Slashdot Mirror

Those are "election monitors," not "poll workers."

Right. Any party** is allowed to have an observer present, but they can't do anything other than observe.

I'm talking about the people who actually do the counting, canvassing, etc.

Really, just about anybody is allowed to hang around and watch the process, so long as they stay out of the way and don't violate any electioneering laws.

No. In Ohio, you may not loiter at the polling place. So you can't just stand there and watch.

**Oddly enough, if you're an independent candidate you don't. Only a group of 5 or more independent candidates can appoint 1 observer. (ORC 3505.21)

Those are "election monitors," not "poll workers."

Right. Any party** is allowed to have an observer present, but they can't do anything other than observe.

I'm talking about the people who actually do the counting, canvassing, etc.

Really, just about anybody is allowed to hang around and watch the process, so long as they stay out of the way and don't violate any electioneering laws.

No. In Ohio, you may not loiter at the polling place. So you can't just stand there and watch.

**Oddly enough, if you're an independent candidate you don't. Only a group of 5 or more independent candidates can appoint 1 observer. (ORC 3505.21)

The actual law is

On or before the fifteenth day of September in each year, the board of elections by a majority vote shall, after careful examination and investigation as to their qualifications, appoint for each election precinct four residents of the county in which the precinct is located, as judges. Except as otherwise provided in division (C) of this section, all judges of election shall be qualified electors. The judges shall constitute the election officers of the precinct. Not more than one-half of the total number of judges shall be members of the same political party. The term of such precinct officers shall be for one year. The board may, at any time, designate any number of election officers, not more than one-half of whom shall be members of the same political party, to perform their duties at any precinct in any election. The board may appoint additional officials, equally divided between the two major political parties, when necessary to expedite voting.On or before the fifteenth day of September in each year, the board of elections by a majority vote shall, after careful examination and investigation as to their qualifications, appoint for each election precinct four residents of the county in which the precinct is located, as judges. Except as otherwise provided in division (C) of this section, all judges of election shall be qualified electors. The judges shall constitute the election officers of the precinct. Not more than one-half of the total number of judges shall be members of the same political party. The term of such precinct officers shall be for one year. The board may, at any time, designate any number of election officers, not more than one-half of whom shall be members of the same political party, to perform their duties at any precinct in any election. The board may appoint additional officials, equally divided between the two major political parties, when necessary to expedite voting.

Ohio revised Code

No.

ORC 3501.22(A), to wit:

[...] The judges shall constitute the election officers of the precinct. Not more than one-half of the total number of judges shall be members of the same political party. The term of such precinct officers shall be for one year. The board may, at any time, designate any number of election officers, not more than one-half of whom shall be members of the same political party, to perform their duties at any precinct in any election. The board may appoint additional officials, equally divided between the two major political parties, when necessary to expedite voting.

I've tried on several occasions and have been turned away each time because I refuse to register as either a Democrat or Republican.

You should also read the brochure. It has a space for party affiliation. As I said previously, the "oath requirement" enforcement is incredibly lax, so incredibly lax that the SoS didn't even bother to point out that it is one of the qualifications under law.

Last time I checked, Ohio has no law requiring employers to give time off to vote, and I know (second hand) that if there is such a law it gets ignored frequently.

Such a law exists, and yes, it's not well known.

3599.06 Employer shall not interfere with employee on election day.

"No employer, his officer or agent, shall discharge or threaten to discharge an elector for taking a reasonable amount of time to vote on election day; or require or order an elector to accompany him to a voting place upon such day; or refuse to permit such elector to serve as an election official on any registration or election day; or indirectly use any force or restraint or threaten to inflict any injury, harm, or loss; or in any other manner practice intimidation in order to induce or compel such person to vote or refrain from voting for or against any person or question or issue submitted to the voters.

Whoever violates this section shall be fined not less than fifty nor more than five hundred dollars."

Most importantly: People don't generally pay sales tax when purchasing across state lines, and most people don't bother paying the use taxes they're obligated to pay. It seems in general that if you don't pay sales tax on an object because you bought it out of state, you're then technically liable for use tax. Most people just don't realize it. Since we're talking about Ohio, here's what Ohio's site has to say:

The most common situation that gives rise to a use tax liability is when an Ohio customer makes a mail order purchase from an out-of-state seller. Use tax is also due when the purchaser improperly claims exemption from the sales tax or if the sales tax paid is less than the total use tax in effect in the county where the item is used or benefit of the service is received.

