February 15th, 2016 IRC Meeting
Review & Decisions
- 2/11, Boston Security Meetup: "Where Security Meets Privacy, Government Surveillance and Web"
- Start discussion of Senate FOIA bill as preparation for taking a position on it
Regional Convention & Contacting Members
- bestpiggy is calling Boston
- Lulu is calling Worcester & South
- srevilak, noe, aquaticonions & jokeefe are finding a location for a regional convention North/West of Boston.
Pirates can vote in any presidential primary. Anyone up for researching presidential candidates to see how they stack up? We don't endorse, but we can inform our members.
- 2/16, 12pm - 1:30pm, Bruce Schneier on "Security and Privacy in the World-Sized Web.", Berkman, 23 Everett Street, Second Floor, Cambridge - RSVP, live stream
- 2/24, 6-9pm, Somerville Cryptoparty
- 2/28, 2:30-4:30pm, Pirate Party Regional Planning Meeting, Somerville Public Library, North and West of Boston including: Arlington, Belmont, Burlington, Cambridge, Everett, Lexington, Malden, Medford, Melrose, Newton, Somerville, Stoneham, Wakefield, Waltham, Watertown, Winchester and Woburn.
- 3/19-20, LibrePlanet 2016 conference, MIT Stata Center, Cambridge, Edward Snowden is the keynote speaker
- 3/30, 6-9pm, Somerville Cryptoparty
Every Wed., Digital Fourth meeting, 11:20am-1:30pm, Voltage Cafe, Third Street, Cambridge
- jokeefe (James O’Keefe, Somerville)
- srevilak (Steve Revilak, Arlington, MA)
- davidd (David van Deijk, eindhoven, Netherladns)
- Kendra (Kendra Moyer in Michigan)
Jamie's talk @ Boston Security Meetup went well. slides.
MA legislature public records bill: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/Senate/S2120
Bay state examiner's take on public records law: http://www.baystateexaminer.com/articles/foia-bles-critical-mass-records-reform-bill-takes-two-steps-forward-and-one-step-back
We'll work on drafting a position statement for S2120 (and corresponding house bill)
Piratecon: shoot for June, and use survey to determine general direction.
We discuss voting in the MA primary. For example, http://www.wbur.org/2016/02/09/galvin-mass-voter-registration-primary, and https://twitter.com/MrVoterReg/status/697091608416821248/photo/1.
MA has on-line voter registration, but appears that one needs a driver's license to complete the entire process online.
[9:00pm] jokeefe: Agenda - https://masspirates.org/wiki/February_15th,_2016_IRC_Meeting [9:00pm] jokeefe: ids - James O’Keefe, Somerville [9:01pm] srevilak: Steve Revilak, Arlington, MA [9:02pm] srevilak: Sounds like the talk went well [9:03pm] jokeefe: Seemed to go well from the people who talked to me. [9:03pm] jokeefe: I went a mile a minute and mostly reiterated what was on the slides. Alex’s talk was very good. [9:04pm] jokeefe: Gave away a bunch of buttons. [9:04pm] davidd: David van Deijk, eindhoven, Netherladns [9:04pm] jokeefe: Got some cards of people I need to email. [9:04pm] jokeefe: ahoy davidd [9:04pm] jokeefe: you are up late [9:04pm] davidd: ahoy jokeefe [9:04pm] davidd: yes i am [9:04pm] davidd: but i saw you telling the good stuff [9:04pm] davidd: had to say hi [9:05pm] davidd: good job! [9:05pm] davidd: do you have a link to the slides? [9:06pm] jokeefe: yes, one sec [9:06pm] davidd: https://www.jamesokeefe.org/2016/02/boston-security-meetup-talk/ [9:07pm] davidd: these? [9:07pm] jokeefe: Here is the MA senate’s public records bill - https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/Senate/S2120 [9:07pm] jokeefe: yes, that is it [9:07pm] davidd: love the snowden quote at the end [9:08pm] davidd: "Arguing that you don't care about [9:08pm] davidd: "Arguing that you don't care about [9:08pm] davidd: the right to privacy because you [9:08pm] davidd: have nothing to hide is no [9:08pm] davidd: different than saying you don't [9:08pm] davidd: care about free speech because [9:08pm] davidd: you have nothing to say." [9:08pm] jokeefe: yes, I am fond of it. from the laughs of understanding I heard, people hadn’t seen it [9:08pm] davidd: here in the netherlands we are on the border of something crazy [9:09pm] jokeefe: Senate bill may now be or maybe it is https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/Senate/S2127/ [9:09pm] davidd: police argued to get the right to hack any device, including pacemakers [9:09pm] davidd: was in parliament last week [9:09pm] davidd: not decided yet [9:09pm] jokeefe: GPS in pace makers or using as a lie detector [9:09pm] jokeefe: ? [9:10pm] davidd: anything they set their mind to [9:10pm] jokeefe: See also