Coming back from about ten years of lurking and hoping the list is still
alive, I have a web design problem.

To wit: converting web page files from Illustrator format (used by the
designer) to HTML/CSS for uploading. (The designer is currently
unavailable.)

Any help in finding someone who can do this is appreciated.

With apologies for going off-topic.

--
Thanks.

DW
_______________
Donald Weightman
(wire) 202 544-1458
(cell) 202 997-3290
dweightman@...


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

Interesting question came up from another attorney on another list which
is somewhat OT but has an electronic/Internet privacy angle.

Is there any privacy in personally identifying information which can
eventually be found on the Internet, physically at the courthouse, etc
-- for the period of time prior to when such information is generally
made available.  Or is the treatment of such information as public
information, and the corresponding lack of action for privacy --
determined by the fact that such records will eventually legally be made
public.  My question arises in this instance out of a bank notifying
creditors of an account holder's death prior to the dissemination of the
death record (but could arise in many other ways).  IIRC this is not a
violation of Graham-Leach-Bliley, which only restricts dissemination of
non-public information.  Is it a violation of other privacy laws?

--
Carol Ruth Shepherd
Arborlaw PLC
Ann Arbor MI USA
734 668 4646 v  734 786 1241 f
Arborlaw - a legal blog for entrepreneurs and small business
http://arborlaw.biz


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

This being where all the smart lawyers hang out.....

So a 501c3 has a number of low-wage field employees. They are
funded by states but are on 501c3 payroll, etc. They talk to
various folks inc. state agencies.

$BOSS won't let me issue them a 501c3name.org email address, as he
thinks he is liable if/when they do Bad Things with such address.
He's not clear on if this means work-usage or non-work usage.

This means major issues with their free [Yahoo/Google/Hotmail] accounts
getting blocked by spam filters, etc.

Engineer me thinks he has liability regardless of what email they use
for work; and he could cut exposure by written/signed policy that
work address is for work period.

Query: is there any case law on misuse of email and liability
with same?




--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@...
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

I am looking for attorneys to assist me in keeping the book
"Information Security Law: Control of Digital Assets" up to date. The
book was published by American Lawyer Media in 2006 and needs to be
updated every six months. The next deadline is June 1st and I am
woefully behind and in need of help! The good news is that, because
this is a reference book that gives a high level summary of various
infosec-related laws, contributors will not necessarily need to write
large amounts of text. Instead, authors can simply add text in various
locations (i.e., a sentence here and there) to address new statutes,
cases, reports, etc.

You can get an overview of the book's contents here:
https://secure.virtulaw.com/index.php?q=node/250

If you are interested in contributing, please contact me off list:

milone@...

or

212.203.3308

Those who contribute to the book will be listed in the acknowledgments
of the update and have my undying gratitude!

Best,

Mark


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

On Feb 29, 2008, at 5:18 AM, John Young wrote:

> I worked on a multi-billion dollar infrastructure for which every
> single sheet, drawing, spec, letter were stamped with a disclaimer
> aimed at anybody who got a piece of the paper mountain after
> signing an NDA.
>
> Meanwhile the computer networks on which the documents were
> made available lacked rudimentary security, no control over those
> who got access, employee turnover heavy, available over the
> Internet.

Twenty-some years ago, when dialup was how one got into "online"
computers, a major US military database had a login of Anonymous and
a password of "LETMEIN".  Their security depended on the Bad Guys not
knowing the modems' phone number.

Six years ago the (NT) server password at every office of a national
US insurance company was - you guessed it - Admin.

In 1997, an extremely large, privately-held company in South Texas
had its MIS Guy transfer a good bit of money to an account in Costa
Rica just before he didn't come back from vacation.  They were
frantic, because they had no idea what the admin password was for
their Oracle installation.

It was ORACLE.

These are all instances of which I have personal, first-hand knowledge.

D


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

Indeed, the silliness of disclaimers is worthy of CIO-grade
hilarity. No way anything digital cannot be purloined, and no way
a digital system is not at fault for promising security and privacy
when the geeks know it's just not possible.

Disclaimers were invented to provide imaginary exculpability.

To be sure there is no way not to break the law, laws were
invented to assure the need for more laws.

I worked on a multi-billion dollar infrastructure for which every
single sheet, drawing, spec, letter were stamped with a disclaimer
aimed at anybody who got a piece of the paper mountain after
signing an NDA.

Meanwhile the computer networks on which the documents were
made available lacked rudimentary security, no control over those
who got access, employee turnover heavy, available over the
Internet.

The project is loudly touted as a premier terrorist target, yet had
no security measures against attack, instead it was marketed as
the reason huge amounts of additional anti-terrorism funding was
urgently needed.

Nobody loves to warn about threats like CIOs, the police, the military,
the preachers, the teachers, the parents, the lovers, all believers
in disclaimers for their fuck-ups.


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

Not that this is something I'd raise with a CIO, but I found it
amusing to see the disclaimers at the footers of the responses you've
received so far.


On Feb 28, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Phelps, Erik J (22247) wrote:

> I believe that I've done this with this austere group before with a
> reasonable degree of success, so I'll try again.  If one were spending
> time with a group of CIO's in the not to distant future and wanted to
> suggest to them the 3-5 legal-related issues that the CIO should be
> paying attention to / caring about / worrying about, what would
> they be?
> Previous nominees include:
>
> e-discovery issues and all that entails (spoilation, records
> retention,
> etc.)
> open source issues and changes to GPL
> general compliance issues (sar-box, etc.)
> information security
>
> Any thoughts (random or otherwise) are greatly appreciated.
>
> And if you allow me to wax poetic for a minute, I think that I've
> been a
> member of cyberia since the late 80's (is that possible) -- and have
> vague recollections about posting questions about civil procedure
> while
> I was still a law student -- I continue to believe that cyberia
> represents some of the best of the best about the intersection of law
> and technology, which is why I've posed the question to this group.
>
> Erik Phelps
> ejphelps@...
> My opinions are my own and may not be shared by my employer.
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> ******
>
> Unless otherwise expressly indicated, if this email, or any attachment
> hereto, contains advice concerning any federal tax issue or
> submission, please be advised that the advice was not intended or
> written to be used, and that it cannot be used, for the purpose of
> avoiding federal tax penalties.
>
> The information contained in this communication may be confidential,
> is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and may
> be legally privileged.  If the reader of this message is not the
> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
> distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its
> contents, is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this
> communication in error, please return it to the sender immediately and
> delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer
> system.  If you have any questions concerning this message, please
> contact the sender.
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
> Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
> Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
> **********************************************************************

My Original Writing blog: http://itgotworse.livedigital.com


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

Contracts management and SOX compliance.

A lot of the consulting work I am doing lately for larger corporations
is related to auditing agreements and establishing contracts management
procedures.  These are usually initiatives of IT procurement departments
in conjunction with legal and compliance departments.  A public
corporation will typically have 5K-15K active contracts and over half
still do not have a central repository for active contract metadata on
parties, term and renewal, termination rights, maximum spend, maximum
liability, etc.

This is not so much a legal liability issue as it is a SOX compliance
issue and a legal workflow / procurement management issue.  For closely
held corporations in the 5K+ contracts range it is still a darn good idea.

