There is nothing against the law about photographing federal buildings from public property. And yet, there have been plenty of stories about security guards and law enforcement trying to block photographers from taking those shots. There have been stories of seized cameras, demands to delete photos, etc., and the usual defense is that they’re just “protecting against terrorism.” However, after a settlement in a lawsuit concerning a guy who was arrested for videotaping outside the Federal courthouse in NY, Homeland Security has issued a notice to federal employees not to disrupt the photographing of federal buildings. An excerpt from the now released document (which is fully embedded below):

For properties under the protective jurisdiction of FPS, there are currently no general security regulations prohibiting exterior photography of any federally owned or leased building, absent a written local rule or regulation established by a Court Security Committee or Facility Security Committee. Furthermore, it is important to understand that this regulation does not prohibit photography by individuals of the exterior of federally owned or leased facilities from publicly accessible spaces such as streets, sidewalks, parks and plazas…. Absent reasonable suspicion or probable cause, law enforcement and security personnel and (sic) must allow individuals to photograph the exterior of federally owned or leased facilities from publicly accessible space.

The report does say they can go speak to the photographer to determine the purpose of the photography if they believe it’s warranted. However, unless they establish a higher bar of suspicion, they need to allow the photography to continue. They also are not allowed to seize cameras and cannot demand that a photographer delete the contents of the camera.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story





&partnerID=167&key=segment”/> .8626,cat.TechBiz
.rss”/>

Techdirt Mike Masnick

We’ve had plenty of problems with Senator Patrick Leahy on this blog, as his push is to always make intellectual property laws worse, such as with ProIP and now COICA. However, sometimes he does things that deserve kudos, such as his plan to investigate the TSA’s new scanners, calling them “invasive.” Leahy apparently wants the Senate Judiciary Committee (which he heads) to examine whether or not the machines really make sense. Of course, perhaps we should withhold any kudos until we find out what comes out of that “review…”

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story





&partnerID=167&key=segment”/> .8626,cat.TechBiz
.rss”/>

Techdirt Mike Masnick

Hopefully by now, most people who have upgraded to a smartphone (such as an iPhone, Blackberry, or Android) have realized that it’s not simply a phone, but a powerful mobile computer which just happens to be about the size of a 3″ x 5″ index card.  And just like your big heavy personal computer or laptop, it contains all sorts of personal information—perhaps too much information—about you and what you do.  If you haven’t come to that conclusion yet, the increasing police power of the state may soon force you to.  It should also force you to take steps to protect yourself from what could become an overzealous police officer should you ever find yourself in the unfortunate situation of being arrested (even for a misdemeanor).

For me, a big part of being a technology and internet lawyer is privacy law.  While privacy appears to have all but  disappeared in this 24/7 networked world where everyone posts a whole lot of information about themselves, it’s easy to forget that not everything is everyone’s business—especially the police, who may seek to use such information against you for violations of laws that you may not have realized even existed.  Think it can’t happen?  As a lawyer, I’ve seen many overzealous police officers, state agents, and prosecutors looking to establish a name for themselves.  Civil liberties be damned.  (Of course, there are many good ones too, but it’s often the other ones we hear about.)

An insightful article by Ryan Radia discusses the recent California Supreme Court decision in People v. Diaz, which held that police officers can lawfully search a mobile phone on a person they arrest without first obtaining a search warrant.  The court found that mobile phones, like cigarette packs and wallets, fall under the “search incident to arrest” exception of the Fourth Amendment.  While the Supreme Court may have the final say as to whether this is legal, many state courts have come to the same conclusion as California has.

Most significantly, Radia discusses the importance of taking measures to make your smartphone as secure as possible, such as full disk encryption of all content on the device.  He notes that password protection—which is certainly an important first step—may not be enough and is easy to bypass due not only to the rise of digital forensics, but the vulnerabilities in your smartphone’s own operating system that a forensic expert can exploit easily.  While Radia notes that no mobile encryption system at the moment is perfect or especially secure, this will hopefully change.

If you have a few minutes, the article is definitely worth a read.  Whether people realize it or not, privacy is one of the most daunting issues facing us (and lawyers) in this information age, and the law has difficulty keeping up.  And as the Diaz case shows when the law does catch up, it’s usually not in our favor, but works to the benefit of the state’s police power.  At least for now.

Actually, this post is really about those brave souls who decide to sue the IRS, one of the most powerful agencies there ever was.  While I was in law school (which seems like a long time ago), I took a tax law class to learn a little bit—and I do mean a little bit—about tax law and our complicated tax code.  Here’s what I took away from the class: (1) I didn’t want to be a tax lawyer; and (2) Don’t mess with the IRS.  Duh.

While this blog usually addresses various legal issues in technology-related matters, I also like to address those brave souls who go the distance in litigation—especially against a government agency.  That is no easy task.  As someone who often finds himself in court and has fought agencies in the past, I found this brief article to be interesting, although not very surprising.   

It highlights the 10 most litigated tax issues and the less-than-optimistic results.  A few of the areas addresssed in the article include gross income, summons enforcement, deductibility of trade/business expenses, family status issues, and penalties for failure to file.  While only a relative handful of cases in each area went all the way through to the end, the amount of time a taxpayer won fully in 8 of the areas ranged from 0% (you can’t get lower than that) to a whopping 10%.  The taxpayer prevailed in issues involving the joint liability of spouses and penalties involving frivolous litigation 24% to 31% of the time.  This is only slightly more encouraging.

The article only discusses those cases that are litigated from start to finish.  It makes no mention of the many cases that, in all likelihood, settled at some point along the way.  Still, I applaud those individuals who do take a stand.  It was an expensive one to be sure, but they did it.  Agencies of all types and sizes usually (but not always) have little to lose by going the distance.  Most people will either tire or be unable to keep paying their lawyers to fight.  And for that select group taxpayers who did prevail, I especially salute you.  Sometimes, you just gotta do what you think is right.  What could be more American than that?