be it established that the government shall create a personal database for all persons. this PDB will include different sections including school, work, citizenship, medical, personal, sexual, and so forth.
each item in the database will have an associated permission for each person or group of people with regards to levels of access. for example, whether or not you are home will be green if you are home and they are allowed to know it, red if you are not home and they are allowed to know, and yellow if they are not allowed to know. another example may be green means i'm interested in toy trains and everyone can know about it, red i'm not interested in toy trains or i don't want anyone to know whether i am, and yellow if whether you can know is dependent on some other criteria which may or may not have been met or if you aren't allowed to know. the only information which is certain is if you definitely want someone to know that the answer to their query is yes.
orange can be used for when you don't want someone to know something, but you want them to know that you don't want to know it and blue can be used for when you do want someone to know something but it's dependent on other criteria that haven't been met. think of blue as a waiting for confirmation state and orange as a personalised negative.
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Thursday, February 28, 2013
HBL-A0067 - Right to Memory
Be it resolved that...
each person has an absolute right to record anything he senses for his own future use. Other uses may be constrained according to the privacy rights of others.
For example; you can record anything you see but you cannot play back to other people a recording of someone in the shower that you took accidentally.
each person has an absolute right to record anything he senses for his own future use. Other uses may be constrained according to the privacy rights of others.
For example; you can record anything you see but you cannot play back to other people a recording of someone in the shower that you took accidentally.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
HBL-A0066 - Availability of Owned Goods
be it resolved that...
any commercial entity must make all of its products available for sale. this prevents items from being "just too much trouble". if someone is willing to pay the price they must be able to get the item or download the soundtrack, etc.
this prevents companies from saying "we just don't do that" when they easily enough could and that's what people want. even if they have to refocus their entire company for a short time, as long as someone is willing to pay what they require to do the job (and it must be a reasonable price, not one designed to prevent having to do it at all) then they can always refocus the company back to where it was afterward, and it will never be too far from their core focus anyway.
any commercial entity must make all of its products available for sale. this prevents items from being "just too much trouble". if someone is willing to pay the price they must be able to get the item or download the soundtrack, etc.
this prevents companies from saying "we just don't do that" when they easily enough could and that's what people want. even if they have to refocus their entire company for a short time, as long as someone is willing to pay what they require to do the job (and it must be a reasonable price, not one designed to prevent having to do it at all) then they can always refocus the company back to where it was afterward, and it will never be too far from their core focus anyway.
HBL-A0065 - Inappropriately Bundled Software
be it resolved that
software may not be bundled with other software unless the user is explicitly told that they are getting a package before they make the choice.
this means that there can be no "would you like to install X" when installing another program.
software may not be bundled with other software unless the user is explicitly told that they are getting a package before they make the choice.
this means that there can be no "would you like to install X" when installing another program.
HBL-A0064 - Accurate Status Messages
be it resolved that
all status messages (such in programs - loading, buffering, etc) must accurately reflect the actual state of the program.
all status messages (such in programs - loading, buffering, etc) must accurately reflect the actual state of the program.
HBL-A0063 - Ownership of Medical Information
be it resolved that...
your medical records, including all raw data, are your non-assignable property. you may allow access but may not transfer ownership. this ownership is vested in your personhood, it is not a typical property right.
your medical records, including all raw data, are your non-assignable property. you may allow access but may not transfer ownership. this ownership is vested in your personhood, it is not a typical property right.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
HBL-A0062 - Absolute Rights
...be it resolved that:
every being has an absolute natural law right to do anything which is not harmful to another being. this supersedes common law and statute law by definition. if common or statute law do not protect or provide this right they are invalid. likewise, anyone who prevents someone from attempting those acts must be held liable in all courts.
every being has an absolute natural law right to do anything which is not harmful to another being. this supersedes common law and statute law by definition. if common or statute law do not protect or provide this right they are invalid. likewise, anyone who prevents someone from attempting those acts must be held liable in all courts.
Friday, November 9, 2012
HBL-A0061 - Haven/Bastion Dues and Taxes
...be it resolved that:
Haven/Bastion dues, or taxes per year when appropriate be as follows:
a) no more than 10% of one's personal income subject to rules governing fairness (taxes related to ones income level relative to the average)
b) no less than one cent (or the smallest denomination of ones local currency) per person (sentient being).
Example: with 7 billion people on earth, divided by 10,000 HB members/citizens, the base tax per person would be $700,000 x .01 = $7,000 per person, subject to part (a). the actual amount is based on the smallest local currency and so could be somewhat different from locality to locality until a single HB currency is devised.
Haven/Bastion dues, or taxes per year when appropriate be as follows:
a) no more than 10% of one's personal income subject to rules governing fairness (taxes related to ones income level relative to the average)
b) no less than one cent (or the smallest denomination of ones local currency) per person (sentient being).
Example: with 7 billion people on earth, divided by 10,000 HB members/citizens, the base tax per person would be $700,000 x .01 = $7,000 per person, subject to part (a). the actual amount is based on the smallest local currency and so could be somewhat different from locality to locality until a single HB currency is devised.
Monday, October 8, 2012
HBL-A0060 - Completeness of Criminal Proceedings and Records
...be it resolved that
each part of a criminal case must be shown - intent, culpability, etc.
the purpose of this law is to require every part of a case against someone to be clearly and simply recorded for the understanding of the layman and future use, and so that no part of a case which is a requisite part to convict be unintelligible or hidden. It also ensures that the parts can be fairly balanced by the judge by being well presented.
each part of a criminal case must be shown - intent, culpability, etc.
the purpose of this law is to require every part of a case against someone to be clearly and simply recorded for the understanding of the layman and future use, and so that no part of a case which is a requisite part to convict be unintelligible or hidden. It also ensures that the parts can be fairly balanced by the judge by being well presented.
Friday, September 21, 2012
HBL-A0059 - Fair Use of Intellectual Property
...be it resolved that:
if no free alternative is available for a system which becomes a standard, it falls under fair use doctrine;
this law is to prevent patent monopolies or near-monopolies in cases where there is no reasonable alternative for those with little or no money;
ideally the government will purchase into the public domain any properties that may be considered that level of social good;
if no free alternative is available for a system which becomes a standard, it falls under fair use doctrine;
this law is to prevent patent monopolies or near-monopolies in cases where there is no reasonable alternative for those with little or no money;
ideally the government will purchase into the public domain any properties that may be considered that level of social good;
HBL-A0058 - Ownership of Intellectual Property
...be it resolved that:
patents and Web Domains may not be sold or bartered;
the intent of such property rights is to provide the original creator with control over his intellectual work. In patent cases that person is the only one eligible to receive due compensation for his work. In Web Domain cases, there are usually many valid uses for the same domain at the same time. When an original user no longer requires that name it must be forfieted into the wild for others who are just as worthy to use it to have a chance;
patents and Web Domains may not be sold or bartered;
the intent of such property rights is to provide the original creator with control over his intellectual work. In patent cases that person is the only one eligible to receive due compensation for his work. In Web Domain cases, there are usually many valid uses for the same domain at the same time. When an original user no longer requires that name it must be forfieted into the wild for others who are just as worthy to use it to have a chance;
HBL-A0057 - Ownership of Patents
...be it resolved that:
patents may be owned only by individuals, not corporations;
ownership of patents by corporations stifles their use. When individuals own the patents, companies will be forced to engage in competitive compensation measures with them and they will be more likely to allow the wide-spread use of their intellectual property;
patents may be owned only by individuals, not corporations;
ownership of patents by corporations stifles their use. When individuals own the patents, companies will be forced to engage in competitive compensation measures with them and they will be more likely to allow the wide-spread use of their intellectual property;
HBL-A0056 - Intellectual Property
...be it resolved that:
any company whose primary means of support is owning patents, web domains, etc. is illegal. Restricting use of intellectual property without due cause is illegal;
These types of property are only allowed to be owned or patented as a means of providing appropriate worth to the creator. These items are of no value to anyone unless they are actually being used. Any attempt to lock up use of an intellectual property is contrary to the point of that properties very existence;
ref: HBL-A0037
any company whose primary means of support is owning patents, web domains, etc. is illegal. Restricting use of intellectual property without due cause is illegal;
These types of property are only allowed to be owned or patented as a means of providing appropriate worth to the creator. These items are of no value to anyone unless they are actually being used. Any attempt to lock up use of an intellectual property is contrary to the point of that properties very existence;
ref: HBL-A0037
HBL-A0055 - Universal Enfranchisement
...be it resolved that:
whoever raises an objection to a law's usefulness or applicability will have the initial stages of that objection handled at no expense to themselves other than time. Those stages will include only material which may fit that person's view of the law except for a simple and concise breakdown of why the other side considers it valid. Any successful attack of a law which is mounted by them or their lawyers from that point on will be fully reimbursed by the government at such time as their case is successful;
The intent of this law is to prevent there ever being a possibility that someone finds an unlawful situation which they cannot correct because of resource issues. Any time someone feels there is a legal matter which needs to be dealt with, they may not be required to use their own resources to bring the matter to be dealt with;
Temporary: needs wording reworked. Valid under its intent, not it's specific wording.
whoever raises an objection to a law's usefulness or applicability will have the initial stages of that objection handled at no expense to themselves other than time. Those stages will include only material which may fit that person's view of the law except for a simple and concise breakdown of why the other side considers it valid. Any successful attack of a law which is mounted by them or their lawyers from that point on will be fully reimbursed by the government at such time as their case is successful;
The intent of this law is to prevent there ever being a possibility that someone finds an unlawful situation which they cannot correct because of resource issues. Any time someone feels there is a legal matter which needs to be dealt with, they may not be required to use their own resources to bring the matter to be dealt with;
Temporary: needs wording reworked. Valid under its intent, not it's specific wording.
HBL-A0054 - Anti-Logic
...be it resolved that:
In this world we do things like making people pay for not having money and such.
There may be no more obtuse form of bullshit than this.
Making people pay for their own jail/prison stays. For the priviledge of being punished. And no, the cost is never considered to be part of the punishment. Make those who already have no money have even less, and thus less chance of ever getting ahead, and thus a greater reason to be a criminal
Making people pay for child-support without giving them custody equal to what they pay. Now they have reason to hate. And reason to not-comply because rather than being fair to the child, the entire situation is only against them. There happens to be more than just the child's interest involved there, not that the child's interest is ever properly measured.
Federal disaster money doesn't go to the people who had to put up with the disaster, it goes to the state, to pay for things related to the disaster. Sure, some of that money is well placed, to pay for things which affected everyone, but for the most part it's tossed into the big pot of government where they have plenty of money already by taking it from those people who were hurt.
If you kill a pregnant woman, you get two charges. What if you didn't know she was pregnant? What if She didn't know she was pregnant? What if it was your baby and you never would have killed her had you known? What if the baby would have been stillborn? This issue was tossed into the illogic pot known as law without so much as batting an eye at the particulars which Will come up in every single individual case.
In this country, if a woman is bothering the shit out of you, and has stolen from you, all she has to do is lie (on top of it all) and suddenly the government will be on her side. Your movements will be restricted, she will have control over where you can be by being there herself to keep you away. Rather than even examining the issue to determine whether she told the truth, you will immediately be laden with even more trouble. You will be required to take your own time, money, and trouble to court to even attempt to reverse this extreme injustice, and that doesn't even count that they'll probably take her side in any "your word against hers" scenario. In order to get back to zero you'll have to beat the case Against You, and then pay your own time and money Again to file suit against her on the Chance of getting justice. If you do anything toward justice on your own, they'll throw you in jail and complications will compound even further. Just like that, even though she was entirely in the wrong from the beginning and deserved steps taken against her, she can have your entire life ruined. This is the tip of the iceberg, it only counts general harassment, not a case like rape.
In this world we do things like making people pay for not having money and such.
There may be no more obtuse form of bullshit than this.
Making people pay for their own jail/prison stays. For the priviledge of being punished. And no, the cost is never considered to be part of the punishment. Make those who already have no money have even less, and thus less chance of ever getting ahead, and thus a greater reason to be a criminal
Making people pay for child-support without giving them custody equal to what they pay. Now they have reason to hate. And reason to not-comply because rather than being fair to the child, the entire situation is only against them. There happens to be more than just the child's interest involved there, not that the child's interest is ever properly measured.
Federal disaster money doesn't go to the people who had to put up with the disaster, it goes to the state, to pay for things related to the disaster. Sure, some of that money is well placed, to pay for things which affected everyone, but for the most part it's tossed into the big pot of government where they have plenty of money already by taking it from those people who were hurt.
If you kill a pregnant woman, you get two charges. What if you didn't know she was pregnant? What if She didn't know she was pregnant? What if it was your baby and you never would have killed her had you known? What if the baby would have been stillborn? This issue was tossed into the illogic pot known as law without so much as batting an eye at the particulars which Will come up in every single individual case.
In this country, if a woman is bothering the shit out of you, and has stolen from you, all she has to do is lie (on top of it all) and suddenly the government will be on her side. Your movements will be restricted, she will have control over where you can be by being there herself to keep you away. Rather than even examining the issue to determine whether she told the truth, you will immediately be laden with even more trouble. You will be required to take your own time, money, and trouble to court to even attempt to reverse this extreme injustice, and that doesn't even count that they'll probably take her side in any "your word against hers" scenario. In order to get back to zero you'll have to beat the case Against You, and then pay your own time and money Again to file suit against her on the Chance of getting justice. If you do anything toward justice on your own, they'll throw you in jail and complications will compound even further. Just like that, even though she was entirely in the wrong from the beginning and deserved steps taken against her, she can have your entire life ruined. This is the tip of the iceberg, it only counts general harassment, not a case like rape.
HBL-A0053 - Formalizing "Ethics" and "Morals"
...be it resolved that:
Ethics is the study of right and wrong, etc. Morals are those answers or results derived from Ethics.
Ethics is the study of right and wrong, etc. Morals are those answers or results derived from Ethics.
HBL-A0052 - Passive Duty
...be it resolved that:
every person has the natural right to do anything which does not negatively effect another. This means each person has a duty not to restrict another's right to do as they please, so long as they are not causing harm.
every person has the natural right to do anything which does not negatively effect another. This means each person has a duty not to restrict another's right to do as they please, so long as they are not causing harm.
HBL-A0051 - Mean People
...be it resolved that:
All people who are mean and uncontentious should be considered assholes.
All assholes should be shot.
Anyone who's one or the other should be slapped in the back of the head, Hard.
There are circumstances which may arise which make it possible to OBJECTIVELY determine whether someone should be allowed to stay on the planet. The most basic and clear showing of this principle exists in relation to betraying trust, or to put it in terms of our definition of evil, to betray that which you should uphold. This is the definition of evil (HBLx)
Person A is in need of some money, and person B who has little but can spare it for a short time loans it. Person A then does not pay person B back, even though they have the means to do so, and in fact takes other measures against person B to prevent them from being able to recover their money. There are no further particulars in this case. It requires, in order to be able to do such a thing, a character flaw so deep that there can be no doubt that person A is an asshole. The other things which have happened in their life can have no bearing on this. There is no way to morally excuse such an action and to be capable of it requires a personality that is beyond worthless.
Because someone's most basic rights are life (because you were born with no choice), liberty (which is required to try to make any use of your life), and the pursuit of happiness (without which life and liberty are pointless), and because they infringe upon those rights of yours in the most fundamental way. Not only are they doing morally wrong, they are doing morally wrong when they are specifically supposed to, both by social and actual contract, be doing morally good.
There are certain things a good person simply cannot bring themselves to do. One example of this would be to treat negatively a person who has just helped them. Another example is to hold someone responsible for something clearly beyond their control. A third example is, if they have harmed another, to react to that person's defense by attacking. These are all things that bad people commonly do, and that are ignored or justified in various ways by society.
All people who are mean and uncontentious should be considered assholes.
All assholes should be shot.
Anyone who's one or the other should be slapped in the back of the head, Hard.
There are circumstances which may arise which make it possible to OBJECTIVELY determine whether someone should be allowed to stay on the planet. The most basic and clear showing of this principle exists in relation to betraying trust, or to put it in terms of our definition of evil, to betray that which you should uphold. This is the definition of evil (HBLx)
Person A is in need of some money, and person B who has little but can spare it for a short time loans it. Person A then does not pay person B back, even though they have the means to do so, and in fact takes other measures against person B to prevent them from being able to recover their money. There are no further particulars in this case. It requires, in order to be able to do such a thing, a character flaw so deep that there can be no doubt that person A is an asshole. The other things which have happened in their life can have no bearing on this. There is no way to morally excuse such an action and to be capable of it requires a personality that is beyond worthless.
Because someone's most basic rights are life (because you were born with no choice), liberty (which is required to try to make any use of your life), and the pursuit of happiness (without which life and liberty are pointless), and because they infringe upon those rights of yours in the most fundamental way. Not only are they doing morally wrong, they are doing morally wrong when they are specifically supposed to, both by social and actual contract, be doing morally good.
There are certain things a good person simply cannot bring themselves to do. One example of this would be to treat negatively a person who has just helped them. Another example is to hold someone responsible for something clearly beyond their control. A third example is, if they have harmed another, to react to that person's defense by attacking. These are all things that bad people commonly do, and that are ignored or justified in various ways by society.
