Slashdot Mirror

The FAQ for the law: http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/idtheft/201CMR17faqs.pdf

Please note, this FAQ contains personally identifiable information - First and last names, job titles, address of employment, phone and fax number, of Governor Deval L. Patrick, Lieutenant Governor Timothyt P. Murray, Secretary of Housing and Economic Development Gregory Bialecki, and Undersecretary Barbara Anthony. It was obtained by http - NOT https, as required by the law.

The only reason THEY can get away with it is because ... guess what ... government agencies are excluded. "Do as I say, not as I do."

Cripes, dude. You link to the full text of the law, but apparently never read past the URL.
First, that is NOT personally identifiable information. As has been said in many posts, and as is listed in your links:

[Definition of] Personal information, a Massachusetts resident's first name and last name or first initial and last name in combination with any one or more of the following data elements that relate to such resident:
(a) Social Security number;
(b) driver's license number or state-issued identification card number; or
(c) financial account number, or credit or debit card number, with or without any required security code, access code, personal identification number or password, that would permit access to a resident’s financial account;

See? You found names, job titles, addresses, and phone numbers, but no personal information listed in the law.

Second, what's the very next farking sentence in the definition?

provided, however, that “Personal information” shall not include information that is lawfully obtained from publicly available information, or from federal, state or local government records lawfully made available to the general public.

See that? Government agencies are not excluded from the law... rather, information lawfully obtained from government agencies are not personal information, which means that people who use it - like you - are not violating the law.

The shocking part is the amount of effort you went to to find the text, the FAQ, and the compliance checklist, plus creating two Slashdot posts about it, and yet you never actually read any of it.

Text of the law http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/idtheft/201CMR1700reg.pdf
FAQ: http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/idtheft/201CMR17faqs.pdf
Compliance checklist http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/idtheft/compliance_checklist.pdf

They also require you to run antivirus software

Reasonably up-to-date versions of system security agent software which must include malware protection and reasonably up-to-date patches and virus definitions, or a version of such software that can still be supported with up-to-date patches and virus definitions, and is set to receive the most current security updates on a regular basis.

How about if you answer "I run BSD/VMS/linux, you ignorant clod"?

Text of the law http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/idtheft/201CMR1700reg.pdf
FAQ: http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/idtheft/201CMR17faqs.pdf
Compliance checklist http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/idtheft/compliance_checklist.pdf

They also require you to run antivirus software

Reasonably up-to-date versions of system security agent software which must include malware protection and reasonably up-to-date patches and virus definitions, or a version of such software that can still be supported with up-to-date patches and virus definitions, and is set to receive the most current security updates on a regular basis.

How about if you answer "I run BSD/VMS/linux, you ignorant clod"?

Text of the law http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/idtheft/201CMR1700reg.pdf
FAQ: http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/idtheft/201CMR17faqs.pdf
Compliance checklist http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/idtheft/compliance_checklist.pdf

They also require you to run antivirus software

Reasonably up-to-date versions of system security agent software which must include malware protection and reasonably up-to-date patches and virus definitions, or a version of such software that can still be supported with up-to-date patches and virus definitions, and is set to receive the most current security updates on a regular basis.

How about if you answer "I run BSD/VMS/linux, you ignorant clod"?

http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/idtheft/201CMR1700reg.pdf

Please note, this FAQ contains personally identifiable information - First and last names, job titles, address of employment, phone and fax number, of Governor Deval L. Patrick, Lieutenant Governor Timothyt P. Murray, Secretary of Housing and Economic Development Gregory Bialecki, and Undersecretary Barbara Anthony. It was obtained by http - NOT https, as required by the law.

The only reason THEY can get away with it is because ... guess what ... government agencies are excluded. "Do as I say, not as I do."

Check out their checklist: http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/idtheft/compliance_checklist.pdfhttp://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/idtheft/compliance_checklist.pdf

Example: "Have you stored your records and data containing PI in locked facilities, storage areas or containers?" - better not have a hardcopy of any records in an unlocked drawer,or take them home to work on.

Or this gem "A reasonably secure method of assigning/selecting passwords, or for use of unique identifier technologies (such as biometrics or token devices)?" Like biometrics can't be gotten around with some gummy bears, or sticky tape, or a picture.

"Have you identified the paper, electronic and other records, computing systems, and storage media, including laptops and portable devices, that contain personal information?" - so much for using your smartphone for email and phone calls since you have an unencrypted phone book sitting in there (or evenif it's encrypted, it can be accessed at will without having to enter a password each time - and a 4-digit "unlock" is not considered an effective password under the law ... so sux 2 b u.

