Techdirt. Stories filed under "florida"

FL Schools Go Minority Report On Students, Give Parents Opt Out Choice Afterward

Timothy Geigner — Mon, 3 Jun 2013 03:30:04 PDT

In past discussions around the use of technology to achieve school security, we have typically found that the practice has more to do with money than safety. Such was the case when a Texas school district issued RFID-chipped student IDs, the impetus for which was actually all about receiving government funding based on attendance. While there was backlash from students and parents in that case, the ire was likely somewhat muted by the fact that these were still basically just ID cards with a little extra juice in them.

The situation is quite different in the case of Polk County, Florida schools, which instituted compulsory iris scans of its high school, middle school, and elementary school students, and then sent out a letter to parents announcing they could opt out after the scans had already been completed.

Reports were confirmed Wednesday that Daniel Jenkins Academy, a high school, Davenport School of the Arts, a middle school, and Bethune Academy, an elementary school, planned a pilot scan program with a security program and the schools allowed officials from Stanley Convergent Security Solutions to take iris scans of an unknown number of students. Parents of the students were sent a letter on Friday, May 24, although the letters were dated for delivery the day before. The letters stated that the scanning program would begin on May 20, and allow for students to opt out. However, all students were scanned before any letters were sent home.

There is a saying that goes something like this: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. While public school administrations can often be found rife with the latter, the lack of judgment in this case seems unbelievably grotesque. Anyone with a modicum of sense simply had to know that scanning irises of students was going to raise at least some controversy. To supercharge that by conducting the scans a full three days before a letter informing parents was scheduled to go out, and four days after it actually did, reeks of masochism. Add to that anyone on the lower levels of the operation, who might not be aware of the late-arriving letter to parents, not batting an eye when there wasn't a single instance of parents opting out of the procedure and you have the kind of cauldron of dumb that keeps private schools in business.

To add insult to injury, parents are reporting that attempts to get answers from the school are about as useful as a wedding ring is to the Pope. One particular parent was hilariously directed by the school, which should have had the answers to questions about procedures conducted on its students, to instead contact PCSB, the county school board.

By the time we were able to make a phone call to PCSB (a time span of about 1 hour), the secretary told us that this pilot program had been suspended. When we did get a return call from one contact, she reiterated that the program has been suspended, like this should appease us. My husband continued to ask where our son's private scans were, and she said the company was instructed to destroy the information. When we asked how do we know this has happened, there was no answer.

It is interesting that this letter went home on Friday afternoon at 3pm. Like I told you originally, everyone was gone by 4pm when I tried to make calls. So when exactly did this program get suspended? As of Friday afternoon, it was still in effect. Are they trying to say that somehow it was suspended by Tuesday morning (Monday being a holiday)? It seems like they are mostly focused on this program, like the program was the problem. It's not, it's the invasion of my family's Constitutional right to privacy that is the problem, as well as the school allowing a private company access to my child without my consent or permission. This is stolen information, and we cannot retrieve it.

The district has since claimed that all records and scans from the program have been destroyed, but hasn't bothered to offer any method for parents to confirm this claim. So now we get to endure the resulting suspicion and resentment that is likely going to go unresolved. The district will claim error, parents will stay outraged, and the lawsuits will likely fly. All because the schools couldn't be bothered to tell parents their children were going to have their irises scanned.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Man Butt Dials 911 While Discussing Murder Plot

Mike Masnick — Thu, 23 May 2013 07:58:12 PDT

We've had plenty of stories of dumb criminals being caught in surprising ways thanks to new technology. Particularly common are the criminals who confess via the internet. However, this next one is a new one: a Florida man named Scott Simon just happened to butt dial 911 at the very moment he was discussing plans to kill someone -- plans he followed through on moments later. It did not take long for the police to put two and two together and arrest Simon -- though, they're still looking for others who were with him. Of all the possible places that the phone could have accidentally dialed, it seems rather convenient that 911 was what it ended up on. Those "smartphones" really can be smart sometimes.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Prenda Gets Some Tiny Bit Of Good News, As It May Get Out Of Two Critical Cases

Mike Masnick — Tue, 21 May 2013 23:19:20 PDT

It's been a busy day for Prenda news, with some trouble in Minnesota and central California. However, it may have some slightly better news in two other key cases where judges had suddenly taken a deeper interest in what exactly was going on with Prenda. First up, the Sunlust case in Florida, which was actually the first case where a judge suggested Prenda was engaged in "fraud on the court" during an Abbott & Costello-worthy hearing. That case has continued to move forward with efforts to put sanctions on the key Prenda players. The lawyer, Graham Syfert, for the defendant, Tuan Nguyen, surprised some people by dropping Brett Gibbs from the target list, after he more or less threw his bosses at Prenda under the bus. However, Syfert has surprised a few folks by filing a motion to withdraw all pending motions. Basically, they're saying "drop the case and don't seek sanctions." That has left a lot of people scratching their heads, but suggests strongly that a settlement of sorts has been reached.

Perhaps the legal experts here can fill in the specifics about this one. I believe that the judge could continue to seek sanctions from Team Prenda if she feels it's appropriate, or if something improper happened, but it seems a lot less likely that this will happen now that Nguyen/Syfert have effectively bowed out of the case. Considering how deeply interested in the specifics the judge in this case had been, this is unfortunate. Yes, we already have Judge Wright's ruling on a similar matter in California, but having other courts come to the same conclusion seems like it would be useful.

Then we have the other Prenda case in Northern California, where the judge had become curious as to who exactly had signed a form on behalf of "Salt Marsh," ordering the original document to be produced. Last week, Paul Duffy claimed ignorance and tried to throw Brett Gibbs under the bus (again). Meanwhile, former Prenda paralegal/claimed boss of AF Holdings/Ingenuity 13, Mark Lutz, suggested that he had signed "on behalf of Salt Marsh" but no longer had the original. The judge could have dug deeper on that, but apparently has decided to let it go, saying that the question about Salt Marsh was "substantially complied with" and is ending the case.

Because AF's counsel has now substantially complied with the Court's order, the Court sees no basis to continue deferring a final judgment.

That means that particular case will also be closed. So, assuming the Florida case is similarly closed, that will leave the Judge Wright ruling in Central California as the only main battleground concerning the overall nature of Prenda's antics over the past few years.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Florida's Redlight Program Designed To Make Driving More Dangerous By Shortening Yellow Lights

Mike Masnick — Thu, 16 May 2013 10:52:00 PDT

For years, we've been critics of red light cameras, which have been shown time and time again to actually increase accidents rather than decrease them -- which you would think should be the goal. Of course, we all know that's not really the goal. The goal has always been revenue generation for cities. If they actually wanted to increase safety there's a very simple way to do it: you increase the timing of yellow lights (and for the places, like where I live, that don't have an interval between when one direction turns red and the other turns green, you add that brief interval where all directions are red). Do that, and you increase safety and decrease accidents. And it's incredibly easy and cheap to do.

But, of course, various governments hate that idea, because it would decrease the massive revenue from red light camera fines. That's why over and over and over again, we see that various governments are caught redhanded lowering the time for yellow lights. Make no mistake about it: this increases the danger, and puts many more people at risk. Stupidly, it probably also could end up costing the city more in terms of having to respond to more accidents and deal with more injuries. But, boy, I'm sure it pumps up the revenue on red light camera violations.

The latest example of this comes via Darby Keene, who points out that the Florida Department of Transportation quietly tweaked its own standards for yellow light intervals in 2011, allowing them to be shorter without breaking the law (after many cities have been caught violating official standards). And, of course, various cities quickly did lower the interval timing. Yes, revenue at the expense of public safety. Research has shown that reducing the time of a yellow light by a mere half a second can double the number of red light camera citations -- and in some cases, the changes to FDOT's regulations meant cities reduced the length of a yellow light by an entire second. Smell that? It's the smell of revenue for cities, intermingled with wrecked cars and destroyed lives!

