Slashdot Mirror

The law that Snyder signed in 2014, Public Act 345 of 2014, codified as section 445.1574 Prohibited conduct by manufacturer, has a lot of detailed regulations about how manufacturers may treat dealers. The requirement that manufacturers only sell through dealers is terse, and buried in the middle of it:

(1) A manufacturer shall not do any of the following: [...] (h) Directly or indirectly own, operate, or control a new motor vehicle dealer, including, but not limited to, a new motor vehicle dealer engaged primarily in performing warranty repair services on motor vehicles under the manufacturer's warranty, or a used motor vehicle dealer. This subdivision does not apply to any of the following: [...] (i) Sell any new motor vehicle directly to a retail customer other than through franchised dealers, unless the retail customer is a nonprofit organization or a federal, state, or local
government or agency. [...]

(There are several exceptions, some are grandfather clauses for pre-2000 manufacturer-owned dealers, the others don't appear to apply to Tesla.) Subsections (h) and (i) were present in the prior version of the law, so I'm not sure how old some form of that requirement is. The bill changed the tail end of subsection (i) from a reference to "the manufacturer's" dealers to "franchised" dealers, but the substantiative changes to the law were a new subsection (y) "Prevent, attempt to prevent, prohibit, coerce, or attempt to coerce a new motor vehicle dealer from charging a consumer any documentary preparation fee allowed to be charged by the dealer under the laws of this state" and a new section (3) "This section applies to a manufacturer that sells, services, displays, or advertises its new motor vehicles in this state".

The law that Snyder signed in 2014, Public Act 345 of 2014, codified as section 445.1574 Prohibited conduct by manufacturer, has a lot of detailed regulations about how manufacturers may treat dealers. The requirement that manufacturers only sell through dealers is terse, and buried in the middle of it:

(1) A manufacturer shall not do any of the following: [...] (h) Directly or indirectly own, operate, or control a new motor vehicle dealer, including, but not limited to, a new motor vehicle dealer engaged primarily in performing warranty repair services on motor vehicles under the manufacturer's warranty, or a used motor vehicle dealer. This subdivision does not apply to any of the following: [...] (i) Sell any new motor vehicle directly to a retail customer other than through franchised dealers, unless the retail customer is a nonprofit organization or a federal, state, or local
government or agency. [...]

(There are several exceptions, some are grandfather clauses for pre-2000 manufacturer-owned dealers, the others don't appear to apply to Tesla.) Subsections (h) and (i) were present in the prior version of the law, so I'm not sure how old some form of that requirement is. The bill changed the tail end of subsection (i) from a reference to "the manufacturer's" dealers to "franchised" dealers, but the substantiative changes to the law were a new subsection (y) "Prevent, attempt to prevent, prohibit, coerce, or attempt to coerce a new motor vehicle dealer from charging a consumer any documentary preparation fee allowed to be charged by the dealer under the laws of this state" and a new section (3) "This section applies to a manufacturer that sells, services, displays, or advertises its new motor vehicles in this state".

It depends on the state. In Michigan, we can't seem to fix Flint's water, our crumbling roads and infrastructure, or a come up with a sane tax system. The only thing the legislature seems capable of is passing laws every year that cause chaos in public schools.

So go ahead, and be like the legislature and line up to kick a teacher. It is such a fun game.

The bad news is that the teacher workforce is in decline. Great teachers are leaving 'en masse' and enrollment in Michigan teacher colleges is down over 50%. Some school districts already have a shortage of teachers and substitute teachers. Technical Education teachers are impossible to find i.e. Computer Programming, Electrical Occupations, Automotive Repair, Drafting and CAD etc....

Just in case you need a citation, here is a link to the over 150+ bills passed in Michigan since 2015 and it doesn't even take into consideration the bills in committee which look to replace the curriculum they just implemented. It is literally chaos when you need to devote a staff member just to monitoring legislation. It is an average of one bill every two days.

The legislature should just pass a law saying all students need to learn Computer Science, just throw it on the pile and let the schools figure it out. Schools get unfunded mandates all the time, it is just a matter of whether there will be any staff left to carry out the mandate.

Public Act 436, that, as an appropriation, is referendum proof.

Whoops! Looks like they need to amend their state constitution. Or take this to the Michigan Supreme Court. Their constitution says:

The people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws and to enact and reject laws, called the initiative, and the power to approve or reject laws enacted by the legislature, called the referendum. The power of initiative extends only to laws which the legislature may enact under this constitution. The power of referendum does not extend to acts making appropriations for state institutions or to meet deficiencies in state funds

I doubt that the writers of the Michigan state constitution meant that legislators could add "...and the state will buy a candy cane" to their laws and have them be referendum-proof. It seems more likely that an appropriations bill was meant to have nothing but appropriations in them. Combining appropriations with other laws blurs the definition of an appropriations bill. I bet there is a good chance the Michigan Supreme Court would either strike down the law, or allow a referendum to proceed against the portions of the bill that are not appropriations.