One of the main reasons for the use tax is to protect Ohio vendors from unfair competition from out-of-state sellers, since the in-state merchant is required to collect sales tax when selling to an Ohio resident or business. All states that have a sales tax have a use tax.

There was a big stink about use tax in recent months, when Maine started enforcing its use tax against folks flying into the state in their personal planes and leaving their planes in the state longer than 20 days, thereby making them liable to the state's use tax.

No, the lower limits are there to give police more power, to increase revenue via fines, and feel good political reasons. Speed limits pretty much don't work, because the limits as is are mostly ignored anyway. It's why they finally abandoned the national 55 limit. I'd really like to know what state you live in though.. perhaps things are more sane there, but my experience is largely limited to the NE.

I'm in ohio. And no, the limits are there for reasons, managing trafic flow, safety, uniform road design and so on. Here is a handbook with the speed limits sumerized on page 37 of the PDF. Look at the page numbers inside the PDF and not on your reader. About the only thing I would like to see different is 70 or 75 on limited access highways and commercial truck moving at the same speeds as the rest of the traffic. And no, the 55mph speed limit was implemented to conserve fuel in the 70's. It was abandoned when the fuel crisis was well over and people forgot why it was there in the first place. In states like montana, there was no official speed limit for non commercial vehicles until a few years ago. Until the change, it was posted as "reasonable and prudent".

That's your opinion. Obviously at least one other disagreed

NO, it is a fact. I don't care how fast anyone goes as long as they don't involve me in their messes. Simply following the law does not in any way express some holier then though attitude over the speed limit. If you seriously think it does, then I will laugh at you when your riding the bus or bumming rides because you lost your license.

It's not illegal to ignore the yellow speed limit signs; they are advisory only, and so I never discuss them. I'm talking about the white limit sign for the road you were on.

No, but if your involved in an accident you could be cited to driving too fast for road conditions and possibly failure to control. Granted, the signs are advisory, but they do serve a purpose. They represent the maximum speed an average car can take the corner without feeling and sideways force.

In my experience though, that's exactly how those that "follow the rules" act. They are more concerned about the "rules" than what is really safe.. and artificially low limits ARE unsafe.

I am more concerned with not having to mess with a police department that I seem to piss off on a regular basis or have my insurance rates increased because of citations. With proper planning, going the speed limit and following the laws gets me to where I'm going safely without having to risk my license or lose fuel from increased wind resistance.

Not at all; I don't follow arbitrary numbers though, I drive what I feel is safe. That may be different than you. I also have plenty of studies to back up my thinking, that says teh safe speed limit is the one that an overwhelming majority follow. Sadly, I have yet to see any roads posted in such a manor. Of course that may be because everyone knows the limits are a joke, and do at least 10 over without thinking. So the rare time the limit is properly set, you now have people that may be going to fast for conditions. Again, that's sadly the result of speed limit policy that we've been following.

The rules are there so people who follow them know what to expect which lessens a risk for them. You can drive however you want but eventually, you will be hit with so many tickets that you will be against a point limit on your license or be hurting for insurance payments and decide to back down. It doesn't matter to me as long as you don't cause me to be part of any of your accidents. If your talking about going with the flow of traffic on an interstate or something, I do that too. But when I am on a singly lane road, I do the posted speed limits. We are after all talking about driving through a resi

Actually, if someone is over taking you, your supposed to maintain your speed and not alter your driving so the person making the affirmative move can gage a course of action. By slowing down, you could be closing their escape route if something is coming and putting yourself at a greater risk of an accident.

In Ohio, it is actually part of the law that the vehicle being overtaken is to maintain a constant speed (PDF warning, see the page marked as 36 if you had the book, it should be somewhere on page 42 according to the PDF). It is possible for you to be cited if you don't as well as become partially at fault if an accident occurs. Missouri and TX have the same laws. or at least they did when I was there.

