Slashdot Mirror
How NY Gov. Cuomo Sidesteps Freedom of Information Requests With His Blackberry
New submitter wrekkuh writes "The Daily News is reporting that if aides of New York's Governor Andrew Cuomo cannot speak in person or by telephone with the Governor, they are told to use BlackBerry's PIN-to-PIN messaging system — a function that leaves no lasting trail because it bypasses data-saving email servers. Consequently, a Freedom of Information request for all e-mails to and from Governor Cuomo's office resulted in an empty reply from the Records Access Officer: 'Please be advised that the New York State Executive Chamber has conducted a diligent search, but does not possess records responsive to your request.'"
Why do sysmgr geeks love RIM? Above is one of many reasons, along with enterprise integration, remote administration, custom device policies. For years nothing could compete.
Droids/iStuff can run apps, but none of them could do exactly what a BB does, although perhaps that gap is narrowing. Too bad RIM is so far behind on the game nowadays no one will buy their devices and market share is plunging. 10% of value 1 year ago? Madness.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
Do as they say, not as they do.
If this were a Republican Gov, Kieth, Rachel, and all the other left wing loudmouths would be engaged in a quasi-journalistic orgy of condemnation and gnashing of teeth.
Next thing you know the Legislative Branch will start writing laws to sidestep the Judicial!!
Do you think all his phone conversations have been recorded?
There will always be unrecorded means for government officials to communicate, unless it becomes illegal, and still even then.
They don't want Jefferson's informed populace. Go back to watching the Kardasians please.
Silence is a state of mime.
"Never write if you can speak; never speak if you can nod; never nod if you can wink." - Martin Michael Lomasney
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Not storing information is the oldest trick in the book. This is not news.
It makes me think of ISPs getting subpoenaed for information that simply doesn't exist.
Isn't there a law that mandates all official government written communications should be recorded?
We have a classic problem with the freedom of information requests:
1) We want accurate historical records maintained of how decision were made, by whom and why.
2) We want a have an open press and legal system to have access to those records so our legal processes and our political processes are based on accurate information.
3) We want to have an open campaign system where all available information is discussed as part of the process of choosing leaders.
Pick any 2.
Had a former employer demand that I get an iPhone so he could text me the instructions on everything he wanted me to do, much of which was either illegal or leading me to suspect that he was basically building up an elaborate scam. But then of course he demanded emails that would show evidence that I was the one at fault for providing false information to him the whole time (me being the programmer). I cursed him out and quit for insulting my intelligence, and made sure the rest of the company employees got wind of it so they'd know better too. Younger less experienced employees might not have caught on to this, but I sure did....real fast.
Everything needs to be on record. It has to be a criminal offense to systematically use systems with no log. These people are public officials with enormous power. The ability to find out who knew what when is vital to the public trust.
What public officials are effectively saying is that we need to make this a felony for them to take it seriously. A felony conviction amongst other things would invalidate them from public service ever again. So indifferent to whether they actually served any jail time it would be the irrevocable end to their political career.
I don't see any reason to bother even sending them to jail for it. Just give them a felony conviction with a 1000 dollar fine for court fees.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
It was an issue within the Canadian Federal Government a few years back. Many Departments were told (not warned) to stop and that was it.
This kind of practice is what a modern, intelligent, proactive administration needs to do to make sure the government works.
So, the only way for a government of the People, by the People, and for the People to work... is to keep the People from knowing what's going on?
You, sir or madam, are the ultimate jackass.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
As a bes sysadmin, I can tell you all pin to pin is logged on the server. Unless they are running a really old version, this is bs.
Oh, wait.....
Nevermind. This didn't happen.
When did Cuomo join the Republican Party? True, you can't actually tell them apart from the Democritic Party in terms of outcome...
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
It seems to me that everywhere you look, people are getting or already have enough of "the system". I'm one of them. This shit has got to go and it has got to go now.
bullshit. Back room secrets is NEVER good for democracy.
Our current lobbying system is example 0.
A scumbag in New York.
This kind of practice is what a modern, intelligent, proactive administration needs to do to make sure the government works.
