Elliott C. Back: In Aere Aedificare

If you’re an American, or otherwise living in the USA, stories like That Money Is GUILTY! should make you extremely angry:

Deputy Chris Engel, 25, had been on the job just two weeks when a routine traffic stop Dec. 20 turned into the biggest cash seizure the Nebraska county has ever seen. The driver’s story didn’t add up, Engel said, so he did a little more investigating. The driver was not arrested — or even ticketed for going 10 mph over the 75 mph speed limit. (He was warned.) But the investigation is ongoing, Engel said. The Nebraska State Patrol and the Drug Enforcement Agency are assisting in the investigation.

“Chris is a very aggressive young deputy,” Hanson said. Investigators don’t know if they will be able to connect the money to a drug operation, Hanson said, but the important work already has been done. “The big thing is he grabbed 69 (thousand dollars) and took it away from them,” Hanson said of the money seized. “That’s going right straight to the heart of the matter.”

Thanks to America’s asset forfeiture laws, Police can and will take your property from you if they want to, or suspect they can. Usually this occurs when carrying large amounts of cash under the assumption that anyone carrying a large amount of cash must be guilty of a crime. The legal proceedings are dubious, as the Federal government brings a civil case against your seized cash:

The US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove on a “preponderance of the evidence” that it is not.

On a practical level, the law enforcement agents making the seizures are either (a) funding their departments or (b) acquiring equity that will personally benefit them, a clear conflict of interest between revenue generating activities and lawfulness. This came from the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), passed by Congress in 1970, which sought to reduce crime by eliminating its financial motivations. For example, in the case of a drug dealer, RICO would let police take his pimped out car, stacks of cash, and other such business accessories, making it unprofitable and embarrassing to be in that profession.

The Mesa Tribune did an analysis of the RICO cases filed in Arizona between January 1990 to November 1993. The nine local agencies it analyzed were the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, the D.P.S. (Department of Public Safety), the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, and the Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tempe police departments:

• Nearly three-fourths of the people who lose property in forfeiture cases are never charged with a crime.
• About two-thirds of the people who had property seized had no criminal records in Maricopa County.
• One of every six people whose property was seized was an uninvolved third party who was not even present when the property was taken. Typically these were parents, siblings, boyfriends, or girlfriends who entrusted their cars or other property to someone who was arrested on a narcotics-related charge.
• More than $4 million in cash - 54.8% of that taken - was seized from people who were never charged with a crime.
• Of the more than 2,400 people whose property was seized, only one in five was ultimately convicted.
• Only one in 20 went to prison.
• One in 40 went to prison for five years or more, even though those are the people most likely to be the kingpins at which the law is aimed.
• Despite the law’s stated aim of breaking wealthy crime organizations, the average cash seizure is $3,063.
• According to the Mesa Tribune study, the nine agencies raised $26.5 million in that time period. Typically, forfeiture profits are divided among the agencies that contributed to the case.

Once your equity has been taken from you, it’s your own responsibility to sue to get it back. Probably, you won’t even be charged with a crime, just presumed to be guilty of criminal activity before being proved so. To show “innocent ownership” in court, according to Practical Freedom, you must demonstrate all of the following:

1. The person acquired an interest in the property before or during the criminal act.
2. The property was acquired legally.
3. The owner did not or could not have known of the illegal activity.
4. The owner was not married to the person committing the illegal act.

When is someone going to sue the government and get this turned around? Asset forfeiture makes sense when it is applied after the judgment of guilt, not before, and inside the usual limitation and restrictions of law.

Today I had the pleasure of a random guy in Mexico recursively downloading as much of my site as he could, which sent my CPU load to 2.0, a level that Dreamhost would find acceptable but which I personally freak out about. The r-dns and IP of this guy are:

dsl-189-171-15-59.prod-infinitum.com.mx
189.171.15.59

He started at 04/Nov/2007:12:04:36 and ended (by iptables ban) at 04/Nov/2007:20:17:03. In those 8 hours and thirteen minutes, he made over 250,000 requests. That’s an extra 8.5 requests per second from a single IP, which is clearly unacceptable behavior:

[root@fc624389 ~]# cat access_log | grep 189.171.15.59 | wc -l
251923

If you don’t believe me, the next biggest offender over the last 24 hours made only 4,400 requests:

[root@fc624389 ~]# cat access_log | cut -d’ ‘ -f1 | sort -n | uniq -c | sort -nr | more
251923 189.171.15.59
4403 66.249.73.116
2012 76.88.78.239
1646 70.141.105.233

The user agent of this guy doesn’t tell *me* anything about him, but maybe one of you readers has an idea?

