PayPal update

Oh, goody, goody, goody. After reading a couple of documents about PayPal that I retrieved from Cryptome, I've got some more good news for anyone with a PayPal account.

Per official PayPal doctrine, PayPal cheerfully helps law enforcement retrieve information about PayPal users:

B. eBay User Contact Details and limited transaction history (12 months maximum)
Please submit a signed fax (non-subpoena) on department letterhead stating specifically what you require.
eBay can provide the following information for users under investigation of illegal activity only:
• Contact Name, City, State, Zip, and Telephone Number
• All email addresses and eBay User ID's added to account with date/time stamps
• eBay Fraud complaints (*lf Requested)
• Account listing/bid history dating back one year (*lf Requested)
To assist us in searching for records, the following data must be included in your data request (if available):
- All known names, aliases, street addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers
- Known eBay ID(s) and Item Numbers
- Statement relating to the illegal nature of the activities being investigated
Please fax data request to: Fax: 408.967.9915 Turnaround Time: Typically within 15 business days

It's worth noting that PayPal doesn't require any actual proof or evidence of any wrongdoing; it's enough for them that whatever law enforcement organization that's making the request says there is.

It's even worse if the cops actually take the time and trouble to get a subpoena.

If you're so inclined, you can read the whole document on how PayPal interfaces with cops in this document.

If you want to see what you agreed to when you set up an account with them, this is what you're looking for.

Suicide Tourist

That's the name of the PBS Frontline program that I watched (you can watch it online) tonight.

You can probably figure out that it had something to do with suicide, but are somewhat baffled about the "tourist" part. Well, Switzerland has laws in effect that allow assisted suicide for non-Swiss residents. It isn't that simple, of course, but do-able without being overly difficult.

This particular program was about a man that was in the advanced stages of ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease); he needed assistance even with breathing. Rather than wait for the disease to play out "naturally", he (after discussing it with his wife of 37 years) decided to end his life. It began shortly before he actually travelled to Switzerland, and ended shortly after his death. It does an exemplary job of presenting HIS views and reasons for making such a choice, and how it affected his wife and two grown kids.

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that the man opted to end his own life by taking the voluntary action of sucking an overdose of a prescription sleeping compound through a straw; it was not "dispensed" or "given" TO him. Great care was taken to ensure that HE was the one that took the actions that would end his life, and that he was free to change his mind at any point for any reason,

For a long time, there has been an ongoing debate regarding the subject of assisted suicide, with side arguments regarding the morals, ethics, and legality of the matter.

Myself, I'm of the opinion (and do my very best to live that way) that people should be free to do pretty much any damn thing they want, so long as they don't cause harm to those unwilling to accept it. That is, each of us has to make our own decisions for our own reasons, and accept the consequences of our choices -- and that we should be free of interference from those that disagree with our choices.

What this program did was to remind me of some of the questions that I've never heard properly addressed amid all the other discussion on suicide (assisted or otherwise).

• Why, exactly, are so many so ready to automatically and universally decide that suicide is absolutely wrong for everyone, all the time?
• What makes the above individuals think that they have the right/obligation to make such a decision for someone else?
• If a person's physical body isn't theirs as the most basic and fundamental example of "property rights", making them the ultimate arbiter of what to do with it, then who the hell DOES it belong to?
  

AGAIN wit' da Gummit

*sigh*

In today's mail, I got another one of the goofy-ass "American Community Survey" thingies from the U.S. Census - despite the fact that I have tried to let them know that I didn't have any interest in providing them with anything, which didn't work particularly well.

Carefully reading the "We're from the Government, we're here to help" bullshit accompanying the survey, and doing a little checking, I find that there are, in fact, penalties for not participating:

From 13 USC {that's Title 13 of the United States Code, for those of you that might be less than familiar with lawyer-speak), courtesy of Cornell University Law :

§ 221. Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers

(a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not more than $100.

