Posts Tagged Connecticut
Cagle Post – Political Cartoons & Commentary – » Sandy Hook and the Second Amendment
Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Opinion, Perspective on December 19, 2012
Sandy Hook and the Second Amendment
With emotions running high in response to the heart wrenching events that took place at the Sandy Hook Elementary School December 14, many of my liberal friends and family members believe now is the perfect time for gun control legislation.

Eric Allie / PoliticalCartoons.com
As heartbreaking as it is that 20 children in Connecticut will not have the chance to open Christmas presents, celebrate birthdays, go on a first date, drive a car, graduate, get married, and have kids, there are millions of kids out there who will. And they are the reason why the rest of us need to fight for the freedoms guaranteed to us in the Constitution which Progressives are so predictably willing to give away.
Before Americans were able to corporately exhale upon hearing the news about the Connecticut shooting, liberals hopped on the gun control bandwagon. One of MSNBC’s many loose cannons, Ed Schultz, went on a rant saying, “Hiding behind the Second Amendment doesn’t cut it anymore,” and described our founders as slave-owning bigots. It’s real hard to wrap your hands around the hypocrisy of those who cry giant crocodile tears over the loss of these 20 precious children (and they should), but care little about millions of children who will never see the light of day due to abortion.
And here we go again; Progressives are manipulating the Sandy Hook massacre as a way to strike down the Second Amendment. Truth is, gun control is like putting a bandage on a gaping wound. Seems to me a better solution is to do something about the culture of violence currently destroying our society from the inside out — and place armed guards in schools in the meantime. Chances are, had one been at Sandy Hook, I wouldn’t be writing about it today.
I may date myself here, but when I was a kid, I didn’t stay inside playing violent computer games or watching violent movies; I played outside with real people who picked flowers in the spring, climbed trees in the summer, jumped in leaf piles in the fall, and ice skated on frozen ponds in the winter. And I grew up to be a responsible citizen and gun owner.
As I’ve written before, if you listen to liberals long enough it’s not too long before you find yourself in Bizarro World. And in the case of the Second Amendment, Progressives like Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) pretzel it into something it is not. On “Meet the Press” December 16, Feinstein inferred arming school guards is a crummy idea because “the rights of the few” (i.e. the millions who own guns) would, in her world, somehow “overcome the safety of the majority.” Say, what? Bizarro.
As brokenhearted as we all are over what happened in Connecticut, gun control will not stop those lacking certain emotional filters from doing bad things to children – and others. Policies in China, for example, make it largely illegal for private citizens to own and sell guns. Possession or sale of a gun can lead to anywhere from a 3 year prison term to the death penalty. I digress to mention that because the Chinese government has little regard for human life, gun laws were devised to protect the tyrannical Chinese government from its citizens rather than the other way around.
Nevertheless, people find a way to do bad things, and in the case of the Chinese, crazy people are still hurting children. Oddly, on the same day the Sandy Hook massacre took place, a knife-wielding Chinese manstabbed almost two dozen children at an elementary school in central China. And he found a way to do it although the Chinese government recently enacted strict knife regulation measures after a spate of deadly knife and cleaver attacks on school children in China in 2010, killing 20 and wounding 50.
Before long, the Chinese will be eating steak with teaspoons, and so will we — if we relinquish our Second Amendment rights to those who would rather steal the rights of the masses than address our society’s moral decline. With that in mind, the best gift we can give our kids this Christmas is a future filled with the promise of freedom.
Cagle Post – Political Cartoons & Commentary – » Sandy Hook and the Second Amendment.
Related articles
- Feinstein to push ban on assault weapons (maddowblog.msnbc.com)
- SOTT FOCUS: Sandy Hook psy-ops: Police State here we come (sott.net)
- Assault Weapons Ban: Bill to Be Introduced in 2013 (thehollywoodgossip.com)
- Dianne Feinstein on assault weapons: “They are designed to kill large numbers of people … I don’t believe the Second Amendment covers them” (piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com)
- Sen. Feinstein vows to pursue ban on assault weapons (swrnn.com)
- Prediction: Fallout of Sandy Hook Shooting Will Affect Mental Health Policies More than Gun Control (txwclp.org)
- Connecticut governor backs stricter gun control (news.blogs.cnn.com)
- The Future of Gun Control in the Aftermath of Sandy Hook (truthdig.com)
- After Sandy Hook: Going After Our Guns (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
- Don’t look for a Texas debate on gun limits (mysanantonio.com)
Cagle Post – Political Cartoons & Commentary – » Dear God! When Will It Stop?
Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Opinion, Perspective on December 15, 2012
Dear God! When Will It Stop?
The horrendous news from Newtown, Connecticut has pierced our hearts. Allegedly, a black-clad man in his 20s armed with two semi-automatic handguns entered the Sandy Hook Elementary School and made an elementary school for kindergartners through fourth graders the scene of the worst mass shooting in a public school in American history. Reportedly, 20 children were shot and killed, and seven adults were shot and killed. We don’t yet know how many were wounded. We do know dozens of parents are experiencing the worst nightmare any parent could imagine. We do know more than 500 young children in the school are traumatized.

Nate Beeler / Columbus Dispatch
Once again we are faced with unspeakable horror from gun violence and once again we are reminded that there is no safe harbor for our children. How young do the victims have to be and how many children need to die before we stop the proliferation of guns in our nation and the killing of innocents? The most recent statistics reveal 2,694 children and teens were killed by gunfire in 2010; 1,773 of them were victims of homicide and 67 of these were elementary school-age children. If those children and teens were still alive they would fill 108 classrooms of 25 each. Since 1979 when gun death data were first collected by age, a shocking 119,079 children and teens have been killed by gun violence. That is more child and youth deaths in America than American battle deaths in World War I (53,402) or in Vietnam (47,434) or in the Korean War (33,739) or in the Iraq War (3,517). Where is our anti-war movement to protect children from pervasive gun violence here at home?
This slaughter of innocents happens because we protect guns before children and other human beings. Our hearts and prayers go out to the parents and teachers and children and the entire Newtown community that has been ripped apart by each bullet shot this morning. We know from past school shootings and the relentless killing of children every day that Newtown families and the community will never be the same. The Newtown families who lost children today will never be the same. The families of the teachers who were killed will never be the same. Every child at the Sandy Hook Elementary School this morning will never be the same.
Each and all of us must do more to stop this intolerable and wanton epidemic of gun violence and demand that our political leaders do more. We can’t just talk about it after every mass shooting and then do nothing until the next mass shooting when we profess shock and talk about it again. The latest terrible tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School is no fluke. It is a result of the senseless, immoral neglect of all of us as a nation to protect children instead of guns and to speak out against the pervasive culture of violence and proliferation of guns in our nation. It is up to us to stop these preventable tragedies.
We have so much work to do to build safe communities for our children and need leaders at all levels of government who will stand up against the NRA and for every child’s right to live and learn free of gun violence. But that will not happen until mothers and grandmothers, fathers and grandfathers, sisters and brothers, aunts and uncles, and neighbors and faith leaders and everybody who believes that children have a right to grow up safely stand up together and make a mighty ruckus as long as necessary to break the gun lobby’s veto on common sense gun policy. Our laws and not the NRA must control who can obtain firearms.
It is way past time to demand enactment of federal gun safety measures, including:
• Ending the gun show loophole that allows private dealers to sell guns without a license and avoid required background checks;
• Reinstating the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004;
• And requiring consumer safety standards for all guns.
Why in the world do we regulate teddy bears and toy guns and not real guns that have snuffed out tens of thousands of child lives? Why are leaders capitulating to the powerful gun lobby over the rights of children and all people to life and safety?
I hope these shocking Connecticut child sacrifices in this holy season will force enough of us at last to stand up, speak out, and organize with urgency and persistence until the president, members of Congress, governors and state legislators put child safety ahead of political expediency. And we must aspire and act together to become the world leader in protecting children against gun violence rather than leading the world in child victims of guns. Every child’s life is sacred and it is long past time that we protect all our children.
Albert Camus, Nobel Laureate, speaking at a Dominican monastery in 1948 said: “Perhaps we cannot prevent this world from being a world in which children are tortured. But we can reduce the number of tortured children.” He described our responsibility as human beings “if not to reduce evil, at least not to add to it” and “to refuse to consent to conditions which torture innocents.” It is time for a critical mass of Americans to refuse to consent to the killing of children by gun violence.