But this is all pointless in this particular situation because the guy was behind me, then I saw his hood out of me left eye, he seemed to be going about 15 mph faster then me, and he came into my lane at that time. If I hadn't reacted, we should have hit somewhere with his front door at my my front tire. I moved over and saw him continuing into my lane and passing then I saw the other car and hit the brakes. By the time he was clear of me enough that I could come back into my lane, the oncoming car had already passed. It all happened faster then it would take you to read this, literally a matter of seconds. I'm serious, it was so close that a half second off for either of us could have resulted in either him hitting me or the oncoming car. It was that close.

Well, that's certainly news to me. Suppose that you want to walk across some undeveloped land. There is no fence, no gate, no signs, and certainly no landowner warning you off. Are you saying that in some states it is illegal trespassing to pass over undeveloped land even if you haven't been warned off by the landowner directly or by signs, fences, etc.? In which states does this rule apply?

Yes, it is, more or less: ohio law Although the law there gives leadway for honest ignorance, most government land in the state is marked (parks and such). If someone really cared to find out who owned the "unknown land" it can be looked up in public records. Most likely if the person were confronted and no sign was posted, I'd say they would just be warned, though the law there also says assumptions (such as public land, permission) are not legit excuses. There's quite a few pissed off rednecks with land where I grew up and I wouldn't really want to blindly set foot on it. After all, it's hard to mount a defense after the fact when you're dead and the owner claims it was trespassing.

Actually, the means used by the state to kill criminals is generally thought to be too cruel to use on animals.
It's really designed to make it easier on the people watching, not on the people being killed.

Ohio already charges tax on internet purchases with their Sales and Use tax, expecting consumers to keep tabs of all internet and tax-free out of state purchases and then pay a lump sum of it at the end of the year.

Of course, such a useless tax is currently unenforceable. Here's hoping they don't put the pressure on the vendors like NY will.

Fair question, and I'll try to give a fair answer:

While difficult to ferret out, the Section 4749 basically boils down to this: You have to have about 2 years experience (more or less) in paid investigation, paid security, or both to apply for a license. Add on liability insurance, take a test, and you too can be a private investigator ("Work from your own home!!!!" :-)

The Dept. of Homeland Security reviews the application for the test, certifies that the experience counts, and sets you up for a test. Pass the test, and you're in.

As for my thoughts, it's not actually too onerous or a sizable barrier. Ideally, it is a profession where you (attorney or client) would want someone to make sure that you don't get taken or permanently damaged (financially, legally, or publicly) by the work done. A good example is the HP case; licensed or not, the clients got (deservedly) screwed by the actions of the investigators.

Cynically, there is a lot of room on both sides of the argument. Does a test and a piece of paper make you a good investigator? What about manned/monitored network security services? The requirements seem biased toward former police officers; is this fair? What about South Carolina, requiring a license to even present evidence in court?

Overall, I think having a requirement is a Good Thing(tm), and Ohio is not too bad.

This is just my opinion. I might be suffering from "beaten child syndrome" ("That's how I was brought up, so it's good enough for them!") or simple greed ("I got my license now...raise the standards! We don't need no competition.")

IANAL, your mileage may vary.

(B) "Business of private investigation" means, except when performed by one excluded under division (H) of this section, the conducting, for hire, in person or through a partner or employees, of any investigation relevant to any crime or wrong done or threatened, or to obtain information on the identity, habits, conduct, movements, whereabouts, affiliations, transactions, reputation, credibility, or character of any person, or to locate and recover lost or stolen property, or to determine the cause of or responsibility for any libel or slander, or any fire, accident, or damage to property, or to secure evidence for use in any legislative, administrative, or judicial investigation or proceeding.

That is directly from the Ohio Revised Code, first section. Notice that the rest of the law says that you have to have a license to perform investigation work for hire. No, you don't need a license to look into things for yourself, but you do need a license to perform this kind of work for someone else for pay.

The distinction is important, because, as others have said, you do affect the public when you perform investigative work. You affect the target of the investigation, you affect your client, and you (can) directly affect the courts. That's the reasoning behind having a license in the first place.

Disclaimer/Notice/whatever...: IANAL, but I am a licensed private investigator in Ohio. I'm familiar with the laws governing my particular profession, and I (and my investigators) always work within those laws, both spirit and letter. It's much easier than going to jail.

The usual, IANAL, this isn't legal advice, etc. etc...

However, I am a current, licensed private investigator in Ohio who happens to do digital forensics from time to time. So, I believe that I can shed some experience (or spread some BS) on this subject.

