[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Department of Homeland Security

[Jeremy K]

Is *anybody* on this thread a criminal lawyer?

as clever as I am, I'm not.  Your average law student might defer to me
about the challenges of statistical language-modeling in a mixed-genre
audio environment, but I would defer to her on what the legal -- and
concrete -- ramifications of showing this kind of "id" to cops or judges.

Please be cautious about writing your own legal interpretation -- much
of that stuff is interpreted in light of precedent (that is, previous
legal decision) as much as what it seems to actually say.

Writing your own interpretation of the law isn't worth much if that's
not how the judge or cop sees it.  Legal jurisprudence is the worst kind
of legacy code; most of us have no idea what are the peculiarities of
the OS it was designed to run on (the court system).  You might spend a
long time in custody waiting to be right, and that's assuming you're right.

Point: please, talk to an expert before trying to make sense of this stuff.

--jeremy

aestetix aestetix wrote:
> >From here:
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00001028----000-.html
>
> (1) knowingly and without lawful authority produces an identification
> document, authentication feature, or a false identification document;
> (2) knowingly transfers an identification document, authentication
> feature, or a false identification document knowing that such document
> or feature was stolen or produced without lawful authority;
> (3) knowingly possesses with intent to use unlawfully or transfer
> unlawfully five or more identification documents (other than those
> issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication
> features, or false identification documents;
> (4) knowingly possesses an identification document (other than one
> issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication feature,
> or a false identification document, with the intent such document or
> feature be used to defraud the United States;
> (5) knowingly produces, transfers, or possesses a document-making
> implement or authentication feature with the intent such
> document-making implement or authentication feature will be used in
> the production of a false identification document or another
> document-making implement or authentication feature which will be so
> used;
> (6) knowingly possesses an identification document or authentication
> feature that is or appears to be an identification document or
> authentication feature of the United States or a sponsoring entity of
> an event designated as a special event of national significance which
> is stolen or produced without lawful authority knowing that such
> document or feature was stolen or produced without such authority;
> (7) knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority,
> a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit,
> or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that
> constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony
> under any applicable State or local law; or
> (8) knowingly traffics in false or actual authentication features for
> use in false identification documents, document-making implements, or
> means of identification;
>
> There is no such document as a "photographers license". This would not
> be posing as one, nor would it by implying false information. I'm
> pretty sure that clubs (like the YMCA), schools, businesses, etc which
> issue identification (like membership cards and business cards) do not
> have to get permission from the government. I can make my own business
> card on Vistaprint, does that put me in violation of this law? I can
> see this being a big deal for a license which is already issued (like
> a passport or driver's license), but I'm not sure it applies here....
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy at goop.org
> <mailto:jeremy at goop.org>> wrote:
>
>     Seth David Schoen wrote:
>
>         I think showing a police officer this sort of document would
>         potentially
>         unnecessarily complicate any ensuing legal case.  For one
>         thing, it
>         could shift the focus of attention away from the actions of
>         the police
>         toward the actions of the photographer.
>          
>
>
>     I think it would be very unwise to show such a thing to a real
>     police officer.  But it might be useful to avoid unwanted
>     attention from a rentacop (but definitely not with a real agency
>     name, logo, seal or anything else, to avoid any perceived
>     violation of 18 U.S.C. § 506(a)(2)
>     <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/506.html>).
>
>       J
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>