synaesthesia

Court documents: Cop killed pregnant woman in her home

Investigators believe policeman Bobby Lee Cutts Jr. killed his pregnant ex-girlfriend Jessie Marie Davis at her home about eleven days ago, according to court documents released Monday.

Cutts faces two counts of murder and is expected to appear in court Monday afternoon.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act

The fundamental moral divide on the issue of abortion is whether the fetus is a part of the mother, giving the mother the exclusive right to determine its fate under the 14th Amendment, or an independent being, giving the state the power to prevent harm to it — even when authorized or committed by the mother.

Yet while it seems that even though Roe v. Wade decided the issue in favor of the fetus being a part of the mother, in that it read an unprecedented right to privacy into 14th Amendment, it seems that in criminal law the fetus is treated as a separate person, invoking a separate charge to the perpretrator equal to that associated with the mother’s death.

Is it possible to really have it both ways in a moral system based on consistent principles?

One aspect of patent law reform focuses on the issue that many patents are issued for techniques that are not novel or non-obvious, or for which prior art exists, or the patent is non-specific enough to be more like patenting an idea than a process. Patents are thrown out by the courts on a regular basis.

The problem is that the patent must be thrown out in court once issued, necessitating that the target of a patent lawsuit spends his own money in a gamble to try to convince the court that the patent is invalid. This is compounded by the fact that the USPTO examiner has no interest in closely examining patents to ensure that they are actually valid, because USPTO is paid the same fee whether the patent is valid or not.

So we have the current morass where a bunch of dubious patents are thrown at the USPTO, some of which “stick” and are granted, and then the grantee immediately embarks on a litigation strategy to extract as much money as possible through licensing before one day they pick the wrong fight and the patent is invalidated. Unfortunately, the companies who chose to “pay the piper” instead of fighting just threw their money down a hole.

Proposal

Patent royalties should, by law, be secured in some form so that they may be returned to the licensee if the licensor’s patent is invalidated at any later point.

How it works

This could be accomplished by placing royalties in escrow and only allowing the licensor to access the interest until the end of the patent period. This would not work for companies who depend on license income to sustain their R&D budget.

Alternatively, the licensor should be allowed to purchase patent invalidation insurance from a private party who then possesses bonds covering the sum total of royalties paid out. If the patent is invalidated, the insurance company pays back the licensees and terminates the policy.

Private insurance patent examiners, unlike the USPTO, have a fiscal stake in the validity of the patent. They will exhaustively examine prior art, isolate the novel and non-obvious components of the patent, and ensure that the patent is specific enough to meet the demands of case law. The weaker the patent, the more expensive the insurance will be. The company then has to choose between paying a higher premium or cleaning up their patents.

This idea would be a win for technology firms who can be assured that if another company comes knocking for royalties on an iffy patent, that even if today they make the choice to license, the patent fees will be returned to them later if the patent turns out to be worthless. Several companies in the same industry could even pool their resources to attempt to get patents overturned that they all share a stake in. The more these companies have paid out in royalties, the more desperately they will work to build a case against the patent, and if it is overturned, everybody wins except the former holder of an abusive patent.

This idea is the free market at its best attempting to minimize the harms of the patent monopoly while allowing all of its fruits to continue unabated.

I was surprised to find that the normally quite liberal Digg community tore apart sports commentator Mike Penner when he announced that he is a transsexual and would be henceforth living as a woman.

The complaints seem to take mostly two forms:

This announcement is a childish attention-getting ploy. If transsexuals would just shut up about themselves already, I wouldn’t find them so repulsive.

There is something to be said for tact and using appropriate forums, but how otherwise does one explain to colleagues and viewers that Mike’s position is now occupied by a woman that looks vaguely like Mike did? A fake firing/hiring orchestrated by management?

There is a good argument for a “don’t ask don’t tell” policy when it comes to one’s sexual orientation in the workplace, but not when it comes to gender transition. It’s just too earth shattering a change in terms of how others relate to the person to be possible to avoid discussion.

This announcement is not newsworthy or relevant, therefore Mike must have abused his media access to inappropriately blow his own horn.

We all learn from the challenges people face when nature marginalizes them into a minority. No one learns more than other members of that minority, especially those in more vulnerable positions, those who face a challenge that seems insurmountable.

Perhaps some of these commentators would be better served simply ignoring what they find irrelevant. The fact that they spend time posting about how boring, irrelevant, or infuriating the subject is to them suggests that their expressed ire belies a true interest of some sort, whether it be a personal axe to grind, or possibly even repression.

What this person did is the only sensible approach to his dilemma, and it’s sad to see Digg rip him apart for it.

The TSA (United States Transportation Security Administration) agent at the airport made me throw away an unopened bottle of juice that I had just bought. Amazing.

Seems to me that TSA is a real regression from private security. It has been accused of being “security theater” by notable security experts. There is good reason for this.