So, the only way for a government of the People, by the People, and for the People to work... is to keep the People from knowing what's going on?
You, sir or madam, are the ultimate jackass.
You have no idea how much time government offices (ones that arent as proactive as Mr Cuomos) spend complying with FOIA requests. The sad thing is that most FOIA requests are from opposition party operatives, trawling for fish through any quasi-sensitive material they can get their hands on. Is that government "of/by/for the people"? Or is that "two party bickering, on the taxpayer's dime"?
The one or two staffers that would have been doing NOTHING but responding to nonsense FOIA requests can instead focus on real work, thanks to this policy. Cuomo's model should be SOP for all offices.
And here come the downmods! Oh noes information wants to be free!
Given the media's interest in "gotcha" journalism and the messy process of getting to good legislative compromise, I'm glad there are some ways government officials can talk privately. How else can they sit down with their legislative friends and reach a compromise if they can't discuss things that the special interests or their own party would attack them for. If we want compromise, people need to be free to talk privately.
He's a career politician, what did you expect?
FTFY.
Only a blind fool would think there's any real difference between D and R, aside from their location in the seating chart.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Next thing you know the Legislative Branch will start writing laws to sidestep the Judicial!!
As long as the Judicial Branch doesn't start declaring that "Up" really means "Sideways" in the Constitution or just start making stuff up from the bench, we'll be OK. I mean, sheesh, will we ever be in trouble if that happens.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I'm sure they're logged somewhere.
I take no responsibility for what I say. Even though I'm never wrong
Here in the UK, we learn that during the "cash for honours" scandal, a separate non-government computer was operating in No. 10 specifically for the purpose of doing business without oversight.
The arsehole also shredded all his expense data just before the storm over MPs claiming for duck ponds and tennis courts broke.
Labour, Democrat - it seems they are all in it together.
troll
Maybe they have a local history of chat logs.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Am I the only one who thinks this is completely reasonable and acceptable?
"Up" doesn't mean "Sideways", "Up" has been ruled to clearly mean "Interstate Commerce".
Governor Cuomo is a Registered Democrat.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You're behind the times. Up and Sideways are actually a tax now.
The problem is the the Public is really stupid.
They will take a public statement play it out of context, and they will think that guy is pure evil, or grossly out of touch. To run a government you need to work with your competition, and with groups who you are not a big fan of.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Laws that regulate government in the sunshine are not meant to be bypassed by an electronic device or system. They probably feel secure that he can't be charged as a criminal but a lovely civil suit or obscuring the transparency of government might work as a variation of a citizen's civil rights being violated.
I am on a condo board with three members. In my state is is almost illegal for me to say hello to another board member as it is a meeting out of view of the membership. Could a mayor or governor be operating under less stringent laws than a condo board?
This is the media trying to score sensational revelations to make money. Also the executive trying to do a job where people can communicate honestly without fear that the sensationalist press will partially quote them the next day.
As someone who ordered something that would usually have been posted the next day concealed because it was the details of a negotiation position, I see some cases where secrecy is justified. And once the negotiations were concluded, the item was published. You can't negotiate when the other side can know every detail of your bottom line positions.
I guess what I'm saying is it isn't as simple as some would make it.
We still need transparency in government. If that means that we pay extra people to handle FOIA request so what. There are a lot of things the government needs to stop spending money on. IMHO these include wars, oil company tax breaks, running guns to Mexico and the drug war. It is possible your list is different. I happen to agree that I am sick and tired of the Republican / Democrat bickering. They have decided that government is a game they want to win instead of the activity of good governance. But, that does not mean that the answer is to hid the actions of and communication of public officials. That is the same as sticking you head in the ground when the bullets fly.
No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
I would simply ask for every email the Gov. has sent or received and then see if he's circumventing FOIA. If the only emails that come back are fluff crap or none at all then that would provide a pretty good indication of circumvention.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
Didnt you hear? Any politician that does something the left doesnt like is automatically called a republican. Its like a reverse No True Scotsman.