1981 version

2014 version

Difference in clause (i):
@@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
(i) Sell any new motor vehicle directly to a retail customer other than
-through its franchised dealers, unless the retail customer is a nonprofit
+through franchised dealers, unless the retail customer is a nonprofit
organization or a federal, state, or local government or agency. This
-subdivision does not prohibit a manufacturer from providing information to
-a consumer for the purpose of marketing or facilitating the sale of new
-motor vehicles or from establishing a program to sell or offer to sell
-new motor vehicles through the manufacturer's new motor vehicle dealers.
+subdivision does not prohibit a manufacturer from providing information
+to a consumer for the purpose of marketing or facilitating the sale of
+new motor vehicles or from establishing a program to sell or offer to
+sell new motor vehicles through franchised new motor vehicle dealers
+that sell and service new motor vehicles produced by the manufacturer.

1981 version

2014 version

Difference in clause (i):
@@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
(i) Sell any new motor vehicle directly to a retail customer other than
-through its franchised dealers, unless the retail customer is a nonprofit
+through franchised dealers, unless the retail customer is a nonprofit
organization or a federal, state, or local government or agency. This
-subdivision does not prohibit a manufacturer from providing information to
-a consumer for the purpose of marketing or facilitating the sale of new
-motor vehicles or from establishing a program to sell or offer to sell
-new motor vehicles through the manufacturer's new motor vehicle dealers.
+subdivision does not prohibit a manufacturer from providing information
+to a consumer for the purpose of marketing or facilitating the sale of
+new motor vehicles or from establishing a program to sell or offer to
+sell new motor vehicles through franchised new motor vehicle dealers
+that sell and service new motor vehicles produced by the manufacturer.

[...] Some advocate implementing something like quotas or other such measures which favor people who fall into "disadvantaged" buckets based on race, gender, or other criteria. [...]

This is explicitly the system made illegal--and the definition of Affirmative Action that I get from Wikipedia is "Affirmative action or positive discrimination (known as employment equity in Canada, reservation in India, and positive action in the UK) is the policy of providing special opportunities for, and favoring members of, a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination."

Here's the relevant portion of the law we're talking about:

The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

[The Constitution of Michigan of 1963, 26.2, quoted in full.]

California actually has a law very much like this, and the statistics so far seem to suggest that while it lowers the numbers of African-Americans and Latinos applying and admitted (which may simply be due to fewer applying), the percent of them graduating goes up when the law requires equality of opportunity.

I am, frankly, with people who think that the important number is the number who graduate--the higher education system should not be made the scapegoat for the failures of lower education system. That just allows the K12 system to get away with continuing to fail.

I wondered about that too but chalked it up to being a slashdot summary. I'm guessing the law is going to be a little clearer on what entities are subject to request. I'm thinking it means that an employer could ask a former employer which ran its own email service, if it could have a copy of any emails it still has on file. I'd guess a bit of reluctance on the part of the former employer, but you can always ask. Same thing for a school.

ya, slashdot summary of a website that did a bad job. Here is the bill:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billenrolled/House/htm/2012-HNB-5523.htm

And it says different.

Roughly, it says that Employers, prospective employers and educational institutes can NOT ask for login info from employees, prospective employees and students. If it does, you can take them to civil court for a max of $1000 in damages.

This is the exemptions:

Sec. 5. (1) This act does not prohibit an employer from doing any of the following:

(a) Requesting or requiring an employee to disclose access information to the employer to gain access to or operate any of the following:

(i) An electronic communications device paid for in whole or in part by the employer.

(ii) An account or service provided by the employer, obtained by virtue of the employee’s employment relationship with the employer, or used for the employer’s business purposes.

(b) Disciplining or discharging an employee for transferring the employer’s proprietary or confidential information or financial data to an employee’s personal internet account without the employer’s authorization.

(c) Conducting an investigation or requiring an employee to cooperate in an investigation in any of the following circumstances:

(i) If there is specific information about activity on the employee’s personal internet account, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with applicable laws, regulatory requirements, or prohibitions against work-related employee misconduct.

(ii) If the employer has specific information about an unauthorized transfer of the employer’s proprietary information, confidential information, or financial data to an employee’s personal internet account.

(d) Restricting or prohibiting an employee’s access to certain websites while using an electronic communications device paid for in whole or in part by the employer or while using an employer’s network or resources, in accordance with state and federal law.

