June is “No Surveillance State Month” …plus Catch Me on Reddit IAmA!

Databases, technical gadgets, electronic payment, and cameras everywhere mean that each person can be tracked like never before. Where once the government had to use scarce human resources, thereby limiting its ability to spy to worthy targets only, computers make it possible to spy on everyone at all times.

June is my birth month, and to celebrate, I’ll be posting one way to avoid the constant intrusion on your privacy — whether that intrusion is effected by governments, corporations, or mere fraudsters — each day for the entire month. These 30 tips will highlight some more obvious, some less obvious, things that most of us do (or fail to do) that help our watchers to watch us, and what we can do instead to “opt-out” with minimal time and effort.

Also, this Tuesday, May 28th, 2013, at 11:00 AM ET, I’ll be doing an “Ask Me Anything” on Reddit. Reddit sent literally hundreds of thousands of hits to my blog back when my video was released and consists of a community that is largely interested in and aware of privacy issues and government overreach. Register an account and come chat with me then!

Miami: Taking Pictures? We’ll Question You.

If this blog interests you, chances are you follow other news sources that have covered attempts by police and other government officials (including, of course, TSA screeners) to crack down on citizens that use their cell phone cameras to record the activity of those government officials. Carlos Miller, a Miami-based photographer and activist, formed Photography is Not a Crime (PINAC) after being detained (now on several occasions) for an even less confrontational reason: capturing photos and video of buildings and transportation hubs. PINAC covers stories of people being denied their First Amendment rights at an astounding frequency: the front page of PINAC has 8 stories from the last 12 days alone.

Carlos’ most recent personal interaction was on Miami’s Metrorail system, where he was pushed down an escalator and arrested by security for no more than taking pictures from the platform while he waited for his train — and this wasn’t even the first time the same security company — “50 State” — arrested him for the same reason!

Being a Miami resident myself, I contacted county officials to express that I no longer felt safe on the county’s public transit as a result of the abuse of this security contracor. (I also contacted state officials to request a review of 50 State’s license to act as a security firm and the individual guards’ licenses to open carry a firearm as a security officer.) After significant back-and-forth and many ignored messages that required follow-up, the last message I received was from Eric Muntan, Chief of the Office of Safety and Security of Miami-Dade Transit:

First and foremost, MDT fully acknowledges that members of the public can take photographs in the common areas of public facilities. Areas within the public view are open to photography, as long as the activities do not present a safety concern for transit operations.

At the conclusion of its investigation of this incident, MDT took numerous administrative actions to effectively address areas which needed enhancements, to include, but not limited to, immediate refresher training for all MDT-contracted security officers regarding the proper interpretation of commercial photography and an individual’s right to photograph common areas of our facilities.

However, given the threats against mass transit systems, both domestic and abroad, and in order to protect the safety of its transit system, its customers and its employees, MDT reserves the right to question individuals taking photographic images at our stations.

However, that stance may not actually be lawful. The police have great leeway to ask questions of nearly anyone (so long as those people are not obligated to answer and are “free to go”). However, they still can’t do so in an arbitrary or capricious manner: they need a reason — however flimsy — to do so. Virtually any reason will do, except a reason that rests upon violating someone’s rights. And, if the county is admitting that it your right to take pictures (which it is), it would seem to me that they would need a reason beyond the mere taking of pictures.

It is nice that Miami is taking at least some steps (retraining, for example) to remedy the problem, but in the end, the problem won’t go away until the mindset is changed: holding a camera should not subject you to any government contact in and of itself.

Miami (Finally) Pays Parking Ticket Appeal Costs

In 2011, I was given an improper parking ticket on South Beach, which naturally I brought to court. However, Hearing Officer Carmen Dominguez was not interested in, well, hearing, and repeatedly made me discontinue relevant lines of cross-examination of the meter wench who cited me. Despite that, I got said meter wench to admit that she did not know the definition of “parking” in Florida, and despite that, Carmen found me guilty. So I appealed, complete with $301 filing fee for an $18 citation, and won.

