On destroying America by digging up Marilyn Monroe

Today's there's yet more evidence that the U.S. War Against Something Terrorism has caused security personnel to misplace their common sense.

Leigh Van Bryan and his friend, Emily Bunting, flew into Los Angeles from Ireland for a holiday. A few days earlier, Mr. Van Bryan had tweeted:

"Free this week, for quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America."

He had also tweeted that he was going to be in LA for three weeks annoying people and "diggin' Marilyn Monroe up."

Somehow Mr. Van Bryan's messages made their way into the hands of the Department of Homeland Security who weren't too amused. Whether it was his saying he was going to destroy America or dig up the body of Marilyn Monroe isn't clear. But, what was painfully clear over the course of five hours of interrogation was that someone didn't find his humor very funny.

After the interview, Homeland Security reported: "Mr Bryan confirmed that he had posted on his Tweeter website account that he was coming to the United States to dig up the grave of Marilyn Monroe. 

"Also on his tweeter account Mr Bryan posted he was coming to destroy America." 

The US Customs and Border Protection agency said in a statement that it tried to maintain a balance between "securing our borders while facilitating the high volume of legitimate trade and travel that crosses our borders every day". 

It added: "We strive to achieve that balance and show the world that the United States is a welcoming nation."

Okay, I get the anti-terrorism hysteria - after all that's apparently part of the government jobs program. So long as there's a threat of terrorism los federales need to keep plenty of security personnel on the payroll. And it's probably just as well because I think the last thing we need is a bunch of unemployed "scoper and gropers" wandering around the streets of this country.

But let's get real. First, does anyone really think that an Irish bartender was intending to blow up something in America? Second, why does Homeland Security give a flying fuck about Marilyn Monroe's bones? Is her coffin hiding evidence of her affairs with John and Bobby?

There's a lot of information out there on the internet and I'm certain that some of it can provide leads to some folks who are up to no good. But you've got to have context. You've got to use a little common sense. Mr. Van Bryan was coming stateside for a holiday, not to conduct a terrorist operation. The grocery clerks at Homeland Security were too caught up in their own self-importance to understand that.

I've said it before, and no doubt I'll say it again, the world is no more dangerous today than it was on September 10, 2001 - unless we're talking about the exercise of our right to be left alone by the government.

Anatomy of a traffic stop

What follows is the Twitter feed from Arizona Cardinals defensive lineman Darnell Dockett after he was stopped by police.

I don't know why the police always messing w/me I'm never gonna let them search my car with out a search warrant! No matter what!

Police sitting here waiting on back up cuz I told them YOU NOT SEARCHING MY CAR! PERIOD! & now I'm sitting here! Owell I aint got shit 2 do!

There R 3police cars and they are talking! I don't see A search warrant they won't see inside this escalade! I got all day hope they don't!

Police said "do you mind if we look around in your Vehicle?" I said I sure DO! He said "I'm gonna call back up" I said u wanna use my phone?

I think they (POLICE) going to get a search warrant cuz they sitting here looking like fools waiting on something!

These COPS really think I'm stupid they playing good cop bad cop! BOY STOOOOP! I'm not falling for that! NO SIR YOU WILL NOT LOOK IN MY CAR!

This cop just ask me how tall R u & where R U from! I'm bout to ask him can I go across the street to POPEYS while we sitting here waiting!

I been sitting here for a HOUR 1cop by the driver window, 2talking at the car! And the 1by the window being friendly! Like wtf?

I asked the cop why he pulled me over he said I was speeding I said BULLSHIT! But give me the ticket that's when he asked to search my car!

So you gonna lie and say I'm speeding then you wanna search my car! Get the F*ck ouutta here! Better go get a warrant *turns up radio*

OK so now I think they letting me Go cop just brought my DL's and registration! Yeah I'm bout to be out this MOFO!

No ticket and I didn't get punk by PO-PO today now I'm off to my 2nd work out! Police aint searchig my sh*t with no warrant "holla at me"!

