Thar’s Gold in them Thar Asteroids! But Who Owns It?

If you managed to snag an asteroid and tow it back to Earth, is it yours?  What are the laws about space resources?  Is Space Law the final frontier?

You may laugh, but this science fiction movie plot is coming closer and closer to becoming reality.  Planetary Resources is backed by Google billionaires Larry Page and Eric Schmidt, billionaire Ross Perot, Jr. and director James Cameron, among others.  The mission of Planetary Resources is to “apply commercial, innovative techniques to explore space. We will develop low-cost robotic spacecraft to explore the thousands of resource-rich asteroids within our reach. We will learn everything we can about them, then develop the most efficient capabilities to deliver these resources directly to both space-based and terrestrial customers. Asteroid mining may sound like fiction, but it’s just science.”

In plain English, they are going to mine asteroids for valuable resources.

The latest issue of Popular Mechanics features an article by Space Law expert, Glenn Harlan Reynolds, who reviews the questions surrounding the ownership of asteroids:  What is at stake?  Potentially trillions of dollars per large asteroid.  The 1967 Outer Space Treaty prevents national appropriation of celestial bodies but is silent on private appropriation and it fails to define “celestial bodies.”  Scholars are starting to weigh in on whether or not asteroids are celestial bodies.  Andrew Tingkang argues in Seattle University Law Review that if it can be moved, it isn’t a celestial body.  The full title of his Jedi Master-inspired work is These Aren’t the Asteroids You Are Looking For: Classifying Asteroids in Space as Chattels, Not Land.  If you don’t get it, go watch Star Wars:  A New Hope.

Reynolds agrees with Tingkang’s classification and analogizes to the distinction on Earth between “real” and “personal” property.  Real property stays put.  As he points out, a supertanker the size of a city can be personal property and it can move.

There are more questions than answers now and it will take many years for the situation to evolve and resolve but won’t it be fun to watch?  Do we have a new Wild West with the 21^st century version of Forty-Niners?

For more information, check out the ABA newly published guidebook on Space Law or the ABA Space Law Committee.

For a humorous take on asteroid mining, take a look at this Jon Stewart segment from the Daily Show.

~Mary Susan Lucas~

The Drones Are Coming-Part II

This post is a follow up to an earlier posting on domestic drones and the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012: Big Brother is Watching

Our state assembly is considering a bipartisan bill that would limit drone use in North Carolina. On March 6^th of this year, our NC state chapter of the ACLU joined 22 other state chapters of the ACLU and filed a documents request asking for public records from local law enforcement agencies asking for information about their existing drone programs and future drone programs if they have existing plans for any.

Sixty-four of the largest law enforcement agencies in North Carolina have been asked about their use of drones and other military-style weapons, what funding do they have and what training, if any, and what training, if any, is provided for their use.

Proposed NC House Bill 312, if it became law would introduce sensible safeguards on the use of drones. HB312 would be known as the “Preserving Privacy Act of 2013,” it would prohibit individuals and government agencies, including law enforcement, from using a drone to gather evidence or other data on individuals without first obtaining a warrant that shows probable cause of criminal activity.

HB 312 includes an exception that allows law enforcement to use a drone to conduct searches if the agency possesses “reasonable suspicion” that immediate action is necessary to prevent certain types of imminent harm.

~Jane Fraytet~

Law Day 2013 – Realizing the Dream: Equality for All

May 1^st is Law Day, a national day to celebrate the rule of law and its contributions to the freedoms that Americans enjoy. The day also provides an opportunity to recognize the role of courts and in our democracy and the importance of jury service.  In 1957, Charles S. Rhyne, President of the American Bar Association lobbied for a day to celebrate our legal system.  President Dwight Eisenhower established by proclamation the first Law Day in 1958 to mark the nation’s commitment to the rule of law. In 1961, Congress issued a joint resolution designating May 1 as the official date for celebrating Law Day, which is subsequently codified (U.S. Code, Title 36, Section 113). Every president since then has issued a Law Day proclamation on May 1 to celebrate the nation’s commitment to the rule of law.

Law Day programs are designed to help people understand how the law keeps us free and how our legal system strives to achieve justice. These programs are conducted by various groups including local bar associations, courts, law libraries and schools. For example, the Library of Congress will be holding a panel discussion on the movement for civil and human rights in America. Carrie Johnson, Justice Correspondent for National Public Radio will be moderating the discussion.

