Tiburon, Calif., is a twee little place. If you aren't familiar with the old-country colloquialism "twee," it means, well, something like "precious." Like one of those dogs Paris Hilton used to carry in her purse.
When one wanders through its little streets, just north of San Francisco, one gets the sense that a few of the residents, on seeing someone who appears not to be from around those parts, reach for their handkerchief and hand sanitizer.
How can one, therefore, be surprised that a meeting of the Tiburon Town Council voted on Wednesday by 4 to 0 to install cameras to photograph every single car that enters or leaves this little Disneyland?
The San Francisco Chronicle reported that this may be the first community in the country to have defended itself with cameras in such a way. The idea is to photograph the license plates of every car that treads Tiburon's hallowed roads and compare the information with the police's list of the stolen and nefarious.
The Tiburon police chief, Michael Cronin, told the Chronicle: "I think it makes the community safer."
There are certainly even more definitions of the word "safety" than of the word "twee." However, it is heartwarming that the Tiburon police--inspired, perhaps, by Google--promise that the information will be kept for only 30 days.
The strange thing is that Tiburon, a northern suburb of San Francisco, isn't exactly Oakland. It doesn't enjoy high crime figures. Indeed, some might say that the most criminal elements in the place are to be seen on the racks of its clothes stores.
The town is fortunate, however, in that it is on a peninsula, from which there are only two roads. So the total cost of putting up six cameras is estimated to be no more than $200,000, which works out at something near $20 per resident. (Tiburon residents enjoy, by the way, a median income somewhere above $125,000.)
I know there will be some who believe you can never have enough security cameras in this heinous and half-witted world. But perhaps some will worry that the police might make rather instinctive judgments about the provenance of certain cars and their intentions.
Others will wonder whether this decision might affect businesses in Tiburon. Still others will ponder whether the police might be willing to offer a Web site showing the movements of all its officers.
I merely wonder how many people, knowing they might have to go to Tiburon for a meal of organic Kobe beef, rosemary ice cream, and plenty of Stags Leap cabernet, will choose to remove their front license plates. You know, just to be on the safe side.
There is a view that removing all 15-year-old boys from this earth would not only help global warming but also our cultural horizon.
Supporters of this view will then be heartened to hear the story reported by the Chicago Tribune of a 15-year-old boy who suffered a serious trauma. His parents took away his Xbox.
The boy, a resident of Buffalo Grove, Ill., which sounds like the sort of place where discipline is imparted along traditional lines, decided to express his feelings and exert his identity. He called 911 in order to ask the police whether his parents were, indeed, within their rights to remove his gaming equipment from his sensitive little fingers.
However, brave as all 15-year-olds are, he appears to have hung up. So the Buffalo Grove police which, on its website, declares that it is "dedicated to making our community a better place to live and work", wandered along to his house.
Where they may have just laughed until their shirts billowed like the kaftans of the late Luciano Pavarotti.
Commander Steve Husak told the Tribune that the officers not only told the little tyke that parents do, indeed, have the right to take away his gadgetry, but that it might be an idea to listen to what they had to say.
It is not recorded why the parents took away the boy's Xbox. Perhaps it was because he's a vastly intelligent youth who will soon be the governor of Illinois.
Vermont is an interesting place with some very interesting residents. Brigham Young and John Deere are both said to hail from this mountainous state.
But will either turn out to be quite as fascinating as Jacob Rehm?
According to WCAX News, Rehm stands accused of illegally borrowing a $500,000 tour bus and taking it for a little spin. Rehm is a former employee of the bus company and will make an appearance in the Vermont District Court on Tuesday.
However, something else will also be making a court appearance at the same time--a video entitled "The Fabulous Bus Ride," which was posted on YouTube on November 5.
It does not appear to have been made by a concerned and civic-minded passerby. No, it is alleged to have been made by Rehm.
In the notes accompanying the YouTube posting, someone whose handle is vudushuz, says: "Vermont to Connecticut in the Middle-O-the-Night :)Originally thought about heading to Pennsylvania but... anyways, stopped in Bradford for GREAT pizza at the Exit."
As you will see from the embedded piece, the video is quite a work of art, with music by Yes and some very interesting camera work.
I wonder what the judge will think of the alleged director.
Sometimes a man can be betrayed by his wife in a good way.
A 61-year-old woman from Bridgend, Wales, had been married to her husband, for almost 20 years when, according to a court report from the Telegraph, she noticed a curious message on their computer at home.
She focused and realized that the message had been sent by an underage girl to whom her husband had been sending messages in a chat room. The message was of a sexual nature and included her husband's original message to the girl.
Perhaps some spouses would have been so stunned as to not know how to react.