The Bush administration was raked over the coalsby the press for Blackberry use, and Sarah Palin was nailed for occasionally using private email as governor. Currently the press is complaining about Romney deleting information when he left as governor.
Note the common denominator: They're all Republicans. I'll be surprised if the press inflates this to the scale of a national scandal since Cuomo is a Democrat.
The mainstream press didn't care much when the Clinton administration "lost" thousands of emails under subpoena, even with a Democrat operative threatening contractors who were knew about the loss, and the fact that person got promoted out of the mess. I hear the Obama administration has hired her for a sensitive post at Cyber Command, *chirp* *chirp*.
He's part of the 1% and plays by different rules than the rest of us.
All Cuomo really had to do was sign an executive order. Everybody knows those overrule legislation now.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Lol. Republicans do it too. The current uproar over Fast and Furious (and the documents that the administration does not want to release) is over memos that occurred after the program had ended. The Republican Congress is just trying to prove when different members of the administration knew about it (after it happened) so that they can attack them for political gain. But I kinda doubt that you have been complaining about that.
All non-routine city business (new development proposals, top-level hires, etc) gets routed through his top aide, Michael Kineavy, who regularly deletes correspondence from his old Windows laptop w/o mail server backup. The city's IT systems are deliberately kept ancient.
(I personally experience this every year - the database of car owners liable for the auto excise tax is completely separate from the database of residents to whom excise tax bills are sent. I've had a number of discussions in City Hall and they couldn't care less).
So much for "transparency."
If the device is going through a BES (which I sure hope it is), then the admin needs to have logging turned on for all messaging. The messages may be encrypted, but they can still be logged through policies...
If it's not on fire, it's a software problem
Blue Dog Democrat.
The USA has only one political leaning and that is right wing. Many republicans are VERY right wing, and many democrats are only slightly right wing, and there are tons of "moderates" in between. The only real exception to this is Bernie Sanders.
The problem is the the Public is really stupid.
No - the problem is that mentality right there. The pervasiveness of the idea that "the Public is stupid" and therefore undeserving of honest, open government, is exactly why we have the dishonest, corrupt, secretive government you see today.
Try giving people credit for once, instead of just instantly assuming that everyone [who doesn't share your particular point of view] is an abject moron - they will surprise you with their intelligence, given the opportunity to express it.
I'm always amazed at how smart individual hillbillies can be, once you get them to actually think for themselves and stop parroting FOX News talking points. I assume the same can be said for coastal elites, save the substitution of "MSNBC" in place of "FOX News"
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Lol. Republicans do it too. The current uproar over Fast and Furious (and the documents that the administration does not want to release) is over memos that occurred after the program had ended. The Republican Congress is just trying to prove when different members of the administration knew about it (after it happened) so that they can attack them for political gain. But I kinda doubt that you have been complaining about that.
Naaah, couldn't have one bit to do with the fact that the Obama administration decided to give guns to drug rings, and then lie about it under oath.
Nope, THAT was the Republican's fault, too.
Ummmm, sure.
You are a blind jackass.
We still need transparency in government. If that means that we pay extra people to handle FOIA request so what. There are a lot of things the government needs to stop spending money on. IMHO these include wars, oil company tax breaks, running guns to Mexico and the drug war. It is possible your list is different. I happen to agree that I am sick and tired of the Republican / Democrat bickering. They have decided that government is a game they want to win instead of the activity of good governance. But, that does not mean that the answer is to hid the actions of and communication of public officials. That is the same as sticking you head in the ground when the bullets fly.
The thing is, as long as FOIA is a policy and not a process, the outcome will be the same. Methods will be used to game the system and make sure particular tidbits stay secret. Other methods will be used (by the other side) to dig out anything remotely valuable from what is exposed, often at a great expense of time.
Until the intent of FOIA is implemented as a process so that the sole act of carrying out the duties of public office will generate the required transparency (this requires fundamental changes that no politician is in favor of), the game will only be perpetuated.
Activist judge actually to me means.
Judge whom for what he perceives as a need decides to attempt to interpret the constitution in a way that solves a problem.
