Articles from July 2004



In The Eye Of The Beholder

Scientists have come up with a method of photographic analysis that allows them to determine what people are looking at.

Shree K. Nayar, a professor of computer science and co-director of the Columbia Vision and Graphics Center, took high-resolution photographs of people that include their eyes and, in particular, the transparent part of the eye called the cornea. Then, with a postdoctoral researcher, Ko Nishino, he devised computer algorithms that analyze the images reflected in these natural mirrors, revealing a wealth of information.

The system can automatically recover wide-angle views of what people are looking at, including panoramic details to the left, right and even slightly behind them. It can also calculate where people are gazing – for instance, at a single smiling face in a crowd.

Of course, while this technology has potential for good uses, there is also potential for abuse.

Because the algorithms can track exactly where a person is looking, the system may one day find use in surveillance cameras that spot suspicious behavior or in interfaces for quadriplegics who use their gaze to operate a computer.

I’d like to know just what they think would constitute suspicious behavior?  I tend to scan crowds looking for people who might be acting odd as a standard precaution.  Will this get me pegged as a shady character by the system?  How about staring at a cop’s gun?  I generally look out of curiosity to see what model he’s carrying.  Is that suspicious?  Would it get me stopped and questioned?  How is this anyone’s business as long as I don’t make any threats or moves towards the cop?  Seriously, there is no computer system that can approximate the “hairs on the back of your neck”/“what’s that guy up to?” neural warning system in our heads.  All a computer can do is flag certain behaviors for a person to check.  But that just ends up singling out lots of innocent people for further scrutiny, perhaps to the detriment of looking for a real bad buy.

On a less serious note, do we really want to be able to analyze where guys are looking?  Or do we really need to analyze it?  As the Slashdot posters mention, it sounds like it has the potential to get a lot of guys in trouble with their girlfriends/wives. 

If this became widespread I suppose sunglasses would become required accessories if you wanted to maintain even a tiny shred of privacy.

Police Request Vs Order?

The item below and subsequent discussion on The High Road about the police actions in Oskhosh got me to thinking about another, related issue.

Specifically, the police “evacuated” a 6-block area and forced the residents to a shelter for the duration of their search.  What rights does a private citizen have to refuse to leave his home in the face of a police demand to evacuate?

My first thought about it is that in the absence of a specific, immediate threat, I would be reluctant to leave.  I’d ask the officer whether it was a request or an order.  If it’s just a request, I’ll tell him to get lost.  If it’s an order, then I think the law would require me to leave, but I’d insist on locking the house and arming the alarm.  I just don’t trust cops enough anymore to leave things open for them to get in and mess with my stuff.  This incident simply reinforces that.

Update:  This has also brought up something that’s been stewing in the back of my mind for a while now.  The weekly Keller newspaper publishes records of all arrests from the previous week.  Reading through them, the majority are either DWI (no objection there, for the most part) or small drug posession arrests based on a consent search following a simple traffic stop (headlight out, speeding, failure to signal, etc).  It amazes me that people would consent to a search in this circumstance, but I understand that a lot of people a.) don’t know their rights, and b.) are often browbeaten or intimidated into consenting.  Now that I know the Keller cops are search-happy on traffic stops (and I already knew they were like sharks in a small pond when it comes to looking for traffic violations), I’ll be more on guard.  However, asserting your rights can get you arrested if the officer feels like it.  Texas law allows them to arrest you for simple traffic violations if they feel like it.  Given this, I think I need to find a good criminal defense attorney and if not put them on retainer, at least establish a relationship.  Besides, it’s probably stupid of me to have gone this long without doing so.  Partially it’s a matter of procrastination, but there’s also the fact that I haven’t a clue about how to find a good lawyer.  I’ve found a few directories that list attorneys in the area by speciality, but I have no idea how to determine if they’re any good.

By Gosh Something Stinks In Oshkosh

After one of their officers was shot last week, it would appear that the police in Oshkosh, WI need a refresher course on the Fourth Amendment.

