| Subscribe via RSS
Who says Arizona doesn’t have celebrities? Maybe if you’re in Phoenix, you probably saw DMX fly past you on the local suburban highway, known as the AZ-101, at 114MPH. Of course, the incident happened on January 21, almost five months later, he was arrested on several charges.
Despite that really powerful title, I want to share a tidbit from this weekend. I was traveling home from midtown Phoenix back on over to my posh center of the East Valley in Phoenix; but I had to take the 101. Yes, the same 101 with that 8-mile stretch of photo enforced speed limits through Scottsdale. The same topic I viciously criticized earlier this month.
Tags: arizona, Automotive, discussion, laws, police, scottsdaleLast week, more than 100 Riverside, CA law enforcement officers swarmed into a parking lot to perform warrant-less searches on people’s slightly modified vehicles. This not only infringed on automotive enthusiasts, but also a waste of $503,000 from tax payers. More »
Tags: Automotive, california, Government, laws, policeLast week, you might have heard of an Oregon man who’s house was raided by means of a Craigslist posting. Well, it was in fact a poorly-staged burglary as two people were arrested after an investigation on the matter. More »
Tags: Crime, internet, laws, social media, web 2.0
Scottsdale (a very affluent region of Phoenix), netted $2 million in revenue from one highway due to speed enforcement cameras, along an 8-mile stretch on the 101-Loop in a span of two years. That is, more than 200,000 citations were issued. The tickets also carry additional surcharges, resulting in $5.4 million for the State of Arizona. More »
Street fights are nothing new — I know from my time in middle and high school, fights attract massive crowds due to the drama, the realism and the unpredictability. Now more attention is focused on the videos of these fights, since they are uploaded to popular video sharing Web sites and spread like wildfire, often syndicated, duplicated and reposted without the victim’s permission.
Even then, Bum Fighting became popular but it failed to garner the media coverage as it has now. (I suspect the studio that produced BumFights suppressed negative media attention by paying the “actors”.) This evening, on my local news, a local street fight was video taped and is likely to be uploaded YouTube along with the homogeneous spin went with it to scare parents. It didn’t surprise me, but I couldn’t help but notice in the report, law enforcement still isn’t fully equipped to handle this type of abuse on the Internet.
I’d like to think that YouTube cooperates with law enforcement and would be more than willing to remove the video and provide the uploader’s IP address, and an access log of the video. After reading YouTube’s Terms of Service, Privacy Policy and Community Guidelines, they don’t explicitly state that information is provided to law enforcement — but they don’t deny it either. I suppose they do… but if they fail to do so, they can’t be sued for it. (Psst! YouTube Employees, feel free to anonymously confirm this.)
I don’t think that further legislation is necessary, since if content is illegal and a Web site is failing to disclose it, it’s Obstruction of Justice. Yeah, yeah, I know CDA 230, but criminal activity is criminal activity. The way to solve the problems relating to assaults being posted on YouTube is to educate law enforcement to better understand how those Web sites work as well as understand IP addresses. Additionally, they must be willing to enact rapid-fire subpoenas to the uploaders and recent participants. (What does one do when doing something juvenile — they show their friends.)
On Craigslist, the popular free online classifieds Web site, a woman posted an advertisement for a hitman in the “freelancers” section to murder the wife of a man she engaged into an affair with:
“Linscott is accused of asking people who responded to her ad to “eradicate a female living in Oroville, California,” and she provided additional information on the intended victim, including her physical description, age and employment address. On two separate occasions following the November ad posting, she offered payment of $5,000 upon completion of “the eradication task,” according to court documents.”
[...]
“[Jim] Buckmaster said the arrest demonstrated the vigilance of Craigslist users, who are urged to report fraud and scams on the site to keep it clean.”
Craigslist credits the removal of content within their community thanks to the wisdom of crowds. A majority of their users are highly engaged and keep the site clean of any illegal, unethical, or otherwise “junk” content. Users can flag content accordingly, and if content is flagged enough, it is removed. At least in this case, it appears that the FBI and Craigslist cooperated to identify the poster and bring justice.
What’s the lesson here? Well, be mindful of the fact you can be tracked, identified, and arrested if you engage (or publish) illegal activity online just as if you left fingerprints on a murder weapon and a note. However, as social media brings about social problems; it will be a while until we can expect law enforcement to keep up with the demand due to lack of bandwidth.
