For starters, this seems like an awfully good time for Democrats and Republicans to unite behind the repeal of the Mann Act, a barbarous relic of 19th century sexual hysteria most generally used for persecuting various sorts of scary minorities.
And we already know how I feel about our nation's prostitution statutes.
Jack Balkin suggests that it might also be time to take a long hard look at the surveillance state:
These events offer a window into a much larger phenomenon, the National Surveillance State, in which the state increasingly identifies and solves problems of governance through the collection, collation and analysis of information. Governments have always used information, but today's techniques are made more powerful and more prevalent by lower costs of computing and data storage. This story also shows the important role played by private businesses in constructing and implementing the National Surveillance State. The Times report suggests that the banks in question volunteered more than the letter of the law might have required, because the transactions in questions were wire payments rather than coin or currency. The banks erred on the side of caution, seeking to assist the state in its efforts. Moreover, they already had their own pattern recognition systems designed to identify suspicious behavior. (Many people are probably familiar with the programs devised by credit card companies which analyze consumer transactions to calculate the probabilities that a card is being used fraudulently.)
If computing power increases enough, there is no reason why governments might not lower the threshold for reporting of suspicious transactions, or, indeed, require that every transaction over 100 dollars be reported. All this information could later be sifted through by data mining programs, in order to spot patterns of suspicious activity. The only limit is the technology and the manpower that law enforcement is willing to devote to analysis of financial transactions.
The Spitzer story shows both the promise and the threat of these developments. On the one hand, reporting financial transactions makes the job of law enforcement easier, and it uncovers crimes (and terrorist plots) that might never be discovered otherwise. Mandatory disclosure (or in this case, voluntary disclosure by banks) of private individual's financial transactions, and sharing of data between intelligence services, federal, state and local law enforcement helps the state identify patterns of criminal activity, prevent crimes before they occur, and punish them after the fact. These techniques and technologies allow governments to do the jobs entrusted to them more powerfully and more efficiently than ever before.
On the other hand, these developments carry all of the potential risks of a powerful National Surveillance State: Governments can make mistakes in assessing levels of criminality and dangerousness; and their data mining models may characterize innocent activity as suspicious. Without sufficient oversight and checking functions, government actors may misuse the additional knowledge they gain, for example, by instigating abusive prosecutions, or creating discriminatory systems for access to public and private services (like banks, airports, government entitlements and so on). And the more powerful government becomes in knowing what its citizens are doing, the easier it becomes for government to control people's behavior.
Terrorism aside--and my understanding is that terrorists are very rarely caught using a money trail--most of the "crimes" we catch by spying on people's bank accounts shouldn't be illegal, so I can't say I'm thrilled to hear that the government is now 200% more efficient at putting the "perpetrators" in the pokey. Particularly when they have to spy on me to catch them. I don't think it's any of the government's damn business if I want to carry around $10,000 in cash--and if you need broad powers to monitor the financial transactions of ordinary Americans in order to catch drug dealers, then I suggest that it's time to rethink the laws that necessitate the creation of these financial "crimes".
On the other hand, I'm not distressed to hear that the Feds were spying on Eliot Spitzer. No, not because I don't like the man, but because I think maybe we should spy on our politicians, all the time. No probable cause, you say? I fling back at you Mark Twain's observation that America only has one distinct criminal class: Congress. Perhaps every member of Congress should be subject to warrantless wiretaps--except that the spies should be the American public, streaming over the web. If they need a national security exemption, of course, I think they should be able to get it one from an appropriate judicial authority. I'll even agree to a generous 24-hour delay to allow them to make their case.
On a more serious note, I think it's entirely appropriate that the anti-corruption police watch politicians like hawks. They've chosen public office; that conveys a lot of responsibility to the public, including assuring them that your votes aren't being bought outright. I also think that politicians, when caught in a crime, should automatically get the maximum penalty; if they think the law is such a good idea, they ought to suffer heartily when they disregard it.
This is all quite moot, because of course the people we need to past the laws restraining politicians are . . . politicians. But a girl can dream, can't she?
It seems strange to me that the "policy lessons" after a corrupt politician gets caught in illegal activity are that the laws that were used to catch him should be dismantled.
In other words, when someone like Spitzer get caught, I don't start dreaming about a legal world where he could have gotten away with it.
