Jeffrey Rosen, writing for Wired, discusses a non-privacy threatening identification card. He says that by stressing verification over identification, civil libertarians can rest easy.

But a privacy-friendly card is feasible if it follows one simple rule: verification, not identification. In other words, the card would confirm identity but wouldn't allow the government to pick you out of a crowd. There's a model: In 1995, Canadian entrepreneur George Tomko invented an innovative technology that made it possible to lock packets of data in encrypted files, using a fingerprint as a private key. After clearing a background check, the users of a Tomko-like card would receive a digitized packet of information that said, for example, they were cleared to cross a particular border. They'd download the parcel onto a card and lock it with a thumbprint.

Using this card at a border checkpoint, they'd swipe it and then provide a thumbprint. If the print decrypted the file, the system would verify their identity. Because the fingerprints wouldn't be stored in a central database, individuals would retain complete control over how much personal information was revealed. To maximize privacy, the system would keep no identifiable records of who had passed through, and it would not be linked with any other databases that might allow predictions of future behavior.

"Media mogul" Steven Brill (formerly the CEO of Court TV and Brill's Content Magazine) has a company, Verified Identity, that anticipates having a (not quite as privacy friendly) version of the card and turnstiles in place by February.

Rosen points out a crucial fact: There is no evidence that identity cards will make us safer:

Even with careful attention to privacy, an ID card might do little to prevent another terrorist attack. Bruce Schneier, one of the world's leading computer security experts, says that any identification system that relies on background checks creates three categories of people: trusted, untrusted, and trusted-but-malicious - people who aren't on watch lists but turn out to be terrorists anyway. As Schneier pointed out to me, Ted Kaczynski and Richard Reid would have qualified for V-IDs. Brill says that the pressure for ID cards will be overwhelming after the next attack, so a well-designed one is better than a desperate one. But rather than fixating on whether ID cards threaten privacy, civil libertarians and techno-positivists should explore security measures that might actually thwart terrorism. Otherwise, feel-good solutions could make us less safe in the end.

This is music to our ears. Governor Arnold is making some good suggestions about shortening criminal sentences as a means of dealing with the state's fiscal crisis.

The changes would reverse years of a get-tough policy on criminals under California's last three governors, and could face opposition from Republican lawmakers who make up a minority in the Legislature.

A top Schwarzenegger aide, in a briefing with reporters, said the new Republican governor is at the "very, very preliminary" stage of considering whether to ask lawmakers to shorten sentences for lesser crimes and increase reliance on alternative punishments.

....corrections officials project as many as 25,000 of the state's 161,000 inmates could be safely released, but he cautioned: "The vast majority of our inmates are in there for serious crimes. Those are not being looked at (for early release) at all." The Bee reported Saturday it obtained internal memos showing the administration is considering abolishing parole for nonviolent inmates. The move would save $231 million a year by 2005-06.

California is not alone in reviewing this option. Twenty-five states have replaced mandatory minimum sentences with programs that substitute treatment, rehabilitation or early-release over long prison sentences. The shift away from "get tough" sentencing has been led mostly by Republican lawmakers who are faced with a state budget crisis and are unwilling to increase taxes to build more prisons.

One in every 32 adults is now on probation, parole or incarcerated. There are far better and cheaper alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenders. We hope that Democratic candidates across the country take notice and add this to their platforms.

Via Atrios, we're joining in on Tip a Blogger day--his pick, and our's, is James Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review. As Atrios says,

No one really expects to make substantial money blogging, but it nonetheless does take a lot of time and the occasional tip for all the free pie is much appreciated.

There's a new report on felony disenfranchisement: Punishing at the Polls: The Case Against Disenfranchising Citizens with Felony Convictions (PDF) by Alec Ewald, for De-mos, a non-partisan, non-profit public policy research and advocacy organization.

