========================================
FCPC ALERT #2005-6
www.FairfaxCountyPrivacyCouncil.org
Originally Published on 19 September 2005
========================================
This message is intended for members of the Fairfax County Privacy Council, and
anyone else who might be interested in advancing privacy in Virginia. Maximum
dissemination of this message is encouraged!
Privacy Notice: All communication from the Fairfax Privacy Council is sent
using
blind carbon copy ("BCC") format for your security and privacy.
ALERT ITEM SUMMARY:
1. Photo-red
light surveillance sunset celebration rally a success!
2. New VA privacy law on check writing takes effect on 1 October
3. VA AG asks VA Supreme Court to strike down Fourth amendment
protections
4. VA State Police under fire for invasions of privacy
at gun shows
5.
6. VA Lt. Gov. candidate Leslie Byrnes backs “granny cams”
7. Privacy Quote: “Good afternoon ma’m,
do you know your husband/neighbor is…”
************************************
1. Photo-red light surveillance sunset celebration
rally a success!
************************************
At
The 2005 Virginia General Assembly refused to renew this experiment in
“due-process
light” in part because a state sponsored study indicated that the scheme not
only
appears to not improve public safety, but that it’s use is actually correlated
with
an increase in accidents at some intersections.
FCPC members held a successful for a Photo-Red Light Surveillance Sunset
Celebration
Rally on Thursday, 30 June at
the "detached segment" of the
especially to the
protest-style signage.
News coverage of the celebration reported that “…the program failed to gain
renewal
in part because many rural legislators said they believed the surveillance
cameras
infringed on personal liberties and were akin to Big Brother. Several area
residents
expressed that sentiment Thursday, when they stood at
County Parkway
Red-light Cameras.’ For an hour that night, the roadway echoed with the sounds
of
beeps and honks” (see “Red-Light Cameras Stop Rolling in N.Va.,” The Washington Post,
By Jamie Stockwel,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR2005070201054.html).
************************************
2. New VA privacy law on check writing takes effect on 1 October
************************************
Merchants and consumers may know that
makes it unlawful for any merchant to require consumers to present a credit
card to
cash a check. But effective
Act at Va. Code § 59.1-443.1 will also makes it unlawful to require the
recording of
a date of birth upon any check as a condition of acceptance.
For privacy reasons, consider requiring your banks to print only your name (not
any
other data such as an address or phone number) upon their checks, in the format
of a
first initial and last name only, even though some merchants may not like it or
accept such checks for direct payment. Consumers can simply use credit
cards to
avoid invasive check data requirements or ID demands by merchants when
presenting
checks. MasterCard and VISA strictly prohibit merchants from demanding
any ID to use
signed credit cards; other credit card issuers do not explicitly require or
allow
merchants to ask for ID when presented a signed credit card. Report merchant
violations to MasterCard at http://www.mastercard.com/contactus/contactus_mv.html.
Additionally, consumers who do not have driver’s licenses ought to consider
using a
passport as an ID when absolutely necessary because it does not display one’s
home
address, and the passport number is not as easily leveraged to commit identity
theft
as a DL # or a Social Security Number (“SSN”), still published upon most
military
IDs. Disclosure of one’s SSN, if any, to the US State Department, is not
required to
apply for a passport, but Title 26 of federal law does appear to require anyone
possessing a Taxpayer Identification Number (e.g., an SSN) to notify the IRS if
you
apply for a passport.
************************************
3. VA AG asks VA Supreme Court to strike down Fourth amendment in
Virginia
************************************
After losing the case once in a VA Supreme Court panel decision, VA Attorney
General
(“AG”) Judy Jagdmann sought and obtained en
bank review of Moore v. Commonwealth, 45
Va. App. 146, 609 S.E.2d 74 (2005) to re-argue that the Fourth Amendment
protection
from unreasonable search and seizure does not apply to persons stopped by
police in
Virginia for an offense for which police must issue a summons. **As FCPC
understands
it**, the police arrested
as a pretext to search his car. Finding evidence of further crimes in the
car, the
police charged
false arrest.”
See http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/2648031.pdf.
The case of Moore v. Commonwealth is
important for privacy and civil liberty because
the appeal by
which *requires* arresting officers to release suspects on a summons instead of
making a custodial arrest. An arrest is an event which apparently by case
law allows
the police to search you or your children’s car, house, or whatever other
property or
person might be nearby the arrestee.
Should the VA Supreme Court decline to uphold the Fourth Amendment, the case
may make
it’s way to the US Supreme Court as it seems to
present an important federal
question: “Does the Fourth Amendment permit evidence obtained pursuant to
an
unlawful arrest to be used in criminal proceedings.”
For anyone interested in attending Moore v. Commonwealth en banc, the hearing
will be
held tomorrow, Tuesday, September 20, 2005 at 10:00AM at the Court of
Appeals in
Richmond, located in the block at 8th, 9th, Grace, & Franklin Streets; the
entrance
is on 8th St.
************************************
4. VA State Police under fire for invasions of privacy at gun shows
************************************
In August 2005, an interagency task force including, but not limited to, the
federal
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“BATFE”), the Virginia
State
Police, Henrico County Police, and the Richmond City Police, executed a series
of
intrusive operations to investigate gun purchase transactions at the Richmond
and
other gun shows. Apparently police detained and questioned gun show
attendees, and
sent officers to their homes to tell their family and neighbors that they were
buying
a gun, probably violating one or more federal and state gun purchase data
privacy laws.