Tags: discussion, internet, laws, social media, youtubePerhaps you’ve replied to a text message to a friend or family member, but soon that will be illegal in Virginia. Law makers are considering completely banning the use of text messaging while driving in an effort to make driving safer. I have a few thoughts on this legislation.
How can a police officer enforce this?
One of the most challenging pieces of this, is the fact that law enforcement has very few tools to actually enforce this. The technology involved is easy controlled by mobile phone users. When a person sees a cop, all they need to do is hit the End button. No message, no drafts, nothing. Nothing that would ever stand up in court. How would an officer witness texting? I know I hold my phone in my car like I’m texting when I am making a speakerphone call. Smartphone discrimination? I can see it now.
It’s already illegal to talk on cell phones (as a minor), use radar detectors, and additional penalties are sanctioned against VA drivers … how much more legislation does VA residents need against them?
While this is very conservative of me, law makers need to stop trying to protect and regulate every aspect of driving. I strongly doubt that text messaging on a cell phone is the highest cause of accidents, so “safety” is just a cover for revenue, just as it was for the ‘abusive driver fees,’ which has now been under more criticism since it had no effect on traffic fatalities.
“But how do we stop people from texting while driving, who risk everyone’s life when they get on the roads?”
First, you’re probably the problem when it comes to traffic safety; as you read your newspaper, brush your teeth, fail to turn your headlights on, tailgate and speed when you drive. Not only that, I’ve personally avoided several accidents because of driver’s lack of experience when merging lanes. Further, depending on the state to provide a false sense of safety isn’t the answer. If you can tell me one time the state has enacted a law that actually resulted in fewer deaths, then please correct me. The only one who is responsible for your safety on the road is you, not the cops, not the legislators, not the courts. You should be an active, defensive driver who takes responsibility for the circumstances around them and not be a victim.
What do you think of this law? Will this actually save lives, protect others; or is it just infringing on the rights of all drivers in VA?
Tags: Government, laws, Rants, technology, virginiaIn Virginia and DC, the possession and use of Radar Detectors are illegal. I had to give up mine when I moved here back in November ‘06. However, I never had the chance to explain my beliefs on why these devices should be legal.
Myth: Radar detectors reduce speed of drivers.
False. Speeding is usually a conscientious behavior many people make when either late or fulfilling their own need to go faster. A Radar Detector doesn’t grant someone that right. However, I’ll mention that radar detectors do probably aide on one’s decision to speed.
Myth: Radar detectors prevent police from giving you a ticket.
False. Radar detectors only will alert the driver after the officer is acquiring your vehicle’s speed. I would find it very difficult for one to reason with a judge citing that “my detector didn’t go off, so I should be dismissed.”
Myth: Radar detectors danger everyone else when someone speeds.
False. I can think of many additional factors that danger everyone else when on the road. In fact, I think radar detectors keep the roads safer because the driver is generally more attuned to the risks that affect their driving. Many detectors now available offer the ability to detect ambulance strobe patterns, thereby alerting the driver there is an emergency vehicle approaching. This can be especially valuable when the driver has their windows up or their radio’s volume up.
Myth: Radar detectors promote illegal activity.
False. The drivers that choose to speed make an active choice to violate the law. On all the packaging of radar detectors, they always state that you must obey all local traffic laws.
——
Radar detectors receive the signal that is already being blasted at it. It’s a radio frequency (in the 27-38GHz band), so it is nothing special. It is not a police vehicle detector, contrary to popular belief. The effectiveness is greatly reduced when LIDAR (Infrared, “laser”) speed measurement devices are used on a speeder due to their 600-1000nm wide beam.
If a driver wishes to spend their money on these devices, they should be able to. I would suggest a sticker to be placed on packages advising of the local traffic enforcement laws, so ignorance isn’t an excuse.
My conspiracy theory is that the manufacturers of Radar Detectors (Cobra, Bel, Whistler, Escort, etc.) probably share their secret sauce with law enforcement speed measurement companies (LTI, Kustom Signals, etc.) so the police can keep up with the technology.
What do you think? Should Radar Detectors be legal or not? Let me know in the comments.