This woman was different. She decided to use another computer in a different part of their house. She then entered the same chat room her husband had been using, posed as a young girl and made contact with him.
(Credit:
CC James Jhs/Flickr)
The prosecuting lawyer told the court: "Her husband had no idea but soon he was chatting with his own wife, believing it was a 14-year-old girl."
The woman didn't merely get written replies from her husband. He also used a Webcam to film himself for their supposed mutual pleasure.
Still, the court heard, she didn't confront him. Instead, she went straight to the police and the British National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
The man, who has grown-up daughters, only discovered that it was his wife who had betrayed him when interviewed by the police. He was given a three-year community order. He was also banned from having any contact with children under the age of 18, a ban that holds for both the real and the online worlds.
After the case, the woman, who is now divorcing her husband, told the Telegraph: "I did the right thing and I don't regret it. Now I just need some time to think and put all this behind me."
However, she was indignant that her husband did not receive a more stringent penalty. She said: "I thought the judge would be a lot harder and that he might go to prison."
Sometimes, we never even know those closest to us. Or sometimes we do, and then one day, they just change.
Here's the story. Or at least most of it.
Some 19 years ago, a man in Germany, together with his half brother, reportedly murdered an actor named Walter Sedlmayr. The man was convicted and served 15 years in jail.
Now he is free. And, according to Wired, he has exercised that freedom by instructing lawyers, the elegantly named firm of Stopp and Stopp, to sue Wikipedia.
The lawsuit claims that German privacy law, designed to help criminals re-integrate into society, prevents the man being named in association with Walter Sedlmayr's murder.
Wired quotes Jennifer Granick from the Electronic Frontier Foundation as saying that the lawyers are not only demanding that publications change whatever they write now, but that online archives must endure revision, too.
In writing to Wikipedia, the lawyers offered a very interesting approach: "As your article deals with a local German public figure (such as the actor Walter Sedlmayr), we expect you are aware that you have to comply with applicable German law."
Well, gosh, perhaps not everyone realizes when they mention, say, Boris Becker or that interesting actress who was in the first of the Bourne movies, that one is subject to German law when one does so.
Geek.com quotes the Electronic Frontier Foundation as adding: "At stake is the integrity of history itself. If all publications have to abide by the censorship laws of any and every jurisdiction just because they are accessible over the global Internet, then we will not be able to believe what we read, whether about Falun Gong (censored by China), the Thai king (censored under lèse majesté) or German murders."
(Credit:
CC Schoschie/Flickr)
You might be wondering why I have not mentioned this German murderer's name. You see, as I write, I am reminded that the world seems to revel in the persona of murderers. In some slightly twisted way, they become figures of fascination.
I have a strange suspicion that the more the name of Walter Sedlmayr's murderer is mentioned, the more famous he will become. And the more famous he will become, the more money he might be able to make from the fame he claims not to desire.
So I am conducting a fame-reduction experiment. Moreover, I know that everyone who chooses to discover his name can do so in a myriad of ways.
I wonder how many people tried to access information about this man who murdered the German actor Walter Sedlmayr and how many people have done so in recent days.
I also wonder how Wikipedia will choose to respond to this interesting and rather revisionist-minded lawsuit. At the time of writing, the full names of both murderers are still there in the Wikipedia entry for Walter Sedlmayr.
However, the Wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard has a spirited discussion about all aspects of the case.
The solution proposed by a poster called Zara 1709 on the noticeboard is to "remove the full name from the article and the article talk page, but leave in the edit history of the article and the talk page. We would even have some sources that mention the full names in the reference, simply because they provide other, relevant information, too."
The precedent for this is the so-called Star Wars kid case, in which a 14-year-old Canadian boy waved around a golf-ball retriever like a lightsaber and then endured painful taunts, leading to an equally painful lawsuit.
Zara1709 noted that: "It is quite important to point out that, on Wikipedia, regard for people's privacy applies to criminals and former criminals, too."
However, another poster, Baseball Bugs, dissented: "There is no justification whatsoever for censoring the names of the killers. The notability argument is bogus, there is no privacy or BLP issue, and the 'doing harm' argument is crystal-ball and thus is irrelevant. And some anonymous German judge has no jurisdiction over Wikipedia."
In reading all this, I am left with the words that were often drubbed into me by teachers: "History is written by the winners."
So if this German request succeeds, might some consider that the winner is Wolfgang Wehrle, the man who, with his half brother Manfred Lauber, murdered Walter Sedlmayr 19 years ago? Dash it, I couldn't help myself. I hope I'm not causing undue work for some future editor.
Facebook seems to have contributed to countless broken love affairs, divorces, and insane levels of jealousy. People pry into your friend lists and updates until they sometimes reach conclusions far beyond reality. How lovely, then, that a mere status update appears to have saved a Harlem man from jail.
