DailyDirt: Spaceplanes 2.0

The Space Shuttle was a cool idea, but it never accomplished the goal of providing a relatively low-cost route to space. The concept of reusable space ships is still attractive, but it really depends on how much it takes to refurbish them before they attempt another launch. A few different organizations are already testing some reusable space vehicles (and Boeing has its X-37B that’s orbiting somewhere above us right now). Here are just a few more spaceplanes that might join the new reusable space race.

After you’ve finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story


Canada Post Drops Ridiculous Copyright Lawsuit Over Crowdsourced Postal Code

Just over four years ago, Canada Post filed a copyright infringement suit against GeoCoder.ca, which describes itself as follows:

Geocoder.ca is a public web service providing both free and commercial geocoding services for North America: Canada and the USA. Geocoding is the process of computing the latitude and longitude of a location.

That may not sound like an obvious target for copyright infringement, since latitude and longitude are clearly just facts. But since 2004, GeoCoder has been carrying out an interesting exercise in crowdsourcing:

When you make a query to geocoder containing for example this information “1435 Prince of Wales, Ottawa, ON K2C 1N5”, we then extract the postal code “K2C 1N5” and insert it into the database that you may download for free on this website.

That freely-available Canadian Postal Code Geocoded Database became so useful that NGOs and others started using it for serious purposes, much to the chagrin of Canada Post, which provided the “official” database of postal codes and was really rather keen to license it to you for a hefty sum. As Michael Geist wrote back in 2012, the case raised a number of important questions:

Key issues include whether there is any copyright in postal codes (GeoCoder argues that postal codes are facts that are not subject to copyright, noting to conclude otherwise would result in “copyright infringement on a massive, near-universal scale”), questions on whether Canada Post owns copyright in the database if there is copyright (Canada Post relies on a section in the Canada Post Corporation Act that does not appear to exist), and a denial that the crowdsourced version of the database — independently created by GeoCoder — infringes the copyright of the Canada Post database.

Fortunately, a more recent post from Geist explains that Canada Post has finally dropped its lawsuit. According to the GeoCoder page on the litigation, the terms are confidential, but the agreed statement is as follows:

Canada Post commenced court proceedings in 2012 against Geolytica Inc. for copyright infringement in relation to Geolytica Inc.’s Canadian Postal Code Geocoded Dataset and related services offered on its website at geocoder.ca. The parties have now settled their dispute and Canada Post will discontinue the court proceedings. The postal codes returned by various geocoder interface APIs and downloadable on geocoder.ca, are estimated via a crowdsourcing process. They are not licensed by geocoder.ca from Canada Post, the entity responsible for assigning postal codes to street addresses. Geolytica continues to offer its products and services, using the postal code data it has collected via a crowdsourcing process which it created.

As Geist notes on his blog:

The settlement represents a big win for open data in Canada, as the lawsuit raised serious concerns about over-broad copyright claims given suggestions that Canada Post owned the copyright in all postal codes.

It’s just a pity that it took four years for Canada Post to arrive at this commonsense decision.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Another Court Says Law Enforcement Officers Don’t Really Need To Know The Laws They’re Enforcing

The nation’s courts continue to ensure that the less you know as a law enforcement officer, the more leeway you’ll be granted. USA Today’s Brad Heath tweeted out a screenshot from a Medicare fraud case that shows ignorance of the law is no excuse… unless you’re in law enforcement.


The accused doctor sought to have the evidence suppressed [PDF] because the search warrant contained assertions that were false.

Dr. Barnes argues the affidavit erroneously states that a physician is required to meet a Medicare beneficiary in person before certifying that beneficiary for home healthcare services. According to Dr. Barnes, the applicable Medicare regulations allow this “face-to-face” requirement to be satisfied through a nurse practitioner or a physician assistant. Had the warrant affidavit contained a correct summary of the applicable law, Dr. Barnes argues the magistrate judge would not have found probable cause that Medicare fraud had been committed.

The court, however, found that errors of law are pretty much unchallengeable when it comes to warrant affidavits.