189.171.15.59 - - [04/Nov/2007:12:04:38 -0500] “GET /wp-content/themes/greenmarinee/images/links_bullet.gif HTTP/1.1″ 200 467 “http://celebrity-photos.elliottback.com/” “Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; Media Center PC 3.0; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)”

Another thing that bugs me is he requested each URL about 7 times. WTF? Do you really need to spider my site as fast as you can seven times?

[root@fc624389 ~]# cat access_log | grep 189.171.15.59 | cut -d’ ‘ -f11 | sort | uniq | wc -l
35414

I am either thinking of writing a very evil script to confuse non-google/msn/live/ask/yahoo bots by writing in an infinite number of invisible links into my websites, or installing some kind of mod_throttle into my apache. It looks like mod_limitipconn might help here, too.

Heh, my (x)html does not validate! At least, that’s what the w3c says after banning me for hitting refresh like twice in a single minute:

Service Temporarily Unavailable
The bwshare module will refuse your requests for the next 41 seconds.
You have made too many requests per second.

Apache/2.2.4 (Debian) mod_bwshare/0.2.0 Server at validator.w3.org Port 80

And just minutes later, it lets me in:

Congratulations

The document located at *blah* was checked and found to be valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional. This means that the resource in question identified itself as “XHTML 1.0 Transitional” and that we successfully performed a formal validation using an SGML or XML Parser (depending on the markup language used)

This is unacceptably lame; if the WWW Consortium is so strapped for money they cannot afford a couple boxes to run their validation service on, expect the organization to completely fall apart in the near future. Thanks for the HTML, it was nice.

Quote: “Go play counterstrike while I make you dinner dear.” OMG!

If you’ve ever bothered to read any of the comment threads on this site which extend over, say, 30 comments you’ll realize the internet is full of idiots. And not just idiots, but all the kinds of truly disgusting people you would rather not know exist. Take the recent highly-publicized example of blogger Kathy Sierra who claims to have been harassed by death threats (we’ll set aside the legal considerations of whether the material showed sufficient intent, even though she repeatedly claims without proof that the material broke “federal law”). She articulately makes the point that the mere creation of material this offensive shows a perversion of bloggers:

It really doesn’t make much difference whether the person intends to act on the threat… it’s the threat itself that inflicts the damage. It’s the threat that makes you question whether that “anonymous” person is as disturbed as their comments and pictures suggest.

The Wrong Reaction

We should be tempted to fall into despair, for human nature is evil. This is exactly what Robert Scoble has done, turning to blogo-Solipsism and taking a week off. Both strong emotional reactions and withdrawing from the blogosphere produce more harm than good. After all, if you’re affected by the cruelty present on the internet, hiding will only make it worse.

The Right Reaction

I usually read Shelly and wince, but she’s right on here:

Frankly, calmer heads are needed when responding to this event. Webloggers are not very good at maintaining perspective. I know, I’ve been one for too long.

This is not something new. People are irresponsible and rude in real life, and the situation is only exacerbated by the internet and the so-called shield of anonymity. We are living in the world of that metaphorical question “if you were invisible would you steal?”

The Irony

Seth Godin suggests that “Anonymity hasn’t made the web a better place. Instead, it has allowed some of the worst ideas ever to get published.” He’s almost right. While the Internet surely allows anonymous slanderers to publish the worst ideas that exist, those ideas are powerless without an audience. And, Kathy Sierra’s public tantrum today gave her attackers more audience than they could have ever hoped for. It’s interesting that by specifically decrying offensive material we draw more attention to it. Creators of hate speech don’t mind bad publicity.

Take It All Away

Still, taking away anonymity (Discouraging Anonymity is Key to Protecting Visibility) is not going to solve any of these problems. First, there is the wee technical problem that it’s totally impossible. Second, and more importantly, people will always exist for whom hate speech is a normal way of life. Only the broadest social reforms can decrease the incident of this kind of thought. You cannot police what people feel in their hearts, but over time you can mold it.

The Only Solution

Remember the racism of the 60s? I don’t, but having heard the stories, it’s quite obvious that incredible leaps have been made to bring black Americans to the same social acceptance level as their white counterparts. Even so, there still remains work to be done wherever racism, sexism, nepotism, ageism, etc are found.

That work will not be accomplished by stifling speech (that means you, Wordpress), but rather by changing the way we are educated, and therefore the way we think.