California Attorney General Kamala Harris

It has been six months since Kamala Harris, California’s attorney general, started to talk to six of the world’s most powerful hi-tech companies about improving the protection of privacy of those that use mobile computing devices such as smartphones and tablets.

Privacy Policy Must Pop Up

Now the Golden State is finally taking action, telling these companies and others that they must forewarn users that they are extracting sensitive information from their mobile devices and to stop if the users ask them to.

The talks which continued over the course of the last half year led to an agreement which will force mobile apps which collect personal information to display “privacy policies” before their services are installed via the apps on their device.

The six mobile mega-giants who are cooperating with Harris on this endeavor are Apple Inc, which produces iPhones and iPads; Google Inc, the search engine icon and maker of the Android operating system mobile software; Amazon.com Inc, maker of Kindle Fire tablets; Microsoft Corp, producer of mobile versions of its ubiquitous computer operating system; Research in Motion, creator of BlackBerry mobile phones; and Hewlett-Packard, which is giving its mobile software to the open-source community of users.

“We are assuming everyone is going to cooperate in good faith and not get cute,” said Harris, who plans to review compliance with the guidelines in six months.

Feds Getting Into the Act

The Obama administration is also venturing into the new territory of trying to reign in what has otherwise been an almost free-for-all development of applications which often have very troubling implications for the constitutionally protected right to privacy of individuals in the United States. On Thursday the federal government will issue new guidelines that it would like to see adopted by technology companies, namely, creating codes of conduct for mobile apps in addition to a number of other digital services.

Harris explained that most mobile apps don’t even have any privacy policy. Part of the reason for this omission is confusion over whether or not a seven-year old law applies to them. The law states that online services that collect personal information must “conspicuously post” a privacy policy. Even the most intrusive of apps, the ones that crawl through address books and other personal files found on smartphones and tablets, don’t post a privacy policy. Apps with this data can often attract more users, or even make their services more compelling.

“I would suggest most consumers don’t want that to happen and in most cases don’t know that is happening,” Harris said.

Lawsuits on the Horizon?

Harris says she will sue any mobile app maker who sucks up personal date without telling their users that they are doing so. Even when mobile app developers do obey the law, Harris admitted, it might still not be enough to protect most people, who will hesitate before reading long and hard to understand privacy policies. It is easier for most people to just check “accept” and not worry about the consequences.

On the other hand, just being forced to take the time and write a coherent privacy policy might be all that is needed to persuade mobile app developers to think about what they are doing more thoroughly, believes Jon Fox, a consumer advocate for the California Interest Research Group.

“Having privacy policies is step one to protecting consumers’ personal information,” Fox said in a statement. “Step two is making sure the privacy policies are strong.”

In some ways, it’s an interesting idea. In others, it feels a bit like Big Brother.  The Utah Senate just passed a bill (18-9) dictating that minors who want to sit under the lights at tanning salons need to have parental permission in order to do so.  The parental permission would be required for each and every visit to the salon.

Tanning Salon Dangers

Senator Pat Jones, D-Holladay makes a good point about the dangers of tanning salons.  As she said,

“If you think it’s inconvenient for parents to be warned about the dangers of tanning, how inconvenient is it to take your children to chemotherapy treatments?”

Certainly, parental consent is required if a minor is going to get an abortion in Utah. And minors are kept from buying cigarettes and alcohol, both substances that can be harmful to their health. It follows, then, that they should be barred from tanning salons where they are exposed to UVA and UVB rays that exceed “safe” limits.  Teenagers, in addition, are at special risk in tanning salons because their bodies are experiencing accelerated growth rates. This causes their cells to be even more receptive to the damage that UV radiation can cause.

Countering the Bill

Countering the bill, however, was Senator Howard Stephenson, R-Draper. He argued that rather than having to offer their consent with every visit to the salon, parents should be able to give their consent annually. His efforts failed.

The bill will now be traveling onto the House.  It looks like kids will soon have to endure having un-tanned bodies or have their parent’s consent every time that they head under those UV lights.

US Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear five and one half hours of arguments on the constitutionality of President Obama’s far-reaching and bold health care law. The date for this hearing is March 26, after which the nine justices will have several months to deliberate on several issues which the Affordable Care Act will bring into focus, deciding by June if this law will survive and prove that President Obama is a man of vision and ideological boldness; or if the justices vote against the policy, proving that it is a bad idea to pursue large policy changes without ideological support which cuts through party affiliations.

Individual Mandate to Purchase Health Insurance

The first question the justices must consider is that of the individual mandate that the Act requires. The law compels individuals to purchase health insurance, or else they will be brought into the government run health care system. States already require people to buy car insurance as a condition before they can own and drive a car. But can the federal government force a person, no matter what the state of his health, financial ability or private beliefs? Federal District Judge Roger Vinson asked this question, if the mandate were to stand: “Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals, not only because the required purchases will positively impact interstate commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier, and are thus more productive and put less of a strain on the health-care system.”

Severability

Another question the justices must ponder is whether the entire Affordable Care Act comes together as one great whole, or whether some of its parts can be severed from its other parts, known as severability. If the law is a bunch of separate parts that can exist without the others, then the judges will have to decide which parts can stay, and which will be deemed unconstitutional. The plaintiffs bringing the case to the Supreme Court, 26 of the 50 states and the National Federation of Independent Business, say that the entire bill must be struck down. The Obama Justice Department will argue instead that the parts can be separated and that most of the components can and should remain.

Tax First, Ask Questions Later

The third issue is slightly technical, having to do with a very old law which states that a tax cannot be challenged before it is implemented and imposed on taxpayers. If it is decided that this law, known as the Anti-Injunction Act does apply here, in other words that the Affordable Care Act is indeed a tax, then it will not need to make a decision on whether the mandate is constitutional until one year after it is supposed to go into effect, in 2014. In other words, the Supreme Court would not be compelled to make any decision until 2015.

State’s Rights, Too?

The last problem is if the federal government can compel individual states to implement the law. If so, already strapped-for-cash state governments will have to massively expand their Medicaid services in order to continue to get Medicaid funding from the feds. States are arguing that Medicaid is already one of the forces pushing states off the budgetary cliff. The National Association of State Budget Officers reports that Medicaid payments grew by 10.1 percent last year alone. That percentage is more than the rate of the growth of debt which is owed to education, prisons, infrastructure upkeep and other basic needs.

James Byrd Jr.

It’s about time.  The Texas Department of Criminal Justice just outlawed its policy of offering a lavish last meal to death row inmates heading for the death chamber.  It’s strange that it took the complaints of one local politician to outlaw such a policy. Senator John Whitmire (D-Houston) said,

"Enough is enough. We're fixing to execute the guy and maybe it makes the system feel good about what they're fixing to do. Kind of hypocritical, you reckon?"

Making a Joke of the System

And it took a convicted murderer’s embarrassing final request for the law to finally be changed. White supremacist Lawrence Russel Brewer killed James Byrd Jr. in a horrific hate crime in 1998. Brewer’s recent request for his last meal consisted of two chicken sandwiches, a triple-meat bacon cheeseburger, okra, a pound of barbeque, three fajitas, a pizza, a pint of ice cream and some fudge. Receiving the lavish meal, Brewer then proceeded to declare that he wasn’t hungry.

A Terrible Policy

It’s a wonder that this policy ever began. Who decided that convicted murderers, about to be killed on the tax payers’ dollar, deserve a lavish last meal?  Did James Byrd Jr. have such a choice before being attached to the back of a pickup truck and dragged to his death?

Whitmire, chairman of the Texas Senate Criminal Justice Committee, incensed after learning about Brewer’s abandoned meal, wrote to prison officials,

"Mr. Byrd didn't get to choose his last meal. The whole deal is so illogical."