From the Wisconsin Gun Owners website:

Police evacuated citizens from their homes within a quarantined area near Smith Elementary School Saturday night (July 17, 2004) to conduct a broad gun sweep of the neighborhood following the shooting of Oshkosh police officer Nate Gallagher.

  Residents reported returning home from area shelters—where they were herded by police—to find their guns gone.

  Others watched in awe as police took their firearms after giving police consent to search. Some were told by police their firearms would be subjected to ballistics tests, and would be returned.

  “However, the bullet that hit officer Gallagher was not found,” said Corey Graff, executive director of Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc. “So how can police conduct ballistics tests if there’s no bullet with which to match the results? It defies logic.”

  Graff said the biggest issue is what he calls the department’s “Guilty-until-proven-innocent” posture towards citizens.

  In what appears to be a blatant knee jerk abuse of police power, the department unleashed the dogs — literally — when the Special Weapons and Tactics Unit (SWAT) showed up with its K-9 Unit to begin house-to-house searches.

  According to media reports, the suspect fled on foot into the neighborhood, and has not been apprehended.

  Warrants for searches were issued for at least two homes, (perhaps more) but homeowners in the area reported having all their firearms taken by police.

  Some witnesses said the whole neighborhood was evacuated by force and citizens were being told – not asked, but told – to hand over their guns. Some weren’t even asked.

      “That’s what makes me so mad,” said resident Terry Wesner in an Oshkosh Northwestern report (July 20, 2004). “They had no reason [to remove firearms] without a warrant. . .I didn’t know they removed anything until my buddy, who’s staying with me, noticed they were missing. I thought you had to have a warrant to take someone’s guns.” [Emphasis Added]

  In a subsequent report, another resident, who worked the late night weekend shift, reported he came home to find a scene that looked like his home had been burglarized — he said personal belongings were thrown about — and his gun safe was empty.

  “They didn’t even leave a note, telling me what was going on,” the man said on camera.

  An elderly woman said she woke up to find police — who were reported to be dressed in black, quasi-military gear — conducting a search in her home in the early morning hours.

  “Did the fact that this poor senior citizen happened to live in the immediate area of the crime warrant “Reasonable Suspicion” or “Probable Cause” that she could have committed this heinous act?” asked Graff.

  “Is Grandma taking pot shots out her kitchen window? Is she hiding something in the cookie jar?” He said.

  In the same Oshkosh Northwestern report (July 20, 2004) Oshkosh Police Captain Jay Puestohl was reported to have, “declined to say on what grounds officers had the right to remove the firearms…”

 

I think this just shows once again why you should never, ever allow police into your house without a warrant.  Of course, the police may barge in anyway, but if they do at least you still have legal standing to contest their entry.  If you give consent to a search you’ve given up the ability to challenge the search.  The same goes for traffic stops.  I will never, ever give consent to a search of my house or vehicle, even if I haven’t done anything wrong.

Because Wisconsin Gun Owners don’t provide any way to link directly to their news articles I’ve reproduced their entire article in the extended text area of this entry so it will be available in case it scrolls off of their main page.

Oshkosh police say ‘Sorry’ for trampling citizens’ rights in door-to-door gun confiscations.

  Oshkosh, Wis.—In what appears to be an admission of wrong-doing by the Oshkosh Police Department, Fox 11 WLUK (Green Bay) has reported that area resident Terry Wesner was offered an apology by the department.

  Police evacuated citizens from their homes within a quarantined area near Smith Elementary School Saturday night (July 17, 2004) to conduct a broad gun sweep of the neighborhood following the shooting of Oshkosh police officer Nate Gallagher.

  Residents reported returning home from area shelters—where they were herded by police—to find their guns gone.

  Others watched in awe as police took their firearms after giving police consent to search. Some were told by police their firearms would be subjected to ballistics tests, and would be returned.

  “However, the bullet that hit officer Gallagher was not found,” said Corey Graff, executive director of Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc. “So how can police conduct ballistics tests if there’s no bullet with which to match the results? It defies logic.”

