Keeping up with my new found virtue of brief writings, I just wanted to add my two-cents to the "Nuremberg Files" controversy. The anti-choice online files are maintained by none other than Neal Horsley of Carrottron, Ga. Mr. Horsley's "anti-choice web site [is] notorious for celebrating violence against [abortion] providers." The controversial site publishes "thousands of photographs and videos of abortion clinic staff, patients and escorts."
I may be a conservative Republican who stands on the side of pro-lifers, but this form of publication could and should be proscribed as a terrorist act. There is just no way I could ever justify this kind of societal discourse. In fact, this skews the decency boundary so much that federal officials should maintain a visible presence (in addition to the federally issued permanent injunction) and impose additional oversight restrictions on Mr. Horsley. This type of aberrant behaviour is why I have been calling for stricter government intervention when it comes to the internet. In addition to this method of online identification being shocking, it is costing those who are exercising their legal rights, their lives. And this is wholly unacceptable.
But according to some cause lawyers, who are determined to preserve individual free speech rights, this is permissible. Let's not stop at abortionists, however. Let's go a step a further and publish the names, pictures, home address and phone numbers of undercover DEA, FBI or our local police detective who arrested the punk down for drug distribution, online. Let's not stop there, why not publish everybody's personally identifiable information. Since free speech is so precious to everybody, then maybe folks would not object to voluntarily surrendering the most intimate details of their private lives for online publication. I didn't think so!
I think it's time the government step-up and put a stop this dangerous and unconsciousable activity! Free speech doesn't invite itself to online warrants to murder.
Thank you
BRIAN C. MARQUIS
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Sunday, April 22, 2007
"Inextricably Interwinded Element"
In departing from my past practice of posting lengthy blogs, I am trying to be brief as possible with this one!
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") recently rejected Reed Elsevier Properties, Inc.'s original & modified trademark applications against www.Lawyers.com. The deciding attorney reaffirmed his first decision on appeal. This after Reed dropped the word lawyer from the renewed application. Reed maintains the website and the Martindale-Hubbel Division, offering such services to the general public, in addition to information about how to contact lawyers, as legal advise and general legal information via message boards. The PTO ruled that despite their assertions to the contrary, the site's genus would only confuse the public instead of serving them. Reed appealed the PTO's ruling to the Federal Circuit where they upheld the board's decision. Since the information in lawyers dot com was generic and contained no distinctiveness, the PTO and court "held that the offer of information from and about lawyers was an inextricably interwined element of that service."
You can read the full version at http://technologiy.findlaw.com/articles/00006/01079.html ("Lawyers.com Ruled to Generic to Trademark). Kevin Fayle, Findlaw 2007.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") recently rejected Reed Elsevier Properties, Inc.'s original & modified trademark applications against www.Lawyers.com. The deciding attorney reaffirmed his first decision on appeal. This after Reed dropped the word lawyer from the renewed application. Reed maintains the website and the Martindale-Hubbel Division, offering such services to the general public, in addition to information about how to contact lawyers, as legal advise and general legal information via message boards. The PTO ruled that despite their assertions to the contrary, the site's genus would only confuse the public instead of serving them. Reed appealed the PTO's ruling to the Federal Circuit where they upheld the board's decision. Since the information in lawyers dot com was generic and contained no distinctiveness, the PTO and court "held that the offer of information from and about lawyers was an inextricably interwined element of that service."
You can read the full version at http://technologiy.findlaw.com/articles/00006/01079.html ("Lawyers.com Ruled to Generic to Trademark). Kevin Fayle, Findlaw 2007.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Here They Go Again
What, yet, another government attempt to restrict freedoms of speech on the internet! How amazing to learn that two United States senators, Max Baucus and Daivd Pryor, have introduced a "discussion draft" into committee which would restrict certain web sites to minors by labelling them .
In a recent article, 'Senators Propose Labels for Adult Web Sites', Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com, 12 April 2007, writes that the draft's purpose is to target those "Web pages that the government deems unsuitable for minors." I cannot begin to describe my outrage with the tenor of this legislation (draft, my #*&$**), and how the government can begin to insult the integrity of the constitution with this bogus piece of legislation. I am all in favor of parents censoring their children's internet habits and behavior, but subscribing to any perennial form of government censorship is simply unacceptable.