HBL-A0050 - An Analogy of Personality Types
...be it resolved that:
People are like plant:
People are like plant:
- Flowers - There are some who are just pretty or interesting to watch, such as Paris Hilton, who make the world a little nicer place to live just by existing.
- Vegetables - Some people don't particularly contribute to the good of the world, or of society, but they try their best to be good people and any shortcomings in their actions are no fault of their own due to being misled or misinformed. They try not to harm anyone, they contribute productively in whatever way they see fit as a positive action and generally don't cause any problems for those around them.
- Fruits - These people are the philosophers, the teachers, the activists... they both work hard to make the world a better place and do so conscientiously. Their every motive and act can be traced to a reasoned analysis of its cause and results and they are generally blameless, even overcoming some of the shortcomings pressed upon them by society. Even if they are not successful in this regard, they have done their best both to do the right thing And to fully prepare their minds with a logical framework within which to act. This is what separates them from the Vegetables - a Vegetable may do the right thing but they put little if any serious contemplation into why it is the right thing; their philosophy is immature.
- Weeds - Everyone else is a weed, merely taking up space needed by better, more deserving beings than themselves, or a poisonous weed, dedicated to their own good at the expense of any and all who surround them. They do not deserve to be here taking up resources needed by other, good, people.
HBL-A0049 - Sexuality
...be it resolved that:
For a long time now people have had a Christian-based philosophy that pornography is bad.
It's not.
What IS bad is people causing so much trouble over something that's as natural as breathing or eating. There's not any possible excuse, reason, or anything that comes anywhere close to a logical point in their points of view.
Sex, and everything related to sex, is neutral, it can be bad (and noone has anything to say about being against rape) but more often than anything else, it's good. SO, to sum up, the people who are against pornography are Assholes, both mean and unconcientious, and should therefore be shot.
For a long time now people have had a Christian-based philosophy that pornography is bad.
It's not.
What IS bad is people causing so much trouble over something that's as natural as breathing or eating. There's not any possible excuse, reason, or anything that comes anywhere close to a logical point in their points of view.
Sex, and everything related to sex, is neutral, it can be bad (and noone has anything to say about being against rape) but more often than anything else, it's good. SO, to sum up, the people who are against pornography are Assholes, both mean and unconcientious, and should therefore be shot.
HBL-A0048 - The "War on Drugs"
...be it resolved that:
The United States spend Billions!! of dollars per year on the War on Drugs. Total reduction in drug use: 0.
Obviously there are problems with drugs, big problems. The Real Problem isn't drug use itself, but addiction and the way society deals with drugs. Drugs are shoved into the shady corners of life, of course there will be crime related. Three's crime enough in those areas anyway, drugs are merely an exacerbating factor.
If drugs were legalized (aside from ones which cause direct, personal, incontrivertable harm), this would no longer be the case. People would enjoy them with impunity and they would be awarded no greater affect than soda, cigarettes, or sugar-laden junk food. For the most part, drugs cause no problems, the War on Drugs causes problems. I don't know if you've ever tried any, but it's a fairly personal experience. A few stragglers aside, most drug use wouldn't be out in the open even if it were legalized.
The United States spend Billions!! of dollars per year on the War on Drugs. Total reduction in drug use: 0.
Obviously there are problems with drugs, big problems. The Real Problem isn't drug use itself, but addiction and the way society deals with drugs. Drugs are shoved into the shady corners of life, of course there will be crime related. Three's crime enough in those areas anyway, drugs are merely an exacerbating factor.
If drugs were legalized (aside from ones which cause direct, personal, incontrivertable harm), this would no longer be the case. People would enjoy them with impunity and they would be awarded no greater affect than soda, cigarettes, or sugar-laden junk food. For the most part, drugs cause no problems, the War on Drugs causes problems. I don't know if you've ever tried any, but it's a fairly personal experience. A few stragglers aside, most drug use wouldn't be out in the open even if it were legalized.
HBL-A0047 - Consent
...be it resolved that:
In issues of consent, the determining factor must be whether the subject Would have consented if they had the knowledge and mental faculty necessary to properly make that determination for themselves. However, the consent itself may be determined by proxy, by guardian, or by presumption or default.
ex: Should a mentally retarded person be forever consigned to a life of non-sexuality? Should anyone who becomes sexually active with them be held to be a criminal for violating their rights? They will never be capable of properly deciding the issue for themselves, yet they are sexual beings as much as anyone else and have the natural right to be sexually active.
A guardian is appointed for such people precisely to make those determinations in cases where the subject cannot decide for themselves.
This argument can be applied equally, and exactly, in the case of animals or children or people in temporary states of mental malfunction whether drunkenness, seizure, coma, etc.
In issues of consent, the determining factor must be whether the subject Would have consented if they had the knowledge and mental faculty necessary to properly make that determination for themselves. However, the consent itself may be determined by proxy, by guardian, or by presumption or default.
ex: Should a mentally retarded person be forever consigned to a life of non-sexuality? Should anyone who becomes sexually active with them be held to be a criminal for violating their rights? They will never be capable of properly deciding the issue for themselves, yet they are sexual beings as much as anyone else and have the natural right to be sexually active.
A guardian is appointed for such people precisely to make those determinations in cases where the subject cannot decide for themselves.
This argument can be applied equally, and exactly, in the case of animals or children or people in temporary states of mental malfunction whether drunkenness, seizure, coma, etc.
HBL-A0046 - Children and Sex
...be it resolved that:
As a society, we've got a hoard of double-standards regarding this issue.
First of all, child pornography. This crime is unique in that the stigma and penalties associated with watching the crime being committed are similar in nature to those of committing the crime itself. Ludicrious! Since when is viewing a crime almost as bad as doing the crime? And why this particular crime? It's not illegal to have pictures of someone being shot, stabbed, etc. Hell, we see it in living color on CNN all the time. The point is, we're not holding this category of crime to any reasonable or logical standards.
That all begs the question, "Is any harm actually done?" Many would say yes by default. That is an absurd, blatently illogical position. For harm to be done, they "victim" must be either unwilling or unable to make their own decisions (and there's only Potential harm there). There are several millions of people under the age of 18 who are ready, willing, and able to engage in sexual activity. Furthermore, I know personally several over 21 who are not ready, and may never be. The simple fact is, noone is really prepared their first time... nor should they be, it's a natural part of the process. The greatest expert of all, Mother Nature, says they're physically ready, noone can argue with that, and kids today may be more sophisticated culturally then ever before in history. Only in a few twisted cultures are kids not considered ready to be married off and sent on their way shortly after puberty. Granted, the more time you have to prepare, the better off you'll be, but the point stands. They are as ready as they need to be. Most kids 15-16 know more about sex now then their parents ever will.
We here at Elite Inc. are firm believers in the adage "No Victim, No Crime". Whenever you try to protect someone from themselves, you do a disservice to them and a crime against freedom. It's time that people shut the fuck up about their biases and let people decide for themselves what's right and wrong for them. Being against children having sex has no moral foundation and is not supported by any known facts.
This is a very disturbing trend which began with child pornography, that is, the path to child pornography being outlawed. From the initial child abuse there is presumption after presumption - that the child cannot consent based on the legal age in that state, that taking pictures of the act is as bad as the act itself, that distribution of the pictures is as bad as taking pictures of the act, that acquisition of the pictures is as bad as taking pictures of the act, that viewing the pictures is as bad as the acquisition of the pictures. The point here is that things many many steps removed from the actual harm are increasingly being treated as though they are just as bad as the initial harm itself. This is a terrible path to be on.
As a society, we've got a hoard of double-standards regarding this issue.
First of all, child pornography. This crime is unique in that the stigma and penalties associated with watching the crime being committed are similar in nature to those of committing the crime itself. Ludicrious! Since when is viewing a crime almost as bad as doing the crime? And why this particular crime? It's not illegal to have pictures of someone being shot, stabbed, etc. Hell, we see it in living color on CNN all the time. The point is, we're not holding this category of crime to any reasonable or logical standards.
That all begs the question, "Is any harm actually done?" Many would say yes by default. That is an absurd, blatently illogical position. For harm to be done, they "victim" must be either unwilling or unable to make their own decisions (and there's only Potential harm there). There are several millions of people under the age of 18 who are ready, willing, and able to engage in sexual activity. Furthermore, I know personally several over 21 who are not ready, and may never be. The simple fact is, noone is really prepared their first time... nor should they be, it's a natural part of the process. The greatest expert of all, Mother Nature, says they're physically ready, noone can argue with that, and kids today may be more sophisticated culturally then ever before in history. Only in a few twisted cultures are kids not considered ready to be married off and sent on their way shortly after puberty. Granted, the more time you have to prepare, the better off you'll be, but the point stands. They are as ready as they need to be. Most kids 15-16 know more about sex now then their parents ever will.
We here at Elite Inc. are firm believers in the adage "No Victim, No Crime". Whenever you try to protect someone from themselves, you do a disservice to them and a crime against freedom. It's time that people shut the fuck up about their biases and let people decide for themselves what's right and wrong for them. Being against children having sex has no moral foundation and is not supported by any known facts.
This is a very disturbing trend which began with child pornography, that is, the path to child pornography being outlawed. From the initial child abuse there is presumption after presumption - that the child cannot consent based on the legal age in that state, that taking pictures of the act is as bad as the act itself, that distribution of the pictures is as bad as taking pictures of the act, that acquisition of the pictures is as bad as taking pictures of the act, that viewing the pictures is as bad as the acquisition of the pictures. The point here is that things many many steps removed from the actual harm are increasingly being treated as though they are just as bad as the initial harm itself. This is a terrible path to be on.
HBL-A0045 - HB Structure
...be it resolved that:
Haven/Bastion (formerly Elite Inc.) can be thought of in two ways. In its current iteration it is a militarily structured organization for improving the freedoms and resources of its members. The practical way of stating that is "Resources are to be gathered for their use and to provide them with as much seperation from the rest of the world as possible" so that our standards apply rather than those of wherever they happen to be.
Elite Inc. is also a government. We have in place a structure which would scale to cover an entire country if the opportunity or need arises. While the military structure remains intact in this larger variety, It is then relegated to those persuing official functions.
The two types of Elite Inc. structure co-exist in harmony by variety of scale. What this means is, as the organization grows larger, more governmental functions will come into play and the military aspects will find their place as the internal workings of that government.
There are 4 main branches of Elite Inc.
The final structure of both Logistics and Operations is under review and will evolve as needs arise.
Haven/Bastion (formerly Elite Inc.) can be thought of in two ways. In its current iteration it is a militarily structured organization for improving the freedoms and resources of its members. The practical way of stating that is "Resources are to be gathered for their use and to provide them with as much seperation from the rest of the world as possible" so that our standards apply rather than those of wherever they happen to be.
Elite Inc. is also a government. We have in place a structure which would scale to cover an entire country if the opportunity or need arises. While the military structure remains intact in this larger variety, It is then relegated to those persuing official functions.
The two types of Elite Inc. structure co-exist in harmony by variety of scale. What this means is, as the organization grows larger, more governmental functions will come into play and the military aspects will find their place as the internal workings of that government.
There are 4 main branches of Elite Inc.
- Administration: Sets scope & policy for the organization, dictates laws & rules, Has final say over any decisions for the organization as a whole.
- Logistics: In charge of keeping track of all Elite Inc. resources including those used by Operations, of which the Military is a part. Their rules determine resource use in the whole of the organization, but their policy is set by Administration. Some parts of logistics walk a fine line between logistics and operations such as libraries, communications and transportation. While logistics manages these resources as to their availability and tracking, Operations is in charge of the daily workings of these things.
- Operations: This group comprises the bulk of Elite Inc. as a governmental structure. It includes the schools, courts, military, everything that makes up a typical government.
- The Military is seperated because it includes police and court functions as well. This part of Operations is specifically watched and tightly controlled by both Administration and Oversight.
- Oversight: This is the most important branch of Elite Inc. The governmental structure could exist without it but that is exactly where current governments fail. Checks & balances are only as good as those carrying them out. By having a seperate branch devoted to nothing but making sure everything else is properly done (following the Bill of Rights and Constitution as set forth by Administration, and less specifically, the rules of each branch internally), it is possible to let each other branch concentrate on it's duties and police itself without the normal fear of corruption. Oversight is the most autonomous branch of Elite Inc. given complete freedom to examine any aspect of any other branch. Administration and Oversight watch each other. Should a conflict arise between the two, the court system of Operations will step in as the final arbiter except in cases which concern the overall focus of the organization, in which Administration has final say.
The final structure of both Logistics and Operations is under review and will evolve as needs arise.
HBL-A0044 - The Metric System
...be it resolved that:
HB formally adopt the metric system for most purposes
The American Standard system of weights and measures is arcane and with no saving grace. Meanwhile the Metric System races through the rest of the world making things easy and understandable for everyone but the conservative throwbacks in this country. There is an officially government sanctioned move toward the metric system, the National Institute for Standards & Technology's aptly named Metric Program. Please support them in their fight for reason.
HB formally adopt the metric system for most purposes
The American Standard system of weights and measures is arcane and with no saving grace. Meanwhile the Metric System races through the rest of the world making things easy and understandable for everyone but the conservative throwbacks in this country. There is an officially government sanctioned move toward the metric system, the National Institute for Standards & Technology's aptly named Metric Program. Please support them in their fight for reason.
HBL-A0043 - Responsibilities of Business to Their Employees
...be it resolved that:
the following is an example of evil (ref .HBL-Ax) in that the purpose of any business entity is to comply with its contractual obligations. this includes specifically that whatever you lead someone to expect is what they will receive. more pointedly, noone can be expected to make the right decisions without the right information and apparently they made no serious attempts to rectify repeated problems in that regard, instead choosing to blame the innocent. this is a double-evil because they were actually blaming the victim of their own incompetence for the results of it.
http://joestraitiff.livejournal.com/
Below are the 1 most recent journal entries recorded in joestraitiff's LiveJournal:
Wednesday, November 10th, 2004
5:07 pm
So I'm posting under my real name -- you have to stand up to this type of thing or it will continue. And every company will become EA so that can compete... Remember, you can't spell ExploitAtion without EA.
Here's my story from front to back, I'll let you decide who's the insane one here. I just listed several of the incidents that led up to my dismissal that I assume were the reasons. Laughingly, I don't really know the exact why -- I never got one from HR and my boss just said the last item was the "last straw." However, I skipped many colorful and fleshing out stuff that shows you the culture of EA, e.g. the Executive Producer of the project hung a neon sign in the team area that said "Open 7 days" and constantly sent out emails to the whole team saying that he'd see them over the weekend. Or the meeting five months before the ship date where they were trying to tell everyone that weekends from then are were mandatory without actually saying it. There was never discussion on cutting stuff or adding resources to complete the game, it was always about working longer and harder.
I joined EA through Maxis, I definitely didn't want to work for EA but Maxis was different and seperate when I joined and the lure of working on a new SimCity geared to consoles was just too great. I spent a year working on two different projects at Maxis that ended up being cancelled (because of lack of management support -- our work was the best I'd ever seen). I was constantly praised, received off-cycle raises, produced tons of prototypes, and rarely worked more than 40 hours a week and never more than 50.
Then it happened -- Maxis was moved to EA redwood shores. Drawn into the mothership. I didn't want to move so I gave them a huge list of "must-have" things or I wouldn't move. They wanted me badly and met all of those desires. They made extra-sure to keep me quiet about what I got because the deal was one of the top 10 for the studio (we're talking above six figures here just for the relocation package...).
Coincidentally, when the move happened they cancelled SimCity again, and put me on another project (The Urbz). And I do mean PUT me on -- I was never consulted, talked to, or anything. One day my new manager came over, told me he was my new manager and gave me a pile of work...
Now, I was peeved this happened, at least they could've asked me to go on the project. I really didn't want to -- they worked hard the year before to ship the product and I didn't want to get sucked into that mess. (Now I wish it had only been as hellish as the year before -- everyone agrees it got MUCH worse and will be MUCH worse the next round).
Well, I started cranking out work on the new project doing great stuff, however, their tracking system was different than I was used to and I was pulled into a meeting for being "late" on a task. It took me a week to do a "3-day task" that I didn't estimate (but even if I had, I would have screwed it up also -- there was no research done into the impact the task would be). After discussion, it became clear that what I really did was do a three week task in one week (I had been informing my "swat lead" all along about why it was taking longer. Apparently that information wasn't propigated to my supervisor.) And if I had been empowered to do even an afternoon's worth of research I would've estimated a month for the task... So after that discussion with my supervisor, we worked out the proper reporting channel and things moved forward again. It was changed into me reporting directly to my supervisor. This was the first sign of trouble.
Time passed and I was pulled into another meeting with my supervisor to discuss the "issue" from the previous day. This was on Wednesday, on Monday I had worked a 14 hour day to clear stuff off my plate before a build was due so I put in the effort to get it done. The next day I was called at home at 11:30am to come in, there was a problem with one of the other builds because of some of my work. Yup, I had overslept and missed the "you must be in by 10am no matter what" deadline that was in effect, but I had also been up until 7am with a sick daughter. So I came in quickly, fixed the problem (it was in code that I had done a month before and had never been tested on that platform...), gave the fix to the person who owned the platform and asked him to inform me if there were any problems. This was all finished about 1pm. I then worked through the afternoon untill 6:30pm and was falling asleep at my desk so I decided to leave, and did (yup that was about a 7 hour day -- I work through lunch to spend more time with my family. However, I felt that was PLENTY given how long I'd been in the night before and the fact that I could no longer work due to fatigue). Well, the next day I was ripped into because a build for that platform didn't happen on time. Yup read that again, I was blamed for a platform that wasn't my responsibility, AND get this -- my fix worked, but I was yelled at for not staying until the build was done and verified. I didn't even know there was a build. Sign number two of trouble. I explained all this to my supervisor during that meeting and he seemed perfectly fine with the explaination.