According to The New York Times, Rodney Bradford decided to update his status with a call from the soul. "Where's my pancakes?" is the Times' translation of a status update it says was written in "indecipherable street slang." The fact that Bradford did this at 11:49 a.m. on October 17, using his father's computer, meant that he would not have to suffer pancakes of a more distasteful nature in the local penitentiary.
(Credit:
CC Slushpup/Flickr)
Bradford, you see, was arrested the next day for robbery. However, after he was booked, his lawyer was intelligent enough to update the district attorney with news of Bradford's Facebooking.
A subpoena was swiftly flung the way of the Zuckerbergville crew so that they might reveal whether the timing and location of the update were correct. They were, meaning Bradford could update his criminal status to "cleared."
There are some, however, who are not entirely convinced the charges should have been dropped. Joseph Pollini, a teacher at the Department of Law, Police Science and Criminal Justice Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice told the Times: "With a username and password, anyone can input data in a Facebook page."
He also offered a dire warning of the infinite dastardliness of people Bradford's age: "Some of the brightest people on the Internet are teenagers. They know the Internet better than a lot of people. Why? Because they use it all the time."
Oh, why is it so hard to give young people the benefit of the doubt--especially on Facebook?
I have a theory about folks who appear on TV. Those who seem very nice are probably not so nice in real life.
And those who seem like those mindless, destructive winds that blow through small towns and make a lot of people miserable and destitute are probably rather charming when the red light isn't on.
On this basis, I would like to invite Fox News' Glenn Beck to dinner.
One of the things I hope he will chat with me about over a fine glass of Miner Family viognier is why he reportedly is continuing with legal action against a site that, some feel, rather parodies Beck's own inimitably ineffable style.
It seems that the genesis of the site was a roast of the comedian Bob Saget. In it, fellow comedian Gilbert Gottfried suggests that Saget eliminated another human being in an inordinately unpleasant manner sometime around 1990.
This was funny because it was not true. And its funniness spread to the forums of Fark, where it was attached to the alleged insinuations of Glenn Beck.
Then, in early September, a chap called Isaac Eiland-Hall decided to create a site that essentially repeated this joke in its URL and continued to make Beck the object of the joke.
Eiland-Hall didn't actually suggest on the site's pages that Beck had performed those grievous misdeeds, which essentially seem to have embraced the areas of murder and rape.
But now, according to Jackson New Jersey Online, Beck's legal beagles intend to continue fox-hunting Eiland-Hall.
Beck originally filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization, an agency of the United Nations that enjoys the charming tag: "Encouraging Creativity and Innovation."
Beck rather wanted it to discourage Eiland-Hall, arguing that the site is an entity of bad faith, is libelous, and would confuse real human beings.
And the legal documents, which you can find here, do offer fine insight into the human mind and all of its vicissitudes.
You will discover arguments referencing Hitler hating Santa and finding out the truth about Kanye West. You will find serious and pained reference to the concept that "every time you masturbate, God kills a kitten".
Richard Gere also makes an appearance. Yes, in reference to the wonderfully mythical gerbil tale.
For those of you with a purely legal bent, the papers offer some interesting trademark and First Amendment issues too.
The latter revolve around the idea that given this dispute is between two Americans, it should be handled with respect to the First Amendment. As for the former, is Glenn Beck's trademark merely Glenn Beck? Or is it anything that includes the words Glenn and Beck?
Oh, perhaps I might not have mentioned it until now, but the site's URL is GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com.
Not an easy one to remember or type. And, interestingly, this now has a home page that turns the assertion of its URL into a question.
Eiland-Hall denies he is suggesting that Beck committed heinous acts. Well, not those in the URL, anyway. And he insists it is clear that it's a parody.
However he declares on the site: "We are definitely accusing Glenn Beck of using questionable tactics in order to spread his message and garner higher ratings. You see, we believe Beck uses tactics like the top part of this site (...) and he uses them with no disclaimers, with all apparent seriousness."
I know some of you might feel that one of these questionable tactics might include suggesting that the president is a racist. (I embed a video with the evidence here, in case, well, someone might believe I was offering a parody.)
However, I really would prefer to pop down to my local Sushi Ran with Beck. We can get a table in the wine bar and chat this one out in a fair and balanced way. Isn't that the best way to sort these things out?
I mean, trying to get an agency of the United Nations to resolve anything is surely an excessively hopeful tactic.
We all, at one time or another, fail to think straight when under pressure. However, when we decide the time has come to rob a bank, arrow-like mental functionality is imperative for our tool belt.