(e) Monitoring, reviewing, or accessing electronic data stored on an electronic communications device paid for in whole or in part by the employer, or traveling through or stored on an employer’s network, in accordance with state and federal law.

So basically they are saying if you get hardware from them, ie tablet, phone, computer, they can go thru it and do what they want. They can also make it so you can NOT access social network sites if they want. And if they suspect that you are spilling secrets (and probably talking shit) on a social network, then they can request your login info.

There isn't a loophole and the article this was linked to is a fail summary of this bill.

The law states:

Sec. 5. (1) This act does not prohibit an employer from doing any of the following:

(a) Requesting or requiring an employee to disclose access information to the employer to gain access to or operate any of the following:

(i) An electronic communications device paid for in whole or in part by the employer.

(ii) An account or service provided by the employer, obtained by virtue of the employee’s employment relationship with the employer, or used for the employer’s business purposes.

(b) Disciplining or discharging an employee for transferring the employer’s proprietary or confidential information or financial data to an employee’s personal internet account without the employer’s authorization.

(c) Conducting an investigation or requiring an employee to cooperate in an investigation in any of the following circumstances:

(i) If there is specific information about activity on the employee’s personal internet account, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with applicable laws, regulatory requirements, or prohibitions against work-related employee misconduct.

(ii) If the employer has specific information about an unauthorized transfer of the employer’s proprietary information, confidential information, or financial data to an employee’s personal internet account.

(d) Restricting or prohibiting an employee’s access to certain websites while using an electronic communications device paid for in whole or in part by the employer or while using an employer’s network or resources, in accordance with state and federal law.

(e) Monitoring, reviewing, or accessing electronic data stored on an electronic communications device paid for in whole or in part by the employer, or traveling through or stored on an employer’s network, in accordance with state and federal law.

(2) This act does not prohibit or restrict an employer from complying with a duty to screen employees or applicants prior to hiring or to monitor or retain employee communications that is established under federal law or by a self-regulatory organization, as defined in section 3(a)(26) of the securities and exchange act of 1934, 15 USC 78c(a)(26).

(3) This act does not prohibit or restrict an employer from viewing, accessing, or utilizing information about an employee or applicant that can be obtained without any required access information or that is available in the public domain.

Sec. 6. (1) This act does not prohibit an educational institution from requesting or requiring a student to disclose access information to the educational institution to gain access to or operate any of the following:

(a) An electronic communications device paid for in whole or in part by the educational institution.

(b) An account or service provided by the educational institution that is either obtained by virtue of the student’s admission to the educational institution or used by the student for educational purposes.

Uh, that isn't wrong. You're wrong.

The legislative branch can and has overridden regulations, rulings, and the constitution. It does that by passing new laws. In the case of the US Constitution, new amendments must be passed. The most obvious example is the 21st Amendment to the US Constitution, but . You can also consider the example of the judicial interpretation of Eminent Domain in Kelo v. City of New London. Several states have since passed amendments to State Constitutions (Michigan, for example) which restrict or bar the state's ability to use eminent domain.

The judicial branch interprets the law, which includes removal of laws which are proscribed by other laws. It does not get a choice about what the law is, only how to interpret it and how each law interacts with the others or how a law applies in a given case.

The executive branch executes an enforces existing laws, and is allowed to issue rules and regulations that enable executing the laws. It does not get a choice about what the law is, only how to go about executing it.

The legislative branch exists solely to create new laws. It alone determines what the law is. It alone is given the power to amend the Constitution (Article 5). Neither the judicial nor the executive branch is given that power. Indeed, the executive branch doesn't even get veto power for constitutional amendments. Additionally, the legislature alone is given the power of impeachment (Article I), which may be used to remove any civil servant from office, including a President or Supreme Court Justice.

Congress has the ultimate trump card. The problem is that it's legislation by committee, meaning they spend all their time talking and very little actually doing anything. This, I think, is simultaneously the greatest and worst idea the founding fathers had.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billanalysis/Senate/htm/2011-SFA-4214-S.htm is an analysis of the bill the AC is most likely referring to. Oh and as a note it took less time to find it than type [citation needed].

-- Require the State Treasurer to declare the local government in receivership and appoint an emergency manager, upon confirmation of a financial emergency.
-- Authorize the emergency manager for a municipal government to disincorporate or dissolve the municipal government, and recommend consolidation with another municipal government.

I tried to buy something once through a self-scanner, and it rang up a remarkably lower price than it should have. I completed the checkout, paid, and then went to customer service to explain the issue. The customer service clerk looked at me as if I had nine heads, especially after scanning the item and seeing that the barcode scan gave the same price that my receipt said I'd paid. She then said something like, "no, you paid for this", clearly not understanding my motivation for mentioning it, so I left.