(b) Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a) of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is false, shall be fined not more than $500.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

Loverly, innit?

I certainly don't want to break the law by refusing to comply mit Das Direktive (I gave them my name, the date, my phone #, and that it's just me, just like they asked on the very front of it), and I'd never dream of outright lying to them. I guess the only option they leave open to me is to respectfully decline to provide anything, in accordance to (c).

If they think I'm bullshitting, they're certainly welcome to PROVE it -- if they can.

Gee, so sorry...

The benefits without the aggravation

The flip side

After yesterdays reminder of the freedoms we enjoy, I'd like to toss out a few things for people to think about -- as in whether or not we're still enjoying those same freedoms and liberties that so many have fought (and died) for. That said, here's some food for thought (courtesy of a Fark Photoshop 'contest' for national landmarks that we need):

Let's try not to forget these, 'kay?

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
3. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
5. No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Big Brother is watching

Okay, so now we're pretty much screwed, methinks.

The 114-page wiretapping bill looks like it's going to be passed -- and when it is, private communications will be at the mercy of whatever twit happens to be in the Whitehouse:

1. There doesn't seem to have been any kind of 'compromise' between the Whitehouse (and by extension, Republicans) and Dems; Dubya is getting pretty much anything and everything he wanted -- if not more.
2. The bill doesn't add anything to the capabilities of the National Security Agency, CIA, or any of the other similar or related organizations. The NSA has always been able/willing to keep an eye on any communications that 'exited' the United States; all that's really changed is that now they can use a bigger vacuum cleaner to suck up all the data.
3. Now the telecoms are given an advance blanket protection against being sued by the customers they're betraying -- all they have to do is tell a FISA court "The President said it was okay!", and they're off the hook.
4. No guarantee (or even vague promise) that this law is the One True Way of dealing with the issue of surveillance, wiretapping, and the like -- after all, the FISA system was supposed to be the One True Way, until Dubya decided he didn't like it and went on to violate it (and, incidentally, the Constitution). So the next "We know what's best for you" government we get could scrap this abomination in favor of something even MORE intrusive.
5. The law isn't even clear about who's supposed to be doing what, or what the limits are. One report on it declares
   

   To be fair, wiretapping is so classified, and the language of the bill so opaque, that no one without a "top secret" clearance can say with any authority just how much surveillance the proposal will authorize the government to do. (The best assessment yet comes from former Justice Department official David Kris, who deems the legislation "so intricate" that it risks confusing even "the government officials who must apply it.")

I've just got one question about all this.

Why are we allowing our own government to do to us the very same things that we used to slam the former Soviet Union used to do?

Memorial Day

To all those that have served, and given their lives, thank you.

Rest in Peace, brothers, Rest in Peace.

Confuzion - I haz it.

In the process of watching the various news reports of the last few weeks, and reading the comments and letters to the editor of online and print media, I have to confess that I have no small measure of confusion about a few things:

Polygamy sect(s)
Could someone explain to me -- using something other than religious grounds -- just exactly WHAT is wrong with polygamy? I'm not talking about the 'marriages' of underage kids to adults (which should be illegal, anyway), but the practice as engaged in by adults. It's not anything I would have any interest in; I'm just curious to know what the basis is against it. For that matter, why is 'marriage' limited to a one-and-one definition, anyway? If the goal/purpose of marriage is to provide for children, stability in the relationship, and ensure that the family is suitably provided for, then I'd think that any kind of union that accomplished those goals would be acceptable. Besides, whose business is it what happens in a marriage except for those involved?
Considering all the different religions and cultures in the world, maybe it's time to stop thinking of 'marriage' as a religious construct, but rather a LEGAL one.

