Quite the little country we’re becoming.

[SK in CV]

[quote=no_such_reality]Budget Bill could limit public’s access to Government Documents

[quote]SACRAMENTO — Gov. Jerry Brown is poised to sign legislation that could reduce the public’s access to basic government records that have long been used to scrutinize the actions of elected officials.

The proposal, a late insert into the state budget that lawmakers passed last week, would allow local officials to opt out of parts of the California law that gives citizens access to government documents.

Under that law, officials now must respond to a request for records from a member of the public within 10 days and are required to make the documents available electronically. The change, which Brown requested as a cost-cutting measure, would allow the officials to skip both requirements with a voice vote.

The same vote would permit them to reject requests without explanation and would no longer require them to help citizens identify existing information.

Brown and other defenders of the legislation predict that it would have little effect — that most local governments would choose to abide by the old rules. But the California Newspaper Publishers Assn. called the measure a stealth attack on government transparency and a blow to the public’s right to information.

…
[/quote][/quote]

Almost nothing is really is as simple as it seems. This is another move by Sacramento to make municipalities pick up the tab. This doesn’t apply to state government records, only local. Under existing law, the state reimburses localities for expenses related to disclosure, because the state mandated it. As revised, the state no longer picks up the tab, and leaves it up to local governments to disclose or not disclose. It’ll be interesting to see if localities continue with the old way. I wouldn’t be surprised if some do, those that are corrupt, less likely. San Diego? Any guesses?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

SK: Would strongly concur that nothing is as simple as it seems. However, I’d also opine that, if one were to look at the larger picture, it certainly seems that opacity and not transparency are the order of the day.

No, I’m not speaking of the federal level and the various and sundry secrecy and privacy issues consuming the present administration.

I’m speaking at the state and local levels. Everything from the excessive fees that Detroit continues to pay investment banks to Chicago’s “sale” of parking meters to Wall Street (and, if you’ve recently parked in downtown Chicago, you’ll know exactly what I mean about excessive costs).

The average American citizen is being sidelined by government at every level. Whether by a president that tells us “trust me, it’s for your own good” (NSA) and “you wouldn’t understand the complexities (Syria)”, to state officials busily selling out to the Prison-Industrial Complex (California), to local officials who’ll plead they’re simply following the new law and why don’t you go and stick that request where the sun don’t shine.

It’s all of a piece.

[no_such_reality]

Opague? What could possibly be opague.

LAUSD awards $30 million contract for iPads

[quote]…The push for tablets came from schools Supt. John Deasy, who made it his goal to close the technology gap for the overwhelming majority of low-income district students. He expects to pay for the tablets with school construction bonds, a controversial source because they are repaid over decades. Such bonds typically are used to build and modernize campuses.[/quote]

Never mind that to provide iPads for every teacher and every student at $678/piece as quoted in the article is really a $480 Million dollar commitment.

[CA renter]

[quote=no_such_reality]Opague? What could possibly be opague.

LAUSD awards $30 million contract for iPads

[quote]…The push for tablets came from schools Supt. John Deasy, who made it his goal to close the technology gap for the overwhelming majority of low-income district students. He expects to pay for the tablets with school construction bonds, a controversial source because they are repaid over decades. Such bonds typically are used to build and modernize campuses.[/quote]

Never mind that to provide iPads for every teacher and every student at $678/piece as quoted in the article is really a $480 Million dollar commitment.[/quote]

They’ve done this locally, as well. Not sure which funding mechanism they’ve used, though.

[no_such_reality]

New IRS Chief, Inappropriate Screening Broad

Nutshell: you didn’t get the full story before…

[no_such_reality]

Suspected hollywood panhandling killer arrested 46 times in last eight years

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=no_such_reality]Suspected hollywood panhandling killer arrested 46 times in last eight years[/quote]

NSR: We should outlaw knives.

And being crazy.

[spdrun]

Never mind that to provide iPads for every teacher and every student at $678/piece as quoted in the article is really a $480 Million dollar commitment.

Never mind that there are much cheaper/more functional tablets in 2013 than Apple’s crippleware.

[FlyerInHi]

It an’t all that bad.

The 1950s has their own problems with government overreach at the national and local levels.

Electronic surveillance is just a result of technological advances. If we don’t want the government to access data, we need to ban private companies from collecting it.

What do you think the airlines do when they collect your name, DOB, and sex when you book a ticket? They send the passenger manifests to TSA. So our travel history is stored somewhere. I believe that if someone else pays for your ticket, or if you paid cash, your booking will receive more scrutiny.

Not just the government, but businesses do data mining. Did you ever apply for credit only to see them pop up a list of your previous addresses asking you to confirm your identity? Kinda creepy.

[spdrun]

(1) The 50s aren’t exactly a shining beacon of civil liberty. You mean the time when you couldn’t get a decent seat on a train if you were Black, got blacklisted as a “Communist” if your name was Jewish and you hung with the wrong crowd, or when the police let go the dogs on peaceful demonstrators? Not to mention J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI tactics.

(2) The government should be held to a higher standard. I can rent an apartment across from Mr. Lars Thorwald of 125 West 9th St, and have the opportunity to peek into his window as a private citizen. Maybe even suspect him of murder. For the FBI to do that should require a warrant to surveil a specific person.

