<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;tennessee&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:01:13 PDT</pubDate>
<title>TSA Decides Terrorists Must Be Driving; Partners With Tenn. Law Enforcement To Randomly Search Vehicles</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111020/11465616440/tsa-decides-terrorists-must-be-driving-partners-with-tenn-law-enforcement-to-randomly-search-vehicles.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111020/11465616440/tsa-decides-terrorists-must-be-driving-partners-with-tenn-law-enforcement-to-randomly-search-vehicles.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=pitabred">Pitabred</a> sends in the distressing but completely unsurprising news that the TSA, with the cooperation of the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security, <a href="http://tennesseenewspress.com/2011/10/19/tsa-checkpoints-now-on-tn-highways/" target="_blank">is now trolling for terrorists on the open highway</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security on Tuesday partnered with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and several other federal and state agencies for a safety enforcement and awareness operation on Tennessee's interstates and two metropolitan-area bus stations.</i>
</blockquote>
But this was no ordinary random search of vehicles. <a href="http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2011/10/19/department-of-safety-and-homeland-security-partners-with-federal-and-state-agencies-in-statewide-security-operation/" target="_blank">This one had its own acronym</a>:
<blockquote>
<i>The agencies conducted a Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) operation at scale complexes where trucks and large vehicles are weighed. The VIPR operation was also conducted at two regional bus terminals in Nashville and Knoxville.</i>
</blockquote>
As awesomely G.I. Joe-ish as VIPR sounds, one would think that random searches of vehicles might run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. The word from above is: Don't worry about it. You're probably just thinking too much. Highway patrol Colonel Tracy Trott <a href="http://www.newschannel5.com/story/15725035/officials-claim-tennessee-becomes-first-state-to-deploy-vipr-statewide" target="_blank">offers some much needed perspective</a>:
<blockquote>
<i>The random inspections really aren't any more thorough [than?] normal, according to Tennessee Highway Patrol Colonel Tracy Trott who says paying attention to details can make a difference. Trott pointed out it was an Oklahoma state trooper who stopped Timothy McVeigh for not having a license plate after the Oklahoma City bombing in the early 1990s.</i>
</blockquote>
Question, the first: If these inspections aren't any more thorough than "normal," why the extra personnel and additional super-cool acronym? <br /><br /> Question, the second: An anecdote about catching someone<i> after </i>they've already performed an act of terrorism is hardly comforting. <br /><br /> Still not convinced that there's a whole lot of "nothing to see here" contained within this new operation? More <a href="http://www.jacksonsun.com/article/20111019/NEWS01/110190307/Feds-state-check-trucks" target="_blank">empty statements are available to wave away your concerns</a>:
<blockquote>
<i>Larry Godwin, deputy commissioner of TDSHS, said the checks at the weigh stations were about showing the people of Tennessee the government is serious about transportation safety, and to make sure the state is ready in case something were to happen.</i>
</blockquote>
I'm not going to speak for anybody else, but I find that the increased presence of law enforcement and various geared-up ancillaries rarely makes me feel "safer." Usually a swarm of drug/bomb sniffing dogs and SWAT-team members leads me to believe that either a.) something bad <i>has</i> happened or b.) something bad is <i>going</i> to happen. While I would agree that this sight would make me believe that the government is indeed "serious" about something, it does very little to convince me that it is "ready" for anything. <br /><br /> If you (like me) are still feeling a bit less than safe (and perhaps, more likely to be randomly searched), take heart! Your fellow citizens are being recruited to turn you in, should you happen to do something perceived as "suspicious," most likely at a high rate of speed.
<blockquote>
<i>Agents are recruiting truck drivers, like Rudy Gonzales, into the First Observer Highway Security Program to say something if they see something.</i> <br /><br /> <i>"Not only truck drivers, but cars, everybody should be aware of what's going on, on the road," said Gonzales.<br />It's all meant to urge every driver to call authorities if they see something suspicious.</i> <br /><br /> <i>"Somebody sees something somewhere and we want them to be responsible citizens, report that and let us work it through our processes to abet the concern that they had when they saw something suspicious," said Paul Armes, TSA Federal Security Director for Nashville International Airport.</i>
</blockquote>
While I'm fairly sure that's either a misquote or just a miswording by Armes, the idea that the TSA might "abet" (aid, encourage, incite, foster, promote) concerns seems very plausible. After all, without the vague threat of terrorist activity, where would they be? (Look under your vehicle.) <br /><br /> Let's briefly review the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" target="_blank">Fourth Amendment</a> and see how this new effort checks down:
<blockquote>
<i>The Fourth Amendment... guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.</i>
</blockquote>
Reasonable search? Probable cause?