  Graff said the biggest issue is what he calls the department’s “Guilty-until-proven-innocent” posture towards citizens.

  In what appears to be a blatant knee jerk abuse of police power, the department unleashed the dogs — literally — when the Special Weapons and Tactics Unit (SWAT) showed up with its K-9 Unit to begin house-to-house searches.

  According to media reports, the suspect fled on foot into the neighborhood, and has not been apprehended.

  Warrants for searches were issued for at least two homes, (perhaps more) but homeowners in the area reported having all their firearms taken by police.

  Some witnesses said the whole neighborhood was evacuated by force and citizens were being told – not asked, but told – to hand over their guns. Some weren’t even asked.

      “That’s what makes me so mad,” said resident Terry Wesner in an Oshkosh Northwestern report (July 20, 2004). “They had no reason [to remove firearms] without a warrant. . .I didn’t know they removed anything until my buddy, who’s staying with me, noticed they were missing. I thought you had to have a warrant to take someone’s guns.” [Emphasis Added]

  In a subsequent report, another resident, who worked the late night weekend shift, reported he came home to find a scene that looked like his home had been burglarized — he said personal belongings were thrown about — and his gun safe was empty.

  “They didn’t even leave a note, telling me what was going on,” the man said on camera.

  An elderly woman said she woke up to find police — who were reported to be dressed in black, quasi-military gear — conducting a search in her home in the early morning hours.

  “Did the fact that this poor senior citizen happened to live in the immediate area of the crime warrant “Reasonable Suspicion” or “Probable Cause” that she could have committed this heinous act?” asked Graff.

  “Is Grandma taking pot shots out her kitchen window? Is she hiding something in the cookie jar?” He said.

  In the same Oshkosh Northwestern report (July 20, 2004) Oshkosh Police Captain Jay Puestohl was reported to have, “declined to say on what grounds officers had the right to remove the firearms…”

  “If officers were acting honorably and respecting property owners’ rights, why not say so? Why not be upfront? Why the secrecy?” Graff said.

  One resident in the neighborhood may have found himself the subject of the investigation simply by refusing to consent to a search (entirely within his rights) according to the news report.

  The Oshkosh Northwestern story quoted one neighbor — who suspected homeowners who exercised their right to refuse consent to the heavy-handed searches, were presumed guilty by police — as saying:

      “. . .[T]hey’ve been downright rude to us. . .You don’t treat so-called civilians this way.” [Emphasis Added]

  The news story goes on to say that Captain Puestohl “. . .declined to say whether officers pursued the warrant because the residents refused a consent search.”

  This hysteria-driven Oshkosh neighborhood gun grab could establish a nightmarish precedent for a wide-open abuse of police power to be unleashed upon Badger State gun owners said WGO.

  The silence from other gun rights groups on this issue is deafening.

  “The institutional gun lobby is just as scared as the poor people in that Oshkosh neighborhood,” Graff said. “They might be thinking, ‘If I speak out, will my guns be next?’”

  Wesner, one of the brave gun owners to speak out against the rash of gun confiscations that occurred after the shooting, said police confiscated his guns after entering his home without a search warrant.

  He reported in a Thursday, July 22 television interview with WLUK-FOX 11, “They [the police] are not going to come in my home again [without a warrant].”

  That same report stated that the police “acknowledged a lack of proper procedure [in not obtaining a warrant].” 

Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc. said the most effective response for gun owners is to join and contribute to the organization’s bold, no-compromise educational crusade. 

All Your Ticket Are Belong To Us

Sometimes you get an unexpected combination of input data and the system barfs all over you.

Jim Cara wanted a vanity license tag that would make people laugh.

But when he chose “NOTAG” for the plate on his Suzuki Hayabusa, a sleek blue and silver motorcycle with a speedometer that reaches 220 mph, the joke backfired.

The new tag arrived Saturday under an avalanche of Wilmington parking violations.

“All the traffic tickets say, ‘Notice of violation. License number: no tag,’ ” Cara said.