Gay Marriage
Again, I'm at a loss here. If two people want to join their lives together, what the hell should it matter to anyone else? Yes, I hear and read all the fussing (usually involving quotes or citations from the Bible), but none of that answers the question: what business is it of yours? If 'you' believe that marriage between two people of the same sex is immoral or sinful or whatever, then don't do it; regardless of what you may think or believe, you do NOT have any inherent 'right' to deny anyone else the freedom to live as they wish -- unless, of course, you're willing to subject yourself to someone else's beliefs, in turn?

Crime and Punishment
Lest anyone think that I'm a Liberal (with that capital 'L'), I'm not: conservatively, I think that we should have as few Laws (and as little Government) as we can manage; but that what laws we DO have should be enforced quickly and fully. I believe, for example, in the death penalty for a couple of reasons. First, that there are simply some crimes that are so vile and heinous that the death of the perpetrator is called for; second, that when the death penalty is enforced, it can serve as a deterrent to others committing the same crime. In this second case, I would call for a restoration of the policy of making such executions PUBLIC. Yes, watching someone die by hanging, electrocution, firing squad, or whatever is highly disturbing -- and that should be exactly the point: people should be able to see the consequences of committing a crime for which there is the death penalty. If someone is sentenced to the death penalty, don't give them an additional 20 years of life while they file appeal after appeal after appeal. Rather, have a team of independent judges and attorneys review the case in detail, fill in any missing details or options (i.e. a DNA test that wasn't inclued in the trial for a rape/murder), verify that all the details were properly tended to, and promptly proceed with the execution if everything matches up.
Similarly, I don't see any reason why prisons and jails should be so livable. Even though he may be going a bit overboard, I think Sheriff Joe Arpaio has the right idea. I don't think that criminal suspects and convicts should be denied legal representation or treated inhumanely, but I don't think that they should enjoy the same 'rights' as everyone else, either: they should be punished for filing frivolous types of lawsuits, they shouldn't have some inherent 'right' to cable TV, and so on. Instead, I would suggest that convicts receive only the barest minimum of treatment and care (and be worked to compensate their victims), and then earn the priveleges of (additional) TV, access to a library, recreational equipment, and so on. The money saved could be applied toward self-improvement programs (education, anger management, and the like) that would help keep them from being incarcerated again. Similarly, there should be room for DECREASING a prisoners options in the event they continue to misbehave in jail or prison: reducing the time they get to spend outside of their cells (and for what purposes), what they may have in their cells, exercise and entertainment options, and such. Basically, I'm advocating increased punishment for bad behavior, and rewarding good so that they learn (at the 'gut' level) how to behave.

Government
As mentioned before, I'm in favor of having as little Government and Law as we can manage. I don't see any point to passing laws that aren't routinely enforced. For example, here in Billings, we have a law against loud car stereos:

No driver or occupant of a motor vehicle on any public or private property shall operate or permit the operation of a sound amplification system from within a motor vehicle so that the sound is plainly audible (heard) at a distance of fifty (50) feet or more from the motor vehicle. Billings City Code- sec. 24-352. Exemptions: a. A system being operated to request assistance of an emergency nature or to warn of a hazardous situation; b. A system being operated on a vehicle of a gas, electric, communications or water utility company or governmental entity; c. A system permitted by the Billings City Council or the Billings Police Department; d. An authorized emergency vehicle; or e. Audio alarm systems installed in vehicles. BCA.sec.24-353