The circiut court, finding that the meter wench had “a misconception of the statutory definition of park or parking,” shortly thereafter awarded full costs to me. Six months later, I finally have the last of the money due. Success.

DHS Purchases 2,700 Tanks for Domestic Use

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/03/obama-dhs-purchases-2700-light-armored-tanks-to-go-with-their-1-6-billion-bullet-stockpile/

If we do not start making changes now, you will see these in your neighborhood. Again, that timeframe to act is now. Please share, call your reps (much harder to ignore phone calls than e-mails), and demand change.

Update: Judge Who Jailed Teen for Disrespect Famous for Fighting on Floor of Fla. Legislature

Jorge Rodriguez-Chomat
Source: http://colinhackley.photoshelter.com/
image/I00005kTbZOYPA50

[Update to the Update: The Miami-Herald Runs This Story]

[Update to the Update to the Update: Penelope has been freed after apologizing to the court.]

It turns out that the judge from my previous post who deemed it proper to deny a teen girl an attorney for her arraignment, deny her an attorney for future proceedings (“sell your jewelry!”), raise her bond because she had an attitude, and then jail her for 30 days after she lost it and gave him the middle finger, became famous for his lack of ability to control his own temper. Back 15 years ago, Judge Jorge Rodriguez-Chomat made headlines for attacking a fellow legislator on the floor of the Florida House of Representatives. He, of course, was not sent to jail to “learn his lesson.”

It’s interesting that Jorge, who seems to be of Latin descent and speaks with a heavy accent despite being in the U.S. most of his life, seems to have a thing against others of Latin descent. The man he attacked on the House floor was also Latin, and he only flipped out on the teen girl — a Latina — in his court after she said “adios.” This guy seems to have some issues.

Florida Judge Denies Public Defender Because 18-Year-Old Defendant “Could Sell Her Jewelry” To Afford Lawyer

This video of Penelope Soto’s arraignment in front of Miami Circuit Judge Jorge Rodriguez-Chomat for possession of Xanax without a prescription went viral because of her attitude problem and telling the judge to “fuck himself” while giving him the middle finger…

 
But what’s actually incredible about this video is this:

1. The judge denied her a public defender on the premise that she “could sell her jewelry” in order to pay for a lawyer, despite admitting to income of only $200/week (a little more than $10,000 per year, and below the poverty line, even in Florida).  It isn’t clear exactly how much jewelry she has, but a lawyer may cost per hour more than she makes in a week.  She is clearly unable to afford an attorney, and is entitled to have one appointed to her.
2. The judge doubled her bail based on her saying, “Adios!”  I’m not really sure why he took offense to this moreso than her general laughing throughout the proceeding, but it doesn’t matter.  A judge is not permitted to set bail based on the defendant’s attitude, but rather only on the bases of ensuring that she returns and preventing harm to the public.
3. The girl had no attorney for her arraignment.  Why not?  None of this “attitude problem,” which is likely because she was nervous and without her Xanax (a popular anti-anxiety drug), would have been an issue if she had an attorney speaking for her.  The State and County need to step it up here.  Because they wouldn’t pay a public defender something like $20 for the 15 minutes of his salaried time, the taxpayers will now spend closer to $1,000 housing this woman for 30 days.
4. Beyond the judicial misconduct, WTF is wrong with our war on drugs?  Felony drug charges, $5,000 bond, and a night in jail for possession of medicine?!  They didn’t accuse this woman of dealing — just of mere possession.  Meanwhile, rich people can pay doctors and get all of the pills they want, but this 18 year old, who would be forced to sell her jewelry to pay for a lawyer, can’t, and therefore she pays the price.

This whole system is screwed, and I truly don’t blame this girl for being so nervous that she was unable to control herself.

OT: Credit Cards, Interest Rates, and Unconscionable Contract Terms of @Citi

Probably few of you know that before I went after abusive government agencies, I used to go after abusive financial companies — my first federal lawsuit was against a collection agency who called non-stop about a bill that I didn’t owe. It’s actually shockingly simple to sue a collection agency since there are pages upon pages of rules they have to follow, and it’s way cheaper for them to deal with the occasional lawsuit than to follow the rules.