City computers, talking to state Division of Motor Vehicles computers, had finally found an address for ticketed vehicles that lacked license tags: Cara’s home in Elsmere.

“I messed up the system so bad,” Cara said. “I wonder if they can put me in jail or something?”

He has received more than 200 violation notices. The mail carrier came twice on Saturday. Cara opened a few. They ranged from $55 to $125 for violations such as meter expirations.

Fortunately, they’re going to correct the problem in the system, but I find it kind of amusing.  I guess no one thought that anyone would ever try to actually use “NOTAG” as a valid license number. 

Keep Your Patriotism To Yourself

A local woman in Euless has learned that she is not allowed to fly the American flag at her home because of the rules of the homeowners association. 

The American flag cannot fly on Patriot Street, Colonial Lane or anywhere else in the Heritage Place subdivision.

It’s a rule homeowner Linda Martin would like to see waived.

A few weeks after Martin moved into her new villa-style home in June on Republic Drive, she received a letter from the Heritage Place Homeowners Association requesting that she remove her U.S. flag. The letter said the flag violated efforts “to preserve and maintain the property values” in the subdivision.

Martin had been flying a 4-by-6-foot flag on a pole attached to her fence for the Fourth of July and to show respect for the troops and for her son in the Navy.

“I would have never guessed in a million years that a homeowners association would restrict a United States flag on a holiday,” she said.

Martin dusted off the manual of covenants she had set aside after she moved in and discovered that she had, in fact, violated the rules.

At least she admits that she hadn’t fully read the rules and was violating them.  However, I think this sort of thing just further illustrates why I’ll never buy a house where there’s a homeowners association.  These associations always seem to be populated by petty little martinets who get a rush from the power they hold over the homeowners. 

So why don’t they want people to fly flags? 

Flags are restricted for aesthetic reasons because people often neglect them, Weber said. The deed restrictions are standard, and use of flags was not an issue until 9-11, she said.

After Martin received the letter dated July 6, she said, she approached board members at a meeting.

They told her that if she wanted to fly an American flag, they would have to allow her neighbors to fly any flags, even Nazi or Ku Klux Klan ones, she said.

This one pegs my bullshit detector.  First, since they have a plethora of rules about the maintenance and appearance of homes, it would be a simple thing to make a rule that requires the flag to be well tended and in good condition.  Second, the association can create just about any rule it wants (it’s a private organization and isn’t covered by the First Amendment), so the idea that they would have to allow any other kind of flag just doesn’t seem to fly.  Being a private organization, with voluntary membership, they could surely write a rule that only allowed the American (and possibly Texas) flags to be flown.

Martin is not amused that an association created to protect the value of her home would go so far in restricting her freedom.

“People die in wars so that we can own homes and have a homeowners association,” she said.

Martin is working with a lawyer to request permission to fly a flag three days before and after a national holiday. Even though she loves her home, Martin said that if her request is denied, she will probably move out in a few years.

“And I will never live in a community with a homeowners association again,” she said.

It sounds like she’s learned an expensive lesson about avoiding these petty little martinets in the future.

Don’t Take The Polls Seriously

I was Galluped this week.  They called me up and asked a few questions about the state of the country, the economy, and the elections.  What I found is that their questions don’t make any allowances for anything beyond yes/no or Democrat/Republican responses.  I think what this does is cause their numbers to be skewed.  When the mainstream press gets the results of the poll, they report them like they were gospel.  When the actual results don’t match the polls, they are then left casting about for answers as to why (usually they seem to blame it on voters “throwing a tantrum” or something like that when their liberal favorites don’t get elected or get thrown out).

If you were to ask if I approved of the job that Bush is doing on a strictly ‘yes/no’ basis, my answer would be ‘no.’  And in fact, that’s just what Gallup did.  I am also a participant in Zogby’s online poll.  I get a questionaire from them about once a month.  They break things down a little more, but my answers still tend to be negative on a variety of issues.  I don’t like the profligate spending on his watch (billions more for Medicare anyone?).  I don’t like the pandering to illegal aliens.  I don’t like his position on the Assault Weapons Ban (not only was it wrong, it was cowardly, since he thought it was pretty safe that he wouldn’t actually have to worry about it being passed).  I don’t like his support for the FMA.  So when it came to rating my overall opinion of George W. Bush, I rated him as “unfavorable.”  Of course, I gave Kerry, Edwards, and Nader ratings of “highly unfavorable.”

