meta-roj

bringing two interesting threads together, i find this story.

The Justice Department sought extraordinary permission to let the FBI conduct a search-and-destroy mission on any computers harboring classified information about a 1980s case that temporarily became public in a lawsuit. A federal judge, however, rejected the idea

but it’s not over… the motion was denied without prejudice, and they’ve put someone on the next round:

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kristin S. Door said she was researching laws that might support such a decision. Door acknowledged that even she doesn’t have sufficient government clearance to read the classified documents

is this the confluence of creative prosecution and a deluded concept that you can get back a secret?

this old case would probably disappear as just another screwup if the department of justice didn’t push the issue. these are not stupid people, so i can only imagine that this is set up as some sort of test-case to establish a precedent for data-search-and-destroy missions. happy huting, kristin door.

now the question is, what’s the real case? what’s the real secret that the doj wants to get back? what’s the real data that the fbi wants to track down and destroy? and where are bradbury’s firemen when you need them?

today, i present for your reading enjoyment, a legal hack.

some time ago, i posted a brief thought that in order to make progress, we need to redefine “money” as “not speech” – i mean this on several levels, but the most obvious is in the sphere of the political campaign.

to do so, i’m bringing together a few threads you’ll find here. the first, is of course, the goal – to do something about splitting the concepts of money and speech. another thread is the ongoing exposure of sunncomm (and friends) to the light (1, 2, 3, 4). also of interest is a little bit of refocusing that would be useful, honesty, and that silly problem of running an election (which i really should address in some depth sometime).

not making much of an apperance on the blog (yet?) are concepts of democracy, governance, and political dissent.

i’m also going to do something i generally disagree with, and that is to hack the legal system. i don’t like creative prosecution, on several levels. i suppose if you put on the white-hat and use the process to expose flaws in the system, then it’s not so bad. and, of course, as with most weapons (and i do mean to use the law as a weapon), it’s great as long as “we” use it, but when “they” use it, then it’s bad.

it’s very likely that despite my oversized introduction, all of this is entirely pointless. i don’t pretend to be a constitutional scholar, and certainly don’t swim in the ocean of legalese and court decisions that govern my life here in the united states. but, every once in a while, i get a little lawyer voice sitting on my shoulder, and sometimes it’s interesting enough to think about. so, i should state this idea in the form of a question [cue jeopardy theme]…

if, according to buckley v. valeo, money is somehow equivalent to speech, can that decision be used as a way to prosecute perpetrators of fraud and theft for violating the civil rights of the victim?

if so, would the burden (or potential burden) of turning every case down to the level of the pickpocket into first amendment issue create enough weight to change the decision?

any scholars have a thought?

just hours after i make a post about justice systems that are strong enough to admit they are wrong, and within days of a series of posts about telling the truth and banking on darkness and going where the lawyers point and retreating back to sensible territory, leave it to one lawrence lessig to give me hope

see? it ain’t all bad. mostly.

thanks, larry.