I don't know about where you live, but where I do, once you've paid for the item, they can't change the price on you and insist you give them more money. However, they must fix it if they overcharged you (and give you extra money as well) due to the Michigan Pricing and Advertising of Consumer Items Act. Granted, said Act is being replaced with an updated version later this year to address automated systems like the one in question.

Heck, the retailers I worked for in the early 2000s, unless there was a huge error in the price, even if you pointed out the price was ringing up too low, we'd just give it to you for that price. We were required to fill out a form to give to management to fix it, though.

As a funny anecdote only tangentially related: As a cashier, I've seen an error where a can of baked beans rang up for $30,000+ before. I think it was an issue where the UPC was misread and prompted for the price on the screen, but instead accepted the next scanned item's UPC as the price, cutting off after 7 digits (12345.67). Strangely, scanning the item again after voiding came up with the correct price.

Sec. 145c.
(1) As used in this section:
(a) "Appears to include a child" means that the depiction appears to include, or conveys the impression that it includes, a person who is less than 18 years of age, and the depiction meets either of the following conditions:
(i) It was created using a depiction of any part of an actual person under the age of 18.
(ii) It was not created using a depiction of any part of an actual person under the age of 18, but all of the following apply to that depiction:
(A) The average individual, applying contemporary community standards, would find the depiction, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
(B) The reasonable person would find the depiction, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
(C) The depiction depicts or describes a listed sexual act in a patently offensive way.

[. . .]
(k) "Prurient interest" means a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion.

-----

It's likely that under the "appears to include a child" standard, the issue will be:

Based on "community standards" would an "average individual" find the video to appeal to "a shameful or morbid interest in sex"?

That seems like a stretch - but the bigger issue (IMO) is the use of the prosecutorial resources for a situation that would be more appropriately handled through civil litigation than criminal prosecution.

(a) "Appears to include a child" means that the depiction appears to include, or conveys the impression that it includes, a person who is less than 18 years of age, and the depiction meets either of the following conditions:

Everyone had the "impression" that the child was still in the scene while Randall was ordering the pornography. Not that i agree, but that all these retarded legislators need. Normaly the "and the depiction meets either of the following conditions:" should be fine.

(B) The reasonable person would find the depiction, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Because i am a reasonable person and "i find it to be fucking hilarious" is suffisent artistic value to me.

(a) "Appears to include a child" means that the depiction appears to include, or conveys the impression that it includes, a person who is less than 18 years of age, and the depiction meets either of the following conditions:

Everyone had the "impression" that the child was still in the scene while Randall was ordering the pornography. Not that i agree, but that all these retarded legislators need. Normaly the "and the depiction meets either of the following conditions:" should be fine.

(B) The reasonable person would find the depiction, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Because i am a reasonable person and "i find it to be fucking hilarious" is suffisent artistic value to me.

Making shit up doesn't work well as an argument.

Here's the Michagan Law, which makes it clear that presidential primaries are funded by the state government.

Texas goes so far as to allow paying parties for their internal costs: "state funds may be spent as provided by this chapter to pay expenses incurred by a political party in connection with a primary election." - Texas Election code, section 173.001.

When we're asking if something is a crime I believe that we're actually asking two things: (1) is it a crime, and (2) should it be a crime? Here, the answer to (1) is pretty straightforward because it's been addressed by the state legislature. The trickier issue is if it *should* be a crime, for example, if the statute is held to be unconstitutional then it would be invalidated; trickier still are public policy issues. In any case I'll focus on the straightforward aspect.

Here's, the Michigan statute in question: Section 752.795 FRAUDULENT ACCESS TO COMPUTERS, COMPUTER SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER NETWORKS (EXCERPT)

A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization do any of the following:

(a) Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to acquire, alter, damage, delete, or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.

(b) Insert or attach or knowingly create the opportunity for an unknowing and unwanted insertion or attachment of a set of instructions or a computer program into a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network, that is intended to acquire, alter, damage, delete, disrupt, or destroy property or otherwise use the services of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network. This subdivision does not prohibit conduct protected under section 5 of article I of the state constitution of 1963 or under the first amendment of the constitution of the United States. [note: the section of the Michigan constitution alluded to here relates to freedom of speech & the press]

History: 1979, Act 53, Eff. Mar. 27, 1980 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 326, Eff. Apr. 1, 1997

As his actions were presumably intentional it appears that the issue is: Were his actions without authorization or did they exceed his valid authorization? According to the following article this is a fact-based issue that will be up to the jury to decide. Essentially "she" claims that the computer was hers alone and the password was a secret and "he" claims that he regularly used the computer and had easy access to the passwords. Ease of access to the password will likely be the determinative factor as to if he had "authorization" to access those emails.

