Received this on 2011-07-23 in the mail from my bank:
Dear bile:
<bile’s bank> has always been a strong supporter of consumer protection laws. You may have heard about new federal laws that affect the banking industry. One Recently approved law contains a provision that significantly reduces the revenue banks receive from merchants when consumers pay with a debit card. <bile’s bank> has always returned the majority of this revenue to the members in the form of benefits such as free checking accounts, ATM fee refunds and reward programs.
Members helped <bile’s bank> make a touch choice With the significant reduction in revenue, <bile’s bank> had to reevaluate our debit card and checking account benefits. As we carefully considered all options and the financial impact of the provision, we reached out to members for feedback. The large majority of members surveyed valued free checking accounts and ATM fee refunds over debit rewards programs; therefore, we decided to cease debit rewards to maintain the other benefits.
It then goes on to explain what it means in practice.
So thanks. My not for profit bank/insurance company can no longer give me the service it’s customers have come to expect because the government wants to keep me “safe” from the fee’s I voluntarily accept to use the service.
Who will watch the watchers? In a world of ubiquitous, hand-held digital cameras, that’s not an abstract philosophical question. Police everywhere are cracking down on citizens using cameras to capture breaking news and law enforcement in action.
In 2009, police arrested blogger and freelance photographer Antonio Musumeci on the steps of a New York federal courthouse. His alleged crime? Unauthorized photography on federal property.
Police cuffed and arrested Musumeci, ultimately issuing him a citation. With the help of the New York Civil Liberties Union, he forced a settlement in which the federal government agreed to issue a memo acknowledging that it is totally legal to film or photograph on federal property.
Although the legal right to film on federal property now seems to be firmly established, many other questions about public photography still remain and place journalists and citizens in harm’s way. Can you record a police encounter? Can you film on city or state property? What are a photographer’s rights in so-called public spaces?
These questions will remain unanswered until a case reaches the Supreme Court, says UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, founder of the popular law blog The Volokh Conspiracy. Until then, it’s up to people to know their rights and test the limits of free speech, even at the risk of harassment and arrest.
Who will watch the watchers? All of us, it turns out, but only if we’re willing to fight for our rights.
Produced by Hawk Jensen and Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Jim Epstein and Jensen. About 7.30 minutes.
Today I received a DVD from the DHS lawyers which has the video files from my memorycard which was confiscated on 2009-11-09 after I was arrested for filming on federal property the arrest of Julian Heicklen. Below is footage from the interview performed minutes before the arrest and of the arrest itself. Footage from the secondary camera I wore can be found here.