Phelps, Erik J (22247) wrote:
> I believe that I've done this with this austere group before with a
> reasonable degree of success, so I'll try again.  If one were spending
> time with a group of CIO's in the not to distant future and wanted to
> suggest to them the 3-5 legal-related issues that the CIO should be
> paying attention to / caring about / worrying about, what would they be?
> Previous nominees include:
>
> e-discovery issues and all that entails (spoilation, records retention,
> etc.)
> open source issues and changes to GPL
> general compliance issues (sar-box, etc.)
> information security
>
> Any thoughts (random or otherwise) are greatly appreciated.
>
> And if you allow me to wax poetic for a minute, I think that I've been a
> member of cyberia since the late 80's (is that possible) -- and have
> vague recollections about posting questions about civil procedure while
> I was still a law student -- I continue to believe that cyberia
> represents some of the best of the best about the intersection of law
> and technology, which is why I've posed the question to this group.
>
> Erik Phelps
> ejphelps@...
> My opinions are my own and may not be shared by my employer.
>
>
> ****************************************************************************
>
> Unless otherwise expressly indicated, if this email, or any attachment
> hereto, contains advice concerning any federal tax issue or
> submission, please be advised that the advice was not intended or
> written to be used, and that it cannot be used, for the purpose of
> avoiding federal tax penalties.
>
> The information contained in this communication may be confidential,
> is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and may
> be legally privileged.  If the reader of this message is not the
> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
> distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its
> contents, is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this
> communication in error, please return it to the sender immediately and
> delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer
> system.  If you have any questions concerning this message, please
> contact the sender.
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
> Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
> Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
> **********************************************************************
>

--
Carol Ruth Shepherd
Arborlaw PLC
Ann Arbor MI USA
734 668 4646 v  734 786 1241 f
Arborlaw - a legal blog for entrepreneurs and small business
http://arborlaw.com


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

RECORDS RETENTION

FOIA AND REQUESTS FOR ELECTRONIC DATABASES

SAFE AND SOUND DISPOSITION OF OBSOLETE HARDWARE (such as old servers,
computers)

E.O. 13423 AND ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS W/R/T INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

METADATA ON MATERIALS POSTED ON THE INTERNET

MOVING MATERIALS TOWARD PUBLIC AVAILABILITY ON THE INTERNET FROM THE
INTRANET


> I believe that I've done this with this austere group before with a
> reasonable degree of success, so I'll try again.  If one were spending
> time with a group of CIO's in the not to distant future and wanted to
> suggest to them the 3-5 legal-related issues that the CIO should be
> paying attention to / caring about / worrying about, what would they be?
> Previous nominees include:
>
> e-discovery issues and all that entails (spoilation, records retention,
> etc.)
> open source issues and changes to GPL
> general compliance issues (sar-box, etc.)
> information security
>
> Any thoughts (random or otherwise) are greatly appreciated.
>
> And if you allow me to wax poetic for a minute, I think that I've been a
> member of cyberia since the late 80's (is that possible) -- and have
> vague recollections about posting questions about civil procedure while
> I was still a law student -- I continue to believe that cyberia
> represents some of the best of the best about the intersection of law
> and technology, which is why I've posed the question to this group.
>
> Erik Phelps
> ejphelps@...
> My opinions are my own and may not be shared by my employer.
>
>
> ****************************************************************************
>
> Unless otherwise expressly indicated, if this email, or any attachment
> hereto, contains advice concerning any federal tax issue or
> submission, please be advised that the advice was not intended or
> written to be used, and that it cannot be used, for the purpose of
> avoiding federal tax penalties.
>
> The information contained in this communication may be confidential,
> is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and may
> be legally privileged.  If the reader of this message is not the
> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
> distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its
> contents, is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this
> communication in error, please return it to the sender immediately and
> delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer
> system.  If you have any questions concerning this message, please
> contact the sender.
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
> Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
> Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
> **********************************************************************


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

Slong tese lines  they need to consider outsourced strorage and archieving.
Not sure if this could be a legal issue, but voice over IP should be encrypted
when dealing with sensitive information.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Pepper <plcg@...>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 12:09 PM
To: CYBERIA-L@...
Subject: Re: [CYBERIA] Topics for CIO discussion?

Erik,



You may want to discuss some of the legal pitfalls with both on= and
off-shore outsourcing.  That's been a popular topic I've discussed with
similar groups before.



A somewhat related issue might be data privacy and security - both in the
U.S. and abroad.



Good luck!



PLG_3D - email


Daniel A. Pepper, Esq.

21 E. High Street, Suite D


Pepper Law Group, LLC

Somerville, NJ 08876


908.698.0330 (voice)

  <mailto:plcg@...> dan@...


908.248.9220 (fax)

  <http://www.informationlaw.com/> www.informationlaw.com



Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, contains
information of Pepper Law Group, LLC. (Somerville, NJ, USA) that may be
confidential, proprietary, copyrighted, and/or legally privileged, and is
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this
message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this
message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete
it.



IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE:   To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this
communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be
used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under
the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.







-----Original Message-----
From: Law & Policy of Computer Communications
[mailto:CYBERIA-L@...] On Behalf Of Phelps, Erik J (22247)
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:34 AM
To: CYBERIA-L@...
Subject: [CYBERIA] Topics for CIO discussion?



I believe that I've done this with this austere group before with a

reasonable degree of success, so I'll try again.  If one were spending

time with a group of CIO's in the not to distant future and wanted to

suggest to them the 3-5 legal-related issues that the CIO should be

paying attention to / caring about / worrying about, what would they be?

Previous nominees include:



e-discovery issues and all that entails (spoilation, records retention,

etc.)

open source issues and changes to GPL

general compliance issues (sar-box, etc.)

information security



Any thoughts (random or otherwise) are greatly appreciated.



And if you allow me to wax poetic for a minute, I think that I've been a

member of cyberia since the late 80's (is that possible) -- and have

vague recollections about posting questions about civil procedure while

I was still a law student -- I continue to believe that cyberia

represents some of the best of the best about the intersection of law

and technology, which is why I've posed the question to this group.



Erik Phelps

ejphelps@...

My opinions are my own and may not be shared by my employer.





****************************************************************************



Unless otherwise expressly indicated, if this email, or any attachment

hereto, contains advice concerning any federal tax issue or

submission, please be advised that the advice was not intended or

written to be used, and that it cannot be used, for the purpose of

avoiding federal tax penalties.



The information contained in this communication may be confidential,

is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and may

be legally privileged.  If the reader of this message is not the

intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,

distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its

contents, is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this

communication in error, please return it to the sender immediately and

delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer

system.  If you have any questions concerning this message, please

contact the sender.





**********************************************************************

For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia

Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot

Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...

**********************************************************************









**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

Erik,



You may want to discuss some of the legal pitfalls with both on= and
off-shore outsourcing.  That's been a popular topic I've discussed with
similar groups before.



A somewhat related issue might be data privacy and security - both in the
U.S. and abroad.



Good luck!



PLG_3D - email


Daniel A. Pepper, Esq.

21 E. High Street, Suite D


Pepper Law Group, LLC

Somerville, NJ 08876


908.698.0330 (voice)

  <mailto:plcg@...> dan@...