I mention this only because of the tale of Garry Lee Damon. Damon is currently being subjected to the police's careful hospitality on suspicion of having robbed a Citibank in Santa Clara, Calif.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the police looked at surveillance photos of the robber and wondered who he might be.
I am told this is a telescope linked to a GPS satellite. Oh, we're all being followed now.
(Credit: CC 37Hz/Flickr)They showed the photos to a parole officer, who seemed to feel he might recognize the man in question. For he allegedly bore a remarkable resemblance to one of his parolees.
The parole officer decided to perform a swift technological check of Damon's whereabouts at the time in question.
You see, Damon was wearing a GPS. And the information from the GPS allegedly suggested that he was, indeed, in the aforementioned Citibank at the inappropriate time. Which prompted the police to consider this more than a coincidence.
I know it cannot be easy knowing that one has a tail at every moment in one's life. Ask any squirrel just how skittish it makes them.
However, I cannot help wondering whether one should perhaps steer clear of the potential of committing crimes when one's whereabouts, thanks to modern technology, are not exactly a secret.
A man has been accused of hacking at hotel peepholes and replacing them with tiny cameras in order to shoot voyeur videos of ESPN presenter Erin Andrews in the nude.
According to the New York Post, the videos, which in July caused many males of uncertain character to risk computer virus invasion in order to view them, were allegedly shot by Michael Barrett, 48, of Westmont, Ill.
Barrett has been arrested and charged with interstate stalking. The criminal complaint states that Barrett allegedly acted "with the intent to harass, to place under surveillance with intent to harass and intimidate, and to cause substantial emotional distress to a person in another state."
In announcing the arrest, FBI agents went into some detail as to the technical means by which the videos were shot. Each of the eight videos is alleged to have been shot through the peepholes of two hotel rooms in which Andrews was staying. Barrett is accused of making efforts to secure the room next to hers.
The criminal complaint contains this quote from an FBI agent: "The inner eyepiece of the peephole screws into the sleeve for the peephole. The eyepiece had been tampered with and was shortened, and it appeared to have been hack-sawed."
The FBI believes that having hacked the peepholes, Barrett allegedly used a cell phone camera or other miniature device to shoot his infamous videos, which were originally thought to have been posted on the French DailyMotion.fr site.
Someone then tried to sell the videos to the nice folks over at TMZ.com. However, being wise to the nuances of invasion of privacy, TMZ contacted the ESPN presenter's lawyers. The feds say that the e-mail address used to make the offer of sale led them to Barrett.
For her part, Andrews, who was understandably outraged by the videos, is now considering legal action against both the person who shot them and any site that published them, according to the Associated Press.
She told Oprah last month that when she learned of their appearance on the Web: "I kept screaming: 'I'm done. My career is over. I'm done. Get it off. Get it off the Internet.'"
However, she has returned to what is, for so many, her rightful role on ESPN's college football coverage.
We all express frustration with our electronica in different ways.
Some shout at Comcast cable boxes that refuse to delete recorded shows, leaving no room for new ones.
Others smack their microwaves when, commanded to heat some old spaghetti bolognese, they get stuck with 45 seconds to go.
But few are those who threaten to blast their gadget and actually mean it.
Which makes one wonder what thoughts might have been brewing at the Kenwood Towne Centre Apple store in Cincinnati on Thursday.
According to WCPO9 (which is a Cincinnati TV station rather than C-3PO's illicit lover), Donald Goodrich, 38, wafted into this very Apple store. His cup appears not to have been overflowing with joy for his iPhone.
Court papers do not seem to be specific as to what element might have been malfunctioning on his 115.5mm-long gadget. However, they do allege that Goodrich told an Apple store employee that he was "so mad, I could pop a 9mm at it."
I am not sure how many people are so intimidated by the Apple store's graphic perfection and preternatural youthfulness that they actually take an extra 9mm with them.
However, the allegation is not merely that Goodrich told the employee that he would, indeed, blast his iPhone. For he is accused of revealing that he happened to have the perfect little weapon behind the right side of his shirt. (Strangely, it was a black shirt.)
You will perhaps experience a sense of stunned discomfort when I tell you that Goodrich has, indeed, been charged with aggravated menacing and causing fear of harm to an Apple employee.
Oh, as well as something of a concealed weapons violation. You see, he had a concealed weapons permit, but omitted to mention to the arresting deputy that he actually had the gun on his person, according to WCPO9. A frustrating iPhone can sometimes affect one's memory.
If your iPhone is causing you difficulties, don't smoke it, stroke it. Or take it to an Apple store where a genius will offer counseling.
Taking a gun to a gadget is like taking a blow-up doll to a dinner party. It doesn't reflect well on you at all.