Once a judge goes from "What did they mean?" to "What could it mean?" he is an activist judge.
Me wanting the decision to go that way or not.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Conspiracy theorists who think the government is after them, or has some other conspiracy going. Also, you get a lot of people who are just curious and order a huge amount of information just to satisfy it. Let's just say that, even where partisan politics isn't an issue, a large number of FOIA requests really don't serve the common good.
Yes, I knew a FOIA officer.
Internal back-and-forth messages - whether on paper or by email or PIN-to-PIN messaging - are not by law available to the public, said Robert Freeman, of the state Committee on Open Government.
(From Article)
Interesting. IIRC, when government things send out things for records requests in my state, they have to cite the appropriate state law to exempt something.
Of course, this could just be my state laws(I've heard my state is fairly liberal in what you can request and get) and are not applicable in this case, but I would still like to know what law it is that the person claims denies access to it. And for that matter, if the PIN-to-PIN are stored on the device(perhaps the person is driving, receiving the messages, and it is building up a queue), then there is a record. They just need to rephrase what they ask for. (And if they delete, does that mean they are not following their records retention schedule?)
The problem is the the Public is really stupid.
They will take a public statement play it out of context, and they will think that guy is pure evil, or grossly out of touch. To run a government you need to work with your competition, and with groups who you are not a big fan of.
We get the government we deserve... Your notion that elected officials should be competing or playing favorites is exactly what is wrong. Since when did it make sense that in order for government to work there needs to be a constant struggle to prove, using almost exclusively disingenuous means, that the other side should "lose"? How about an elected official working for every person in their district, not just the ones that vote (or buy votes) for them?
The two parties exist because everyone is so eager to see winners and losers. Guess what, politicians are the winners and WE are the losers. Nine out of ten politicians elected to the US House of Representatives did so by being the candidate that raised the most amount of money. What that means in simple terms to contributors, is that if you give a candidate enough money, they have a 90% chance of winning. What that means in simple terms to a candidate, is that if you sell yourself to donors better than the other guy, you have a 90% chance of winning. What that means to voters, is that if you like a candidate there is a 90% chance he is already bought and paid for by someone else and is headed to Washington to do THEIR bidding, and not yours. And if you pick the guy who isn't? Well, they have a 10% chance of winning. Sorry about your luck.
Citation needed. Here's mine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wffOhr9zo6o . Lot harder to find the retraction, which I found only because I already know it exists.
Yes, and the term RINO doesn't exist.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Because the feds have been tapping our email communications, phone communications, bank transactions and more without warrant or limit for years now. Try to keep up: if the government wants to do it "legally", the supreme court will rubber stamp it, or the government just does it in secret -- but they will do it.
Here, have a Google-party:
Carnivore, Enhanced Carnivore (DCS 1000), ECHELON, Oasis, Fluent, Total Informational Awareness (TIA), MATRIX, CALEA, TEMPEST... and these are just the (primarily) US programs. Russia, the UK, China, India, Israel, all are active in these areas as are smaller, but no less motivated (and considerably less hamstrung, legally) players.
If you don't want your words to come back to haunt you, you must never commit them to electronic form, and keep them very, very close and well-controlled in whatever other form you may record them. Otherwise, you must assume they have been recorded, and if encrypted, decoded or able to be decoded if you are of interest to any of the various alphabet soup agencies.
Also remember: if the material to be used against you, or the actions taken against you aren't going to go through a courtroom, the question of a warrant is much less likely to arise at all, regardless of any basis you might think you have in making an argument that the collection itself was unauthorized.
When falcon5768 says, "He's a republican..." he's referring to the AC that started this thread (the AC that made the parent post to CanHasDIY's).
Actually the real definition of activist judge is: A judge who interprets the constitution in a way I don't particularly like.
Activist judge actually to me means.
Judge whom for what he perceives as a need decides to attempt to interpret the constitution in a way that solves a problem.
Once a judge goes from "What did they mean?" to "What could it mean?" he is an activist judge.
Me wanting the decision to go that way or not.