908.248.9220 (fax)

  <http://www.informationlaw.com/> www.informationlaw.com



Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, contains
information of Pepper Law Group, LLC. (Somerville, NJ, USA) that may be
confidential, proprietary, copyrighted, and/or legally privileged, and is
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this
message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this
message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete
it.



IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE:   To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this
communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be
used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under
the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.







-----Original Message-----
From: Law & Policy of Computer Communications
[mailto:CYBERIA-L@...] On Behalf Of Phelps, Erik J (22247)
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:34 AM
To: CYBERIA-L@...
Subject: [CYBERIA] Topics for CIO discussion?



I believe that I've done this with this austere group before with a

reasonable degree of success, so I'll try again.  If one were spending

time with a group of CIO's in the not to distant future and wanted to

suggest to them the 3-5 legal-related issues that the CIO should be

paying attention to / caring about / worrying about, what would they be?

Previous nominees include:



e-discovery issues and all that entails (spoilation, records retention,

etc.)

open source issues and changes to GPL

general compliance issues (sar-box, etc.)

information security



Any thoughts (random or otherwise) are greatly appreciated.



And if you allow me to wax poetic for a minute, I think that I've been a

member of cyberia since the late 80's (is that possible) -- and have

vague recollections about posting questions about civil procedure while

I was still a law student -- I continue to believe that cyberia

represents some of the best of the best about the intersection of law

and technology, which is why I've posed the question to this group.



Erik Phelps

ejphelps@...

My opinions are my own and may not be shared by my employer.





****************************************************************************



Unless otherwise expressly indicated, if this email, or any attachment

hereto, contains advice concerning any federal tax issue or

submission, please be advised that the advice was not intended or

written to be used, and that it cannot be used, for the purpose of

avoiding federal tax penalties.



The information contained in this communication may be confidential,

is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and may

be legally privileged.  If the reader of this message is not the

intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,

distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its

contents, is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this

communication in error, please return it to the sender immediately and

delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer

system.  If you have any questions concerning this message, please

contact the sender.





**********************************************************************

For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia

Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot

Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...

**********************************************************************









**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

I believe that I've done this with this austere group before with a
reasonable degree of success, so I'll try again.  If one were spending
time with a group of CIO's in the not to distant future and wanted to
suggest to them the 3-5 legal-related issues that the CIO should be
paying attention to / caring about / worrying about, what would they be?
Previous nominees include:

e-discovery issues and all that entails (spoilation, records retention,
etc.)
open source issues and changes to GPL
general compliance issues (sar-box, etc.)
information security

Any thoughts (random or otherwise) are greatly appreciated.

And if you allow me to wax poetic for a minute, I think that I've been a
member of cyberia since the late 80's (is that possible) -- and have
vague recollections about posting questions about civil procedure while
I was still a law student -- I continue to believe that cyberia
represents some of the best of the best about the intersection of law
and technology, which is why I've posed the question to this group.

Erik Phelps
ejphelps@...
My opinions are my own and may not be shared by my employer.


****************************************************************************

Unless otherwise expressly indicated, if this email, or any attachment
hereto, contains advice concerning any federal tax issue or
submission, please be advised that the advice was not intended or
written to be used, and that it cannot be used, for the purpose of
avoiding federal tax penalties.

The information contained in this communication may be confidential,
is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and may
be legally privileged.  If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its
contents, is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this
communication in error, please return it to the sender immediately and
delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer
system.  If you have any questions concerning this message, please
contact the sender.


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

> [This is from yesterday's Press Gaggle, with Scott Stanzel]:
>
> Q: Scott, where do you go from here on the surveillance thing? Is
> the administration prepared to do any stopgap measures while
> Congress is away?
>
> MR. STANZEL: Well, it's unfortunate, as you heard the President
> talk about this morning, that the House is departing Washington for
> 12 days off for Presidents Day. And it is important, I think -- as
> you heard the President, it's important to note a few things.
>
> It's our view that leaders in Washington have no greater
> responsibility than to protect the American people. But at this
> time, this gap that we closed six months ago is going to reopen.
> And as Director McConnell has said, the Protect America Act has
> helped us obtain valuable insight on terrorist activities and it
> has led to the disruption of terrorist attacks.  And unfortunately,
> tomorrow night that law will expire. So we will continue to work
> with members of Congress about the importance. But the issue really
> here is why is the House leadership, Democratic leadership,
> blocking a bipartisan bill?
>
> Q: Are you going to reach out to the telecommunications companies
> and ask them to keep helping you in this policy?
>
> MR. STANZEL: Well, those are conversations that are ongoing. And as
> you would remember, prospective liability was passed in August, and
> that gave liability protection to companies to assist going
> forward. That prospective liability comes into question with the
> expiration of the Protect America Act.
>
> So as you heard the leaders talk about, those companies are
> increasingly reluctant to help their country and help us track the
> activities of terrorists in foreign lands. It becomes more and more
> difficult as time goes on to obtain their cooperation on these
> issues, and that is of great concern.
>
> Yes, Helen?
>
> Q: What right does the President have to tell any company or any
> person in this country to break the law?
>
> MR. STANZEL: I -- what's your point?
>
> Q: No warrants and so forth; that they can go and spy on us without
> any warrants?
>
> MR. STANZEL: The Protect America Act was passed by Congress last
> August, as you know, and signed into law. So it is a lawful program
> that is expiring tomorrow night.
>
> Q: Well, if it's lawful, why would you not get a warrant? It still
> prevails, doesn't it?
>
> MR. STANZEL: Because it's -- in 1978, as we talked about, during
> that period, in 1978, the law, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
> Act, was passed, and that law was designed to help us gain
> intelligence on foreign targets in foreign lands. What we're not
> wanting to do here is to extend constitutional protections to
> terrorists in foreign countries.
>
> So it's important that this law was modernized. It was modernized
> in August. As we talked about then, that the law was significantly
> outdated.  You could have sat in that chair in 1978 and not had the
> ability to make a phone call from a cell phone; today you can.
> Today, you can send an e-mail from anywhere in the world via a
> Blackberry. The law was outdated, so it
> needed to be improved. It was improved. But Congress set a deadline
> for it to expire so they could review it some more and that -- they
> missed that deadline. We gave them a 15-day extension.
>
> The Senate used that time to pass a bipartisan bill that received
> over two-thirds support from the United States Senate, has a
> majority of support in the United States House. But the House
> leadership, which seems to be beholden to class-action trial
> attorneys in this matter, refused to let it come up for a vote. So
> they are more interested in protecting the
> interests of one of their constituencies than in protecting the
> interests of Americans.
>
> Q: That's a terrible indictment for you to say. They want to obey
> the law.
>
> MR. STANZEL: And we are obeying the law and it is important that
> this law be improved and modernized.
>
> Jeremy.
>
> Q: All Americans should be wire-tapped?
>
> MR. STANZEL: Helen, your facts are not correct here. If a foreign
> terrorist is calling to the United States, we want to know what
> they're saying.
>
> Q: How do you know they're a foreign terrorist?
>
> MR. STANZEL: Because they're in foreign lands and we have to be
> able to track foreign terrorists in foreign lands and what they're
> doing.
>
> Q: Any foreigner --
>
> MR. STANZEL: You may want to extend constitutional protections to
> terrorists, but that is not something that we want to do.
>
> Q: You can't automatically call every foreigner a terrorist.
>
> MR. STANZEL: Jeremy?
>
> Q: Scott, two questions. One on this issue. The comment that you
> just made about the House being "beholden" to class-action trial
> attorneys -- Democrats have accused the White House of politicizing
> this. With a comment like that, how do you respond that those kinds
> of charges that this is just a political theater game?
>
> MR. STANZEL: Well, the Director of National Intelligence has
> indicated on numerous occasions that, without retroactive immunity,
> the private sector -- actually, this is from the committee report
> from the Senate Intelligence Committee, I would refer you to that,
> bipartisan, came out of the committee, 13 to two -- "Without
> retroactive immunity, the private
> sector might be unwilling to cooperate with lawful government
> requests in the future without unnecessary court involvement and
> protracted litigation. The possible reduction in intelligence that
> might result from this delay is simply unacceptable for the safety
> of our nation."
>
> That is what a broad bipartisan majority in the Senate Intelligence
> Committee said about retroactive liability. That's important. The
> President, as you remember in the debate in August said we need to
> give the intelligence community the tools they need to protect this
> country, and if they don't have those, then I will find it
> unacceptable.
>
> In November, we told the House that their proposal and their
> approach was unacceptable. So -- and that's a statement of
> administration policy. We need these tools, we need that
> retroactive liability.
>
> So why is it that House Democrat leadership is blocking the vote,
> simple up or down vote on a bipartisan proposal that received
> nearly 70 percent support in the United States Senate and would
> receive bipartisan majority support in the House -- why is it that
> they are blocking that?
>
> [SNIP]
>
> Q: I was kind of wondering where you go from here, back on the
> Protect America Act. I mean, is there any room for negotiation at
> all? I mean, if immunity is the issue, are there other things you
> could do, like cap liability? Or is it just you have these two
> intractable positions and how do you accomplish --
>
> MR. STANZEL: Well, I think -- I think that, obviously it's our view
> that the House should take up the bipartisan Senate-passed bill.
> That would pass the House. That much is clear. So a majority in the
> House of Representatives wants the Senate-passed bill to come up
> for a vote and pass. So that's where we are. If that were to
> happen, we could go about the
> business of protecting Americans and put this issue behind us.
> Unfortunately, the House Democrat leadership has not taken that
> approach.
>
> So I haven't seen other ideas out there. It seems that the House is
> committed to going on their 12-day recess over Presidents Day and
> that is unfortunate. So certainly, if there are other ideas out
> there, those are ones that we would take a look at. However, it
> seems simple enough, the solution is well within grasp.
>
> Q: Just real quick. Why not have another -- I know you guys are
> sick of these, but another 15-day -- I mean, if the threat is so
> grave, isn't that better --