Cagle Post – Political Cartoons & Commentary – » Dear God! When Will It Stop?.
Related articles
- How Will NRA Explain Away Gun Shooting At Elementary School In Newtown, Connecticut? (dekerivers.wordpress.com)
- NRA Should Have Noses Rubbed In Mess On Floor Of Newtown Elementary School (dekerivers.wordpress.com)
- Thoughts and prayers for the innocent lives lost in Newtown, CT (americanturban.com)
- Jerrold Nadler: If now isn’t time to talk control, ‘I don’t know when is’ (dailykos.com)
- Huckabee Makes Outrageous Remarks After Massacre (huffingtonpost.com)
- 27 Dead, Including 18 Children, In Elementary School Shooting In Newtown, Connecticut (b96.cbslocal.com)
- Disgusting: Lefty celebs crawl out to politicize Newtown, Conn., tragedy (twitchy.com)
- Newtown School Shooting (nbcmiami.com)
- Enough Unnecessary Tragedy, Time to Disarm America and the NRA (planetpov.com)
- Horror at Elementary School in Newtown, CT (realclearpolitics.com)
Education and Training Has Not Kept Pace With the Skills Gap – Room for Debate – NYTimes.com
Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Debate, Employment on July 15, 2012
Education and Training Has Not Kept Pace
![]()
Cecilia Conrad, an economist, is the vice president for academic affairs and the dean of Pomona College. She is the editor of The Review of Black Political Economy.
UPDATED JULY 10, 2012, 11:12 AM
Even at the peak of economic prosperity, there were indications of a gap between the skills demanded by employers and the skills possessed by U.S. workers. The 2007 National Academy of Sciences report, “Rising Above the Gathering Storm,” warned that unless the U.S. addressed the shortfall of workers with the math and science background increasingly required for high-tech jobs, it would lose its competitive advantage in science- and technology-based activities.
Employers, like all good shoppers, know that in a down economy they can look for bargains. But this isn’t evidence of a widening skills gap.
The skills gap originated with the tectonic change in the economy that began in the 1970s: increased offshore competition for traditional manufacturing jobs and technological innovations that changed the content of remaining jobs. The comparative advantage of the United States in global markets shifted to knowledge-based, science and technology intensive activities, but our education and training infrastructure did not keep pace with the needs of these industries. And we are not just talking about a need for more Ph.D. scientists and engineers. Some jobs in high demand, like computer support specialists and civil engineering technicians, may require no more than an associate’s degree or other technical certifications.
Employers do appear to be using the slack labor market to upgrade the skills of their work forces. A recent National Bureau of Economic Research working paper finds that employers are not recruiting as intensively as before the recession and are slower to fill openings. Any good shopper would do the same in a down economy: look for bargains — high quality at a low price. This is not evidence that the skills gap has widened.
The slack economy offers an opportunity to upgrade the skills of unemployed workers as well. An education and training program is less costly when the time spent in the classroom is not a foregone hourly wage. Increased public funding for student loans, training vouchers and community college programs might make this skills upgrade financially feasible for the individual worker and would strengthen the foundation for long-term economic growth.
Join Room for Debate on Facebook and follow updates on
Education and Training Has Not Kept Pace With the Skills Gap – Room for Debate – NYTimes.com.
Related articles
- Government and Industry Must Invest – Room for Debate – NYTimes.com (mbcalyn.com)
- Op-Ed Columnist: Filling the Skills Gap (nytimes.com)
- Gaps In Your Resume – Here’s 7 Ways to Explain Them (robertsonreader.com)
- Report: Iowa needs ‘middle-skills’ workers (thegazette.com)
- Basic skills gap ‘affecting small business insurance holders’ (premierlinedirect.co.uk)
- Open Education for a Global Economy (opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com)
- Community colleges help fill education gap (thegazette.com)
- Why Bad Jobs-or No Jobs-Happen to Good Workers – IEEE Spectrum (mbcalyn.com)
- The MedZilla.com Employment Report for July 2012: Bridging the Gap between Job Creators and the Perfect Candidate (prweb.com)
- How the Southern Virginia Higher Education Center is addressing the manufacturing skills gap (virginiabusiness.com)
Government and Industry Must Invest – Room for Debate – NYTimes.com
Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Economy, Work Place on July 11, 2012
Government and Industry Must Invest
![]()
Elaine L. Chao, the secretary of labor from 2001 to 2009, is a Distinguished Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.