Anyone who carries a cellphone with a live battery installed is thoroughly tagged. What the actual problem is, is that the entire political system is corrupt, and that the reaction to "hey, senator crackberry was hanging with the oil companies in the bahamas prior to voting on the "renew the free oil leases" bill is simply "so what?" When everyone in the system is corrupt, no half-measure is sufficient to solve the problem.
Yes because hyperbole often needs to be cited... =\
Do not let the words you quote get in the way of thinking you have something to add.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Well, since we're thowing in our own definition: to me an activist judge is not just someone who says a law is unconstitutional but then mandates that actions x, y and z must be taken.
Killing the purpose of FOIA, (a sunshine provision to enable a well informed public) because of the political equivelent of the paparatzi is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
We instituted FOIA because government needed more public oversight to keep it honest. If politics are getting involved, removing the oversight is the wrong direction. Placing limits on the number of FOIA requests an agency can request per quarter is superior as a remedy.
That's a shame. Such a profound post from an AC. Please log in so smart people could mod you correspondingly ;)
That is because President Bush is the president. Sarah Palin was an inflammatory public figure of the Team Party movement, and Mitt Romney is running for president.
Who is Cuomo in comparison to that? Just a Governor. He isn't a national party figurehead. He isn't the commander in chief. He isn't even in the running to become either.
Don't underestimate the deliberate nature of Cuomo's actions. He is acutely aware of technology, what it is, and how it can be used. He has a lot of good advisers who are technologically aware. He also knows a lot of the dangers posed by email and what it can do.
During his time as Attorney General, he learned very quickly how crucial email was to a case. I don't specifically have to name cases, but a reader can easily find landmark investigations he conducted that hinged on getting email, mining it using some very sophisticated tools, and finding the right evidence.
I'm sure as he conducts himself and his staff now, mis-steps are keenly in his mind. This is a man who is not satisfied as Governor and will run for President.
"Draw them in with the prospect of gain, take them by confusion." Sun Tzu
You are free to do the same against the CommuNaziLibTards you fear.
Have at it.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
The law that Cuomo is being accused of dodging is FOIL (Freedom Of Information Law)
New York citizens should just use Initiative powers to require all electronic text communications be documented and held similar to email, which would see an immediate decline in the number of texts etc.
Oh, wait.... New Yorkers don't have the initiative. All you're left with is petitioning the lawmakers themselves to give up a perk that serves them as much as the Executive. Good luck with that one.
Once a judge goes from "What did they mean?" to "What could it mean?" he is an activist judge.
Depends who you ask. An originalist interprets the text by "What did they mean?". A strict constructionist goes by "What does it say?". Typically both are more acceptable to conservatives than someone who interprets the text by "What is the most reasonable way to read this in current society and based on other precedents?". But to a strict constructionist, asking "what did they mean?" is irrelevant.
PIN logging has been available on any version of the Blackberry Enterprise Server since 4.1
It's disabled by default, but many companies enable it for compliance reasons. I wonder if they requested the PIN logs.
Logged? Yes. Is the content recorded and available for playback? Certainly not.
I think it would be entirely reasonable to have a time constraint such that the information can be kept private for a strictly limited time for exactly those reasons. But in a case like that the statute of limitations (or equivalent) should apply only once the information is made public.
Both sides are republican, so vote bad!
Strict constructionalists are the ones who debate over the exact meaning of the comma placement in the second amendment. Real complications come from the chain of rulings though - often a long series of precidents can be followed, each one building inevitably from the last, until by the end the supreme court came up with something which appears to make no sense when looked at in isolation.
"What is the most reasonable way to read this in current society and based on other precedents?"
reasonable to who? want to amend the constitution for current society? there's an article for that.
Just ask the people arrested and tortured in Syria, Egypt and India!
The Blackberry Enterprise Server platform allows full logging of what users do with their company blackberries.
You can log email, SMS, PIN, BBM, phone calls (but not record the call itself). This is does silently with no indication that the logging is occurring.
It's just a couple clicks to enable these options. If NY state isn't using these options, it's deliberate fraud.