Please note, this FAQ contains personally identifiable information - First and last names, job titles, address of employment, phone and fax number, of Governor Deval L. Patrick, Lieutenant Governor Timothyt P. Murray, Secretary of Housing and Economic Development Gregory Bialecki, and Undersecretary Barbara Anthony. It was obtained by http - NOT https, as required by the law.

The only reason THEY can get away with it is because ... guess what ... government agencies are excluded. "Do as I say, not as I do."

Check out their checklist: http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/idtheft/compliance_checklist.pdfhttp://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/idtheft/compliance_checklist.pdf

Example: "Have you stored your records and data containing PI in locked facilities, storage areas or containers?" - better not have a hardcopy of any records in an unlocked drawer,or take them home to work on.

Or this gem "A reasonably secure method of assigning/selecting passwords, or for use of unique identifier technologies (such as biometrics or token devices)?" Like biometrics can't be gotten around with some gummy bears, or sticky tape, or a picture.

"Have you identified the paper, electronic and other records, computing systems, and storage media, including laptops and portable devices, that contain personal information?" - so much for using your smartphone for email and phone calls since you have an unencrypted phone book sitting in there (or evenif it's encrypted, it can be accessed at will without having to enter a password each time - and a 4-digit "unlock" is not considered an effective password under the law ... so sux 2 b u.

If you have personally identifiable information (PII) about a Massachusetts resident, such as a first and last name, then you have to encrypt that data on the wire and as it’s persisted.

Incorrect. The author either did not do any research at all, or got the definition of PII horribly wrong as far as this law is concerned. The directive that sets the standard based on the law states:

Personal information, a Massachusetts resident's first name and last name or first initial and last name in combination with any one or more of the following data elements that relate to such resident: (a) Social Security number; (b) driver's license number or state-issued identification card number; or (c) financial account number, or credit or debit card number, with or without any required security code, access code, personal identification number or password, that would permit access to a resident’s financial account; provided, however, that “Personal information” shall not include information that is lawfully obtained from publicly available information, or from federal, state or local government records lawfully made available to the general public.

It is abundantly clear that a person's first and last name alone does not constitute PII, SSN, financial account number or some other not so public information is also required.

I think the /. article sub-header "some-serious-micromanagement dept" is incorrect. "Micromanagement" would be to specify a particular technical approach. The law(220kB PDF) doesn't even mention https. So, I think the legislation's level of detail appropriate: "just do it." The author of the FA seems to think this'll sell a lot of SQL Server upgrades, and if SQL Server is what someone is running to persist data, I suppose so.

A little googling finds the text of the law:

Personal information, a Massachusetts resident's first name and last name or first initial and
last name in combination with any one or more of the following data elements that relate to
such resident: (a) Social Security number; (b) driver's license number or state-issued
identification card number; or (c) financial account number, or credit or debit card number,
with or without any required security code, access code, personal identification number or
password, that would permit access to a resident’s financial account; provided, however, that
“Personal information” shall not include information that is lawfully obtained from publicly
available information, or from federal, state or local government records lawfully made
available to the general public.

So it looks like phone companies are safe.

Storing the name of a customer in SQL Server without the data being encrypted? No way, Jose

Summary and article fail.

Sorry to disappoint all the SQL consultants out there, but the law (as passed) says NOTHING about requiring encryption of data at rest.
Earlier versions of the bill had the requirement for at-rest encryption, but that was lobbied out.
The only time it mentions encryption is for data in-flight over public networks, wireless access, and laptops/"other portable devices".
Everything else states "reasonable security precautions" (aka: access control/passwords).

But don't take my word for it read it yourself. (it's only 4 pages)

(3)Encryption of all transmitted records and files containing personal information that will
travel across public networks, and encryption of all data containing personal information to be
transmitted wirelessly.
[...]
(5) Encryption of all personal information stored on laptops or other portable devices;

- Mass CMR1700 (the only occurrences of the word "encrypt")

Quoting from the Massachusetts Driver's Manual, chapter 4 (which you may find here: http://www.mass.gov/rmv/dmanual/chapter4.pdf):

"Steady Red -- A steady red light means “stop.” Do not go until the light turns green. You may make a right turn on a red light only after coming to a complete stop, then yielding to pedestrians or other vehicles in your path. You may not turn on red if a NO TURN ON RED sign is posted."