<blockquote>
<i>Tuesday's statewide "VIPR" operation isn't in response to any particular threat, according to officials.</i>
</blockquote>
Ah. Well, with the TSA moving onto the highway (having already made its presence known in <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/02225414782/tsa-takes-security-theater-road-mobile-groping-teams-can-pop-up-anywhere.shtml" target="_blank">bus stations and subways</a>), it's presumably only a matter of time before it decides that terrorists have been chased out of the skies and off the road by its efforts, and at that point, there's really only one place left to look for potential troublemakers.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111020/11465616440/tsa-decides-terrorists-must-be-driving-partners-with-tenn-law-enforcement-to-randomly-search-vehicles.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111020/11465616440/tsa-decides-terrorists-must-be-driving-partners-with-tenn-law-enforcement-to-randomly-search-vehicles.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111020/11465616440/tsa-decides-terrorists-must-be-driving-partners-with-tenn-law-enforcement-to-randomly-search-vehicles.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-United-States:-now-with-more-acronyms-than-rights!</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111020/11465616440</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 7 Jun 2011 11:33:31 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Post A Picture That 'Causes Emotional Distress' And You Could Face Jailtime In Tennessee</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110606/22513614573/post-picture-that-causes-emotional-distress-you-could-face-jailtime-tennessee.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110606/22513614573/post-picture-that-causes-emotional-distress-you-could-face-jailtime-tennessee.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Over the last few years, we've seen a troubling trend in various state laws which attempt to come up with ways to outlaw being a jerk online.  Many of these are based on politicians and/or the public taking an emotional reaction to something bad happening after some does something online that angered someone else.  Of course, while it would be nice if jerks would go away or jerky behavior would cease, that's just not realistic.  The real issue is: how can it be constitutional to outlaw being a jerk?  In many cases it raises serious First Amendment issues, among other things.  The latest to jump into this game is the state of Tennessee, which apparently decided that just throwing people in jail for <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110602/03411914517/riaa-wants-to-put-people-jail-sharing-their-music-subscription-login-with-friends.shtml">sharing music subscription passwords</a> wasn't enough: now they want to put people in jail <a href="http://volokh.com/2011/06/06/crime-to-post-images-that-cause-emotional-distress-without-legitimate-purpose/" target="_blank">for "causing emotional distress" to others</a>.
<br /><br />
The specific law outlaws posting a photo online that causes "emotional distress" to someone and has no "legitimate purpose."  While the law does state that there needs to be "malicious intent," it also includes a massive loophole, in that it says that you can still be liable if the person "reasonably should know" that the actions would "frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress."  Eugene Volokh notes all sorts of problems with this:
<ol><i><li>If you&rsquo;re posting a picture of someone in an embarrassing situation &mdash; not at all limited to, say, sexually themed pictures or illegally taken pictures &mdash; you&rsquo;re likely a criminal unless the prosecutor, judge, or jury concludes that you had a &ldquo;legitimate purpose.&rdquo;</li><li>Likewise, if you post an image intended to distress some religious, political, ethnic, racial, etc. group, you too can be sent to jail if governments decisionmaker thinks your purpose wasn&rsquo;t &ldquo;legitimate.&rdquo;  Nothing in the law requires that the picture be of the &ldquo;victim,&rdquo; only that it be distressing to the &ldquo;victim.&rdquo;</li><li>The same is true even if you didn&rsquo;t intend to distress those people, but reasonably should have known that the material &mdash; say, pictures of Mohammed, or blasphemous jokes about Jesus Christ, or harsh cartoon insults of some political group &mdash; would &ldquo;cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities.&rdquo;</li><li>And of course the same would apply if a newspaper or TV station posts embarrassing pictures or blasphemous images on its&nbsp;site.</li></i></ol>
Honestly, any time you have a law where the liability is based on how some other person <i>feels</i>, you've got a pretty serious problem.  You can criminalize actions, but making someone a criminal because someone else feels "emotional distress" seems like a huge stretch.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110606/22513614573/post-picture-that-causes-emotional-distress-you-could-face-jailtime-tennessee.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110606/22513614573/post-picture-that-causes-emotional-distress-you-could-face-jailtime-tennessee.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110606/22513614573/post-picture-that-causes-emotional-distress-you-could-face-jailtime-tennessee.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>outlawing-jerks?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110606/22513614573</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 2 Jun 2011 09:36:08 PDT</pubDate>
<title>RIAA Wants To Put People In Jail For Sharing Their Music Subscription Login With Friends</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110602/03411914517/riaa-wants-to-put-people-jail-sharing-their-music-subscription-login-with-friends.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110602/03411914517/riaa-wants-to-put-people-jail-sharing-their-music-subscription-login-with-friends.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Ah, the RIAA.  Just as you're paying attention to some ridiculously bad law with awful unintended consequences they're pushing in one place, they pop up with a different law they've already (quietly) convinced politicians to pass somewhere else.  Today's entry is a new law that has been approved by the legislature in Tennessee at the urging of the RIAA, which will <a href="http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/jun/02/measure-makes-sharing-online-services-crime/" target="_blank">make it a <i>criminal offense</i> to share your "entertainment subscription" login info</a> with anyone else.  You're a college student, and you decide to go halfsies on a Netflix or Rhapsody subscription with a friend?  Watch out, you may face a year in jail and thousands of dollars in fines.  If law enforcement decides that the "value" of the content you watched is high enough, you could be charged with felony charges, and face much larger fines and longer jail sentences.