Private Investigation in Ohio is governed by Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4749. To summarize:

• You have to be a licensed investigator to perform investigations for hire. (Meaning you get paid.)
• The exceptions (and there are specific ones listed) boil down to a) insurance adjustors, arson inspectors, forensic accountants, etc., and b) it's part of your normal job (such as a network administrator tracking down a break-in. My example, not the law's.)
• Anything you do for yourself is, well, for yourself, and doesn't require a license.

Now, without having read the actual proposed law in South Carolina (this is /., after all), I would say that it sounds like a bad idea. An investigator license is not a magic wand to say that you are an expert, and the summary makes it sound like having a PI license gives you almost automatic "expert witness" status. (From my IANAL point of view, that is a specific determination that the court has to make, and normally they don't take it lightly.

PI licenses are used to regulate who goes around snooping into other people's information. There are specific criminal penalties for performing investigation services, for hire, without a license; I believe that it keeps the people honest (in Ohio, Homeland Security oversees the licensing!), and prevents a lot of wasted time and money on some Magnum wannabe who ends up doing more damage to his clients cases/circumstances than good.

As far as I can tell, those who do purely "digital forensics" are the equivalent of DNA lab techs or fingerprint analysts: They perform a technical function whose methods and findings are narrow, reviewable, and (should be) reproducible. The aspect of "investigation" only comes in when you begin to track down names, background, places, and faces relevant to the process. Despite what CSI: Miami tries to put out, lab guys are not normally the folks interviewing the suspects and poking holes in alibis; they deal with facts and findings. (More like Abbie on NCIS.)

Which leads to the counter-proposal from the Nevada situation: If the courts already have a tried-and-true method of determining what an "expert witness" is, there really isn't a need for another licensing agency. Yes, courts can and do rely on licensing for some determinations, but again, they use experience, knowledge, reproducibility, and accepted methodology as real determining factors. That way, a medical license isn't an automatic "my opinion is indisputable" stamp.

I think South Carolina is either overreacting or trying to pay off a party contributor....but hey, what do I know? (Or, how could I find out? :-)

And yes, I realize that I said I "do computer forensics." Being a geek with a license, it's easier (and much faster and cheaper for the client) to do a forensic run-through myself than to hire it out to a lab every time. But I also know my own limitations, and quickly admit when/if I ever get over my head and need to call in the hard-core experts.

This has been the best account I've heard thus far: http://watchdog.ohio.gov/investigations/2007190.pdf your right problem lies far higher than an intern. the real problem was an overuse and failure to appropriately oversee third party contractors. the govonor at the time (theres a much better one now), wanted to use the project as a demonstration that outsourcing state jobs is a good idea. if it had been done under the auspices of the office of information technology, it likely would not have occured.

This is in central Ohio area and I don't know if it is state wide or just my county.

I don't really want to disclose my exact whereabouts or specific county.

Actually, I just found a map of Ohio counties that list counties with a public defenders office as opposed to a court appointed attorney. So it looks like it is county wide and somewhat common but not as common as it should be. I'm guessing the court appointed is the ones I described from my county being listed as that way.

House Bill 339 (2006) http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=126_HB_0339

Senate Bill 6 (2007) http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=127_SB_6

Proponent Testimony, Credit Freeze Legislation (March 2007) from Richard Cordray, Ohio Treasurer of State http://www.tos.ohio.gov/content/view/213/40/

You'll have to figure out for yourself where you live and who represents you, but if you need help and ask nicely I can do that for you too.

Again, please point to a law saying they do not have the right to do what they did. Despite assertions, I have yet to have anyone give me a law to that effect.

Ohio code states that they have the right to detain upon "probable cause." Whether they had that in this case is probably a matter for a jury to decide, but most "shopkeeper's privilege" rules say that you have to witness the item being taken.

Tell me, if two people refuse to show receipts, one being a shoplifter and the other having paid for his merchandise, how can you tell which is which? You can't. Therefore there is no way to determine a legitimate suspect from someone like Righi, whose "crime" is (shock!) being in a hurry. Refusal to show a receipt can't possibly be a determiner of guilt in a situation like this.

How is it a search if they just ask you to show them something? If I ask to see your watch, does that mean I just searched you? No of course not.

Why would he not take 2 seconds to hold up his receipt?