In fact, the Blackberry Enterprise Server platform is very handy for some firms that have to keep track of employee communications (ie, investment banks).
There's nothing wrong with that mentality. People, generally, can be very intelligent about a great number of issues. However "The Public", as in the mass collection of people, is generally very stupid.
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
A law says that no motor vehicles are allowed to operate inside a city park. A hiker, deep in the park, has a cardiac arrest. Someone calls an ambulance, but at the entrance to the park there's a sign that says, "motor vehicles not allowed; punishable by $500 fine and up to 6 months in prison".
Ambulance driver proceeds anyhow and saves the man. The district attorney, wanting to look tough crime, has a zero tolerance policy for all law breakers, and indicts the ambulance driver.
The poor driver is brought before a judge for a preliminary hearing. The judge can
a) Allow the trial to proceed, because he clearly broke the letter of law
b) Use common sense--and a 1000 years of AngloAmerican judicial precedent--to "read into" the rule an exception for public safety to the benefit of this criminal defendant.
If the judge chooses (a), he's not a judge. If the conservatives had their way (that is, the way according to the party platform, not what actual politicians believe), we would lose the third and coequal branch of our government. Judges can and should have some degree of "law making" powers.
Anything else is absurd and a road to tyranny. Most judges have far more experience and wisdom when it comes to the analysis, application, and understanding of law in society. Politicians are complete idiots compared to a seasoned judge. Obviously there are democratic issues with giving judges too much leeway. But some leeway they should have. We wouldn't have a free society without powerful, independent, and decidedly "political" judges.
There's nothing wrong with that mentality. People, generally, can be very intelligent about a great number of issues. However "The Public", as in the mass collection of people, is generally very stupid.
You do realize that you are part of "the Public," right?
Do you think yourself stupid? If so, nevermind. If not, what makes you different than me, or him, or her, or anyone else you don't know from Adam?
Yes, I know as group size increases, collective intellect drops exponentially, but we're not talking about some sort of National Convention here, we're talking about individuals.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
we're not talking about some sort of National Convention here, we're talking about individuals.
That wasn't my understanding of what GP meant by "The Public". That wasn't what I meant by it either.
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
To clarify, he's not a judge because a judges job shouldn't be to rubber stamp legislative law. To have a sane legal system, real judges need some authority to call bullshit.
Some people believe we have this simple and strict hierarchy of legal authority culminating in state and federal constitutions. But the real world isn't that simple. Not every problem can be solved by resort to "the constitution". Most fo the time constitutions are silent on an issue, and where the constitution is silent and a judge is faced with a stupid legal result because of a stupid legislative law, we must recognize some power in that judge to do the right thing.
If we recognize that power, it's going to be abused, and we won't always like what happens. But the alternative would be and increasingly is worse.
Is it thanks to them being stupid that they are allowed to vote or despite them being stupid?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Transparency in government - the government you and I know - is a misnomer. It's not going to happen, and any illusion (like the FOIA) to that effect delays people realizing the truth.
Government is like an aquarium. The thicker the aquarium, the harder it is to see through it due to the volume politicians, bills, etc. it contains. The only way to increase the visibility is to reduce the amount of what's in the way.
Personally, I think national and state-level terms for politicians, while prohibiting corporate lobbyists, would be a good idea. Not only would it mean there would be no more career politicians (while obviously increasing the total number of politicians within the population) but it would increase the likelihood that someone you know is a politician, and thereby decreasing the 'political divide' between the political class and the "peasant" class which has developed in America. Having inefficient non-lawyer politicians who write short and simplistic bills would be a side-benefit.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
You obviously don't live in a state where half the laws are written by public referendum. Individuals can be quite smart. But people are stupid, even if they're all geniuses.
People are too stupid to be entrusted to make anything but the broadest of policy decisions. For anything but broad policy, they should not be involved, and that means not being able to harass politicians about it.
There's a second, independent issue, which is that politicians are stupid too and shouldn't be entrusted to make most decisions that they do. The solution isn't to open that power up to scrutiny. It's to take the power away.