Even worse: while FDOT is claiming that it changed its regulations to clean up some wording, and not because of potential revenue, the report from WTSP, also found emails from FDOT engineers telling local government officials to lower their yellow light intervals to the absolute minimums allowed. That is, they weren't even saying it was just an option, they were being told to decrease the timing to make the intersection less safe, but more profitable.

And, while FDOT defended the whole thing claiming that they changed the policies to "match federal guidelines," the report explains that federal guidelines actually recommend longer yellow light times, just as we discussed above.

A USDOT/Federal Highway Administration (FHA) report said cities should not use speed limit in the yellow interval equation because it results "in more red light violations and higher crash rates." And if drivers' average speeds cannot be calculated, it's recommended engineers use the "speed limit plus 10 mph" variable to producing more conservative, and safer, yellow intervals.

Another report stresses the importance of using 85^th percentile speed to calculate yellow intervals, while slide 28 on this report indicates when yellow light times are lengthened, severe crashes drop.

USDOT also recommends an extra half-second of yellow time at intersections with lots of trucks or elderly drivers to allow them to react safely. And despite the fact that Greater Tampa Bay is home to five of the nation's 12 oldest counties (by median age), it's also home to some of the shortest yellow lights.

Don't you feel safer now?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

DJs' 'Dihydrogen Monoxide' April Fool's Prank Results In Suspension And Possible Felony Charges

Tim Cushing — Wed, 3 Apr 2013 11:12:36 PDT

April Fool's Day. Either you love it or you hate it. There's not much middle ground. As a writer on The Internet, April Fool's Day is a 24-hour deathtrap composed of plausible stories that will set you on fire the moment you press the Publish button. It turns even the most cheerful of writers into a deeply cynical curmudgeon, one who approaches each possible scoop with more suspicion than the heavily-bearded guy down the street who's building a bunker under his garage and frequently answers the door wearing nothing but a shotgun. (Much of this reverts back to normal following the "holiday," but each year adds another layer of resentful suspicion. In fact, if you cut open a writer, you can simply count the rings to determine how many years they've been in the business.)

For many people, though, April Fool's Day is a 24-hour period filled with lighthearted pranks and sub-Onion quasi-satire. They love cheerful shenanigans and they love being fooled. Except when they don't. Then it's suddenly "gone too far" and concerned foolees start pressing for "something to be done about it." This is one of those stories, the kind where you can't fool all of the people all of the time, but you can temporarily fool enough of them that someone gets seriously pissed off.

Florida country radio morning-show hosts Val St. John and Scott Fish are currently serving indefinite suspensions and possibly worse over a successful April Fools' Day prank. They told their listeners that "dihydrogen monoxide" was coming out of the taps throughout the Fort Myers area.

If you're not familiar with the term "dihydrogen monoxide," you'll be thrilled to know that the compound is damn near everywhere. Not only that, but its ubiquity has prompted many a petition to be signed fervently in favor of banning the dangerous-sounding substance completely. No one's really sure what makes it so dangerous, but anything containing two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen can't be completely safe.

Of course, anyone who's paid attention over the last couple of decades (at least) knows that dihydrogen monoxide is water. What's surprising is that a couple of pranking DJs could find enough people unaware of this fact to a.) pull off the prank and b.) possibly face felony charges. Wait... what?

[A]pparently, the station, the water works, and perhaps the authorities are still trying to figure out if the two hosts could face felony charges for, again, reporting that the scientific name of water was coming out of the pipes. "My understanding is it is a felony to call in a false water quality issue," Diane Holm, a public information officer for Lee County, told WTSP, while Renda stood firm about his deejays: "They will have to deal with the circumstances."

It seems unlikely the DJ duo will actually face felony charges, but they are currently suspended after being yanked off the air in the middle of their morning show. Apparently, enough people expressed their concern about dihydrogen monoxide leakage that the local water utility was forced to issue a statement.

These reactions to an April Fool's prank that occurred on a day when pranks are to be expected seem rather overblown. The DJs are suspended indefinitely for technically telling the truth and the station has indicated the pair are facing additional punishment. Sure, nobody wants to feel like a fool, but that is the totality of April 1st. If this many people can't take being taken for a ride on the foolingest day of the year, then it's a clear sign that the national sense of humor is in critical condition. (We've already eulogized the national sense of proportion and scattered its ashes across a variety of moral panics and Terms of Service outrages.) To put it in more familiar terms, "If you can't laugh at yourself, the terrorists win."

[It appears the terrorists have won. (Again.) A poll on the radio station's website (warning: ads frickin' everywhere even with Adblock) shows that 78% of the respondents believe the DJs should return to the airwaves "never." (Poll is no longer live, but an "indefinite" suspension could technically lead to returning "never.")]

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Florida Homeowner's Association Sues Resident For Critical Blog Comments, Seeks Identity Of Other Commenters

Mike Masnick — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:40:30 PDT

I'm not sure what it is about "Homeowners Associations" (HOAs), but I can't recall ever coming across one which didn't involve all sorts of acrimony. A few years back, I lived in a house that was a part of a (mandatory) HOA. I was renting, so I didn't really care or pay much attention to any details. And then, one day I found a bright yellow document sitting on my front step, which had a long and rambling letter from a neighbor who apparently was challenging the HOA on something and the fight had escalated. He had placed the letter on the front steps of every single house in our neighborhood. While I don't even recall what the argument itself was about, I do recall him explicitly asking that the police be present at the next HOA meeting, and the phrase: "I fear my life will be taken; I fear my wife will become a widow; if this situation is not brought under control." The whole thing seemed so bizarre to me -- who would ever take an HOA so seriously? -- that I remember telling people about that phrase, and it's stuck with me.

And the thing is, every time I ever hear anything about HOAs, it always seems to involve some similar crazy story. A few months back, we wrote about an HOA president in Indiana going ballistic with bogus legal threats towards pretty much anyone who criticized him. And now, here's a story out of Naples, Florida, where an HOA for "Fiddler's Creek" is using homeowners' fees to sue one of their own homeowners, a resident named James Schutt, because he made some comments the HOA board members don't like on a blog about the community.

You can see the actual comments in the original lawsuit. I read them over and my first reaction was "they're suing over that?!" Basically, it sounds like a typical HOA fight. Schutt isn't thrilled with how the HOA is being run, and he accuses them of failing their fiduciary responsibility, and he feels that some of the things the HOA pays for -- such as management -- are excessive and possibly corrupt. You see these kinds of things all the time. Even if they're not exactly true, they're standard rhetorical hyperbole that happens online. Get over it and move on. Instead, the HOA sued.

It seems pretty clear that this is a SLAPP lawsuit, designed to shut up Schutt and potentially other critics. Schutt is being defended by Marc Randazza (a name many of you will hopefully recognize) who let us know that the HOA is seeking to depose the blogger and are trying to "out" other anonymous commenters on the blog (to clarify, Schutt is not the blog owner, but was merely a commenter). The fact that the HOA is now trying to out other anonymous commenters certainly adds weight to the idea that this is a SLAPP suit designed to shut up critics. The blogger is pushing back but the anonymous commenters themselves might want to find some legal representation to protect their own rights as well, and to make sure that their identities aren't disclosed due to baseless threats that seem designed solely to create a chilling effect on critics of the HOA.

Did I mention that I no longer live anywhere near an HOA... and I have fantastic neighbors who all seem to get along splendidly with each other?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Prenda Law Sues Critics For Defamation

Mike Masnick — Mon, 4 Mar 2013 05:34:30 PST

Wow. Wow. Wow. Okay, so we have another story we've been working on concerning Brett Gibbs, a lawyer who was working for Prenda Law in California, finally answering some of the questions presented to him by a judge. We'll get that story up later, because there's a new Prenda story that has leapfrogged all the others. It appears that three separate lawsuits have now been filed -- one from Prenda itself, one from John Steele (the guy who is often considered the man behind Prenda) and Paul Duffy the actual official partner of Prenda Law (you may remember Paul from this story, in which he sent a letter insisting that Prenda Law had nothing to do with a case, despite the lawyer appearing believing they had been hired by Prenda). Jordan Rushie, a lawyer who has been following the Prenda cases pretty closely, has links to all of the filings, which we've embedded below. All three were originally filed in state courts (Prenda & Duffy in Illinois, Steele in Florida), but were quickly removed to federal courts.