Uh, because he was in a hurry? Just because he's not required to? Because he doesn't fucking feel like it? These are all legitimate reasons.

Since the first is FAR more likely (except in this case) they suspected him of shoplifting. They had reasonable cause to suspect him and to try and detain him.

You can repeat this as many times as you like, but you're still wrong. They had no legitimate cause to suspect him. For crying out loud, they just ACCEPTED PAYMENT from him! He's under no obligation to prove anything after that. In your world, paying customers are just as suspicious as shoplifters.

Note that they never actually TOUCHED him, so their attempts at detaining him were perfectly legal.

All that means is that they didn't assault him. It doesn't mean they were right to detain him.

I read this guy's blog. He twists the details when it suits him. He talks about the need to show a drivers license to walk through a parking lot. He wasn't walking through a parking lot. He CALLED THE POLICE to come deal with HIS PROBLEM. Part of the police dealing with his problem was for them to identify him. He refused to provide identification. That's impeding the progress of a police investigation that HE ASKED FOR. That's against the law, and the officer showed him that in writing.

Furthermore, in identifying yourself you are only required to give your name, address, and date of birth. You do not need to provide anything else.

So Righi did more than the law required of him, as he gave his name when he didn't need to. Arroyo's arrest was illegal, period.

Of course the store has the right to inspect bags as they leave. It's their property. They have the right to ask you to leave your incoming bags at the front, too. Neither means that they are accusing you of anything. If you don't like their policy, don't shop there. Simple enough.

This guy ought to be arrested for wasting the police and court's time by being a deliberate jackass.

For anyone who cares: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2935.041 List the full ordanance

Actually, there is a law mention in an addendum to the article and it appears to prevent being arrested for not showing your license: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.29 You are only required to provide your name and address to an officer.

Actually, there are two separate statutes for those two offenses in Ohio law. One requires you to disclose your name, address, and date of birth to a police officer under certain circumstances (ORC 2921.29). The other prohibits obstruction of official business of a police officer (ORC 2921.31).

Note that the guy was apparently charged under the Brooklyn city ordinance version of the state law.

Actually, there are two separate statutes for those two offenses in Ohio law. One requires you to disclose your name, address, and date of birth to a police officer under certain circumstances (ORC 2921.29). The other prohibits obstruction of official business of a police officer (ORC 2921.31).

Note that the guy was apparently charged under the Brooklyn city ordinance version of the state law.

"(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."

I'm quoting Ohio's state laws. How exactly can one prove he had the purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the officer's performance?

Does this mean monster may be offering ID Theft Protection for 1.6 million people? Hasn't it been the case with previous data theft cases like this that the company provides ID monitoring or protection like in Ohio?

In hindsight, administrators we interviewed universally agreed that they should have notified the patrol and other authorities at least 48 hours earlier.

Finally, we note that the theft would never have compromised the identities of hundreds of thousands of state employees, taxpayers, public assistance recipients and others had OAKS administrators responded appropriately to a call they received from an assistant state auditor in late February 2007. The auditor warned that access to Social Security numbers and other sensitive data was readily available on a shared drive on the OAKS intranet. Four months later, state officials would learn that the stolen backup tape contained a massive quantity of data that had been stored on that drive.

Given the complexity of the OAKS conversion and the enormous pressure nearly 300 state employees and contractors have been under to meet tight delivery schedules, it is clear that security and confidentiality were secondary concerns at OAKS.

On a development project with hundreds of people, lots of people need access to test data. Why didn't they have munged or dummied-up test data on that networked share?

I wonder if they used dummy data in the earlier stages of the project and therefore it was OK to have people take tapes home just in case of crumped data.

Betcha they switched to using live data without changing their procedure.

That is why the managers and consultants thought for several days that the theft didn't matter.

http://watchdog.ohio.gov/investigations/2007190.pd f

"The project is managed jointly by OBM and DAS, which, along with numerous other state agencies, have assigned a total of 119 employees to the project."

"Another 167 contract workers are detailed to the project, 117 of whom work for Accenture LLP, the company hired in April 2005 to implement the OAKS system integration."

"Five consultants from Compuware Corporation have been assisting the state in ensuring that Accenture meets its contract specifications."

http://watchdog.ohio.gov/investigations/2007190.pd f

Worth reading the Ohio Inspector General report http://watchdog.ohio.gov/investigations/2007190.pd f Root cause is that they were casually using live data for testing.

