This week's Daily Record column is entitled "Fight the Power, But Time Your Battles Wisely."
A pdf of the article can be found here and my past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.
******
Fight the Power, But Time Your Battles Wisely
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
My heart goes out to the Boston victims and their loved ones. Such a horrible, pointless tragedy.
It was one of many on our soil in recent years--some were terrorism and others gun violence.
My heart aches. There have been too many senseless tragedies as of late. Too much sorrow. Our country is suffering from the weight of these collective losses--both due to the tremendous sadness and the gradual eradication of our liberties.
And for what?
Our digital communications are fair game and the government is collecting all of our digital data, without just cause or a warrant. (See "Who's Watching the NSA Watchers" - NYT).
We're undergoing near-strip searches at airports. We can't enter places where large public gatherings occur without having our bags and persons searched. Surveillance cameras are everywhere.
And for what?
With this latest tragedy--there allegedly were no "credible reports" of threats beforehand. And now CNN is reporting that surveillance videos have captured both the bombing itself and possibly the bomb-carrying backpacks as they were left behind. All of this after the fact.
And for what?
And now we'll seek vengeance--which we no doubt deserve. We'll catch the bastards that did this. But, what then--after we obtain "justice" and revenge?
Will we subsequently lose even more rights and constitutionally guaranteed liberties--all in the name of "security"? Will it be worth it? Will it do anything at all to prevent these horrible, heart wrenching national tragedies?
I certainly don't have the answers. But I, like my fellow citizens, am grieving today--and hugging my family closer tonight. Because that's really the only thing you can do on days like today.
Peace. Solidarity. Liberty. Hope.
And for what?
This week's Daily Record column is entitled "Proposed cyberbullying law is unnecessary."
A pdf of the article can be found here and my past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.
*****
Recently, Monroe County Legislators Mike Barker and Carmen Gumina proposed legislation that would make cyberbullying a crime. Under the bill, cyberbullying directed toward a minor would constitute a Class A misdemeanor in Monroe County, punishable by up to a year in jail.
The crime of cyberbullying would occur where the defendant engaged in the following conduct: “(W)ith intent to harass, annoy, threaten or place another in fear of personal injury, engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly committing acts of abusive behavior over a period of time by communication or causing a communication to be sent by mechanical or electronic means, posting statements or images on the Internet, through a computer network, or via cell or smart phone. Acts of abusive behavior shall include, but not limited to: taunting; threatening; intimidating; insulting; tormenting; humiliating; disseminating sexually explicit photographs, either actual or modified, of a minor; disseminating the private, personal or sexual information, either factual or false, of a minor without lawful authority.”
WHAM (13wham.com) recently reported that Gumina explained the law was needed because current laws have not kept up with technology: “There is no law around posting pretty nasty things about your peers. … It’s almost impossible now because there is no law on the books … At least there will be a law in the books that could help law enforcement prevent bullying from happening in the first place.”
While Gumina’s intentions are no doubt well-intentioned, his assertion that no other laws address this type of conduct is simply false.
I am the co-author, along with Brighton Town Court Justice Karen Morris, of the Thomson West treatise “Criminal Law in New York,” a book that thoroughly examines the substantive crimes defined in New York’s Penal Law.
As part of my preparation for the yearly supplement to this treatise, I review all new New York cases addressing the crime of aggravated harassment in the second degree, which is, just like the cyberbullying law proposed by Barker and Gumina, a Class A misdemeanor.
Penal Law s. 240.30(1) provides that a person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree “when, with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or she:
1. Either (a) communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, by telegraph, or by mail, or by transmitting or delivering any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or
(b) causes a communication to be initiated by mechanical or electronic means or otherwise with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, by telegraph, or by mail, or by transmitting or delivering any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm …”
When Penal Law s. 240.30(1) was originally enacted, it required that the communication occur “by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication.” In 2008, the statute was amended to include communications delivered via digital means and the following language was added: “by telephone, by telegraph, or by mail, or by transmitting or delivering any other form of written communication.”