Well, a few weeks pass, and some bug shows up in my code at 10pm (yup I had left at 7 or 8, I was trying to only work about 40-50 hour weeks and was keeping up with my schedule by working at breakneck speed -- but there was no way I was working on weekends which you were required to do if you were "behind"). I got a call from another team member asking if I knew what a certain problem was, it clicked, and I gave him a solution that worked, over the phone, in under 15 minutes. Well, the next day I was pulled into another meeting with my supervisor and got yelled at for not being there. He said (even though he denied it in a later meeting) that he didn't have issue with the quantity or quality of my work (in fact he praised the quality of my work) but said that someone in my "senior" position (my title was only Software Engineer not Senior engineer but I've shipped a lot of titles and been in the industry for about 6 years) should be available a lot more at "this time in the project" in fact I should be working at least 12 hours a day, which I said was completely unaccetable. I'd do the work given me but I certainly wasn't going to sacrafice my family, and certainly not that early in the project. It's ok (not really, but it's a common consesus) to work those kinds of hours the week before a major deadline (E3, alpha, beta, final) however outside of that 10 hours a day should be the absolute max.
Warning sign number three...
Then I received a call at 10:30pm on a Saturday night to come in and fix a problem immediately. Well, I was asleep -- my daughter had actually gone to bed early and my wife and I took advantage of that and crashed. Well in the morning when I checked my email (after hearing the message) they had fixed the problem within an hour. I assumed this was going to be a big problem with my supervisor, so on Monday the first thing I did was email HR and schedule an appointment to discuss the communication issues I was having with my supervisor.
I talked to the head HR person because the regular one wasn't available and she wanted to set up a meeting between me, my supervisor, and our HR person. Apparently she already had an appointment with my supervisor that afternoon and would convey the information.
Well, that meeting happened and everything seemed to be cleared up. The communication problems were going to be solved by a clearly defined task list that "had to be done" by Friday with the posibility of it changing if higher priority things came along. In the words of my supervisor "This is a very aggressive schedule are you sure you can get it done -- it will require a lot of extra hours." I agreed to it, partially to clear the air between us and partially because it was now late in the project and we had to ship the pig.
Well the week cruised by with me not hearing a peep from my supervisor except in reply to almost daily status reports I was sending him (on my own perogative, to forestall any suprises). I worked my butt off and completed the list. I had several "great job" emails from my supervisor during this time.
Then things went nuts. On monday, when I came in, I was pulled into a meeting (on 5 minutes notice) with my supervisor and our HR contact. Apparently my work the week before was "unacceptable." I got everything done on the list, but I didn't get every single new thing added by everyone else. Now we had discussed this in the previous meetings and I wasn't supposed to prioritize stuff from anyone except from my supervisor, and he also said we'd talk if something new was supposed to replace anything on my must do list. Neither of these things happened. So the new stuff (only a couple trifing things that I had already almost completed that monday before the meeting) wasn't complete.
It was a suprise -- I did what they asked, and was yelled at for it. I was "supposed" to have completed every little thing extra. And, both the HR guy and my supervisor lied that that was what had been discussed at the last meeting. I couldn't believe the bold faced lie, so I capitulated saying that I must've misunderstood and apologized.
The weirdest thing in this meeting, which I now understand is "stock EA" was the attitude of the HR contact. HR is supposed to be the employee's advocate, they are supposed to try to keep people and work things out. However, that is not at all how he acted, in fact he asked me several times to "just quit" He also said that if I didn't turn around and show more "commitment" to EA I would be punished "up to and including termination." I was stunned. I had kicked ass and worked my heart out for this project, created tons of great code, fixed some of the worst horrible mess I've ever seen (that codebase is the worst quality I've ever seen in my life, bar none. And I thought I had already seen the worst twice before at different companies.).
My supervisor said that the only way he could continue to work with me was if I fully commited to shipping the game and would do whatever it took to do so. I capitulated again -- at this point there were two weeks left, so it was time to dig down anyway. So I promised him and then I worked like an idiot.
From then until ship was hell. Many nights working till 4am when we finally had the ok to go home, only to be expected to return by 10am. I did it all, cranked out the last bits of work, found some vicious bugs, cleared my bug list constantly. I.e. was the perfect psycho worker. Then we hit final and things started to calm down a bit, then we were in CQC (EA's Corporate Quality Control, you have to pass testing there for 7-10 days before you can submit to Sony, Nintendo, and Xbox to get their approval for manufacturing). Things would heat up and we would crank stuff out to resubmit to CQC so we could make our ship date. During this time we also had our studio test department banging on the game and they would find stuff for us to fix that we'd choose wether or not we'd put in a new build to CQC (because we didn't want to "reset the clock" in CQC and miss our ship date). One of these issues was mine, one of the guys on the team could reproduce it, so I (and another teammate) figured it out, created a fix and sent it to the other guy to test (as he wasn't around much -- this is that time of the project were some people work like crazy and others play games). He dropped by at one point to tell me how the fix acted and it sounded perfectly correct, however I was busy getting the fix into a build so I didn't visually verify it on his system at that moment. This was around 2pm. After getting it ready for the build I tried to catch him to see the problem, and he wasn't around so I emailed him to tell me when he was back so I could just do the sanity check that the fix worked (I had told my supervisor that I'd be sure it would work on that guys machine, the guy told me it had, but I was paranoid and I wanted to see it). Well 7pm rolled around and he still wasn't back, so I went home.
The next day I was publicly reamed via email. Notice that I said the next day -- I wasn't called about any problems nor emailed that night. There was NO attempt to contact me at all that there was a problem. I didn't find out until 11am the next day when my supervisor wrote the flaming email. Apparently the fix wasn't acting EXACTLY the same on his machine there was a slight difference and my supervisor was pissed. I finally got to see it on the guys machine, studied the code found a minor change to make it work on his system put it in the build and had it all ready. This fix was then integrated into a build for CQC days later. I.e. there was no time pressure for it. I was never told that it had to be done "that day no matter what" and it wasn't even verified for a couple days.
However, that was the "last straw" per my Supervisor and I was terminated over a week later at 5pm on a Tuesday... I was told I could "voluntarily resign" but I turned that down. Why hide what was happening? I don't see how it could possibly look bad for me, in every case I did what was asked and more. It was always just interpreted in the worst possible way. I always thought my explainations went over well, but apparently I was supposed to know everything about the project so that I could know my place in it, and spend my copious free time at work figuring out when all the platforms were being built, watch the "leads" to make sure they get their stuff done (because it's not their fault if it doesn't), etc... Just insane.
I was never given a formal reason why I was fired, nor did they go through any of the companies official "personnel improvement plans" or any other such stuff that they saw the do before firing someone.
I chaulk it up to personality conflict with my supervisor -- he was a work-a-holic who chose the company over his wife and kids. He worked insane hours 7 days a week. I refused to do that and prioritize my wife and daughter over work. That never sat well with him.
My wife believes that I was terminated because they feared I'd lead a revolt. My supervisor repeatedly told me to work long hours to be an example, and I replyed that that was immoral and setting the wrong example...
All in all, I'm now happy I was fired. I've actually shucked the stress I was under (and I was under contract because of the move package so leaving wasn't an option, and I didn't want to -- I wanted to fix things from within.) I've been able to spend lots of quality time with my wife and daughter and repair those relationships from the "EA smashing" they received.
Well, hopefully I find work soon and put this mess behind me. I do love the gaming industry. Some companies are bad and some teams are bad, however, EA is evil.
-Joe Straitiff
formerly Software Engineer III
of EA formerly Maxis
the following is an example of evil (ref .HBL-Ax) in that the purpose of any business entity is to comply with its contractual obligations. this includes specifically that whatever you lead someone to expect is what they will receive. more pointedly, noone can be expected to make the right decisions without the right information and apparently they made no serious attempts to rectify repeated problems in that regard, instead choosing to blame the innocent. this is a double-evil because they were actually blaming the victim of their own incompetence for the results of it.
http://joestraitiff.livejournal.com/
Below are the 1 most recent journal entries recorded in joestraitiff's LiveJournal:
Wednesday, November 10th, 2004
5:07 pm
So I'm posting under my real name -- you have to stand up to this type of thing or it will continue. And every company will become EA so that can compete... Remember, you can't spell ExploitAtion without EA.
Here's my story from front to back, I'll let you decide who's the insane one here. I just listed several of the incidents that led up to my dismissal that I assume were the reasons. Laughingly, I don't really know the exact why -- I never got one from HR and my boss just said the last item was the "last straw." However, I skipped many colorful and fleshing out stuff that shows you the culture of EA, e.g. the Executive Producer of the project hung a neon sign in the team area that said "Open 7 days" and constantly sent out emails to the whole team saying that he'd see them over the weekend. Or the meeting five months before the ship date where they were trying to tell everyone that weekends from then are were mandatory without actually saying it. There was never discussion on cutting stuff or adding resources to complete the game, it was always about working longer and harder.
I joined EA through Maxis, I definitely didn't want to work for EA but Maxis was different and seperate when I joined and the lure of working on a new SimCity geared to consoles was just too great. I spent a year working on two different projects at Maxis that ended up being cancelled (because of lack of management support -- our work was the best I'd ever seen). I was constantly praised, received off-cycle raises, produced tons of prototypes, and rarely worked more than 40 hours a week and never more than 50.
Then it happened -- Maxis was moved to EA redwood shores. Drawn into the mothership. I didn't want to move so I gave them a huge list of "must-have" things or I wouldn't move. They wanted me badly and met all of those desires. They made extra-sure to keep me quiet about what I got because the deal was one of the top 10 for the studio (we're talking above six figures here just for the relocation package...).
Coincidentally, when the move happened they cancelled SimCity again, and put me on another project (The Urbz). And I do mean PUT me on -- I was never consulted, talked to, or anything. One day my new manager came over, told me he was my new manager and gave me a pile of work...
Now, I was peeved this happened, at least they could've asked me to go on the project. I really didn't want to -- they worked hard the year before to ship the product and I didn't want to get sucked into that mess. (Now I wish it had only been as hellish as the year before -- everyone agrees it got MUCH worse and will be MUCH worse the next round).
Well, I started cranking out work on the new project doing great stuff, however, their tracking system was different than I was used to and I was pulled into a meeting for being "late" on a task. It took me a week to do a "3-day task" that I didn't estimate (but even if I had, I would have screwed it up also -- there was no research done into the impact the task would be). After discussion, it became clear that what I really did was do a three week task in one week (I had been informing my "swat lead" all along about why it was taking longer. Apparently that information wasn't propigated to my supervisor.) And if I had been empowered to do even an afternoon's worth of research I would've estimated a month for the task... So after that discussion with my supervisor, we worked out the proper reporting channel and things moved forward again. It was changed into me reporting directly to my supervisor. This was the first sign of trouble.
Time passed and I was pulled into another meeting with my supervisor to discuss the "issue" from the previous day. This was on Wednesday, on Monday I had worked a 14 hour day to clear stuff off my plate before a build was due so I put in the effort to get it done. The next day I was called at home at 11:30am to come in, there was a problem with one of the other builds because of some of my work. Yup, I had overslept and missed the "you must be in by 10am no matter what" deadline that was in effect, but I had also been up until 7am with a sick daughter. So I came in quickly, fixed the problem (it was in code that I had done a month before and had never been tested on that platform...), gave the fix to the person who owned the platform and asked him to inform me if there were any problems. This was all finished about 1pm. I then worked through the afternoon untill 6:30pm and was falling asleep at my desk so I decided to leave, and did (yup that was about a 7 hour day -- I work through lunch to spend more time with my family. However, I felt that was PLENTY given how long I'd been in the night before and the fact that I could no longer work due to fatigue). Well, the next day I was ripped into because a build for that platform didn't happen on time. Yup read that again, I was blamed for a platform that wasn't my responsibility, AND get this -- my fix worked, but I was yelled at for not staying until the build was done and verified. I didn't even know there was a build. Sign number two of trouble. I explained all this to my supervisor during that meeting and he seemed perfectly fine with the explaination.
Well, a few weeks pass, and some bug shows up in my code at 10pm (yup I had left at 7 or 8, I was trying to only work about 40-50 hour weeks and was keeping up with my schedule by working at breakneck speed -- but there was no way I was working on weekends which you were required to do if you were "behind"). I got a call from another team member asking if I knew what a certain problem was, it clicked, and I gave him a solution that worked, over the phone, in under 15 minutes. Well, the next day I was pulled into another meeting with my supervisor and got yelled at for not being there. He said (even though he denied it in a later meeting) that he didn't have issue with the quantity or quality of my work (in fact he praised the quality of my work) but said that someone in my "senior" position (my title was only Software Engineer not Senior engineer but I've shipped a lot of titles and been in the industry for about 6 years) should be available a lot more at "this time in the project" in fact I should be working at least 12 hours a day, which I said was completely unaccetable. I'd do the work given me but I certainly wasn't going to sacrafice my family, and certainly not that early in the project. It's ok (not really, but it's a common consesus) to work those kinds of hours the week before a major deadline (E3, alpha, beta, final) however outside of that 10 hours a day should be the absolute max.
Warning sign number three...
Then I received a call at 10:30pm on a Saturday night to come in and fix a problem immediately. Well, I was asleep -- my daughter had actually gone to bed early and my wife and I took advantage of that and crashed. Well in the morning when I checked my email (after hearing the message) they had fixed the problem within an hour. I assumed this was going to be a big problem with my supervisor, so on Monday the first thing I did was email HR and schedule an appointment to discuss the communication issues I was having with my supervisor.
I talked to the head HR person because the regular one wasn't available and she wanted to set up a meeting between me, my supervisor, and our HR person. Apparently she already had an appointment with my supervisor that afternoon and would convey the information.
Well, that meeting happened and everything seemed to be cleared up. The communication problems were going to be solved by a clearly defined task list that "had to be done" by Friday with the posibility of it changing if higher priority things came along. In the words of my supervisor "This is a very aggressive schedule are you sure you can get it done -- it will require a lot of extra hours." I agreed to it, partially to clear the air between us and partially because it was now late in the project and we had to ship the pig.
Well the week cruised by with me not hearing a peep from my supervisor except in reply to almost daily status reports I was sending him (on my own perogative, to forestall any suprises). I worked my butt off and completed the list. I had several "great job" emails from my supervisor during this time.
Then things went nuts. On monday, when I came in, I was pulled into a meeting (on 5 minutes notice) with my supervisor and our HR contact. Apparently my work the week before was "unacceptable." I got everything done on the list, but I didn't get every single new thing added by everyone else. Now we had discussed this in the previous meetings and I wasn't supposed to prioritize stuff from anyone except from my supervisor, and he also said we'd talk if something new was supposed to replace anything on my must do list. Neither of these things happened. So the new stuff (only a couple trifing things that I had already almost completed that monday before the meeting) wasn't complete.
It was a suprise -- I did what they asked, and was yelled at for it. I was "supposed" to have completed every little thing extra. And, both the HR guy and my supervisor lied that that was what had been discussed at the last meeting. I couldn't believe the bold faced lie, so I capitulated saying that I must've misunderstood and apologized.
The weirdest thing in this meeting, which I now understand is "stock EA" was the attitude of the HR contact. HR is supposed to be the employee's advocate, they are supposed to try to keep people and work things out. However, that is not at all how he acted, in fact he asked me several times to "just quit" He also said that if I didn't turn around and show more "commitment" to EA I would be punished "up to and including termination." I was stunned. I had kicked ass and worked my heart out for this project, created tons of great code, fixed some of the worst horrible mess I've ever seen (that codebase is the worst quality I've ever seen in my life, bar none. And I thought I had already seen the worst twice before at different companies.).
My supervisor said that the only way he could continue to work with me was if I fully commited to shipping the game and would do whatever it took to do so. I capitulated again -- at this point there were two weeks left, so it was time to dig down anyway. So I promised him and then I worked like an idiot.
From then until ship was hell. Many nights working till 4am when we finally had the ok to go home, only to be expected to return by 10am. I did it all, cranked out the last bits of work, found some vicious bugs, cleared my bug list constantly. I.e. was the perfect psycho worker. Then we hit final and things started to calm down a bit, then we were in CQC (EA's Corporate Quality Control, you have to pass testing there for 7-10 days before you can submit to Sony, Nintendo, and Xbox to get their approval for manufacturing). Things would heat up and we would crank stuff out to resubmit to CQC so we could make our ship date. During this time we also had our studio test department banging on the game and they would find stuff for us to fix that we'd choose wether or not we'd put in a new build to CQC (because we didn't want to "reset the clock" in CQC and miss our ship date). One of these issues was mine, one of the guys on the team could reproduce it, so I (and another teammate) figured it out, created a fix and sent it to the other guy to test (as he wasn't around much -- this is that time of the project were some people work like crazy and others play games). He dropped by at one point to tell me how the fix acted and it sounded perfectly correct, however I was busy getting the fix into a build so I didn't visually verify it on his system at that moment. This was around 2pm. After getting it ready for the build I tried to catch him to see the problem, and he wasn't around so I emailed him to tell me when he was back so I could just do the sanity check that the fix worked (I had told my supervisor that I'd be sure it would work on that guys machine, the guy told me it had, but I was paranoid and I wanted to see it). Well 7pm rolled around and he still wasn't back, so I went home.