1) I don't disagree that it would be nice to get rid of bad Mann Act prosecutions. But I do think that smuggling women into and around the country for the purposes of selling their sexual services is something that the DOJ -- as opposed to your friendly neighborhood district attorney -- ought to be investigating and prosecuting.
2) I don't think it's any of the government's damn business if I want to carry around $10,000 in cash--and if you need broad powers to monitor the financial transactions of ordinary Americans in order to catch drug dealers, then I suggest that it's time to rethink the laws that necessitate the creation of these financial "crimes".
There's nothing illegal about carrying around $10,000 in cash, nor do you have to report that you're doing that. What banks do have to report is certain transactions at banks that involve $10,000 in cash. Very few ordinary Americans routinely make such transactions. All things being equal, it would be nicer not to have any kind of government reporting at all, but this seems a lot less onerous to me than other forms of surveillance (CCTVs, etc.). If you don't want the government involved in your $10K+ transactions, don't use the banking system.
It may not be illegal to carry around $10K in cash, but if you do and are ever detained it'll be confiscated, you'll be investigated on drug charges and regardless of your eventual exoneration it will take years in court to get even a fraction of the money back. Well, maybe only if you're brown
alkalai wrote: There's nothing illegal about carrying around $10,000 in cash, nor do you have to report that you're doing that. What banks do have to report is certain transactions at banks that involve $10,000 in cash. Very few ordinary Americans routinely make such transactions.
My emphasis -- and that's exactly the problem: Very few Americans engage in large cash transactions as individuals (established businesses are a different matter and will have less difficulty in this regard), so the average American is not going to notice if one innocent guy in half a million goes through the criminal justice meat grinder simply because he was carrying a large sum when detained. Thus, no momentum to change the system in this regard.
The most cash I ever held at one time was $4k and that involved being the buyer in a private-party car purchase, because the seller was a small business owner in a semi-rural industrial area and was accustomed to keeping large amounts of cash on hand in the course of normal operations.
It is a misapprension that Spitzer was caught under laws designed to find terrorists. They were designed to prevent money laundering by organized crime.
Follow this link http://www.occ.treas.gov/handbook/bsa.pdf
and search for "structuring." Note that the date is September 2000, not 2001.
How about mandatory lifecasting for politicians?
"Perhaps every member of Congress should be subject to warrantless wiretaps--except that the spies should be the American public, streaming over the web."
let us not forget: the Statehouses, the County seats, and the City governments--these, on the Legislative side. Also, the whole of the Executive branch apparatus, and the Judiciary..
As an added +, include the FedRes HQ in D.C., and their 12 satellites..
What's good for the Goose...
It is commonly said that in a free society the government is afraid of the people, and in a slave society the people are afraid of the government.
I think it would be fair to say that in a free society the people keep tabs on the government, and in a slave society the government keeps tabs on the people.
Great suggestion that we monitor congressmen, etc. at all times. That would lead to the kind of term limits I endorse: one year in office and one year in jail.
State surveillance is going to increase monotonically forever and there's nothing that can be done about it. The processing of open information is limited only by Moore's Law, and private information can be anonymously hacked, be it legally, illegally, privately, or through state agencies.
The best you can do is to make sure that the public knows what's being collected, who's collecting it, and what it's used for. To that end, I'd like to shill briefly for David Brin's The Transparent Society as an excellent primer for how to reduce the power that accures to those doing the surveillance. (Short answer: ensure that they can be surveiled by the public to the same extent that they can surveil an individual.)
I like the idea of making public officials' lives radically more transparent. Indeed, if you really want to reduce the power of lobbyists, all you have to do is put every personal contact between a legislator and a lobbyist on the record, a la Sarbanes-Oxley. Of course, this will further reduce the pool of people willing to do public service, but they're already mostly poster-children for various topics in abnormal psychology.
TheRadicalModerate,
You touch on the problem here, albeit briefly. People with normal psychologies and genuine talent are already unlikely to see public service as attractive, and monitoring them day and night will only increase that.
The cynical response, which you seem to lean towards, is that that ship sailed a while ago and there's no going back. Accept that our politicians are going to be psychologically abnormal, and improve our means of keeping an eye on them.