I don't know the circumstances surrounding the stop and I don't care about the circumstances surrounding the stop. The police had a hunch. Maybe there was some justification behind and maybe it was because Mr. Dockett is a black man driving a nice car late at night.

Whatever it was it goes to show that when the police ask for consent to search a car it's because they know they don't have probable cause to search it. The police count on motorists being intimidated into consenting to the search - and that's what usually happens.

Mr. Dockett knew better. He knew he was under no obligation to allow the police to search the car absent a warrant (or his arrest). He stood his ground and nothing came of it. And since the police didn't even bother to issue him a citation for speeding - you have to wonder about the basis for the stop in the first place.

You know if the police hate it when someone videotapes them going about their business that it must be driving them crazy that Mr. Dockett live-tweeted the stop. Now the Twitter world knows that it's okay to say no to the police.

The more of a light we cast on this behavior the less likely we are to encounter it. But it takes someone willing to stand up and say no. Thank you, Mr. Dockett, for having the courage to do just that.

Juror sentenced for using Facebook during trial

Joanne Fraill of Manchester, England (probably a Man U. fan), found out the hard way that Facebook and jury duty don't mix well.

On Thursday, Ms. Fraill was sentenced to eight months in prison after being found in contempt of court. It would seem that, while serving on the jury, Ms. Fraill "friended" -- and the use of that word as a verb should itself be a criminal act -- one Jamie Stewart, a defendant in a felony drug case, on Facebook. While the jury was deliberating, Ms. Fraill made contact with Ms. Stewart and discussed the case with her. She even provided Ms. Stewart with details of the jury's deliberations.

Sentencing Fraill, Lord Judge said in a written ruling: "Her conduct in visiting the internet repeatedly was directly contrary to her oath as a juror, and her contact with the acquitted defendant, as well as her repeated searches on the internet, constituted flagrant breaches of the orders made by the judge for the proper conduct of the trial."

Interestingly enough, the shenanigans occurred after the jury had informed the court that it was deadlocked. The court then gave the jury the option of deciding the case by a majority vote, rather than a unanimous vote.

Ms. Stewart, who was acquitted, was given a suspended sentence for her role in the online communications.

The widespread use of Facebook and Twitter (and other social media sites) is straining this artificial construct we call the trial. Unless we are going to sequester every jury in every case, someone is going to do a little "research" on the internet about the case. It may be pulling up maps of the scene of an accident. It may be looking at the online profiles of the attorneys involved. Someone might look for the defendant on Facebook or Twitter. Someone's going to go to Google to find out about the breath test machine or DNA testing or some other field of forensic (pseudo-)science.

The information they find might be helpful to the defense. It might be harmful to the defense. It won't, however, be subject to cross-examination. It won't be subject to relevancy or hearsay objections.

Most of us won't have to worry about it too much because most of our trials last no more than a day or two and none of the details of the case ever make it to the local paper.

But one thing is certain - technology has (once again) outpaced our legal constructions and conventions. I don't know what the answer is. Jurors may say they won't do any research outside the courtroom -- but jurors also state they won't allow their own biases to prevent them from being fair (even after they've admitted they will hold it against your client if she doesn't take the stand in her own defense).

Twitter just says no

Which online organization actually has the balls to stand up and defend its users' privacy?

It's not Google. It's not Facebook. It's not Wordpress.

It's Twitter.

In the face of government subpoenas asking for users' information, Twitter has stood up and fought. When the US government served Twitter with a subpoena asking for information about four individuals allegedly involved with WikiLeaks, Twitter sought to have the subpoena unsealed so that the users could be notified of the attempts by los federales to access information.

Facebook and Google don't notify their users when they are requested to turn over information in response to a subpoena. So you may never know if you're one of the 4,000 folks the government is seeking information on every year.

And what has Twitter received for daring to stand for principle? Certainly not a lot of praise. The government wants you to believe that Twitter isn't being a good corporate citizen because it refuses to bend to the government's demands.

Twitter should be lauded for its efforts to protect our right to privacy. Twitter shouldn't be condemned, Twitter should be commended for fighting the government's exercise of power.

H/T to Kevin O'Keefe.