https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/House/H3858/History [9:10pm] davidd: nothing off limits [9:10pm] davidd: is what they asked for [9:10pm] jokeefe: yes, that would be very scary [9:10pm] jokeefe: What could go wrong? [9:11pm] srevilak: For me, today's recreational reading was the opinion from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales [9:12pm] srevilak: Very interesting case: basically, came down to: if you notifiy police of a restraining order violation, are they required to take action on it [9:12pm] srevilak: Ruling was: police have discretion in what cases to pursue [9:12pm] srevilak: And can't be held liable for failing to enforce the law [9:12pm] srevilak: In this case, guy w/ restraining order killed his three kids [9:13pm] davidd: is this case often used as caselaw? [9:13pm] srevilak: davidd: It's a US supreme court case. It's very precedent setting [9:13pm] srevilak: I think this is worth talking about [9:14pm] srevilak: Why give up freedoms to police, if they're no liability when they fail to act [9:14pm] davidd: i see now, i noticed when i saw the name scalia in the "case opinions" section in the right border [9:14pm] jokeefe: Well police cannot be held responsible if they don’t risk their life to save you nor if they kill you when their chief says not to [9:15pm] davidd: so the basic mindset of the people we need to convince is "just gotta trust/believe your government wants best" [9:15pm] jokeefe: But if TPP passes then corporations can get $ for regulations they don’t like. [9:15pm] srevilak: davidd: I'd been wanting to read this one for a while. Until today, wasn't aware that Scalia wrote the opinion [9:16pm] srevilak: One result of Castle Rock v. Gonzales is that police have no legal requirement to keep public safe [9:16pm] jokeefe: which was on full display in New Orleans during Katrina [9:16pm] srevilak: jokeefe: yup [9:17pm] srevilak: If police want more powers, we have to (at least) insist on more responsibility as part of the bargian [9:18pm] jokeefe: Here is the BSE’s take on the public records bill prior to amendment http://www.baystateexaminer.com/articles/foia-bles-critical-mass-records-reform-bill-takes-two-steps-forward-and-one-step-back [9:18pm] srevilak: That was a good article [9:19pm] srevilak: Rec'd a message from Sen Donnelly, re: mass public records law reform [9:19pm] srevilak: was encouraging, but we're not there yet [9:19pm] jokeefe: yes [9:19pm] srevilak: Need to put S2120 on recreational reading list for this week [9:19pm] jokeefe: any sense of how quickly the bill is moving? [9:21pm] srevilak: Not sure. MA House ways and means committee has no hearings scheduled [9:21pm] jokeefe: do you think we should make a decision at the next meeting or the week after? [9:22pm] jokeefe: digression: how did I miss this one? - https://digboston.com/rare-footage-the-black-lives-matter-protest-tape-muckrock-got-from-bpd-is-amazing/ [9:22pm] srevilak: next meeting would be nice. [9:22pm] srevilak: jokeefe: saw some of the footage from muckrock. There were lots of people there that night [9:23pm] jokeefe: How does this sound: 1) I will put up a post that we will discuss / decide next week with links for comments on it 2) once you review it, you put up a synopsys? [9:24pm] davidd: there should come an amendment that supreme court can only rule with 2/3 [9:24pm] srevilak: jokeefe: sure [9:24pm] jokeefe: thank you [9:25pm] srevilak: davidd: for the forseeable future, I think our supreme court will rule 4-4 on everything [9:26pm] jokeefe: there have been a lot of bad decisions that came down with over 2/3. [9:26pm] davidd: do you think supreme court effectively has a bigger influence on rules/regulation/laws than the president? [9:26pm] jokeefe: and some good ones that got just a majority [9:26pm] jokeefe: yes and no [9:26pm] srevilak: davidd: in some cases, yes [9:27pm] jokeefe: On PirateCon 2016, how about we put up a poll like last time, but give actual dates in June and go with that? [9:27pm] davidd: sure jokeefe, but than at least they were bipartisan bad [9:27pm] srevilak: [9:27pm] srevilak: jokeefe: agree with June + poll [9:27pm] jokeefe: we should have the old one we can clone [9:28pm] jokeefe: Will handle it. I have to get an email out by Wednesday and will include it. [9:28pm] srevilak: davidd: at the moment, there are really just two policy-making branches in US govt. [9:28pm] srevilak: president/executive branch, which makes policy via executive order [9:28pm] srevilak: and supreme