Fortunately, the criminal justice commissioner for Texas, Brad Livingston, agreed with Whitmire and withdrew the last meal policy.  He announced this past week that,

"Effective immediately, no such accommodations will be made. They will receive the same meal served to other offenders on the unit."

Wouldn’t it be great if every state that has executions woke up and implemented this policy as well? Do tax dollars really need to be used to accommodate the cravings of convicted murderers?

Social Issues Not for Republicans

Crowley asked Paul, “Are you uncomfortable with this talk about social issues? Do you consider it a winning area for Republicans in November?”

Paul’s answer: “No. I think it’s a losing position.”

“I mean, I talk about it because I have a precise understanding of how difficult problems are to be solved,” Paul added. “And they’re not to be at the national level. We’re not supposed to nationalize these problems. The founders were very clear that problems like this, if there needs to be legislation of sorts, the state has the right to write the legislation that they so choose. And that solves a lot of our problems.”

Took the Personhood Pledge

On December 19 Paul signed what is called the “Personhood Pledge.” This is a statement published by an organization called PersonhoodUSA which seeks to criminalize abortion in the US. Part of the pledge reads: “I stand with President Ronald Reagan in supporting ‘the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,’ and with the Republican Party platform in affirming that I ‘support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.”

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This amendment also says, “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

The context of the 14th Amendment was of course the aftermath of the Civil War, and was meant to protect the rights of the newly freed slaves, and it is very unlikely that embryos and fetuses were on the minds of the lawmakers who passed the amendment. But let’s not let the facts get in the way of Paul’s position on abortion.

“As President, I will sign and aggressively advocate for a law that removes abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal courts,” said Paul. “This approach, done by simple majority vote and stroke of my Presidential Pen, would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to pass strong pro-life legislation immediately. Millions of lives would be saved by this approach while we fight to make every state a right to life state.”

Obamacare Outta Here

In addition to taking the Personhood Pledge Paul promises to discontinue the enforcement of all of the Obama healthcare regulations. He is especially keen on allowing Catholic employers to disregard the portion of the health care reform act which requires all employers to provide health insurance coverage of contraceptives and other forms of birth control.

“I will use my constitutional authority as President to stop the enforcement of all regulations relating to ObamaCare, including the new HHS regulations forcing all employers, even religious or church-affiliated ones, to provide coverage for contraceptives and RU-486 as part of their health insurance plans,” said Paul.

Crowley also asked Paul, “Do you believe from what you see today that Rick Santorum can beat President Obama in November?”

Paul’s answer: “Well, I don’t see how that’s possible. And this whole idea about that talking about the social issues and who is going to pay for birth control pills, I’m worried about undermining our civil liberties, the constant wars going on, the debt of $16 trillion and they are worried about birth control pills and here he wants to, you know, control people’s social lives. At the same time, he voted for Planned Parenthood.”
 

]]> http://www.leftjustified.com/ron-paul-candy-crowley/feed 0 http://www.leftjustified.com/mormons-against-romney http://www.leftjustified.com/mormons-against-romney#comments Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:56:44 +0000 Dan Kazan http://www.leftjustified.com/?p=3027 Certainly, one would assume that Mitt Romney has the backing of those from the Mormon faith. It might surprise some, however, to realize that a growing number of Hispanic Mormons are fighting to ensure that he doesn’t get into office.

Immigration Stance

The issue? Romney’s stance against immigrants and what it means for Hispanic immigrants.  As Antonella Cecilia Packard, a Honduran-born Mormon convert said,

“Yes, we are happy that we have a Mormon running for president. But a lot of us aren’t supporting him because of his stance against immigrants.”

Latino Mormons point to the immigration stories in the Book of Mormon to show why there shouldn’t be policies against immigrants. They also find Mr. Romney’s stance against giving illegal immigrants citizenship status hypocritical since Romney’s own great-grandfather moved to Mexico after the passage of a 1882 law that made polygamy illegal.

As Ignacio Garcia, a history professor at BYU explained,

“We view immigration as a God event. The book says no one comes to the Land unless they are brought by God.”