Although his rationale for accessing those emails do not appear to be relevant per the statute, I imagine that it would be an issue when it comes time for sentencing. If instead of finding out that she was (presumably) engaged in adultery with an ex-spouse who (presumably) beat her, how would the prosecutor's office have reacted if he had accessed emails showing that:
- she was a drug dealer?
- she was a child pornographer?
- she was a terrorist?

Is reading wife's e-mail a crime? Rochester Hills man faces trial

In the preliminary exam, Clara Walker testified that although Leon Walker had purchased the laptop for her, it was hers alone and she kept the password a secret.

Leon Walker told the Free Press he routinely used the computer and that she kept all of her passwords in a small book next to the computer.

"It was a family computer," he said. "I did work on it all the time."

My initial question was why the prosecutor's office pursued this case in the first place; the following article discusses Cooper's decision to stop supporting treatment courts due to its need to "deal with the surge in violent crime and the surge in technically complex cases." The pursuit of the case at hand doesn't fit with the purported need to focus on a "surge in violent crime...".

(1) Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (4), an individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
...
(a) "Obstruct" includes the use or threatened use of physical interference or force or a knowing failure to comply with a lawful command.

This is incredibly draconian and equates wounding a cop with (say) getting out of your car in a traffic stop. You also need to memorize large swaths of Michigan law (at the least, including lawful searches and questioning) to know what a lawful command is (since cops can and will issue illegal instructions, obeying which will be substantially to your detriment). It's basically a felony to look crosswise at a cop in Michigan, and all they need is the cop's word. Compare New York's law:

A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any independently unlawful act, or by means of interfering, whether or not physical force is involved, with radio, telephone, television or other telecommunications systems owned or operated by the state, or a county, city, town, village, fire district or emergency medical service or by means of releasing a dangerous animal under circumstances evincing the actor's intent that the animal obstruct governmental administration. Obstructing governmental administration is a class A misdemeanor.

It's a misdemeanor, and you have to use physical violence, threats, a dangerous animal, or an independently unlawful act. This has seriously dampened my ardor for experiencing Michigan tourism. You can't drag me back to Mackinac Island!

In Ohio, looking crosswise at a cop is a misdemeanor.

(A) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.

Shit, it looks like if you want to live on Lake Erie, New York is a veritable land of liberty. Who knew? Maybe you should move to Ontario (apparently they call it something else; I couldn't find the statute).

I felt like looking up one more state. In Massachusetts it looks like you can obstruct and lie to your heart's content (as long as you don't create a substantial risk of bodily injury) but it is illegal to belong to the Communist party (obviously a wildly unconstitutional statute). It looks like adultery will still net you three years as well...that's what you get for living in one of the thirteen colonies. Abortion will get you seven years (twenty-five if she dies). Have they read these laws lat

(c) If the signal exhibits a steady red indication, the following apply:
(i) Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or at a limit line when marked or, if there is no crosswalk or limit line, before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until a green indication is shown, except as provided in subparagraph (ii).
(ii) Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal, after stopping before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or at a limit line when marked or, if there is no crosswalk or limit line, before entering the intersection, may make a right turn from a 1-way or 2-way street into a 2-way street or into a 1-way street carrying traffic in the direction of the right turn or may make a left turn from a 1-way or 2-way street into a 1-way roadway carrying traffic in the direction of the left turn, unless prohibited by sign, signal, marking, light, or other traffic control device. The vehicular traffic shall yield the right of way to pedestrians and bicyclists lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection.

See that "shall stop before entering?" If you're already in the intersection and the light turns red, that's impossible to do. The law doesn't require you to do impossible things, so proceed through the intersection with caution, legally.

Here is another one.

Consent is not required for newborns in Michigan.

http://www.migeneticsconnection.org/policy.shtml

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ijqt3onmavdo2255ke3jhrbe))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-333-5431

Great. I'm really glad you can tell me all about "present in the conversation". Of course, I didn't notice his subtle use of that word, because I was paying less specific attention to his wording and more specific attention to the actual wording. So, if you can tell me where that appears in the actual statute, I'll much appreciate it:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(izp0wi45cacr1hepi3p5lsrx))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-539c

I'll be waiting patiently. Thanks

WRONG. Michigan requires only ONE party to know it's being taped.