> MR. STANEL: Simply passing -- Congress -- you must remember that
> Congress set its own deadline. They set a six-month deadline to
> review these issues.  We felt that that was plenty long enough, and
> the fact that it was going to expire is not something that we
> supported in the first place. The terrorist threat is not going to
> expire.
>
> So they asked for a 15-day extension to again review these things.
> But I think as you heard, I think it was Mr. Boehner talk about, it
> calls into question their desire to really address these issues in
> a full way if we are doing extension after extension after
> extension, and that is no way for the intelligence community to go
> about its planning. And it causes
> greater concern, I think, to our ability to work with the private
> sector to make sure that we're able to track what terrorists are
> planning overseas.
>
> Q: But why isn't a temporary extension still better than nothing? I
> mean, I understand why you want to get the retroactive immunity and
> why you think that's important. But if the leadership isn't
> offering that, why wouldn't another temporary extension be better
> than nothing?
>
> MR. STANZEL: I would put it another way: What is it that they need
> more time for? The solution is there. The solution is before them.
> But they are blocking the solution. Why are they blocking the
> solution? For partisan reasons. They are blocking that because they
> are beholden to class-action trial attorneys.
>
> Q: But given that they seem to be intractable right now, wouldn't
> you still prefer to let the law keep going for a while, than to
> have it expire?
>
> MR. STANZEL: Well, an extension was rejected by a majority in the
> House of Representatives.
>
> Q: Right, and I'm asking why, given that they're allowing that to
> happen, it seems to me to call into question some of these
> statements that now there are going to be gaps -- dangerous gaps in
> intelligence-gathering.

> MR. STANZEL: There will be.
>
> Q: Well, I'm saying, if you believe that, wouldn't you rather have --
>
> MR. STANZEL: Well, it's up to House leaders to figure out how we
> should protect our country. The solution is there before them. So
> the majority in the House supports the solution before them. So all
> it has to have is an up or down vote; simple as that.
>
> Q: What do you say to Nancy Pelosi, though, who -- she accused the
> President yesterday -- I know you heard this -- of fear-mongering.
> She said, obviously you can still pursue the targets that are
> covered by the current law; right now you can still pursue any
> investigation that has already been initiated. And then new ones,
> all you'd have to do is get a
> warrant.
>
> MR. STANZEL: Right, but the warrant process is the exact process
> that was problematic. In 1978, the law wasn't designed to have
> warrants on foreign targets -- plain and simple. And how fast the
> FISA Court acts is not the issue; it's how long it takes to put
> together a very lengthy application leading up to the FISA Court
> acting. So that's problematic. And so how
> would we respond? We are very concerned about the safety of
> Americans. We all should be concerned about the safety of
> Americans. That is why the Senate took the action that it did, in a
> broad bipartisan way, to pass the Protect America Act. The House
> should do the same.
>
> Q: You can get a warrant after the fact.
>
> Q: How much serious consideration did the President give to
> delaying his trip to Africa? I mean, he mentioned that yesterday
> and then he decided to go ahead and go anyway. Was it an idle threat?
>
> MR. STANZEL: No, that was an offer. I wouldn't call it a threat at
> all. It was an offer to stay here -- if the House wanted to stay
> here and work on these issues, and if he could be of assistance to
> them to get this work done, he was willing to delay his trip.
>
> Q: But he knew at that time that the House had already decided to
> adjourn.
>
> MR. STANZEL: Well, I don't know that their decision was made final.
> But certainly, he wouldn't have said it if he wasn't prepared to
> delay his trip.
>
> Q: And why is he going -- is it simply --
>
> MR. STANZEL: Because the House has made it clear that they don't
> intend to act.
>
> [SNIP]
>
> Q: I'm just still not clear on the question about the -- why the
> administration decided that, hey, we're not going to do an extension.
>
> MR. STANZEL: I would take -- the question is premises on the fact
> that an extension was available. An extension is not. A majority in
> the House of Representatives rejected that approach.
>
> Q: But that's based on --
>
> Q: -- said he would veto --
>
> MR. STANZEL: They've known since November -- they've known since
> November that our approach has been very clear, that --
>
> Q: But if the President is serious about protecting the United
> States, which is the point that he has made in now three statements
> in three days about this, that if this is so vital and that the
> process is so cumbersome to get the kind of warrants you need
> through the previous process, before PAA, then why not tell the
> Republicans on the Hill, his party, that,
> okay, you know what, we need an extension, to continue doing it the
> way that he wants --

> MR. STANZEL: Democrats are in control of the House of
> Representatives. If they're serious they will bring up the
> bipartisan Senate-passed bill for an up or down vote. Simple as that.
>
> Q: Can you speak to what actually happens now logistically, when
> the legislation expires, what's the process? Are the wiretaps going
> to stop? Are you going to start pursuing the warrants? What's going
> to happen?

