The Return of ‘Lawful Access’

by matttbastard

Well, isn’t this lovely:

The Conservative government is preparing sweeping new eavesdropping legislation that will force Internet service providers to let police tap exchanges on their systems – but will likely reignite fear that Big Brother will be monitoring the private conversations of Canadians.

The goal of the move, which would require police to obtain court approval, is to close what has been described as digital “safe havens” for criminals, pedophiles and terrorists because current eavesdropping laws were written in a time before text messages, Facebook and voice-over-Internet phone lines.

The change is certain to please the RCMP and other police forces, who have sought it for some time. But it is expected to face resistance from industry players concerned about the cost and civil libertarians who warn the powers will effectively place Canadians under constant surveillance.

Constant surveillance–how so?

The concern of critics is that unlike a traditional wiretap that cannot commence without judicial approval, lawful-access legislation in other countries has forced Internet providers to routinely gather and store the electronic traffic of their clients. Those stored data can then be obtained by police via search warrant.

“That means we’re under surveillance, in some sense, all the time,” said Richard Rosenberg, president of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association. “I think that changes the whole nature of how we view innocence in a democratic society.”

Um, yeah, just a li’l bit.

Oh, and, via Michael Geist, it seems our loyal opposition is also doing its part to represent the best interests of the nation by, um, once again proposing its own lawful access legislation–a bill even more odious than the government’s’:

…Liberal MP Marlene Jennings has reintroduced her lawful access private member’s bill, called the Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act.  The Jennings bill is a virtual copy of a failed Liberal lawful access bill that died in 2005.

[…]

[T]he Jennings bill would require ISPs to disclose customer name and address information to law enforcement without court oversight.

The Magical ConservaLiberal Unity Pony drops yet another stinking, steaming load on our heads; I love the smell of bipartisan turdblossoms in the morning.

Cough.  Anyway.

From what I can tell, the only substantive difference between Van Loan’s proposed piece of legislation and the one then-Public Safety Minister Stockboy Day tried to surreptitiously impose in 2007 without any public input (before backpeddling quicker than you can say ‘Ogopogo’) is the apparent requirement of judicial approval (which, as noted, may not provide much in the way of protection for a citizen’s private online information–and  Jennings’ PMB offers, um, none).  Otherwise, the state will, in essence, be forcing ISPs to fulfill the darkest fantasies of the tinfoil-adorned black helicopter set.

And, as Impolitical (h/t) notes:

The dangers of such powers being placed with law enforcement and the potential for abuses have been made abundantly clear by the experience Americans have had with the Bush administration and the revelations from whistleblowers in the last year.

Two examples:

Am in full agreement with Geist here:

…Van Loan should commit to active consultations with the privacy community before introducing the legislation; renew the government’s pledge for full court oversight (including for customer name and address information); and there must be full hearings on the bill that place the burden on law enforcement to demonstrate that there is a problem with the law as it currently stands.

Bottom line: this is not a path any purportedly ‘free’ society should hastily embark upon.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

This Year’s Whitewash Model: “Sudden Death Following Restraint”

by matttbastard

What? We had THREE pathologists come up with that one. THREE!

Because ‘excited delirium’ is, like, so 2007.

Jesus wept.

Related: Alison has more regarding the Criminal Justice Branch ruling on the 2007 death of Robert Dziekanski (shorter: “It was his own goddamn fault that he died!”); make sure to also check out this post at Dawg’s place, where the good Dr. is once again calling for the RCMP to be disbanded.

Hard to argue with him this time.

Update: more from Dawg.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

More Cobblestones on the Road to Hell

by matttbastard

Here in the Great White North, accountability is out and banality is in as The Nuremberg Defence seems to be enjoying a resurgence in respectability.

CBC News:

The actions of Canadian officials contributed indirectly to the torture of three Arab-Canadian men in Syria, a federal inquiry has concluded.

“I found no evidence that any of these officials were seeking to do anything other than carry out conscientiously the duties and responsibilities of the institutions of which they were a part,” former Supreme Court of Canada justice Frank Iacobucci concluded in his report, made public Tuesday, 22 months after the inquiry began.

The probe focused on whether the detentions of Abdullah Almalki, Muayyed Nureddin and Ahmad El Maati resulted from the actions of CSIS, the RCMP and the department of Foreign Affairs and whether Canadian consular officials acted appropriately in the cases.