The report is 62 pages and includes the historical basis for disenfranchising felons, the U.S. historical development, the present status with stats and the current trends. You might want to print out pages 14 to 21. From the preface:

We haven't seen much written about this lawsuit filed by a 9/11 widow in November. From her lawyer's press release:

(Philadelphia, PA – 11/26/03) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, announced today that he, attorney for Ellen Mariani, wife of Louis Neil Mariani, who died when United Air Lines flight 175 was flown into the South Tower of the World Trade Center on 9-11 at a news conference regarding the filing of a detailed Amended Complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on 11/26/03 in the case of Mariani vs. Bush et al that he is alleging President Bush and officials including, but not limited to Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and Feinberg that they:

1. had knowledge/warnings of 911 and failed to warn or take steps to prevent;

2. have been covering up the truth of 911; and

3. have therefore violated the laws of the United States; and

4. are being sued under the Civil RICO Act.

Columnist Steve Chapman makes an excellent argument for the admission of expert testimony on false confessions. We think it's only a matter of time. We've successfully argued for the admission of expert testimony critiquing handwriting examiners and for psychological experts on memory to explain the fallacies of eyewitness evidence. The same arguments can be made for false confessions. As Chapman points out:

The record of wrongful convictions, however, indicates juries acting on their own instincts can be completely fooled. They often put too much weight on a defendant's self-incrimination and not enough on the pressures that led to it. That's why there are so many people sent to prison after confessing to things they didn't do. Hearing from an expert can overcome that tendency.

As a federal appeals court said in a 1996 decision overturning a conviction because the trial court rejected such testimony, "Even though the jury may have had beliefs about the subject, the question is whether those beliefs were correct. Properly conducted social science research often shows that commonly held beliefs are in error." Expert testimony "would have let the jury know that a phenomenon known as false confessions exists, how to recognize it, and how to decide whether it fit the facts of the case being tried."

Juries are regularly allowed to hear confessions from defendants and urged to believe them. Why shouldn't they be allowed to learn about the grounds for doubt? Anything that reduces the frequency of wrongful convictions ought to be embraced by prosecutors and police. False confessions aren't good for them or anyone else — except the guilty.

Meet U.S. District Court Judge John Gleeson, appointed to the federal bench in 1994 after a long career as a tough prosecutor. Among his convictions was that of John Gotti. So, hardly your liberal judge. Gleeson presided over the recent Flatbush trial of a crack dealer and murderer in which Ashcroft had overruled the local prosecutors and insisted on seeking the death penalty. The jury returned a verdict of life. Gleeson denounces Attorney Ashcroft's death penalty push in a law review article in the Virginia Law Review:

We stopped by Howard Dean's website today, just to take a look, and were very pleasantly surprised to see him state these positions on criminal justice issues:

• I will work to ensure that racial profiling ends and I will direct my Attorney General to use regulatory authority under existing anti-discrimination laws the 1964 Civil Rights Act to define racial profiling as discrimination, and to withhold federal funds from state and local law enforcement that violate those regulations.

• I will appoint an Attorney General who sees our constitution not as a document to be manipulated, ignored, and violated, but who recognizes and respects it as the fabric that binds the American community together.

• I will oppose expansion of the Patriot Act, efforts to remove sunset clauses included in the act, and I will seek to repeal the portions of the Patriot Act that are unconstitutional.

• I will put the weight of my office behind the Innocence Protection Act, proposed by Senator Patrick Leahy, which would expand access to DNA testing and strengthen the quality of lawyers for defendants facing the death penalty.

• I will protect the civil rights of immigrants detained by the Department of Homeland Security.

• I will work for federal legislation to restore the right to vote in any federal election for ex-felons who have paid their debt to society.

It only took seven years, but unidentified DNA from JonBenet Ramsey's underwear has finally been submitted to the FBI for comparison with persons in its national databank.

Previous tests showed the DNA did not match members of the Ramsey family. Why wasn't it submitted earlier? The police say it was because the sample wasn't good enough. Miraculously, after being in storage for seven years, now it's just fine.