The next day I was publicly reamed via email. Notice that I said the next day -- I wasn't called about any problems nor emailed that night. There was NO attempt to contact me at all that there was a problem. I didn't find out until 11am the next day when my supervisor wrote the flaming email. Apparently the fix wasn't acting EXACTLY the same on his machine there was a slight difference and my supervisor was pissed. I finally got to see it on the guys machine, studied the code found a minor change to make it work on his system put it in the build and had it all ready. This fix was then integrated into a build for CQC days later. I.e. there was no time pressure for it. I was never told that it had to be done "that day no matter what" and it wasn't even verified for a couple days.
However, that was the "last straw" per my Supervisor and I was terminated over a week later at 5pm on a Tuesday... I was told I could "voluntarily resign" but I turned that down. Why hide what was happening? I don't see how it could possibly look bad for me, in every case I did what was asked and more. It was always just interpreted in the worst possible way. I always thought my explainations went over well, but apparently I was supposed to know everything about the project so that I could know my place in it, and spend my copious free time at work figuring out when all the platforms were being built, watch the "leads" to make sure they get their stuff done (because it's not their fault if it doesn't), etc... Just insane.
I was never given a formal reason why I was fired, nor did they go through any of the companies official "personnel improvement plans" or any other such stuff that they saw the do before firing someone.
I chaulk it up to personality conflict with my supervisor -- he was a work-a-holic who chose the company over his wife and kids. He worked insane hours 7 days a week. I refused to do that and prioritize my wife and daughter over work. That never sat well with him.
My wife believes that I was terminated because they feared I'd lead a revolt. My supervisor repeatedly told me to work long hours to be an example, and I replyed that that was immoral and setting the wrong example...
All in all, I'm now happy I was fired. I've actually shucked the stress I was under (and I was under contract because of the move package so leaving wasn't an option, and I didn't want to -- I wanted to fix things from within.) I've been able to spend lots of quality time with my wife and daughter and repair those relationships from the "EA smashing" they received.
Well, hopefully I find work soon and put this mess behind me. I do love the gaming industry. Some companies are bad and some teams are bad, however, EA is evil.
-Joe Straitiff
formerly Software Engineer III
of EA formerly Maxis
HBL-A0042 - The Definition of Evil
...be it resolved that:
Evil is that which exists contrary to it's own purpose.
Why the government is evil...
Philosophically, the word evil is very hard to nail down. There are those who say that such a thing cannot exist, for nature creates every type of situation, both strife and otherwise, with no regard for the particulars of who, what, or how gets hurt. Others say that there is inherent evil based upon some particular criteria. It is in this last camp we vall, and with whom we have the greatest exception.
Following the ultimate logic of the first group we can reach the conclusion that *if* there is such a thing as evil, the standards for it must be so universal that they encompass the nature of nature itself, that is to say whatever happens does so without its own evil, evil must exist in another way.
This brings us to our defination of evil. "Evil is that which exists contrary to it's own purpose."
Let's use an analogy to make that easier to understand. Have you been somewhere lately where they have rules? Aha, then you've probably experienced evil. Another phrase you can use to sum it up is "ultimate hypocracy". When rules exist they exist for a purpose. As a general rule, rules become their own right, that is to say people justify them for their own sake as they do with the bible in christianity. Of course the government is the ultimate example of rules, and of course in the government where there are the most rules of all, some known as Law, the greatest examples of this analogy occur.
Many many things happen in government which are directly contrary to the very purpose of the government itself or the laws or rules it creates.
When a system such as this exists, with little or no oversight, there is a severe problem. The existsnce of the government is contrary to it's stated purpose. Not only do myriad situations such as the above examples add up to an evil far greater than any Hitler or Saddam could create, but the following even greater evil presents itself.
There is no way to reverse course.
In the name of safety, law & order, or just it's supposed inherent righteousness, the government takes away our ability (ie. freedom) to produce effective results ourselves. Particularly in the case of justice, they say we should use their way, and there happens to be no other way that they won't harm you for using. So not only does their system not work, but they will harm you further if you take matters into your own hands.
The good of the people? Without checks & balances far beyond anything this government would even entertain a notion of, it is impossible for thsi government to exist along the lines of it's very existance. Every good it creates is balanced out by a visible evil, and thare are many more evils than goods that we Can't see.
Evil is that which exists contrary to it's own purpose.
- Evil - That which exists contrary to the purpose of it's existance. ex. A villian is not evil if he is a good villian, contrariwise, a Christian is evil if he's a bad Christian.
- A person who claims to be a psychopath can be a bad person, but as long as they are true to their stated reason for existing, they are not an evil person. Thus, hypocrisy is at the root of all evil. Likewise, if you do not claim to be a citizen, you are not evil to do things no citizen would do - and so on.
Why the government is evil...
Philosophically, the word evil is very hard to nail down. There are those who say that such a thing cannot exist, for nature creates every type of situation, both strife and otherwise, with no regard for the particulars of who, what, or how gets hurt. Others say that there is inherent evil based upon some particular criteria. It is in this last camp we vall, and with whom we have the greatest exception.
Following the ultimate logic of the first group we can reach the conclusion that *if* there is such a thing as evil, the standards for it must be so universal that they encompass the nature of nature itself, that is to say whatever happens does so without its own evil, evil must exist in another way.
This brings us to our defination of evil. "Evil is that which exists contrary to it's own purpose."
Let's use an analogy to make that easier to understand. Have you been somewhere lately where they have rules? Aha, then you've probably experienced evil. Another phrase you can use to sum it up is "ultimate hypocracy". When rules exist they exist for a purpose. As a general rule, rules become their own right, that is to say people justify them for their own sake as they do with the bible in christianity. Of course the government is the ultimate example of rules, and of course in the government where there are the most rules of all, some known as Law, the greatest examples of this analogy occur.
Many many things happen in government which are directly contrary to the very purpose of the government itself or the laws or rules it creates.
- Example: Recently I was with a certain girl for a short period of time. During that time I loaned her a $200 phone and $80 to pay her electric bill. Rather than returning what was mine, when I bugged her about it (not excessivly by any stretch of the imagination) she went to the government and said she was afraid of me. Now with no regard for the truth, the government steps in and actively hurts exactly the opposite person in this situation whose side they should be against. Besides now not supposing to be going to an extablishment I was frequenting before her because she likes to go there, I have to take my time, money, and trouble to go to court, there is practically no chance of the decision being reversed because "for safety's sake" they'll take her word over mine with no proof or evidence whatsoever (which is impossible for there to exist since every single thing she said was a complete fabrication), it has become practically impossible for me to recover what is mine, and furthermore, any hint of the situation leaking out to certain parties which I have to do business with will result in that business being ruined as well. The law exists to protect those in harms way. What it actually does is hurt those accused whether they caused harm or not (causing harm to an innocent person based on the word of a guilty person in this particular case). Therefore this law is evil.
- Example: I ordered something to be delivered via the US Postal Service. The delivery address was a PO Box. Rather than putting my item in my box, they filled out a piece of paper with information about the item. It would have taken them less time and trouble to simply deliver the item than to fill out the piece of paper but because of some rule they did it their way. The last two times I got one of these pieces of paper, I *NEVER* got the items I had ordered and through similar processes with another company I could never get my money back either. This particular item is important, and the money I had to spend on it was not extra. I do not have the resources to fight this matter if there is a problem which I have every reason to believe there will be. In the last two instances the USPS said they were not responsible. Their very existance is for delivering the mail. In this case not only are they not delivering it, they are doing something else which required More time and trouble. If I never get the mail, the full burden of the situation gone wrong will land on my shoulders. This package could be even more important than it is. It could easily be something someone's entire life swings on, a valued sentimental item, proof needed for a contract or protection measure, or a health aid. The USPS does not take the most logical measures to do what it exists for, and when the mail does not get delivered they don't care or take responsibility or blame. Therefore the USPS and their rules are evil.
When a system such as this exists, with little or no oversight, there is a severe problem. The existsnce of the government is contrary to it's stated purpose. Not only do myriad situations such as the above examples add up to an evil far greater than any Hitler or Saddam could create, but the following even greater evil presents itself.
There is no way to reverse course.
In the name of safety, law & order, or just it's supposed inherent righteousness, the government takes away our ability (ie. freedom) to produce effective results ourselves. Particularly in the case of justice, they say we should use their way, and there happens to be no other way that they won't harm you for using. So not only does their system not work, but they will harm you further if you take matters into your own hands.
The good of the people? Without checks & balances far beyond anything this government would even entertain a notion of, it is impossible for thsi government to exist along the lines of it's very existance. Every good it creates is balanced out by a visible evil, and thare are many more evils than goods that we Can't see.
HBL-A0041 - Refutations of Various Forms of Government
...be it resolved that:
First to define the terms. An intellectual oligarchy means that a small group of people, in this case chosen for their expertise in government (not how to play it, but scholastically), who are intellectuals are in charge. socialist libertarianism means that the government should first provide everyone's basic needs, then be as small as possible.
The first thing that's probably coming to your mind is that we just said socialism is unworkable. In it's usual form it is. In this instance, the libertarianism part which follows is specifically designed to prevent that type of abuse. Morally speaking it is necessary for any government worthy of it's position to prevent problems like homelessness and hunger to the best of it's ability, which is what socialism is designed for. After you have prevented those type of problems (for the good of every man in it's most true, least complicated form), then you have done the basic responsibility of government and can move on to more complex matters. In the other matters, things which are less of a need like safety or comfort, you have to balance your responsibility for trying to help people with the need to prevent abuse or unfairness. This is where libertarianism comes in. Libertarianism by itself means government as small as possible. We reject this merely because it doesn't allow for some things that only the government can do like preventing starvation. Ayn Rand's objectivism shows the ultimate form of libertarianism by itself, everyone for themselves first, a form of anarchy. finish later
- Democracy: is unworkable because it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to create a balanced means of determining everyone's wants, many people don't even know themselves because they haven't fully examined, or are not capable of fully (and unbiasedly) examining a given issue, and because even if those issues were dealt with, at least half of the population has an intelligence less than average, and presumably less than is required to be able to make the correct decision on a given topic.
- Communism: is unworkable because those in charge of the logistics of it will, through a natural process called human nature, always be a higher caste and will take undue advantage of their position.
- Socialism: is unworkable because as a form of communism it gives to people according to their apparent needs which is determined by some people or according to some criteria which can never be properly balanced or unbiased.
- Anarchism: is unworkable because when there is a governmental vacuum, something will arise to fill it.
First to define the terms. An intellectual oligarchy means that a small group of people, in this case chosen for their expertise in government (not how to play it, but scholastically), who are intellectuals are in charge. socialist libertarianism means that the government should first provide everyone's basic needs, then be as small as possible.
The first thing that's probably coming to your mind is that we just said socialism is unworkable. In it's usual form it is. In this instance, the libertarianism part which follows is specifically designed to prevent that type of abuse. Morally speaking it is necessary for any government worthy of it's position to prevent problems like homelessness and hunger to the best of it's ability, which is what socialism is designed for. After you have prevented those type of problems (for the good of every man in it's most true, least complicated form), then you have done the basic responsibility of government and can move on to more complex matters. In the other matters, things which are less of a need like safety or comfort, you have to balance your responsibility for trying to help people with the need to prevent abuse or unfairness. This is where libertarianism comes in. Libertarianism by itself means government as small as possible. We reject this merely because it doesn't allow for some things that only the government can do like preventing starvation. Ayn Rand's objectivism shows the ultimate form of libertarianism by itself, everyone for themselves first, a form of anarchy. finish later
- Benevolent Dictatorship - The form of government which is most likely to result in a happy world for everyone.
- Intellectual Oligarchy - A system of government where the people in charge have been tested to be tops in the following three categores: a) Intelligence. Without an IQ of at LEAST 120, it is not possible to use the information you have sufficiently well to rule others. b) Knowledge. You must have a solid grounding in the principles of basic science, logic, psychology, sociology, ethics, philosophy, political science (theory not practical), and so forth. c) Concientiousness. In order to make a good ruler you would have to want to rule, and want to do right for the people you're ruling.
- Libertarian Socialism - Everyone's basic needs should be met, then the government should be as small as possible.
HBL-A0040 - The Moral Imperative
...be it resolved that:
As a Prisoner of War has the duty to try to escape, as a man whose life or the welfare of those in his charge has the duty to defend them, so too a man may not morally permit himself to submit to the whim or will of a government whose actions cannot be shown to be logical and just.
Therefore, it is our strongest duty as a governing body to make ourselves a group operating under the strictest checks and with the most severe scrutiny so that the common man may look at us and see, with no extraordinary amount of intellect or insight, that we are both.
If we do not, we may expect to be ignored and reviled and it is their duty to do so.
As a Prisoner of War has the duty to try to escape, as a man whose life or the welfare of those in his charge has the duty to defend them, so too a man may not morally permit himself to submit to the whim or will of a government whose actions cannot be shown to be logical and just.
Therefore, it is our strongest duty as a governing body to make ourselves a group operating under the strictest checks and with the most severe scrutiny so that the common man may look at us and see, with no extraordinary amount of intellect or insight, that we are both.
If we do not, we may expect to be ignored and reviled and it is their duty to do so.
HBL-A0039 - Logical Extremism
...be it resolved that:
Any logical point which can not be taken to it's "logical extreme" without breaking down is either wrong, incomplete, or misapplied. We welcome, no, we Require this test to be applied to each and every point contained on in our doctrine. Given the nature of humans and their unfamiliarity with logic, we expect much of the third, but to any reasonable points raised we will offer a complete explanation and will post any valid refutations here along with why and how they apply, or change our statements.
Logic is absolute. It is by definition impossible for it to be incorrect. Any logic which seems to be faulty is misunderstood, misrepresented, or isn't really logic at all.
Please help us check ourselves in every point. Thank you.
Any logical point which can not be taken to it's "logical extreme" without breaking down is either wrong, incomplete, or misapplied. We welcome, no, we Require this test to be applied to each and every point contained on in our doctrine. Given the nature of humans and their unfamiliarity with logic, we expect much of the third, but to any reasonable points raised we will offer a complete explanation and will post any valid refutations here along with why and how they apply, or change our statements.
Logic is absolute. It is by definition impossible for it to be incorrect. Any logic which seems to be faulty is misunderstood, misrepresented, or isn't really logic at all.
Please help us check ourselves in every point. Thank you.
HBL-A0038 - Hierarchy of Rights
...be it established that:
this draft Hierarchy of Rights be finalized and formalized as HBL:
Laws must be passed down from a higher authority. That authority derives from protection of rights. In this way laws and the authority that provides them are subject to things greater than themselves.
The highest order of rights is the planet itself (Gaia if you wish). Because everything we and the animals can do, want, think, wish, try, and so on depend on the good of the planet. It is by definition, all-inclusive. In the future there may be a higher order, the solar system, the galaxy, or even the universe, and the good of homanity itself my supersede the needs of a particular place, but for now Earth is all we've got.
The good of the planet is called environmentalism. This includes to some extent the good of species on the planet as they contribute to the good of the whole. In general, the right of the planet is to be kept in good shape. What good shape *is* is debatable but it is certainly not taken into account in the affairs of the day. This is something that must change. Every harm to Earth is a collective harm to everything *On* Earth. This is an absolute logical conclusion. Therefore, before anything else can be taken into account, the good of the planet must be weighed and measured. No steps may be taken without consideration that harm done to her is only on loan and MUST be repaid as soon as possible. If we do not repay them we will be faced with three options, and not necessiarly ours to decide. First is that the planet will simply die, taking us with it. The second is tha the planet will take over and repair itself and the cost to us will be large and beyond our control. And finally, the last option is to move on.
Given that the latter is outside the realm of possibility at the moment. Which of the first two would we like? I think the first sucks, and I think the second sucks, so how 'bout let's not go there. Let's keep her in good shape. To put this another way, the first (most important right) is to not harm the planet unnecessarily. What is necessary may be opwn to debate but remember, if we go too far it will be repaid, and without our concent or ability to decide.
Next, the rights of humanity. The rights of other species take place within a right which is greater than ours, but as we have no reason to belive that death or extinction matter to the species themselves, our right supercede them specifically, but not in whole. As human beings we have hopes and dreams, things we strive for and live toward. Since this is the case, our needs, the need to exist and try to advance are the second right. To put it another way, the good of humanity may not be harmed without it being absolutely necessary.
What is good for humanity, again, is up for debate. One thing that is certain is the sequence of evolution. Any reasonable person can see that less tyranny, more freedom (etc.) is the path which we are on, and it is the right one. We could well have been much further than we are except that few of the people making decisions about things take rights above their own into account. Some things are obviously bad for humanity, things like slavery, hunger, homelessness. These must be eliminated and there is no reason why they cannot be.