In keeping with the legislative intent behind the 2008 amendment, New York courts have broadly interpreted this section to include harassing communications made using mechanical means, including the Internet, so long as the communication was directed at the complainant, People v. Munn, 179 Misc. 2d 903, 688 N.Y.S.2d 384 (City Crim. Ct. 1999).
Also covered by this section are unwelcome messages transmitted via online social networking sites or online forums, People v. Rodriguez, 19 Misc. 3d 830, 860 N.Y.S.2d 859 (City Crim. Ct. 2008); People v. Munn, 179 Misc. 2d 903, 688 N.Y.S.2d 384 (City Crim. Ct. 1999). Similarly, emails and text messages are also forms of communication contemplated by Penal Law s. 240.30(1), M.G. v. C.G., 19 Misc. 3d 1125(A), 862 N.Y.S.2d 815 (Fam. Ct. 2008); People v. Limage, 19 Misc. 3d 395, 851 N.Y.S.2d 852 (City Crim. Ct. 2008).
So, contrary to Gumina’s contention, the proposed cyberbullying bill is unnecessary. The conduct prohibited by the bill is already unlawful in New York pursuant to aggravated harassment in the second degree and passing the proposed legislation would duplicate the current law and cause confusion in the prosecution of new crimes.
Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney and the Vice President of Business Development and Community Relations at MyCase, a powerful and intuitive cloud-based law practice management platform. She is also a GigaOM Pro Analyst and is the author of the ABA book Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors the ABA book Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York, a West-Thomson treatise. She is the founder of lawtechTalk.com and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. She publishes four legal blogs and can be reached at [email protected].
Yes check (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Have you ever wondered what law practice management lessons can be gleaned from the latest legal technology news? Well, wonder no more! Instead, just head on over and read my weekly posts at the MyCase blog. Peruse my musings and, if you're up to it, add your 2 cents.
Here are my recent posts from the past few weeks:
Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney and the Vice President of Business Development and Community Relations at MyCase, a powerful and intuitive cloud-based law practice management platform. She is also a GigaOM Pro Analyst and is the author of the ABA book Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors the ABA book Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York, a West-Thomson treatise. She is the founder of lawtechTalk.com and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. She publishes four legal blogs and can be reached at [email protected].
This week's Daily Record column is entitled "I Have a Date With TSA Next Month."
A pdf of the article can be found here and my past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.
*****
I Have a Date With TSA Next Month
In early December I’m speaking to the IP section of the Colorado Bar Association about the legal and ethical issues of social media for lawyers. My trip to Denver will be the first time that I’ll have flown since the TSA’s new screening procedures were implemented.
My hope is that I won’t be “randomly” selected to walk through one of the new full-body scanners that were rolled out to airports, including the Rochester International Airport, across the country earlier this month. These scanners dose the subject with radiation and create a detailed, graphic image of the person’s nude body. According to TSA representatives, the radiation levels are safe, but others dispute this claim.
If I am one of the 20 percent of travelers selected to receive a full-body scan, I intend to opt out, both for health-related reasons and as a matter of principle.
Unfortunately, now that the screening procedures have changed, that means I’ll be subjected to the new, more invasive pat-downs that were implemented at the same time as the new full-body scanners.
A TSA agent will use the fronts of their hands to pat down all areas of my body, including my breasts and groin. Previously, TSA agents used the backs of their hands and avoided engaging in non-consensual fore- play with air travelers.
Not anymore.
In the name of national security, forced intimacy strangers is now par for the course
Hopefully, my experience will be less traumatic than that of other recent air travelers.
First, there’s Tom Sawyer, a 61-year-old bladder cancer survivor who had urine from his urostomy bag spilled onto his clothes following a rough TSA search that left him humiliated and in tears. Then there are the breast cancer survivors, a number of whom have complained that TSA agents forced them to remove their prosthetic breasts.
Sexual assault victims have also been traumatized by the experience, describing heart-wrenching accounts of encounters with TSA agents. Many have said that the pat downs caused them to experience flash backs from the original sexual assault.