> MR. STANZEL: Well, those may be questions that are best addressed
> to the intelligence community. But certainly the tools that we have
> will be weakened. As Kathleen mentioned, some of the efforts that
> are currently underway have an opportunity to continue; new efforts
> would have to go through the old process. So -- but further, what
> concerns us the most is
> the ability to compel the assistance of private companies to
> continue to assist with this effort. If we don't have the help of
> these private companies, we don't have a program, plain and simple.
>
> So that -- with each step and each time this issue seems to falter
> in Congress, the companies become increasingly reluctant, out of a
> responsibility as I think the leaders mentioned, to their
> shareholders, to figure out if they want to be subject to these
> billion-dollar class-action lawsuits. And that is not something
> that is good for the companies, it's not something that's good for
> the security of the American people.
>
> All right, thank you.  [END}


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

Hi

Please click on the link below and enter your birthday into my calendar.
It's quick, easy, and you'll be helping me out.

http://www.birthdayalarm.com/bd2/60010003a211849786b1423811943c650861116d1815

Levern


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

Nothing is more  typical of a license, distinct from a sale, as its
term, i.e. the date from and to which it is effective. An implied
license, or written license that does not provide otherwise, is
terminable at will.

The usual legal problems with time bombs are the failure to disclose
their existence at the outset, leading to claims of fraud
by omission; and an actual or constructive unauthorized access when
they are triggered, in claimed violation of the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act.

Your colleague's argument is fascile, but it fails in its premise--
"Using the software is the same as watching a movie, playing a CD or
reading a book." No, it's not. You don't reproduce a movie, CD or
book every time you run, play or read them. Your  movie, CD or book
is not generally exempt from the first sale doctrine, as is software
under 109(b).

John Noble

At 1:14 PM -0500 12/6/07, Carol Shepherd wrote:
>Legal argument below, from a colleague.
>
>Leaving aside UCITA considerations in MD and VA (and arguments that
>a license is essentially a sale due to the context of the
>transaction)...is there any *copyright* caselaw supporting this (ie,
>first sale doctrine applying to licenses rather than sales)?  I know
>that several leading commentators have advocated it but was not
>aware of any supporting caselaw.  I am aware of Lasercomb but not of
>other copyright misuse jurisprudence, particularly with regard to
>self-help remedies in licensed materials.  Has any developed, that I
>should immediatly go read?  Thanks.
>
>
>"...what your client is attempting to do is to unlawfully leverage
>the limited copyright into control over a sue Congress excluded from
>the copyright. There is no "exclusive right to use" software any
>more than there is an "exclusive right to read a copyrighted book."
>When someone pays for the right to reproduce the work (the computer
>program) onto their hard drive, the copyright owner has no right to,
>in effect, destroy their copy by disabling it. Using the software
>is the same as watching a movie, playing a CD or reading a book. No book
>publisher gets to say "this book cannot be read after December 31, 2010
>unless you pay me $20 more for the license to read it." By the same
>token, no software publisher gets to say "even though you own the
>copy reproduced onto your hard drive under license from me, and even
>though no copyright extends to the private performance of a work, I
>am conditioning my license to reproduce the work on your agreement
>to give me a right Congress denied me, namely, the right to limit
>your private performance of the work."
>
>
>--
>Carol Ruth Shepherd
>Arborlaw PLC
>Ann Arbor MI USA
>734 668 4646 v  734 786 1241 f
>Arborlaw - a legal blog for entrepreneurs and small business
>http://arborlaw.com
>
>
>**********************************************************************
>For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
>Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
>Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
>**********************************************************************


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

Please let me know if attachment made it through.d


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

Someone on this list, I think, was working on a program to look at
price-fixing in the auto-parts industry.  Does anyone remember who that
was?  They had worked out a good sampling scheme to make it feasible in a
short time frame.


Has anyone recently finished work on any aspect of auto-parts price fixing?
I'm primarily interested in the cheap, high volumn items, like bulbs,
brakes, belts, etc.


Dwight Hines

IndyMedia

St. Augustine, Florida


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

Your best bet is to ask a member of your state's congressional delegation to
obtain it for you.




stm
-----Original Message-----
From: Shannon M. Oltmann <soltmann@...>
To: CYBERIA-L@...
Sent: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 7:22 pm
Subject: [CYBERIA] Looking for a CRS Report







Hello. I'm looking for a hard-to-find report from the Congressional
Research Service (CRS): CRS Report RL30671, Personal Privacy
Protection: The Legislative Response, by Harold C. Relyea. (I'm not
sure of the publication year; maybe 2001?) I am planning a
graduate-level class on information policy and privacy, so this would
be an important reading for my class to have. 
 

I know CRS reports are not typically made available to the public, but
this one has been cited in several subsequent studies, so I think there
must be at least a few copies floating around out there. I've already
tried the various organizations that collect CRS reports for the
general public (i.e, Federation of American Scientists, OpenCRS at the
Center for Democracy and Technology, and University of North Texas
Libraries). 
 

If anyone has a copy of the report that can be made available to me (or
can point me to a copy), I would greatly appreciate it. Or, if anyone
can suggest another place to look or a different listserv to try, that
would be appreciated. Thanks in advance for any assistance. 
 

-Shannon 
 

Shannon M. Oltmann 

soltmann@... 

Doctoral Student 

School of Library and Information Science 

Indiana University 

1320 E. 10th Street 

Bloomington, IN 47405 
 


********************************************************************** 

For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia 

Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot 

Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@... 

********************************************************************** 








________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail ! -
http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp0\
0050000000003


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

People often forget that CRS reports are available upon request from their
congressional member or Senator.  Turnaround time is usually pretty quick.

Naturally it would be helpful to everyone if any such report that is not
already available online could be provided to one of the organizations that
performs that useful service.

Michael Ravnitzky


> Hello. I'm looking for a hard-to-find report from the Congressional
> Research Service (CRS): CRS Report RL30671, Personal Privacy
> Protection: The Legislative Response, by Harold C. Relyea. (I'm not
> sure of the publication year; maybe 2001?) I am planning a
> graduate-level class on information policy and privacy, so this would
> be an important reading for my class to have.
>
> I know CRS reports are not typically made available to the public, but
> this one has been cited in several subsequent studies, so I think there
> must be at least a few copies floating around out there. I've already
> tried the various organizations that collect CRS reports for the
> general public (i.e, Federation of American Scientists, OpenCRS at the
> Center for Democracy and Technology, and University of North Texas
> Libraries).
>
> If anyone has a copy of the report that can be made available to me (or
> can point me to a copy), I would greatly appreciate it. Or, if anyone
> can suggest another place to look or a different listserv to try, that
> would be appreciated. Thanks in advance for any assistance.
>
> -Shannon
>
> Shannon M. Oltmann
> soltmann@...
> Doctoral Student
> School of Library and Information Science
> Indiana University
> 1320 E. 10th Street
> Bloomington, IN 47405
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
> Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
> Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
> **********************************************************************


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

Hello. I'm looking for a hard-to-find report from the Congressional
Research Service (CRS): CRS Report RL30671, Personal Privacy
Protection: The Legislative Response, by Harold C. Relyea. (I'm not
sure of the publication year; maybe 2001?) I am planning a
graduate-level class on information policy and privacy, so this would
be an important reading for my class to have.

