California is crazy

From the New York Times:
"Calif. County Criminalizes Smart-Meter Installations"
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/01/05/05greenwire-calif-county-criminalizes-smart-meter-installa-66649.html

I don't have much to say about this, other than to this: They sure are crazy out there in California. Have they banned cell phones? Power lines? Wifi networks? Electric blankets? Electric razors? Microwave ovens? Radar guns? (I realize that these things have different types of electromagnetic radiation.) Why single out smart meters, of all things??? To my knowledge, there are no health issues with smart meters like this. I am willing to be educated, of course. But sometimes people like to protest just because they have nothing better to do. Crazy.


What, you need more evidence? Okay, check out MISH'S Global Economic Trend Analysis blog:
"California Budget Balancer Interactive Map from LA Times Misses the Mark"
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/01/california-budget-balancer-interactive.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MishsGlobalEconomicTrendAnalysis+%28Mish%27s+Global+Economic+Trend+Analysis%29

As Mish says, "Look at this disgusting list of California Agencies."
* Acupuncture Department
* Office of AIDs
* Air Research Board
* 3 different agencies for alcohol and beverages
* 2 Apprenticeship Councils
* Art Council
* Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus
* Bureau of Automotive repair
* Barbering board
* Biodiversity council
* Calvet Loan program
* Climate Change Portal
* Coastal Commission
* Cool California
* 4 Delta agencies
* Digital Library
* Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair
* Employment Training Panel
* Energy Commission
* Equalization Board
* 2 Fair Employment agencies
* Film Commission
* Flex Your Power
* Healthy Family Program
* Hearing Aid Dispensers Bureau
* Home Furnishings Bureau
* Humanities Council
* Independent Living Council
* Indoor Air Quality Program
* Economic Development Bank
* Interagency Ecological Program
* Labor and Workforce Development
* Latino Legislative Caucus
* Learn California
* Little Hoover Commission
* Maritime Academy
* Managed Risk Board
* Museum for History
* MyCali Youth Portal
* Native Heritage Association
* Natural Community Planning Program
* Naturopathic Medicine Community
* Outreach
* Peace Officer Standards Board
* Postsecondary Education Commission
* Prison Industry Authority
* Privacy Protection Office
* Psychology Board
* Railroad Museum
* Recovery Task Force
* Refugee Branch
* Regents of the U of C
* Save Our Water commission
* Smart Growth Caucus
* Status of Women Commission
* Take Charge California
* We Connect
* Wetlands Information System
* Workforce Investment Board

"California does not need ANY of those. Moreover I assure you I missed dozens more that could be cut back if not eliminated entirely. What the heck do those cost? And how much can be saved by my suggestions above."


Saving the best (worst, actually) for last, did you hear that the California Supreme Court doesn't believe in the 4th Amendment? It's true. From Switched:
"Police Don't Need Search Warrants to Read Texts, California Court Rules" by Amar Toor
http://www.switched.com/2011/01/04/police-dont-need-search-warrants-to-read-texts-california-cour/

"The Fourth Amendment requires all law-enforcement officials to obtain a search warrant before seizing a suspect's personal property. According to the California Supreme Court, though, the law doesn't apply to cell phones. In a 5-to-2 vote, the court ruled that police don't need a search warrant to search an arrested individual's cell phone -- because cell phones, in essence, are like clothing."

The article seemed to side with the dissenting judges in the case: "A cell phone, after all, is not just another piece of clothing. With one phone, an investigator can have instant access to a person's entire life -- including not only his text messages and phone records, but, in some cases, his e-mails, photos or videos. That's a lot of information for an investigator to seize without legal justification, regardless of the circumstances governing an arrest."

"Perhaps more important, though, is the dangerous legal precedent that California's ruling could set. In the coming years, mobile technology will only expand further, and encompass even more aspects of our personal lives. And, if police retain the right to read our text messages at will, there's no telling where their reach could end."

In closing, let's take a look at the plain language of the 4th Amendment itself to show that the California high court got this ruling wrong. Remember what the 4th Amendment says?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

How are cell phones not included in a person's "effects"? Furthermore, with digital communications, I would argue that e-mails, texts, documents, and so forth are the modern equivalant of "papers." Therefore cell phones would be covered by the 4th Amendment, requiring a search warrant for law enforcement to search them. It's that simple. Unless you happen to be one of the exalted high judges in California. (That's sarcasm, by the way, for the benefit of my California readers.)