Preserving the Dignity of Death in the Digital Age

Technology develops quickly, but law evolves to meet it at a much slower rate. Megan Guess at Ars Technica reported on an important recognition of the way that the internet’s viral power may very well compromise one of our dearest legal and moral protections.

On Wednesday, Ninth Circuit judge Alex Kozinski ruled that San Diego County, Coulter’s employer, violated Brenda Marsh’s due process constitutional rights when Coulter made photocopies of 16 images in her son’s autopsy reports for himself and later gave them out to a newspaper and TV station. While many states and counties have laws forbidding the dissemination of death-scene images unless the photos are given out by family members, this ruling is the first that says it is also a constitutional right for family members to be able to protect their privacy after a loved one’s death.

(more…)

Gruber on EFF

The incisive, insightful John Gruber on the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s manifesto:

The piece is supposed to be a criticism of Apple’s platform design and policies, but really, what they’re doing is criticizing users for enjoying it.

On “Crystal Prisons”, Rights, and the Reality of Competing Values

A couple of days ago, the Electronic Frontier Foundation released a manifesto on the future of computing, claiming that companies that offer closed computing systems (like Apple and Microsoft) are violating mobile user’s fundamental rights.  I use the term rights here because they use it at the end of the piece in the section “toward a bill of rights for mobile computer owners” and employ phrases like “deprived of liberty.”  The basic thrust of the argument is that all computing devices should be open, meaning that users should be able to add or modify the software and hardware in any way they see fit.  The piece is not long, and is worthwhile reading.

It has generated some pretty thoughtful critical responses within the Apple-using blogosphere.  I won’t go so far as Peter Cohen at the Loop and title this post “The EFF can suck it“, but I do think the EFF’s material is both poorly framed and poorly argued. As is probably the case with all manifestos, they ignore a host of reasonable principles and perspectives in order to try to motivate the masses.

(more…)

Dharun Ravi, Tyler Clemente, and How We Accept Spying

Today, Dharun Ravi begins his thirty day prison sentence for his conviction on crimes relating to using a webcam twice to spy on his Rutgers roommate Tyler Clemente.  Clemente committed suicide a day later.  (For background, The New York Times has a topic page on the case.)

I’ve been thinking a lot about the case over the past couple of years, especially since Ravi’s conviction in March.  And especially given what he was actually sentence for.

(more…)

If You Can’t Innovate, Intimidate: Lobbying and LightSquared

Exactly what is wrong with the big business-Washington relationship:

Wireless startup LightSquared has laid off nearly half of its workforce and filed for bankruptcy, but isn’t parting with its extensive network of Washington lobbyists.

Philip Falcone and his investment firm, Harbinger Capital Partners, invested billions of dollars in LightSquared’s plan to build a high-speed wireless network that would have served more than 260 million people, but federal regulators denied it permission to launch in February over concerns that it would interfere with GPS devices…

Last quarter, at least 14 different firms lobbied for LightSquared, according to disclosure forms. The company spent more than $2.8 million on lobbying in 2011, according to records, roughly quadrupling 2010’s total of nearly $700,000.

LightSquared developed a technology that tends (in tests) to interfere with GPS.  Rather than fix it, why not just find friends in high places?

There is no right to success in business.

viaBankrupt wireless firm LightSquared cuts employees, but not lobbyists, by Brendan Sasso and Kevin Bogardus at Hillicon Valley.

Policy Can Be Changed: PIPA and Protest

A couple of months ago, the web went dark in protest of the SOPA/PIPA legislation.  I wrote a post at the time over at CatholicMoralTheology.com blog.  In broad strokes, the legislation was aimed at trying to develop mechanisms for dealing with clear infringement of copyright that occurs online.  But in figuring out mechanisms to do so, legislators promoted policies that infringed upon legitimate use and set up pretty draconian enforcement schemes that some said would fundamentally damage the systems that the net is built on.  The RIAA and MPAA disagreed, but legislators quickly reversed course, perhaps realizing they were out of there depth.

(more…)