The State of Ohio is offering one year of identity theft protection to those affected. To lookup your access code for this one free year of ID theft prevention please visit this page:

http://ohio.gov/idprotect/lookup/lookup.aspx/

On this page you enter your last name and the last four of your SSN. Anybody see anything fishy about this page? HOW ABOUT THAT IT ISN'T USING SSL. Apparently they don't believe in using encryption anywhere, ever. Not on backup tapes and definately not when transmitting sensitive information over the Internet.

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally opposed to paying sales tax on internet purchases. Somehow it feels dirty.

On the other hand, I live in Ohio. In Ohio there's this stupid thing called "Use Tax" (http://tax.ohio.gov/faqs/content/sales_and_use/qa 03.asp) which I'm required to pay on anything I buy that I didn't pay sales tax on.

Use tax must be paid on all purchases made by Ohio residents and businesses if the proper amount of sales tax has not been paid to the vendor, seller, or service provider. The use tax rate is equal to the sales tax rate in effect in the county where the property is used or benefit of the service is received by the purchaser.

The state is starting to ratchet down on it a bit since, for the first time, for tax year 2006 it actually sent out a separate notice explaining the use tax. They want their money and they know that not everyone is reporting it.

So, if Amazon would start collecting the sales tax then I wouldn't have to figure it out myself and report it. One less headache for me.

I agree. Look at this stupid thing in Ohio's Revised Code: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/gp1.44

I hate it when the government goes wading around in telling people what to think.

Well, then the clerks at the liquor store are working under different laws than those of us who have 'just' worked at bars. In Ohio, bartenders and bouncers are obligated to retain any and all fraudulent identification. I took a course offered by the Ohio Division of Liquor Control, and was informed that, indeed, we had to retain fake IDs. As well as learning neat tidbits, like that it is okay for underage people to drink with their parents or over age spouses. Of course, the person who was trying to use the fake ID could request that a police officer verify it but, for some reason, that never came up with me.p>

Also:

It is illegal for any person other than the state to manufacture, sell, or distribute in any manner any identifaction card issued for the purpose of establishing a person's age that displays the great seal of Ohio, the words "Ohio", "State", "Official", "Chauffer", Commercial Driver", "Driver", "Operator", or any other designation that represents the card as the official driver's license or identification card of Ohio

Source (PDF warning)

That's just Ohio, though, but I can imagine that about every state has laws very similar.

Then we'll get on the subject of why smokers congregate around doors that non-smokers need to use.

Ohio also provides a free and mostly painless site to file state taxes.

IANAL, but:

Rather than ranting like a lunatic, don't pay it. Verizon cannot legally drop your phone service if you don't pay that 3rd-party charge. The 3rd party has to come after you to collect, which they won't do if the charge is fraudulent. Also, take 2 minutes and file a complaint with the FCC.

http://www.puco.ohio.gov/PUCO/Consumer/information .cfm?doc_id=1168

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/news/080702fraudwk3.html

I don't know if that's even the case. This law pertains to state sales tax. I think you'll find that the state tax is currently 5.5%, and the county adds onto that. The question is whether this law would be interpreted to be applicable to all local taxes, or just the state ones.

I grew up in Dayton, so this is partly just my memory of how it works, but I checked The Ohio Department of Taxation, and if you use their finder you'll see that it shows a 5.5% state tax, then the county tax.

The problem is bigger than that. Ohio has a state tax, county taxes and local (city) taxes. You have to collect and report the tax based on the physical (tax district) location and zip code doesn't work because post offices overlap some cities. They are trying to streamline the project to allow zip codes but they aren't legit for use as of today. The reporting process is pretty straight-forward. You owe two cents to this district and four cents to that one.
Then there are the taxing quirks. The food/gum/candy/bottled water taxes are different depending on which way the wind is blowing. Shipping and handling is taxable or at least the portion that is above your actual shipping charges is taxable. That means you have to know the size of the shipping container you will use and what the final pkg weight will be, including dunnage, to accurately calculate sales tax. There are penalties for over/undercollecting tax subject to audit and your mileage may vary. That extra buck of profit tacked on to shipping as pure profit is a pain in the rump roast.
Ohio has a handy-dandy web server (which uses that aspx stuff) that will map a physical address to the appropriate taxing entities and rates and it is up most of the time. Will these tax rate servers implode when a zillion retailers open the transaction valve? We should test it. https://thefinder.tax.ohio.gov/StreamlineSalesTaxW eb/ZipLookup/LookupByZip.aspx?taxType=Sales