“It is neither necessary nor appropriate that I make findings concerning the actions of any individual Canadian official, and I have not done so,” Iacobucci wrote.

More from The Toronto Star:

The Iacobucci report concludes that all three men were detained and suffered mistreatment that amounted to torture as defined in the United Nations convention banning torture.

El Maati, Almalki and Nureddin were, separately, detained and imprisoned in 2001, 2002, and 2003 respectively while travelling in Syria.

All were interrogated and, Iacobucci concluded, tortured at the same Syrian military prison as Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian who was deported by U.S. authorities to Syria.

El Maati was also sent to Egypt where Iacobucci accepts he underwent further torture.

The men claimed their interrogators relied on information that could only have been gleaned from Canadian authorities, and that Canadian security and police agencies were complicit in their mistreatment.

But Iacobucci stops well short of indicting the Canadian officials for complicity.

And what do the Little Eichmanns in Canada’s New Government™ have to say about the matter?

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day declined to apologize, telling reporters, “This government can’t take responsibility for processes in place under a previous government.”

He claimed the procedures and “deficiencies” identified in this and the previous Arar inquiry have been “vastly improved,” and suggested that if the reforms his government had made were in place at the time, the incidents might not have occurred.

But Day did not single out any agency or officials for blame. He pointed to the Iacobucci report which said people were carrying out “conscientiously” the duties of their institutions.

“It’s more a case of good people acting with deficient procedures and deficient policies.”

“Justice, truth, the value of a single human being”? Pfft–go back to your September 10th fantasy world, Haywood, and tell it to Jean and Paul. Partisanship über alles.

Related: Almalki, Nureddin and El Maati discuss how their lives have been upended by their horrific experiences, along with the sense of betrayal felt thanks to the (indirect!) actions of Canadian government officials; Amnesty International Canada condemns the inquiry, warning that the probe “extended secrecy to everything, not just the national security concerns” and, as a result, “[excluded] the suspects and public from the proceedings in their entirety“. The 544 page public (read: heavily redacted) version of the Iacobucci whitewash report is available here (PDF)

Update: More from Alison @ The Beav

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

The Grits Go There

by matttbastard

Liberals call out Conservatives on Bernier-Couillard scandal, Uncle Steve goes on the defensive:

The Liberal Party called on members of the Harper government today to divulge any information in their possession on the Bernier-Couillard affair to the RCMP.

While the RCMP refused to comment on its investigation, Liberal candidate Bob Rae said that people with information on the matter should not wait for the Mounties to come to their doors.

“The RCMP is investigating this with the seriousness it deserves. In contrast, the Harper government has shown an appalling lack of judgment on this whole affair. It has no choice but to fully co-operate with the RCMP now,” Mr. Rae said in an early morning statement.

The Liberal Party was picking up on a report in The Globe and Mail that the RCMP are pursuing the politically charged investigation in the midst of the federal election campaign.

[…]

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said he knows nothing about the investigation, but he nonetheless added that members of his government are not the target of the probe. Trying to contain any political fallout, a bristling Mr. Harper returned at the end of a news conference to a question from a Globe reporter who asked whether it would be appropriate for the RCMP to interview Mr. Bernier during the election campaign.

[…]

“I want to make it absolutely clear, because I do not want this story distorted: There is no suggestion that the RCMP is investigating Minister Bernier. Period. Quite frankly, any question that tries to suggest otherwise is misleading and inaccurate,” Mr. Harper said.

[…]

“Let’s be very clear: Mr. Bernier and nobody in this government is under investigation by the RCMP. The RCMP, we understand from stories, may be investigating some private individuals, but frankly I do not know if that’s true and I do not know the details,” he said.

As they say, developing.

Related: RCMP actively probes Couillard affair, patronage allegations surface: The Globe and Mail.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

Mike Webster Nails It at the Braidwood Inquiry

by matttbastard

I’m glad to see that someone involved in law enforcement is rightly disturbed by widespread TASER misuse:

A police psychologist blasted Taser International at the public inquiry probing the controversial use of Tasers, claiming Tuesday that Canadian police have been “brainwashed” by the manufacturer to justify “ridiculously inappropriate” use of the electronic weapon.