Tags: debate, laws, OpEd, radar detectors, virginiaI was talking with a friend on the phone and the topic of Gun control was discussed. In a nutshell, he’s pro-firearms and I’m indifferent with the exception that I don’t want our government to waste any more money on a failed bureaucratic process.
Point 1: Let’s say guns entirely were decided to be completely illegal except for law enforcement. That works for illegal drugs, right?
I agree with this, because our war on drugs is never over, and it’s amazing to think about how much money we pumped into it, yet you ask a kid in high school middle school and ask them where they can get marijuana, MDMA, cocaine and they can probably tell you.
Although I am against the use or distribution of illegal drugs, I know we have a failed system. Guns win on this point.
Point 2: Second Amendment interpretations: In 1773, it was a different time with one militia and not local law enforcement. They didn’t intend for everyone to possess a gun.
A lot of people will raise the question of the matter of our second amendment (”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.”) to imply this right was written with the belief that only one militia was provided, as opposed to our varying levels of local law enforcement.
Let’s interpret it in the 1700’s: African Americans and women don’t have the right to vote, slavery is legal, 13 colonies, etc. We need to balance the interpretation by reading the Constitution as neutral as possible, with no regard to time it was written or conditions that may have been affecting it.
Point 3: President Bush didn’t renew the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) [enacted in 1994], we’re going to have more people dying or more criminals with more dangerous weapons.
False. Even though the act did expire in September 2004, very few crimes were observed in relation to the bill expiring. The AWB did very little, primarily, prohibiting larger volume magazines, telescoping stocks, and pistol grips from being used in weapons. You can learn more about the AWB at Wikipedia.
—
Having that said, I believe we just need to maintain the laws we currently have and not get caught up in the semantics about the definition of an “assault weapon,” specifically, monitoring the effectiveness of background checks, testing for security issues and finding loopholes.
Gun control has always been a hot topic, because everyone feels they have the answer to it. The truth is, restricting weapons isn’t going to lower violence. The supply and demand theory doesn’t apply. If someone wants to kill you, they will do it by means of themselves, knives, or whatever free objects available. Murder (or DV) is a behavior. The weapon is not killing the victims, it’s the criminals who commit crime.
Rumor has it, given that there’s a very high probability of a democratic president, the AWB of 2007 could be re-enacted with even more stringent provisions. Get your guns now, before they only hold ten rounds. 
I’m thinking about getting either a Mossberg 12 Gauge or Bushmaster XM-15. I like the coverage of a shotgun, but I also want the precision of a full rifle. I’ve always like the aesthetics of a carbine and appreciate the complexity of a carbine, too.
What do you think? Should the government continue its regulation and restrictions on firearms? Let me know in the comments.
Tags: debate, discussion, freedom, gun control, lawsRecently, a state law went into effect startling Virginia drivers, House Bill 3202 [pdf]. As a result it has garnered a lot of negative response from the locals.
First off, I think this law is total bullshit. But, not for the reasons you might expect. While we all can argue the fact it is unfair, unreasonable, and unjust; we can’t dispute the fact that it will prevent repeat offenders from going through the system. If you are a repeat offender, you are welcome to buy your way out of it, and pay for the state’s deficit.
Keep in mind, that these “Civil Remedial Fees” are additional fines for the current fines in place. The state is double-dipping when you get a traffic citation.
This law is only impacting VA residents. That means drivers from AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA, WV, WI, WY are not impacted by this law. Note that in Virginia, residents from Maryland and the District drive through VA regularly.
When someone questioned the legality of these new fines, they won. These laws violate one’s 14th Amendment (equal protection of the law). Good job! I’m hoping more cases like this come up, and will result in the repeal of this unjust law, of which its sole purpose to generate revenue. Now, who’s going to the Sheriff’s Beer Bash when his officers make over-quota the fourth week in a row? We can’t, we’d be broke and have to use the Metro to get around.
So where do I stand on this … am I for or against? I’m against this law because it is too strict, offers no appeals or judicial process, and is applied unevenly. It shouldn’t be a penalty to live in VA, I mean we all pay high enough taxes on everything else, no need to double-dip us when it comes to traffic offenses.
I suggest that if VA legislature wants to earn revenue, but also obtain buy-in from their citizens they need to publicly announce the following:
That being said, I register my vehicle with the State of Virginia. Pray the Rosary for me.
Tags: Driving, laws, Rants, virginia