If internet sites do not register, for example, with such (newly empowered government regulatory agency) internet registration sites such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) they could be heavily fined. (remember earlier we had an online discussion with a member of ICANN and he denied any such empowerment). If a particular web site fails to comply with the federal statute then the "government would be able to shut down" once the non compliant is reported. Or maybe the statute will enable the ICANN to exercise newly enabling enforcement powers by shutting it down sua sponte. (Professor Katsh, have you been withholding top secret, confidential materials?).
What's making this the most dangerous piece of legislation of our (N.Y.) times is the "Baucus-Pryor legislation includes no exemptions for news organizations." WOW! Frankly, there goes freedom of the press and speech. If the government so desired, they could shut down the "Imus in the Morning" show; Oh, yes, he was fired last week. (the extension of most cable news or print media are blogs or individual web sites). Say goodbye to CNN if they just happen to lash out at the nitwit junior senator from N.Y. (Hillary Clinton), or the government determines that a) they failed to register with ICANN because last week they ran a story on a sexual intercourse encounter on some golf course in Amherst, Mass. and its reporting content is sexually explict and b) just because....
This is clearly cybercrap!
More to come.
In a recent article, 'Senators Propose Labels for Adult Web Sites', Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com, 12 April 2007, writes that the draft's purpose is to target those "Web pages that the government deems unsuitable for minors." I cannot begin to describe my outrage with the tenor of this legislation (draft, my #*&$**), and how the government can begin to insult the integrity of the constitution with this bogus piece of legislation. I am all in favor of parents censoring their children's internet habits and behavior, but subscribing to any perennial form of government censorship is simply unacceptable.
If internet sites do not register, for example, with such (newly empowered government regulatory agency) internet registration sites such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) they could be heavily fined. (remember earlier we had an online discussion with a member of ICANN and he denied any such empowerment). If a particular web site fails to comply with the federal statute then the "government would be able to shut down" once the non compliant is reported. Or maybe the statute will enable the ICANN to exercise newly enabling enforcement powers by shutting it down sua sponte. (Professor Katsh, have you been withholding top secret, confidential materials?).
What's making this the most dangerous piece of legislation of our (N.Y.) times is the "Baucus-Pryor legislation includes no exemptions for news organizations." WOW! Frankly, there goes freedom of the press and speech. If the government so desired, they could shut down the "Imus in the Morning" show; Oh, yes, he was fired last week. (the extension of most cable news or print media are blogs or individual web sites). Say goodbye to CNN if they just happen to lash out at the nitwit junior senator from N.Y. (Hillary Clinton), or the government determines that a) they failed to register with ICANN because last week they ran a story on a sexual intercourse encounter on some golf course in Amherst, Mass. and its reporting content is sexually explict and b) just because....
This is clearly cybercrap!
More to come.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Compliance Officer or Police Officer
One of the benefits to businesses under the language of the Sarbaine-Oxley Act is to negate corporate responsibilities if a Compliance Officer is appointed to advise corporate officials of any potential federal violations, and if the potential then exist how best in bringing them back into compliance. This came about following the tragic demise of the Enron accounting debacle.
Recently, Founder Linden Lab's virtual world, Second Life, has come under close federal scrutiny when the founder alerted federal FBI agents of possible wrong-doings in the virtual world's casino playground. The founder took the right step of alerting federal authorities about the legality of the world's many gambling sites. Although, potentially, as the story revealed, FBI Checks Gambling in Second Life Virtual World, Wednesday, April 04, 2007, Lab could potentially face criminal charges over this matter, the issue of the world's gaming industry is questionable at best.
Not only is the site perhaps in violation (every avatar is presumed innocent until proven guilty) of federal criminal gaming statutes, but the exchange of currency, will, I suspect, become a target of inquiry for the U.S. Secret Service. (I can only wonder if the gambling avatar is entitled to any constitutional protections. If enemy combatants are not, then why should an avatar be granted constitutional protections? If an avatar is unlawfully detained is it entitled to Habeas review? For all those who not up on their Habeas understandings, it's about the process not the person). But we'll leave this matter to federal authorities and the courts to decide.
From my perspective, the site sounds somewhat questionable insofar as the similarities are striking to a street vice operation. If, for example, I phone my next door neighbor booky, over a hardline, with a two hundred dollar bet on the UMass Football Team and the other end accepts the bet, then ultimately both parties become subject to criminal gambling prosecution. Thus, placing a bet at your favorite virtual world casino is no different than placing a telephone bet (actually the hardline or broadband is being used to access the internet). Coupled with Congress's aggressive stance on the ills of Internet gambling, this doesn't look good for Lab.