This year’s theme “Realizing the Dream: Equality for All” provides an opportunity to explore the movement for civil and human rights in America and the impact it has had in promoting the ideal of equality under the law.  This year marks the 150^th anniversary of the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, handwritten by Abraham Lincoln to end slavery in the United States and promote the idea of freedom and equality for all men. This year also marks the 50^th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech.  The Civil Rights Movement brought progress in eliminating discrimination based on race, religion, gender, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability and sexual orientation. This year’s Law Day provides an opportunity to focus on the work that still needs to be done to ensure equality for all.

References

• American Bar Association. (2013). Law Day 2013. Retrieved from http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/law_day_2013.html
• Cali, J. (2013, April 1). Law Day Program Features U.S. Civil and Human Rights. Retrieved from http://blogs.loc.gov/law/2013/04/law-day-program-features-u-s-civil-and-human-rights/

~Betty Thomas~

Yes, another acronym: DPLA for Digital Public Library of America.

Scheduled for launch on April 18, 2013, the Digital Public Library of America (DPLA) will be opening as a portal to a vast array of digitized, special collections from across the United States. The organization’s mission is to give everyone a way to easily access these digital collections through a single virtual place, free of charge.

History. The idea of a nationwide aggregator of digital collections has been around since the early 1990’s.  Organizations such as the Library of Congress, HathiTrust, and the Internet Archive have been building collections. There are also large collections like the Smithsonian and the National Archives. However, there are hundreds of universities, public libraries, museums and other civic minded organizations with isolated collections that could be accessed for everyone’s use. So far the challenges to bringing together these digital collections have included differences in technology, incomplete metadata, and different legal issues such as digital lending, orphan works, international works, metadata ownership, strategies for tiered access, and how to deal with vendors and materials under various kinds of restrictions and copyright.

The DPLA initiative started with a meeting at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study in October 2010 which brought together representatives from foundations, research institutions, cultural organizations, government and libraries to figure out how to best create a national digital library.  In December 2010 the Berkman Center for Internet & Society with funding from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation began the process of planning the launch of the DPLA.  John Palfrey, DPLA board president and head of Phillips Academy gave a TEDx talk about the vision of DPLA in November 2012.

Content. Emily Gore, Director for Content, leads the Digital Hubs Project. Her interest in a national digital library began when she was with the State Library of North Carolina. She managed the former statewide digital library in North Carolina, NC ECHO, and co-directed the South Carolina Digital Library.  In her position, she surveyed more than a 1,000 cultural institutions that carried a variety of materials from US Senator Sam Ervin Jr.’s papers on Watergate to pottery depicting the story of the Cherokee Indians.  The Digital Hubs Project has partnered with seven digital libraries (six state and one regional) and larger cultural collections like Harvard University, Library of Congress, the Smithsonian, Boston Public Library and New York Public Library. The content of these collections varies from photographs, manuscripts, books, newspapers, oral histories to streaming videos. Some of the initial exhibits will focus on immigration, civil rights, prohibition, Native Americans, and the Great Depression.

Technology. Since the project is based on open source code, DPLA has started working with programmers to create apps that will allow people to access DPLA resources on their mobile devices like smartphones and tablets. The Follow that Cab! app allows users to design a search and then get regular updates. The What is Where? app maps collection resources by geographic area so they can easily be searched for local information. Recently, Innovative Interfaces announced that they would integrate access to DPLA into its Encore Synergy platform. This means that patrons of libraries like Charlotte School of Law will be able to access DPLA resources through the library’s catalog.

Future.  An exciting start for DPLA will be the launch on April 18^th at the Boston Public Library. Some of the collections mentioned above will be accessible on that date and some of the exhibits will also be available. There is still a lot to be done for the vision of a national digital public library to be complete, but its launch is a start.

References

• Cottrell, M. (2013, March/April). A digital library for everybody. American Libraries, 44(3/4), 44-47.
• Digital Public Library of America. (2013, March 5).  Retrieved from http://dp.la/.
• Palfrey, J. (2012, November 7).  Digital libraries and keeping well in a digital age: John Palfrey at
• TEDxPhillipsAcademy. [Video file].  Retrieved from http://youtu.be/IBivvdwZkbU

~Betty Thomas~

Morse Code and Sand

Although most of you have never heard of  N. Joseph Woodland, he has made a huge impact in the world in general and libraries in particular.  You see, Woodland was the inventor of the barcode.  Barcodes have changed the way we check out books, conduct inventory and buy groceries to name a few.  Many of us can’t even remember checking out a book without a barcode the old fashioned way or standing in lane 4 at Harris Teeter while the cashier types in each item’s number by hand into the computer.  Can you imagine how long you would have to wait in line at Walmart without any barcodes!?

