Finally, he's the LATE Osama Bin Laden

Credit where credit is due. The Obama administration has accomplished something that the Bush Administration could never do. They have executed an operation which assassinated Osama Bin Laden. Apparently, the kill has been confirmed via DNA testing, so there is no concern that a lookalike or decoy was eliminated instead.

Bin Laden was located at a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, which was monitored and when the time was determined to be right, the president said, he authorized a "targeted operation."

"A small team of Americans carried out the operation," Obama said. "After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body."

...Former President George W. Bush said in a statement tonight that Obama called him to inform him of the news of bin Laden's death.

Bush called the operation a "momentous achievement" that "marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001."

Now, we wait to see if this development (1) demoralizes al-Qaeda around the world, (2) energizes and united them, or (3) has no effect whatsoever.

Philip K Dick is rolling over in his grave

In 1956, Philip K. Dick wrote a story called Minority Report about a future society where criminals were apprehended before they committed a crime. It was later made into a movie by Steven Spielberg, starring Tom Cruise. The core of both pieces is the same - is it just to arrest and try people for a crime they have not yet committed? And how far will society go to protect itself? At the time, it was speculative fun or biting satire, depending on how you looked at it.

In 2010, it is quickly becoming reality. In PKD's world, precognitive superhumans were the means. Today, Google and other data warehouse companies look to mine data to predict future behavior.

“When a person goes on probation or parole they are supervised by an officer. The question that officer has to answer is ‘what level of supervision do you provide?’” Berk told ABC News, intimating that the program could have a bearing on the length of sentences and/or bail amounts.
...
“People assume that if someone murdered then they will murder in the future,” Berk also states, “But what really matters is what that person did as a young individual. If they committed armed robbery at age 14 that’s a good predictor. If they committed the same crime at age 30, that doesn’t predict very much.”

This is a kind of technology that needs to be closely watched and regulated. It is easy to say today that it will never be misused, but would the public have approved this technology on 9/12/2001 if it was revealed it could have predicted 9/11? We need to consider these questions now, because the hard choices are not far away.

MugShots on Facebook?

The rights of the accused are a special thing in American society, one of the few places on Earth where "presumed innocent until proven guilty" is a watchword of the justice systems. We go to extreme lengths to protect those arrested, including the Miranda warning, state-provided legal counsel, and the right to remain silent. We want to ensure both that the guilty are punished and that the innocent are spared.

So what happens when Facebook enters the picture? One New Jersey township is now publishing the mug shots of arrested individuals, and leaving them up even if the accused should be exonerated. This means their arrest is only a Google search away for any future prospective employer. Or a date.

Is the deterrent effect of such a posting worth the potential damage to the innocent? What do Mod-Bloggers think?

The Internet banned from Courtrooms?

The last time my brother was called for Jury Duty, he was surprised to learn that his iPhone would be confiscated at the courtroom door (though returned when he was done for the day). CT judges had banned all cellular devices with cameras from even jury duty waiting rooms. Now, it appears all states may take the same step for any device capable of browsing the internet. While absolutely logical, and in line with the long history of controlling the information juries can see/hear to ensure justice, this is sure to be a shock to the internet-addicted public.

Specifically, those instruction spell out that jurors should not you should not consult dictionaries or reference materials, search the internet, websites, blogs, or use any other electronic tools to obtain information either before the trial, during deliberations or after until the judge instructs otherwise.

The instructions state jurors must not use cell phones, e-mail, Blackberry, iPhone, text messaging, or on Twitter, or communicate through any blog or website, through any internet chat room, or by way of any other social networking websites, including Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and YouTube.

It will be interesting seee how enforceable such a ban will be in the long term as our lives become more and more online. Will there be a new niche for "court-ready" devices which allow one to send and receive e-mail from spouses/children, but which edits out inappropriate details? Will there be a new "Courtroom Mode" on devices similar to the Airplane mode available today? Or will the salvation of the paper book be the fact that electronic books won't be permitted in courthouses?

Was the Lockerbie Bomber freed for oil?

It is said that Lord Palmerston once said, "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests." His words seem trenchant in light of new allegations out of the United Kingdom that the Lockerbie Bomber was freed, not for compassionate reasons, but in order to advance Britain's oil interests.

Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards...Two letters dated five months apart show that Straw initially intended to exclude Megrahi from a prisoner transfer agreement with Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, under which British and Libyan prisoners could serve out their sentences in their home country...Straw then switched his position as Libya used its deal with BP as a bargaining chip to insist the Lockerbie bomber was included.

The exploration deal for oil and gas, potentially worth up to £15 billion, was announced in May 2007. Six months later the agreement was still waiting to be ratified.

It is this kind of intermarriage between ethics and business that makes so many distrust government. How can we trust faceless bureaucrats with our health, education, and wealth when we can't even trust them to punish the guilty when justice become inconvenient to business interests?

Apple sued for NOT using DRM

My father was a lawyer. And an honest one at that. No, "honest lawyer" is NOT an oxymoron. However, many in the legal profession appear dedicated to making it so. Consider this case where a company is suing Apple, Intel, and others for NOT using their technology. The DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) made it a crime to knowingly bypass a DRM (digital rights management - controlling whether you gave access to a given file) technology without the permission of the copyright holder of whatever is protected. This has been used to run companies out of business that allow ripping of copy-protected DVDs, for example. In this new case, a company has engineered a technology to control and limit users ability to "rip" streamed videos (like YouTube, for example). Most companies have chosen NOT to use the software - presumably because either it does not match their business model or they simply feel it is ineffective. So now, the company is claiming by NOT licensing their technology (i.e. paying them to use it) they are "bypassing" this DRM scheme.

This is like using a law against breaking into someone's house to force all homeowners to buy locks for their front doors from every lockmaker in town. Here is hoping the case is quickly dismissed with prejudice.