"Steady Yellow -- A steady yellow light means the traffic signal is changing from green to red. You must stop if it is safe to do so. If you are already stopped at an intersection or a stop line, you may not proceed."

"Steady Green -- A steady green light means “go,” but only after you have yielded to other vehicles, bicycles, or pedestrians in the road. If you are crossing an intersection, make sure you have enough room to make it completely through. Never block an intersection. You may make a turn as long as you have enough space to complete the turn and avoid creating a hazard. Look out for drivers who are not obeying traffic signals or are racing through intersections."

In case you missed them, let me pull out two important sentences: "Never block an intersection." And: "You must stop [on yellow] if it is safe to do so." Pulling into the middle of an intersection and stopping is "blocking an intersection". Turning left on a yellow is running a yellow light. I live, work, and walk in Boston, and I wish to fuck that Boston and would implement a "$100 and 2 Points" rule for these violations like New York City so people like you would stop nearly killing me every damn day.

Sorry dude, that is against the law in Mass. I've even been in a car where the driver was pulled over and given ticket for this. If you enter an intersection while it's green, but cannot make your left turn before it turns red, you've broken the law. :(

From the Mass RMV Drivers Manual:
"If you are crossing an intersection, make sure you have enough room to make it completely through. Never block an intersection."

The fine is going to be cheaper. A quick google for "health insurance fine" shows predictions around <$1000 or 2.5% of your income (if you make $50K a year that's only $1250). And it looks like finding a policy cheaper than that will be hard (I'm not sure if I trust those numbers as the advertised (i.e. artificially-low-to-catch-your-attention) prices for insurance are closer to $60-$100 per year). In any case the Massachusetts law that it this bill modeled after is designed so the fine will always be less than the cheapest premium.

Uhh, ok

You're wilfully omitting that they would in effect steal the person's reserves. The percentage income taxation only comes into play after all other resources have been depleted.

Nah, I just wasn't sure what personal property would be exempt from attachment. The Massachusetts laws are a bit out of date, but I'm guessing that the courts use a little bit of discretion and that there may be some federal statute that comes into play. A lot of assets, such as those held in 401(k)s, are protected from most judgment creditors. Unless Tenenbaum has a huge savings account sitting out there (that hasn't been drained by lawyers), wage garnishment would probably be the primary means used to collect on the judgment.

The experts seem to think it works for motorcycles. No, I didn't see anyone recommending it for bikes either.

Granted, the speed differential is much greater for bicycles vs parked cars. Still, I find the person in the mirror visible at 20-30m, which is good for some decent reaction time up to 20-25 mph.

Perhaps the writer overlooked this one little fact: Since when did we have a right to electricity? We don't. His argument is a non-starter.

It may not be an inalienable right guaranteed in the constitution, but it is a de facto right. Additionally, many states elevate it above simply de facto. Try renting an apartment to someone in Massachusetts without electricity http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/regs/105cmr410.pdf (warning, PDF):

410.250: Habitable Rooms Other than Kitchen -- Natural Light and Electrical Outlets
The owner shall provide for each habitable room other than a kitchen:
(A) transparent or translucent glass which admits light from the outdoors and which is equal in area to no less than 8% of the entire floor area of that room.
(B) two separate wall-type convenience outlets, or one such outlet and one electric light fixture. The outlets shall be placed in practical locations and shall insofar as practicable, be on different walls and at least ten feet apart. (See 105 CMR 410.351.)

The document also goes into outlets and lights for bathrooms and kitchens. And for those who own, I'm guessing there are laws regulating utilities that require them to provide you service.

Well, yes, if you didn't do the paperwork for it. But the requirements are fairly simple [noonsite.com]

Those are the Federal requirement. The State of MA also requires all persons possessing a firearm to obtain a license from their local police department or State Police (for nonresidents). Failure to do so is criminal and (quoting directly from MGL CH269(10)(6)

shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two and one-half years nor more than five years, or for not less than 18 months nor more than two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction. The sentence imposed on such person shall not be reduced to less than 18 months, nor suspended, nor shall any person convicted under this subsection be eligible for probation, parole, work release, or furlough or receive any deduction from his sentence for good conduct until he shall have served 18 months of such sentence

http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/a/gunlaws_ma.htm
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eopssubtopic&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Firearms+Registration+%26+Laws&L2=Gun+Laws&sid=Eeops
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/269-10.htm

Well, yes, if you didn't do the paperwork for it. But the requirements are fairly simple [noonsite.com]