These are basically defamation lawsuits with a few other claims thrown in as well. There are two named defendants in the lawsuit: Alan Cooper (a caretaker for a home of John Steele, who has accused Steele/Prenda of illegally using his name as "CEO" of companies Ingenuity 13 and AF Holdings) and Paul Godfread, Cooper's lawyer, who filed the letter alerting some judges to these concerns, and then followed it up by filing a lawsuit against Steele and Prenda on behalf of Cooper.

The other targets of the lawsuit are a bunch of unnamed John Does (and if these guys have expertise in anything, it's filing lawsuits that involve John Does), who are... a bunch of anonymous commentators concerning the various Prenda Lawsuits. It looks like they're targeting people on the two main copyright troll tracking websites out there, FightCopyrightTrolls.com and DieTrollDie.com. It's worth noting that both sites were the subject of a nice profile article in Ars Technica last week.

The three filings are similar, but not identical. The Prenda one and the Duffy one are almost identical, but the Steele one is different in a few ways, including focusing on lots and lots and lots of statements specifically about Steele. Steele's suit also does not make the "false light" claim, which means he actually realized that Florida has rejected "false light" as a tort in that state.

Still, all three suits read like obvious SLAPP suits, targeting online critics. The fact that they target Cooper and Godfread, who have a lawsuit pending against them, is ridiculous. That they then go after anonymous bloggers and commenters who have been revealing and calling attention to some of Prenda's more questionable moves seems like an obvious SLAPP situation, in which they appear to be using the lawsuit to create chilling effects and to stifle speech. Looking over the long list of quotes they pull out in the various lawsuits, the vast majority seem to be clear statements of opinion, rather than fact. And even when you could argue some of them are statements of fact -- such as referring to anyone associated with Prenda as a "criminal" or a "scammer" or calling Prenda a "fraud" or similar such things -- courts have increasingly noted that name calling in online forums does not reach the level of defamation, since the context matters. That's no guarantee, as those rulings are still limited, but it's at least a sign that these lawsuits may be overreaching in their claims (which, of course, is a key component of a SLAPP).

It is not uncommon for people in comments on blogs to go a bit far in some of their claims (and even the main authors of the two blogs above sometimes seem to make pretty strong statements that may not be fully supported by the evidence presented). However, to take that to the level of defamation feels like a pretty big stretch. If anything, these lawsuits seem more likely to be attempts to first "out" the folks behind those blogs (and some of the nastier comments) and, barring that, to scare them with chilling effects.

Of course, one interesting thing: the best defense against defamation claims, obviously, is the truth. And, it would seem that, in filing these lawsuits, Steele, Duffy and Prenda may have opened themselves up to pretty wide discovery efforts which may turn up things they probably would rather not have in court. That point alone has me wondering why they'd take this step.

On top of that, the lawsuits note that the plaintiffs are not public figures, which sets the bar much lower for defamation. Paul Duffy might be able to get away with such a claim, but John Steele would seem to have a lot more difficulty. After all, he's been the subject of detailed profiles in Forbes Magazine (which he happily participated in). Forbes doesn't do profile stories on nobodies.

It would seem important to note that both Illinois and Florida have passed anti-SLAPP laws. Florida's are fairly narrowly defined, however, and may not be useful here. Illinois, however, has as broader anti-SLAPP law that has sometimes been interpreted narrowly. Both of these are reminders for why we desperately need a federal anti-SLAPP law.

It appears that, at least for now, Steele and Duffy are representing themselves, while Prenda has another law firm representing the firm. Cooper and Godfread have signed up lawyers to represent them in both Illinois and Florida (in Illinois the lawyers, Erin Russell and Jason Sweet, both have a decently established history of fighting Prenda cases, and while I wasn't familiar with the name, the same appears to be true of Brad Patrick, who is representing them in Florida).

As always with Prenda/Steele, every time you think a story can't possibly get crazier, it seems to take another massive curve in the road. At some point, when this is all over, there's going to be an amazing book to be written about the rise (and, most likely, fall) of John Steele and his adventures in copyright trolling. The story is gripping.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Florida Lawmakers Try To Stop Subsidizing Videogames; Send That Money To Hollywood Instead

Tim Cushing — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:39:13 PST

Florida legislators are looking to dial back the tax credits they've been handing out to Electronic Arts over the past couple of years, citing concerns that "people sitting at computer terminals" just aren't bringing in enough taxable revenue.

"Can you tell me why video games need a tax incentive?" Sen. Eleanor Sobel, D-Hollywood, asked Department of Economic Opportunity Executive Director Jesse Panuccio at one point.

"I just don't see video games as an issue that's going to bring a lot of people to Florida and [bring] big expenditures," added state Sen. Gwen Margolis, D-Coconut Grove.

They may be right -- these tax incentives aren't paying off. After all, EA received $9.1 million during the 2011-12 fiscal year and is looking to score another $14.5 million to underwrite (full retail price!) roster updates for Madden NFL, NCAA Football and the latest iteration of Tiger Woods PGA Tour. EA, which has been in Central Florida since long before the subsidy train started rolling, defended its grab of state incentives by saying the money has "motivated the company to expand its Central Florida workforce during the last three years." That may be true about the last three years, but as is pointed out elsewhere in the article, EA employs fewer people today than it did in 2007.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think EA should be given tax breaks and other incentives in order to continue operating in Florida. In fact, I'm of the opinion that if a business needs subsidies to get by, it's probably not much of a business. However, they are a fact of life at this point, and giving businesses a tax break to move to your state is a powerful persuader. Many locales compete for the affections (and taxable revenue) of large companies, throwing larger and larger amounts money at them in hopes of a decent return on their investment.

If these legislators want to drop the subsidies, more power to them. Unfortunately, they don't want to get rid of subsidies. They just want to throw the money in another direction.

"To have such a concentration of it going to games — I mean, people sitting at computer terminals — I'm not sure most of us really think that's film," said state Sen. Jack Latvala, R-Clearwater. "Film is movies. … People have to hire a lot of folks and they have meals and have to stay in a hotel room."

"I think we ought to be focused on those kinds of things [rather] than games," he added.

"Do you consider any difference if a company is already situated in Florida and has a stable workforce, compared to a company that comes into the state and hires people that might not be hired otherwise, purchases food for the people they've hired, provides lodging for them?" [Sen. Geraldine] Thompson asked.

Oh, I see. You just want to take these extraneous fiscal crutches and offer them to a different member of the entertainment industry. This doesn't really change anything. Sure, legislators want to believe that a big Hollywood production will boost the local economy for the duration of the shooting, but prior experience shows that Hollywood-aimed subsidies rarely improve the financial situation of anyone other than the studio receiving them.

As was previously covered here, a study showed that nearly every subsidy program developed to attract motion picture studios to various locations has turned out to be a losing proposition. Most of the states studied recovered less than $0.25 on every tax dollar invested. Why? Because when a studio rolls into town to shoot a movie, it brings in a lot of its own talent. Sure, there are some temporary bumps to food and housing income, but when it's all said and done, the studios roll out of town slightly richer, leaving their hosts stuck with the bill.

Despite these losses, states continue to wave ever-increasing amounts of money in the air while shouting "Pick me!" at every passing entertainment concern, gambling away their constituents' tax dollars. Florida's legislators seem to be no different. They've mistaken movie studios for good-natured philanthropists and written off "people sitting at computer terminals" as a drain on the economy. It's a "spend money to make money" plan that has failed to pay off time and time again. All these legislators are arguing over is on which losing horse they should put their money.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Making The Case For Why John Steele And Prenda Law Deserve To Be Sanctioned

Mike Masnick — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:19:00 PST

Last week we had the incredible story of the comedy routine that copyright troll John Steele and Prenda Law tried to pull on a courtroom in Florida, leading to the case being dismissed and the judge planning to dig deeper into the potential "fraud on the court." If you have not read that post and accompanying transcript do so now. It is one of the funniest things ever to come out of a courtroom.

