Civil Liberties/Health/Food Policies

The Battle for Free Speech

Two Convicted for Refusal to Decrypt Their Data for Authorities

August 12, 2009

The Register (London) - Two people have been successfully prosecuted for refusing to provide authorities with their encryption keys, resulting in landmark convictions that may have carried jail sentences of up to five years.

The government said today it does not know their fate.

The power to force people to unscramble their data was granted to authorities in October 2007. Between 1 April, 2008 and 31 March this year the first two convictions were obtained.
The disclosure was made by Sir Christopher Rose, the government’s Chief Surveillance Commissioner, in his recent annual report.

The former High Court judge did not provide details of the crimes being investigated in the case of either individual – neither of whom were necessarily suspects – nor of the sentences they received...

Supreme Court to Decide Whether States Can Seize Private Property in Civil Forfeiture

August 6, 2009

Mark Nestmann - I've never been convinced that the U.S. Supreme Court has any interest in actually defending the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Among other decisions "protecting" our freedoms, the Supreme Court has:

• Upheld the power of state and local governments to seize private property from one group of people for the benefit of a more powerful private interest.


• Upheld the power of the federal government to prohibit farmers from growing crops on their own land for their own consumption.


• Upheld the right of the President to invalidate contracts calling for the settlement of debts in gold or other precious metal, rather than in fiat dollars.

I could go on and on, but the record is clear that for more than two centuries, the Supreme Court has systematically eviscerated the freedoms the Founding Fathers bestowed upon us.

For that reason, I'm not particularly optimistic about the prospects for the latest legal challenge to the horrific practice of "civil forfeiture" to reach the Supreme Court. (Civil forfeiture is a legal procedure in which prosecutors can seize your property without accusing you, much less convicting you, of any crime.)

The Court has agreed to hear a challenge to a law in Illinois that permits the State to seize someone's property without a warrant, and then indefinitely delay a hearing to determine whether there is probable cause to detain the property (Alvarez vs. Smith, Case No. 08-351).

My guess is that the Court will uphold the right of Illinois to simply seize your property and deny you any right to challenge the seizure in court. I make this prediction not only because of the Court's long record of upholding laws and regulations that destroy our rights, but because of a long line of decisions specifically upholding draconian civil forfeiture statutes.

In 1827, the Court confirmed that the government could confiscate your property in a civil forfeiture without a criminal conviction and that property of people entirely innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever could be forfeited. In 1878, the Court again upheld the right of the government to seize property from an entirely innocent owner. It did so again in 1921 and then, to make sure we really got the point, made the same determination in 1996.

In 2000, Congress enacted a civil forfeiture reform statute that established an "innocent owner" defense for most federal civil forfeitures. But in forfeiture under state law, no innocent owner defense may be available. Even if it is available, in states like Illinois, the government may indefinitely delay legal proceedings to allow you to assert it.

Civil forfeiture is a legal abomination that has no place in a civilized society. A Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution and Bill of Rights as written wouldn't merely restrict civil forfeiture, but abolish it at all levels of government.

There's not a snowball's chance in a blast furnace that will happen in this case. The best we can hope for is that the Court will invalidate the Illinois law due to the ability of the state to effectively deny civil forfeiture victims the right to a hearing. And I'm not optimistic.

Privatizing Water for Profit and Population Control

August 5, 2009

Reuters - French water distribution firm Lyonnaise des Eaux, a unit of GDF Suez, won permission from the European Commission on Wednesday to acquire six firms active in water collection, treatment and supply in France.

Lyonnaise des Eaux (LDE) is to buy shares held by Veolia Eau-Compagnie Générale des Eaux (Veolia Eau) in six subsidiaries owned jointly with Veolia Eau.

The executive arm of the 27-nation European Union said in a statement that its investigation had revealed the proposed deal would not harm competition in the markets concerned.

LDE and Veolia Eau have decided to sell each other their holdings in nine joint subsidiaries which they control together. At the end of the proposed operation, LDE will take sole control of six of these companies, the Commission said.

The transaction would not raise competition concerns given the limited market shares of the companies to be acquired, the Commission said.

Bloomberg's Solution to the Homeless Problem: a One-Way Ticket Out of New York

July 30, 2009

The Independent - New York is experimenting with a bold new way to control the newly expanding homeless rolls. While some might call it a variation of the old, discredited, "on yer bike" approach to dealing with folk on welfare, such a description would not be quite accurate. Better call it "on yer airplane", destination Miami, Paris or, indeed, London.

Officials confirm that under a programme launched in 2007 – but so quietly that almost no one outside the administration of the Mayor Michael Bloomberg was aware of it until now – the city has been buying one-way tickets on whatever means of transport is appropriate, jumbo jets included, for homeless families to get out of Gotham.

It is not that that the city is sending them just anywhere, of course. Instead, when families turn up at the homeless shelter intake centre in the Bronx looking for beds, they are now automatically asked if they have friends or relatives anywhere else in the country – or the world – who might be willing to help. If a distant aunt or uncle is found and persuaded to play along, then the city will pony up the cash for the tickets to get them there.

Officials call it win-win for all sides. So far, 550 families have taken advantage of the offer at a cost to the city of $500,000 (£300,000). They have been put on buses, trains and planes (or even given petrol tokens) to 25 different states across the US and to destinations in five continents. Records acquired by The New York Times show that the city has dispatched families to Paris (at a cost of $6,332), Orlando ($858.40) and even Johannesburg ($2,550.70).

All this, of course, is in an effort to relieve the stresses on a homeless system that is already bursting with almost 10,000 families in its care. And if the tickets can sometimes be expensive, defenders of the programme note keeping just one family in homeless shelters can cost the city as much as $36,000. It's cheaper to get rid of them.

"We want to divert as many families as we can that need assistance," said Vida Chavez-Downes, a city official. "We have paid for visas, we've gone down to the consulate, we've provided letters, we've paid for passports for people to go – anyone who comes through our door."

But not everyone is impressed. Critics assert that the city is trying to sustain an illusion that it is dealing with the homelessness problem and that numbers are falling. But by sending people packing, they are not addressing the causes of the crisis, including the continuing dearth of affordable housing in New York City...