UPDATED JULY 9, 2012, 10:11 PM
It may be hard to believe that in this dreadful economy there are a significant number of job openings going unfilled because employers are having difficulty finding qualified applicants. This phenomenon had been a growing concern among employers and some policy makers even when the economy was booming in the last decade. The situation has been alleviated by overall growth in unemployment, but it has not disappeared.
Why should anyone who is not one of these employers care? Because when so many millions of Americans have been unemployed for so long (43 percent of the unemployed have been out of work for more than 27 weeks), it is tragic that any job openings are going begging for applicants.
Policy makers need to acknowledge that job training programs could improve and employers should overcome a myopic focus on quarterly earnings.
And many of these unfilled job openings are in higher-growth industries. As we have been painfully reminded these past few years, decline in one economic sector (housing) can be disastrous for the entire economy. Conversely, growth in one area of the economy reverberates positively across other sectors.
An annual survey of employers by the Manpower Group, released in May, found that 49 percent of employers in the United States are having difficulty filling certain positions. Information technology, engineering and skilled trades positions are cited as among the most difficult to fill. Among the top reasons employers cited for being unable to fill openings was lack of applicants, technical skills and experience. Drilling down into the data in this and other surveys it is apparent that other factors are also in play. These contributing factors include unwillingness on the part of employers in some cases to raise starting salaries significantly or invest in on-the-job training and less mobility among potential applicants who are underwater on a mortgage.
Though the situation is less serious than before the recession, at some point in the future the economy will improve and the labor market will tighten (partly because of baby boom generation retirements). To better deal with shortages of qualified applicants now and in the future, government policy makers need to acknowledge that government job training programs could stand improvement. Employers should overcome a myopic quarterly earnings posture and focus on long-term strategies for growth that include investing in their own skills-training efforts to enable a broader pool of applicants. To maintain their own competitiveness, workers need to attain and stay current on the qualifications needed to advance in a constantly evolving economy.
America’s competitive advantage lies in its human talent. All of us should be doing everything we can to cultivate and develop our work force.
Government and Industry Must Invest – Room for Debate – NYTimes.com.
Related articles
- Why you can’t get a job (even when you’re qualified and the company is hiring) – Post Leadership – The Washington Post (mbcalyn.com)
- The Tea Party Is Not Dead – Room for Debate – NYTimes.com (mbcalyn.com)
- Leave the Voting Age Alone – Room for Debate – NYTimes.com (mbcalyn.com)
- Survey Finds Widespread Spying by Indian Companies – NYTimes.com (mbcalyn.com)
- Mandatory Service to Become an Adult – Room for Debate – NYTimes.com (mbcalyn.com)
- A Parent’s Role in the Path to Adulthood – Room for Debate – NYTimes.com (mbcalyn.com)
- The Hollowing Out – NYTimes.com (campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com)
- Break Up the Banks – They’re Still Too Big to Fail or Regulate – Room for Debate – NYTimes.com (mbcalyn.com)
- Let Them Drink at 18, With a Learner’s Permit – Room for Debate – NYTimes.com (mbcalyn.com)
- The MedZilla.com Employment Report for July 2012: Bridging the Gap between Job Creators and the Perfect Candidate (prweb.com)
Connecticut’s death penalty message – The Washington Post
Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Opinion, Politics, Social, Society on May 1, 2012

Opinion Writer
Little Connecticut’s big message on the death penalty
By E.J. Dionne Jr., Published: April 29
GREENWICH, Conn.
Since the 2010 elections, newly empowered conservative and Republican state legislatures have gained national attention with their wars on public employee unions, additional restrictions on abortion and new barriers to voting.
Against this backdrop, the little state of Connecticut has loomed as a large progressive exception. Last year, it became the first state to require employers to grantpaid sick leave. It also enacted a law granting in-state tuition to students whose parents brought them to the United States illegally as young children.