I would prefer to find a less cynical response. Off-hand, I'm sorry to say I'm not sure what it would be. Suggestions welcome.
In addition to strict surveillance, all elected officials (from dog-catcher to the President of the US, with all intermediate levels included) should be required to wear a badge of office - from the moment they are inaugurated to the last moment they have public authority, 24 hours a day: The badge should be a hangman's noose, made of traditional manila fiber rope(nice and scratchy), 1" in diameter. The tail end of the noose should be long enough to hang to (at least) their ankles.
Just to help keep these dishonest, hypocritical SOB's 'upright'.
Kent:
I look at Congress like I look at after school programs for at-risk youths. They're the kind of people that probably have criminal tendencies when unwatched, so it's safer for the rest of us to distract them. Sure, steroid hearings are more expensive than basketball courts, but basketball courts are cheaper than stolen cars, and steroid hearings are cheaper than bridges to nowhere.
Cynical? Hardly. I believe the vast majority of people are decent and honest. I think that the tiny minority that want power and fame are driven by power and fame.
"Quis costodiet ipos costodes?"
I agree Meagan -- always watch the politicians closely. They should consider it part of the job description.
In any event, the authorities were not looking at Spitzer but rather he did something that tripped off old antimoney laundering reporting requirements.
The Mann Act exists because there is interstate "white slavery" - or rather, slavery for commercial sex. At the time enacted there were prostitution rings that lured young girls from the Midwest promising them fame, fortune, and acting careers but once there they were forced into prostitution. It is not a "misguided law". Contrary to liberal ideology prostitution is not a victimless crime and legalizing it would not improve the lot of girls engaged in it. They would still be exploited, only with the State's blessing.
> Contrary to liberal ideology prostitution is not a victimless crime and legalizing it would not improve the lot of girls engaged in it.
I am no liberal Orion, but I think Nevada has the best idea. Legalization IS the best ssafeguard for the women -- because it will take it out of the criminal twilight it currently is in. The women will have legal recourse. And if it is legal, maybe the people running teh show won't all be crooks.
Look -- I am not too idealistic to realize that legalization will solve all problems with it. When gambling was legalized in Nevada, it still was controlled by the mob for a while. But at least it will be easier to prevent the worst abuses if the activitiy itself is no longer criminal.
Legalize it and put into place mechanisms to make sure the particpants are willing.
> Contrary to liberal ideology prostitution is not a victimless crime and legalizing it would not improve the lot of girls engaged in it.
I am no liberal Orion, but I think Nevada has the best idea. Legalization IS the best ssafeguard for the women -- because it will take it out of the criminal twilight it currently is in. The women will have legal recourse. And if it is legal, maybe the people running teh show won't all be crooks.
Look -- I am not too idealistic to realize that legalization will solve all problems with it. When gambling was legalized in Nevada, it still was controlled by the mob for a while. But at least it will be easier to prevent the worst abuses if the activitiy itself is no longer criminal.
Legalize it and put into place mechanisms to make sure the particpants are willing.
In all seriousness, though, spying on politicians is one of the worst hazards of the "surveillance state", since it opens the possibility of blackmail. J. Edgar Hoover, anyone?
Well, they always assert exemption from surveillance or non-responsibility. Check out the WaPos story regarding Montgomery County, MD officers refusing to pay their speeding camera fines.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030703484.html
What we have to do is fight to keep the politicals and police from exempting themselves from the surveillance cameras.
Alcoholism isn't a victimless crime either.
I would prefer to find a less cynical response. Off-hand, I'm sorry to say I'm not sure what it would be. Suggestions welcome.
Kent, I think the only way to get a better class of people into politics is to elimiate it as a career. Term limits. If somebody is only going to be there a short time and then will be back in private life, there should be less of an elitist attitude (laws for thee but not for me...).
I know some think that will just put government in the hands of the lobbyists, but I disagree. I think lobbyists gain their power through connections and relationships, but if the politicians turn over frequently, the lobbyists will be forever building relationships and never quite able to exploit them.
but because I think maybe we should spy on our politicians, all the time. No probable cause, you say?
If you're willing to be ruled by the cast of Survivor, then go for it. But what sane person is going to be willing to enter into politics knowing that they, and by extension their families, are going to be under constant surveillance?