Joseph Woodland, 91, passed away on December 14th, 2012.  His idea for the barcode was first patented nearly 60 years ago because of his involvement with the Boy Scouts.  See those guys are always prepared!  Woodland and a fellow graduate student were inspired when a supermarket executive to the campus of Drexel University.  The executive spoke about wanting to automate and streamline the checkout process in order to reduce the customer’s wait time.  Woodland and his friend began working on this problem and eventually in the winter of 1978-1949 Woodland found a solution while visiting his grandparents in Miami Beach.

He was sitting on a chair on the beach and as a former Boy Scout, he was familiar with Morse code. He told Smithsonian magazine in 1999:

“What I’m going to tell you sounds like a fairy tale.  I poked my four fingers into the sand and for whatever reason — I didn’t know — I pulled my hand toward me and drew four lines. I said: ‘Golly! Now I have four lines, and they could be wide lines and narrow lines instead of dots and dashes.’ ”

So that’s what happened and the rest, as they say, is history.  Barcodes have been used in many industries across the world and now we all know that we owe it all to  Mr. Woodland.

~ Brian Trippodo ~

GMOs: Uninvited dinner guests

What if you’re on a diet and counting calories? Would you go to the grocery store and load up your cart without looking to see the calories listed on the back of the package? What if you had a food allergy? Would you put something in your cart without first looking to see the listed ingredients on the back of the package? Similarly, consumers are left without any labels to guide them in making decisions about GMOs (genetically modified organisms). The Scitech lawyer’s contributor Debra M.Strauss in her article, “Liability for Genetically Modified Food: Are GMOS a tort waiting to happen?”, further defines GMOs as “plants [that] are engineered by inserting the DNA of an unrelated species into the target plant at the cellular level, generating the desired trait throughout the plant and its crop for consumption”. Doesn’t sound so bad, right? One day you could potentially grow tomatoes in winter if you took the DNA from salmon and put it into a tomato. Besides defying Nature, GM plants are engineered to produce pesticides in its own tissue. Are we cluelessly eating pesticides? If given the choice between GM corn and GM-free corn, pigs will eat the GM-free corn every single time.

Do we have a right to choose too? The state of California seems to think so. Proposition 37 will be voted on next month as to whether companies should be required to label their food as containing GMOs. Opponents of the propositon are companies that complain of incurring costs to relabeling products. In reality, companies change their labels all the time.

GMOs are a hot debate recently. Just last month Dr.Oz devoted an entire episode to the topic. It seems as if experts are divided on the issue. Some argue that GMOs are healthy and unharmful and not enough studies have been done to indicate otherwise, while others argue that GMOs are very dangerous and cause allergies, organ toxicity and a host of other health problems. Many countries in Europe and Asia fall into the latter camp and have banned GMOs and regulate international trade from less regulated US agricultural goods.

Aside from moving out of the country, what can you do to keep you and your family safe at mealtime? As with everything, education is vital. Buy organic when you can, especially in regard to the dirty dozen. Buy organic soy, corn, canola, papaya and sugar beets. Look for the NO GMO label:

If your grocery store doesn’t stock GMO free products, request them. Most grocery stores will accomodate such requests. When dining out, ask your server if their menu items are made with GMO free products.

We have a right to know what we’re eating.

~Jamie Sunnycalb~

Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners and Plyler v. Doe

On August 14, the Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners voted on a highly controversial proposal. Several Commissioners requested the Board authorize local schools to “count” children not legally admitted into the United States. Ultimately, the Board rejected the motion, but not without first stirring up a heated debate among the Commissioners themselves, members of the public, and groups interested in the outcome of the vote.

Throughout the controversy, debaters referenced the United States Supreme Court Case of Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). The plaintiffs in that case were undocumented schoolchildren who challenged a Texas law that authorized local schools to deny enrollment to students not legally admitted into the United States. In considering the equal-protection claims, the Court refused to provide the plaintiffs the protection of a “suspect class,” as it found entry into the class was the product of voluntary, criminal action.

However, the Court ultimately ruled the Texas law was unconstitutional based on other equal-protection grounds. Specifically, the Court found the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone subject to the laws of a state. As such, legislation that denies education undermines a primary goal of the Equal Protection Clause. That goal is the prohibition of governmental barriers presenting unreasonable obstacles to individuals’ merit-based advancement.

The Court cited principles from a variety of sources, which – in essence – provide that education is one of the most important governmental functions, as evidenced by compulsory attendance laws and the great sums of money provided to public-school systems. Education teaches students societal values and skills, which serve as the foundation of good citizenship and social order. The Court further provided “education prepares individuals to be self-reliant and self-sufficient participants in society,” so any barrier to education must be grounded in a substantial state interest, which the Court did not find in the Texas case.