And last week, Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy signed a law repealing the state’s death penalty. There are now 17 states without capital punishment, Illinois havingjoined the ranks last year. What happened in Connecticut brings home the flaw in seeing everything that has happened in the states since the midterm vote as embodying a steady shift rightward.
Where they hold power, progressives have also been using their states as laboratories, and Malloy is part of an impressive group of mostly smaller-state Democratic governors who have combined a moderate, business-friendly style with progressive policymaking. Their ranks include, among others, Govs. Jack Markell in Delaware, Martin O’Malley in Maryland, John Hickenlooper in Colorado, Deval Patrick in Massachusetts and outgoing Gov. John Lynch in New Hampshire.
After the 2012 election, a key front in the battle for America’s political future will involve how the various left and right experiments in the states are judged. Aggressive conservatives such as Govs. Scott Walker in Wisconsin and John Kasich in Ohio are in the headlines now, and the recall Walker faces will keep him there for a while. But there will be a quieter and more comprehensive reckoning down the road.
Part of this reckoning will be a remarkable pivot in the politics of the death penalty, the premier issue on which an overwhelming consensus favoring what’s taken to be the conservative side has begun to crumble.
In the 1980s and ‘90s, capital punishment was a staple of Republican campaigns against a handful of liberals who bravely stuck with their opposition to the ultimate punishment. George H.W. Bush used the issue effectively against Democrat Mike Dukakis in the 1988 presidential campaign. Republicans also used it in their 1994 electoral sweep, notably in defeating three-term Democratic Gov. Mario Cuomo in New York. And no wonder: In 1994, support for the death penalty hit its peak of 80 percent nationwide.
But a Gallup survey last fall showed how much things have changed: Support for capital punishment was down to 61 percent. Among the many reasons for the drop are a decline in crime rates, which has increased public confidence in the criminal justice system, and a stream of reports casting doubt on the guilt of some who were executed. In addition, significant groups of libertarian Republicans and opponents of abortion have crossed to the repeal side. An important test of the new politics of capital punishment will come this November in a California death penalty referendum.
For all this, it still takes political courage to end capital punishment. A Quinnipiac University poll released last week as Malloy signed the death penalty repeal found 62 percent of Connecticut voters still favoring executions of those convicted of murder, with only 30 percent opposed. Just 29 percent of those queried approved of the legislature’s handling of the issue, while 51 percent disapproved.
But (and it’s a very important but) support for the death penalty, in Connecticut and elsewhere, is not as robust as it looks. When Quinnipiac posed a different question — “Which punishment do you prefer for people convicted of murder, the death penalty, or life in prison with no chance of parole?” — only 46 percent favored the death penalty. An equal number chose life without parole. Death penalty opponents have an opening they haven’t had for some time.
Moreover, voters aren’t as agitated by the issue as they once were. Only 37 percent of Connecticut voters told Quinnipiac that the issue would be “extremely” or “very” important to how they cast their ballots in legislative elections.
Malloy is under no illusions about the strong residual opposition to repeal. When he signed the repeal bill last Wednesday, he did so with little ceremony, carefully observing that “many people whom I deeply respect, including friends and family … believe the death penalty is just.”
Nonetheless, what Malloy did was historic, and it was a sign that despite the dreary polarization that characterizes our debates, American politics is still capable of springing surprises.
Connecticut’s death penalty message – The Washington Post.
Related articles
- Connecticut’s Death Penalty Message (themoderatevoice.com)
- The death penalty has been abolished in the state of Connecticut. (shortformblog.com)
- Conn. Moves to Repeal Death Penalty (myfoxchicago.com)
- Conn. Moves to Repeal Death Penalty (myfoxboston.com)
- Connecticut bans capital punishment (upi.com)
- With Death Penalty Repealed, Conn. Lawmaker Concerned About Future Cases (newyork.cbslocal.com)
- One more US state- Connecticut- abolishes death penalty (kractivist.wordpress.com)
- Conn. governor signs bill to repeal death penalty (newsday.com)
- Conn. governor signs bill to repeal death penalty (miamiherald.com)
EFF Says Cyber Security Bills Open Door To Government, Corporate Abuse | threatpost
Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Constitutional, Cyber Legislation, Cyber Security, Government, Security, Social, Technology on March 24, 2012
March 24, 2012, 7:30AM
EFF Says Cyber Security Bills Open Door To Government, Corporate Abuse
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is sounding alarms about a collection of overly vague cyber-security bills making their way through Congress.
