to the FTC’s Exploring Privacy Roundtable last November), the consumer benefit of individualized data collection and use is nothing short of spectacular. Without it, services like Gmail, Google search, and Facebook likely wouldn’t exist. (And it’s only 2010—the best is yet to come!) Simply put, there is no free lunch!

But data collection has a real downside: As long as sensitive information remains stored on a provider’s server, there’s a risk that it will end up in the wrong hands. Through smart information security practices and privacy policies enforced both by the FTC and strong reputational forces, the private sector has generally done a good job of safeguarding individual data, with rare exceptions. Yet, today, no amount of security or legalese or good intentions can protect against a government subpoena issued in compliance with ECPA’s outdated, inconsistent and downright byzantine legal standards—which vary widely depending on whether messages have been opened, how long they’ve been on the server, etc.

The reforms proposed by the Digital Due Process Coalition would fix this gaping hole in America’s privacy laws, allowing individuals to rest assured that their personal information won’t end up in the hands of government unless probable cause is shown before a court of law. That’s the promise enshrined in the Fourth Amendment—a promise we seek to restore.

Ryan Radia is associate director of technology studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Berin Szoka is a Senior Fellow and the Director of the Center for Internet Freedom at The Progress and Freedom Foundation in Washington, D.C.

Roger MacBride and Rose Wilder Lane: A Libertarian Legacy

On March 30, 2010, by Jeff Riggenbach

<img src=”http://mises.org/Controls/Media/DocumentImage.ashx?Id=5319″ vspace=”4″ hspace=”4″ style=”margin: 10px;” /><br />Podcast episode for 30 March 2010. Jeff Riggenbach is a journalist, author, editor, broadcaster, and educator. [27:02]

Policing for Profit – The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture

On March 30, 2010, by Lee Doren

This morning, IJ launched its next major campaign for property rights. It changed the way eminent domain is used all over the country, and [...]

Boettke on Austrian Economics and the Modern Intellectual Landscape

On March 30, 2010, by admin

Peter Boettke speaks to summer seminar students at FEE about Austrian Economics.

FTL2010-03-29

On March 29, 2010, by Free Talk Live

Energy Star Scam :: Police Violence :: Health Care vs. Food :: Megaphone 420 Event :: Sovereign Curtis Update :: Court Backs Cops’ Tazering of Pregnant Woman :: More Family Micromanagement :: Militia Busted By FBI :: Violence is not the answer. :: Pointless Protest?

The Civil War in America

On March 29, 2010, by Lord Acton

<img src=”http://mises.org/Controls/Media/DocumentImage.ashx?Id=5318″ vspace=”4″ hspace=”4″ style=”margin: 10px;” /><br />The audio version of the Mises Daily article for <a href=”http://mises.org/daily/4188″>March 29, 2010</a>. [52:57]

Column on Obama v. Due Process

On March 29, 2010, by Tibor's space

Due Process versus Desired Results

Tibor R. Machan

Human justice is directly concerned with process, indirectly with results. This appears to have escaped President Barack Obama, especially during the recent political battle over whether Obamacare may be implemented or is it perhaps in violation of the U. S. Constitution. And was it perhaps enacted without regard to justice, to due process?

I am no constitutional scholar but it seems to me that in America it is perfectly proper to inquire about whether a piece of legislation has been enacted in a way that does violence to due process, the method of making law that free men and women are due. So when during the final hours of the debate about Obamacare Mr. Obama himself derisively dismissed the concern of many about the process by which it was being made into law–for example in his 11th hour interview on Fox TV–the American citizenry gained an important insight into just how his administration plans to govern. What the president was insisting upon is that what matters to him and his team are results, not process. He wanted the bill to succeed, whatever process would bring this about and it is quite likely that this is how he plans to pursue the rest of his agenda.