In the recent Mecklenburg County controversy, proponents of the proposed measure argue the requested information would have enabled them to “get the facts.” In short, they sought to discover the number of illegal immigrant students in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system in order to calculate the amount of money taxpayers spend on the educations of students not legally admitted into the country.

Critics of the proposal alleged the Commissioners who introduced the motion acted under the guise of taxpayer watchdogs in order to rally constituents for upcoming elections. Further, they argued that counting illegal immigrant students could have invited bullying and separatism in addition to burdening children with undue stigmas and psychological damage. In response, proponents asserted they did not intend to remove the children from classrooms; they simply wanted the facts.

Amidst the controversy, a CMS representative released a statement on behalf of the school effectively removing itself from the debate. The statement provided that schools could not lawfully inquire about student citizenship and residency status. Although CMS did not cite a specific federal law in support of its position, the ill-fated Texas legislation in Plyler v. Doe should serve as a guidepost. Most certainly, CMS would have an interest in avoiding the uphill battle it would face convincing a court that counting illegal immigrants serves a substantial state interest and would not present an unreasonable barrier to their education.

~Shannon Fitzpatrick~

Hotmail Email Accounts banned at CALI.org Website

Are you suddenly unable to log on to the CALI.org website?  It could be because you used a Hotmail email address during your registration process.

Due to an influx of spammers and their like, CALI.org has banned all accounts currently affiliated with a Hotmail email address.  While this is just a small percentage of total users, it still will impact quite a few people.  Are you one of them?

If you’re one of these banned Hotmail users, you have two options.

1. Send an email to webmaster@CALI.org with your name and a non-Hotmail email address you’d like to use with your CALI account.  This may take a bit of time to process, depending on the number of people who end up choosing to go this route.
2. Create a new account using a non-Hotmail email address.  If you go with this option, know that you’ll lose all access to previous lesson run information.  You’ll also need to dig up your Charlotte Law authorization code from your original registration.  If you can’t find your code, reach out to the library reference desk and they’ll be happy to assist you.

And as always, if you still have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact the library!

~Ashley Moye~

Did You Get Your Refund Check from Reebok This Week?

Refund checks stemming from Reebok’s Settlement were sent out recently and because I was a member of this class action and because I filed a claim against Reebok in a timely manner, I got a check for $176.00 from Reebok.

Last October I wrote a blog entry telling people about the FTC action against Reebok and advised anyone who purchased a pair of Reebok’s EasyTone shoes to file their claim against Reebok before the filing deadline.

Class action suits filed by federal agencies like the FTC can curb companies from using false advertisements to sell their products. Reebok had to pay $25 million in refunds to approximately 315,000 buyers of EasyTone products because of their false advertising practices.

The FTC action against Reebok was taken because of Reebok’s false advertising practices.  Reebok claimed that their shoes had the ability to tone and strengthen your leg muscles as you walked or ran in them. As a person who bought 2 pairs of Reebok’s EasyTone shoes I can tell you from my own personal experience that my leg muscles were neither stronger nor more toned because I wore my EasyTone exercise shoes.

Buyer beware-caveat emptor.

~Jane Fraytet~

Stolen Valor Act Unconstitutional: Overbroad and Infringes on First Amendment Free Speech

 

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled on June 28, 2012 that the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, 18 U.S.C. §704, was unconstitutional because it infringed on freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.  The plurality opinion was authored by Justice Kennedy with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor joining said opinion.  Justices Breyer and Kagan concurred in the judgment with a separate opinion.  Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas dissented.

Little attention was given to this case initially because it was decided on the same day as the landmark healthcare case.  Few outside of military watchers paid attention until the healthcare case had been discussed and picked apart.  Now with elections looming, lawmakers are anxious to re-visit an issue that has wide bipartisan appeal.

Justices Kennedy and Breyer left the door open for new legislation that would correct the deficiencies of the original act that passed Congress with a unanimous vote.  Last year, Senator Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and Representative Joe Heck (R-Nev.) anticipated the Court’s ruling and introduced the Stolen Valor Act of 2011 (H.R. 1775; S.1728) including the language “with intent to obtain anything of value.”  Other lawmakers have joined the fray including the sponsor of the original act, Senator Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who would like to revise the original act to meet constitutional muster.  Senator Jim Webb (D-Va.) introduced the Military Service Integrity Act of 2012 on July 11, 2012 with the language “with the intent of securing a tangible benefit or personal gain” directly in response to comments of the Justices.

Fraud, perjury, libel, incitement to violence and treason remain the only speech that can be constitutionally criminalized.  Lying about military honors with intent to get something of value is likely to soon join that list.

~Mary Susan Lucas~