EFF looked at two bills making their way through Congress: The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 (S. 2105), sponsored by Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) of Connecticut and the Secure IT Act (S. 2151), sponsored by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) . The digital rights group claims that the quality of both bills ranges from “downright terrible” to “appropriately intentioned.” Each, however, is conceptually similar and flawed, EFF said.
With public awareness about cyber legislation high after the dramatic failure of Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA), interest in- and skepticism of new cybersecurity legislation is on the rise.
Editor’s Pick
· Weak RSA Keys Plague Embedded Devices, But Experts Caution Against Panic
· Wired: Courts Back Government After Tech Company Challenges National Security Letter Gag Rule
· Hacker Group Breaches Library of Congress Site, Publishes Passwords
All three bills seek to facilitate cooperation among branches of the U.S. government and between the government and the private sector. Their failing, according to a blog post written by EFF Staff Technologist, Dan Auerbach and EFF Senior Staff Attorney, Lee Tien is in failing to define “the threats which are being defended against and the countermeasures that can be taken against those threats.”
A lack of concrete definitions and transparency could give way to expansive interpretations of any bill that passes, leading to government and corporate abuses, which, in turn, could impinge upon civil liberties, EFF warned.
As an example, Auerbach and Tien note that the Lieberman bill defines a “cyber security threat indicator” as any action that might be construed as “a method of defeating a technical [or operational] control.” That overly broad definition, EFF notes, could apply to anything from a DDoS attack to a port scan to the use of encryption or an anonymization service like ToR to protect the privacy of online activity and communications. Everything would depend on how the government and law enforcement chose to interpret it.
In an e-mail conversation with Threatpost, Auerbach of EFF characterized the bills as “alarming.” Of particular concern: a section in both the Lieberman bill and the McCain bills that authorizes monitoring by private firms of any traffic that transits their networks. Ostensibly intended to facilitate private-public information sharing, the passage would grant complete private sector immunity for data monitoring and sharing practices. Private entities would be unbound from the Wiretap Act and other legal limits and immunized against a swath of questionable monitoring practices, EFF claims.
Furthermore, Auerbach and Tien worry that the bills’ definition of a “cyber security threat” is too broad, and could cover everything from stealing passwords from a secure government server to scanning a network for software vulnerabilities. Similarly, the bills calls for more ISP traffic analysis and monitoring could bring about more civil liberties violations. For example, ISPs could simply block Tor, cryptographic protocols, or traffic on certain ports under the guise of defensive countermeasures, the EFF speculated.
The two online privacy experts also worry that the bills do too little to balance the public interest against the government’s need to secure the Internet.
“The cyber security bills completely skirt the issue of the intelligence community stockpiling so-called “zero-days” — new and unknown software vulnerabilities — for offensive cyber attack purposes,” Auerbach said via email. “Allowing the intelligence community to hold on to these vulnerabilities without patching them makes all of us less safe, and a good cyber security bill would explicitly disallow this practice.”
That’s a potent concern these days, after the security firm Vupen raised the ire of a number of security experts for their controversial business model which allegedly involves the buying and selling of these zero-days to the highest bidder, malicious or otherwise.
Rather than scrap the bills altogether, the EFF is calling on Senators to open up the conversation about the pending bills as they refine them. To create a better bill, the EFF believes specificity is key. Detractors will say that specificity limits the life-span of such bills, but the EFF sees this as an advantage. A short-living bill would force legislators to revisit it and make modifications necessary to address a rapidly changing and dynamic security ecosystem.
EFF Says Cyber Security Bills Open Door To Government, Corporate Abuse | threatpost.