I had a credit card with Citi that I was paying off over time until a few months ago, when my automatic payment didn’t go through. No problem, just send another payment, maybe pay a $30 late fee, whatever, right? Of course not. Because of the missed payment, Citi tells me that I now owe them a “penalty APR” of 29.99%, which can’t be reduced even after making up the payment.

Let me put this in perspective for you. Let’s say you owe $5,000. A typical credit card company will ask you to pay, give or take, 3% of your balance or $25, whichever is greater, per month. This would result in a monthly payment of $150. However, in that month, you will have accrued $124.96 in interest, meaning that after paying your $150, your balance owed will go down by only $25.04. Your debt will take you over 6 years to pay and over those 6 years you’ll have paid about $5,800 in interest — more than the amount you borrowed!

This is what is referred to as an “unconscionable contract term” — a part of a contract that is so absurd that no judge will enforce it. And, in fact, some judges have chosen not to enfoce Citi’s usurious interest rates. This common-law concept comes paired with the fact that contracts are supposed to represent a negotiation between the two parties that are signing the contract — but fat chance you can negotiate your credit card terms of service, and so judges therefore must be ever vigilant against the large companies taking advantage of the little guys.

So when Citi collection reps call me and tell me, “Well you agreed to the penalty APR when you signed your cardmember agreement, didn’t you?” I explain the unenforcability of this agreement to them until they get frustrated with me and hang up. I’ve offered them the money in exchange for returning my interest rate back to where it belongs, and they’ve declined. So now I offer them this: come after me for the debt in court, and let’s see what kind of precident we can create regarding unconscionable contract terms and credit card interest rates.

I won’t be taken advantage of by a bank, and I urge you not to be taken advantage of as well. The best way is to never borrow money, but for must of us it’s too late for that, so the next best is to know your rights and refuse to bend over.

[Author Note: Trying something new with the title here. Often times, people tweet my blog entries, and I'm hoping by putting the @Citi that Citi will be bombarded with copies of this post. If you'd like to participate in my experiment, share this on Twitter!]

The Department of Justice “Win-At-All-Costs, Fuck Justice” Attitude Claims Life of Internet Genius

Those who read my blog are familiar with the fact that the Department of Justice will say and do anything, no matter how absurd, contradictory, or blatantly unconstitutional, to prevent the TSA from having to face justice for its actions. But, if the government ulitmately wins in its quest to do what it wants, justice be damned, then my life goes on (assuming I’m not decalred a terrorist and sent to Guantanamo, Assanged, etc). I’m the challenger, and if I lose, there’s really no penalty other than the many hundreds of hours of time, money, and sanity I’ve spent.

Others have more to lose with their fights. Aaron Sandusky, for example, operated a California medical marijuana dispensary, and despite Obama’s lip service about how no priority will be given to prosecuting dispensaries operating under the laws of the ever-increasing number of states that have realized that marijuana is a safer and more effective treatment for many conditions than the actually dangerous and addictive chemicals sold to us in a pharmacy, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

This is nothing compared to another man named Aaron. Reddit co-founder, free information advocate, and general Internet genius Aaron Swartz was found dead last night of an apparent suicide. Aaron had been targeted by the Department of Justice since 2008, when he made 20% of the public records of the federal court system available for free, because the federal court system feels it’s entitled to charge the public to access those records. Last year, he was charged with a similar caper: stealing “academic articles” from a university with the intent of giving them away. The government had charged him with felonies that could have had him in prison for 50 years for, as one journalist called it, “checking out too many library books at the same time.”

For the DoJ, it doesn’t matter what’s right or what’s wrong — legally, morally, or otherwise. What matters is that you obey. “Making an example out of someone” is not justice, especially when the alleged crime is dubious of legal and moral merit, as in Aaron’s case, and especially when you decline to prosecute those who actually steal millions of dollars — such as the bankers who brought you the economic crash of a just a few years past. As a result, a brilliant young man is now dead.

The government who asks school children to stop bullying should lead by example and clean out its own halls.