Those are the Federal requirement. The State of MA also requires all persons possessing a firearm to obtain a license from their local police department or State Police (for nonresidents). Failure to do so is criminal and (quoting directly from MGL CH269(10)(6)

shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two and one-half years nor more than five years, or for not less than 18 months nor more than two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction. The sentence imposed on such person shall not be reduced to less than 18 months, nor suspended, nor shall any person convicted under this subsection be eligible for probation, parole, work release, or furlough or receive any deduction from his sentence for good conduct until he shall have served 18 months of such sentence

http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/a/gunlaws_ma.htm
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eopssubtopic&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Firearms+Registration+%26+Laws&L2=Gun+Laws&sid=Eeops
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/269-10.htm

Funny thing, I was reading the Massachusetts General Laws today (started out trying to figure out what the age of consent is here-- don't ask).

There's a law on the books (chapter 272 section 18) which provides up to 3 months and $30 for fornfication.

So everyone in Massachusetts who has pre-marital sex is at risk of being imprisoned.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-18.htm

The law never uses the term wiretap: Interception of wire and oral communications. Lawmakers can hardly be held responsible for the logical consequences of what other people choose to call things after the fact.

The law is Chapter 272: Section 99. Interception of wire and oral communications". Section B, paragraph 4 has the pertinent details:

The term interception means to secretly hear, secretly record, or aid another to secretly hear or secretly record the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any intercepting device by any person other than a person given prior authority by all parties to such communication; provided that it shall not constitute an interception for an investigative or law enforcement officer, as defined in this section, to record or transmit a wire or oral communication if the officer is a party to such communication or has been given prior authorization to record or transmit the communication by such a party and if recorded or transmitted in the course of an investigation of a designated offense as defined herein."

Chapter 272: Section 36. Blasphemy Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

It's one of those old laws that's been in the books for years, but never removed. Someone could still be arrested and charged with blasphemy in Massachusetts (although that would probably cause a shitstorm of controversy these days), but the last time that happened was in 1838.

Traffic laws vary by state. 2x2 riding is allowed in Texas but was NOT in Massachusetts until April 15th of 2009 http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/85-11b.htm. I'm curious which states allow bikes to ignore traffic control devices because the above two most certainly do not.

Interesting. Mine was done two weeks ago through an online form that didn't require me leaving my chair and used only the minimum amount of personally identifying information.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st01/st01790.htm

You are wrong and the grandparent is right. The EFF says that "the ... officer argued that the computer expertise of the student itself supported a finding of probable cause." Matt Zimmerman, "Boston College Campus Police: 'Using Prompt Commands' May Be a Sign of Criminal Activity," EFF Deeplinks Blog, April 14, 2009, available at http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/boston-college-prompt-commands-are-suspicious. This is on their website, written by a Senior Staff Attorney, see EFF, Profile of Matt Zimmerman, http://www.eff.org/about/staff/matt-zimmerman. It is indisputably a "representation of what the EFF said." Their characterization is plainly false if you read the warrant application; the officer argued that a number of factors, all told, supported a finding of probable cause that a crime was being or had been committed.

Furthermore, my opinion is that there is probable cause to believe a crime was being or had been committed. A reliable witness told the officer so! That's strong enough to support a search warrant even under the older Aguilar-Spinelli test, and a fortiori enough to support a search warrant under the newer, looser "totality of the circumstances" test (though this is irrelevant, as Massachusetts law still requires an analogue of the Aguilar-Spinelli test, see Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363, 373 (1985)). The officer doesn't have to get the statute right; that's the prosecutor's job. The fact that the officer doesn't have the legal acumen to distinguish between "hacking" and, say, harassment of the roommate (which is a chargeable offense under Massachusetts law, see Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, sec. 43A, available at http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/265-43a.htm) is utterly immaterial to the question of whether the search warrant was valid.

Your bias is evident, as is your ignorance.

If someone pretends to be you, and misrepresents themself as you for the purpose of defaming you. This is the kind of misrepresentation that can amount to fraud.

I'm pretty sure that defamation is only covered under tort law, and isn't actually a criminal offense where the police would need to get involved. Fraud on the other hand is a criminal offense, but I don't see any evidence from the warrant that would support a charge of fraud. The warrant states that he is being charged with "Obtaining computer services by fraud", though it refers to an incorrect section. Note however that this law says "the words "commercial computer service" shall mean the use of computers, computer systems, computer programs or computer networks, or the access to or copying of the data, where such use, access or copying is offered by the proprietor or operator of the computer, system, program, network or data to others on a subscription or other basis for monetary consideration." Signing up for a social networking site under a fake name wouldn't qualify, in my layman's opinion. Going on for two pages about how it was likely that the defendent created the profile/website is, in my opinion, irrelevant.