Good luck on filing a complaint, however: with my own two beady little eyes, I've seen 'boom cars' sitting at traffic lights right next to Billings PD vehicles. Yeah, it made someone feel warm and fuzzy inside to 'do something' about boom cars. I don't doubt that the law was passed with the best of intentions -- but since there doesn't seem to be anyone willing to enforce it, what's the point? All it seems to be for, now, is to give cops something else to add to whatever charges they might have against a driver; that, in turn, begs the question of how valid the charges are for whatever (s)he was stopped for in the first place. Here's a thought: how about if we go into the court records at the various levels of the court system, compare what charges were brought, and then eliminate any laws that haven't been used for X number of years (I'm thinking 10, but that's just a starting point) that they've been on the books? This would 'exempt' laws that haven't been in effect long enough to have much of an impact while still getting rid of the nonsense laws that have had little or NONE. Then repeat this every X years...
Next on the agenda is taxation. I don't have any problem with paying my share of the Governments operating expenses. What I do have issues is that there's virtually no way of telling whether or not what I'm paying is 'fair' -- which leaves us with the question of what we mean by 'fair'. Does fair mean that every adult pays the same flat amount (budget divided by adult population), or that everyone pays the same percentage of their income? If the former, then people making less than a certain amount are going to be hit with a tax bill they can't pay; if the latter, then those with higher incomes are shouldering more of the burden: 5% of a million dollars is a trifle more than 5% of fifty thousand. This is the kind of thing that causes the tax code to turn into a plate of spaghetti, as far as being legible is concerned. For example, the very first part of the tax code -- where it just defines who has to pay -- runs to 30,527 words on 61 pages, including all the notes, citations, and other Legal Noise. After that, things start getting seriously obtuse, what with all the sub-sub-sub-sub-clauses, cross references, exceptions, exemptions, specifications, and everything else. Just as an exercise, go to your local library, and find the shelves (there will probably be more than one) that hold all the Federal laws -- what are commonly called "Titles" (maybe some lawyer can explain the how/why of that). What you're after is the tax code, or Title 26. Pull that sucker down off the shelf, open it up anywhere, and have a look at it. Notice the size and density of the print. Have a try at reading it. THAT, friends and enemas, is what we're supposed to 'know' -- that old "ignorance of the law is no excuse" bit. Could somebody please explain to me just exactly why we need that much literary diarrhea to tell us how much money we're supposed to give the Government? Why, in God's name, can't the tax code (in its entirety) be reduced to something that a mere mortal can read and understand? Something, say, the size of a paperback book? Something that says, simply and clearly, "The tax on gross individual income will be X%. The tax on gross business income will be Y%. The following types of organizations shall be exempt from business income taxes: This, and That, and The Other One. The following goods will be taxed at the rate indicated: Petroleum products and derivatives - A% per gallon or pound, as appropriate; Foodstuffs - B% per gallon or pound, as appropriate; imported ____ - C% per ___", and so on. Also note those little periods at the end of each sentence -- as in thud, complete stop, no 'except' or 'unless' or anything else. Hell, if the damn tax code was intelligible to anyone but a lawyer, we might be able to pay it as we go along, and not need to file income tax returns. Wouldn't that be nice?
Somewhat related to the problem with the tax code is the number of federal employees we have. I actually did the research (email me, and I'll be glad to send you the resulting file), graphed the results, and found out that since 1946, the ratio of federal employees (in the whole government) versus population has halved -- that is, we now have twice as many federal employees (for our population) as we did sixty years ago. In 1946, there were just over 51 people for each federal employee; as of 1999, there was a federal employee for ever 21 peeps:
(click on image to see it better). Does anyone out there seriously believe we're getting roughly 2 1/2 times more service? Or is that much more government is 'servicing' US, instead? You think maybe if we had a little (lot!) less Government, it might not need so much money to operate?

All in all, I think all of us would be a lot better off if we were willing to assume more responsibility for ourselves and our choices, and demonstrate less interest in claiming (and trying to exercise) authority over other individuals.

But, hey, that's just me.

Bits o' Fluff

I mentioned in my previous post that I'm anti-China, and why. As part of that don't-support-the-shitbirds policy, I do a fair amount of my non-food shopping at Target versus Wal*Mart: my experience thus far has been that Target offers more not-Made-in-China items that Wally World. For example, today I purchased a couple of items for home - a bookshelf kit and a set of cookware to replace the worn out mishmash of things I've been pretending to cook with until now.