• TSA baggage and body checks do not extend much beyond what was already being done at airports by private security.
• TSA, by virtue of being a government agency, is almost assuredly more expensive and ineffective than the airlines’ private security.
• TSA no-fly lists can be easily circumvented with a fake boarding pass and fake ID, because TSA does not refer to the airline’s passenger database, and the airlines do not check ID as the plane is boarded, at which point the real boarding pass would be substituted. In fact, a real ID is never required throughout the screening and boarding process. And an individual on the no-fly list can even fly under their real name, because the no-fly list is considered a state secret, and as such the airlines don’t have access to the list when the suspected individual books his ticket or uses his boarding pass. Airline private security, on the other hand, would be able to verify that the boarding pass is valid and matches the ID at the security checkpoint.
• TSA has absurd regulations on what can be brought on board, including many items such as containers of liquid that cannot possibly be used to gain control of or to bring down a plane. These regulations are not subject to market forces, meaning that I cannot choose to fly at an airline where I am not assumed to be a criminal until I prove otherwise. Thus, the terrorists have won by removing my freedom of choice.

The lone benefit to the TSA system is that security constraints at airports are now uniform, meaning that another airport can now trust that passengers who are arriving by plane at that location have been subject to the same security screening that is performed on passengers who are entering the terminal by foot.

But is that benefit worth the inefficiency and hassle that will in the end just leave the airlines with more empty seats?

In what way does the TSA dog and pony show make more sense than requiring passenger screening by private security, armed pilots, a cockpit barrier that cannot be penetrated while in the air, and/or a flight crew trained in riot control?

Speaking of useless security measures, you may notice that the instructions that come with the form for obtaining a passport (DS-11) mention the new electronic passports. They make some funny statements:

“Use of the electronic format will provide the traveler the additional security protections inherent in chip technology“.

“The electronic chip must be read using specially formatted readers, and is not susceptible to unauthorized reading.”

What wishful thinking. You have to wonder if some of these people know anything about the technology basket they are putting all their eggs into.

Since the Social Security system was established, the SSN (Social Security Number, or just “social” to many clerks and telephone operators) has slowly crept its way into becoming the de facto national ID number in the US. For better or for worse, this means that when the Social Security system is abolished due to insolvency, the SSN system will then be coded into law as the national ID number system.

Since the SSN is unique, it is used as a database key whenever information about an individual needs to be aggregated. Since the SSN is obscure, supposedly known only to the individual, the government, and businesses the individual has done business with, it is also used as a password or as a secondary form of identification.

Unfortunately, as it turns out, businesses are the weak link in this system. State and local governments who have a SSN on file will routinely hand it out to anyone who appears to be a reputable business. Businesses will sell your personal information, including SSN, to anyone who is willing to pay enough, even if you have signed a contract to the contrary. You can sue, but then what? How can you prove damages? How do you prevent further downstream dissemination? Once your SSN is copied beyond your sphere of trust, you can very well assume that it is in the wrong hands, and obtaining a new SSN involves convincing the SSA that you have suffered enough stalking and/or identity theft to justify a new SSN, convincing the three credit bureaus to give you a clean slate, and convincing those that the thief has defrauded that you are in fact not the thief. The SSN and your usual personal information (name, address, phone number) is all that is necessary for an unscrupulous individual to order a credit report from the credit bureaus, and using the information there as a kit he can impersonate and defraud you.

When you are dealing with a government that is not the federal government (the federal government is required by law to obtain your SSN for any transaction), or any business or individual, and they ask for your SSN, you should counter by asking them why they need to know your SSN. This is not suspicious behavior, but it is annoying to many clerks. Ignore their annoyance; you have a right to know why they need your SSN. For example, it is likely that the request is legitimate if the request is pursuant to some federal regulation or subsidy such as federal housing, because the federal government uses your SSN as its internal ID number. If they continue to balk, tell them that your identity has been stolen in the past and you would like to know if there is any way you can avoid giving them your SSN.

Unfortunately, thanks to the PATRIOT Act’s assaults on liberty and privacy, opening a bank account requires you to disclose your SSN along with your date of birth and address of residence, even though non-US citizens can use a passport to establish their identity.

Your state driver’s license bureau may want to put your SSN on your driver’s license. Find out if the SSN is required by law, and if not, don’t give it to them; ask them to generate a driver’s license ID number for you. Sometimes you are in a catch-22 situation here; you are moving to another state, and some utility or rental company in the destination state gives you a choice between SSN or state driver’s license; unfortunately, there is no way for you to obtain a driver’s license in that state until you can supply proof of residence at the supplied address in that state. Ask if they will accept a passport instead.

Your SSN is the key to the credit bureau databases, so it will be required whenever someone needs to do a credit or background check on your behalf.

Your SSN is also used as a key for insurers to perform legal and prior insurer background checks on you.