Government falls inbetween the rights of humanity and the rights of the individual. While they are representitive of the rights of a good portion of humanity, they exist as a measure of control and protection for the rights of individuals and therefore are subject to a lower rank.
Here are the rights which concern us most, the rights of individual people. Since we exist as individuals it is often difficult to look beyond ourselves and see that other things may superceded. As some philosophers put it, they have no reason to believe anything outside themselves even exists. That's another discussion. For the sake of this one we will say that everything we see and feel is real, it exists without regard to our perception of it. The reason for taking this side is that All Evidence points this way. That things which seem to exist may not is akin to the argument that since it seems that things are too complicated to have come about naturally that they must have been created. In either case the only means to make a correct decision lies in going with the majority of evidence which in each case points toward simple real things.
Human rights fall into three categories of three items each. These are rights because they are needs. Without them existance is meaningless. They corrospond roughly to "Life, Pursuit of Happiness and Liberty".
The first is survival itself. You didn't ask to be born, you don't have to Earn the means to survive, it's your birthright. Without survival it is impossible to excercise other rights. Survival is comprised of three basic needs, nourishment, sleep, and protection from nature. If you have these three things you will continue to exist. Health is another matter but because it is so variable and because the default is to have enough to exist, it cannot be contained herein.
The second set of human rights is things which relate to having a life. Life is far different than survival. Someone in a coma or with an IQ of 3 can be said to exist, but cannot be said to have a life. While without survival itself there is no possibility of anything further, without the ability to make USE of survival to feel as though there is some purpose for it, survival itself is useless. The three things within this category are socialization, education, and gainful activity. When you have survival taken care of, these three things allow you to build yourself into something which seems worthy of being alive, something worth the trouble of trying, and give you the ability to try for something further.
Finally there are needs which protect you from others interfering in your rights. These things allow you to make use of all the human rights which came before it. The other things are necessary a) to survive, b) to be able to make use of survival, and now c) the tools necessary to prevent the other two categories from being infringed. The three items in this category are freedom of speech, the right to privacy, and freedom of movement. When these are granted (and protected by the government) they act as an extention of the second set. These are the tools used to actually permit the other things to be gained. Without these rights the others may exist but cannot be taken advantage of so they might as well not.
Finally the rights of government. First of all, it has the right to exist. As any study of anarchy will show, it is impossible for humans to exist without government. The purpose for governments existance Should be to provide for the good of the people under it's control. So long as the government can be shown to be for the good of the people it has the right to exist evey beyond the rights of individuals. The government must have the assumption of righteousness. If it is Not for the collective good of those under it, it is contrary to the very purpose of its existance. Elite Inc. Haven is specifically about this particular focus of government philosophy.
If the government fits existing and existing effectively for the right reason, it gains a further right, the right to govern. When it is there for the common good, since common good outweighs individual good, the government must make decisions on how to settle conflicts and more obviously and more often, how to logistically manage itself so that the other rights spoken of above are properly balanced. This means the government must take into account everything on this list in it's proper place and order.
The heirarchy of rights is beyond refute, It is logical to the utmost scrutiny and while it may be phrased differently, more thouroughly or more consisely than here, the order stands. As thinking beings with a path toward evolution of social structure, everything we are and do must fall within these guidelines or be out of place. If things are out of place we do not evolve, we do not matter, because the path we will be on will be toward a ramdon end. If you're a nihilist or an anarchist, that would be your fondest desire. As logical, reasonable people with a social "concience" we choose the other path.
this draft Hierarchy of Rights be finalized and formalized as HBL:
Laws must be passed down from a higher authority. That authority derives from protection of rights. In this way laws and the authority that provides them are subject to things greater than themselves.
The highest order of rights is the planet itself (Gaia if you wish). Because everything we and the animals can do, want, think, wish, try, and so on depend on the good of the planet. It is by definition, all-inclusive. In the future there may be a higher order, the solar system, the galaxy, or even the universe, and the good of homanity itself my supersede the needs of a particular place, but for now Earth is all we've got.
The good of the planet is called environmentalism. This includes to some extent the good of species on the planet as they contribute to the good of the whole. In general, the right of the planet is to be kept in good shape. What good shape *is* is debatable but it is certainly not taken into account in the affairs of the day. This is something that must change. Every harm to Earth is a collective harm to everything *On* Earth. This is an absolute logical conclusion. Therefore, before anything else can be taken into account, the good of the planet must be weighed and measured. No steps may be taken without consideration that harm done to her is only on loan and MUST be repaid as soon as possible. If we do not repay them we will be faced with three options, and not necessiarly ours to decide. First is that the planet will simply die, taking us with it. The second is tha the planet will take over and repair itself and the cost to us will be large and beyond our control. And finally, the last option is to move on.
Given that the latter is outside the realm of possibility at the moment. Which of the first two would we like? I think the first sucks, and I think the second sucks, so how 'bout let's not go there. Let's keep her in good shape. To put this another way, the first (most important right) is to not harm the planet unnecessarily. What is necessary may be opwn to debate but remember, if we go too far it will be repaid, and without our concent or ability to decide.
Next, the rights of humanity. The rights of other species take place within a right which is greater than ours, but as we have no reason to belive that death or extinction matter to the species themselves, our right supercede them specifically, but not in whole. As human beings we have hopes and dreams, things we strive for and live toward. Since this is the case, our needs, the need to exist and try to advance are the second right. To put it another way, the good of humanity may not be harmed without it being absolutely necessary.
What is good for humanity, again, is up for debate. One thing that is certain is the sequence of evolution. Any reasonable person can see that less tyranny, more freedom (etc.) is the path which we are on, and it is the right one. We could well have been much further than we are except that few of the people making decisions about things take rights above their own into account. Some things are obviously bad for humanity, things like slavery, hunger, homelessness. These must be eliminated and there is no reason why they cannot be.
Government falls inbetween the rights of humanity and the rights of the individual. While they are representitive of the rights of a good portion of humanity, they exist as a measure of control and protection for the rights of individuals and therefore are subject to a lower rank.
Here are the rights which concern us most, the rights of individual people. Since we exist as individuals it is often difficult to look beyond ourselves and see that other things may superceded. As some philosophers put it, they have no reason to believe anything outside themselves even exists. That's another discussion. For the sake of this one we will say that everything we see and feel is real, it exists without regard to our perception of it. The reason for taking this side is that All Evidence points this way. That things which seem to exist may not is akin to the argument that since it seems that things are too complicated to have come about naturally that they must have been created. In either case the only means to make a correct decision lies in going with the majority of evidence which in each case points toward simple real things.
Human rights fall into three categories of three items each. These are rights because they are needs. Without them existance is meaningless. They corrospond roughly to "Life, Pursuit of Happiness and Liberty".
The first is survival itself. You didn't ask to be born, you don't have to Earn the means to survive, it's your birthright. Without survival it is impossible to excercise other rights. Survival is comprised of three basic needs, nourishment, sleep, and protection from nature. If you have these three things you will continue to exist. Health is another matter but because it is so variable and because the default is to have enough to exist, it cannot be contained herein.
The second set of human rights is things which relate to having a life. Life is far different than survival. Someone in a coma or with an IQ of 3 can be said to exist, but cannot be said to have a life. While without survival itself there is no possibility of anything further, without the ability to make USE of survival to feel as though there is some purpose for it, survival itself is useless. The three things within this category are socialization, education, and gainful activity. When you have survival taken care of, these three things allow you to build yourself into something which seems worthy of being alive, something worth the trouble of trying, and give you the ability to try for something further.
Finally there are needs which protect you from others interfering in your rights. These things allow you to make use of all the human rights which came before it. The other things are necessary a) to survive, b) to be able to make use of survival, and now c) the tools necessary to prevent the other two categories from being infringed. The three items in this category are freedom of speech, the right to privacy, and freedom of movement. When these are granted (and protected by the government) they act as an extention of the second set. These are the tools used to actually permit the other things to be gained. Without these rights the others may exist but cannot be taken advantage of so they might as well not.
Finally the rights of government. First of all, it has the right to exist. As any study of anarchy will show, it is impossible for humans to exist without government. The purpose for governments existance Should be to provide for the good of the people under it's control. So long as the government can be shown to be for the good of the people it has the right to exist evey beyond the rights of individuals. The government must have the assumption of righteousness. If it is Not for the collective good of those under it, it is contrary to the very purpose of its existance. Elite Inc. Haven is specifically about this particular focus of government philosophy.
If the government fits existing and existing effectively for the right reason, it gains a further right, the right to govern. When it is there for the common good, since common good outweighs individual good, the government must make decisions on how to settle conflicts and more obviously and more often, how to logistically manage itself so that the other rights spoken of above are properly balanced. This means the government must take into account everything on this list in it's proper place and order.
The heirarchy of rights is beyond refute, It is logical to the utmost scrutiny and while it may be phrased differently, more thouroughly or more consisely than here, the order stands. As thinking beings with a path toward evolution of social structure, everything we are and do must fall within these guidelines or be out of place. If things are out of place we do not evolve, we do not matter, because the path we will be on will be toward a ramdon end. If you're a nihilist or an anarchist, that would be your fondest desire. As logical, reasonable people with a social "concience" we choose the other path.
HBL-A0037 - Copyright Remuneration
...be it established that:
any copyright law which does not lead to the final result of the majority of remuneration being directly applied to the creator(s) is invalid due to the stated purpose of copyright law.
There are two violations of copyright which are significantly different but which are generally lumped together.
The first, most obvious, and most harmful is when someone else gets paid for your work. This is simply inexcusable unless you get paid as well. Under current circumstances it's very hard to tell whether the people who Should be getting paid (the people who actually create the work) are in fact getting paid if you get a product in the supposedly appropriate way. If people felt that the actual artists were the ones not getting their fair share, this version of piracy would be much less rampant.
The second version is when noone gets paid. This can be seen by the artist as theft, or by the consumer as fair play depending on circumstances. After all, the friends of the producers, people who own the media plants, etc etc, get free copies, why should they be any different than the rest of us?
In general, copyright violations are wrong. Under current policies it is practically impossible to say whether a particular creator worthy of reimbursement is getting their share. The rules need to be vastly reworked and simplified for this subject to be viable. Under no circumstances should a creators worth in this matter be even approached by the worth of any other interested party except in the case of commission work, and that should not apply if the creator feels in any way compelled to do the work as in the case of big business.
Simply put, if you create something, you must derive the greatest benefit. This is the entire point of copyright. Any variation on this is simply wrong.
ref: HBL-A0056
any copyright law which does not lead to the final result of the majority of remuneration being directly applied to the creator(s) is invalid due to the stated purpose of copyright law.
There are two violations of copyright which are significantly different but which are generally lumped together.
The first, most obvious, and most harmful is when someone else gets paid for your work. This is simply inexcusable unless you get paid as well. Under current circumstances it's very hard to tell whether the people who Should be getting paid (the people who actually create the work) are in fact getting paid if you get a product in the supposedly appropriate way. If people felt that the actual artists were the ones not getting their fair share, this version of piracy would be much less rampant.
The second version is when noone gets paid. This can be seen by the artist as theft, or by the consumer as fair play depending on circumstances. After all, the friends of the producers, people who own the media plants, etc etc, get free copies, why should they be any different than the rest of us?
In general, copyright violations are wrong. Under current policies it is practically impossible to say whether a particular creator worthy of reimbursement is getting their share. The rules need to be vastly reworked and simplified for this subject to be viable. Under no circumstances should a creators worth in this matter be even approached by the worth of any other interested party except in the case of commission work, and that should not apply if the creator feels in any way compelled to do the work as in the case of big business.
Simply put, if you create something, you must derive the greatest benefit. This is the entire point of copyright. Any variation on this is simply wrong.
ref: HBL-A0056
HBL-A0036 - Scope of Justice
...be it established that:
This example case be used as a foundation for relevant HBL:
K-Mart fires someone for doing an override which they are not authorized to do. This person comes to us with the particulars of his case. He states that they have evidence that the thing he was accused of doing did not happen.
We go down to K-Mart and ask to see the video record of the last day he worked there. The video shows that he did not do what he was accused of.
Our decision: K-Mart and any part of any company that owns K-Mart may never under any circumstances use any video evidence which involves this individual. If they don't care what the truth is, they certainly can't pretend to when it favors them, at least with regards to this person.
They raise the objection that he could then steal from them with impunity. We respond, yes he could. Just as you felt you could fire with impunity. We think yours is the worse of the two events because you chose to do a specifically unjust act. Besides which, that is a null argument. His is only a potential wrongdoing, yours was a real one. You can always feel free to hire an official representative of the law to follow him whenever he's in your store. It's still illegal for him to steal. It's still legal for you to catch him. It is no longer legal for you to use a tool against him which you already proved you will not use justly.
They state that it is lawful for them to refuse to do business with him. Our response: You may, if your business is not in operation at that time. If you exclude him, you must a reason to do so, and getting around your punishment, we're afraid, just won't cut it. Law says that it is the perogative of a business to choose whom to do business with. It also says both that the rights of an individual are vastly more important than that of other legal entities, and that no action may be taken by a company unless they are ready to show it's justification. If you wish to show some justification for firing someone for something they did not do, you knew they did not do, and you refused to care whether they did, we will be happy to review it. We find it typical and distasteful that you would first be unjust, then try to avoid punishment, and then try to mis-use the law to cover your injustice. This goes to show that the punishment against you cannot possibly be too harsh. You must deal with whatever consequences arise. If you hadn't have done something completely unforgivable in the first place, something which any conscientious person or company would never allowed, there would be no need for further measures. We were already easy on you by only letting your obvious non-interest in the truth apply to the person who was harmed instead of across the board.
We further state: It is our recommendation that you fire anyone who could have prevented this from happening, strongly review your entire companies policy in order to prevent this type of blatant injustice in the future, and try to make amends with this individual on his terms. You had your free punch, now it's his time.
This example case be used as a foundation for relevant HBL:
K-Mart fires someone for doing an override which they are not authorized to do. This person comes to us with the particulars of his case. He states that they have evidence that the thing he was accused of doing did not happen.
We go down to K-Mart and ask to see the video record of the last day he worked there. The video shows that he did not do what he was accused of.
Our decision: K-Mart and any part of any company that owns K-Mart may never under any circumstances use any video evidence which involves this individual. If they don't care what the truth is, they certainly can't pretend to when it favors them, at least with regards to this person.
They raise the objection that he could then steal from them with impunity. We respond, yes he could. Just as you felt you could fire with impunity. We think yours is the worse of the two events because you chose to do a specifically unjust act. Besides which, that is a null argument. His is only a potential wrongdoing, yours was a real one. You can always feel free to hire an official representative of the law to follow him whenever he's in your store. It's still illegal for him to steal. It's still legal for you to catch him. It is no longer legal for you to use a tool against him which you already proved you will not use justly.
They state that it is lawful for them to refuse to do business with him. Our response: You may, if your business is not in operation at that time. If you exclude him, you must a reason to do so, and getting around your punishment, we're afraid, just won't cut it. Law says that it is the perogative of a business to choose whom to do business with. It also says both that the rights of an individual are vastly more important than that of other legal entities, and that no action may be taken by a company unless they are ready to show it's justification. If you wish to show some justification for firing someone for something they did not do, you knew they did not do, and you refused to care whether they did, we will be happy to review it. We find it typical and distasteful that you would first be unjust, then try to avoid punishment, and then try to mis-use the law to cover your injustice. This goes to show that the punishment against you cannot possibly be too harsh. You must deal with whatever consequences arise. If you hadn't have done something completely unforgivable in the first place, something which any conscientious person or company would never allowed, there would be no need for further measures. We were already easy on you by only letting your obvious non-interest in the truth apply to the person who was harmed instead of across the board.
We further state: It is our recommendation that you fire anyone who could have prevented this from happening, strongly review your entire companies policy in order to prevent this type of blatant injustice in the future, and try to make amends with this individual on his terms. You had your free punch, now it's his time.
HBL-A0034 - Hiibel v. Disct. Ct. 118 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 88
...be it established that:
this annotated document be used to determine HBL:
LARRY D. HIIBEL,
Petitioner,
vs.
THE SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, AND THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. WAGNER, DISTRICT JUDGE,
Respondents,
and
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
Real Party in Interest.
Original petition for a writ of certiorari challenging the district court's order affirming petitioner's conviction in justice court for resisting or obstructing an officer investigating a crime.
Petition denied.
AGOSTI, J., with whom SHEARING and ROSE, JJ., agreed, dissented.
Steven G. McGuire, State Public Defender, and James P. Logan, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Carson City, for Petitioner.
Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General, Carson City; David G. Allison, District Attorney, and Conrad Hafen, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Humboldt County, for Real Party in Interest.
BEFORE The Court En Banc.
By the Court, YOUNG, C.J.:
The pertinent issue before us is whether NRS 171.123(3), which requires a person stopped under reasonable suspicion by a police officer to identify himself or herself, violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. We conclude NRS 171.123(3) does not violate the Fourth Amendment because it strikes a balance between constitutional protections of privacy and the need to protect police officers and the public. Therefore, Hiibel’s petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
In pertinent part, NRS 171.123 provides:
1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.