I don’t fit in any political party anymore.  I can’t stand the Democrat party.  The morality police wing of the Republican party pisses me off so much that the tent really isn’t big enough for them and me at the same time.  I fell out with the Libertarian party after 9/11, when they adopted a blame America approach. 

Anyhow, all these negative factors show up in my polling results, but it doesn’t necessarily translate into information that can be relied on for anything.  When it comes time to make a decision for the presidential election, my only choices are Bush or nobody.  There isn’t a snowball’s chance that I would vote for Kerry.  But for now, when they ask me who I’ll vote for, I simply say I’m undecided.

I think come November that the news media is going to get thwacked about the head by people like me.  Despite our high disapproval for George W. Bush, or being undecided at the moment, I suspect there will be a lot nose holding at the voter booths.  Until then, the polls will show lots of undecideds and low approval ratings for Bush, which will be pounced on by the media and shouted from the rooftops in the hopes of influencing the vote.

Be Careful What You Ask For…

So the New York protesters are demanding water and other amenities from the city now, eh?  It’s too bad I’m not the mayor or police comissioner.  I’d give them water.  Straight from the firehose.  Heck, it might even wash off some of the smell.

Spoilers In The Middle

I’ve noticed that a lot of publishers like to put photos in the middle of some non-fiction books.  I’m guessing it has to do with the type of paper used, since it’s usually glossy as opposed to the normal paper of the rest of the book, and putting it in the center makes sense.

The problem I’ve found with this, though, is that you have to be very careful not to look at all of the pictures when you get to them, since you’re only halfway through the book.  The captions on the pictures can spoil things for you by giving away events you haven’t gotten to yet. 

However, you’d think that when the book is released as an eBook they could move the photos around so you don’t run into them before you’ve read the relevant part of the book.  I’ve been reading The Shadow Divers, which is about a group of divers who found a German U-Boat in 1991 off the coast of New Jersey that “wasn’t supposed to be there.”  Given the way the pictures are arranged, it’s actually harder to skip the pictures in the eBook format than it is with a physical book.  With a book, you can simply feel your way to the end of the photo section and keep reading.  The eBook requires you to scroll through the photo section.  Given that I’m capable of getting the meat of an entire paragraph at a glance, it was very difficult to get past that section without learning more than I wanted to at the time.

Lazy And Disingenous

If there’s anything I hate more than being demanded to part with my Social Security Number for numerous things that don’t really need it, it’s the tendency of late for the asker to lazily shorten it to “your social.”  That makes it sound so much more innocuous and “friendly.”  After all, who doesn’t want to be “social”?  It makes you seem unreasonable for getting offended by such a request. 

I just ran into this because Cingular’s obnoxious computer system had mangled my address yet again, substituting “Court” for “Street”.  Luckily, the Court is connected to my Street and serviced by the same postman.  This means that he actually knows my name and delivers it to me.  If it’d been a weekend, the substitute carrier would have likely left my bill at the corresponding address down the way.

After navigating Cingular’s designed-to-make-you-give-up-and-go-away VRU and escaping through hitting zero (even though ‘0’ wasn’t a listed option, it took it), I was eventually transferred to someone who demanded my cell number again and “the last 4 digits of your social.”  It turns out that it’s their policy to either ask for your birthday or the last four digits of your SSN.  I had her put my birthday in the system.  However, it occurred to me that I don’t recall giving them my SSN.  I originally started with them before they changed their name to a silly made-up word, so it’s likely that I didn’t care as much about privacy at the time.