The defendent is being charged with "Unauthorized access to computer systems". This could be the "altering grades" thing, but the case for this seems pretty weak prima facie. The only evidence presented is the testimony of the guy's roommate, i.e. the person that was "outed" by the fake website. There's one line in the warrant about how this roomate saw the defendent change grades. The roommate appears to be heavily biased against the defendent, and I'm not convinced we should take his word over the defendent's. Now, I'd be slightly more convinced if the officer had obtained some evidence from the university system that grades HAD been changed.

If someone pretends to be you, and misrepresents themself as you for the purpose of defaming you. This is the kind of misrepresentation that can amount to fraud.

I'm pretty sure that defamation is only covered under tort law, and isn't actually a criminal offense where the police would need to get involved. Fraud on the other hand is a criminal offense, but I don't see any evidence from the warrant that would support a charge of fraud. The warrant states that he is being charged with "Obtaining computer services by fraud", though it refers to an incorrect section. Note however that this law says "the words "commercial computer service" shall mean the use of computers, computer systems, computer programs or computer networks, or the access to or copying of the data, where such use, access or copying is offered by the proprietor or operator of the computer, system, program, network or data to others on a subscription or other basis for monetary consideration." Signing up for a social networking site under a fake name wouldn't qualify, in my layman's opinion. Going on for two pages about how it was likely that the defendent created the profile/website is, in my opinion, irrelevant.

The defendent is being charged with "Unauthorized access to computer systems". This could be the "altering grades" thing, but the case for this seems pretty weak prima facie. The only evidence presented is the testimony of the guy's roommate, i.e. the person that was "outed" by the fake website. There's one line in the warrant about how this roomate saw the defendent change grades. The roommate appears to be heavily biased against the defendent, and I'm not convinced we should take his word over the defendent's. Now, I'd be slightly more convinced if the officer had obtained some evidence from the university system that grades HAD been changed.

I fail to see how this affects "my rights online".

You would if you went to http://cctv077.camb.mass.gov/

You can use any of a number of already existing policies. For instance, the Open Standards Policy of Massachusetts is very nicely worded:

Commonwealth's Position

• Effective and efficient government service delivery requires system integration and data sharing.
• Technology investments must be made based on total cost of ownership and best value to the Commonwealth. Component-based software development based on open standards allows for a more cost-effective "build once, use many times" approach.
• Open systems and specifications are often less costly to acquire, develop and maintain and do not result in vendor lock-in.

--
Interested in exploring a possible business idea with friends?

You're omitting the difficulty in figuring out the tax status of items.

For example, in MA if you buy 1,2 or 3 donuts, that's taxable. If you buy a dozen donuts, that's not taxable. Why? One is consider "a meal", and one is considered "food" (i.e. groceries). Snacks over $3.50, taxable. Under $3.50, not taxable. Some clothing is taxable, some is not. Books are taxable, Textbooks are not. What makes a textbook a textbook? Retailers have fancy computer programs to figure out the tax status of each item, and even they get it wrong. The MA DOR recommends that you call or write for specific determinations "Because of the complexity of the law". http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=dorterminal&L=6&L0=Home&L1=Individuals+and+Families&L2=Personal+Income+Tax&L3=Forms+%26+Publications&L4=Publications&L5=Publications+Index&sid=Ador&b=terminalcontent&f=dor_publ_sales_use&csid=Ador#exempt

And that's exactly why online stores want nothing to do with collecting state and local taxes. Just when they think they've got it all figured out, the east side of West Town in the southern province of Lower Elbonia points out that there's an extra 2% sales tax for Items bought on Tuesday between 4:15 and 4:23 during mud season, but only if the buyer isn't wearing a purple hat. And, of course, that must be paid in person and in cash by a man wearing a flower pot on his head.

You're omitting the difficulty in figuring out the tax status of items.