court, which makes policy through case law [9:29pm] Kendra joined the chat room. [9:29pm] srevilak: Our legislature doesn't do jack shit, and hasn't for ~ six years [9:29pm] davidd: hi Kendra [9:29pm] Kendra: Hi All [9:29pm] Kendra: Kendra Moyer in Michigan [9:29pm] davidd: and which of those two policymakers has the biggest impact you think? [9:30pm] srevilak: executive branch. The policies are unilateral, and take effect quickly [9:30pm] srevilak: w/courts, takes years for stuff to work through the system for a trial [9:31pm] jokeefe: ahoy Kendra [9:34pm] jokeefe: srevilak, would you have time by this weekend to make some calls about the upcoming regional meeting? [9:35pm] srevilak: jokeefe: will try [9:35pm] jokeefe: I will send a list out to the group of us. [9:37pm] jokeefe: So Pirates can vote in any presidential primary. Anyone up for researching presidential candidates to see how they stack up? We don't endorse, but we can inform our members. [9:37pm] jokeefe: GOP is probably pretty easy since so many of them are pro-surveillance [9:38pm] srevilak: jokeefe: is that a new policy? [9:38pm] jokeefe: was new to me. [9:38pm] jokeefe: isn’t listed on Elections Division website, but found this: [9:38pm] jokeefe: http://www.wbur.org/2016/02/09/galvin-mass-voter-registration-primary [9:39pm] jokeefe: specifically https://twitter.com/MrVoterReg/status/697091608416821248/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw [9:40pm] srevilak: UIP did a mailing a while back, advising people who registered as UIP that they'd have to change in order to vote in primary [9:40pm] jokeefe: heard that [9:40pm] jokeefe: but they have ballot status and we do not [9:40pm] jokeefe: we should call to see if voting in the presidential primary affects our candidates [9:41pm] srevilak: When I registered as pirate, my confirmation letter said "you cannot vote in primary" [9:41pm] srevilak: I became unenrolled near the deadline ... until after primary [9:41pm] srevilak: Galvin has to go ... [9:42pm] Kendra: So do you think the Scalia situation will get people out to vote? [9:42pm] jokeefe: Yes, I remember that as well. Also, when a Green and they didn’t have ballot status I got letters saying that. Haven’t received one this year, but heard someone did [9:43pm] jokeefe: maybe for the primary, but the position is filled, not for the general [9:44pm] srevilak: I don't mind bouncing registration for the primary. Esp if it creates extra work for the Sec. of State's office [9:44pm] srevilak: [9:44pm] jokeefe: lol [9:45pm] jokeefe: wonder if the change was due to the last election law update that added on-line voter registration [9:45pm] srevilak: I can't believe that Galvin claims people erroneously registered for UIP party, but really meant to be registered unenrolled [9:46pm] srevilak: Interesting bit I learned about MA on-line registration [9:46pm] srevilak: In order to complete process online, you need an MA driver's license [9:46pm] srevilak: i.e., no license, no on-line registration [9:47pm] Kendra: The restricting behaviors will only get more bizarre the closer to the election [9:47pm] Kendra: A lot of people in MA don't drive [9:47pm] srevilak: It's basically a picture ID requirement, by a different name [9:47pm] jokeefe: so voter ids are sort of required. charming [9:47pm] jokeefe: we should check if that is in the law. if it isn’t should challenge. [9:47pm] srevilak: In this case, they say "signature on file w/ Mass RMV" [9:49pm] Kendra: It might be argued as "equal protection under the law" not being followed. [9:49pm] jokeefe: yes, the independents registered UIP is ludicrous [9:49pm] jokeefe: agree Kendra [9:50pm] Kendra: There should be equal access to online registration regardless of your status as a driver or not, what if you have blindness? [9:50pm] Kendra: Or cannot afford a car and insurance, so you don't have a license? [9:51pm] srevilak: Kendra: in that case, I think you need paper registration (so state can get a signature) [9:51pm] srevilak: will take notes on process after the primary, when I switch back [9:54pm] jokeefe: that is all I have. Anything else? [9:54pm] Kendra: not here, motion to adjourn [9:55pm] srevilak: 2nd [9:55pm] davidd: motion to unicorn! [9:55pm] jokeefe: all in favor? [9:55pm] srevilak: aye [9:55pm] Kendra: aye [9:55pm] davidd: aye [9:55pm] jokeefe: aye [9:56pm] Kendra: nite [9:56pm] jokeefe: good night Kendra left the chat room. (Quit: Web client closed) [9:56pm] jokeefe: i got the transcript [9:56pm] srevilak: jokeefe: thx