Mike Webster accused the company that makes Tasers of instructing police in Canada that when they encounter a person suffering from a “mythical” condition that Taser calls “excited delirium,” police have few options other than jolting the person with the controversial electrical weapon, which delivers a five-second shock that incapacitates a person.

“When you think the only tool you have is a hammer, then the whole world begins looking like a nail,” Webster told the inquiry in Vancouver.

[…]

“It may be that police and medical examiners are using the term [excited delirium] as a convenient excuse for what could be excessive use of force or inappropriate control techniques during an arrest,” Webster said.

“My own opinion on this is that Canadian law enforcement, and its American brothers and sisters, have been brainwashed by companies like Taser International and the Institute for the Prevention of In-custody Deaths,” he added.

“These organizations have created a virtual world replete with avatars that wander about with the potential to manifest a horrific condition characterized by profuse sweating, superhuman strength and a penchant for smashing glass that appeals to well-meaning but psychologically unsophisticated police personnel,” Webster said.

The chair of Taser, Tom Smith, told the inquiry Monday that Tasers save lives and reduce injuries to police and suspects.

Webster, however, said he has been shocked and embarrassed by recent “ridiculously inappropriate applications of the Taser” in low-risk situations involving people who are mentally imbalanced, likely suffering from “plain old delirium.”

Please make sure to read the entire article, which includes some examples of incidents in which Webster contends a stun gun should never have been deployed.  Transcripts of the Brainwood Inquiry are available here (note: as of today, archive only includes transcripts sessions on or before 05/09).

h/t Alison, who also provides an extensive list detailing more intances of “embarrassing” TASER misuse.

Flashback (originally posted here): The Lede has more on…‘excited delirium’, which, as noted earlier this year by an NPR report, “is not recognized by professional medical associations, and [is not] listed in the chief psychiatric reference book.” Part 2 of the report is also entirely relevant, focusing on the vested interest law enforcement officials and Taser International have in marketing the dubious disorder and includes the following abridged list of individuals who have died in police custody after being [stunned], with the cause of death listed as ‘excited delirium’:

  • June 13, 2005 – Shawn C. Pirolozzi, 30, of Canton, Ohio, dies after police tried to subdue him with a Taser. His death certificate listed excited delirium as the cause of death. The Taser was not listed as a contributing factor.
  • April 21, 2006 — Alvin Itula, 35, dies after a struggle with Salt Lake City police. Itula led officers on a foot chase, then fought with them when the officers caught up, according to police. Officers tased Itula and also used pepper spray and a baton. Itula stopped breathing soon after. The medical examiner found that Itula died of excited delirium brought on by methamphetamine and cocaine.
  • April 24, 2006 — Jose Romero, 23, dies in Dallas police custody. He was in his underwear, screaming and holding a knife on his neighbor’s porch. Police tased him multiple times. He died shortly thereafter. The Dallas County medical examiner ruled Romero died of excited delirium.
  • Sept. 5, 2006 — Larry Noles, 52, dies in Louisville, Ky., after a struggle with police. Noles, an ex-Marine, was standing naked in the middle of a street when police were called. Police said he was agitated. They tased him two or three times. He died a few minutes later. The Jefferson County medical examiner ruled Noles died because of excited delirium and not the Taser.
  • Oct. 29, 2006 — Roger Holyfield, 17, dies after police in Jerseyville, Ill., shocked him twice with a Taser. Holyfield had been walking down a street, holding a phone in one hand and a Bible in the other, yelling that he wanted Jesus. After policed shot him with the stun gun, Holyfield went into a coma; he died the following day. A medical examiner ruled the death was probably a result of excited delirium.
  • Dec. 17, 2006 — Terill Enard, 29, dies following a disturbance at a Waffle house in Lafayette, La. He was naked and yelling, with a broken leg bone piercing his skin. Police stunned Enard with a Taser; he died several hours later. Police said the forensic report from the Lafayette Parish coroner’s office found Enard died as a result of “cocaine-induced excited delirium.”

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

“To protect the privacy of the person stunned”

by matttbastard

Alison at the Beav notes that the RCMP has stripped several key details from the Robert Dziekanski TASER™ report, recently obtained by The Canadian Press and CBC under the Access to Information Act:

Missing from the RCMP report :
1) Dziekanski’s name [!]
2) the name and rank of the officer who fired the TASER™
3) the name of his supervisor
4) details about the duration of the firing
5) the number of times the weapon was used in stun mode
6) whether Dziekanski was armed
7) a written summary of the incident
8) “assessments as to whether use of the TASER™ helped the RCMP either “avoid use of lethal force” or “avoid injuries to subject or Police.”