Not true. If you're fired for cause, or you quit without cause, you're ineligible to receive unemployment compensation. Even in Ohio ;)

Automatic Plate Recognition

That's interesting. What state (or country) do you live in? In my state, speeding is a "traffic violation", while DUI and Vehiculare Homicide are "crimes" (i.e. you get a criminal record and all that goes with it). Excessive speeding (I think it's 15 mph over the speed limit) is classified not as merely "speeding", but as "Wreckless Driving", which is also a "crime" rather than just a "traffic violation".

The great state of Ohio, USA. Here's a digest of our motor vehicle laws (http://www.bmv.ohio.gov/EngDigest.pdf). Speeding in excess of 30mph is a 4 point violation as is "Willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property". Of course, I was being disingenuous, just like the parent poster who grouped all IP violations together. You are right of course, and speeding is technically an infraction and not a crime; unlike the other two which are traffic violations and also crimes.

I guess my <Troll> tag should be closed now.

At one time I knew the man on a first name basis. He appears to have developed a taste for public money.

It appears he's become fee hungry, like the rest of Ohio's Republicans. With Ohio Republicans, like our lame duck Governor Taft -- who stands a snowball's chance in Hell of moving on to the U.S. Senate, we know him too well to advance him -- we get the worst of both worlds. Not only do we get the spend-thrift tendencies for which Republicans have historically been known, we get the urge to tax that is usually attributed to Democrats.

Basically with our current Ohio-brand Republican government in place, Ohio taxpayers get screwed, and we don't even get held close and kissed.

"The rich get richer and the poor get poorer."

What it boils down to is this. As long as people want to watch tv and movies, there will be some executive somewhere coming up with ideas on how to make more money for the company. If I pay for a show on tv (Pay-Per View X for example, as noted above) I should be able to copy that puppy down and watch it as many times as I want, wherever I want, whenever I want. I paid for it. I paid rights to watch it.

Then some executive will hear about TiVo (or whatever) and think of a way to make money from it.

Laws will be passed, companies embrace/license patented technology.

Some kid/college student/whatever breaks it, and figures a way around it.

The big industry starts a manhunt for those responsible.

Big industry comes up with another way to bribe the lawmakers (can anyone say campaign contributions?) into making laws that make them even richer.

The cycle continues. It will never end.
Well, maybe if we got some folks into congress that were BELOW the usual retirement age, then we might not have such a problem. (Can anyone say mandatory term limits for congress members?)

The fact of the matter is, as long as someone else can profit from restricting others, it will happen. Fair use is almost not even legitimate anymore. If I bought a DVD from a store here, and it got all scratched up and became unplayable, guess what... I have to buy another. With VHS, I was, under fair-use laws, allowed to make myself a backup copy. DMCA says I can't do anything that will violate the Macrovision on this DVD I have.

Mod this up, mod this down, I really don't care. This country is going downhill, and it will take quite a lot to slow the descent, let alone get it going in a positive direction. I'm waiting for the day when I get my "Air Bill" in the mail right next to my water bill. I'll pay that right after I pay my Ohio 'Use Tax'.

I'm sure this is stated in their computer use policy, as it is in ours. Firing the employee was probably the correct action.

Firing him, sure. Going to the media to insult and vilify him, no. How can anyone rise to a senior management position without knowing that defaming former employees is asking for trouble? Who is the unintelligent one again?

Feel free to share your thoughts with the agency in question:
ODJFS Feedback
Contact Ohio Governor Taft

I'm sure this is stated in their computer use policy, as it is in ours. Firing the employee was probably the correct action.

Firing him, sure. Going to the media to insult and vilify him, no. How can anyone rise to a senior management position without knowing that defaming former employees is asking for trouble? Who is the unintelligent one again?

Feel free to share your thoughts with the agency in question:
ODJFS Feedback
Contact Ohio Governor Taft

has a successful track record of improving the performance of public agencies...His tenure at ODJFS has demonstrated once again that he knows how to bring the best out of his employees.

