Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Home Network Installation: Real Soon Now

Posted on June 30, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

Our home remodelling project is advancing, but slowly. This week they put on the doors and windows in the new part of the house (we are still in Phase I: build new part; Phase II is 'rehab old part'; we were supposed to be finished with it all by now.) The plumbing and electric is mostly done and the ducting. If all goes well, the network guy is coming Real Soon Now to wire the home network…

Meanwhile I have to spec out the equipment. We settled on structured cat 5e cable that will handle phones and the network. I think I've picked a router and a switch, although I haven't ordered either. The old wireless router and switch will be relegated to serving as a mere access point and run off a different part of the network.

I ordered patch panels and also a wall mount for them as I still don't have a clear idea of what sort of rack or other platform I need to hold the gear. Something pint-sized compared to the professional gear, I'd imagine. Maybe this?

The gear is going to live wedged in a very wide closet about 26”deep, with the patch panel living on the 26” wall. In the fullness of time it may hold more switches, a server or two, some phone gear, and who knows what. I think I want a rack with wheels rather than the kind you screw into the floor and (9') ceiling, but beyond that there seem to be a bewildering number of choices, all of which need accessories to hold anything.

Of course, I won't get to use any of this stuff until that side of the house has the electricity turned on and is ready to move into. I just hope that installing the new network doesn't require pulling the plug on the existing, temporary, DSL connection. If it does, I may have to try pointing a Pringles can at the University.

Posted in Adventures in Remodeling | 3 Comments

Porn Fight To Continue; Kidnapping Suit Stopped

Posted on June 29, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

The Supreme Court finished out its term by Throwing Out a Human Rights Lawsuit, and sending the Child Porn statute back for more consideration of its chilling effects (or not) in light of improvements in filtering technology.

Full text:

Judging only from the press reports, these are both ominous: It's not good that our government can kidnap people with no fear of civil liability. It's true that there is a diplomatic protest system, but it's very hard for foreign nations to get much from a superpower. Our courts are a greater constraint on our government than diplomats (note: this is only a claim as to relative efficacy, no more).

The Ashcroft v. ACLU 5-4 is going to put a lot of pressure on people to mandate internet architectures that are filtering-friendly. Although they don't have to be privacy-destroying technologies, they tend to be. And that could be quite ugly.

I wish I had time to write more about these decisions (and finish part III of my discussion of yesterday's trifecta), but I have a lot of preparing to do for my Amsterdam trip. I'm sure that the SCOTUS Blog will have lots of info.

If I get very organized, which is dubious, I may queue up an item or two to go online while I'm en route, but generally speaking it's possible blogging may be sparse for the rest of this week. It's certain to be less than the recent furious pace.

Meanwhile I'm waiting for someone to call this court's ducking of some major issues, and picking its shots on others, an exercise of the (I thought discredited?) Bickelian 'Passive Virtues'.

Posted in Law: Constitutional Law | 6 Comments

Dumbest FOIA Excuse Ever?

Posted on June 29, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

David Sklar, Justice Department's Fragile Read-Never Database. This must surely be a candidate for the dumbest FOIA excuse ever:

The Center for Public Integrity filed a Freedom of Information request to get a copy of the Foreign Agent Registration database, which includes information on activities by registered lobbyists on behalf on foreign governments.

The Justice Department said that it couldn't provide a copy of the entire database because doing so could destroy the database.

Meanwhile, you can go to the appropriate office in Washington DC and pay fifty cents a page to make copies of documents. The information is available in (expensive) page-by-page drips, but not as a whole.

I am curious to learn about the quantum database software in use that could subject the data to changes by reading it. Or perhaps the 8 inch floppies that the data is stored on would get too hot and melt if they had to spin so fast to copy entire files?

It's hard to imagine what's behind this. Terminal incompetence? Cussed desire to undermine FOIA? Halliburton provided the equipment?

Or could it be a Rovian fear that someone will cross-index the database with, say, the lists of donors to the Bush campaign?

Posted in Politics: US | 4 Comments

Today’s Trifecta–What Does it All Mean? (Pt. II: Guantanamo)

Posted on June 28, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

“What is presently at stake is only whether the federal courts have jurisdiction to determine the legality of the Executive’s potentially indefinite detention of individuals who claim to be wholly innocent of wrongdoing.” And the answer to that question is “affirmative.”

So Guantanamo is not like the Antarctic, a place with no law (cf. Smith v. US). I strongly think this is the right result, but I'm not entirely happy with how the majority got there.

Continue reading →

Posted in Guantanamo, Law: Constitutional Law, Law: International Law | 1 Comment

‘When can I keep an enemy combatant?’ The Color Chart Version

Posted on June 28, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

Aaron Swartz, the man who brought blogdom NYT permalinks and cool tools for finding them, presents, When can I keep an enemy combatant?.

This is a lot easier to follow than the pure text kind of analysis.

Posted in Law: Constitutional Law | 7 Comments

Other Voices On Today’s Decisions

Posted on June 28, 2004 by Michael Froomkin

Now that I've sorta figured out what I think, other takes on today's decisions:

Scrivener's Error,

Like Gaul—or, more the the point, gall—the detainee mess is divided into three parts. One division is the obvious one: Hamdi (PDF, 822kb), Padilla (PDF, 517kb), and Rasul (PDF, 520kb). That's certainly the way the three decisions will be divided in the media. However, there is a much more logical and important division into three parts: civil procedure, government power, and military necessity. Just to be different, that's how I'm dividing things. I also think it gives some interesting perspectives on exactly what was going on.

Lots at SCOTUS Blog

Greg Goelzhauser, Did Congress authorize indefinite detention?

Marstonalia on Hamdi

What happens to Hamdi himself — and what sort of rules exist for future cases of this sort — will now be heavily dependent on what kind of procedure is implemented below. Four members of the Court explicitly left the door open to military tribunals (see p. 31), and Thomas could probably be relied upon to provide a fifth vote. But the government is on notice that four members of the Court — and possibly more, depending on the views of those who joined O'Connor's opinion — are not going to be deferential.

Legal Theory Blog has a round-up of the votes and other comments.

Update: Read Balkin

Posted in Law: Constitutional Law | 3 Comments