<br><br>
The way the law works is to add the "entertainment subscription" phrase to an existing law concerning unauthorized access to cable or satellite TV services.  Not surprisingly, Mitch Glazier (a man famous for <A href="http://www.robotwisdom.com/issues/glazier.html">selling out all musicians</a> by allegedly sneaking a clause into a bill in the middle of the night that took away the rights of musicians to reclaim their copyrights... just months before taking a high paying RIAA job which he still holds today) is insisting this law is necessary to protect the music industry:
<blockquote><i>
Mitch Glazier, executive vice president of public policy for the RIAA, said the bill is a necessary protective measure as digital technology evolves. The music industry has seen its domestic revenue plunge by more than half in 10 years, from $15 billion to $7 billion, he said.
</i></blockquote>
Either Glazier is lying here or the reporter is quoting him way out of context.  It may be true that revenue for the <i>record labels</i> that Glazier represents has declined.  But the revenue of the <i>music industry</i> -- which includes things like concerts, merchandise, publishing and other areas has actually done pretty well.  Besides, the idea that Glazier has any interest in protecting "music" is pretty laughable.  His job is to protect labels, often at the expense of musicians.
<br><Br>
And this particular piece of legislation is particularly stupid and shortsighted on the part of the RIAA.  For the most part, if people are buying one of these subscriptions with the intent to share, at least they're <i>still buying a subscription</i> and paying money to the industry.  In the absence of that, it seems quite likely that they'll just go straight to full on infringement.  Furthermore, the ability to share a single login with a few family members or friends is often seen as a <i>part of the value</i>.  That is, a family may decide that it's <i>worth it</i> to buy such a subscription, because they can split it among a few different people.  But, make that a <i>crime</i> and you've just massively <i>decreased the incentive</i> for people to buy such subscriptions.
<br><br>
The bill still needs to be signed by the governor, but it sounds like he's buying the bogus claims of Glazier and the RIAA on this one, saying that "I don&rsquo;t know enough about that legislation, but if it's combating that issue [infringement], I would be in favor of it." <b>Update</b>: Annnnnnnd... <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/stealing-entertainment-services-now-a-crime-in-tennessee.ars" target="_blank">signed</a>.  Of course.
<br><Br>
And, of course, this is just a foot in the door sort of move.  Once the RIAA has this in Tennessee, expect to see similar, if not identical legislation popping up in lots of other states as well.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110602/03411914517/riaa-wants-to-put-people-jail-sharing-their-music-subscription-login-with-friends.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110602/03411914517/riaa-wants-to-put-people-jail-sharing-their-music-subscription-login-with-friends.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110602/03411914517/riaa-wants-to-put-people-jail-sharing-their-music-subscription-login-with-friends.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>criminalizing-sharing</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110602/03411914517</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:44:20 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Doctors In Tennessee Have Been Faxing Patient Info To The Wrong Place For Years</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090930/0328536371.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090930/0328536371.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Live in Tennessee?  Thought the records at your doctor's office were private?  You might want to check again.  <a href="http://twitter.com/PrivacyLaw/statuses/4473692027" target="_blank">Michael Scott</a> alerts us to the news that a bunch of doctors offices in Tennessee have been accidentally <a href="http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090928/NEWS01/909280333/Doctors+mistakenly+fax+patients++data+to+Indiana+company" target="_new">faxing patient records, including confidential info, to a small solar company in Indiana</a>... for three years.  Luckily, the guy on the receiving end says he's been shredding the records as they come in, but he's getting pretty damn frustrated.  He's contacted tons of people, including the Governor of Tennessee, but no luck.  The faxes keep coming.  Apparently, the problem is that the phone number of the business is close to the one that doctors are supposed to use.  Given the number of faxes, my guess is that it's not so much people mistyping it into their fax machines each time, but at some point there must have been a typo in a mailing or on a website or something.  Of course, we won't even get started on why these record transfers are still handled by fax.  That's another post for another day...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090930/0328536371.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090930/0328536371.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090930/0328536371.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that-seems-bad</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090930/0328536371</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:00:47 PDT</pubDate>
<title>A&#038;E Goes To Court To Defend Fair Use Of 12 Second Clip Of Music</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090828/0459226039.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090828/0459226039.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=avatar28">Avatar28</a> points us to a potentially interesting lawsuit over whether or not <a href="http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090826/NEWS03/908260398/1017/NEWS/ Rocky Top  clip puts network A&#038;E in court" target="_new">A&#038;E's decision to use 12-seconds of the song <i>Rocky Top</i></a> in part of a TV show is fair use.  The article is actually pretty comprehensive in laying out all the details in the case.  A&#038;E was doing an episode of the show <i>City Confidential</i> about some contract killings in Knoxville, Tennessee.  In setting the scene, the show presents quick clips of scenes around Knoxville, including a photo of a UT football player, with the 12-seconds of the song playing in the background.  The song <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Top" target="_blank"><i>Rocky Top</i></a> is apparently one of (a few) official state songs in Tennessee and is the "unofficial" fight song of the University of Tennessee (which holds a special license to use the song).