Growing Latino Dissent

Romney may want to listen to this growing dissent, as Hispanic Mormons are quickly gaining attention and growing in numbers. Hispanics are the fastest-growing group of Mormons in the United States.  Latinos make up approximately 7% of the Mormon population in the United States and the Spanish speaking members has grown tremendously in recent years.

At the same time, ironically, most of these Latino Mormons are illegal immigrants, which means that they don’t have a voting voice against Romney.  Time will tell if he is influenced by their opinion, or if he simply sees them as a nuisance on his way to the race for the White House.

A new Hollywood film appears to be blowing the cover of the ultra-secretive Navy SEALS, ruffling a few feathers along the way.

In a new movie, “Act of Valor,” Navy SEALS play…themselves. Filming for the movie began in 2007, and apparently US defense officials didn’t get word of it until the movie wrapped. The movie is scheduled to premiere on February 24^th, and tells a fictional story of SEALS rescuing a kidnapped CIA agent.

Using the Real Soldiers

While the original plan for the movie was to hire actors, the Bandito Brothers production company managed to persuade the active duty commandos to stick around and take on the leads themselves.

With an office that actually vets scripts and negotiates with Hollywood producers, the Pentagon was not pleased when it found out about this venture.  One defense official, who spoke anonymously with AFP said,

“It’s one thing to be filmed parachuting out of a plane, but it’s another thing to be parachuting and land on the red carpet.”

Vince Ogilvie, the deputy director for entertainment media at the Pentagon said, in a guarded statement, “Obviously, clearly we wish it had gone through the normal channels.”

Defending the Choice

Defending the actions of the SEALS and other elite troops in the film, Admiral William McRaven said,

“We’re conscious of the fact that they are active duty Navy SEALs in there. I can tell you they volunteered. There was no concern on their part of their individual (security) or the security of their family.”

While the names of the commandos don’t appear in the credits, this seems to be a weak way to defend the actions.  The Pentagon is certainly making sure that such a situation doesn’t arise again.  They are emphasizing that all movie projects must be approved before being made.  As one defense official said, “This hasn’t been swept under the carpet.”

]]> http://www.leftjustified.com/navy-seals-exposed/feed 0 http://www.leftjustified.com/walmart-china-yihaodian http://www.leftjustified.com/walmart-china-yihaodian#comments Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:04:19 +0000 Alyssa Anderson http://www.leftjustified.com/?p=3022

Walmart in China

Last May, Walmart, the world’s largest retail business, announced it was going to buy a minority stock in a Chinese e-commerce website, Yihaodian, (Number One Store, in English,) which sells groceries and a large variety of consumer products. On Monday Walmart said it has reached an agreement with Yihaodian to purchase shares so that it will have a 51 percent stake in the company. Walmart is anxious to increase its presence in the Chinese marketplace, one of the fastest growing consumer markets in the world.

Walmart announced that their investment in the Chinese company is subject to government approval, but did not offer any financial details about the deal.

"Our further investment in Yihaodian demonstrates that we are committed to investing in China in a key growth industry and developing all that goes with it: logistics, infrastructure, innovative talent and new technologies…," said Neil Ashe, President and CEO of Walmart Global eCommerce.

Yihaodian has 5,400 employees, running a logistics network which has headquarters in Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou, Wuhan and Chengdu. Its base of customers is growing, offering same-day or next-day delivery of products which are needed on a daily basis, with highly competitive prices.
 

Compromise for Religious Organizations

The Obamacare plan requires that businesses and insurance companies cover women’s healthcare including providing contraception, abortion and sterilization for those who want it. This element of Obamacare has recently been highly criticized by religious organizations who say that they don’t wish to pay for services that they consider immoral. President Obama recently proposed a compromise plan in which the religious non-profit organization is to required to pay for contraception themselves, but the insurance companies will be required to instead.