How do you do that? You place most power to make narrowly tailored policy decisions (the kind most susceptible to corruption) to independent agencies and communities. You require _those_ organizations to keep open records. But the crucial difference is those agencies aren't up for election. They should be shielded from politics.
The problem is the the Public is really stupid.
The problem is that people are stupid, and that the only candidates for political office are people, but we somehow pretend that the people holding office aren't as stupid as everybody else.
Never trust any authority any more than you would trust an ordinary schmuck, because ordinary schmucks are all there are. You and me included.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Only a blind fool would think there's any real difference between D and R
I don't think that's quite true. That may have been the case before, but Republicans have since slid into total insanity leaving Democrats behind (in part because Democrats are adopting Republican policy, forcing Republicans to go further right to differentiate themselves). Not to say that D are good, but R are really bad.
Just the fact that someone like Santorum was, for a while, a viable contender for a Republican president, is enough to prove my point.
The problem is the the Public is really stupid.
So we have a system supposedly of the people, by the people, for the people. We force those people to spend their formative years in institutions ostensibly for their education and now we're going to justify a lack of transparency in government because people are too stupid?
The proper response for public officials to people playing statements out of context is to play them in context and explain themselves, not to act in secret so people can't oppose them.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
But, the state of corruption in our government is evidence of the stupidity of the Public. Politicians don't enter into secret conspiracies; they commit their acts of treason right out in the public eye, and get voted for again anyway.
Don't even try to blame apathy. Apathy on the part of the smart is a consequence of political involvement on the part of the stupid, who greatly outnumber the smart and undo any good the smart might be able to accomplish.
You said...
Thanks for making my case for me. If they were smart, they wouldn't need YOU to get them to do anything. They would already see through the FOX News nonsense and would be applying political and economic pressure towards the end of getting useful and informative news outlets to replace such drivel.
But hey, if naive optimism helps you sleep at night...well...feel free to join the public...
Not so long ago the UAE banned RIM Blackberry usage within their borders.
RIM responded.
UAE then allowed RIM Blackberry usage within their borders.
So, What were the 'particulars' of the deal?
Of course the USA will not do nor allow the 'Dubai Deal' be promulgated within USA borders.
That's life ... in the USA.
LoL
Remember too, judges take a slightly more active view of constitutionality. Cases can only come before the Supreme Courts when a bad law has been written, and the DA prosecutes somebody, and the person is gutsy enough to risk appeal vs a plea Bargin before the court actually takes the case.
That means 90% of bad laws can have rulings "avoided" by carefully prosecuting so the law is never appealed.
"A felony conviction amongst other things would invalidate them from public service ever again."
Perhaps, or perhaps not. Remember District of Columbia mayor Marion Berry? A drug conviction didn't keep him from public office. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/tours/scandal/barry.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry )
Barry was released from prison in 1992, and two months later filed papers to run for the Ward 8 city council seat in that year's election.[60] Barry ran under the slogan "He May Not Be Perfect, But He's Perfect for D.C." He defeated the four-term incumbent, Wilhelmina Rolark, in the Democratic primary, winning 70 percent of the vote, saying he was "not interested in being mayor",[61] and went on to win the general election easily.
Quite right.
All Stare decisis does is set fuckups in stone.
Actually what you'd probably get is preemption by a higher law requiring medical professionals to offer reasonable first aid to the wounded.
To be blunt, a city statute forbidding motor vehicles in the city park probably does not actually have the authority to restrain a first responder acting in the official performance of his or her duties.
I disagree that judges should be allowed to legislate from the bench. Especially federal ones that aren't even elected.
Judicial and legislative roles are separated for a reason.
The constitution is not at all silent.
It just says that all powers not delegated to the feds are reserved for the states or the people.
It's called a default rule.
I don't care if the public is stupid.
The point is to discourage the government from doing things that they want to hide in the first place.
Unless there's a damn good reason.
And I'm sorry, but "this is embarrassing" doesn't cut it.
Don't blame me, I voted for kodos.
Actually what you'd probably get is preemption by a higher law requiring medical professionals to offer reasonable first aid to the wounded.