I know CRS reports are not typically made available to the public, but
this one has been cited in several subsequent studies, so I think there
must be at least a few copies floating around out there. I've already
tried the various organizations that collect CRS reports for the
general public (i.e, Federation of American Scientists, OpenCRS at the
Center for Democracy and Technology, and University of North Texas
Libraries).

If anyone has a copy of the report that can be made available to me (or
can point me to a copy), I would greatly appreciate it. Or, if anyone
can suggest another place to look or a different listserv to try, that
would be appreciated. Thanks in advance for any assistance.

-Shannon

Shannon M. Oltmann
soltmann@...
Doctoral Student
School of Library and Information Science
Indiana University
1320 E. 10th Street
Bloomington, IN 47405


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

Legal argument below, from a colleague.

Leaving aside UCITA considerations in MD and VA (and arguments that a
license is essentially a sale due to the context of the
transaction)...is there any *copyright* caselaw supporting this (ie,
first sale doctrine applying to licenses rather than sales)?  I know
that several leading commentators have advocated it but was not aware of
any supporting caselaw.  I am aware of Lasercomb but not of other
copyright misuse jurisprudence, particularly with regard to self-help
remedies in licensed materials.  Has any developed, that I should
immediatly go read?  Thanks.


"...what your client is attempting to do is to unlawfully leverage the
limited copyright into control over a sue Congress excluded from the
copyright. There is no "exclusive right to use" software any more than
there is an "exclusive right to read a copyrighted book." When someone
pays for the right to reproduce the work (the computer program) onto
their hard drive, the copyright owner has no right to, in effect,
destroy their copy by disabling it. Using the software
is the same as watching a movie, playing a CD or reading a book. No book
publisher gets to say "this book cannot be read after December 31, 2010
unless you pay me $20 more for the license to read it." By the same
token, no software publisher gets to say "even though you own the copy
reproduced onto your hard drive under license from me, and even though
no copyright extends to the private performance of a work, I am
conditioning my license to reproduce the work on your agreement to give
me a right Congress denied me, namely, the right to limit your private
performance of the work."


--
Carol Ruth Shepherd
Arborlaw PLC
Ann Arbor MI USA
734 668 4646 v  734 786 1241 f
Arborlaw - a legal blog for entrepreneurs and small business
http://arborlaw.com


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA

CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE,


vs. 					 Case No.: 07000010MOMA
							 DIVISION: 65

MERRILL ROLAND,
			 Defendant.
______________________________/


WRITER'S MOTION TO INTERVENE, WITH
INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW

  COME NOW, the private citizen and writer, Dwight E. Hines,
hereinafter referred to as "Intervenor Hines", who has a direct and
immediate interest in subordinate issues in the instant case, issues
that will be effected by the Judgments of the Court, to NOTICE filings
with the Court for a limited appearance before the Court, pursuant to
Article I, s. 24, Article V, s. 2, Florida State Constitution; Chapter
119, Fla. Stat. (Florida Open Records Act); Rule 2.420,
Fla.R.Jud.Admin.; Florida Common Law (Barron v. Florida Freedom
Newspapers, Inc., 531 So.2d 113 (Fla. 1988));  the First, Sixth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; and Chapter
69.081(6), Fla. Stat. (2007), to move the Court, to Order Invervenor
Hines to intervene in this case.

Because the City of St. Augustine departments and agencies are
inextricably intertwined in their computer information systems, and
other services, with the St. Augustine Police Department, Intervenor
Hines will move the Court, to Order that all City of St. Augustine
departments and agencies comply completely and accurately with Rule
1B-26.003, F.A.C.

The Sworn Affidavit of Writer Dwight Hines' Limited Interest in "The
City of St. Augustine v.  Merrill Roland" and the Sworn Affidavit of
Dwight Hines on St. Augustine Police Department's Failures to Comply
with Rule 1B-26.003, F.A.C.; Chapter 119, Fla.Stat. (2007), and
Chapter 943.081, Fla. Stat. (2007), are attached and provide factual,
verifiable information for this Writer's Motion to Intervene.

Florida Courts are required to determine that a motion for
intervention assert an interest that is immediate and direct; that the
interest is already one at issue; that the issue be the type of issue
that the would-be intervenor be a proper party to raise; that the
motion be made before final judgment in the case; and that the
intervenor's interests are not going to be "fully protected by [the]
one of the original parties to the suit", Wildlife Federation, Inc. v.
Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement, 707 So. 2d 841, (Fla.
5th DCA 1998).  In Morris Communications Co., LLC v. State, 844 So.
2d 671 (Fla. 1st Dist. App. 2003), the Court found that media were
"entitled" to discovery materials in a criminal case.  Additionally,
Intervenor Hines' right as a writer to publish "implies a freedom to
gather information". Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 1972.
Intervenor Hines' direct and immediate interest in the instant case
will be impacted by the judgments of the Court on the failure of the
St. Augustine Police Department to comply completely to discovery
requests because Intervenor Hines will be writing about the instant
case.  Intervenor Hines has written about other criminal cases and has
successfully intervened in a Florida homicide case to unseal records.
Intervernor Hines is also a member of the public and the failure of
the St. Augustine Police Department to repeatedy fail to respond
accurately and completely to Public Records requests and to discovery
requests is more than likely caused by the failure of the St.
Augustine Police Department and other departments of the City of St.
Augustine to be in complete and accurate compliance with Rule
1B-26.003, F.A.C., but are all violations of the public policy of
openness in government.

In the instant case, the St. Augustine Police Department has
repeatedly refused to completely and accurately comply with Rule
3.220, Fla. R. Crim. Proc. (2007) discovery requests, which is exactly
like the repeated failures of both the St. Augustine Police Department
and other City of St. Augustine departments to comply completely and
accurately with Chapter 119, Fl.Stat. (2007) requests. It is relevant
and material that both the St. Augustine Police Department and other
City of St. Augustine Departments are not in compliance with Rule
1B-26.003, F.A.C., governing electronic records management.  The
failure to comply with Rule 1B-26.003, F.A.C. means that there is no
way that Defendant Roland, or Intervenor Hines, will know what
information is typically collected and maintained by the City of St.
Augustine Police Department.

Because the St. Augustine Police Department and other City departments
have inextricably intertwined computer information systems, and share
other basic services, and because the St. Augustine Police Department
and other City departments are not in compliance with Rule 1B-26.003,
F.A.C., it is not possible to know what additional information exists
that is relevant, material, and pertinent to Defendant Roland that has
not been provided to the Court as is required.   The sharing of
information systems within City of St. Augustine departments means
that information about the defendant may be stored or managed in a
computer that is not physically or logically located within the City
of St. Augustine Police Departments.   Therefore, without all City of
St. Augustine Departments being in complete and accurate compliance
with Rule 1B-26.003, F.A.C., the St. Augustine Police Department could
honestly, though misleadingly, reply to a Chapter 119, Fla. Stat.
(2007) request or honestly reply to Rule 3.220, Fla.R.Crim.Proc.
(2007) discovery requests stating they only have information units A,
B, C, when, in fact, they have information units A, B, C, D, E.