For example, in MA if you buy 1,2 or 3 donuts, that's taxable. If you buy a dozen donuts, that's not taxable. Why? One is consider "a meal", and one is considered "food" (i.e. groceries). Snacks over $3.50, taxable. Under $3.50, not taxable. Some clothing is taxable, some is not. Books are taxable, Textbooks are not. What makes a textbook a textbook? Retailers have fancy computer programs to figure out the tax status of each item, and even they get it wrong. The MA DOR recommends that you call or write for specific determinations "Because of the complexity of the law". http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=dorterminal&L=6&L0=Home&L1=Individuals+and+Families&L2=Personal+Income+Tax&L3=Forms+%26+Publications&L4=Publications&L5=Publications+Index&sid=Ador&b=terminalcontent&f=dor_publ_sales_use&csid=Ador#exempt

It also should be noted that an explosion took place here in Danvers in Nov. 2006 that was in a small ink and paint factory bordering neighborhood houses. The explosion happened so early in the morning that shards of glass etc. passed over people sleeping instead of into people standing getting ready for the day. The cause of the explosion was due to improper storage of VOC's. One can read the findings of the investigation at: http://www.mass.gov/dep/danfindg.htm As such, local police / firefighters are being more "vigilant" for violations / improper permitting.
From above findings:
In order to prevent future incidents like the Danvers explosion, smaller companies that produce or use hazardous materials will now be targeted for scrutiny under a new program that pairs fire and hazardous waste inspectors on the lookout for mishandling of dangerous chemicals.

Long story short, I can see the side of the authorities here. More importantly it looks like from the article that no citations / fines or more importantly criminal charged have currently been leveled... Time will tell if there continues to be a "measured" response.

That's interesting. I've never heard the insurance argument before. The drive behind the bans around here has always been the concern for public health. The idea has always been that not all workers/patrons are consensual smokers, so they shouldn't be forced to smoke by those who do. AFAIK, this is the only argument that was used for the MA workplace law. I've never heard money brought up as part of the reasoning around here. See also the Bangor, ME in-cars-with-children smoking ban, which has nothing to do with money.

A summary of the statewide workplace ban: http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/tobacco_control/smoke_free_workplace_law_summary.pdf

More information on the ban: http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eohhs2terminal&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Provider&L2=Guidance+for+Businesses&L3=Smoke-free+Workplace&sid=Eeohhs2&b=terminalcontent&f=dph_tobacco_control_workplace_law&csid=Eeohhs2

That's interesting. I've never heard the insurance argument before. The drive behind the bans around here has always been the concern for public health. The idea has always been that not all workers/patrons are consensual smokers, so they shouldn't be forced to smoke by those who do. AFAIK, this is the only argument that was used for the MA workplace law. I've never heard money brought up as part of the reasoning around here. See also the Bangor, ME in-cars-with-children smoking ban, which has nothing to do with money.

A summary of the statewide workplace ban: http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/tobacco_control/smoke_free_workplace_law_summary.pdf

More information on the ban: http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eohhs2terminal&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Provider&L2=Guidance+for+Businesses&L3=Smoke-free+Workplace&sid=Eeohhs2&b=terminalcontent&f=dph_tobacco_control_workplace_law&csid=Eeohhs2

I dislike Massachusetts government enough that I'm actually going to respond to your post in detail. I can't speak for the whole state government, only those parts of it (and municipal subdivisions) that I ran into during my time there. Every one was problematic.

I've never applied for a job there, and would never do so for reasons that will shortly become obvious. To be blunt, the job I will start in DC in September is way better than *any* Massachusetts government job could be for a new lawyer.

My first experience was with the Mass RMV. On their website, they state that you need a certain set of documents to convert an out-of-state license. I brought with me the printout of the linked page along with everything on it. After waiting two hours in line, I was informed by the employee that I needed an original birth certificate to prove my date of birth, despite the fact that my passport, which I had with me, had the date as required by the RMV. I showed her the list of documents, and checked off each item with a pen. No dice; she would not transfer my license. I asked to speak with the office manager and showed her the website printout. She accused me of making a fake printout and repeated what the employee had said.

I gave up, went home, and came back later with a file box full of documents. This time, after another two-hour wait (and presenting more documents than the RMV claims to require), I got my license.

My next experience was attempting to register to vote. It turned out that my apartment literally straddled the Cambridge and Somerville city lines. I first tried to register to vote with the Cambridge city clerk, as the street the apartment abutted was in Cambridge, as was my street address. I was denied because, according to the city of Cambridge, my apartment was in Somerville. So I went to the Somerville city clerk and was told my apartment was in Cambridge. Repeated letters to both cities failed to get me registered (actually, failed to elicit any response) and I was unable to vote in two elections that occurred before I moved one year later to an apartment that was unambiguously in Cambridge. Constitutional rights? Who gives a shit?