To Ohio DJFS:
If there is a more direct way for me to contact Mr. Hayes, I would be glad to use it, but I'm unable to locate it on your web site. With regards to the recent termination of Charles Smith, as publicized in several news articles (http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.s sf?/base/news/1097228025306530.xml) for one, I am more than a little shocked that a Department Head in the State of Ohio would slander an employee in such a manner. If the quote "I understand his desire to search for intelligent life in outer space, because obviously he doesn't find it in the mirror in the morning" is correct, it is my fondest wish that Mr. Hayes be publicly reprimanded by Governor Taft and removed from his position. Even assuming that Mr. Smith's termination was somehow justified (and unless there is a long history of similar offences, I suspect that it is not) there can be no justification for such remarks to be made, and most CERTAINLY not in public. Shame on you Mr. Hayes for the discredit you bring to yourself, the employees of DJFS and the office of the governor. Shame.

Office of the Governor:
Governor Taft,

I am sure you are already aware - or soon will be - of the shameful actions of Tom Hayes, the director of ODJFS with regards to the termination of Charles Smith, a computer programmer on the DJFS staff as chronicled in several news articles (http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.s sf?/base/news/1097228025306530.xml), for one. Whether or not Mr. Smith's dismissal is justified (and on the surface it certainly does not appear to be so) the remark attributed to Mr. Hayes following Smith's termination leaves me shocked and aghast. If Mr. Hayes was correctly quoted "I understand his desire to search for intelligent life in outer space, because obviously he doesn't find it in the mirror in the morning" is correct, it is my fondest wish that Mr. Hayes be publicly reprimanded by your office and removed from his position. There can be no justification for such remarks to be made, and most CERTAINLY not in public. I believe - and certainly hope - that you will hear from the technical and scientific communities, both loudly and publicly, about Mr. Hayes' appalling action. I see no possible way for someone so callous, unthinking and uncaring as Mr. Hayes to serve successfully as the director of an agency like DJFS.

And no, I am not related to Mr. Smith of Ohio...

To Ohio DJFS:
If there is a more direct way for me to contact Mr. Hayes, I would be glad to use it, but I'm unable to locate it on your web site. With regards to the recent termination of Charles Smith, as publicized in several news articles (http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.s sf?/base/news/1097228025306530.xml) for one, I am more than a little shocked that a Department Head in the State of Ohio would slander an employee in such a manner. If the quote "I understand his desire to search for intelligent life in outer space, because obviously he doesn't find it in the mirror in the morning" is correct, it is my fondest wish that Mr. Hayes be publicly reprimanded by Governor Taft and removed from his position. Even assuming that Mr. Smith's termination was somehow justified (and unless there is a long history of similar offences, I suspect that it is not) there can be no justification for such remarks to be made, and most CERTAINLY not in public. Shame on you Mr. Hayes for the discredit you bring to yourself, the employees of DJFS and the office of the governor. Shame.

Office of the Governor:
Governor Taft,

I am sure you are already aware - or soon will be - of the shameful actions of Tom Hayes, the director of ODJFS with regards to the termination of Charles Smith, a computer programmer on the DJFS staff as chronicled in several news articles (http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.s sf?/base/news/1097228025306530.xml), for one. Whether or not Mr. Smith's dismissal is justified (and on the surface it certainly does not appear to be so) the remark attributed to Mr. Hayes following Smith's termination leaves me shocked and aghast. If Mr. Hayes was correctly quoted "I understand his desire to search for intelligent life in outer space, because obviously he doesn't find it in the mirror in the morning" is correct, it is my fondest wish that Mr. Hayes be publicly reprimanded by your office and removed from his position. There can be no justification for such remarks to be made, and most CERTAINLY not in public. I believe - and certainly hope - that you will hear from the technical and scientific communities, both loudly and publicly, about Mr. Hayes' appalling action. I see no possible way for someone so callous, unthinking and uncaring as Mr. Hayes to serve successfully as the director of an agency like DJFS.

And no, I am not related to Mr. Smith of Ohio...

Or call the office of the guy who appointed him according to his bio: Bob Taft, Governor of Ohio, whose contact information is here. As always, a communication to a public official is more effective if it is courteous and to the point.