That's not what this says:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/michigan-recording-law

Michigan law makes it a crime to "use[] any device to eavesdrop upon [a] conversation without the consent of all parties." This looks like an "all party consent" law, but one Michigan Court has ruled that a participant in a private conversation may record it without violating the statute because the statutory term "eavesdrop" refers only to overhearing or recording the private conversations of others. The Michigan Supreme Court has not yet ruled on this question, so it is not clear whether you may record a conversation or phone call if you are a party to it. But, if you plan on recording a conversation to which you are not a party, you must get the consent of all parties to that conversation.

Also, from the horse's mouth:

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-539c

Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto ... is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.

You've posted over and over that you know the law and that bikes have no right to be on the road unless there's a bike lane.

Where I live it's completely legal for bikes to be on the road. Now tell us where you live so we can verify that indeed bikes are not allowed to be on the roads, unless you're afraid of being exposed as ignorant or a liar. And hiding behind "I fear for my privacy" is just cowardly. And no, saying you "really really know the law" is not a citation.

Anytime the union decides to strike, the auto companies have a choice to let the unions have their way or go out of business, because they can't produce anything (strikebreakers are against the law),

They can hire replacement workers - the law you reference refers to strikebreakers - people whose repeatedly work at struck companies for the purpose of ending strikes. That's different than replacing strikers with new employees.

so they accept the contract that the UAW dictates to them. Because of the capital intensive nature of the automobile business (factories, supply lines for Steel, etc.) the big 3 have always given in to the union instead of moving to a state that will allow them to negotiate with the union on equal terms.

That's management's key error - they assumed the market would not change and basically gave away the store; then refused to believe that fundamental shifts were occurring in the car market and clung to their old ways of doing business. Now that it's time for one or more to downsize and or disappear, management goes to big government for a bailout. Bankruptcy would at least let them reorganize under more favorable conditions, shed a lot of the dealer network and have a shot at long term survivability. Of course, no one involved wants that because it would end all their gravy trains.

As for more company friendly states, GM and Ford closed plants in Georgia which is a lot less pro-union than Detroit. KIA, OTOH, just opened a large factory in GA.

In the end, as long as the union and management believe the government will bail them out they both will continue to strike deals that line their pockets at the expense of long term survivability. And why not; they get the money, we get the bill.

Anytime the union decides to strike, the auto companies have a choice to let the unions have their way or go out of business, because they can't produce anything (strikebreakers are against the law), so they accept the contract that the UAW dictates to them. Because of the capital intensive nature of the automobile business (factories, supply lines for Steel, etc.) the big 3 have always given in to the union instead of moving to a state that will allow them to negotiate with the union on equal terms.

Michigan law "FRAUDULENT ACCESS TO COMPUTERS, COMPUTER SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER NETWORKS Act 53 of 1979" http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Act-53-of-1979

Read 752.795 Prohibited conduct. Sec. 5. http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-752-795

Here's snip from Sec. 5: "(b) Insert or attach or knowingly create the opportunity for an unknowing and unwanted insertion or attachment of a set of instructions or a computer program into a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network, that is intended to acquire, alter, damage, delete, disrupt, or destroy property or otherwise use the services of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network. This subdivision does not prohibit conduct protected under section 5 of article I of the state constitution of 1963 or under the first amendment of the constitution of the United States."

Free speech maybe?

Michigan law "FRAUDULENT ACCESS TO COMPUTERS, COMPUTER SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER NETWORKS Act 53 of 1979" http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Act-53-of-1979

Read 752.795 Prohibited conduct. Sec. 5. http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-752-795

Here's snip from Sec. 5: "(b) Insert or attach or knowingly create the opportunity for an unknowing and unwanted insertion or attachment of a set of instructions or a computer program into a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network, that is intended to acquire, alter, damage, delete, disrupt, or destroy property or otherwise use the services of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network. This subdivision does not prohibit conduct protected under section 5 of article I of the state constitution of 1963 or under the first amendment of the constitution of the United States."

Free speech maybe?

If the person was at the time of the violation a sexually delinquent person, the violation is punishable by imprisonment for an indeterminate term, the minimum of which is 1 day and the maximum of which is life.

I wonder if each state's attorney general could go after them under state statues.

At least in Michigan, it's a felony.

Depending on if there was a sign up advertising free wireless, or if the SSID was clearly intended to be public, one or more of the following should have gotten him off. (6) It is a rebuttable presumption in a prosecution for a violation of section 5 that the person did not have authorization from the owner, system operator, or other person who has authority from the owner or system operator to grant permission to access the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network or has exceeded authorization unless 1 or more of the following circumstances existed at the time of access: (a) Written or oral permission was granted by the owner, system operator, or other person who has authority from the owner or system operator to grant permission of the accessed computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network. (b) The accessed computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network had a pre-programmed access procedure that would display a bulletin, command, or other message before access was achieved that a reasonable person would believe identified the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network as within the public domain. (c) Access was achieved without the use of a set of instructions, code, or computer program that bypasses, defrauds, or otherwise circumvents the pre-programmed access procedure for the computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(lmkax1qvaphque2ra ldifr55))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl -act-53-of-1979

I can't say that it is clear cut, but my reading would be yes, a wireless router providing an internet connect falls under the definition of a computer network. The reason being it wouldn't be much a stretch to call the wireless router an interconnected computer. (I mean aren't there routers that can run linux now a days?)