Now life, of course, is itself a process. Human life in society manifests itself in innumerable processes, aiming at innumerable results. There is only one common result all human life ought to aim for but it comes in a great variety of forms, which is human happiness. This is supposed to be the reward of the morally good life of the individual human being. For this reason a good society has a system of legal justice that protects the processes whereby men and women will not have anyone around them obstruct their pursuit of happiness. It is the protection of that pursuit that is crucial to the law, not the result itself which is the citizenry’s own business, their own task to achieve.

A parallel situation obtains concerning attempts to adjudicate dispute among members of the citizenry. A criminal trial is such an adjudicative process. And here again the result is only indirectly the concern of the legal system, the process is the crucial factor. And this is clear from the fact that the system often leaves the result in the hands of a jury, private citizens with no political and legal office. The system is supposed to ensure that every trial follows sound procedures–due processes of law!

But the tenor as well as the aims of our legal system have been changing. Politicians, including their legal appointees, are focused not on process but on results. The country is in danger of becoming a semi-civilized lynch mob. This could be appreciated from watching the news reports of all the fuss associated with the how dismissive President Obama was toward concerns expressed about the process that finally produced Obamacare.

And all this should not surprise us too much. Although the United States of America was conceived in terms of a legal system focused on due process, in time the government began establishing too many specific goals for us all to pursue. If the proper processes of the law do not produce an educated public, relief for the poor, environmental purity, total racial harmony, decent speech, or health insurance for all, then let’s just drop them and charge ahead anyway.

When such a role is conceived for our government, is it surprising that the people are willing to throw out due process as they protest the ensuing results? What many wanted from the recent debate about Obamacare is to make sure that bringing about the result does not do violence to individual rights (as, for example, coercing people to buy insurance certainly would). Did the American political process manage to abide by the principles to which all political maneuvers must conform? Or did those who wanted Obamacare proceed without regard for the principles on which the government is supposed to rest?

In the eyes of most protesters, for example members of the Tea Party, it could very well look as if due process was tossed to the side. Supporters of Obamacare made it clear they couldn’t care less about how the legislation made it into law so long as it did so somehow, with some semblance of legitimacy. This is a very ominous sign of where the country is headed. Hugo Chavez would find it promising.

De Vany on Steroids, Baseball, and Evolutionary Fitness

On March 29, 2010, by EconTalk

Arthur De Vany, of the University of California, Irvine, and creator of Evolutionary Fitness, talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about performance-enhancing drugs in baseball and Evolutionary Fitness, De Vany’s ideas about diet and fitness. In the f…

144. The Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Video

On March 28, 2010, by editor

Lew Rockwell interviews John Papola. “Fear the Boom and Bust”: a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem, a seven and a half-minute YouTube about the business cycle, has garnered more than a million views in all languages, making it the most popular ec…

10. “A Problem With Aristotle’s Ethical Essentialism”

On March 28, 2010, by Stephan Kinsella (Editor)

by Tibor R. Machan Abstract: Aristotelian ethics is still very promising, mainly because of its meta-ethical naturalism. As in medicine, what’s good versus bad is based on knowledge of the nature of something. With the addition of a strong doctrine of voluntary action, the morally good life is one within which one pursues one’s human [...]

9. “When Is a Monopoly Not a Monopoly? A Reply to Tibor Machan”

On March 28, 2010, by Stephan Kinsella (Editor)

by Nicholas Dykes Abstract: Accused by Tibor Machan of equivocation and psychologising in Machan’s 2008 book Anarchism/Minarchism, Nicholas Dykes rebuts both charges and suggests that, on the former charge, it is rather Professor Machan himself who equivocates.

FTL2010-03-27

On March 27, 2010, by Free Talk Live

Hooray for Obama Care? :: Call for Disobedience :: Religion and Liberty :: Religion and Control :: Christian Apologist :: So-Called Representation :: Tea Partiers and Taxes :: Restitution :: Monotheism and Pantheism :: Too mean to tea partiers? :: Faith :: Christianity and Socialism :: Mark in Prison :: Atheism :: Tea Partiers Good People? :: Faith and Hope

Posts by Date

March 2010
M T W T F S S
« Feb   Apr »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

The Quiz

Precious Metals

Click here for more market data.