Republican Representative Carlos Bilbao

The latest protest does not come, however, from the religious front, but from Republicans in Idaho, Missouri and Arizona who wish to extend the exemptions from only applying to religious non-profits, but to also include any secular business or insurer who might object to covering contraception, abortion or sterilization. The lawmakers are proposing state level legislation which would override the federal laws and allow companies that wish to ignore the federal imperative to provide birth control, to do so.

“In its present state, the healthcare bill is an affront to my religious freedoms,” said Idaho Republican Rep. Carlos Bilbao, who is sponsoring the bill.

Women’s Rights Violated

The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) counters by saying that such a bill is discriminatory against women.

“Each time more entities are allowed to deny contraceptive coverage, the religious beliefs of some are imposed on others, and gender equality is undermined,” said Monica Hopkins, the ACLU’s Idaho director.

A similar bill was sponsored in Washington DC by Missouri Republican Senator Roy Blunt. His proposal allows insurance plans to choose not to adhere to the requirement to cover contraception if they have moral problems with such services.

Direct Challenge to President

These bills directly challenge a recent presidential decision to guarantee all employees, even those of religious affiliated organizations, access to contraceptive healthcare coverage.

It is believed that the bills have a good chance of passing since they are being proposed by Republican lawmakers in highly conservative states. As the battle front leaves Washington and heads for the state capitols lawmakers will have a chance to make it harder for women to get contraceptives which they are opposed to supplying on moral grounds.

States’ Rights Issue

This move also will make it easier for opponents of Obamacare to continue the fight anew under the banner of states’ rights.

Opposing the state’s proposals is Planned Parenthood, arguing that these types of laws get involved in women’s health issues and practices which have proven to improve the health of women and children, reducing the rate of infant and maternal mortality.

“We’re going to work to make sure women have access to this benefit no matter where they work,” said Rachel Sussman, a Planned Parenthood senior policy analyst. “Only a few states are moving forward with this, and we think they’re going to soon find out its bad politics … and it’s bad healthcare.”

According to Sussman it is not clear whether Planned Parenthood would file a lawsuit challenging these bills, if they should pass, since they clearly violate federal law.

Twitter was abuzz yesterday with Governor Chris Christie’s decision to fly the flags in New Jersey at half-staff in recognition of Whitney Houston’s funeral. For centuries now, flags have been placed at half-staff to remember Presidents, government officials, royalty, police officers and the like.

But Whitney Houston?

Defending his decision, the governor said that he has had the flags flown at half-staff for all of the 31 fallen New Jersey soldiers and for all police officers that have died while he’s been in office. He even pointed out that the flags were lowered last year for Clarence Clemons, Bruce Springsteen’s saxophonist.

When to Fly the Flag Half-Staff

The half-staff flag honors those who have served their country. It honors people who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. It shows respect to those who were role models.  For all of these reasons, it should not have been used to honor Whitney Houston. 

This is not to say that she didn’t have a glorious voice. It’s not to say that she wasn’t an inspiration and a role model to many.  It is to say, however, that she didn’t serve her country, per se, in the way that police officers, other social servants, and government officials do. It is to say that she wasn’t, in the end, a role model that I’d want any of my children following.  And it is to say that she didn’t make any sacrifice with the waste of her life.

Governor Christie Defends Himself

In response to the outrage, the governor supported his decision. During a briefing in northern New Jersey, he said that,

“I am disturbed by people who believe that because her ultimate demise — and we don’t know what is the cause of her death yet — but because of her history of substance abuse that somehow she’s forfeited the good things that she did in her life. I just reject that on a human level.”

Taking a look around the world at when governments choose to lower their flags, it becomes painfully obvious that Governor Christie missed the mark. Is this really the message we want to send to our children? That the woman who had it all, with the voice of gold and the chance to do amazing things with her life, stayed in an abusive relationship for years, used illicit substances regularly, and ultimately died an unseemly and unnecessary death?

It’s certainly not the message I want my kids hearing. Our flag was flying high yesterday and will remain there until we need to honor a real hero and role model.