It looks like gun show host Showmasters may file suit
against the VA State Police,
the BATFE, and/or others (see “Gun Show Owner, Patrons May File Civil Rights
Suit,”
CNS.com, by Jeff Johnson,
VA Citizens Defense League (http://www.vcdl.org)
President Philip van Cleave reported
in an email alert dated
poor people:
“Many of the people who were affected live in public housing and were
supposedly
targeted because their lease didn't allow them to own guns. Such leases
are totally
ILLEGAL because of a
involved in enforcing an illegal action. Here is the law on leases and rental
agreements that BATFE was trying to enforce with some of the residency checks:
§
55-248.9. Prohibited provisions in rental agreements....6.
Agrees as a condition of
tenancy in public housing to a prohibition or restriction of any lawful
possession of
a firearm within individual dwelling units unless required by federal law or
regulation”
And now Springfield VA based Gun Owners of America (http://www.gunowners.org/)
Executive Director Larry Pratt has written the VA AG to take action to
prosecute the
police involved:
------------------------------------
September 2, 2005
The Honorable Judy Jagdmann
Office of the Attorney General
900 East Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Dear Attorney General Jagdmann:
I am writing to inquire of what actions are being taken regarding the
police misconduct at gun shows. These actions constitute serious
violations of law.
The federal government's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives has violated three federal statutes. Their conduct at the
gun shows constituted illegal inspections (18 USC 923(g)(3)(B)
) and
illegal dissemination of information from the instant background
checks (18 USC 923(g)(1)(B)). The BATFE committed fraud (18 USC 1001)
by lying to the owner of the gun show venue, telling
him that the
promoter of the show, Showmasters, had given
permission to install
government spy cameras on the building. This was an outright lie,
i.e., fraud.
Local and state police would get a call from the BATFE at the gun
show and go to the home of a prospective gun buyer with questions
designed to intimidate him and his family. They even went to
neighbors homes when they could find no family members to harass!
Understandably, the gun show lost money and customers because of this
rogue police conduct, not to mention the show of force by the police
that gave the impression of a state of siege at the show.
The
criminal conduct for over a year in a letter dated August 24 of this
year to a citizen making an FOIA request. And this raises several
poignant questions:
* Were the state and/or local police
party to the spy camera
fraud committed by the BATFE?
* What are the disciplinary actions being taken within the
ranks of the state police following this scandal coming to light?
* Since the state police were involved in this crime, and had
access to the form SP-65, will they continue to harass and intimidate
gun owners now that the BATFE is temporarily pulling in its horns (no
doubt waiting to resume what was intended to be a pilot project for
the rest of the country) until the controversy subsides?
* Did the state police get addresses of their victims from
running drivers license numbers?
* At what other gun shows have the state police conducted
these
criminal programs?
* What future plans do they have?
The list of charges that should be brought against the state and
local police offenders in this case should include (but not limited
to) violation of (g) (3) (B) which applies to all police, fraud under
Virginia statutes, conspiracy to commit fraud, and harassment
regarding the illegal residency checks.
Your assistance in bringing those culpable to account - and to the
bar of justice - will be greatly appreciated.
I look forward to hearing from you about what is being done.
Sincerely,
Larry Pratt
Executive Director
------------------------------------
************************************
5.
************************************
Ever make a phone call or send an email to/from the European Union
("EU")? Unless EU
bureaucrats are stopped, soon all transactional communication data must be
retained
by communications companies for government perusal. To TAKE ACTION
against this data
retention regime before it’s implemented in Europe and imported into the US by
the
folks who brought you the USAPATRIOT Act, go to
http://www.dataretentionisnosolution.com
and learn more about the issue and sign on
to the global petition against adoption of data retention laws by the EU.
************************************
6. VA Lt. Gov. candidate Leslie Byrnes backs “granny cams”
************************************
”Democrat Leslie L. Byrne wants nursing home residents or their guardians
to be able to install so-called "grannycams"
in their rooms to monitor
their care. She said the proposal would protect nursing homes from
invasion-of-privacy liability, as well as other residents' rights to
privacy if they didn't want to be under surveillance” (see “Byrne advocates
'grannycams' - Lieutenant-governor hopeful wants
nursing homes to permit them,” The
Richmond Times-Dispatch, by Pamela Stalsmith, 25
August 2005 at
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031784648852&path=%21news&s=1045855934842).
Upon FCPC inquiry into the specifics of the privacy protection for “grannies”
under
her proposal, Byrnes wrote back to FCPC:
“The "granny cam" legislation I proposed, which is also used in
can only be used if the person and his or her family wishes
it to be used. In the
case of a semi-private room, both residents of the room must agree. The
incidents of
abuse and neglect have been reduced where the cameras have been used.
continues to have some of the most lax laws concerning nursing home safety in
the
nation. I also believe we must increase staffing levels at these facilities. I
have
been fighting for nursing home reform for many years and the "granny
cam" idea is
just one of the way we can address the deplorable
conditions in which many of our
seniors find themselves.”
************************************
7. Privacy Quote: “Good afternoon ma’m,
do you know your husband/neighbor is…”
************************************
“Good afternoon ma’m,
do you know your husband/neighbor is buying a gun today at a gun show? We
would like you now to take a survey.” - Alleged greeting by
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Questions, or to be added/deleted from future Alerts? Contact Mike
Stollenwerk
atFCPCChairman@cox.net.