>>When the person seems to have committed a crime which is less large in it's consequences than the consequences of detaining someone would be, or when there is not the possibility that that the evidence currently in possession would result in at least an indictment, this should not apply.
3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.
4. A person may not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of this section, and in no event longer than 60 minutes.
>>If the person allows themselves to be detained for an hour without freaking out or causing any escalation, I'd say it's more than certain that they're a calm, reasonable person. Although it may also be reasonable to NOT put up with it.
In response to a call from police dispatch, Humboldt County Sheriff's Deputy Lee Dove drove to the scene where a concerned citizen had observed someone striking a female passenger inside a truck. There, Dove spoke to the concerned citizen and was directed to a parked truck. When Dove approached the truck, he noticed skid marks in the gravel, suggesting the truck had been parked in a sudden and aggressive manner. Dove saw Larry D. Hiibel standing outside the truck and thought he was intoxicated based on his eyes, mannerisms, speech, and odor. Hiibel's minor daughter was in the passenger side of the truck. When Dove asked Hiibel to identify himself, Hiibel refused. Instead, Hiibel placed his hands behind his back and challenged the officer to take him to jail.
>> These circumstances in no way indicate the probability of this person having done anything illegal.
Hiibel said he would cooperate but was unwilling to provide identification, because he did not believe he had done anything wrong. After eleven requests for identification, to no avail, Dove arrested Hiibel. Dove described the situation as follows:
>>The officer's reason for requesting identification is closely tied to suspicious circumstances which indicate a crime. The officer did not have those circumstances, and therefore had no reason to detain this individual. There are obviously odd circumstances here, but nothing which holds up the accuser's point that a crime was committed. Upon examining the scene, the officer should have noted that no correlating evidence was available and gone the fuck away.
During my conversation with Mr. Hiibel, there was a point where he became somewhat agressive .
I felt based on me not being able to find out who he was, to identify him, I didn't know if he was wanted or what is situation was, I wasn't able to determine what was going on crimewise in the vehicle, based on that I felt he was intoxicated, and how he was becoming aggressive and moody, I went ahead and put him in handcuffs so I could secure him for my safety, and put him in my patrol vehicle.
>>The officer certainly had the right to look in the vehicle. It's no unreasonable search to see what any passing person could see. What he did not have the right to do was think that an intoxicated, aggressive, or moody person's presence indicated a crime. Without a crime, anything further the officer did was wrong. In this case cuffing an individual can most properly be interpreted as assault, at the least unnecessary detainment.
Hiibel was charged and found guilty of resisting a public officer, in violation of NRS 199.280. The justice of the peace in Humboldt County determined that "Hiibel was asked only for identification and failure to provide identification obstructed and delayed Dove as a public officer in attempting to discharge his duty."
>>When you know that you are innocent, or know that the officer is not being reasonable, you have a Duty to resist. The courts are completely fucked up in saying he delayed the officer when the officer's attempt to find or make a crime where none otherwise existed was the reason for delay and the person who was on the receiving end of the delay was Hiibel. This type of ultimate hypocrisy is typical of the US Govt.
On appeal, the district court held it was "reasonable and necessary" for Dove to request identification from Hiibel and affirmed Hiibel's conviction. Evidence "over and above simply failing to identify himself" was found to support Hiibel's arrest and conviction, which included Dove's suspicion that Hiibel engaged in driving under the influence. The district court balanced the public's interest in requiring Hiibel to identify himself against Hiibel's Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The district court determined it was crucial for the safety of an officer and possible victims to know the identity of a person suspected of battery, domestic violence, and driving under the influence.
>>It was reasonable, sure, but not necessary. The suspicion mentioned was of a potential act that was already past, and for which it was impossible to gather any factual evidence. There is no public interest in detaining someone without proof of a crime, or even EVIDENCE of a crime. Being suspected of a crime based on one person's word is exactly the kind of thing the law should not allow. It is reason to examine the situation. It is in no way enough to take any concrete action.
We conclude this case is properly before this court pursuant to NRS 34.020(3), because the constitutionality of NRS 171.123(3) presents an issue of first impression. Accordingly, we will address the merits of Hiibel's constitutional challenge to NRS 171.123(3).
Fundamental to a democratic society is the ability to wander freely and anonymously, if we so choose, without being compelled to divulge information to the government about who we are or what we are doing. This "right to be let alone"—to simply live in privacy—is a right protected by the Fourth Amendment and undoubtedly sacred to us all.
>>It's so "fundamental" and "sacred" that they'll let someone infringe it on the word of someone else they don't even know without any corresponding evidence.
Yet, this right to privacy is not absolute. Like all freedoms we enjoy, it includes both limitations and responsibilities. One such limitation to the right of privacy is reasonableness. The Fourth Amendment only protects against "unreasonable" invasions of privacy, or searches and seizures, by the government.
>>It's purely fucked up to say something is a right and in the same breath put limits on it. If it can be changed depending on circumstances, or dictated according to laws (which constantly shift and are applied on the whim of those who uphold them), how can it be a right? Their use of the word is exactly the same as privilege. If they didn't CLAIM these things were rights, it wouldn't be a problem. If they had a reasonable definition of what a right was, it wouldn't be a problem. This is hypocrisy.
The United States Supreme Court has twice expressly refused to address whether a person reasonably suspected of engaging in criminal behavior may be required to identify himself or herself. Therefore, the issue is unresolved.
There is a split of authority among the federal circuit courts of appeals on this issue. In Oliver v. Woods, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Utah statute that requires individuals to produce identification to an officer during an investigatory stop. However, in Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that NRS 171.123(3) violates the Fourth Amendment because "'the serious intrusion on personal security outweighs the mere possibility that identification might provide a link leading to arrest.'" We find the reasoning in Carey to be unpersuasive. Given the conflicting authority, we believe an independent analysis of the constitutionality of NRS 171.123(3) is warranted.
>>When in doubt, don't worry about someone's rights.
Traditionally, in resolving issues implicating the Fourth Amendment right to privacy, the following touchstone question has been asked: Is the invasion of privacy reasonable? Reasonableness is determined by balancing "'the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers.'" Considerations involve the "weighing of the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty." A primary concern is "to assure that an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy is not subject to arbitrary invasions solely at the unfettered discretion of officers in the field."
>>So there's "public interest" in invading someone's rights on a mere suspicion? Let's read on.
Balancing these interests, we conclude that any intrusion on privacy caused by NRS 171.123(3) is outweighed by the benefits to officers and community safety. The public interest in requiring individuals to identify themselves to officers when a reasonable suspicion exists is overwhelming. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that "American criminals have a long tradition of armed violence, and every year in this country many law enforcement officers are killed in the line of duty, and thousands more are wounded." The most dangerous time for an officer may be during an investigative stop—when a suspect is approached and questioned.
>>Reasonable suspicion must go pretty darn far beyond regular suspicion. Besides which, the very word suspicion requires "on little evidence or without proof" (dictionary.com). A right is a pretty big thing. How could it be possible for this to compare? Particularly when there may not even be any advantage to the officer if he does get what he requests.
Judicial notice is taken that in the year 2000, fifty-one officers were murdered in the line of duty. These homicides occurred as follows: thirteen during traffic stops/pursuits, twelve during arrest situations, ten during ambushes, eight during responses to disturbance calls, six during investigations of suspicious persons, and two during prisoner transport. Of the suspects who committed these killings, twenty had been previously arrested for crimes of violence, nine had previously assaulted a police officer, and twelve were on probation or parole. Moreover, 15,915 officers were assaulted that year. If the officers referenced in these statistics had known the identity and history of their attackers prior to being assaulted or killed, perhaps some of these incidents could have been prevented.
>>...and perhaps not. Perhaps more would be avoided by not messing with people until you have more than a suspicion.
Knowing the identity of a suspect allows officers to more accurately evaluate and predict potential dangers that may arise during an investigative stop. It follows that an officer "making a reasonable investigatory stop should not be denied the opportunity to protect himself from attack by a hostile suspect." For example, the suspect may be a former felon or wanted for an outstanding arrest warrant. Such persons pose a heightened risk of danger to officers and the public during investigatory encounters.
Additionally, if suspects are not legally required to identify themselves, what could an officer do if a suspicious person were loitering outside a daycare center or school? Perhaps that person is a sex offender. How are officers to enforce restraining orders? Or, how are officers to enforce curfew laws for minors without a requirement to produce identification? In these situations, it is the observable conduct that creates a reasonable suspicion, but it is the requirement to produce identification that enables an officer to determine whether the suspect is breaking the law.
>>Perhaps they shouldn't consider loitering to be a suspicious activity in the first place. Perhaps sex offenses are no different than any other kind of offense and shouldn't be treated differently. Restraining orders have a list of places on them. If you check the location and find a restraining order, then you can check who's ON the restraining order to see if it matches the loiterer. Same effect, no invasion of rights. If restraining orders were properly restricted to people who had a high probability of being physically harmful, then it wouldn't be beyond the scope of "proper" invasion of their privacy to have a database of them and you could check pretty easily. If you do indeed have a common sense reason to worry about someone, then sure, get their ID. Let that line be drawn not where this court likes, at a very low level, but one at which you can reasonably assume that someone Else's rights are in danger already. Suspicion just isn't nearly enough.
Most importantly, we are at war against enemies who operate with concealed identities and the dangers we face as a nation are unparalleled. Terrorism is "changing the way we live and the way we act and the way we think." During the recent past, this country suffered the tragic deaths of more than 3,000 unsuspecting men, women, and children at the hands of terrorists; seventeen innocent people in six different states were randomly gunned down by snipers; and our citizens have suffered illness and death from exposure to mail contaminated with Anthrax. We have also seen high school students transport guns to school and randomly gun down their fellow classmates and teachers. It cannot be stressed enough: "This is a different kind of war that requires a different type of approach and a different type of mentality." To deny officers the ability to request identification from suspicious persons creates a situation where an officer could approach a wanted terrorist or sniper but be unable to identify him or her if the person's behavior does not rise to the level of probable cause necessary for an arrest.
>>BULLSHIT!!! The odds of you being involved in a terrorist incident are far outweighed by many common daily occurrences. It cannot be stressed enough: you're trying to let our rights be invaded for no good reason. If a persons behavior does not rise to the level of probable cause necessary for an arrest, leave them the fuck alone. Shit!, why is that a difficult concept? Who hasn't contemplated a terrorist act against someone who's wronged them? Are we on the way to thought-crime now?
Contrary to the dissent's opinion, requiring a suspect to reveal his name is not an abrogation of the Bill of Rights. "Bills of rights give assurance to the individual of the preservation of his liberty. They do not define the liberty they promise." Furthermore, it has been recognized since the early development of common law that "all rights tend to declare themselves absolute to their logical extreme. Yet all in fact are limited by the neighborhood of principles of policy which are other than those on which the particular right is founded, and which become strong enough to hold their own when a certain point is reached." The point of requiring a suspect to provide identification during a lawful investigatory stop has been reached.
>>Then they are not rights. To us privacy IS a right, not a privilege. It can, and should, only be infringed when someone else's rights are at stake.
The requirements of NRS 171.123(3) are also reasonable and involve a minimal invasion of personal privacy. Reasonable people do not expect their identities—their names—to be withheld from officers. Rather, we reveal our names in a variety of situations every day without much consideration. For instance, it is merely polite manners to introduce ourselves when meeting a new acquaintance. A person's name is given out on business cards, credit cards, checks, and driver's licenses, to name a few more instances. In addition, everyone is required to reveal government issued identification to airport officials and are subject to random searches before proceeding to flight gates. Asking a suspect to state his or her name when an officer has an articulable suspicion is nominal in comparison.
>>We reveal our names in a variety of situations which are at our discretion. The very definition of a right is that which is under OUR oversight. Something whose determination cannot belong to any other person. Besides which, the officer doesn't only want your name, he wants to see ID. These are vastly different things. How can they be talked about with evidence for one being used as evidence for the other? Blatant logical fallacy there. People are not (the judge doesn't know the law) required to show ID at airports. it's illegal to prevent you from boarding for any reason. They tag and watch you separately if you don't, but you don't have to. Regardless of that, people should not have to show ID to travel in any way, freedom of movement is another thing guaranteed by the constitution and another thing they consider a privilege and we consider a right. Random searches are bullshit. Asking a suspect to state his name is nominal, and is still too much, the fact that other invasions are much bigger can't make this one any smaller. If it's not *necessary*, it shouldn't be done. How hard is that? Again there's a blatant logical fallacy here. Evidence that other things are bigger doesn't mean this one is smaller. What we're looking at is it's size relative to the right, not relative to other things. This judge isn't worthy of the ability to speak.
To hold that a name, which is neutral and non-incriminating information, is somehow an invasion of privacy is untenable. Such an invasion is minimal at best. The suspect is not required to provide private details about his background, but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exists. The Supreme Court held it reasonable for officers to pat down and frisk a person during an investigative stop. As the Court recognized in Terry v. Ohio, "it would be unreasonable to require that police officers take unnecessary risks in the performance of their duties." Requiring identification is far less intrusive than conducting a pat down search of one's physical person.
>>You're specifically trying to get it when it's *not* neutral and non-incriminating. This is an absurd argument to make. When you have the name, what do you do with it? You use it to GET private details about his background. Whether he's innocent or guilty of some other crime at some other time is only one thing you get, and you get the rest whether the person has that or not. This entire argument is precisely backward. This is the third blatant logical fallacy in this argument thus far. Patting down and frisking a person invades their personal space. This is both not a right and far more likely to produce results which actually pertain to the officer's safety. Therefore it is "far less intrusive".
Here, Hiibel was suspected of domestic violence against his minor daughter and driving under the influence of alcohol. Based on skid marks in the gravel, it appeared that Hiibel parked his truck in a quick and aggressive manner. Hiibel refused eleven requests by officers to identify himself. Instead, Hiibel placed his hands behind his back and challenged the deputy to take him to jail. An ordinary person would conclude it was Hiibel who was unreasonable, not the law.
>>This all just goes too far. The "facts" in this case are someone saying they saw something, someone being drunk, and skid marks. This is a theory akin to evolution. It fits all the facts, and makes sense, but cannot be proven. It would not be very difficult for the officer to look into the car to see the state of the girl. This could not be considered an invasion of privacy and would yield information which could easily make the difference in whether further steps were warranted. Parking "in a quick and aggressive manner" is the weakest possible evidence here, and it's all very much circumstantial. The problem with using an ordinary person as your benchmark here is that an ordinary person is not reasonable and particularly not logical, like this judge who has made three cases for throwing out this case and him, so far. I myself am *most* likely to challenge authority when I a) am innocent and b) know they are doing the wrong thing. So as a more logical person than the judge, I would be likely to challenge the officer in this instance. What does that say about that point?
Finally, NRS 171.123(3) is narrowly written. It applies only in situations where an officer has an articulable suspicion that a person is engaged in criminal behavior. "Common sense often makes good law," once wrote United States Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. Requiring a person reasonably suspected of committing a crime to identify himself or herself to law enforcement officers during a brief, investigatory stop is a commonsense requirement necessary to protect both the public and law enforcement officers. It follows that NRS 171.123(3) is good law consistent with the Fourth Amendment.
>>If it's common sense it shouldn't need to be law. Unfortunately, none of that was being applied here. Rights should only be infringed under the most exacting criteria and with the utmost conscientiousness. It's a right, it goes beyond the boundaries of law.
LEAVITT and BECKER, JJ., concur.
MAUPIN, J., concurring:
I join in the result reached by the majority, stressing again that NRS 171.123 is narrowly written, and that its requirement that persons reasonably suspected of criminal misconduct be required to identify themselves to police during brief investigatory stops is a commonsense requirement for the protection of the public and law enforcement officers.
>>If a law is morally wrong or ambiguous, it has no place in a court decision.
I write separately to note that the majority has not somehow overreacted to the dangers presented by the war against domestic and international terrorism. Our decision today is truly related to the ability of police to properly and safely deal with persons reasonably suspected of criminal misconduct, here, domestic violence and driving under the influence of alcohol.
>>They most certainly have, this is statistical fact. If you add up the damage done to rights, and the cost in time and trouble to ordinary citizens based on acts taken in response to 9-11, they make 9-11 look about as big and important as an ant on the surface of the sun.
Notwithstanding the sentiments voiced by my dissenting colleagues, NRS 171.123, as stated by Young, C.J., in the majority opinion, “is good law consistent with the Fourth Amendment.”
>>Laws are based upon the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These document exist to spell out our rights, not to create them. If they were never created, our rights would exist just the same. If you use them as a means to enumerate what a countries focus and policies will be, the supreme court decision *might* be correct. if you use them as evidence of what is morally acceptable, taking into account your rights, they are very wrong. This is a cornerstone of this countries corruptness. There is a clear hierarchy of rights, The planet/environment, humanity, and personal rights. Only because it supposedly protects these rights is the government even allowed into this chain.
>>By using the recent terrorist activity as criteria for determining in what ways our rights may be practiced, this court proves that their definition of a right is arbitrary. A proper definition of the term may not include the ability to change whichever way the wind blows. In this decision the court has invalidated not it's own existence but the existence of the entire government within which such a decision is allowed to have importance. Rights go beyond the Courts, beyond the Constitution, and certainly beyond any one version (depending on how the votes land) of a government.