Then I experienced the fun of dealing with the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority. Silly me; I thought it would be handy to have an EZPass. So I tried to get one. Registering online was a cinch. But then I never received my EZPass transponder in the mail. They did take my money, and once again repeated contacts to various MTA officials resulted mostly in befuddlement. I eventually ate the $30 or so because it was just not worth my time to pursue the matter. I never saw an EZPass transponder before I moved out of the state. If you read the newspaper, none of this is a surprise. MTA officials are rarely in the news for turnpike-related decisions, but there has been a consistent stream of stories about their perks and inflated salaries.

And, of course, there's the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority. Constant track fires, track infrastructure that is not as good as that in many Third World countries, speeds literally half those in either the New York or Washington subway systems, equipment that ages before its time due to neglect, a brand-new headhouse (Charles/MGH) with platforms so misaligned that wheelchair users can't get on the trains, an epic light-rail vehicle procurement fiasco (Google "type 8 chronology of events"), and buses that should be impounded and taken off the road for defects (5 bus fires in my 3 years there).

I've already mentioned the entertaining Department of Revenue tax procedure above, although, in fairness, they don't ever seem to have messed anything up for me, only designed a laughable procedure.

My last episode was with the RMV again; this time, they mistyped the VIN on my car registration. I should have known better than to try to fix it. No dice, and an indignant RMV official telling me that my lease contract (which matched my car) was w

"Intentional Infliction of Severe Emotional Distress" is a common tort, and I've always wondered why a civil suit wasn't brought against the perp for this offense.

Some states have applicable laws: "Sandy's Law" in Mass has a maximum penalty of 10 years, which would be reasonably appropriate.

Egad! You may be right.

IANAL, but here is the Mass law re: licensing a firm in the business of doing investigation work.

"Whoever violates any provision of this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than two hundred nor more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment."

Here is the law about impersonating a police officer.

"... shall be punished by a fine of not more than four hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year."

The investigators might actually have it easier if they posed as officers. Hell, the fines imposed are a lot less than the RIAA would like to hit the John Does with for far slighter infractions. No indication if either qualifies as a felony, though.

Egad! You may be right.

IANAL, but here is the Mass law re: licensing a firm in the business of doing investigation work.

"Whoever violates any provision of this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than two hundred nor more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment."

Here is the law about impersonating a police officer.

"... shall be punished by a fine of not more than four hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year."

The investigators might actually have it easier if they posed as officers. Hell, the fines imposed are a lot less than the RIAA would like to hit the John Does with for far slighter infractions. No indication if either qualifies as a felony, though.

The one hearing that I was entitled to. I detailed the circumstances, and was using the "not provided with suitable work" argument. I still lost.

You had a total of three hearing you could have used. You should have contested that and went on to further hearings.

Would it have mattered if there weren't any witnesses? The burden of proof falls on the applicant, not on the employer. It's hard to prove that you didn't say something behind a closed door; providing "proof" that you did, in the form of testimony, is much easier.

No, the burden of proof is on them. You see, they are the ones claiming that you did something. But if it isn't listed as the reason they fired you, then it is pointless for it to come up.

I'm telling you things you don't want to hear. I'm speaking from my own direct experience, from things I have seen with my own eyes. I didn't make up getting fucked out of my benefits over that 3 hour notice deal. I didn't make up the fact that the state has a vested interest in providing low-wage workers to the business community. And I'm NOT making up the fact that you're guilty until proven innocent in employment matters, effectively (as most people I know don't have the money to retain an attorney. I looked for an attorney. I looked *hard* for an attorney. Nobody would take my case, money or not, as I stood almost no chance of winning.)

It isn't that I don't want to hear it. It is that it goes against the logic and everything else that I have seen either first hand or from a secondary nature of the system. Maybe they considered the 3 hours notice for a temp job as not a good reason for not showing up. Maybe it was something about how you presented yourself. I don't know. I do know that you get like 3 appeals to their decisions and each time you go in front of someone else. Usually you have round 14 days to contest it. Now, if there was something in the handbook or contract you were working under, then you should have pointed to that. either way, the system failed in your case and shouldn't have happened.

When someone looks you in the eye and tells you "We don't HAVE to tell you [why you're being let go]" in THOSE EXACT WORDS, calculated to be as personally devastating as possible, you bet it'll color your outlook. Strike me dead, that's exactly what happened, whether you want to believe it or not.

It looks like you might have handled the situation wrongly. But this is understandable when they do something like you described. There is something to say about the humiliation of being sent to a job that you cannot accomplish because you are not qualified for. Especially when you inform them that you aren't qualified for it. There is a legal construct surrounding this and I cannot remember what it is called right now. But basically it wounds like they were trying to make you quit which means that they were attempting to force what happened for a while. I think it is called constructive discharge.