Franks does not apply to the alleged misstatement of law in this case and therefore does not preclude application of the good faith exception.

The question before the Court in Franks was whether a criminal defendant “ever ha[s] the right . . . to challenge the truthfulness of factual statements made in an affidavit supporting the warrant?” Dr. Barnes has not identified any cases extending Franks to misstatements of law. Instead, the Court’s research indicates the relevant inquiry is whether the warrant affidavit contains false statements of fact. That no other court has applied Franks to misstatements of law is a strong reason for declining to do so in this case.

Why can’t a defendant raise a Franks challenge alleging “misstatements of law?” Well, it’s because law enforcement officers — despite being charged with enforcing the law — are not required to know the details of the laws they’re enforcing.

As the Supreme Court recognized over 50 years ago, “affidavits for search warrants . . . . are normally drafted by nonlawyers in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation.”

Which leads to this [all emphasis mine]:

As an officer untrained in the law, S.A. Bradford cannot reasonably be expected to understand the nuances of the law, especially the “maze of Medicare regulations”-as Dr. Barnes described them-at issue in this case.

As for all the nonlawyers not employed by law enforcement agencies, they’re still on the hook for not knowing the nuances of the “maze of regulations” surrounding almost every business or service.

The Supreme Court gave law enforcement a “close enough” pass for traffic stops and detentions in its 2014 Heien decision, stating that officers can’t even be expected to know the narrow(er) set of laws pertinent to traffic enforcement. Here, another “good faith” pass is handed out, allowing officers specializing in certain investigations (like medical fraud) to have only a passing knowledge of the laws they’re using to arrest and prosecute people with.

As Scott Greenfield points out, the continued expansion of the “good faith” exception means it’s far more beneficial for law enforcement officers to remain ignorant of the law than it is to strive towards expertise.

The absurdity of the court’s rationale would be good for a party joke but for the fact that this is serious. Of course, it’s true that no federal agents (and for yuks, let’s add, because he’s a non-lawyer) could know every law and regulation. The reason this is funny is that no lawyer, no judge, no legislator, no one, knows every crime. No one has even been able to count how many exist, with best guesstimates at 35,000 federal crimes (including regulatory offenses), plus all the state, local, etc., crimes on top of that. The ridiculousness of it all is manifest, but that doesn’t mean ignorantia juris non excusa won’t land your butt in prison.

What this reflects isn’t sound legal doctrine, but a policy choice: that cops get a free pass and you don’t. The less they know, the broader their authority. The less they know, the more luxurious their baseless assumptions.*** The less they know, the more we forgive their errors.

The footnote:

***For example, “I didn’t know if that he wasn’t armed, so when he reached into his car to retrieve his driver’s license, after I commanded him to give me his driver’s license, I didn’t know if he had a weapon in the car, so I shot him.” The more you don’t know, the more you’re allowed to do.

The courts don’t expect law enforcement to be perfect, but they refuse to extend the same courtesy to the accused. The rationale for this double standard appears to be that law enforcement officers are on the side of good and must be indulged, while every accused citizen tends toward evil, even when it might not have been maliciousness that prompted the criminal act, but ignorance.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

DailyDirt: The Newest Of The Old

Perhaps the most striking thing about archaeological finds is just how fragile and unlikely they are. When you realize the circumstances that had to align to give us each tiny glimpse into our prehistoric past, you can’t help but think about all the artifacts we’ll never get to see, lost as they are to decay or destruction or inaccessibility. Each find is precious and can teach us something new (except when it turns out to be fake).

After you’ve finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

DailyDirt: What Kind Of Blood Do You Have?

Artificial human blood could make medicine a whole lot easier — with no more blood drives or inefficient blood matching and possible harmful immune responses to blood transfusions. But until we perfect a way to grow human blood instead of siphoning it out of other people’s veins, we’re stuck with a somewhat tricky supply chain of a vital fluid. Researchers and vampires are very interested in the field of blood, and if you’re not too queasy, check out these links.

After you’ve finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story