Related articles
- Dangerously Vague Cybersecurity Legislation Threatens Civil Liberties (theneteconomy.wordpress.com)
- February: State of Cyber Security (lumension.com)
- Investing in cyber – and economic – security: Let’s get to it (thehill.com)
- Companies ‘confident’ in their cyber security measures (premierlinedirect.co.uk)
- Cyber security bill would create costly regulations, say critics (infoworld.com)
- UK teens wins Cyber Security competition – ITProPortal (itproportal.com)
- NSA vs. DHS in Leading the US Cyber Security Initiative (silvertailsystems.wordpress.com)
- GovSec Expo to Showcase Cutting-Edge Products for Homeland Security, First Responders and CyberSecurity (comsecllc.blogspot.com)
- Dangerously Vague Cybersecurity Legislation Threatens Civil Liberties (eff.org)
- Russian Expert to Discuss Cyber Security (ibtimes.com)
Judge Orders Divorcing Couple To Swap Facebook And Dating Site Passwords – Forbes
Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Legal, Society on November 13, 2011
11/07/2011

Should judges be ordering people to turn over their social networking passwords?
Most divorces require spouses to part with some of their property, but in Connecticut, a soon-to-be ex-husband and wife are being asked to give up more than just investments, cars, TVs, kids, and pets. They have to hand over their social networking passwords. At the end of September, Judge Kenneth Shluger ordered that the attorneys for Stephen and Courtney Gallion exchange “their client’s Facebook and dating website passwords.”
Everyone knows that evidence from social networking sites comes in handy for lawsuits and divorces. Attorneys usually get that material by visiting someone’s page or asking that they turn over evidence from their page, not by signing into their accounts. But judges are sometimes forcing litigants to hand over the passwords to their Facebook accounts. Should they be? What was the reason behind the court-authorized hacking in the Gallion case?
I spoke with Stephen Gallion’s divorce lawyer, Gary Traystman, who amazingly has no computer or e-mail account. “I see the information people can get from computers, in lawsuits and through hacking,” says Traystman. “They scare the hell out of me.”
Traystman tells me that his client saw a few incriminating things on the computer he shares with his wife at home that made him suspect that there would be more evidence in her social networking accounts. Traystman says there was evidence there of how she feels about her children and her ability to take care of them, and that it would help his client in arguing for full custody. During a deposition, Traystman asked Courtney Gallion for the passwords for her Facebook account, as well as EHarmony and Match (which she had apparently already joined). She initially refused but was then counseled by her lawyer to hand them over (Ed. note: questionable legal advice there).
Traystman says she immediately texted a friend and asked that person to change the passwords and delete some of her messages. That’s when he got the judge involved, to issue an injunction that she not delete any material and order the attorneys to exchange passwords for both spouses so that they could conduct discovery. Traystman says he reviewed his own client’s accounts before doing this and knew he had nothing to hide. I suggested to Traystman that it must have been painful for his client to go through his wife’s dating site communications. “It would be painful for many spouses to see what their spouses are doing,” he replied.
In “normal” discovery, a litigant is usually asked to turn over “responsive material” not the keys to access all that material and more, but it seems that judges are applying different standards to social networking accounts. Lawyer and tech blogger Venkat Balasubramani has written about several other civil cases 1) where judges have issued similar orders, including a personal injury case, 2) where judges have taken it upon themselves to sign into someone’s Facebook account and look for evidence, 3) as well as cases where judges have smacked down lawyers who asked for opposing litigants’ passwords, as in an insurance case involving State Farm,
While all may be ‘fair’ in love and war (and personal injuries), password exchanges like this are not kosher according to Facebook’s terms of service. I wonder if Judge Shluger is aware that his order violates Facebook’s TOS, which require that users not hand over their passwords to anyone else. Shluger did, at least, try to limit the privacy invasiveness of his order by telling the parties not to prank each other.
“Neither party shall visit the website of the other’s social network and post messages purporting to be the other,” he included in the order.
Being forced to hand over social networking passwords seems highly privacy-invasive given the ability to then root around for whatever one wants in an account, but the Gallions are certainly not the first to be subjected to this (and likely won’t be the last).
Judge Orders Divorcing Couple To Swap Facebook And Dating Site Passwords – Forbes.
Related articles
- Your Ex Will Violate Your Facebook and You’ll Help Him Do It [Social Networks] (gawker.com)
- Weston Cage Files for Divorce: “Ladies, Daddy Is Back!” (eonline.com)
- Slow-moving justice too late for Omer Gallion (laobserved.com)
- DivorceYes.com Releases Online Status Page to Keep Clients Updated on Their Cases (prweb.com)





Recent Comments