Anyways when you make a case for constructive discharge, you aren't usually held as cause or your determination isn't considered with good cause because you were manipulated into whatever caused your discharge. I don't know of any law that says they need to give you more then 3 hours notice before working a 12 hour shift. but that doesn't necessarily make it a safe work environment which there are work laws pertaining to. Besides the fact that this seems to be a shitty way of running a joint unless you knew well in advance that 3 hours notice to 12 hours position was going to be a normal occurrence.

I seriously suggest that you read and become familiar with the laws pertaining to unemployment compensation in Mass. It isn't like you are claiming. I understand your disdain for a system that failed you or in the least gives you the appearance of failure. But simple s

I think you might be missing my point. Your former employer can go into that hearing and spin a bullshit story about your attitude problem / poor attendance / poor performance / whatever, and you can't prove otherwise. Who's going to prove they're lying? Who's got more credibility, you with your laziness and your bad attitude or the good employer who's providing a living for members of the community?

There's nothing to keep them from lying their asses off and keep you from getting your unemployment benefits. Unless you've been documenting everything all along (which in itself could get you fired for being disloyal) you're shit out of luck. It's your word against theirs, and who are they going to believe?

In the Massachusetts, adults may serve alcohol to their own children or underage spouse in a private setting (i.e. Not in a bar). It is probably the same in many, if not all, other states.

Reference: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/138-34.htm

From http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/266-102a.5.htm
> Section 102A1/2. (a) Whoever possesses, transports, uses or places or causes another to knowingly or unknowingly possess, transport, use or place
> any hoax device or hoax substance with the intent to cause anxiety, unrest, fear or personal discomfort to any person or group of persons shall be
> punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than
> five years or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
>
> (b) For the purposes of this section, the term "hoax device" shall mean any device that would cause a person reasonably to believe that such device
> is an infernal machine. For the purposes of this section, the term "infernal machine" shall mean any device for endangering life or doing unusual
> damage to property, or both, by fire or explosion, whether or not contrived to ignite or explode automatically. For the purposes of this section,
> the words "hoax substance" shall mean any substance that would cause a person reasonably to believe that such substance is a harmful chemical or
> biological agent, a poison, a harmful radioactive substance or any other substance for causing serious bodily injury, endangering life or doing
> unusual damage to property, or both.

So firstly, for it to be a 'hoax device', a person would have to 'reasonably to believe that such device is an infernal machine'. Automatically thinking any electronic device is a device for endangering life or damaging property by fire or explosion would be unreasonable, because electronic devices are so ubiquitous.

Secondly, even if the clothing is considered a hoax device under the above definition, for it to be an offence the possession has to be done "with the intent to cause anxiety, unrest, fear or personal discomfort" which wouldn't be the case if it was intended as jewelery.

To convict under this statute, the state would have to prove that she intended to scare people, not just that she was clueless about how they would react.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/266-102a.5.htm
Section 102A1/2. (a) Whoever possesses, transports, uses or places or causes another to knowingly or unknowingly possess, transport, use or place any hoax device or hoax substance with the intent to cause anxiety, unrest, fear or personal discomfort to any person or group of persons shall be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(b) For the purposes of this section, the term "hoax device" shall mean any device that would cause a person reasonably to believe that such device is an infernal machine. For the purposes of this section, the term "infernal machine" shall mean any device for endangering life or doing unusual damage to property, or both, by fire or explosion, whether or not contrived to ignite or explode automatically. For the purposes of this section, the words "hoax substance" shall mean any substance that would cause a person reasonably to believe that such substance is a harmful chemical or biological agent, a poison, a harmful radioactive substance or any other substance for causing serious bodily injury, endangering life or doing unusual damage to property, or both.

My point is that greed that goes into illegality _isn't_ within the confines of government, even if it's due to lack of government enforcement of their own laws.

Article XXX. In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.

Also, comments can be sent to: mailto:standards@state.ma.us
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=itdsubtopic&L=3&L0=Hom e&L1=Policies%2C+Standards+%26+Guidance&L2=Drafts+ for+Review&sid=Aitd

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=mg2utilities&L=1&sid=m assgov2&U=utility_contactus
Bethann Pepoli is the Acting CIO in charge of this decision.
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=itdmodulechunk&L=1&L0= Home&sid=Aitd&b=terminalcontent&f=organization_adm inistration&csid=Aitd