The Constitution is Neither Dated nor Advisory

The New York Times was one of the few newspapers in the world that couldn’t find the space to write a story about my TSA work. Not the defeat the body scanner video, not the multiple lawsuits and petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, none of it. They did, however, find space to publish an op-ed by a Georgetown University law professor who dedicated a piece to trashing the Constitution and calling for it to be, essentially, considered a piece of advice rather than binding law: Let’s Give Up on the Constitution, by Louis Michael Seidman.

I don’t understand how a constitutional law professor, or attorney of any kind, can make such claims. Lawyers take an oath to defend the Constitution, and having a man who hates the Constitution teach the future lawyers of the country about that document is absurd, and I believe the exact reason why we find judges that are so willing to bend the constitution to their will.

I wrote the following reply op-ed to the NYT, which I’m sure they’ll publish ASAP.

In Georgetown University constitutional law professor Louis Michael Seidman’s op-ed published by the Times on December 30th, a man who is teaching the attorneys, judges, and politicians of the future preaches that our founding document is too “ancient” to be relevant to today’s issues, and we should ignore its “evil provisions.” He argues that we can instead keep our cherished rights through checks and balances between the branches of government, “tolerant debate,” and “engaged citizens.”

I’ve spent the last 2 years working to hold our government to the promises of the Constitution in my battle against abuse by the Transportation Security Administration. I am thankful that I have the Constitution behind me when I step into court. Arguments advanced by the government so far in my litigation have included requests to deny me a trial altogether, requests to consider only government-produced evidence, and a request that constitutional claims relating to TSA policies be filed within 60 days or be forever forefeited. The Constitution gives me the legal backing to demand to be heard and meaningfully petition my government for redress. Neither public debate nor checks-and-balances has yet stopped the TSA from using machines to photograph us naked at the airport, nor from putting their hands on the genitals of both our grandparents and grandchildren. There are many “engaged citizens” left in tears after prison-style airport searches of themselves and their familes wondering exactly how they can direct their anger towards the pursuit of change. Many conclude that there’s not much that can be done.

If the Constitution did not exist, or somehow becomes advisory rather than compulsory as Mr. Seidman fantasizes, short of armed revolution, they would be right. Checks and balances between branches of government are useful, but the ultimate check is against the will of the people, and the foundation of that is the document that spells out what we the people have empowered and forbidden our government to do. It is a crystal clear history lesson that every government that ever was has relentlessly sought to gain as much power as it possibly can. There is no doubt that over 200 years later, a black-and-white notice of the people’s demand for freedom of speech, fair elections, due process, protection from unreasonable search, and (dare I say it) the right to be armed (and not just for hunting, but for defense against criminals and tyranny alike) is still relevant and necessary. With the help of this “ancient text,” we can avoid a situation in which the people are left with no recourse but to fight their government as those in Lybia were forced to do after their government shut down the “tolerant debate” of the engaged citizens.

The problem of “infidelity” to the Constitution described by Mr. Seidman comes from judges, politicians, and government lawyers who decide that their judgment is superior to the document that founded the greatest nation on this earth. Where could they possibly have imparted the idea that such an arrogant disregard of the will of the people was acceptable? Perhaps they studied law at Georgetown University.

Texas State Trooper Fingers Two Women on Side of Highway, “Might Be Marijuana In There”

A Texas state trooper pulls over two women for littering a cigarette butt out the window. He decides that he “smells marijuana” and orders the two women out of the car. A female trooper is called in to search the women, who proceeds to insert her fingers into the women on the side of the highway — from both front and back — and without changing gloves. All of this is caught by the dash cam. No drugs are found. Source and video: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/19/two-women-sue-texas-troopers-for-illegal-roadside-cavity-search/

This is the #1 reason to end the war on drugs: it is a constant excuse to violate the rights of the people.

If you’d like to tell the trooper what you think of her work, I’m pretty sure this is her Facebook. Same name, looks vaguely like the woman in the video, and friends with a bunch of cops. You can also send your thoughts as to whether or not she should be charged to the Texas Dept. of Public Safety at cle@dps.texas.gov.

Please share.