And, of course, it's not over yet. The defense attorney in the case, Graham Syfert, who has been getting pretty good at exposing bad behavior by Steele and Prenda, has filed a motion asking for sanctions, and it's a good one. You can see it here or read the embedded version below. Syfert kicks it off by showing, in massive detail, that the letter from Paul Duffy -- claiming to be the sole principle of Prenda Law -- denying any involvement in the case is likely bogus on multiple levels.

Mr. Duffy’s signature is on the subpoena issued out of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, relating to Civil action 1:12-CV-20920-PAS in the Southern District of Florida. (See attached Exhibit “B”) This subpoena revealed the name of the internet subscriber with the IP address of 96.254.186.43, and produced the name of the Defendant to Prenda Law, Inc., at 161 N. Clark St. Suite 3200, Chicago IL 60601, the same address listed on the letter where Paul Duffy stated that he did not represent anyone involved in this case.

Further, Mr. Duffy has made appearances in Sunlust v. Does 1-75, 12-CV-1546 (N.D. Ill.), Sunlust v. Sadiq Majid, 12-CV-07868 (N.D. Ill.), and Sunlust v. Norbert Weitendorf, 12-CV-07826 (N.D. Ill.) and possibly other Sunlust matters.

The website www.wefightpiracy.com is the website of Prenda Law, Inc., lists Paul Duffy as the principal, and lists the work product that is the complaint in this matter as their own, stating “Below is a sample of individuals who chose to litigate the matter and are currently in court over their alleged infringment” and then listing the name of the Defendant, along with a link to the complaint in this matter. The complaint is held on Prenda Law’s website at http://www.wefightpiracy.com/userfiles/Nguyen%20(FL).pdf and the website reports an address of 161 N. Clark Ste. 3200.

Yeah. That last one is pretty damning. And, as of the moment I'm writing this, that link is still on Prenda's list of cases. A quick screenshot: When you claim that you aren't associated with a case, you probably shouldn't put the case up on your website listing "recent cases" that your firm has been involved in.

Of course, Syfert then turns his attention to John Steele, noting that Duffy's claims of not being involved might actually be true if John Steele -- who is not licensed to practice law in Florida and has already been warned by the Florida Bar about this issue -- is actually running the show, potentially even to the point of writing the "letter" that Duffy supposedly sent:

There is only one possible way that the letter is true, and filled with candor, and that would be if John Steele was using Paul Duffy as a “face attorney” using his identity to litigate, and therefore Paul Duffy doesn’t truly represent any Sunlust client. Another option is that that the letter was not even sent from Paul Duffy, and that it was created by John Steele, and was sent without with or without Paul Duffy’s permission.

A quick and dirty forensic examination of the PDF document, as sent by email by “Angela Van Hammel” of Prenda Law, reports that the PDF document was created by a computer user by the name of Kerry Eckenrode (the maiden name of John Steele’s wife) and was created by “Steele Law Firm.” Exhibit “C” attached gives the simple properties of this document and evidences that it was created on 11/20/2012 even though it is dated the 11/18/2012. It is possible that John Steele created the letter at the request of Paul Duffy, but it is unlikely that it was ever presented to Mr. Duffy for his approval, as he would know of his representation in the Sunlust matters.

It is unlikely that Paul Duffy would own or use a computer associated with John Steele’s wife, which would bear the the name of John Steele’s Illinois family law practice (a relatively new creation, post-Prenda Law and post-Steele Hansmeier). Regardless of whether it was created at the behest of Paul Duffy or John Steele was given carte blanche to create the document, it is common for John Steele to create documents and send emails with other attorney’s names to serve his own agenda, with or without their knowledge. When counsel filed his second bar complaint against John Steele, it was for the impersonation of a Florida attorney via e-mail. John Steele’s slippery and wily traits always resulted in insufficient evidence to prove this Mr. Syfert’s claims to the Florida Bar. The loyalty John Steele mysteriously engenders in those around him results in lies to protect him, and therefore insufficient evidence to show that he is violating his affidavit of no UPL attached as Exhibit D.

It goes on to note that Syfert himself, in Chicago to see a Cubs game, stopped by Prenda's offices asking to see Duffy, and the security folks had no idea who he was talking about. But when he asked about John Steele, the guards immediately knew who he was talking about. That would seem odd if Duffy is really running Prenda, as he claims. Furthermore, he notes that every time people try to contact Duffy, Steele seems to call them back. Syfert also notes how Steele's own actions in this particular case seem just a bit odd if he's really got nothing to do with the case:

John Steele wanted to make very clear that although Mark Lutz was looking to him for assistance that he had nothing to do with the case or with Prenda Law. In his Forbes interview, Mr. Steele is filing 20 lawsuits a month with hopes to increase to 300 and he is raking in millions for his efforts. Before this Court, his demeanor is that he is essentially retired, just a fan of bittorrent litigation, in town from Miami or from Chicago, because civil motion arguments as interesting as to him as a Cubs game. He projects that he is a passing acquaintance of Mr. Duffy, and has nothing to do with the case, but has the knowledge to allege that the principals of the Plaintiff were in India (even though that was also a lie). He also knew the correct pronunciation of one of the principals of Sunlust Pictures.

Then there's a second filing about sanctions, this time targeted at Matthew Wasinger, who really only played a bit role in the original hearing -- in that he was the lawyer who had, very briefly, represented Sunlust/Prenda in the case, but had asked to be removed from the case. He did not show up at the court that day, pissing off the judge who had not actually released him from the case. He later filed an apology, saying that he got mixed up, but the judge still considered sanctioning him. Syfert's motion there is interesting, in that he suggests that, in lieu of monetary sanctions, Wasinger should have to answer a number of questions about Prenda/Steele.

It is the hope of Defendant’s counsel and Defendant, by this motion, that a similar line of questioning to the one presented by the Court to Mr. Torres would clarify Mr. Wasinger’s position in this case. By requiring answers to these questions, Defendants counsel hopes that the responses serve as a warning to other potential “local counsel” representatives of Prenda Law to caution themselves in representing Plaintiffs in Federal Court without a reasonable disclosure of the facts surrounding the cases that they are accepting and ability to adequately protect the interest of their clients.

He then lists out fourteen questions, similar (though not identical) to the ones asked by the court of Torres in the hearing.

A few days after this was filed, Wasinger responded to the motion by again apologizing profusely and making a compelling case that his failure to appear was unintentional (since Jonathan Torres had been approved to replace him in a bunch of other cases, and there were indications he was appearing in this case as well). He also notes that his absence did not likely harm the case, seeing as his answers to the questions Torres answered would have been basically the same (i.e., he signed onto this case, not realizing what a clusterfuck it was, or what kind of confusing mess Prenda had gotten him into).

In response to Syfert's request to substitute answering questions for any monetary sanctions, Wasinger seems happy to help nail Prenda and warn others, but he wants to make sure that if he answers the questions, he won't still be on the hook for monetary sanctions.

The undersigned is willing to answer the questions set forth by Mr. Syfert in his Motion upon Order by the Court and a finding of this Court that answers to these questions would not violate any potential ethical duty to Sunlust Pictures. The undersigned would truthfully answer any questions as directed by the Court under oath. However, the undersigned is concerned about Mr. Syfert's request to leave open the possibility of a $500.00 monetary sanction if he is not satisfied with the answers. Since the answers would be provided under oath, it is respectfully requested that the Court denies this request.

And, finally, he once again asks to be removed as the attorney for Sunlust.

I expect there will still be plenty of entertainment value as this case moves forward. So far, the only thing that has happened is that the judge responded to Torres initial motion to be added as counsel and his near immediate request to be removed. Amusingly, she denied the motion to substitute as counsel, given that he's also asked to be removed, and then denies the request to be removed as moot. I'm sure the next few filings should be even more entertaining.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Copyright Troll Case Tossed For 'Fraud On The Court' After Abbott & Costello-Worthy Hearing

Mike Masnick — Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:48:26 PST

We've written a few times lately about judges blasting copyright trolls -- and divorce lawyer-turned-copyright troll John Steele's name seems to show up quite frequently in many of those cases. However, this latest one takes the cake -- found via incredible stories on Fight Copyright Trolls and Ars Technica. The short version is that the judge has thrown out the case -- but that's not the really fun part. Here's the order throwing it out:

The case is dismissed for failure to appear at this hearing, for failure to present a lawful agent, for attempted fraud on the Court by offering up a person who has no authority to act on behalf of the corporation as its corporate representative, and the Court will hear, by motion, a motion for sanctions and fees against this Sunlust entity and everyone affiliated with it, including a motion against Mr. Wasinger for his purposeful failure to appear at this hearing.