In other words, pretty much everything of use for the general public to understand exactly what happened (and, more importantly, why), all purportedly redacted in order to to protect the late Mr. Dziekanski’s “privacy”.

Yeah. To protect [redacted]’s privacy–sure. As Alison further notes,

It’s worth remembering that none of these inquiries would be happening at all had not Paul Pritchard of Victoria first recorded Dziekanski’s murder, stood his ground and hired a lawyer to get the recording back from the RCMP on being told it might be several years before they would return it, and then released it to the public.
Previous to Pritchard’s YouTube going worldwide, the RCMP were already covering their tracks, muttering darkly about the likelihood of Dziekanski being a drug mule and how the officers were forced to use stun guns because the room was crowded with airline passengers.

Sorry–after all that’s gone down with regards to Dziekanski’s death, a hubris-laden request from the Feds that basically amounts to “hey, trust us” doesn’t fucking cut it. The only way to clear up the haze of corruption that has been hovering over the Mounties for far too many years now is for the government to call for a full public inquiry into the activities of the RCMP. Are you finally listening, Stockboy?

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

PSA: Demand Answers About ‘Agent Provocateurs’ In Montebello

by matttbastard

Demand a public inquiry:

Paul Manley, the Council of Canadians chapter activist whose video footage of three agents provocateurs at the Montebello SPP summit this past August made waves on YouTube and sparked cries for a public inquiry, has just released a new edit that clearly shows undercover Sureté de Quebec officers provoking a line of police officers.

According to an article in the Globe and Mail [this past Wednesday]: “Mr. Manly thinks there should be an inquiry into police activity at Montebello, a demand repeated in the House of Commons yesterday by his MP, Jean Crowder (NDP – Nanaimo-Cowichan). Rocks were thrown that day and he wonders who launched them. Could be protesters. Could be cops. Who knows?”

Exactly — who knows? There are many unanswered questions about police tactics at the Montebello summit, which is why several groups are calling for a public inquiry, including:

Click here to add your voice to the list by sending a personal letter to Prime Minister Harper.

h/t Berlynn @ Bread And Roses

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

CBSA Dziekanski Report: Jolicoeur “very, very sorry.”

by matttbastard

The CBSA report on the death of Robert Dziekanski is out, and–surprise surprise–the border service agency ain’t admittin’ nuthin’:

Alain Jolicoeur, the agency’s president, said on Monday that “we do not have all the answers” as to how Dziekanski could spend at least six hours loitering in the baggage area of the international arrivals terminal, waiting for his mother while she tried to get information about him from the public area of the airport.

But Jolicoeur said he will try to fix what went wrong.

“I’m very, very sorry and I really wish that we had found out about Mr. Dziekanski before.”

Yet Jolicoeur said in an area the size of two football fields, with upwards of 4,000 passengers circulating the night Dziekanski died, the officers on duty did what they were supposed to do.

“There is no action that in my view requires discipline,” he said.

Two adverbs! I’m sure that’s comforting to Mr Dziekanski’s family. Very, very cold comfort. JJ is dead on goddamn right in her bitter summation of this inaugural white wash: “The CBSA’s condolences: “We’re sorry, but we ain’t that sorry.””

Expect more of the same as the results from still-ongoing (internal) investigations continue to come in: hollow (non)apologies compounded by an all-too-apparent lack of accountability. “Responsibility” is apparently an alien concept to those who would (boldly erroneously) claim to represent our best interests. Therefore, we must continue to demand answers and accept nothing less than justice.

For Robert.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

Quote of the Day: Equal Opportunity Electrocution

by matttbastard

“Obviously, (law enforcement agencies) don’t want to use a Taser [sic] on young children, pregnant woman or elderly people… . But if in your policy you deliberately exclude a segment of the population, then you have potentially closed off a tool that could have ended a confrontation.

– Sgt. Donald Davis, King County sheriff’s dept (Washington), commenting after a 2005 incident in which an electronic control deviceSM®OMFGWTFBBQ!!!1 was used on a woman (of colour) who, at the time, was 8 months pregnant. She had refused to sign a traffic ticket (shades of Jared Massey). fern hill has more (much more, sigh) on how some law enforcement agencies have a strict non-discrimination policy regarding the (indiscriminate) use of stun guns.