(4) "Computer network" means the interconnection of hardwire or wireless communication lines with a computer through remote terminals, or a complex consisting of 2 or more interconnected computers.
752.792

-Slayer

Please see: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(blyro0f2tkntfnak0 ueptb55))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl -752-797

He is guilty because he "intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization" did "Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network" to "otherwise use the service of a computer program , computer, computer system, or computer network."

He could have beaten the rap by attacking the first clause... "Intentionally and without authorization." If he had in the past connected to the coffee shop's wifi while enjoying some delicious upper peninsula java, he was connecting with authorization. A sign on the counter stating "WIFI is for customers only." would not prohibit him from using the service again, unless the business owner had a detailed disclaimer revoking authorization after the customer left the premises.

Or, he could say that he did not know that he was on the coffee shop's internet since once he connected he would be connected automatically later. Probably blew that with his chat with the officer.

Probably an ecconomic decision was made ... good Lawyer = $1500 vs. Probation before judgment + fine = $400. Don't know about the value of his time is for the 40 hours of picking up discarded coffee cups on the side of the road.

Show me there is a law that says if you leave the door open I can waltz into your living room.

Here is the law that says it is illegal to connect to WIFI networks without permission.

I have to wonder about law enforcement priorities when a Law Officer has to look up whether an act is illegal before charging someone with a victimless crime and gets a bench warrent issued. Can a police officer start issuing warrants for things that he remembers that someone did that he just found out was illegal? Should he?

FROM:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(kflird55tkhn1vnln k2tqdim))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl -act-53-of-1979

Section 752.795 [Short Link] [Printer-Friendly Versions]

FRAUDULENT ACCESS TO COMPUTERS, COMPUTER SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER NETWORKS (EXCERPT)
Act 53 of 1979

752.795 Prohibited conduct.

Sec. 5.

A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization do any of the following:

(a) Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to acquire, alter, damage, delete, or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.

(b) Insert or attach or knowingly create the opportunity for an unknowing and unwanted insertion or attachment of a set of instructions or a computer program into a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network, that is intended to acquire, alter, damage, delete, disrupt, or destroy property or otherwise use the services of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network. This subdivision does not prohibit conduct protected under section 5 of article I of the state constitution of 1963 or under the first amendment of the constitution of the United States.

History: 1979, Act 53, Eff. Mar. 27, 1980 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 326, Eff. Apr. 1, 1997

FRAUDULENT ACCESS TO COMPUTERS, COMPUTER SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER NETWORKS (EXCERPT)
Act 53 of 1979

752.794 Prohibited access to computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.

Sec. 4.

A person shall not intentionally access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to devise or execute a scheme or artifice with the intent to defraud or to obtain money, property, or a service by a false or fraudulent pretense, representation, or promise....

According to Section 750.540 of the Michigan Penal Code, the penalty for "...unauthorized use of any electronic medium of communication..." (although still a felony) is only 2 years in jail and/or a $1,000 fine (4 years and/or $5,000 if it results in a death). Where did the inflated stats come from?

752.795 Prohibited conduct.
Sec. 5.
A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization do any of the following:
(a) Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to acquire, alter, damage, delete, or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.

(b) Insert or attach or knowingly create the opportunity for an unknowing and unwanted insertion or attachment of a set of instructions or a computer program into a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network, that is intended to acquire, alter, damage, delete, disrupt, or destroy property or otherwise use the services of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network. This subdivision does not prohibit conduct protected under section 5 of article I of the state constitution of 1963 or under the first amendment of the constitution of the United States.

A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization do any of the following:

(a) Access or cause access to be made to a ... computer network to acquire ... or otherwise use the service of a ... computer network.

(b) ... knowingly create the opportunity for an unknowing and unwanted insertion ... into a ... computer network, that is intended to acquire ... or otherwise use the services of a ... computer network. This subdivision does not prohibit conduct protected under section 5 of article I of the state constitution of 1963 or under the first amendment of the constitution of the United States.

Looks like either 1) The author was exagerating, 2) There are other circumstances not in the article or 3) Somehow they figure he stole more than $1,000 worth of wireless service.