A while ago we discussed the language of a proposed Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") process, and how cool it would be to serve the interest of those trivial infractions, such as spitting on my lawn, or the likely hood of trespass to chattels. But this gambling matter is just the tip of the ice berg. You're going to see a lot more criminal activity in the Second Life than Lab is able to monitor (may be he should retain the sleazy services of the Wal-Mart surveillance team). This type of activity will only encourage those, whose identities are undisclosed, to partake in more serious virtual crimes. The time spent on ADR should be secondary to policing the area for criminal activity.
To all those Yale law professors, OIT experts, and business managers, now's the time your expertise on how best to anticipate and correct potential criminal activity is required. ADR doesn't address, and never shall, the potential criminal liabilities of those held responsible for online violent or vice actions (or interactions). ADR is moot when you're sitting in a 3 by 6 jail cell. Also, those who help design this world are potential defendants (I wonder if the civil and criminal language of RICO applies in the virtual world?) This is a wake-up call!
In past class sessions, I suggested that the world could be used to upload an ariel photo of NYC and provide terrorist members the ability and tools to rehearse a massive terrorist attack. Most agreed but took this with a grain of salt, so to speak. Well folks, if you think this is unsalable logic then just pay attention to how the world's once innocent landscape is about to turn dark, dirty and very criminal.
These avatars can become just as violent and dangerous as their street counterparts.
More to come!
Recently, Founder Linden Lab's virtual world, Second Life, has come under close federal scrutiny when the founder alerted federal FBI agents of possible wrong-doings in the virtual world's casino playground. The founder took the right step of alerting federal authorities about the legality of the world's many gambling sites. Although, potentially, as the story revealed, FBI Checks Gambling in Second Life Virtual World, Wednesday, April 04, 2007, Lab could potentially face criminal charges over this matter, the issue of the world's gaming industry is questionable at best.
Not only is the site perhaps in violation (every avatar is presumed innocent until proven guilty) of federal criminal gaming statutes, but the exchange of currency, will, I suspect, become a target of inquiry for the U.S. Secret Service. (I can only wonder if the gambling avatar is entitled to any constitutional protections. If enemy combatants are not, then why should an avatar be granted constitutional protections? If an avatar is unlawfully detained is it entitled to Habeas review? For all those who not up on their Habeas understandings, it's about the process not the person). But we'll leave this matter to federal authorities and the courts to decide.
From my perspective, the site sounds somewhat questionable insofar as the similarities are striking to a street vice operation. If, for example, I phone my next door neighbor booky, over a hardline, with a two hundred dollar bet on the UMass Football Team and the other end accepts the bet, then ultimately both parties become subject to criminal gambling prosecution. Thus, placing a bet at your favorite virtual world casino is no different than placing a telephone bet (actually the hardline or broadband is being used to access the internet). Coupled with Congress's aggressive stance on the ills of Internet gambling, this doesn't look good for Lab.
A while ago we discussed the language of a proposed Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") process, and how cool it would be to serve the interest of those trivial infractions, such as spitting on my lawn, or the likely hood of trespass to chattels. But this gambling matter is just the tip of the ice berg. You're going to see a lot more criminal activity in the Second Life than Lab is able to monitor (may be he should retain the sleazy services of the Wal-Mart surveillance team). This type of activity will only encourage those, whose identities are undisclosed, to partake in more serious virtual crimes. The time spent on ADR should be secondary to policing the area for criminal activity.
To all those Yale law professors, OIT experts, and business managers, now's the time your expertise on how best to anticipate and correct potential criminal activity is required. ADR doesn't address, and never shall, the potential criminal liabilities of those held responsible for online violent or vice actions (or interactions). ADR is moot when you're sitting in a 3 by 6 jail cell. Also, those who help design this world are potential defendants (I wonder if the civil and criminal language of RICO applies in the virtual world?) This is a wake-up call!
In past class sessions, I suggested that the world could be used to upload an ariel photo of NYC and provide terrorist members the ability and tools to rehearse a massive terrorist attack. Most agreed but took this with a grain of salt, so to speak. Well folks, if you think this is unsalable logic then just pay attention to how the world's once innocent landscape is about to turn dark, dirty and very criminal.
These avatars can become just as violent and dangerous as their street counterparts.