“I have a dream”, indeed.

Related: Do electronic control devicesSM®OMFGWTFBBQ!!!1 actually save lives? There are at least six families this past week who would contend otherwise.

Recommend this post @ Progressive Bloggers

Truthful Lies, Respectable Murder

by matttbastard

“A lie repeated often enough becomes truth.”

– Vladimir Lenin

Via Alison, seeds of confusion and doubt continue to be sown through an unofficial private/public partnership that has been cultivated between law enforcement officials and the private security sector. Some believe there could be deadly consequences as a result of this convergence.

The Globe:

“Three months before Robert Dziekanski was tasered, the RCMP adopted a change in force protocol that allows officers to fire multiple shocks to control people under certain circumstances.

Until August, officers trained to use stun guns were cautioned to avoid using them more than once because of concerns about health effects. However, the force’s belief that excited-delirium symptoms can escalate and cause death outweighed their worries about the impact of multiple shocks.

But the term “excited delirium” is not formally recognized by the World Health Organization nor the American Medical Association as an actual psychological or medical condition.

However, the condition is being used increasingly by coroners tasked with attributing causes of death among victims in police custody. David Evans, Ontario’s regional supervising coroner for investigations, described it as a “forensic term” not a medical one.

“I think previous to the description of excited delirium, [it] was sometimes called custody death,” he said.

Cpl. Gilles conceded that the policy on multiple taser shots “may be hazardous. We don’t know.”

“[M]ay be hazardous. We don’t know.” Well, what the hell do we know? I’m going to quote from my November 15th post detailing the fallout from the release of the Robert Dziekanski video:

CBC News just interviewed…and posted this rather one-sided backgrounder featuring University of Miami neurology professor Deborah Mash, the designated go-to ‘expert’ on bullshit cover stories “excited delirium”. The Lede has more on Professor Mash and ‘excited delirium’, which, as noted earlier this year by an NPR report, “is not recognized by professional medical associations, and [is not] listed in the chief psychiatric reference book.” Part 2 of the report is also entirely relevant, focusing on the vested interest law enforcement officials and [TASER] International have in marketing the dubious disorder and includes the following abridged list of individuals who have died in police custody after being [shocked], with the cause of death listed as ‘excited delirium’:

  • June 13, 2005 – Shawn C. Pirolozzi, 30, of Canton, Ohio, dies after police tried to subdue him with a Taser. His death certificate listed excited delirium as the cause of death. The Taser was not listed as a contributing factor.
  • April 21, 2006 — Alvin Itula, 35, dies after a struggle with Salt Lake City police. Itula led officers on a foot chase, then fought with them when the officers caught up, according to police. Officers tased Itula and also used pepper spray and a baton. Itula stopped breathing soon after. The medical examiner found that Itula died of excited delirium brought on by methamphetamine and cocaine.
  • April 24, 2006 — Jose Romero, 23, dies in Dallas police custody. He was in his underwear, screaming and holding a knife on his neighbor’s porch. Police tased him multiple times. He died shortly thereafter. The Dallas County medical examiner ruled Romero died of excited delirium.
  • Sept. 5, 2006 — Larry Noles, 52, dies in Louisville, Ky., after a struggle with police. Noles, an ex-Marine, was standing naked in the middle of a street when police were called. Police said he was agitated. They tased him two or three times. He died a few minutes later. The Jefferson County medical examiner ruled Noles died because of excited delirium and not the Taser.
  • Oct. 29, 2006 — Roger Holyfield, 17, dies after police in Jerseyville, Ill., shocked him twice with a Taser. Holyfield had been walking down a street, holding a phone in one hand and a Bible in the other, yelling that he wanted Jesus. After policed shot him with the stun gun, Holyfield went into a coma; he died the following day. A medical examiner ruled the death was probably a result of excited delirium.
  • Dec. 17, 2006 — Terill Enard, 29, dies following a disturbance at a Waffle house in Lafayette, La. He was naked and yelling, with a broken leg bone piercing his skin. Police stunned Enard with a Taser; he died several hours later. Police said the forensic report from the Lafayette Parish coroner’s office found Enard died as a result of “cocaine-induced excited delirium.”

