Florida Judge Disqualified Over Facebook Friendship With Prosecutor -– Domville v. Florida:

Domville v. Florida, No. 4D12 556 (Fl. Ct. App.; Sept. 5, 2012)

.. a Florida ethics opinion … prohibits judges from friending lawyers who appear before them. (“Is the Florida Bar Taking Facebook Friendship Too Seriously?“) A criminal defendant in Florida recently moved to disqualify a judge because the judge was Facebook friends with the prosecutor (the defendant also pointed to several adverse rulings, which he attributed to the Facebook friendship).

The court, citing to the ethics opinion, grants the motion. The ethics opinion explains that it’s not the fact of friendship itself, it’s that identifying the friendship publicly “conveys the impression that the lawyer is in the position to influence the judge.” It doesn’t matter whether the lawyer is actually in a position to exert any influence, the public perception of this undermines the appearance of neutrality.

…

It’s interesting to see the court focus not on the fact of friendship, but the fact that it’s almost announced publicly. According to the court, “each of the judge’s “friends” may see on the judge’s page who the judge’s other “friends” are.” This isn’t quite freely available publicly; it’s only available to the judge’s other friends. Which makes you wonder how the defendant got wind of the friendship. (Maybe his defense lawyer?)

The funniest part of the order was the defendant’s description of his own ‘Facebook friendships’ and why he thought the prosecutor-judge friendship meant he would be unable to get a fair trial …

Press release from Rep. Ed Markey via PogoWasRight.org:

Consumers should be in control of their personal information, including if and when their mobile devices are transmitting data to third parties, says Congressman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.). Rep. Markey, co-Chair of the Bi-Partisan Congressional Privacy Caucus, today released H.R. 6377, “The Mobile Device Privacy Act”, legislation that would require companies to disclose to consumers the capability to monitor telephone usage, as well as require express consent of the consumer prior to monitoring. Media stories last year reported that that Carrier IQ software installed on millions of smart phones and mobile devices were tracking every keystroke of users and sending the information back to the software company without user knowledge or permission. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) is an original co-sponsor of the legislation.

“Just because a mobile device is hand held doesn’t mean it should hand over personal information to third parties without permission,” said Rep. Markey, a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and former chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. “Consumers should know and have the choice to say no to software on their mobile devices that is transmitting their personal and sensitive information. This is especially true for parents of children and teens, the fastest growing group of smartphone users. This legislation will provide greater transparency into the transmission of consumers’ personal information and empower consumers to say no to such transmission. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important consumer protection legislation.”

A copy of the legislation can be found HERE.

The “Mobile Device Privacy Act” protects consumers by requiring:

• Disclosure of mobile telephone monitoring when a consumer buys a mobile phone; after sale, if the carrier, manufacturer, or operating system later installs monitoring software; and if a consumer downloads an app and that app contains monitoring software
• The disclosure includes the fact that the monitoring software has been installed on the phone, the types of information that are collected, the identity of the parties to which the information is transmitted, and how such information will be used
• Consumer consent before monitoring software begins collecting and transmitting information
• The party receiving the personal information must have policies in place to secure the information
• Agreements on information transmission must be filed at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
• An enforcement regime for the FTC and FCC, along with State AG enforcement and a private right of action

“Consumers deserve to know what’s happening behind the scenes on their mobile phones,” said Free Press President and CEO, Craig Aaron. “Companies with no relationship to the wireless customer should not be given a free pass to collect and sell personal information under a veil of secrecy. This bill is a common sense solution to privacy concerns that all consumers worry about. We wholeheartedly support this measure and look forward to working with the Congressman and his staff to help move this bill forward.”

Last year, Rep. Markey asked the FTC to investigate the practices of the Carrier IQ software company as a possible unfair or deceptive act or practice.

[Of course, there's basically zero chance that this bill would be enacted in the current Congress... -MF]

Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow with the Heritage Foundation, and Alaina Fotiu-Wojtowicz, attorney with the Michael S. Olin Law Firm and adjunct professor at Miami Law, will discuss “Voter ID Laws” on Tuesday, September 18 from 12:30 to 1:45 p.m. in Room E352 at the University of Miami School of Law. Martha Mahoney, UM professor of law, will moderate the forum. The event is presented by Miami Law’s American Constitution Society and Federalist Society.

(Not required, but could be interesting. Please be aware that Hans von Spakovsky has a notorious past. Examples: 1; 2.)

I didn’t expect it so soon:

via Naked Capitalism, Police State Watch: New York City Police Department to Establish Checkpoints, Demand ID in Lower Manhattan for OWS Anniversary

Via The Register, Congress report warns: drones will track faces from the sky, word of a new CRS report:

Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations: Fourth Amendment Implications and Legislative Responses (PDF here), notes drones now in use can carry thermal imaging, high-powered cameras, license plate readers and LIDAR (light detection and ranging). “Soft” biometrics and facial recognition won’t be far behind, the report suggests, allowing drones to “recognize and track individuals based on attributes such as height, age, gender, and skin color.”

“The relative sophistication of drones contrasted with traditional surveillance technology may influence a court’s decision whether domestic drone use is lawful under the Fourth Amendment,” the report compiled by legislative attorney Richard Thompson II states.

The report expresses a view that in most cases, using drones to spy on people in their homes would have to fall within the legal “plain view” doctrine (which means police can only carry out surveillance of someone’s home from a “lawful vantage point”). However, areas nearby the home – say, in a driveway or at a gate – receive a much more ambiguous protection.

The report is also concerned that the falling cost of drones could, in itself, exacerbate privacy concerns, noting that: “access to inexpensive technology may significantly reduce budgetary concerns that once checked the government from widespread surveillance.”

Watch Your Tongue: Law Enforcement Speech Recognition System Stores Millions of Voices

1. When is it appropriate to require a DNA sample from a suspect? From a non-suspect?
2. What uses and mis-uses can be made of DNA? What are the costs and benefits? The threat models?
3. If there are both benefits and costs or threats, can we imagine rules that give us the benefits without the costs?
4. Suppose it were the case that DNA proved to be a much more accurate biometric than other choices currently on offer, such as fingerprints, ear shape, gait, or iris scans, either because those other things were harder to measure precisely, or because DNA was harder to fake. What effect would this have on your answers to the questions above?
5. The US and other countries use up to 20 points of comparison in so-called “junk” DNA for DNA typing. “Junk” DNA is DNA that is (or, rather, was) thought to not affect your body, to just be there doing nothing (now we think it may be otherwise). In order to do DNA matching, it is essential that everyone in the system be looking at the same pieces of DNA. By choosing DNA strands that don’t seem to do anything the authorities believed that they had managed to avoid any controversial issues about used of DNA information for insurance, discrimination, family planning, or anything else potentially controversial. But in so doing they also missed out on a public health opportunity — the chance to look for genetic diseases. Suppose they had made a different choice, and had instead typed genes known to be associated with inheritable diseases. Would that change your answer to any of the questions above?

Update: For your information, the full text of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights reads as follows:

ARTICLE 8

Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Most of you will end up working in large organizations where you share electronic documents. You should get in the habit of giving your documents good file names. Thus “paper draft” is always bad — imagine if everyone calls their documents that!

Some organizations have naming conventions, but if not, be sure the file name has three things: your surname (if the primary author, so you get the credit), something substantive (not “paper” or “motion” but “Jones-dismiss-motion” or whatever and a version number. You usually don’t need a date, the software will do that automatically.\\

It is good to avoid spaces in file names (use – or _) so that files translate well to UNIX systems if they ever touch one.