Then there are the children appearing in widely circulated YouTube videos. One is of a 3-year-old girl receiving an invasive pat down from a TSA agent and screaming “Don’t touch me!” as her mother holds the hysterical child during the search. In another video, a young boy is seen removing his shirt during a TSA pat down as bystanders express their disbelief.
Many security experts have likened the new procedures to an ineffective “security theater” performed only for show. In other words, the newly revised security dance looks good, but does very little to actually protect us from a terrorist attack.
This, to me, is simply unacceptable. I’m outraged by the invasiveness and ineffectiveness of the new security procedures and it pains me to hear of my fellow citizen's humiliating experiences at the hands of government agents.
They deserved better. We all do.
Needless to say, I don’t relish my upcoming “date” with TSA. I’m not looking forward to the possibility of being groped by a stranger after refusing the full-body scan. However, I plan to make the best of it and will pass the time by humming Meat Loaf’s song “Paradise by the Dashboard Light” as the TSA agent pats me down. After all, it only seems fitting.
Nicole Black is of counsel to Fiandach & Fiandach in Rochester. She co-authors the ABA book Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, co-authors Criminal Law in New York, a West-Thomson treatise, and is currently writing a book about cloud computing for lawyers that will be published by the ABA in early 2011. She is the founder of lawtechTalk.com and speaks regularly at conferences regarding the intersection of law and technology. She publishes four legal blogs and can be reached at [email protected]
This week's Daily Record column is entitled "Fight the Power, But Time Your Battles Wisely."
A pdf of the article can be found here and my past Daily Record articles can be accessed here.
******
Fight the Power, But Time Your Battles Wisely
Police officers are only human, just as infallible as the rest of us.
They also possess a lot of power, which the bad cops —a relatively small minority —abuse on a daily basis. The rest are just doing their job, which is not an easy one.
Just as I did as a public defender, officers interact with troubled, drug-addicted and mentally disturbed people day in and day out. Like many defenders, after a while they burn out, their patience levels decrease and they become easily aggravated.
That’s why when I encounter a police officer, I get nervous. I make no sudden move- ments, speak politely and do as I’m asked.
That’s also why I cannot, for the life of me, understand Professor Henry Louis Gates’s reaction after he was approached by Police Sgt. James Crowley. Crowley was responding to a 911 call from a concerned neighbor regarding an apparent break in, and Gates admitted he had forced open the front door to the house he was renting.
Any reasonable person who had just engaged in the suspicious act of breaking in to their own home would have quietly and quickly provided the officer with proof that they lived there. Granted, Gates probably did not look like your “average” burglar, given his age, demeanor and dress; however, it was entirely within the realm
of possibility that he was, for example, an angry husband breaking in to his former home in violation of a restraining order. Alternatively, he could have been the victim of a home invasion, with his attackers wielding guns in the background.
The officer had an obligation to investigate the situation.
I was in a similar situation a few years ago, when I was teaching my eldest child about 911. She inadvertently dialed 911 and I quickly hung up the phone. A few minutes later, two Monroe County Sheriff’s Deputies appeared at my door. I assured them everything was fine and that we had dialed 911 accidentally, but I could tell one of the deputies wasn’t quite convinced. I understood his hesitation. It was entirely possible we were being held captive in our home.
As much as I despise police contact and, in spite of my initial gut reaction to refuse law enforcement officers entry into my home —my most sacred zone of privacy —I invited him in to look around. I understood the reason for his concerns.
His intrusion was minimal. He glanced into the family room and saw my kids quietly, calmly watching television. Then he asked where the garage was, approached it stealthily, opened the door and looked around. After observing our demeanor and surroundings, he seemed satisfied everything was fine. He politely thanked me and they left.
As a result of that interaction, I felt safer. The deputies simply were doing their job, and I appreciated their efforts.
I strongly suspect the encounter between Professor Gates and Sgt. Crowley could have ended in much the same fashion had it been handled differently.
There’s a time and a place for just about everything. And the time to express your angst as to how you’re being treated by a police officer generally is after the
encounter has ended.
As Colin Powell explained adeptly when discussing Gates’s arrest on “Larry King Live”: “When you’re faced with an officer trying to do his job and get to the bottom of something, this is not the time to get in an argument with him.”