A failure to provide complete and accurate discovery information is a
violation of due process, the right to a fair, open trial, and the
Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.  The St. Augustine Police
Department, by their repeated failures to comply with Rule 3.220, Fl.
R.Crim.Proc, (2007) discovery requests, and their repeated failures to
respond, or dodge, Chapter 119, Fla. Stat. (2007) requests, and their
repeated failures to comply with Rule 1B-26.003, F.A.C., indicates the
St. Augustine Police Department must provide a complete and accurate
list, which is already required by Rule 1B-26.003, F.A.C., of all the
information the St. Augustine Police collects in  criminal cases so
Defendant Roland can use to verify they have not left out other
information that is relevant.

For example, Defendant Roland, as part of discovery, asked for all the
information the City of St. Augustine Police Department had related to
Defendant Roland's case, and they failed to report the photographs
that were taken of Defendant Roland.  Even after the Court ordered the
St. Augustine Police Department to provide the photographs, they
failed to provide the Defendant Roland access to the EXIF data for the
camera used for the photographs.  Part of the major case of Defendant
Roland is that photographs were taken, and that they would show
Defendant Roland was not on St. Augustine City property.   The EXIF
data are a necessary start on determining the authenticity of digital
photographs in time and content.  For example, in St. Augustine, there
is a retired Judge who easily modifies digital photographs to include
himself in family pictures where he was left out because he was taking
the photograph.  Intervenor Hines can not tell the photograph was
modified.  Defendant Roland has the right to authenticate digital
photographs that were taken of him.

Similarly, Defendant Roland learned this past week that the St.
Augustine Police Department records all police radio traffic.
Defendant Roland obtained a recording of the radio traffic from the
St. Augustine Police Department for the period at and around the time
he was ticketed.   If the St. Augustine Police Department had been in
compliance with Rule 1B-26.003, F.A.C. , Mr. Roland likely would have
known long ago that recordings of police radio traffic existed.

The repeated refusals to comply with discovery requests, braided with
the repeated refusals to comply with Chapter 119, Fla.Stat.(2007)
requests, and the failure to comply with Rule 1B-26.003, F.A.C., shows
a chronic problem in the St. Augustine Police Department that more
than likely has negatively impacted other criminal cases in St. Johns
County and Circuit Courts.

Recent reports, "Contacts Between Police and the Public, 2005", April,
2007, NCJ215243, and "Citizen Complaints about Police Use of Force",
June, 2006, NCJ210296, available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov, show a
consistent racial difference in perceptions of the police.  Chapter
166.093, Fla. Stat. (2002), requires all municipal law enforcement
agencies to incorporate antiracial or antidiscriminatory profiling
policies into their agencies policies and practices.   The inability
of the St. Augustine Police Department, and other City of St.
Augustine departments, to comply with public records requests and
discovery requests, and to fail compliance with Rule 1B-26.003,
F.A.C., a rule that is fundamental to both types of information
requests, makes it impossible to determine the ecological validity of
any statistics or data provided by the St. Augustine Police Department
on Chapter 166.093, Fla. Stat. (2002).  It is more than likely that
the fundamental rights of other accused individuals have been
differentially violated by race in St. Johns County and Circuit
Courts.

	 WHEREFORE, Intervenor Hines PRAYS the Court to move expeditiously to
grant this motion for the limited purpose of a limited appearance at
the November 29, 2007 trial of Defendant Roland, and

1) To Order that Dwight Hines Intervene in the case of The City of St.
Augustine v. Merrill Roland; for the limited purpose of appearing and
moving the Court,

2) To Order the City of St. Augustine Police Department to comply
completely and accurately with Rule 1B-26.003, F.A.C., within 30 days
of the Order,

3) To Order the City of St. Augustine to comply completely and
accurately with Rule 1B-26.003, F.A.C., within 60 days of the the date
of the Order,

4) To Order the St. Augustine Police Department to provide to the
Court a list of the names and case numbers, for St. Johns County and
Circuit cases, of all individuals and groups the St. Augustine Police
Department investigated or supported prosecution of within the past
five years, within 90 days of the date of the Order,

5) To Order the St. Augustine Police Department to completely and
accurately respond to Defendant Roland's discovery requests within 15
days, and
and any other actions or relief necessary in the interest of justice.

Respectfully Submitted, this ___day of November, 2007.


________________________
Dwight E. Hines
	 150 Nesmith Ave.
St. Augustine, Florida 32084


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

Filtering Facts is back on the web after a too long absence.   In keeping
with my long association with filtering software, I have completely
reconstituted www.filteringfacts.org  as both a deep reference site of all
things related to filtering software, as well as a daily blog of reporting
on Internet filtering and Internet safety.   Among the material in the new
website are:

  --  Legal page ( http://filteringfacts.org/legal/ ) Extensive information
on all U.S. legal cases involving filtering (CIPA, CDA, COPA, etc.) with
hundreds of legal documents, as well as the text and interpretation of all
US state and federal laws involving filtering.

-- Filter Effectiveness Tests page (
http://filteringfacts.org/research/filter-tests/ )
A comprehensive index of nearly 100 individual product tests conducted by
testing labs, organizations, or affiliated researchers.

-- Research and Policy Papers page (
http://filteringfacts.org/research/papers/ )
A comprehensive index of over 100 research, policy, and legal papers on
filtering software created by government entities, filtering companies,
advocacy groups, academic publications, and other organizations.

  -- Filter Reviews page ( http://filteringfacts.org/research/filter-reviews/)
A comprehensive index of published filtering product reviews since 1995,
including over 200 individual product reviews.

-- Filtering page ( http://filteringfacts.org/filtering/ )
Extensive information about filtering companies, past as well as present,
their products and databases.


-- Library Filtering Policies Page (
http://filteringfacts.org/policy/library-policies/ )
Archive of over 100 Internet Acceptable Use Policies from public libraries
that filter.
----------------------------------
David Burt, Filtering Facts
david_burt@...
http://www.filteringfacts.org


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

On Oct 27, 2007, at 3:18 PM, Kevin T. Neely wrote:

> On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 14:50 -0400, Carol Shepherd wrote:
>> I have not been able to get this site to resolve either, and I have
>> tried three separate times.
>>
>
>>> It is
>>>
>>> http://www.GetMyFBIfile.com
>>>
>
> I hit the link yesterday and again just now.  I have Bellsouth DSL.
>
> An nslookup gives the following:
> Non-authoritative answer:
> Name:   getmyfbifile.com
> Address: 66.117.159.5
>
>
> So, unless I have been lucky and you have been incredibly unlucky, I'd
> say the site is blocked for you.


I've been alive forever, and I wrote the very first songs.

I put the words and the melodies together, which means the Fumbling
Bumblers and other TLAs surely have files on me.

A good bit before I hit puberty, I wrote a letter to "Embassy, Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics, Washington, DC".

I don't remember what I asked them, but I do remember that they
answered.

The likelihood that I do not have a file with a TLA is somewhat akin
to the likelihood that Ernie Fletcher will be re-elected as Governor
of Kentucky - which is somewhat akin to the likelihood that Yours
Truly will be the next Roman Catholic Pope *and* the next Dalai Lama
*and* the next Bop of the She-Bop a Lou-Bop AND the Duke of Earl.

Do I need to say that that ain't the way to bet?

One of these days, I'm gonna get around to sending an FOIA.

As the inimitable JYA has noted, if there's anything interesting in
there, they won't release it.

But I'm gonna ask, anyway - just to see what they reply.


My Original Writing blog: http://itgotworse.livedigital.com


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

Finally worked for me around 3pm.

Carol Shepherd wrote:
> I have not been able to get this site to resolve either, and I have
> tried three separate times.
>
> Michael Ravnitzky wrote:
>> Website Gets Your FBI Dossier
>>
>> Privacy advocates have last week established a noncommercial website
>> that allows visitors to request their FBI Files, as well as files from
>> several other agencies.
>>
>> It is
>> http://www.GetMyFBIfile.com
>>
>> Michael Ravnitzky
>> mikerav@...
>>
>> Michael Ravnitzky
>>
>>
>> **********************************************************************
>> For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
>> Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
>> Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
>> **********************************************************************
>>
>

--
Carol Ruth Shepherd
Arborlaw PLC
Ann Arbor MI USA
734 668 4646 v  734 786 1241 f
Arborlaw - a legal blog for entrepreneurs and small business
http://arborlaw.com


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 14:50 -0400, Carol Shepherd wrote:
> I have not been able to get this site to resolve either, and I have
> tried three separate times.
>

> > It is
> >
> > http://www.GetMyFBIfile.com
> >

I hit the link yesterday and again just now.  I have Bellsouth DSL.

An nslookup gives the following:
Non-authoritative answer:
Name:   getmyfbifile.com
Address: 66.117.159.5


So, unless I have been lucky and you have been incredibly unlucky, I'd
say the site is blocked for you.

K


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

I have not been able to get this site to resolve either, and I have
tried three separate times.

Michael Ravnitzky wrote:
> Website Gets Your FBI Dossier
>
> Privacy advocates have last week established a noncommercial website that
allows visitors to request their FBI Files, as well as files from several other
agencies.
>
> It is
>
> http://www.GetMyFBIfile.com
>
> Michael Ravnitzky
> mikerav@...
>
> Michael Ravnitzky
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
> Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
> Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
> **********************************************************************
>

--
Carol Ruth Shepherd
Arborlaw PLC
Ann Arbor MI USA
734 668 4646 v  734 786 1241 f
Arborlaw - a legal blog for entrepreneurs and small business
http://arborlaw.com


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

Requests for files from the government become part of the dossiers.
Well beyond the old disarming joke about it.

FOIA requests are used to spread disinformation of highly selective
releases -- comparable to radioisotope tracing.

Little credible information is available through such means.
Agencies gather information under guise of reluctantly providing it.
And the more secret the agency the more assurance misleading
information will be given to the public to track what use is made
of it.

Anything useful to outsiders is exempted, or most often simply
denied existence -- lawsuits to force release are charades.

Hiding government information should be a high crime and
misdemeanor but FOIA procedures have become the favorite
tool of government worldwide to misinform -- truthiness, or more
correctly, official lying, way beyond dissimulation.

Not a single government web site or FOIA office tells the truth.
What they gather are data to support budget requests for
increased secrecy.


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

I hate to intrude again, but the FBI's own website letter deliberately
generates only a rather cursory and insubstantial search.  It does not
search for Field Office records, nor to search for older records in the
general/manual indices.

The Getmyfbifile.com site also allows you to request files from certain
other federal agencies as well.

Michael Ravnitzky



Michael Ravnitzky

> Or you can just print out the FBI's own form
>
> http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=privacy_request.pdf
>
> and skip the paranoia.
>
>
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Warren E. Agin wrote:
>
>> All it does is generate FOI language for you to cut and paste into your own
>> letters. You can leave sensitive info blank if you want, and fill it in
>> later.
>>
>> -Warren Agin
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>  From: Bryar Family
>>  To: CYBERIA-L@...
>>  Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 4:53 PM
>>  Subject: Re: Website Gets Your FBI Dossier
>>
>>
>>  This site seems to be down at the moment.
>>  Are you sure it's legit?
>>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Law & Policy of Computer Communications
>>  [mailto:CYBERIA-L@...] On Behalf Of Michael Ravnitzky
>>  Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 3:57 PM
>>  To: CYBERIA-L@...
>>  Subject: [CYBERIA] Website Gets Your FBI Dossier
>>
>>  Website Gets Your FBI Dossier
>>
>>  Privacy advocates have last week established a noncommercial website that
>>  allows visitors to request their FBI Files, as well as files from several
>>  other agencies.
>>
>>  It is
>>
>>  http://www.GetMyFBIfile.com
>>
>>  Michael Ravnitzky
>>  mikerav@...
>>
>>  Michael Ravnitzky
>>
>>
>>  **********************************************************************
>>  For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
>>  Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
>>  Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
>>  **********************************************************************
>>
>>  No virus found in this incoming message.
>>  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>  Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.11/1093 - Release Date: 10/25/2007
>>  5:38 PM
>>
>>
>>  No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>  Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.11/1093 - Release Date: 10/25/2007
>>  5:38 PM
>>
>>
>>
>>  **********************************************************************
>>  For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
>>  Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
>>  Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
>>  **********************************************************************
>>
>>
>> **********************************************************************
>> For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
>> Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
>> Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
>> **********************************************************************
>>
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
> Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
> Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
> **********************************************************************


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************

Or you can just print out the FBI's own form

http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=privacy_request.pdf

and skip the paranoia.


On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Warren E. Agin wrote:

> All it does is generate FOI language for you to cut and paste into your own
letters. You can leave sensitive info blank if you want, and fill it in later.
>
> -Warren Agin
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Bryar Family
>  To: CYBERIA-L@...
>  Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 4:53 PM
>  Subject: Re: Website Gets Your FBI Dossier
>
>
>  This site seems to be down at the moment.
>  Are you sure it's legit?
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Law & Policy of Computer Communications
>  [mailto:CYBERIA-L@...] On Behalf Of Michael Ravnitzky
>  Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 3:57 PM
>  To: CYBERIA-L@...
>  Subject: [CYBERIA] Website Gets Your FBI Dossier
>
>  Website Gets Your FBI Dossier
>
>  Privacy advocates have last week established a noncommercial website that
>  allows visitors to request their FBI Files, as well as files from several
>  other agencies.
>
>  It is
>
>  http://www.GetMyFBIfile.com
>
>  Michael Ravnitzky
>  mikerav@...
>
>  Michael Ravnitzky
>
>
>  **********************************************************************
>  For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
>  Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
>  Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
>  **********************************************************************
>
>  No virus found in this incoming message.
>  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>  Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.11/1093 - Release Date: 10/25/2007
>  5:38 PM
>
>
>  No virus found in this outgoing message.
>  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>  Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.11/1093 - Release Date: 10/25/2007
>  5:38 PM
>
>
>
>  **********************************************************************
>  For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
>  Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
>  Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
>  **********************************************************************
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
> Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
> Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
> **********************************************************************
>


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@...
**********************************************************************