How did it reach that point? Well, this involves a bit of background... and then it requires, yes requires that you find time in your day to go read the court transcript (also embedded below) of what happened.

First, the background. If you've been following Steele, you'll remember that he got blasted by judges in his home state of Illinois. Then, he suddenly showed up in Florida (as did many copyright trolling cases). Fight Copyright Trolls did a wonderful bit of investigatory journalism concerning Steele's move to Florida and connection to "Prenda Law Firm." At issue: Steele is not licensed to practice law in Florida, but there were indications that he was doing exactly that. Steele insisted that he was "retiring" to Florida, and not working. After lawyer Graham Syfert (who has been defending many defendants in troll cases) alerted the Florida Bar to Steele's activities, the Bar got Steele to sign a cease and desist affidavit agreeing "not to engage in any activities which constitute unlicensed practice of law...." However, there appeared to be plenty of evidence that Steele was still copyright trolling as a part of Prenda.

Okay, leap forward to yet another copyright trolling lawsuit, supposedly brought by a company called Sunlust. A hearing was to be held on November 27th... with federal judge Mary Scriven, and you have to read it to believe it. Officially, Sunlust's lawyer, Jonathan Torres, appears by phone with permission from the court. But, the judge is perplexed, to say the least, because Torres, who has only just been brought on, has asked to withdraw from the case, as apparently a few other lawyers have as well. Also in the court is a Mark Lutz, appearing as the "representative" of Sunlust. The hearing begins with the judge scolding Lutz for not wearing a jacket and tie to court, and then starts digging into who exactly is the lawyer representing Sunlust.

THE COURT: Well, I'm a little confused. There was a lawyer who moved to withdraw, and there was another lawyer who moved to appear, then he moved to withdraw, so who is on first, I guess?

The judge asks Torres how he came to be associated with the case and is told that he was hired by "the client, Prenda Law," and we go back to the transcript:

THE COURT: The client and Prenda Law or Prenda Law?
MR. TORRES: Prenda Law, Your Honor,
THE COURT: And what is their relation to you?
MR. TORRES: Just co-counsel arrangement, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And what is that arrangement?
MR. TORRES: For me to appear for any local hearings, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, I got a letter from someone from the Prenda Law Group saying they were not representing any party in this case and were not involved in the case and had no authority to speak on anyone's behalf in this case, so is Prenda Law principal counsel in the case or not?
MR. TORRES: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: So what is their relationship again then to you as counsel in this case?
MR. TORRES: Well, Your Honor, I was --

The judge then puts Torres under oath and then quizzes him much more directly about Prenda law and his relationship to Prenda, as well as everyone's relationship to the supposed client, Sunlust. Torres has only spoken to Prenda and believes that Prenda represents Sunlust. He notes that it's a contingency deal... but that he, too, is asking to withdraw from the case after being made aware of "certain issues that were going on in the case" by the defense. The judge explores how much Torres knew about the case, and whether or not the previous lawyer, a Mr. Wasinger, had spoken to him (he hadn't). Wasinger was the lawyer who had asked to be removed from the case already, and wasn't in court, even though the judge had not granted him permission to leave the case (later leading him to file an apology saying he got mixed up). Finally, Torres admits that he had not looked closely at the case docket before asking to appear on Sunlust's behalf.

The judge then reads a letter from Paul Duffy, another Chicago lawyer who helped set up Prenda and claims in the letter to be the sole principal of Prenda who claims to be surprised that Prenda has been asked to appear in this case. He begs off in the letter, as read/summarized by the judge:

As an initial matter, I must respectfully inform the Court I am located in Chicago and my attendance would require air travel and he has had surgery on his eyes and this and that.

Then he says, I also respectfully question how my appearance could benefit the Court, particularly since I am not representing anyone, in italics, in this case and have no authority to speak on anyone's behalf.

It would certainly -- it would clearly be improper for me to make any statement on a pending matter in a jurisdiction in which I am not licensed and on behalf of a client I do not represent. In light of the foregoing, I pray that the Court will excuse my attendance at this hearing.

The judge then returns to Torres to see if he can explain this mess, since Torres claims to have been hired only by Prenda and Prenda claims that it has nothing to do with the case. There's an amusing back and forth in which the judge and Torres try to sort out who's who and what's what. And then the judge notices the improperly dressed Lutz doing something and turns her attention to him, leading to a surprise "reveal."

THE COURT: Mr. Lutz, who is the individual who you just spoke to in the Courtroom with you?
MR. LUTZ: Sorry?
THE COURT: Who is that behind you?
MR. STEELE: Your Honor, my name is John Steele.
THE COURT: Who are you?
MR. STEELE: I'm an attorney, but not involved in this case.
THE COURT: You're an attorney with what law firm?
MR. STEELE: I'm not an attorney with any law firm right now, but I have worked with Mr. Duffy in the past and I am certainly familiar with this litigation just because I've been involved in many different cases like this in the past.
THE COURT: But not this case?
MR. STEELE: Correct.

There's another brief exchange with the judge and Torres and then back to Lutz. Lutz is asked about Prenda as well, and more or less tries to claim he doesn't know that much about them. At this point Syfert (the defense lawyer) jumps in to point out that Lutz was, at one point, employed by Prenda Law and worked for John Steele. You can almost sense the judge rolling her eyes, as she immediately has Lutz sworn in as well. Then there's this lovely exchange:

THE COURT: Mr. Lutz, you're under oath, you have to give truthful answers or you face penalties of perjury. Do you understand that?
MR. LUTZ: Yes.
THE COURT: What is your position with Sunlust?
MR. LUTZ: I'm a representative of them.
THE COURT: What does that mean?
MR. LUTZ: Corporate representative.
THE COURT: What does that mean?
MR. LUTZ: They asked me to appear on various matters throughout the country.
THE COURT: Are you an officer of the company?
MR. LUTZ: I'm not, no.
THE COURT: Are you authorized to bind the company to any legal contracts?
MR. LUTZ: I am not.
THE COURT: Are you salaried?
MR. LUTZ: No, 1099.
THE COURT: So you are a 1099 contracted entity and you just go around and sit in a Court and represent yourself to be the corporate representative of the company?
MR. LUTZ: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Torres, did you know this was Mr. Lutz's position, a paid corporate representative?
MR. TORRES: No, Your Honor, I did not.
THE COURT: Who is the president of Sunlust?
MR. LUTZ: I'm unaware.
THE COURT: Who is the vice president?
MR. LUTZ: I'm unaware
THE COURT: Who is the secretary?
MR. LUTZ: I have no idea.
THE COURT: Who owns Sunlust?
MR. LUTZ: I do not know.
THE COURT: Who signs your checks?
MR. LUTZ: I believe somebody in the accounting department.
THE COURT: What is their name?
MR. LUTZ: To be honest with you, I can't read the signature.
THE COURT: Where is the accounting department located?
MR. LUTZ: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: Where is the accounting department located?
MR. LUTZ: I've received checks from California.
THE COURT: How much are you paid monthly to be the corporate representative?
MR. LUTZ: Again, it depends on my appearances, the number of appearances that I do.
THE COURT: How much were you paid last month?
MR. LUTZ: Approximately $1,000.

She then asks about what else he does or if he does this for others as well (yes) and starts asking some more questions about Prenda, and then asks both Lutz and Torres about what other copyright holding companies they're working with. And then goes back to John Steele.