…[V]ia MistahTibbs in comments @ The Politic, “the RCMP said after Dziekanski’s death that he was in a state of excited delirium,” according to a Canadian Press report published October 14th.

So, we know that as a medical term ‘excited delirium’ is meaningless. What else? Well, we also know that electronic control deviceSM®OMFGWTFBBQ!!!1 manufacturer TASER International really doesn’t like having its products’ reputation tainted by suggestions of deadly complicity:

“We are taken aback by the number of media outlets that have irresponsibly published conclusive headlines blaming the TASER device and / or the law enforcement officers involved as the cause of death before completion of the investigation. These sensationalistic media reports completely ignore the earmark symptoms of excited delirium shown in the video. TASER International is transmitting over 60 legal demand letters requiring correction of these false and misleading headlines and will take other actions as appropriate. These unsubstantiated, false headlines mislead the public and could adversely influence public policy in ways which could place the lives of both law enforcement and the public at greater risk,” concluded Tom Smith, Founder and Chairman of the Board of TASER International, Inc.

“[C]ould adversely influence public policy in ways which could place the lives of both law enforcement and the public at greater risk”. Try ‘may put our bottom line at risk.’ As Randy Burton of the StarPhoenix notes, in just over a decade stun guns have grown in ubiquity, with TASER International apparently hoping to expand the market beyond law enforcement to the private sphere:

For just $349.99 American citizens can zap somebody with thousands of volts of electricity. Sorry, they’re not available in Canada yet, where Tasers are still classified as a restricted weapon.

But in the U.S. it’s open season, and the company promotion seems very empowering, too.

The Taser website shows an attractive young woman under the caption “I Will Control My Own Destiny.” If not for the pictures of stun guns in four designer colours, it could be an ad for university enrolment.

In the hands of the marketing specialists, the Taser has become just another tool for conducting a successful contemporary life, like a cellphone or a BlackBerry.

You have to get to the fine print in the legal warnings before you learn to watch out for something the manufacturer calls “Sudden In Custody Death Syndrome.” [Apparently someone didn’t get the memo re: change in terminology–mb.] This is marketing speak for “watch out you don’t kill somebody.”

Somehow the warning to “avoid torturous or other misuse” fails to reassure that the Taser will only be used by the right people in the right circumstances. Lethal technology has a way of putting itself in the wrong hands.

While it’s touted as a major step forward in law enforcement, it’s just as likely to be making life much easier for back alley muggers.

Of course, that’s the way technology works. What begins with a very specialized use soon becomes democratized to the point where it’s accessible to the masses. Inevitably, yesterday’s dangerous implement becomes today’s purse accessory.

And so it is with the Taser. You don’t have to look very far to find plenty of examples of its use or misuse, as the case may be.

The things are ubiquitous. In the last 10 years, some 11,000 law enforcement agencies in 44 countries have started to use them. Of these, 3,500 agencies equip all of their patrol officers with the powerful stun gun. As we know, not all uses end with a happy conclusion.

There’s a quote most famously attributed to Benito Mussolini that springs to mind: “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” Though some dispute its origins, there’s no denying the inherent truth of the statement, even if apocryphal.

JJ does the hammer/nail/head thing:

I hate to keep banging this drum, but that’s tough, because it’s true: one of the first signs of authoritarianism bullying its way into our society is apologist propaganda, including the invention of new quasi-credible-sounding terminology to rationalize inhumane treatment… .

Yeah, “apologist propaganda” and bullying authoritarianism by way of litigious threats (h/t April Reign) and obfuscating press releases. This “quasi-credible-sounding terminology” has been utilized by a corporate entity (and, in a merger of interests, further legitimized by the State) to market a product–“another tool for conducting a successful contemporary life, like a cellphone or a BlackBerry.” Of course, to my knowledge cellphones and BlackBerries have yet to be scrutinized by the United Nations’ Committee against Torture, out of fear that indiscriminate use of the aforementioned lifestyle tools “constituted a form of torture, and that in certain cases…could also cause death, as shown by several reliable studies and by certain cases that had happened after practical use.” (h/t Alison.)

Why (vehemently, boldly, zealously) rationalize inhumane treatment, with truth counted among the increasing collateral damage?

In this instance, we know they do so because it is profitable.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers