As I learned in that international law class I took last semester (for which, in case you were wondering, I earned a very respectable grade), there are Administration lawyers working feverishly behind every such move to ensure that we’re complying with international law, or that we have defensible reasons why we are not so compliant.

O’Reilly's Alex Howard reports that both House floor summaries and bulk downloads of all House legislation are now available in XML. It doesn't mean everything Congress does is available yet, but it’s a great progression.

I really hope some enterprising developers make something cool with the newly-available data streams, and future offerings as well. I propose an app that provides push notifications when keywords of your choice are mentioned on the House floor.

I love several things about this:

1. This is only the first in an ongoing series, with three other parts as of the moment I published this post.
2. You can buy the contract from Peter Jackson’s film adaptation of The Hobbit on Amazon.
3. James Daily, who wrote the post to which I link above, bought that prop contract from Amazon and used it in the creation of the article series.

Wonderfully fun stuff!

Former Facebook CTO and Quora co-founder Adam D’Angelo, talking to Om Malik at GigaOM:

The real reward is in the response to your answer and the fact that millions can read it. You already see more people giving and sharing knowledge for free. Lawyers and other professionals are using Quora to build their reputation and build their bonafides.

I haven’t seen many lawyers on Quora yet, but I’ll start looking for them to see exactly what D’Angelo means . I wonder if some use cases implicate ethics rules.

The Philadelphia Inquirer’s Craig R. McCoy reports on a recent special commission report on the problem and some suggested solutions. In a city where street wisdom warns that “snitches get stitches,” this is an encouraging development.

Wired's David Kravets reports that:

The girl’s father, Steven, wrote the school district explaining why removing the chip wasn’t good enough, that the daughter should be free from displaying the card altogether. “‘We must obey the word of God,” the father said, according to court documents. “By asking my daughter and our family to participate and fall in line like the rest of them is asking us to disobey our Lord and Savior.”

Unfortunately, in the modern American climate of violence, it’s hard to support someone who refuses to wear an ID, especially with the the tracking removed by the school. You can download the 25-page ruling as a PDF document here.

The Scouts’ central authority is unlikely to honor the recommendation because of their culture of fear and hate toward LGBTQ people. And the law may be on Boy Scouts of America’s side, at least for now, but history is not. Future generations will look back on private organizations who discriminated based on sexual orientation, however lawfully, with disgust.

seldo:

So a little over a month ago I finally got my green card. So for the first time in 7 years of living in the US and periodically leaving it to visit my family, I wasn’t terrified that my visa documents wouldn’t be in order and I’d get denied entry and deported.

Predictably, this was the first time…

Read this example of the stress of immigration, even when it is is very legal and everything is supposedly in order.

Deborah Pearlstein of the law blog Opinio Juris shared the statement of Michael Morell, the Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, on the film Zero Dark Thirty, about the hunt for and capture of Osama Bin Laden. Its interesting that he would feel compelled to comment at all, especially in a press release.

This is unfortunate. There are processes in place that are designed to ensure the preservation of various constitutional rights. The warrant process is one of the most important, and for many people email is far more ubiquitous than other forms of correspondence and property that do require a warrant for seizure in most situations.

Jessica Guynn of the LA Times:

The FTC wants to know what the brokers do with the information. It also wants to know if the data brokers let consumers review and correct their personal information or opt out from having their personal information sold.

I can guess that they sell it as “background check” data to both reputable and shady services of that kind, and almost certainly none of them allow correction or opt-out.

It’s one thing to consent to tracking efforts by Amazon, Google, and Facebook, whose labyrinthine Terms of Service are at least publicly-available. It’s another thing to be tracked without consent, without even agreeing to a TOS we didn’t really read, by companies who profit by selling that information to still other companies.

We need legislation on this, as in most other areas of consumer privacy, and especially on the internet, mandating opt-in only participation in data collection like this.

Joseph Goldstein, writing for the Times:

Mr. Sussmann suggested that the Police Department could limit its subpoenas to phone calls beginning on the hour, not the day, of the theft, and ending as soon as the victim has transferred the number to a new phone.

Mr. Sussman is exactly right. I suspect the intent here on the part of NYPD is an admirable one: we have data available that can help us track thieves, so let’s use it.