AGOSTI, J., with whom Shearing and ROSE, JJ., agree, dissenting:
As the majority aptly states, the right to wander freely and anonymously, if we so choose, is a fundamental right of privacy in a democratic society. However, the majority promptly abandons this fundamental right by requiring "suspicious" citizens to identify themselves to law enforcement officers upon request, or face the prospect of arrest. I dissent from the majority's holding that the identification portion of NRS 171.123 is constitutional.
It is well-established that police officers may stop a person when reasonable suspicion exists that that person is engaged in illegal activity. However, it is equally well-established that detaining a person and requiring him to identify himself constitutes "a seizure of his person subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment." In light of these constitutional requirements, the United States Supreme Court has stated that although the officers may question the person, the detainee need not answer any questions. Furthermore, unless the detainee volunteers answers and those answers supply the officer with probable cause to arrest, the detainee must be released.
>>The seizure aspect, as well as the "right" to remain silent, the very questions of this decisions fundamental basis, were entirely ignored in the decision. They approximately said "we care about the officer's autonomy and safety, not the constitution.
The Fourth Amendment requires that governmental searches and seizures be reasonable. Reasonableness is determined by "a weighing of the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty." A court’s primary concern in weighing these interests is to assure "that an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy is not subject to arbitrary invasions solely at the unfettered discretion of officers."
Anonymity is encompassed within the expectation of privacy, a civil liberty that is protected during a Terry stop. The majority now carves away at that individual liberty by saying that a detainee must surrender his or her identity to the police.
I agree with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' reasoning on the issue of whether a person may be arrested for refusing to identify himself during a Terry stop. In Martinelli v. City of Beaumont, a woman was arrested for delaying a lawful police investigation by refusing to identify herself during a Terry investigation. The court held that allowing the police officers to arrest the woman for failing to identify herself in effect allowed the officers to "'bootstrap the authority to arrest on less than probable cause.'" The court determined that the woman's interest in her personal security outweighed the "'mere possibility that identification may provide a link leading to arrest.'"
>>This bootstrapping is exactly what a large portion of the government is trying to get. If you read any conspiracy theory regarding the government's acquisition of power, this decision will bear it out to the utmost.
More directly on point, the Ninth Circuit in Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board addressed the constitutionality of NRS 171.123(3), the very statute at issue here. In Carey, a casino patron brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a Nevada Gaming Control Board agent for violating his Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The agent was called to a hotel to investigate Carey and another man, who were both suspected by hotel employees of cheating. The agent caused the men to be detained, identified himself, indicated he was investigating gaming law violations, read them their Miranda rights and conducted a pat-down search of both detainees. During the Terry investigation, the agent determined there was no probable cause to arrest the men for gaming violations. However, when the agent asked the men to identify themselves, Carey refused, and he was arrested pursuant to NRS 171.123(3) and NRS 197.190. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit noted that the agent had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop, and also probable cause to arrest Carey under NRS 171.123(3) and NRS 197.190 once Carey refused to identify himself. However, the court concluded that NRS 171.123(3) and NRS 197.190, as applied to Carey, violated the Fourth Amendment because the United States Supreme Court "has consistently recognized that a person detained pursuant to Terry '"is not obliged to answer"'" questions posed by law enforcement officers. The court determined that Carey's interest in his personal security outweighed any potential link leading to arrest that could be gleaned from his identity, particularly because Carey's name "was not relevant to determining whether Carey had cheated."
>>Using your identity as a criteria to determine whether you are guilty of a crime merely looks at the probability that you may have committed one. In in No Way establishes anything whatsoever about the current crime unless that crime is specifically linked to your individual person rather than being a general crime, in which case the right against self-incrimination comes into play.
Despite the above authority, the majority erroneously affirms Hiibel's conviction by reflexively reasoning that the public interest in police and public safety outweighs Hiibel's interest in refusing to identify himself. I am not persuaded. And I am uneasy about the reasons given by the majority in justifying its holding.
The majority concludes that the governmental interest in police safety outweighs an individual's interest in his right to keep private his identity. The majority relies upon FBI statistics about police fatalities and assaults to support its argument. However, it does not provide any evidence that an officer, by knowing a person's identity, is better protected from potential violence. In Terry, the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of officer safety by carving out an exception to the Fourth Amendment to allow a police officer to make certain that the person being detained "is not armed with a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against him" when the officer reasonably believes "he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual." The purpose of such a search is to ensure the detainee is not armed with a weapon that could be immediately used against a police officer, not to ensure against a detainee's propensity for violence based upon a prior record of criminal behavior.
It is well known that within the context of a Terry stop an officer's authority to search is limited to a pat-down to detect weapons. The officer may investigate a hard object because it might be a gun. An officer may not investigate a soft object he detects, even though it might be drugs. Similarly, an officer may not detect a wallet and remove it for search. With today's majority decision, the officer can now, figuratively, reach in, grab the wallet and pull out the detainee's identification. So much for our right to be left alone or as the majority says—to wander freely and anonymously if we choose.
The majority avoids the fact that knowing a suspect's identity does not alleviate any threat of immediate danger by arguing that a reasonable person cannot expect to withhold his identity from police officers, as we reveal our names to different people everyday. What the majority fails to recognize, however, is that when we give our names to new acquaintances, business associates and shop owners, we do so voluntarily, out of friendship or to complete a transaction. With the heightened security at airports, for example, passengers are required to provide picture identification. But non-passengers are free to wander that portion of the airport that is unsecured without showing an ID. Purchasing an airline ticket is a business transaction, and the airlines may condition the sale on knowing who is the purchaser. In contrast, being forced to identify oneself to a police officer or else face arrest is government coercion—precisely the type of governmental intrusion that the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent. Furthermore, it is not necessary to have one's name on a credit card or checkbook in order to effect a purchase. A dedicated libertarian, for example, might deliberately eschew financial institutions, credit cards and checkbooks, engaging solely in cash transactions, in order to jealously protect his individual rights, especially his right to be anonymous, to be left alone, to wander freely.
>>"...precisely the type of governmental intrusion that the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent."
Finally, the majority also makes an emotional appeal based upon fear and speculation by arguing that the police would be powerless to protect innocent children from sex offenders, to enforce restraining orders, and to enforce curfews for minors. What the majority fails to recognize is that it is the observable conduct, not the identity, of a person, upon which an officer must legally rely when investigating crimes and enforcing the law.
>>The next paragraph is supremely important in every way.
The majority further appeals to the public's fear during this time of war "against an enemy who operates with a concealed identity." Now is precisely the time when our duty to vigilantly guard the rights enumerated in the Constitution becomes most important. To ease our guard now, in the wake of fear of unknown perpetrators who may still seek to harm the United States and its people, would sound the call of retreat and begin the erosion of civil liberties. The court must not be blinded by fear. I am reminded of a statement by Justice Felix Frankfurter, so aptly quoted by Chief Justice Young, the majority's author, in another search and seizure case involving individual liberties protected by the Fourth Amendment:
"We are in danger of forgetting that the Bill of Rights reflects experience with police excesses. It is not only under Nazi rule that police excesses are inimical to freedom. It is easy to make light of insistence on scrupulous regard for the safeguards of civil liberties when invoked on behalf of the unworthy. It is too easy. History bears testimony that by such disregard are the rights of liberty extinguished, heedlessly at first, then stealthily, and brazenly in the end."
>>I think we're getting pretty fucking close to the brazenly part.
The majority, by its decision today, has allowed the first layer of our civil liberties to be whittled away. The holding weakens the democratic principles upon which this great nation was founded. The undermining of that foundation is a harm more devastating to our country and to this State than any physical harm a terrorist could possibly inflict. "It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of liberties which make the defense of the Nation worthwhile." Our nation is besieged. The terrorist threat has shaken our complacency. Our way of life is threatened as never before. At this time, this extraordinary time, the true test of our national courage is not our necessary and steadfast resolve to defend ourselves against terrorist activity. The true test is our necessary and steadfast resolve to protect and safeguard the rights and principles upon which our nation was founded, our constitution and our personal liberties. I dissent from the majority’s retreat from this challenge.
this annotated document be used to determine HBL:
Cite as: Hiibel v. Dist. Ct.
118 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 88
December 20, 2002
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
No. 38876
LARRY D. HIIBEL,
Petitioner,
vs.
THE SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, AND THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. WAGNER, DISTRICT JUDGE,
Respondents,
and
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
Real Party in Interest.
Original petition for a writ of certiorari challenging the district court's order affirming petitioner's conviction in justice court for resisting or obstructing an officer investigating a crime.
Petition denied.
AGOSTI, J., with whom SHEARING and ROSE, JJ., agreed, dissented.
Steven G. McGuire, State Public Defender, and James P. Logan, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Carson City, for Petitioner.
Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General, Carson City; David G. Allison, District Attorney, and Conrad Hafen, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Humboldt County, for Real Party in Interest.
BEFORE The Court En Banc.
OPINION
By the Court, YOUNG, C.J.:
The pertinent issue before us is whether NRS 171.123(3), which requires a person stopped under reasonable suspicion by a police officer to identify himself or herself, violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. We conclude NRS 171.123(3) does not violate the Fourth Amendment because it strikes a balance between constitutional protections of privacy and the need to protect police officers and the public. Therefore, Hiibel’s petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
In pertinent part, NRS 171.123 provides:
1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.
>>When the person seems to have committed a crime which is less large in it's consequences than the consequences of detaining someone would be, or when there is not the possibility that that the evidence currently in possession would result in at least an indictment, this should not apply.
3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.
4. A person may not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of this section, and in no event longer than 60 minutes.
>>If the person allows themselves to be detained for an hour without freaking out or causing any escalation, I'd say it's more than certain that they're a calm, reasonable person. Although it may also be reasonable to NOT put up with it.
In response to a call from police dispatch, Humboldt County Sheriff's Deputy Lee Dove drove to the scene where a concerned citizen had observed someone striking a female passenger inside a truck. There, Dove spoke to the concerned citizen and was directed to a parked truck. When Dove approached the truck, he noticed skid marks in the gravel, suggesting the truck had been parked in a sudden and aggressive manner. Dove saw Larry D. Hiibel standing outside the truck and thought he was intoxicated based on his eyes, mannerisms, speech, and odor. Hiibel's minor daughter was in the passenger side of the truck. When Dove asked Hiibel to identify himself, Hiibel refused. Instead, Hiibel placed his hands behind his back and challenged the officer to take him to jail.
>> These circumstances in no way indicate the probability of this person having done anything illegal.
Hiibel said he would cooperate but was unwilling to provide identification, because he did not believe he had done anything wrong. After eleven requests for identification, to no avail, Dove arrested Hiibel. Dove described the situation as follows:
>>The officer's reason for requesting identification is closely tied to suspicious circumstances which indicate a crime. The officer did not have those circumstances, and therefore had no reason to detain this individual. There are obviously odd circumstances here, but nothing which holds up the accuser's point that a crime was committed. Upon examining the scene, the officer should have noted that no correlating evidence was available and gone the fuck away.
During my conversation with Mr. Hiibel, there was a point where he became somewhat agressive .
I felt based on me not being able to find out who he was, to identify him, I didn't know if he was wanted or what is situation was, I wasn't able to determine what was going on crimewise in the vehicle, based on that I felt he was intoxicated, and how he was becoming aggressive and moody, I went ahead and put him in handcuffs so I could secure him for my safety, and put him in my patrol vehicle.
>>The officer certainly had the right to look in the vehicle. It's no unreasonable search to see what any passing person could see. What he did not have the right to do was think that an intoxicated, aggressive, or moody person's presence indicated a crime. Without a crime, anything further the officer did was wrong. In this case cuffing an individual can most properly be interpreted as assault, at the least unnecessary detainment.
Hiibel was charged and found guilty of resisting a public officer, in violation of NRS 199.280. The justice of the peace in Humboldt County determined that "Hiibel was asked only for identification and failure to provide identification obstructed and delayed Dove as a public officer in attempting to discharge his duty."
>>When you know that you are innocent, or know that the officer is not being reasonable, you have a Duty to resist. The courts are completely fucked up in saying he delayed the officer when the officer's attempt to find or make a crime where none otherwise existed was the reason for delay and the person who was on the receiving end of the delay was Hiibel. This type of ultimate hypocrisy is typical of the US Govt.
On appeal, the district court held it was "reasonable and necessary" for Dove to request identification from Hiibel and affirmed Hiibel's conviction. Evidence "over and above simply failing to identify himself" was found to support Hiibel's arrest and conviction, which included Dove's suspicion that Hiibel engaged in driving under the influence. The district court balanced the public's interest in requiring Hiibel to identify himself against Hiibel's Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The district court determined it was crucial for the safety of an officer and possible victims to know the identity of a person suspected of battery, domestic violence, and driving under the influence.
>>It was reasonable, sure, but not necessary. The suspicion mentioned was of a potential act that was already past, and for which it was impossible to gather any factual evidence. There is no public interest in detaining someone without proof of a crime, or even EVIDENCE of a crime. Being suspected of a crime based on one person's word is exactly the kind of thing the law should not allow. It is reason to examine the situation. It is in no way enough to take any concrete action.
We conclude this case is properly before this court pursuant to NRS 34.020(3), because the constitutionality of NRS 171.123(3) presents an issue of first impression. Accordingly, we will address the merits of Hiibel's constitutional challenge to NRS 171.123(3).
Fundamental to a democratic society is the ability to wander freely and anonymously, if we so choose, without being compelled to divulge information to the government about who we are or what we are doing. This "right to be let alone"—to simply live in privacy—is a right protected by the Fourth Amendment and undoubtedly sacred to us all.
>>It's so "fundamental" and "sacred" that they'll let someone infringe it on the word of someone else they don't even know without any corresponding evidence.
Yet, this right to privacy is not absolute. Like all freedoms we enjoy, it includes both limitations and responsibilities. One such limitation to the right of privacy is reasonableness. The Fourth Amendment only protects against "unreasonable" invasions of privacy, or searches and seizures, by the government.
>>It's purely fucked up to say something is a right and in the same breath put limits on it. If it can be changed depending on circumstances, or dictated according to laws (which constantly shift and are applied on the whim of those who uphold them), how can it be a right? Their use of the word is exactly the same as privilege. If they didn't CLAIM these things were rights, it wouldn't be a problem. If they had a reasonable definition of what a right was, it wouldn't be a problem. This is hypocrisy.
The United States Supreme Court has twice expressly refused to address whether a person reasonably suspected of engaging in criminal behavior may be required to identify himself or herself. Therefore, the issue is unresolved.
There is a split of authority among the federal circuit courts of appeals on this issue. In Oliver v. Woods, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Utah statute that requires individuals to produce identification to an officer during an investigatory stop. However, in Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that NRS 171.123(3) violates the Fourth Amendment because "'the serious intrusion on personal security outweighs the mere possibility that identification might provide a link leading to arrest.'" We find the reasoning in Carey to be unpersuasive. Given the conflicting authority, we believe an independent analysis of the constitutionality of NRS 171.123(3) is warranted.
>>When in doubt, don't worry about someone's rights.
Traditionally, in resolving issues implicating the Fourth Amendment right to privacy, the following touchstone question has been asked: Is the invasion of privacy reasonable? Reasonableness is determined by balancing "'the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers.'" Considerations involve the "weighing of the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty." A primary concern is "to assure that an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy is not subject to arbitrary invasions solely at the unfettered discretion of officers in the field."
>>So there's "public interest" in invading someone's rights on a mere suspicion? Let's read on.
Balancing these interests, we conclude that any intrusion on privacy caused by NRS 171.123(3) is outweighed by the benefits to officers and community safety. The public interest in requiring individuals to identify themselves to officers when a reasonable suspicion exists is overwhelming. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that "American criminals have a long tradition of armed violence, and every year in this country many law enforcement officers are killed in the line of duty, and thousands more are wounded." The most dangerous time for an officer may be during an investigative stop—when a suspect is approached and questioned.
>>Reasonable suspicion must go pretty darn far beyond regular suspicion. Besides which, the very word suspicion requires "on little evidence or without proof" (dictionary.com). A right is a pretty big thing. How could it be possible for this to compare? Particularly when there may not even be any advantage to the officer if he does get what he requests.
Judicial notice is taken that in the year 2000, fifty-one officers were murdered in the line of duty. These homicides occurred as follows: thirteen during traffic stops/pursuits, twelve during arrest situations, ten during ambushes, eight during responses to disturbance calls, six during investigations of suspicious persons, and two during prisoner transport. Of the suspects who committed these killings, twenty had been previously arrested for crimes of violence, nine had previously assaulted a police officer, and twelve were on probation or parole. Moreover, 15,915 officers were assaulted that year. If the officers referenced in these statistics had known the identity and history of their attackers prior to being assaulted or killed, perhaps some of these incidents could have been prevented.
>>...and perhaps not. Perhaps more would be avoided by not messing with people until you have more than a suspicion.
Knowing the identity of a suspect allows officers to more accurately evaluate and predict potential dangers that may arise during an investigative stop. It follows that an officer "making a reasonable investigatory stop should not be denied the opportunity to protect himself from attack by a hostile suspect." For example, the suspect may be a former felon or wanted for an outstanding arrest warrant. Such persons pose a heightened risk of danger to officers and the public during investigatory encounters.