Anyhow, given my previous dealings with Cingular’s online systems, I’m not sanguine that my address will actually get changed.  When I moved I had a hard time getting it to take my address, since it wanted to shoehorn my address into a set of fields, such that I entered the house number in one field, the street name in another, and then selected the type (Street, Drive, etc) from a drop-down.  Given that my correct address requires an additional directional modifier, their system was obviously not designed with me in mind.  As an example, my address would be written as “### Name Street South”, which I had to enter without the “South”.  Fortunately, the north part of my street doesn’t have a house with the same number as mine.  Somewhere along the way, though, the system morphed that into “### Name Court”. 

Given that this type of confusion resulted in having my gas disconnected without warning, you can understand that I’m likely to be a bit peeved with systems that change my address for no apparent reason.

I think part of it is that companies often “normalize” addresses and for some reason their normalization routine changes it if the original isn’t correctly entered.  I know the postal system wants it to be written “### Name St S” or it won’t recognize it.  I always enter it that way on forms, but people have a habit of entering them wrong or changing parts of it.  About a month ago I had the same thing happen with my truck loan. 

Solution To A Nonproblem

A while back I took some time to look at Ohio’s new concealed carry law (along with several other states’ laws) and discovered a provision in the law that pretty much guts the concept of concealed carry and makes vehicles potential attack-prone gun free zones (or invites “panic” on the part of GFWs).  Here’s what I said at the time:

But given what I’ve been reading of the law, the CCW law they just got has a huge stinking problem.  Specifically, you can’t carry on or about your person in a “motor vehicle”, even if you have a permit, unless the handgun is “in plain sight on the person’s person or it is securely encased by being stored in a closed, locked glove compartment or in a case that is in plain sight and that is locked.”  Why does this provision sound like it was added by some GFW police chief somewhere?  What’s the damn point of having a concealed handgun if you have to expose it everytime you get into a car (or worse, lock it up)?

In the most recent issue of Gun Week I came across an article about someone who is suing the state over this provision.

Parts of Ohio’s new concealed carry law are unconstitutional and were written by “idiots,” contends a gun-rights advocate who sued the state on June 30, according to The Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Stephen Miller, a lawyer and handgun instructor from Independence, sued in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, asking a judge to strike down the law’s language governing how guns may be carried in vehicles.

The law requires that when people licensed to carry concealed firearms get into a vehicle, they lock their guns in the glove compartment or a box, or wear them holstered “in plain sight.” But the law doesn’t define “plain sight.”

Hanson, who lobbied for the law, said the State Highway Patrol wrote the language in question. Miller wants the “plain view” language stricken so people in vehicles “would be able to carry in their cars the way the license indicates: concealed.”

It would appear that I was close when I wrote about the “GFW police chief.”  It seems odd that they went to such lengths concerning carry in a vehicle.  All they had to do was ask one of the many states that have concealed carry about how to handle this. 

It occurred to me after reading the article that the Ohio State Highway Patrol may have actually made their jobs harder by insisting on this provision.  Let’s ignore the implicit (and wrong) assumption that concealed permit holders are lawless criminals for a bit and just consider the tactical situation.  If the permit holder has chosen to use the “plain sight” option, you now have a firearm that is in the open and quickly accessible.  If permit holders are the lawless trigger-happy criminals that the Highway Patrol assumes them to be, this just means that they can more quickly get the drop on the trooper when he approaches the vehicle.  One of the tactical problems with concealed carry is that it can hinder ready accessibility to the weapon.  A concealed weapon would likely take longer to deploy and would afford the trooper more time to react. 

Of course all of this is based on the GFW assumption that everyone who gets a concealed carry permit is a trigger-happy bloodthirsty criminal just waiting for a chance to “waste somebody” (blood in the streets at every fender bender, etc).  Real world experience has shown that people who jump through all the hoops to get a carry permit are far more law-abiding that the population in general.  Perhaps the Ohio State Highway Patrol should talk to some Texas State Troopers (and not the political hacks who run the DPS, but real patrolmen), who deal with concealed handguns on a daily basis and manage to do so in a professional and respectful way (or at least that’s been my experience and that of a lot of other Texas CHL holders).