But it’s not hard to limit the information requested to only the information that could possibly be of use in finding the suspect.

Erik Eckholm, reporting for the New York Times:

Referred to Jonah by a rabbi when he was 18, Mr. Levin began attending weekend retreats at $650 each. For a year and a half, he had weekly private sessions with Mr. Downing as well as weekly group sessions. He quit, he said, after Mr. Downing had him remove his clothes and touch himself, saying it would help him reconnect with his masculinity. Mr. Goldberg has defended Mr. Downing’s methods as sometimes appropriate for men dealing with body image problems.

Golberg and Downing have no license to practice psychology or therapy. They took money from men in exchange for the promise of “curing” their homosexuality. And, as this passage demonstrates, Downing took advantage of at least one young man’s vulnerability.

Deplorable.

Conversion “therapy” is one of religion’s dark arts, with no basis in reality and the primary purpose of enriching cynical snake-oil salesmen by feeding off the self-hatred of confused individuals. No god wants you removing your clothes and touching yourself for a fake “therapist.”

Sadly, the California ban on this absurd abuse of religion only applies to licensed therapists. This would leave “religious counselors” like the scum described in this story able to continue to profit from the desperation of people who can’t live with the thought that their god will hate them if they’re true to who they are.

If you think gay people need to seek healing in the form of getting “un-gayed,” you’ll get no respect from me.

Twenty-plus years is a long time, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act is overdue for an update. A summary of the state of things:

Unfortunately these digital documents lack long-held privacy safeguards. Email saved in web-based email systems like Yahoo for longer than six months can be accessed with an administrative subpoena, which provides less protection than a warrant. Similarly, no matter what privacy setting you use, sensitive and personal information — photos, private journals, Facebook pages, corporate data, draft reports — shared with third parties like Google and Facebook can be accessible by police without a judge’s approval. All the government has to do is swear it’s “relevant” to an investigation.

Here’s to ensuring that the Fourth Amendment isn’t rendered moot by technological advancements.

David Post, writing at The Volokh Conspiracy:

The Report proposes a series of rather radical — in the Jeffersonian sense — reforms, from dramatically shortening the copyright term (a no-brainer, actually) to expanding fair use and limiting the damages from infringement claims.

The report’s recommendations don’t go quite as far as my suggestion that fair use should be assumed rather than merely an affirmative defense, but Professor Post is right to highlight the opportunity for the GOP to differentiate on this issue.

In fact, I’m not sure there is much in there with which I would disagree, excepting the over-the-top (and even italicized) final sentence of the report’s conclusion:

Current copyright law does not merely distort some markets – rather it destroys entire markets.

That’s wrong. The current US copyright regime limits access, hinders creativity, and dampens innovation, thereby frustrating copyright’s Constitutional purpose. That fact, and I do consider it a fact, must be the foundation of the copyright reform we need in this country.

It’s a great idea, and I hope it yields some useful results.

This one is worth watching. With regard to blogs and forums, particularly, there’s a strong analogy with letter-writing and other modes of communication with the “outside” that are typically allowed.

The plaintiffs, two registered California sex offenders, argue that prohibiting their anonymous speech online “even if it pertains to news, politics, and professional activity, and could not possibly be used to commit a crime” violates the First Amendment.

This looks similar to a case I wrote about in October, where a Nebraska federal court tossed a similar law in that state.

I don’t want sex offenders to have access to children online. But these measures do go too far. Maybe registered sex offenders should be required to access the internet via special software that, while it allows anonymity, prevents access to services and sites that reach children.

At the end of the day, the truth is that these laws apply to people who have otherwise served their time, who are “free” in the legal sense, and who no longer labor under the curtailed liberties of institutional imprisonment. That imprisonment is meant to punish them, but also to keep the public safe, to prevent them from moving through public crowds anonymously.

If we have released them from prison, allowing that physical anonymity once again, by what logic do we eliminate their digital anonymity?

I don’t have an answer, but I suspect the issue will reach the Supreme Court sooner rather than later.

If international law interests you at all, particularly the role treaties play, you should click the link above this sentence. Professor Duncan Hollis edited The Oxford Guide to Treaties and is an expert on the topic. I’m currently in his International Law course at Temple Law and his experience and expertise make it a must-take course for anyone considering Temple Law.