THE COURT: Mr. Steele, who is the principal of Sunlust?
MR. STEELE: I'm sorry, you're asking me, ma'am?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. STEELE: I wouldn't know.
THE COURT: You don't know who owns Sunlust?
MR. STEELE: That's correct.
THE COURT: You don't know who the president is?
MR. STEELE: I -- the only person that I know that's involved with Sunlust is Sunny Leone.
THE COURT: Sunny Leone?
MR. STEELE: Is one of the people involved with Sunlust. That's the only person I've ever --
THE COURT: What is the name?
MR. STEELE: Sunny Leone.
THE COURT: Spell it.
MR. STEELE: S-O-N-N-Y, Leone --
THE COURT: L-E-O-N?
MR. STEELE: I believe there's an E at the end of that, I'm not certain.
THE COURT: Where's is he located.
MR. STEELE: Well, I believe it's a she, and I believe that the last time I heard, she was in India filming a major motion picture with some studio down there, but I don't keep up with that, I don't represent Sunlust or anybody anymore. I no longer actively practice law.
THE COURT: You're not practicing law?
MR. STEELE: Correct. I do appear occasionally at hearings on an ad hoc basis, but I do not have any current clients.
THE COURT: You still have a bar license in the State of Florida?
MR. STEELE: No, I'm licensed only in the State of Illinois.
I want to make very clear to this Court I'm not purporting in any way to be an attorney licensed in the State of Florida.
THE COURT: Have you ever been licensed in the State of Florida?
MR. STEELE: No.
THE COURT: All right.

End result? First, she tells Lutz to get out of there:

THE COURT: You can sit away from the table, you're not a corporate representative of anybody if you don't have any information about the corporation.
You're not an officer or principal of the corporation. The Court will exclude you as a proper corporate entity for this Defendant.

She then lets Torres off of the case, but also provides "a word to the wise" suggesting he do a bit more research about who he agrees to represent before showing up in court on their behalf, otherwise he runs "a strong risk" of losing his license. She notes that she hopes it's a lesson about "going forward with characters such as the ones that are presented here."

And, as noted at the beginning, she dismisses the case, suggests there was "attempted fraud on the Court" and says that "a motion will also be heard on Mr. Duffy for his lack of candor in relation to his connection with this matter."

The transcript is so wonderful that I really, really, want someone to use it as a script to create a short film out of it. It honestly feels right out of a movie.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Judge Disqualified From Case Because He's 'Facebook Friends' With The Prosecutor

Mike Masnick — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:28:56 PDT

A few years back, we noted an ethics opinion in Florida that stated that judges cannot be Facebook friends with lawyers who may appear before them in court. As we noted at the time, this seemed to go pretty far, as Facebook friends didn't mean "personal" friends, and there are lots of people who use Facebook just to connect with anyone they know. Furthermore, there are plenty of reasons why judges and lawyers might know each other through other paths as well. Either way, because of that opinion, a judge in Florida has been disqualified from a case for being Facebook friends with the prosecutor. The other party in the case sought to disqualify the judge claiming that on his Facebook, his "friends" were "only [his] closest friends and associates, persons whom [he] could not perceive with anything but favor, loyalty and partiality."

Oddly, as Venkat Balasubramani notes in the link above, the ruling to disqualify the judge did not focus on the facts around friendship, but around the claim that it's sort of announced publicly. As Venkat notes:

I'm still struggling to see how this is different from other forms of social interaction between lawyers and judges. Social interaction between judges and lawyers happens all the time and is not a basis for disqualification. I think there may be a bit of Facebook exceptionalism going on here.

Related to this, and at the same link, Eric Goldman points out that if we're weighing two different issues: (1) having a judge that understands Facebook and how social interaction commonly works today and (2) the "small possibility of apparent impropriety" it seems that having judges who understand social networking is a more important goal in today's society.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Guy Who Was Buying & Selling Foreclosed Homes In Florida Wins $124 Million Patent Lawsuit

Mike Masnick — Tue, 22 May 2012 10:40:00 PDT

Joe Mullin points us to a story of yet another ridiculous patent trolling lawsuit win. This involves a small company called Grail Semiconductor, who appears to have done nothing of note in the market... but did secure a patent (6,642,552 on "inductive storage capacitor") which it used to sue Mitsubishi Electric... leading to a jury awarding Grail an astounding $124 million. Update: As pointed out in the comments, and discussed below, the issue here came about more as a breach of contract issue, rather than a straight up patent lawsuit...

However, what's interesting is that the "Naples News" from Naples, Florida has posted a somewhat revealing profile of Grail's "CEO" who doesn't seem to have any actual experience in the field, but somehow was hired to run the company through the lawsuit process (even though he lives in Florida, and the company is in California -- I guess it doesn't matter where you live if you're just suing over patent infringement):

A University of Wyoming graduate, [Ronald] Hofer spent about three decades compiling an eclectic résumé of business interests — insurance in London, tourism in Algeria, fusion technology in the U.S., drilling in Nigeria. Four years ago, Hofer settled in North Naples, buying foreclosed homes as investment properties.

From there, the story says that he met the inventor who held the patent "through mutual business acquaintances overseas," and somehow was made CEO of Grail despite no actual experience or relevant connection to the company.

Of course, the real big break for the company was hiring Ray Niro to run their patent fight. Niro is the guy who inspired the term "patent troll" years back, and has a long history with these kinds of cases. Grail had tried with other law firms in the past -- and apparently had trouble paying its bills. As the article notes, "One firm is suing for about $2 million in unpaid fees. Another is seeking more than $2.3 million." But, still, Niro took the case, and likely stands to earn himself a nice commission if Grail can hold on through the appeals process.

Also, the article celebrating Hofer claims that Mitsubishi "stole semiconductor designs" from Grail back in 2001, though I'm curious if that's actually true, or if this is just another case of independent invention of an obvious progression in the art. Lots of reporters claim that anyone found guilty of patent infringement "stole" from the patent holder, when it's very rarely the case. Update: Aha, some more details on the case suggest that, indeed, Mitsubishi did establish a deal with the engineer, and then appears to have shared the information with subsidiaries -- so this isn't a garden variety independent invention situation.

Either way, what does seem clear is that Grail tried to do something in the market and was a complete flop. If we were in a real free market, it would go out of business and move out of the way while others innovated. Instead, it gets to hang on, and we have a system in which we reward the failures, and punish the successful companies who innovate. That is not a recipe for economic growth by any stretch of the imagination.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

It May Soon Be Illegal For Doctors In Florida To Ask About Gun Safety

Mike Masnick — Mon, 9 May 2011 13:12:49 PDT

Via Boing Boing, we learn of a bill in Florida -- apparently lobbied for heavily by the NRA -- that would make it illegal for doctors to ask patients about their gun safety habits. This is especially targeted towards pediatricians, who regularly ask that of parents:

As parents know, pediatricians ask a lot of questions. Dr. Louis St. Petery says it's all part of what doctors call "anticipatory guidance" -- teaching parents how to safeguard against accidental injuries. Pediatricians ask about bike helmets, seat belts and other concerns.

"If you have a pool, let's talk about pool safety so we don't have accidental drownings," he says. "And if you have firearms, let's talk about gun safety so that they're stored properly — you know, the gun needs to be locked up, the ammunition stored separate from the gun, etc., so that children don't have access to them."

For decades, the American Academy of Pediatrics has encouraged its members to ask questions about guns and how they're stored, as part of well-child visits.

Seems reasonable, right? Well, not according to the NRA, who claims that this is a "moral judgment" and a "privacy intrusion."

I have to admit that I'm at a total loss to see what the NRA is concerned about here. I thought the NRA was a huge proponent of gun safety. I mean, on the NRA's website it has a section on gun safety where it declares:

Since the NRA's incorporation in 1871, public safety and community service have been among our highest priorities.... At the NRA, we're dedicated to the lawful, effective, responsible and above all safe use of firearms. And today, we do more to ensure Americans are safe around firearms -- whether or not they choose to own them -- than any other public or private group.