I've never understood why some people believe that abusing and degrading politicians is going to produce better results. You'll notice that those localities known for 'hardball' politics tend to also be controlled by the most corrupt politicians.
JMHawkins:
That's my thinking as well. I think that in a day and age where referendums and citizen governments are technologically feasible, we ought to use them much more. Giving the people a straight vote once a week on an issue seems like a good idea.
Also, I think that political service should be like the National Guard, or jury duty - it's something that your employer must allow you to take time to do, but it's not your day job.
I am no liberal Orion, but I think Nevada has the best idea. Legalization IS the best ssafeguard for the women -- because it will take it out of the criminal twilight it currently is in. The women will have legal recourse. And if it is legal, maybe the people running teh show won't all be crooks.
Look -- I am not too idealistic to realize that legalization will solve all problems with it. When gambling was legalized in Nevada, it still was controlled by the mob for a while. But at least it will be easier to prevent the worst abuses if the activitiy itself is no longer criminal.
Legalize it and put into place mechanisms to make sure the particpants are willing.
1) Nevada did not make prostitution legal. That's an old myth. It is legal for (some) counties with low populations to license brothels, however. Currently there are about 30 legal brothels with ~300 prostitutes throughout the state. The number of prostitutes in illegal brothels and call girl rings far exceeds this number. This reinforces the point that even in places where they try to regulate prostitution they still have illegal prostitution with all the attendent problems.
Does nobody remember how half of Congress (along with maverick car designer DeLorean), were ENTRAPPED into buying wholesale cocaine to sell, or worst of all, just to party with due to the lack of Viagra back in the 80s?
The reason my Governor is being shot down is because he is a HYPOCRITE, just like all those Bible thumping (HIV is punishment for having too much fun etc.) televangelists, such as Pastor Ted, who ran Richard Dawkins off his parking lot for the suggestion that Genesis be taken even more literally true than Aristotle.
And have you seen Spitzer's wife? BUTT UGLY. As in ugly butt. Let herself go. A little Atkin's diet and a few push-ups were required. Oh...all those black tie limousine liberal $450 a plate fundraisers and lots of hangovers prevented that, right?
Hillary? Hello. Now you are president. Bill's heart attack (vs. Bush's basal heart rate of 40 in a society that averages 75) sort of made Viagra a non-option, despite Bob Dole's debt-based TV ads for it.
Policy lessons? Policy? That consensual crimes are a HUGE untaxed, stock-market-invested BOOST to the ECONOMY (stupid).
And, yeah, in Nevada, the legal prostitute's pimps still "victimize" their workers. I think that's a fact. Black eyes. Herpes. Hair pulling. Awful stuff this sex stuff is.
Hillary is ugly. So is Spitzer's wife. Dried up, hairlip ugly. Why? Power chasing causes premature boosts in testosterone.
If Hillary was a whore, would you pay her? Spitzer's wife should have read Cosmo instead of Vogue and pulp fiction novels. Then she'd have learned how to satisfy a man, and not just a man, but THE most high status man in New York.
Spitzer's wife is not ugly. She's a perfectly normal looking mildly-attractive well-kept middle-aged female with children. And she most certainly is not fat by any stretch.
Megan, you're wrong on the Mann Act. That law is used extensively nowadays to prosecute internet predators that go after little girls. In some cases it is the only federal law whose elements can all be made to fit an abduction case.
Spitzer's wife is not ugly. She's a perfectly normal looking mildly-attractive well-kept middle-aged female with children. And she most certainly is not fat by any stretch.
[yoda voice]Find out you will that your husband has been shlepping around with hookers, the headlines plastered all over the Internet, and look so good for the cameras as did I you should![/yoda voce]
Megan, I agree with you that politicians should be under constant public surveillance. Furthermore, all their financial transactions, communications, and so on should be recorded and published online in publicly accessible locations. I wrote some more about this on my blog a few weeks ago, at http://chaosmotor.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/who-watches-the-watchmen/
Megan, I agree with you that politicians should be under constant public surveillance. Furthermore, all their financial transactions, communications, and so on should be recorded and published online in publicly accessible locations. I wrote some more about this on my blog a few weeks ago, at http://chaosmotor.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/who-watches-the-watchmen/