Question: has anyone talked to both candidates for governor about high tech crime issues? I'm going to be volunteering for one of them, and if anyone has any ideas, please let me know. I'll be sure to pass them on. On to other matters: It appears from reading the Oregonian that the Ashley did accuse Ward Weaver of sexual abuse some time last summer. The problem might have been that; "There are two separate systems to respond to reported child abuse. SCF is part of the social service system, designed to protect children by helping families. SCF does not prosecute. Law enforcement and the courts make up the criminal justice system that is designed to protect the community and to punish offenders. The two systems may operate at the same time but they are independent. " I wonder if this was part of the disconnect between the reporting to SCF of the abuse and the interplay with law enforcement. A possible solution might be vertically integrating a lot of the state systems. Even if it did make it to the prosecution level, as many DDA's would agree, these types of cases are extremely difficult to prove as evidence is often scant and pits one person's word against another. (unless of course there is more physical and circumstantial evidence) In this case, there was no prosecution. If there's no prosecution, it makes the information more difficult to find. The instances where you hear that some person got out on a technicality are more the exception than the rule. DDA's try their best to make sure it doesn't happen, but on occasion it does. How do we improve the status quo so that these sorts of things happen less? Watch out for each other. Get involved with programs like neighborhood watch. If you don't have one, put one together. They're invaluable. Help educate people. Tell them how to react if they are a potential victim of a crime. Most people don't know how to react, especially in cases of abductions. If you are worried about kids... put a bracelet with a GPS on them. (This would be a radical idea but heck, why not put it out... implant kids with tiny GPS type units to help track them down. Kids already have less constitutional rights, why not have them in and give them the choice to remove them when they are 18?) They may be expensive... but is it worth the life of your child? "In the military, there is no "free speech" as we know it in the civilian world. You have UCMJ, and for good reason...to maintain the unified chain of command"- True enough but the military is a totally different animal. They even have their own court system. "Firemen responding to a fire don't need a warrant to search a house for people...they just save lives cutting through walls if necessary" Addressed in last e-mail. "There is the cliché example that the right of free speech does not mean you can yell "fire" in a crowded theater" Yes, but the reason is that the state can impose restrictions to preserve public peace. "When clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic upon the public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety, peace or oder, appears, the power of the state to prevent to punish is obvious" Feiner v. NY "Airport security personnel don't need a warrant to run everybody through metal detectors and other security checkpoints." I view this as implied consent. By using airports and flying you give your implicit consent to being searched before boarding a plane. Same idea as implied consent for DUIIs. "House-by-house searches are authorized under certain circumstances when a criminal at large poses a clear and present danger to the community."- exigent circumstances. also hot pursuit. On Tuesday, August 27, 2002, at 11:09 PM, Tao, Greg wrote: > I appreciate all the thoughtful feedback. The more I hear from folks, > the > more I realize this topic is within the scope of the mailing list > because it > relates to computer crime investigations too. > > First, let me say that it is refreshing to hear so many people concerned > about the freedom we enjoy as Americans. Those of you who know me > personally know that I too care deeply about our freedom, particularly > about > our First Freedom, the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed in the > 2nd > Amendment, which I consider to be the ultimate guarantor of freedom. My > late uncle, who was with the 2nd Marine Division during WW2 often > reminded > me about the price of freedom, so I can't ever forget... > > I'd like to take a different approach now. Rather than solicit feedback > about my proposal, which was admittedly just the ranting of a fellow > who was > as deeply upset as everybody else about the conclusion to the Oregon > City > case, I'd like to explore the question of balancing our civil rights > vs. the > public good. We'll go down an pointless rat hole if we debate the > merits of > my original idea which was never intended as a be-all/end-all solution. > > ...so let's look at the current situation with open minds to see how we > can > make this country a better and safer place. > > I'll start with the assertion that there are situations where our civil > rights are temporarily superceded by a greater concern. Some examples: > -- In the military, there is no "free speech" as we know it in the > civilian > world. You have UCMJ, and for good reason...to maintain the unified > chain of > command > -- Firemen responding to a fire don't need a warrant to search a house > for > people...they just save lives cutting through walls if necessary > -- While law-abiding citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, > convicted felons do not > -- There is the cliché example that the right of free speech does not > mean > you can yell "fire" in a crowded theater > -- Airport security personnel don't need a warrant to run everybody > through > metal detectors and other security checkpoints > -- House-by-house searches are authorized under certain circumstances > when a > criminal at large poses a clear and present danger to the community. > Admittedly, I have no clue what the criteria is for such searches, but > you > see them on the news from time to time > > I'd like to see if there is *some* reasonable and useful change we can > make > to our criminal justice system that can reduce the amount of denied or > deferred justice resulting from things like: > -- evidence thrown out on a technicality (e.g. cast iron skillet used by > Ward Weaver to beat an ex-wife) > -- evidence not admissible due to a technicality (e.g. the police > weren't > authorized to search Stoudamire's marijuana) > -- law enforcement not able to search obvious places of interest due to > the > stringent requirements for getting a search warrant > > The problem we face is that in the case of predatory murderers who > abduct > and kill people, time is of the essence when a person goes missing. > I've > heard people describe the first 48 hours as critical. These predators > most > often know their victims and live or operate within some proximity of > them. > Furthermore, they often fit a certain criminal profile involving prior > violent criminal behavior. > > I'm thinking that there must be *some* way to allow law enforcement to > investigate these crimes more freely in a manner that doesn't trample > on the > intentions of our Bill of Rights. The status quo just feels like it > protects criminals more than it does honest people. > > Another point to consider: As the Framers of our Constitution stated > in the > Declaration of Independence, government derives its just powers from the > consent of the governed, so law enforcement will ultimately be limited > by > the will of the people. However, the limits we place on law > enforcement say > a lot about ourselves, both good and bad. The accountability we hold > those > with power shows we seek fair treatment for all. Yet our willingness to > allow criminal investigations to stall for fear of minor inconveniences > or > the possibility that searches might uncover some popular criminal > activity > such as recreational "soft" drug use shows a somewhat insensitive > aspect of > our culture, particularly when delay in criminal investigation can cost > lives. I am reminded of Kitty Genovese in New York City. For those of > you > not familiar with the name, check out > http://www.lihistory.com/8/hs818a.htm. > No less than 38 of her neighbors witnessed her being stabbed to death > over > the course of 35 minutes. > > I wonder if we as a society are collectively doing the same thing as > Kitty > Genovese's neighbors by not opening up our communities to more liberal > searches by law enforcement when human lives are at stake. > > There's got to be something we can do besides accept the status quo... > > Thanks, > > Greg Tao > greg.tao@private > Disclaimer: These are my personal views and opinions, not the views and > opinions of my employer. > > > T. Kenji Sugahara Chief Operating Officer counterclaim Phone: 541-484-9235 Fax: 541-484-9193
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Aug 28 2002 - 10:32:53 PDT