Using a state driver’s license number or a passport number is advantageous because both of those documents contain other information that cannot be as easily replicated.

When NOT to give out your SSN simply because it is requested:

• When establishing a new periodically billed account with a business. They will claim that they need to run a credit check. Instead, offer to pay a deposit.
• When the business needs to be assured that you are who you say you are. Offer to use a state driver’s license instead, or to fax several forms of photo ID including a passport.
• When the business needs a unique identification number (i.e. for their database). Offer to use a state driver’s license or passport number instead.

If the business insists on obtaining your SSN without a federal regulatory excuse, it is your choice to do business with them or to take your business elsewhere. Unfortunately, certain monopolies such as utilities and cable/telephone companies do not respond to market pressure. And if you are applying for credit, you have to remember that the onus is on you to provide the creditor with a reason why they should lend to you. Remember that it reasonable to ask whether your personal information will ever be transferred to a third party. You can’t record this conversation legally unless the company agrees (which they won’t), so the best thing you can do is get a written assurance that your personal information, including your SSN, will be kept confidential. The company will still share it without your permission when it finds a business case to do so, leading to your SSN being disseminated, but at least this way you can pursue action against the company in small claims, and encourage others to do the same — since it is likely that if your information was shared, then others’ information has also been.

It seems obvious by now that the best way to protect your SSN and still be able to do business in the US is to avoid requiring credit whenever possible.

Unfortunately, using a debit card without being physically present (such as online) is a bad idea. Debit card fraud cannot be reversed. But if you want to obtain a credit card to use for online purchases only, even a “secured” credit card where you pay a deposit up front is still considered credit and will require a credit check. There does not seem to be any way to safely purchase goods online without divulging your SSN to somebody along the line.

• Maintain a positive cash flow from employment and investment so that a credit check is never required.
• Use a debit or ATM card instead of credit cards.
• Write “Check ID” on the back of the debit card. If your bank allows you to, disable using the debit card as an ATM card or getting cash back.
• Carry the ATM card with you when you need access to more cash than you can safely carry with you. Carry the debit card only when traveling out of your bank’s ATM service area.
• Even if you don’t drive, obtain a state driver’s license that does not use your SSN as the driver’s license number. To obtain this, you will need an existing passport or birth certificate as well as some proof of residence at the given address, the level of which varies state by state.
• Use your birth certificate — which should always be stored in a location where the only avenues of access besides through yourself would lead to its destruction — and state driver’s license to obtain a federal passport, the strongest form of photo identification.

When your business is rejected because you refuse to disclose your SSN (whether on grounds of identity protection, philosophical or practical objections to a citizen ID number), you should write a letter to the company letting them know that their policies gave you a choice between putting your identity, finances, and credit at risk by doing business with them, or to do business with a competitor who is respectful of your privacy instead, and that you chose the latter.

Society is not defined by what is right and wrong, and legislators would be best off leaving that question to the pulpit. When people form a society, they share a set of values which are used to define the rights which that society will protect for its citizens. The legislative concept of right and wrong should have its basis in these rights, not in the subjective morality of individual desires. “What rights are we protecting through this legislation?” “What rights would this legislation potentially impinge upon?” are the questions legislators should be asking, not “How will this promote my agenda” or “What would Jesus do?”

Presumptions:
Life, liberty, and property are the only concerns of the law.
Legislation should prioritize life, liberty, and property in that order.
Legislators should omit individual agendas.

Felony:
An act which is heinous; causes measurable harm to another's life or liberty. Always results in a prison sentence. No disenfranchisement – a check against overzealous legislators. Causes loss of “responsibility required” civil liberties, unless the law is later overturned. Prosecutors cannot plea bargain into a felony charge from a non felony charge.

Misdemeanor:
– Acts which would have been felonies in a causal chain of events, if a third party had not intervened.
– Acts which constrain another's life or liberty without measurable damage.
– Acts which involve theft or destruction of another's property.

Misdemeanors can be assigned community service, fines, or restricted jail periods.

All other acts which some party claims victimization in are tried in civil court. This prevents encoding subjective morals into criminal law, because ultimately the law must have a basis in protecting at least one of life, liberty, or property to avoid being thrown out. Civil court thrives on case law, and case law which becomes archaic can be overturned by new rulings.

An exception to criminal law is the reflexive case. In other words, it is impossible for an individual to victimize himself by definition. Therefore, suicide and many other current “immoral” acts cannot be illegal. In the case of suicide, the body is left to the victim's estate.

Acts that do some nebulously defined harm, such as things that harm “society”, where a victim cannot be identified, are strictly for civil courts.

“Responsibility required” civil liberties: Liberties which a citizen of a free society enjoys, but which have potential for harm to others in certain circumstances. Handgun carry; recreational drugs; prostitution, etc. Providers of such are regulated by the state to ensure that ex-felons do not have access to these. Existence of regulated providers should keep black markets out of business.