Ahh, so you want to amend the example to change the scenario from one in which a judge must judge, to one in which the case would never have been brought. If only real life were so simple. There are certainly no bad laws on the books, right? Nothing that wasn't terribly well thought-out ahead of time?
In theory, bad laws are supposed to be prevented by two things:
1. An electorate responsive to the voters, and
2. A constitution that sets ground rules for what laws may be passed.
Federal law, for example, preempts state law. Case in point, the california medical marijuana law being trumped by federal drug statutes. Also an example of a bad law.
And the only way to implement terms limits is for these politicians is to do it to themselves. It must be nice to be the ruling caste.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
You touched on part of the problem. The media will spin things certain ways, sometimes multiple ways, and the public has that to make decisions on. Yes, yes, people could delve into the issues more deeply. But how many issues? You could watch/read multiple news outlets that have different takes, but which one is "correct?" So even people that want to learn stuff still can get a slant on it.
Of course, there are people that will watch only one type of news, like FoxNews or MSNBC full time, and then there are the people that don't even watch the news...
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Charles Jarvis, 1820
All Cuomo really had to do was sign an executive order. Everybody knows those overrule legislation now.
You say "now" as if it hasn't been going on for a long long time.
... except when you get different activists.
Lochner? ... I could go on, but I'm still amazed at the stretching of the Commerce Clause in various ways, and waiting for the ticking time bomb in Article III, section 2 regarding 'such regulations as the Congress shall make'. (Granted, opening that can of worms is one Constitutional-interpretation analogue of a nuclear option... )
Plessey v. Ferguson?
If the wrong things are set in stone, start thinking about where to use the chisel of truth...
In theory, bad laws are supposed to be prevented by two things:
The GP post wasn't talking about theory. He was talking about messy reality where bad laws have to be dealt with in court where lives hang in the balance.
Why is option b a FAIL? The law was stupid and poorly written. The judge has now made a minor exception to the law as it was written. He has not struck down the law as unconstitutional. He has continued the terrible course of keeping very bad laws on the books and expecting subsequent judges to keep making legal exceptions. If a law is bad it should be struckdown or repealed. If it is an important law it will be revised and passed anew. If it is a stupid law, as many are, all the palm greasing that went into the law and riders that were passed with the law originally will have to be reworked. If every badly written law was struck down by a judge only the laws worth spending time to recreate would remain. Striking down laws is a key power the judicial branch has. Unfortunately the judicial branch has taken to written expections to bad laws instead of making congress rewrite them. In all seriousness, this has nothing to do with the Afordable Care Act. It has to do with all the terrible legislation rotting away our country.
I don't follow this 'logic' at all.
If you have silly laws, and silly enforcement, the object of any judicial exercise isn't to make little excuses de novo, or find loopholes for the privileged or those who somehow qualify for 'special treatment'.
In this particular case, yes, the 'trial should proceed' long enough to establish what the conditions were, clearly illustrate the problems both with the implementation of statutes and with mistaken efforts to 'enforce' them with excessive strictness, and perhaps THEN to exercise reasonable leeway (but only based on precedent or other legally-established criteria -- not whim) either in verdict or sentencing.
This is really a problem with poor legislation, and poor low-level enforcement policy driven by aspects of poor legislation, not a proper judicial issue. Because once you allow a judge's preferences to dictate enforcement, you've destroyed equality before the law... unless some people or groups are more equal than others...
you only have yourselves to blame. you elected these twits. and they turn around and use whatever they can to get away with murder (of the contitution) and in some cases recently of deleting huge parts of it to suit their own needs. oh well, America is not long for this planet. i can see the break up coming soon. by your own hands.
How do you do that? You place most power to make narrowly tailored policy decisions (the kind most susceptible to corruption) to independent agencies and communities. You require _those_ organizations to keep open records. But the crucial difference is those agencies aren't up for election. They should be shielded from politics.
So how do you hold those agencies accountable for their decisions? How do you prevent them from being co-opted by the ideologies of those running them? Many kinds of decisions can not be made at the community level and still be effective. Gotta go up the chain for that.