Lin Wood, the Ramseys' lawyers, have a much more plausible theory:

Wood accused Boulder police of not aggressively pursuing the DNA because it appeared to have been from someone outside the Ramsey family. The Ramseys have long contended that an outsider killed their daughter, and they have accused police of ignoring that possibility.

Police declined to comment, referring questions to the district attorney's office.

As an aside, we've maintained a website on JonBenet's murder since 1999. It's called: Jon Benet Ramsey: The Media UnLynch Mob Page. It was on hiatus for 2003, but if this DNA testing shows anything, we will resurrect it.

JonBenet was killed seven years ago today, December 26, 1996.

The lawsuit filed by the parents of JonBenet Ramsey against Fox News lists the following evidence linking her murder to an intruder:

• Male DNA found on JonBenét's panties that is not the DNA of anyone in the Ramsey family and has not been sourced;
• Male DNA found under JonBenét?s fingernails of both hands that is not the DNA of anyone in the Ramsey family and has not been sourced;
• Two pairs of marks on JonBenét?s body which indicate that a stun gun was used to subject and torture her;
• Evidence of an intruder found in the Ramseys? basement, including a broken open window with a suitcase and broken glass under it, and a window-well to this window with signs of recent disturbance;
• Material from the window-well found in the room where JonBenét was discovered;
• Male pubic or ancillary hair and numerous fibers found on JonBenét's body, clothing and blanket which do not match anything in the Ramsey home and have not been sourced;
• Unidentified shoe prints in the basement and unidentified palm prints on the door to the room where JonBenét was found, which do not match those of anyone in the Ramsey home and have not been sourced;
• JonBenét's autopsy findings, which indicate that she was sexually assaulted, strangled, tortured and then bludgeoned at or near the point of death
• physical evidence of the manner and timing of her death which does not fit the theory of an accidental killing by a parent or sibling followed by staging;
• The garrote and slipknots used to bind and kill JonBenét were sophisticated torture and bondage devices which no one in the Ramsey family had the knowledge to construct;
• Materials used to assault and strangle JonBenét. The stun gun, nylon cord and duct tape which necessarily existed but which were never owned by the Ramseys and were not found in their home;

James Ridgeway of the Village Voice writes that police state tactics are transforming our nation. The most recent victims: the foreign press.

Every day, Ashcroft and Bush work the country toward something like martial law, though the administration has suffered setbacks, like last week's rulings by two federal appellate courts in Padilla v. Rumsfeld and Gherebi v. Bush. Both of those decisions, for now at least, hamper the government's ability to simply lock up suspects indefinitely. But the government has other targets and other ways of dealing with them. The most recent crackdown seems to be on the foreign press—the source of much of the substantial critique of its policies.

U.S. immigration authorities are detaining foreign correspondents on grounds they have not obtained special visas permitting them to operate here, reports the Associated Press. True, there is a law stipulating a special visa for journalists, but few have ever heard of it and it is seldom enforced. No more. No one ever told the visiting journalists it had suddenly been revived. As a result, immigration officials aren't allowing reporters from abroad to come in under ordinary 90-day tourist visa waivers.

Here's but one of Ridgeway's examples:

Peter Krobath, chief editor for the Austrian movie magazine Skip, was seized and held overnight in a cold room with 45 others who landed without visas. Is he an Osama follower? A disguised fedayeen from Saddam's clan? No. He is guilty of flying to the U.S. to interview Ben Affleck.

The Government's response:

An embassy official in Vienna insisted that the government was only acting in accordance with the letter of the law.

Joe Lieberman is in hot water over his abortion stand. A New Hampshire paper, The Union Leader, says he would re-examine Roe v. Wade. (We couldn't find the article online). Nonsense, says Lieberman, clarifying his position.

Today Lieberman describes himself as pro-choice, and says if he were President, abortions would be safe, legal....and rare. Rare? If it's a woman's choice, Joe, who are you to say the procedure should be rare? Your position still sounds muddled to us.