Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology
Jim is the Director of Information Policy Studies at The Cato Institute, the Editor of Web-based privacy think-tank Privacilla.org, and the Webmaster of WashingtonWatch.com. Prior to becoming a policy analyst, Jim served as counsel to committees in both the House and Senate.
All year in 2008, former National Journal Tech Daily editor and Beltway Blogroller Danny Glover will be cataloging all the taxes his family pays.
“How much do you really pay in taxes?” he says. “If you knew, you might get angry. You should — and I hope this blog will get you riled.”
Note the Weekly Tax Bite posts, where he tracks the tax-man’s weekly take in sales taxes, gas taxes, and so on.
Now that Tech Daily is gone, Danny will be devoting his time to AirCongress.
Last week, I published an Op-Ed in the Detroit News predicting chaos at the border in the face of ramped up document checks. I was wrong.
In fact, the DHS was bluffing. Border crossers who lacked government-issued photo ID and proof of citizenship like birth certificates or naturalization certificates weren’t prevented from crossing. They were given fliers.
As the AP reports:
Bobby and Genice Bogard of Greers Ferry, Ark., . . . who winter in Mission, Texas, knew the requirements were coming but thought they took effect in June. So even though they have U.S. passports, they had left them at home.
“He allowed us to pass with a driver’s license,” Bobby Bogard said of a border agent.
“But next time he said he wouldn’t,” added Genice Bogard.
Yeah.
Something to keep in mind as the DHS threatens to make air travel inconvenient for people from states that don’t comply with the REAL ID Act’s national ID mandate.
The Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet, part of the Graduate School of Political Management of The George Washington University, is hosting the Politics Online Conference 2008 on March 4th and 5th at the Renaissance Washington DC Hotel.
Because of my work on WashingtonWatch.com, and because I live a) online b) in Washington, D.C., this looks like an interesting conference.
Among other things, TLFers might enjoy the first day’s keynote, entitled: Building a Broadband Strategy for America. I like America, and I like Broadband, so it’s got to be good – right?!
And here’s an exclusive for TLF readers – $50 off your admission! When you go to register, in the discount code (optional) field, enter “MINUS50” and you’ll get the savings. Convince 20 of your friends to come and you’ll save $1,000! Hard to pass up.
Hosted on the Web site of Orange County NORML (make of that what you will), a clever illustration of how we’re being “given” security by so many government programs:
The ACLU of Northern California is looking for someone to fill a “two-year (September 2008- September 2010) Technology and Civil Liberties Fellowship to help develop legal and policy papers about emerging technologies and implement an innovative campaign to educate consumers of all ages, policymakers, and businesspeople about privacy and free speech rights.”
Two thoughts:
1) They should pick someone who writes shorter sentences than the one I just quoted.
2) Let’s get a libertarian in there! Dress kinda sloppy and have a sense of humor – they’ll think you’re one of them! 😉
I’ll soon have a paper out on “electronic employment eligibility verification.” This is the idea of requiring every employer in the country to check the immigration status of employees against Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration databases.
A nationwide EEV program, building on the current Basic Pilot/”E-Verify” program, was treated as a matter of near consensus at the beginning of this past summer’s immigration debate, and the Department of Homeland Security continues to promote it.
My paper goes into the practical and technical problems with a full-fledged EEV system, as well as the question whether such a thing is appropriate for a free country. But I’ve already become aware of problems I didn’t think of.
A law went in to effect in Arizona January 1st requiring all employers to use the E-Verify system. The Arizona Republic reports that just 17,000 of the state’s 150,000 businesses have signed up for E-Verify. (January is a slow month for hiring, but employers may be holding off on hiring too. And a lawsuit has been brought challenging the Arizona law.)
Among employers using E-Verify, the question has arisen what to do when an employee has worked for a few days, but then is deemed ineligible by the database. Should the employee who is either an illegal immigrant are a citizen with bad paperwork be paid? “[E]mployers could look for workers who are at risk of failing E-Verify, the online database that checks employment eligibility, and fire those workers without paying them for up to three days of labor,” says the report.
The simple idea of “internal enforcement” of immigration law using employers as Border Patrol agents turns out not to be so simple. E-Verify puts fair-minded employers between a rock and a hard place, while facilitating unscrupulous behavior by others.
“Please note that participation in the grant proposal effort does not constitute a commitment by your jurisdiction to be REAL ID compliant.”
That’s an assurance the heads of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators give to state DMV bureaucrats in a January 14 letter asking them to participate in a grant proposal for REAL ID implementation money.
This means that motor vehicle bureacrats in states that have categorically refused to participate in the national ID system may go ahead and build it anyway, thanks to AAMVA and “free” federal money.
Then they will wait around for the political alignments to change. They may not even wait, as they’ve trained up to lobby for it.
Your tax dollars at work.
The Department of Homeland Security will increase document checks at the border starting Friday. The costs of doing this outweigh the miniscule security benefits, as I discuss in today’s Detroit News.
My Cato colleague (and sometime Center for Freedom and Prosperity doyenne) Dan Mitchell caught me coming off the elevator the other day and told me he didn’t believe my recent post about Bull’s Blood and Estonian singing.
“What, you think I made up a trip to Eger, Hungary?”
“No, I don’t believe you had a girlfriend.”
The best way I can think of to get him back is not insults in kind. It’s merely to put his presentation skills and humor on display for all the world to see. Next to Dan, the Laffer curve is actually interesting!
H.R. 5104 is a bill to extend the Protect America Act of 2007 by 30 days. It’s on the Suspension Calendar in the House, scheduled for consideration on Monday (1/28/08).
The Protect America Act, which broadened the government’s powers to eavesdrop on private conversations without court approval, expires Friday. Congress and the President are at loggerheads about how telecommunications surveillance should be administered, and whether telecommunications companies should be immunized from liability for alleged past violations of surveillance law.
Bills considered under “Suspension of the Rules” get limited debate and are not subject to amendment, but a two-thirds vote is required for passage.
So, what should Congress do? And why?
Your vote is probably “Yes” if you think Congress should continue to negotiate with the President while existing surveillance continues.
Your vote is probably “No” if you think Congress should pass a longer-term extension or give the President greater powers. It’s also “No” if you think Congress should refuse further negotiations, either because these surveillance power are not so important, because they’re unconstitutional, or because political blame for collapsed negotiations can be pinned to the President.
But there are other ways to think about this bill. Vote your piece, and let’s hear your reasoning in the comments!
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