The shelves were Target-branded, and identified on the box as being made in Malaysia. The cookware was a little tougher: even the Wearever brand had a tiny little "Made in China" tucked away on the box; there was, however, a Bialetti set (mine is black, not red) that was made (you guessed it) in Italy. The quality of the Bialetti set more than made up for the marginally higher price compared to the Chinese-made stuff.

On a totally unrelated note, I know that posting has been a bit on the 'thin' side here of late; all I can say is that I've been having Adventures in Real Life. Things have settled down, however, and I fully expect to being more involved here and on other blogs more Real Soon Now(tm). Also, I'm considering re-activating my previous blog, A Different Lemming. If anyone reading this has any opinion on the matter, don't be shy about expressing it - I'm certainly open to feedback, and can understand that updating blog linkage could be considered an annoyance to one degree or another.

In the mean time, have an ordinary day :-|

Scrood Agin

Thank you, Republican gonzos in the Senate: thanks to your votes on the Defense Authorization Act, you've shown that you don't give a damn about the rights of the American people.

For those that weren't aware of it, there were two amendments attached to a bit of legislation meant to fund the military for FY 2008. These amendments were a call to re-establish the right of Habeas Corpus (which allows us Mere Mortals to challenge being incarcerated by the government) in the wake of all the "anti-terrorism" crap that Dubya has implemented in the wake of 9/11. Well, thanks to the votes of a bunch of candy-assed, chicken-shit, scumbags in the Senate, the attempt to give us one of our fundamental rights back was prevented.

So we are still subject to being tossed into a jail/prison cell, shipped off to Gitmo, or god-only-knows where else at the whim of whatever federal agent or agency that claims to be doing Dubya's work.

Nice going, you bunch of fucking weasels.

Your Papers, please!

There's a story on Slashdot about a young man that was arrested as a result of his refusal to allow a Circuit City "Loss Prevention" person to inspect his bag on the way out of the store.

Due to the event happening in Brooklyn, Ohio, there are some aspects of the situation that put it in a rather 'unique' context (scroll down to the bit on Ohio's laws on personal identification).

There are those that might argue that Circuit City (and its parking lot) are private property, and thus subject to whatever rules or policies that CC wishes to implement. Others might say that he's a 'troublemaker' for refusing to comply with the request when doing so would be so easy and simple, and would have saved him all the trouble he now faces.

Personally, I think he should be applauded for what he did and the stand he's taking. From my own reading and experience, this type of 'intervention' by Circuit City, Best Buy, and even the "greeters" at Wal*Mart (that want to 'check your recipt' on the way out), is not intended so much to stop shoplifting as to impede someone from bringing an item to the register and having the cashier ring it up as something else (or for a lower price). In effect, these stores are using all of their customers as a tool against employee theft.

My position is that if Circuit City, Best Buy, Wal*Mart, or any other retailer wants to reduce or eliminate employee theft, then they need to take the matter up with the employees - NOT ME. Further, if one of these stores "thinks" that I maybe, might have shoplifted something, then they should be obliged to make the charge/accusation outright, rather than pretending they're not accusing me of anything by 'checking' me on the way out. That way, when their accusations are shown to be incorrect, they can be held accountable for their actions.

I'm also supportive of the kids position on refusing to cough up his drivers license - he wasn't operating a vehicle, he responded truthfully to the questions the police officer asked (whether the cop knew WHAT to ask for is should be HIS problem), and was the one that requested the police in the first place - because of the actions of two CC employees that followed him out of the store and physically prevented him (or his family) from leaving. Let's not lose sight of the fact that the kid was right about how he was obliged (under Ohio law) to identify himself - whether the cop(s) or anybody else likes it, or not.

It's my position that too many individuals have been turned into sheeple, ready to waive their freedom, rights, dignity, and liberty at the slightest provocation. Folks bitch and moan about cops and other officials abusing their power - but aren't willing to stand up and fight those abuses, and defend themselves. This young man IS ready to do so, and I think he deserves every bit of support we can give him.