Category Archives: Privacy

In Which a Political Party Gets It

Posted on by
Reply

…and the IOC doesn’t.

Norway, led by its Conservative Party, has declined to support a bid for the 2022 Winter Olympics originally offered by its capital, Oslo. The nation was put off by cost concerns—the 2014 Sochi Winter Games ran to $50 billion—and they were put off by IOC…let’s call it arrogance.

Among other IOC demands were requirements for a cocktail reception with the King of Norway (they’re a constitutional monarchy) and special traffic lanes set aside in the middle of Oslo’s busy thoroughfares so that fans of the Games could have priority and their own paths to the games.

Of course the IOC denies all this. IOC spokesman Mark Adams blamed the Norwegian media of misreporting the situation.

The documents have been widely and often deliberately misreported. Even a cursory glance would show they contain suggestions and guidance, not demands. These were gathered from previous games organizers and are advice on how to improve the games experience for all.

Of course. It couldn’t possibly that the only purpose of including such “suggestions” in their request for proposal is that the IOC intended them to be met; never say that these were words to the wise and that not satisfying them would count against Oslo in its competition for the hosting.

And [emphasis added]

The IOC’s 7,000-page manual on running the games does say that a pre-Olympic gathering for IOC members should include a meeting with the head of state, and insists upon a strict protocol for the order in which he should greet his guests and seating in the stadium.

The manual on protocols also says the opening ceremony “is usually preceded by an aperitif and followed by a reception.”

Because it really is all about the IOC members and not the athletes or the games.

Norway also remembered this little tidbit from the ’14 Winter Games:

…the IOC…reprimanded four Norwegian female cross-country skiers in Sochi for wearing black armbands in memory of an athlete’s brother who died on the eve of the games.

No, IOC, you don’t get a special party or to hobnob with government leadership just because you think you’re special.

No, IOC, Games attendees and fans don’t get a special lane through traffic on your host country’s busy roads and streets.

You guys aren’t as special as you think you are. You are, though, just as precious as you think.

A Thought on Birth Control

Posted on by
Reply

Dr Manny Alvarez, one of the house doctors for Fox News, had a useful piece the other day on teen birth control, in particular IUDs. He’s basically spring-loaded against them for teenage girls, for a number of reasons.

Very common side effects of placing this foreign object inside the womb include cramping, spotting, heavy menstrual flow and possibly even an infection that could lead to a condition called pelvic inflammatory disease, ultimately rendering the individual infertile.

Not to mention, uterine perforation—although extremely rare….

Rather than IUDs, Alvarez pushed for more sexual education information from (and for, say I) parents and physicians.

This is a right step, but I think there’s another aspect to IUD use that’s overlooked. Pregnancy is a serious thing that disrupts and alters lives and is the creation of a new one, and pregnancy does this whether it’s wanted or accidental.

An IUD, leaving aside its side effects, is a fire-and-forget device: by design, it’s intended to block pregnancy for a long time, so the woman and her partner don’t have to think about it while they’re being sexually active. This is fine for adults.

However, the teen years are where habits are being set on matters regarding sex and the outcomes of sex. It’s useful, then—it’s actively beneficial—for the teen girl to think about this more than on just the single occasion of getting the IUD installed. She’ll form better habits regarding safe sex (including STDs, even though birth control, per se, does nothing to counter these) if she’s encouraged to think about it more often, at the least on the occasion of taking her daily birth control pill.

The same habit benefit accrues to the each time use of a condom by the boy, even if the condom isn’t as effective as a birth control pill.

Obamatalk

Posted on by
Reply

President [Barack] Obama on Friday sought to fine-tune his response to the growing Islamic State terror* threat, vowing to “degrade and ultimately defeat” the network—seemingly abandoning, at least publicly, his previously stated goal of making them a “manageable problem.”

“We are going to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL, the same way we have gone after Al Qaeda,” Obama said in Wales, during a press conference at the close of a meeting of NATO allies.

And

Obama on Friday claimed “there was unity” at the NATO summit over the belief that ISIS poses a “significant threat to NATO members” and regarding a readiness to take action.

“I did not get any resistance or pushback to the basic notion that we have a critical role to play in rolling back this savage organization,” Obama said.

This business of “the same way we have gone after al Qaeda” isn’t reassuring, given the metastasization of al Qaeda, and its success across the Maghreb, Yemen, eastern Africa, the growing power of its Boko Haram affiliate, ….

Yep—he’s toughened his words, all right. But he’s not toughened his actions.

This is just empty chatter. Obamatalk.

 

*Come on, guys. Their “state” is a delusional concept. This is ISIS (or ISIL, if you prefer; it’s a trivial distinction), and they’re terrorists. You should be talking about the ISIS (ISIL) terrorist threat. Full stop.

In Which I both Agree and Disagree

Posted on by
Reply

…with a Supreme Court decision. In Mccullen v Coakley, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that placed a mandatory 35 foot buffer zone around abortion clinics within which anti-abortion protests were prohibited. The purpose of the law, to allow women wishing an abortion unfettered access to the clinic, was met, but overbroadly, according to the court.

That’s the part with which I agree. If we’re going to argue as I have in the past that “free speech zones,” like those on too many college campuses, unconstitutionally restrict free speech, then so does the other side of that coin: non-free speech zones. Either we have free speech in this country, or we do not.

But Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court, displayed a sad misunderstanding of that right of free speech. In his rationale for striking Massachusetts’ law, Roberts wrote

McCullen explained that she often cannot distinguish patients from passersby outside the Boston clinic in time to initiate a conversation before they enter the buffer zone.

And [emphasis added]

As explained, because petitioners in Boston cannot readily identify patients before they enter the zone, they often cannot approach them in time to place literature near their hands….

But this ignores the other person’s (here, the woman seeking the abortion) free speech right to choose what conversation she will hear, especially when that unwanted conversation is directed at her and not, from the public square, to no one in particular (and so equally to everyone). Roberts’ thesis also ignores the intended recipient’s free speech right not to have materials pressed on her without her prior consent.

I disagree with Roberts’ rationale.

In the end, an opinion founded on bad law is itself a bad opinion, even if it reaches the right conclusion.

Cell Phone Searches

Posted on by
5

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday police must almost always obtain a warrant before searching mobile devices seized when arresting someone….

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the Court’s unanimously held opinion, said

Modern cellphones aren’t a technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans “the privacies of life.”

Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cellphone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple—get a warrant[.]

With this ruling the Court, among other things, placed the contents of cell phones outside the permissible warrantless searches allowed pursuant to an arrest that’s for the safety of the police (to ensure, for instance, the arrestee has no weapons or other devices that he could use to harm the arresting officer(s) and/or to attempt escape) and to safeguard related evidence until a warrant otherwise could be obtained.

Someone wrote earlier that this is the ruling that was warranted.

The opinion can be read here.