So, um, why would they possibly want this ban?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

New Legislation 'To Protect Farmer IP' Would Make It A Felony To Photograph Farms

Mike Masnick — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 09:41:19 PST

An awful lot of you sent in this story about a proposed law in Florida that could put people in jail for taking a photograph of a farm without permission. Seriously. Not surprisingly, the "excuse" for this is that it is "needed to protect the property rights of farmers and the "intellectual property" involving farm operations." I'm not kidding. The bill was introduced by Florida State Senator Jim Norman from Tampa. It's apparently targeted at animal rights activists, who have been known to photograph questionable conditions of animals on farms. In other words, it has nothing to do with "protecting intellectual property." It's to avoid criticism for treating animals poorly. And, of course, if animal activists are trespassing to get these photos, there are already laws against that. But this is what you get in this kind of society, where people seem to project the idea that anything can be redefined as "property" and locked up -- people use "intellectual property" as an excuse for simply ridiculous legislative proposals such as this one. Even if such a law passes, it won't take long for it to be declared unconstitutional, but it could waste Florida taxpayer money to fight this in court.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Florida Uses Bogus Reason To Implement Red Light Cameras

Mike Masnick — Wed, 19 May 2010 14:56:00 PDT

paperbag writes in to let us know that Florida has now legalized redlight cameras. Such cameras are now available all over, but it remains frustrating that people continue to justify the cameras with an excuse of "safety." The bill approving this was named after a guy who was killed by a red-light runner, and was pushed for by the guy's wife, with the claim that this makes people safer. Except that's wrong. Study after study after study has shown that such cameras increase accidents. Yes, those are mainly rear-ending accidents, rather than the more dangerous t-bone accidents, but if you really want to increase safety, studies have shown there's a simple way: you increase the length of time for the yellow/amber light. But that doesn't make money.

And, indeed, it seems pretty clear that this particular bill is all about the money. That's why the state law also requires that local governments that put in place redlight camera deals have to pay a tithe to the state from whatever they make:

With the new law, the state would get a cut of the local governments' newfound revenue source, leaving the local governments with a smaller share of the fines to pay private camera companies.

The state estimates that its revenues would increase by about $38 million in 2010-11, compared with $12 million for local governments. By 2013-14, the state would take in about $125 million under the law, compared with approximately $78 million for local governments.

That's because the law sends $70 to $100 of each $158 fine to the state, while requiring local governments to pay camera vendors in lump sums, not a per-violation trickle.

Nice job Florida. Use the name and memory of a dead man to approve a cynical plan that doesn't make people safer, but which is really designed to boost the coffers of the state government.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

IBM Helps Florida Predict Just How Delinquent Your Child's Going To Be

Karl Bode — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:03:00 PDT

We've covered several different instances where the country has been taking baby steps toward the kind of precognitive crime prevention featured in the movie Minority Report -- sans naked gibbering women floating in bathtubs. The most recent effort was courtesy of the Homeland Security Department, who is busily developing a body language analysis prediction system dubbed "Future Attribute Screening Technologies" (FAST) -- which aims to detect "shifty" people who may be getting ready to commit a crime of some sort (or just drank way too much coffee).

More common approaches simply involve software that analyzes a database of offenders and cherry picks out the most likely future offenders (very popular in the UK), or analyzes crime patterns to predict future criminal trends. Along those lines, it looks like the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice has decided to start using IBM predictive analytics software (via Gizmodo) to help them determine which of the 85,000 kids who enter their system each year poses the biggest future threat. IBM has this to say about the new system -- which was an upgrade from Excel:

"Predictive analytics gives government organizations worldwide a highly-sophisticated and intelligent source to create safer communities by identifying, predicting, responding to and preventing criminal activities. It gives the criminal justice system the ability to draw upon the wealth of data available to detect patterns, make reliable projections and then take the appropriate action in real time to combat crime and protect citizens."

Of course many of these patterns simply become evident when people bother to pay attention and use their intellect, and these tools are often just an extension of that. When prediction technology is used, the technology will only be as good as the people using it (in this case to choose rehabilitation paths for kids). But you still have to wonder how accurate these kinds of systems are and how independently verifiable the evidence will be. Can kids who feel they were unfairly, preemptively declared to be bad asses in 2014 see the "reliable" source code?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Florida Not A Fan Of The Internet; Potentially Rules Out Lawyer Blogs

Mike Masnick — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 07:27:00 PST

You may recall recently that the Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee issued an opinion saying that judges shouldn't use Facebook to connect with any lawyers. This made little sense since judges can, in fact, be friendly with lawyers in real life. There must be something in the water down there, as new rules from the Florida Bar are so broad that they could potentially ban lawyer blogs because of an attempt to more carefully limit how lawyers "advertise" (found via Michael Scott):

The substantive rules provide, among other things, that an attorney website can't "describe or characterize the quality of legal services being offered." Rule 4-7.2(c)(2) Thus, I can't tell you in this post that I'm committed to using my legal skills to provide positive results for my clients (even though this is true). And I can't give you information regarding my past results, so I probably shouldn't tell you the true information that I lost a case I argued in a Florida court as cooperating counsel for the ACLU in a "John Doe" case. Rule 4-7.2(c)(1)(F). I also can't include testimonials; therefore, I request any former students or clients not to post comments saying what a wonderful lawyer and/or professor I am. Dramatizations and many other creative marketing devices are also verboten. Of course, my personal concerns about the new bar rules are trivial when set beside those of all the Florida law firms who must now spend vast sums of money to revamp their websites to try to comply with the new rules, not to mention the concerns of non-Florida firms that hire Florida attorneys.

That same blog post, by Lyrissa Lidsky, reasonably points out that the First Amendment should protect legal advertising as long as it's not inherently misleading. Of course, this issue has come up in the past as well. Five years ago, we wrote about concerns that laws in Kentucky required "filing fees" for lawyers to pay for "each advertisement" that would make legal blogging in the state prohibitively expensive.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Florida Says Judges Can't Even Be Facebook Friends With Lawyers

Mike Masnick — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:55:00 PST

Earlier this year, we wrote about a lawsuit in North Carolina, where the judge friended one of the lawyers, and read and exchanged messages about the case with the lawyer on Facebook. That, obviously, seemed a bit extreme -- but what about just the plain old act of "friending" between a judge and a lawyer. Down in Florida, they've decided that's simply not allowed at all:

Whether a judge may add lawyers who may appear before the judge as "friends" on a social networking site, and permit such lawyers to add the judge as their "friend."

ANSWER: No.

That doesn't leave much room for ambiguity, does it? But, as Venkat Balasubramani notes, this is somewhat ridiculous. Judges and lawyers often have social relationships beyond the court, and pretending those don't exist just on Facebook seems pretty artificial.

My question to the advisory committee is whether this means that it's now inappropriate for a judge to have lunch with a lawyer friend, or engage in email banter with lawyer friends? Is attending the same party now off limits? I assume these actions would still be viewed as appropriate, given that lawyers and judges interact socially (and publicly) all the time. What's so special about Facebook friendship?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Sheriff Uses Craigslist To Arrest Prostitutes... Blames Craigslist

Mike Masnick — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:32:00 PDT

Reader cKarlGo points us to a story in Florida of local police arresting 28 women and six men on prostitution-related charges, after finding them all on Craigslist. They then used phone and email to negotiate with the women in order to confirm that they were selling sexual acts. Afterwards, they made the arrests. But here's the kicker: the sheriff is still blaming Craigslist:

"How can Craigslist allow this kind of content on their (Web) site and then state "We're not involved in any kind of criminal conduct,""

Well, it's actually quite simple. I would imagine that, right now, somewhere in Sheriff Grady Judd's jurisdiction, there are other prostitutes walking the streets. By Judd's own logic, I should be asking why Polk County is involved in criminal conduct. After all, it's happening in his jurisdiction. It's just that it's happening on the street. Or it might be on Craigslist. But it's neither the fault of the street nor Craigslist -- which is nothing more than a virtual street.

But, more to the point, why isn't Sheriff Judd also blaming the telephone company and his internet provider? After all, Judd used three tools to find and communicate with these prostitutes: Craigslist, email and the telephone. The phone company allowed the prostitutes to make phone calls. Internet providers allowed the prostitutes to email. By Judd's logic they're "involved in criminal activity."