Here is a link to the law

Here is an excerpt. Note it says this is a misdemeanor unless certain things are met. (IANAL)

(1) A person who violates section 4 is guilty of a crime as follows:
(a) If the violation involves an aggregate amount of less than $200.00, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00 or 3 times the aggregate amount, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine.

(b) If any of the following apply, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $2,000.00 or 3 times the aggregate amount, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine:

(i) The violation involves an aggregate amount of $200.00 or more but less than $1,000.00.

(ii) The person violates this act and has a prior conviction.

(c) If any of the following apply, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00 or 3 times the aggregate amount, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine:

(i) The violation involves an aggregate amount of $1,000.00 or more but less than $20,000.00.
(ii) The person has 2 prior convictions.

Here's the prohibited actions and penalties.

Here's the prohibited actions and penalties.

A person shall not intentionally and without authorization or by exceeding valid authorization do any of the following:

(a) Access or cause access to be made to a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to acquire, alter, damage, delete, or destroy property or otherwise use the service of a computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(dcqkar5530bfgw554 341gang))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl -752-795&highlight=

Unfortunately for the guy in the story he knew what he was doing; even if he didn't think what he was doing was wrong (Though it shouldn't be.... but that's another issue)

As a point of reference, in Michigan, this tax comes to ~$0.62/gallon, or approximately 30% of the price of the fuel. Every time that I fill up the tank on my 1997 Dodge Ram, I am paying ~$17 towards the building , maintenance, and repair of roads.

If we stick with the state of Michigan, in the USA, we have approximately 6.4 MILLION people between the ages of 18 and 65. Assuming that these people are all licensed drivers, and that they drive an average of only 16 miles/day, 5 days/week, in vehicles which get an average of 20 mpg, then we are talking about more than $817 MILLION dollars/year for Michigan, alone, from fuel taxes. That's an extremely conservative estimate, and it does not even begin to consider e.g. commercial traffic, joy-rides, &c. (16 miles/day? I drove ~556 miles this past weekend.)
Sticking with Michigan, the Department of Transportation has a budget of ~$3.1 Billion dollars. That's not exactly a huge leap from the extremely conservative estimate above.
In short, your $10/gal figure is absurd.

With all the hundreds or thousands of individual franchise agreements its a wonder there is any cometition at all in any one particular city. The fix is a state wide uniform franchise agreement as recently passed (but yet unsigned) in Michigan

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/ billenrolled/House/pdf/2006-HNB-6456.pdf
The "Uniform Video Services Local Franchise Act".

AN ACT to provide for uniform video service local franchises; to promote competition in providing video services in this state; to ensure local control of rights-of-way; to provide for fees payable to local units of government; to provide for local programming; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local agencies and officials; and to provide for penalties. ....

It sets statewide franchsise fees and rules and removed all the local political bullshit and graff.

Many state's already have laws that make Unauthorized access to a computer system crime!!!

The penalties are even less in Michigan.

up to 6 months or up to $500 fine for a licensed seller
$1000 and/or up to 60 days for an unlicensed seller 1st offense
$2500 and/or up to 90 days for an unlicensed seller 2nd offense
$5000 and up to 10 years if the minor dies and you are an unlicensed seller.

Laws about selling to a minor
General penalties for breaking rules of selling alcohol

The penalties are even less in Michigan.

up to 6 months or up to $500 fine for a licensed seller
$1000 and/or up to 60 days for an unlicensed seller 1st offense
$2500 and/or up to 90 days for an unlicensed seller 2nd offense
$5000 and up to 10 years if the minor dies and you are an unlicensed seller.

Laws about selling to a minor
General penalties for breaking rules of selling alcohol

Seems a lot of people here are over-reacting, including the ESA.

All this bill does, as best as I can understand it, is prevent a retailer from selling a "naughty" game to someone under 18.

It's nothing different than the age requirements for an R-Rated movie at the movie theatre. It simply says that little Johnny can't plunk down $50 and buy GTA.

If Johnny tries, and suceeds, then the retailer who sold it to him can be fined. If a game is given a Mature/Adult rating, then shouldn't we enforce it at the retail level like we do movies?

I'm all for parental supervision, but mom can't watch Johnny 24/7. If I were a parent, I would want to know that my kid couldn't go buy GTA without an adult's assistance.

BTW, the entire bill can be read here:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/ billenrolled/senate/htm/2005-SNB-0416.htm

Here's the Bill's webpage and the final version signed by Governor Granholm at 11:58am EDT today.

Here's the Bill's webpage and the final version signed by Governor Granholm at 11:58am EDT today.

Police officers can speed to get to an emergency and NOT use lights if its deemed safe by the police officer to speed without the requirement of people pulling over to the side of the road.