I hope this is the beginning of an acceleration in the death of “traditional” marriage in the United States of America. Fear, ignorance, and religion are all equally insufficient and shameful excuses to deny universal marriage rights for one more moment.

Cliff Kuang of Co.Design:

Whatever your stance on drone killings, the fact remains that there’s been very little national dialogue on the topic. Indeed, some would say that’s a direct result of the main problem with the policy: Its complete lack of transparency.

Mr. Kuang points to the New York Times piece from this past June. It’s a good place to start, and taken along with this the infographic, starts to bring the severity of the issue into focus.

Perhaps reasonable people will come to different conclusions, but if you don’t at least have an opinion on this, get one.

Professor Post, writing at The Volokh Conspiracy about the brief he helped write in the Aereo case:

copyright law does not exist for the benefit of authors; it uses the benefit granted to authors because that is a means to increase the creation and the availability of creative works to the public.

It’s important to note that this is not the Professor’s opinion, it is derived from the Constitution and the ways in which the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution (particularly Article I, § 8, clause 8).

The issue in this case is whether it is violative of copyright law for a company, Aereo, to essentially rent small digital television antennae to its customers that enable those customers to stream broadcast channels over the internet. Professor Post and his co-authors on the brief argue that it is not:

the court’s role in construing the statute is not to produce maximum authorial reward, but maximum public benefit. Where that means (as it often does) that it is the copyright owners who must persuade Congress to address the matter and adjust the balance so that it tips more in their favor, they are entitled and well-equipped to do that, as they have done so often in the past.

Read the amicus brief here.

Steve Semeraro at the Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog:

Government actors are charged with a duty to act in the public interest and thus can generally be trusted to restrain trade only when the public will benefit. Private actors, by contrast, are driven by the desire to maximize profit and will thus restrain trade when it is privately beneficial but harms the public interest. On 26 November, the Supreme Court will reenter the fray, hearing oral argument in FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System.

This is an interesting part of antitrust law: the exemption from antitrust liability for state actors and, in very limited circumstances, private actors acting under the supervision of the state. These issues are more relevant than you may think if you’re not a law student/lawyer/professor/large-scale businessperson.

Consider my recent Amazon prediction, or the reach of international competition law.

Find more information about FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System at SCOTUSblog, or read the 11th Circuit’s opinion at Google Scholar.

Ian Griffiths and Dan Milmo of The Guardian, quoting ” a contract seen by the Guardian,” presumably between Amazon and one of its UK publishing “partners”:

If the base price exceeds the base price … provided to a similar service then … the base price hereunder will be deemed to be equal to such lower price, effective as of the date such lower price comes into effect.

That’s a good deal, especially coupled with the recent ebooks settlement.

The US antitrust regime is focused on protecting consumer interests. That means that as long as Amazon’s book selection continues to rise and their prices continue to fall, they’re unlikely to see any problems on the competition law front.

That’s probably not good for consumers in the long-run, especially given Amazon’s DRM and control over your devices and library. I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that Amazon will face some antitrust scrutiny of its own in the next year.

Despicable.

Professor David Post of Temple Law served as an expert for the plaintiffs — yes, sex offenders — in this case. His focus, as he points out in his Volokh Conspiracy post, was on the overbroad nature of the statute barring internet use by sex offenders, which he believes, and the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska agreed, was beyond what the First Amendment allows.

Your first thought might be “who cares about a sex offender’s free speech rights?”

The answer, of course, is that the Constitution cares, particularly after they have served prison time and otherwise complied with constitutionally sound penalties for their crimes.

The core of the court’s holding lies in the following passage:

The ban not only restricts the exchange of text between adults; it also restricts the exchange of oral and video communication between adults. Moreover, the ban potentially restricts the targeted offenders from communicating with hundreds of millions and perhaps billions of adults and their companies despite the fact that the communication has nothing whatsoever to do with minors.¹

This looks to me like a well-meaning statute, meant to keep sex offenders away from kids online, that was very poorly drafted. You could achieve the desired goal using far narrower provisions. I hope someone proposes a corrected statute to that effect.