In the meantime, what kind of thought process does it take to use a tool to help you crack down on prostitution, and then blame it for the prostitution? How hard is it for Sheriff Judd to recognize that Craigslist is an incredibly useful tool for his staff to find and arrest prostitutes. You would think that having just used the tool for that very purpose he might realize that it's a great tool for catching prostitutes. So why is he blaming it?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Newspaper Proudly Announces It Will Only Cover Political Candidates Who Buy Ads

Mike Masnick — Tue, 8 Sep 2009 13:20:00 PDT

There's been a lot of talk lately about claims that blogs are somehow posting stories without revealing if companies are paying for them, and even the FTC has announced plans to come out with guidelines to stop such behavior. But, of course, that assumes that it's only "blogs" that do this sort of thing, and not the mainstream press. And, to be honest, I can't think of a dumber thing for a blog to do, because if evidence of such a thing ever came out, it would destroy that blog's credibility. Yet, apparently, some in the newspaper business have no problems overtly and proudly advertising such things. A whole bunch of folks have submitted the story of a weekly newspaper in Key West Florida that alerted local political candidates that if they want coverage, they need to buy ads:

"As far as candidate forums and debates, we'll cover those when we can, but if candidates want their campaign covered, they have to pay to play.... I gotta pay the bills."

While a bit shocking in its honesty, it also should raise pretty serious questions about the credibility of the publication, which promises "fair reporting and fair representation." Though, given that it looks like the Conch Color website was designed in 1996 (yes, it has a clip art animated spinning globe -- and I'm almost surprised there's no animated "under construction" gifs), perhaps its credibility was already in question.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Questions Raised As To Why Connected Nation Selected In Florida Despite Costing More Than Double

Mike Masnick — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:18:00 PDT

We've already discussed how Washington DC darling Connected Nation appears more and more like a telco sponsored boondoggle to control gov't mapping mandates and collect gov't money, without having to give up real data on broadband access. But, for some reason, politicians just seem to love Connected Nation (CN). Last time I was in DC, it was all anyone was talking about concerning broadband policy. However, there are more and more questions being raised now. Apparently, Connected Nation got a big win in Florida recently, despite the fact that its bid for mapping was more than double the next runner up, ISC. Connect Florida -- a brand new "affiliate" of Connected Nation, bid $7.1 million. ISC, which is actually based in Florida and has worked with Florida gov't agencies in the past, bid $2.8 million. ISC used references for its actual work on the ground in Florida, including "the Florida Department of Health, the Florida Department of Transportation, the Florida Department of Agriculture and two local businesses, including an Economic Development Council. The ISC application also listed 11 contracts the company has with Florida state agencies." Connect Florida, on the other hand, named out-of-state references who were involved in other Connected Nation projects, raising questions about Connect Florida's understanding of the Florida market. So how did Connect Florida win?

According to sources, one of the five judges gave ISC the win, with an eight-point differential over CN. Two other judges gave CN a two-point win. One other judge gave CN a 15-point win over ISC. Yet in another curiosity, one judge gave CN a 51-point win. That judge was Bill Price, currently the broadband stimulus program manager for the state of Florida, a position he has held for the past three months. According to his profile on the Linked-In social networking site, Price was vice president for business development for BellSouth Business.

Remember how Connected Nation is really closely connected to the telcos? And a former telco exec who only recently got the state gov't job suddenly happens to rate it up massively over the second place competitor? Doesn't that at least raise some ethics questions? Perhaps there's more to it, and perhaps there are good reasons why Connect Florida is better than ISC. But it sure does seem like Florida owes the public an explanation of what those good reasons might be.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Facing Five Years In Prison For Posting A Photo On MySpace Wearing Gang Colors

Mike Masnick — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 07:59:00 PDT

Dealing with gang activity is certainly a priority in areas beset by gang violence, but does that mean we throw out certain First Amendment rights? Last year, Florida passed a new anti-gang law that banned using electronic communications "for the purpose of benefiting, promoting, or furthering the interests of a criminal gang" and that included "advertis[ing] his or her presence in the community" via an online image or video. Apparently, authorities in Florida have now arrested 15 people under this law based on their MySpace profiles, including one 14-year-old who "posted pictures of himself dressed in gang colors and displaying gang hand signals." For this, all of those arrested now face up to 5 years in prison. Some are already protesting the constitutionality of this law. It certainly seems like a limit on free expression.

Even recognizing the problems with gang violence, it seems a bit extreme to arrest people and threaten them with jailtime just for posting such photos on their profiles. Why not use that information to track and monitor certain gang members to try to stop actual illegal gang activity? Here are kids advertising to anyone (including the police) that they're in a gang, which should make it easier for the police to follow them and use that info to deal with real gang activity.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Florida Red Light Camera Law Doesn't Care Who's Driving: Car Owner Fined

Mike Masnick — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:42:00 PDT

There are an awful lot of problems with red light cameras -- starting with the fact that they don't actually decrease accidents or make the roads any safer. Most evidence suggests the only thing they're really good for is increasing the revenue for a city -- which is why a bunch of cities have broken the laws over the years and shortened the length of the yellow light to "catch" more red light runners -- while also actively ignoring any actual data around the cameras. Reader Gabriel Tane points us to a newly proposed law in Florida for red light cameras that, on top of everything else, would automatically fine the owner of the car even if he or she wasn't driving. It's difficult to see how this is reasonable... unless of course this law has nothing to do with making drivers safer, and is, instead, a way to raise extra money for a city.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Guy Tries To Pay $1.50 In Missed Sales Tax, Gets Threatened With Fines, Criminal Charges

Mike Masnick — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 06:54:00 PST

The Agitator points us to quite a ridiculous story coming out of Florida. An incredibly law-abiding citizen almost got seriously punished for going above and beyond to live up to the law. Apparently he bought some things for personal use at a local hardware store -- and then noticed that the store forgot to charge him sales tax on the $23 bill. It was probably because the guy also works for an organization that is tax exempt, and the store just assumed he was buying on that account. Now, most people would think "cool" and move on. But, not this guy. He felt obliged to send in $1.50 and an explanation to Florida's Dept. of Revenue.

You would think that Florida would be thrilled to find such an incredibly honest person. Instead, it sent him an angry letter fining him $50 for failing to file a business tax return. He wrote back, explaining the situation again, noting that it wasn't a business, and he was just making up for the forgotten sales tax charge. The state's response? A demand for $650 in business taxes and a threat of criminal charges. It was only after a local TV news channel contacted the state on the guy's behalf that Florida admitted its mistake. Isn't bureaucracy great?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Student Sues School For Suspending Her Over Facebook Group

Mike Masnick — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:17:17 PST

Last year, we pointed out that teachers are increasingly complaining that students are cyberbullying not each other... but the teachers themselves. Of course, in a lot of cases these seem overblown. Yet, that hasn't stopped some teachers from arguing that cyberbullying should be a criminal offense. Yet, when teachers overreact and consider just about any criticism "cyberbullying" you're going to run into problems. Take, for example, the case of Katherine Evans. As a high school student who didn't much like her English teacher, she created a Facebook group called "Ms. Sarah Phelps is the worst teacher I've ever met!" That doesn't seem like cyberbullying. That seems like garden variety student-bitching-about-teacher. Even worse, Evans' fellow students told her it was a stupid group, and expressed support for the teacher, such that Evans decided to take down the group herself

But, the school apparently felt this was a big problem, claiming that this was cyberbullying harassment and "disruptive behavior." It suspended Evans for three days and pulled her out of various advanced placement classes. Now, Evans is suing the school for violating her free speech rights. As the Wired article notes, there have been lawsuits about free speech in school in the past, but the internet makes the issues a bit different here. Either way, it's quite difficult to see how the school can claim that such a group is actually cyberbullying, and punishing the girl for venting hardly seems like a reasonable response (especially for an issue that was dealt with by other students in a reasonable manner). What is this world coming to when people can't take the slightest criticism and insist that it's somehow "cyberbullying" that requires punishment or discipline?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story