<br /><br />
A&#038;E claims that it's fair use, since the music was being used in part as a news report would use it.  The article compares it to both the recent case where John Lennon's <i>Imagine</i> was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080814/0312181976.shtml">allowed in the movie <i>Expelled</i> without a license... but also to the </a><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061117/132453.shtml">infamous Bridgeport ruling</a> that basically said fair use doesn't apply to music at all.  Some will say that A&#038;E's case is also weaker because it had approached the children of the songwriters (who now control the copyright) about a license, and then never got one, but that, alone, doesn't change the fair use calculation.
<br /><br />
This is one of those cases that really could go either way.  As a strong believer in fair use, it shouldn't surprise anyone that I think this is clearly fair use, and that the four factors of fair use support it (as should common sense).  But, others will surely make the case in the other direction.  The thing that I wonder is how allowing such a use could possibly be a bad thing for the copyright holders.  It seems like one of those cases where copyright holders are suing just because they have the copyright and think that, because of that, they absolutely have to sue.  Either way, kudos to A&#038;E for standing up for fair use.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090828/0459226039.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090828/0459226039.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090828/0459226039.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>this-should-be-interesting</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090828/0459226039</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:44:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>RIAA Gets Tennessee Law To Force Universities To Filter Networks For Copyrighted Content</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081118/0301472864.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081118/0301472864.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ After more than a decade of watching the entertainment industry (mainly the RIAA and the MPAA), one thing I've learned is that the organization <i>never</i> gives up in pushing its legislative agenda.  If there's a setback in one area, you can be sure that others from the organization are eagerly pushing the exact same rules through some other angle.  The typical MO is that they try to get federal legislation passed in their favor.  However, if that fails, they switch to the fallback plans which involve <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060502/1217204.shtml">international treaties</a> and state laws.  Both of these are great because they tend to get a <i>lot</i> less scrutiny.  State laws are a bit of a pain, because you have to get a few of them approved to create the "groundswell" that makes other states jump on board, but changes to state laws can often pass through under the radar.
<br /><br />
That appears to be what's happening in the effort to force universities to install filters monitoring their networks for any unauthorized transmissions.  You may recall that the RIAA pushed strongly to get Congress to pass laws <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20070606/001544.shtml">requiring filters</a>.  Basically, the entertainment industry first flat-out <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080122/18164639.shtml">lied</a> (yes, lied) about how big a problem file sharing on campus was, and that got some Congressional Reps (with plenty of campaign contributions from the entertainment industry) to introduce legislation punishing universities if they didn't filter their networks.  Widespread outcry against that legislation helped water it down, but it appears the industry just moved on to state legislatures.
<br /><br />
The RIAA is now celebrating the fact that <a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/11/riaa-wins-campuses-lose-tennessee-governor-signs-c" target="_new">Tennessee has passed legislation that requires universities to install filters</a> if they've received at least 50 DMCA requests.  Considering the massive number of DMCA notices that the RIAA has been known to file, this is hardly a large hurdle.  The law will cost Tennessee taxpayers nearly $10 million in the first year, and another $1.5 million each year -- based on the state's own estimates.  And for what?  To put in filters that won't work, just to try to prop up an obsolete business model from legacy players in an industry that needs to learn how to adapt to the market?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081118/0301472864.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081118/0301472864.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081118/0301472864.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-riaa-never-sleeps</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081118/0301472864</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>