More to come!
Monday, April 2, 2007
Virtual Images Sequel
Just taking the time to clarify a possible misunderstanding: When I wrote in the original Virtual Images messages indicating a local registry's indexing land recordings for public review, I was referring to copies of the original mortgage document and deed. Generally, if you're like most of us, you're carrying a mortgage. Now the mortgagee (lender) in order to secure their interest retains not only the mortgage (similar to your auto financier holding the vehicle's title until you satisfy the outstanding debt) but, within the entire document is a copy of the deed, and if defects are discovered it becomes impossible to pass clean title. Thus, the geek down the street can really put a damper on the miseries of property selling.
Not only do you have issues with selling your property, but now you have a very irritable banker, who, I might add, has a fiduciary duty to indemnify you against issues like remastered deeds.
The headaches are endless!
Not only do you have issues with selling your property, but now you have a very irritable banker, who, I might add, has a fiduciary duty to indemnify you against issues like remastered deeds.
The headaches are endless!
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Virtual Legal Images
Recently we discussed the prospects of converting paper legal documents, such as property deeds, into the realm of virtual digital imaging. I am voicing my opposition to this form of posting. Although it's important to protect the public's access to legal documents, this is not a area I am ready to openly embrace. Why? Well, the trust of my argument is predicated on the quasar of document digital remastering.
Let's assume we scan the deed to my (registered) land and consent to having it having it posted on line for the public benefit. Let's further say the geek down the street knows how to manipulate the OCR aspect of the document. At the same time I posted a 'For Sale' sign on my front lawn, and he made an earlier offer I refused, and after he finishes remastering the document image, he decides to challenge my ownership to said property. Now, remembering he's remastered the digital image, he files a claim in the Land Court claiming his deceased grandfather still owes the land, and the deed, in its present physical form, is a fake instrument. Now instead of having clean title, it's not clean, but rather the property's rightful ownership becomes a legal dispute, which could take me a couple of years to resolve. (may be the next time he'll make an offer I cannot refuse).
This is just one messy scenario why it's necessary to keep property deeds in physical form, in a government building, for safe-keeping. You're probably right if you can arrive at some quick, amicable resolution to this legal issue. But the point is: to keep pending legal issues from becoming in rem legal issues.
Finally, if the deeds are kept in a physical format (in those big, voluminous registry books) and in safe-keeping, then accountability become easy to assign. Remember, trials and ADR hearings are all about assigning blame. If the virtual digital image deed is remastered, who do I blame? At least if the physical deed has legal issues, I know seeking a remedy from the former owner or its attorney, or a title insurance company has known consequesces. (also legal notary crest cannot be copied, thus, a document without the court clerk's or notarial crest is inadmissible (citation omitted)). The original deed supersedes all of its counterparts!
Huh, interesting! It was a good idea; unfortunately its time is somewhere in quasar.
More to come.
Let's assume we scan the deed to my (registered) land and consent to having it having it posted on line for the public benefit. Let's further say the geek down the street knows how to manipulate the OCR aspect of the document. At the same time I posted a 'For Sale' sign on my front lawn, and he made an earlier offer I refused, and after he finishes remastering the document image, he decides to challenge my ownership to said property. Now, remembering he's remastered the digital image, he files a claim in the Land Court claiming his deceased grandfather still owes the land, and the deed, in its present physical form, is a fake instrument. Now instead of having clean title, it's not clean, but rather the property's rightful ownership becomes a legal dispute, which could take me a couple of years to resolve. (may be the next time he'll make an offer I cannot refuse).
This is just one messy scenario why it's necessary to keep property deeds in physical form, in a government building, for safe-keeping. You're probably right if you can arrive at some quick, amicable resolution to this legal issue. But the point is: to keep pending legal issues from becoming in rem legal issues.
Finally, if the deeds are kept in a physical format (in those big, voluminous registry books) and in safe-keeping, then accountability become easy to assign. Remember, trials and ADR hearings are all about assigning blame. If the virtual digital image deed is remastered, who do I blame? At least if the physical deed has legal issues, I know seeking a remedy from the former owner or its attorney, or a title insurance company has known consequesces. (also legal notary crest cannot be copied, thus, a document without the court clerk's or notarial crest is inadmissible (citation omitted)). The original deed supersedes all of its counterparts!
Huh, interesting! It was a good idea; unfortunately its time is somewhere in quasar.
More to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)