Additionally, if suspects are not legally required to identify themselves, what could an officer do if a suspicious person were loitering outside a daycare center or school? Perhaps that person is a sex offender. How are officers to enforce restraining orders? Or, how are officers to enforce curfew laws for minors without a requirement to produce identification? In these situations, it is the observable conduct that creates a reasonable suspicion, but it is the requirement to produce identification that enables an officer to determine whether the suspect is breaking the law.
>>Perhaps they shouldn't consider loitering to be a suspicious activity in the first place. Perhaps sex offenses are no different than any other kind of offense and shouldn't be treated differently. Restraining orders have a list of places on them. If you check the location and find a restraining order, then you can check who's ON the restraining order to see if it matches the loiterer. Same effect, no invasion of rights. If restraining orders were properly restricted to people who had a high probability of being physically harmful, then it wouldn't be beyond the scope of "proper" invasion of their privacy to have a database of them and you could check pretty easily. If you do indeed have a common sense reason to worry about someone, then sure, get their ID. Let that line be drawn not where this court likes, at a very low level, but one at which you can reasonably assume that someone Else's rights are in danger already. Suspicion just isn't nearly enough.
Most importantly, we are at war against enemies who operate with concealed identities and the dangers we face as a nation are unparalleled. Terrorism is "changing the way we live and the way we act and the way we think." During the recent past, this country suffered the tragic deaths of more than 3,000 unsuspecting men, women, and children at the hands of terrorists; seventeen innocent people in six different states were randomly gunned down by snipers; and our citizens have suffered illness and death from exposure to mail contaminated with Anthrax. We have also seen high school students transport guns to school and randomly gun down their fellow classmates and teachers. It cannot be stressed enough: "This is a different kind of war that requires a different type of approach and a different type of mentality." To deny officers the ability to request identification from suspicious persons creates a situation where an officer could approach a wanted terrorist or sniper but be unable to identify him or her if the person's behavior does not rise to the level of probable cause necessary for an arrest.
>>BULLSHIT!!! The odds of you being involved in a terrorist incident are far outweighed by many common daily occurrences. It cannot be stressed enough: you're trying to let our rights be invaded for no good reason. If a persons behavior does not rise to the level of probable cause necessary for an arrest, leave them the fuck alone. Shit!, why is that a difficult concept? Who hasn't contemplated a terrorist act against someone who's wronged them? Are we on the way to thought-crime now?
Contrary to the dissent's opinion, requiring a suspect to reveal his name is not an abrogation of the Bill of Rights. "Bills of rights give assurance to the individual of the preservation of his liberty. They do not define the liberty they promise." Furthermore, it has been recognized since the early development of common law that "all rights tend to declare themselves absolute to their logical extreme. Yet all in fact are limited by the neighborhood of principles of policy which are other than those on which the particular right is founded, and which become strong enough to hold their own when a certain point is reached." The point of requiring a suspect to provide identification during a lawful investigatory stop has been reached.
>>Then they are not rights. To us privacy IS a right, not a privilege. It can, and should, only be infringed when someone else's rights are at stake.
The requirements of NRS 171.123(3) are also reasonable and involve a minimal invasion of personal privacy. Reasonable people do not expect their identities—their names—to be withheld from officers. Rather, we reveal our names in a variety of situations every day without much consideration. For instance, it is merely polite manners to introduce ourselves when meeting a new acquaintance. A person's name is given out on business cards, credit cards, checks, and driver's licenses, to name a few more instances. In addition, everyone is required to reveal government issued identification to airport officials and are subject to random searches before proceeding to flight gates. Asking a suspect to state his or her name when an officer has an articulable suspicion is nominal in comparison.
>>We reveal our names in a variety of situations which are at our discretion. The very definition of a right is that which is under OUR oversight. Something whose determination cannot belong to any other person. Besides which, the officer doesn't only want your name, he wants to see ID. These are vastly different things. How can they be talked about with evidence for one being used as evidence for the other? Blatant logical fallacy there. People are not (the judge doesn't know the law) required to show ID at airports. it's illegal to prevent you from boarding for any reason. They tag and watch you separately if you don't, but you don't have to. Regardless of that, people should not have to show ID to travel in any way, freedom of movement is another thing guaranteed by the constitution and another thing they consider a privilege and we consider a right. Random searches are bullshit. Asking a suspect to state his name is nominal, and is still too much, the fact that other invasions are much bigger can't make this one any smaller. If it's not *necessary*, it shouldn't be done. How hard is that? Again there's a blatant logical fallacy here. Evidence that other things are bigger doesn't mean this one is smaller. What we're looking at is it's size relative to the right, not relative to other things. This judge isn't worthy of the ability to speak.
To hold that a name, which is neutral and non-incriminating information, is somehow an invasion of privacy is untenable. Such an invasion is minimal at best. The suspect is not required to provide private details about his background, but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exists. The Supreme Court held it reasonable for officers to pat down and frisk a person during an investigative stop. As the Court recognized in Terry v. Ohio, "it would be unreasonable to require that police officers take unnecessary risks in the performance of their duties." Requiring identification is far less intrusive than conducting a pat down search of one's physical person.
>>You're specifically trying to get it when it's *not* neutral and non-incriminating. This is an absurd argument to make. When you have the name, what do you do with it? You use it to GET private details about his background. Whether he's innocent or guilty of some other crime at some other time is only one thing you get, and you get the rest whether the person has that or not. This entire argument is precisely backward. This is the third blatant logical fallacy in this argument thus far. Patting down and frisking a person invades their personal space. This is both not a right and far more likely to produce results which actually pertain to the officer's safety. Therefore it is "far less intrusive".
Here, Hiibel was suspected of domestic violence against his minor daughter and driving under the influence of alcohol. Based on skid marks in the gravel, it appeared that Hiibel parked his truck in a quick and aggressive manner. Hiibel refused eleven requests by officers to identify himself. Instead, Hiibel placed his hands behind his back and challenged the deputy to take him to jail. An ordinary person would conclude it was Hiibel who was unreasonable, not the law.
>>This all just goes too far. The "facts" in this case are someone saying they saw something, someone being drunk, and skid marks. This is a theory akin to evolution. It fits all the facts, and makes sense, but cannot be proven. It would not be very difficult for the officer to look into the car to see the state of the girl. This could not be considered an invasion of privacy and would yield information which could easily make the difference in whether further steps were warranted. Parking "in a quick and aggressive manner" is the weakest possible evidence here, and it's all very much circumstantial. The problem with using an ordinary person as your benchmark here is that an ordinary person is not reasonable and particularly not logical, like this judge who has made three cases for throwing out this case and him, so far. I myself am *most* likely to challenge authority when I a) am innocent and b) know they are doing the wrong thing. So as a more logical person than the judge, I would be likely to challenge the officer in this instance. What does that say about that point?
Finally, NRS 171.123(3) is narrowly written. It applies only in situations where an officer has an articulable suspicion that a person is engaged in criminal behavior. "Common sense often makes good law," once wrote United States Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. Requiring a person reasonably suspected of committing a crime to identify himself or herself to law enforcement officers during a brief, investigatory stop is a commonsense requirement necessary to protect both the public and law enforcement officers. It follows that NRS 171.123(3) is good law consistent with the Fourth Amendment.
>>If it's common sense it shouldn't need to be law. Unfortunately, none of that was being applied here. Rights should only be infringed under the most exacting criteria and with the utmost conscientiousness. It's a right, it goes beyond the boundaries of law.
LEAVITT and BECKER, JJ., concur.
MAUPIN, J., concurring:
I join in the result reached by the majority, stressing again that NRS 171.123 is narrowly written, and that its requirement that persons reasonably suspected of criminal misconduct be required to identify themselves to police during brief investigatory stops is a commonsense requirement for the protection of the public and law enforcement officers.
>>If a law is morally wrong or ambiguous, it has no place in a court decision.
I write separately to note that the majority has not somehow overreacted to the dangers presented by the war against domestic and international terrorism. Our decision today is truly related to the ability of police to properly and safely deal with persons reasonably suspected of criminal misconduct, here, domestic violence and driving under the influence of alcohol.
>>They most certainly have, this is statistical fact. If you add up the damage done to rights, and the cost in time and trouble to ordinary citizens based on acts taken in response to 9-11, they make 9-11 look about as big and important as an ant on the surface of the sun.
Notwithstanding the sentiments voiced by my dissenting colleagues, NRS 171.123, as stated by Young, C.J., in the majority opinion, “is good law consistent with the Fourth Amendment.”
>>Laws are based upon the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These document exist to spell out our rights, not to create them. If they were never created, our rights would exist just the same. If you use them as a means to enumerate what a countries focus and policies will be, the supreme court decision *might* be correct. if you use them as evidence of what is morally acceptable, taking into account your rights, they are very wrong. This is a cornerstone of this countries corruptness. There is a clear hierarchy of rights, The planet/environment, humanity, and personal rights. Only because it supposedly protects these rights is the government even allowed into this chain.
>>By using the recent terrorist activity as criteria for determining in what ways our rights may be practiced, this court proves that their definition of a right is arbitrary. A proper definition of the term may not include the ability to change whichever way the wind blows. In this decision the court has invalidated not it's own existence but the existence of the entire government within which such a decision is allowed to have importance. Rights go beyond the Courts, beyond the Constitution, and certainly beyond any one version (depending on how the votes land) of a government.
AGOSTI, J., with whom Shearing and ROSE, JJ., agree, dissenting:
As the majority aptly states, the right to wander freely and anonymously, if we so choose, is a fundamental right of privacy in a democratic society. However, the majority promptly abandons this fundamental right by requiring "suspicious" citizens to identify themselves to law enforcement officers upon request, or face the prospect of arrest. I dissent from the majority's holding that the identification portion of NRS 171.123 is constitutional.
It is well-established that police officers may stop a person when reasonable suspicion exists that that person is engaged in illegal activity. However, it is equally well-established that detaining a person and requiring him to identify himself constitutes "a seizure of his person subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment." In light of these constitutional requirements, the United States Supreme Court has stated that although the officers may question the person, the detainee need not answer any questions. Furthermore, unless the detainee volunteers answers and those answers supply the officer with probable cause to arrest, the detainee must be released.
>>The seizure aspect, as well as the "right" to remain silent, the very questions of this decisions fundamental basis, were entirely ignored in the decision. They approximately said "we care about the officer's autonomy and safety, not the constitution.
The Fourth Amendment requires that governmental searches and seizures be reasonable. Reasonableness is determined by "a weighing of the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty." A court’s primary concern in weighing these interests is to assure "that an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy is not subject to arbitrary invasions solely at the unfettered discretion of officers."
Anonymity is encompassed within the expectation of privacy, a civil liberty that is protected during a Terry stop. The majority now carves away at that individual liberty by saying that a detainee must surrender his or her identity to the police.
I agree with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' reasoning on the issue of whether a person may be arrested for refusing to identify himself during a Terry stop. In Martinelli v. City of Beaumont, a woman was arrested for delaying a lawful police investigation by refusing to identify herself during a Terry investigation. The court held that allowing the police officers to arrest the woman for failing to identify herself in effect allowed the officers to "'bootstrap the authority to arrest on less than probable cause.'" The court determined that the woman's interest in her personal security outweighed the "'mere possibility that identification may provide a link leading to arrest.'"
>>This bootstrapping is exactly what a large portion of the government is trying to get. If you read any conspiracy theory regarding the government's acquisition of power, this decision will bear it out to the utmost.
More directly on point, the Ninth Circuit in Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board addressed the constitutionality of NRS 171.123(3), the very statute at issue here. In Carey, a casino patron brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a Nevada Gaming Control Board agent for violating his Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The agent was called to a hotel to investigate Carey and another man, who were both suspected by hotel employees of cheating. The agent caused the men to be detained, identified himself, indicated he was investigating gaming law violations, read them their Miranda rights and conducted a pat-down search of both detainees. During the Terry investigation, the agent determined there was no probable cause to arrest the men for gaming violations. However, when the agent asked the men to identify themselves, Carey refused, and he was arrested pursuant to NRS 171.123(3) and NRS 197.190. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit noted that the agent had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop, and also probable cause to arrest Carey under NRS 171.123(3) and NRS 197.190 once Carey refused to identify himself. However, the court concluded that NRS 171.123(3) and NRS 197.190, as applied to Carey, violated the Fourth Amendment because the United States Supreme Court "has consistently recognized that a person detained pursuant to Terry '"is not obliged to answer"'" questions posed by law enforcement officers. The court determined that Carey's interest in his personal security outweighed any potential link leading to arrest that could be gleaned from his identity, particularly because Carey's name "was not relevant to determining whether Carey had cheated."
>>Using your identity as a criteria to determine whether you are guilty of a crime merely looks at the probability that you may have committed one. In in No Way establishes anything whatsoever about the current crime unless that crime is specifically linked to your individual person rather than being a general crime, in which case the right against self-incrimination comes into play.
Despite the above authority, the majority erroneously affirms Hiibel's conviction by reflexively reasoning that the public interest in police and public safety outweighs Hiibel's interest in refusing to identify himself. I am not persuaded. And I am uneasy about the reasons given by the majority in justifying its holding.
The majority concludes that the governmental interest in police safety outweighs an individual's interest in his right to keep private his identity. The majority relies upon FBI statistics about police fatalities and assaults to support its argument. However, it does not provide any evidence that an officer, by knowing a person's identity, is better protected from potential violence. In Terry, the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of officer safety by carving out an exception to the Fourth Amendment to allow a police officer to make certain that the person being detained "is not armed with a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against him" when the officer reasonably believes "he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual." The purpose of such a search is to ensure the detainee is not armed with a weapon that could be immediately used against a police officer, not to ensure against a detainee's propensity for violence based upon a prior record of criminal behavior.
It is well known that within the context of a Terry stop an officer's authority to search is limited to a pat-down to detect weapons. The officer may investigate a hard object because it might be a gun. An officer may not investigate a soft object he detects, even though it might be drugs. Similarly, an officer may not detect a wallet and remove it for search. With today's majority decision, the officer can now, figuratively, reach in, grab the wallet and pull out the detainee's identification. So much for our right to be left alone or as the majority says—to wander freely and anonymously if we choose.
The majority avoids the fact that knowing a suspect's identity does not alleviate any threat of immediate danger by arguing that a reasonable person cannot expect to withhold his identity from police officers, as we reveal our names to different people everyday. What the majority fails to recognize, however, is that when we give our names to new acquaintances, business associates and shop owners, we do so voluntarily, out of friendship or to complete a transaction. With the heightened security at airports, for example, passengers are required to provide picture identification. But non-passengers are free to wander that portion of the airport that is unsecured without showing an ID. Purchasing an airline ticket is a business transaction, and the airlines may condition the sale on knowing who is the purchaser. In contrast, being forced to identify oneself to a police officer or else face arrest is government coercion—precisely the type of governmental intrusion that the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent. Furthermore, it is not necessary to have one's name on a credit card or checkbook in order to effect a purchase. A dedicated libertarian, for example, might deliberately eschew financial institutions, credit cards and checkbooks, engaging solely in cash transactions, in order to jealously protect his individual rights, especially his right to be anonymous, to be left alone, to wander freely.
>>"...precisely the type of governmental intrusion that the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent."
Finally, the majority also makes an emotional appeal based upon fear and speculation by arguing that the police would be powerless to protect innocent children from sex offenders, to enforce restraining orders, and to enforce curfews for minors. What the majority fails to recognize is that it is the observable conduct, not the identity, of a person, upon which an officer must legally rely when investigating crimes and enforcing the law.
>>The next paragraph is supremely important in every way.
The majority further appeals to the public's fear during this time of war "against an enemy who operates with a concealed identity." Now is precisely the time when our duty to vigilantly guard the rights enumerated in the Constitution becomes most important. To ease our guard now, in the wake of fear of unknown perpetrators who may still seek to harm the United States and its people, would sound the call of retreat and begin the erosion of civil liberties. The court must not be blinded by fear. I am reminded of a statement by Justice Felix Frankfurter, so aptly quoted by Chief Justice Young, the majority's author, in another search and seizure case involving individual liberties protected by the Fourth Amendment:
"We are in danger of forgetting that the Bill of Rights reflects experience with police excesses. It is not only under Nazi rule that police excesses are inimical to freedom. It is easy to make light of insistence on scrupulous regard for the safeguards of civil liberties when invoked on behalf of the unworthy. It is too easy. History bears testimony that by such disregard are the rights of liberty extinguished, heedlessly at first, then stealthily, and brazenly in the end."
>>I think we're getting pretty fucking close to the brazenly part.
The majority, by its decision today, has allowed the first layer of our civil liberties to be whittled away. The holding weakens the democratic principles upon which this great nation was founded. The undermining of that foundation is a harm more devastating to our country and to this State than any physical harm a terrorist could possibly inflict. "It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of liberties which make the defense of the Nation worthwhile." Our nation is besieged. The terrorist threat has shaken our complacency. Our way of life is threatened as never before. At this time, this extraordinary time, the true test of our national courage is not our necessary and steadfast resolve to defend ourselves against terrorist activity. The true test is our necessary and steadfast resolve to protect and safeguard the rights and principles upon which our nation was founded, our constitution and our personal liberties. I dissent from the majority’s retreat from this challenge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)