Furthermore, release of personal data should be subject to contractual obligations. If my contract with Verizon states that my phone records are confidential and will not be released to a third party, unless they’re served with a lawful warrant, this should be the case. The warrant should only be for a specific person or set of phone numbers, not for the ENTIRE FUCKIN COUNTRY.

[FlyerInHi]

But metadata is a little different. They (software programs) only look at traffic patterns. Only when there is a pattern deemed a threat are individuals looked at more carefully.

Sometimes I’m nice and, at airports, foreign passengers need help contacting their friends and relatives. Should l use my cell phone to dial the number for them? Could be a criminal I’m calling. .

I think that companies should pay you to keep your data. If there is a cost associated with that companies would be more mindful what they keep. Some author argued for that system.

I wrote to all the junk mail people to remove me for their mailing lists. But they never remove an address from their databases. They just stop the mailing for 7 years then you get flooded with junk all over again. There is too much money at stake so marketers keep all the data. Problem is that with enough data mining and cross referencing of databases they can figure out your whole life.

If private companies were required to delete data, they would not be able to turn it over to the government. But again, the lure of making money for marketing purposes is too powerful. Congress will never ban data collecting or require specific opt-in by consumers before data is collected.

Basically, if you want the conveniences of a modern society, you will be tracked.

Soon, all cars will have blackboxes with GPS.

[spdrun]

Again: I have no problems with companies collecting data, within the limits of contracts and applicable laws. I do have a problem with government buying/collecting such data on a wholesale basis, rather than on specific individuals. Basically, government should be MORE restricted than private industry — just because someone has the data, doesn’t mean that it should automagically be available to government.

Government may only be mining it looking for patterns AS A RULE. However, NSA, CIA, FBI, who the fuck knows who else have the raw data as well. Would it be a stretch that it could be used for blackmail of specific individuals? “Senator Smith, I see you’re not so keen on voting for the new defense appropriation bill. You’re a married man — why did you call your ex-intern at 3 am, repeatedly for six months…? Sure you don’t want to change your vote?”

Since Congressional votes are often very close, it would take a subversion of only a few % of legislators, journalists, etc, for the three-letter agencies to grab close to absolute power covertly — basically a bloodless coup d’etat.

I took some street photos on my iPhone. The data is there. It contains photos of public places. Would you be OK with making all photos taken on smart phones with GPS coordinates of public places available to the FBI or NSA?

Solving potential crimes isn’t a good excuse. I personally think that even a few thousand deaths from terrorism is a fair price for living in a free society. We accept deaths from gun violence as the price of the 2nd. Why not accept terrorist deaths as the price of the 4th?

Lastly, I hope that cars do get GPS black boxes (though there’s been push back against it from many sides). Should be a hell of a lucrative market selling ways to circumvent the bloody things to “businessmen” and people who are fucking someone other than their lawful spouse.

[FlyerInHi]

I’m thinking that every country now wants big data.

With big data, leaders could anticipate and prevent popular demonstrations like those in turkey and brazil. You’d need real time phone data, and maybe real time transport data to see people on the move. That would be easy if everyone were equipped with EZpass auto or subway/bus passes.

My friend who is a software guy said that at his company, they have real time data that show on a map where people are located in real time. Any unusual spike in data activity automatically generates an alert.

As technology advances, every lamp post will be a camera. Big brother is watching. We can’t stop it.

spdrun, what makes you think your spouse can’t inadvertently drop a tracking device in your car? Trust but verify. Verification is so cheap now, so why not?

[spdrun]

Spoken like a true technician. The whole purpose of a Constitutional republic *IS* to stop abuses of power and privacy. Just because a government technically CAN and WANTS TO, doesn’t mean it should be permitted to. Cops may “want” the power to summarily shoot people who they strongly suspect of being gang leaders, and could technically do so. Fortunately, we have a rule of law, and this isn’t permitted.

The purpose of public and civilian courts is to judge the Constitutionality of laws and government actions. Thankfully, Snowden has thrown this out into the open, so it may be judged, both by the public and in the courts.

Hope that there will be many more like him, and that we’ll see a rerun of 1968 and 1973, with a collapse of faith in government, people clamoring for strict control of the three-letter agencies, spitting in the faces of people who are cogs in the machine, etc.

A company tracking its vehicles or its employees’ cell phones DURING WORKING HOURS is a whole different ball game.

[no_such_reality]

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department violated the U.S. Constitution and federal laws in its treatment of blacks and other residents of public housing in the Antelope Valley, the U.S. Justice Department concluded.

[quote]
Among the Justice Department’s findings, according to the statement:

• African Americans, and to a lesser extent Latinos, are more likely to be stopped and/or searched than whites, even when controlling for factors other than race, such as crime rates;

• The widespread use of unlawful backseat detentions violating the 4th Amendment and L.A. County Sheriff’s Department policy;

• A pattern of unreasonable force, including a pattern of the use of force against handcuffed individuals;

• A pattern of intimidation and harassment of African American housing choice voucher holders by sheriff’s deputies;

• Inadequate implementation of accountability measures to intervene on unconstitutional conduct has allowed these problems to occur.

[/quote]

[Author]

Posts