An 11-judge appeals court panel will consider the constitutionality of California's mandatory collection of DNA from all arrestees. Do privacy concerns trump law enforcement benefits? Then, why are tech giants are urging the NSA to rein its surveillance programs? Next, we'll look at the appeal of old technology, how politics plays into Supreme Court retirement plans, and the right way to handle peeping toms in the digital age. Then, biographer Deborah Solomon explains how Norman Rockwell was more complicated than his homespun artwork suggests.
Federal court weighs California DNA collection
Today, an 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco will hear oral arguments on a controversial California law that requires police to collect DNA samples from every arrestee.
Voters passed the law in 2004 and the law went into effect in 2009. Law enforcement officials say that the mandatory requirement would make it easier to solve old cold cases. Both California Attorney General Kamala Harris and President Obama are supportive of the bill. Opponents argue the law is too broad and DNA collection should be limited to those who are arrested for violent and serious offenses.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against Proposition 69 charging that it’s unconstitutional.
Guests:
Roberta Schwartz, Deputy District Attorney, Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office
Peter Bibring, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU
What's behind Big Tech lobbying against government surveillance?
The nation's biggest tech companies including Google, Microsoft, AOL and Yahoo have teamed up to call on the US government to fight harder against online spying. Usually rivals, the companies want one thing - less government surveillance.
Together they published an open letter in several newspapers including the New York Times asking Congress and the Obama administration to enact reforms of the National Security Agency surveillance practices that went public after former contractor Edward Snowden leaked some of them to the press. The companies claim they're "keeping users' data secure" by using the "latest encryption technology to prevent unauthorized surveillance".
Many Americans share the same concerns about expansive government spying. Will this unlikely tech alliance be able to convince Congress to take action? Are their concerns and demands reasonable? Many of these tech companies including Google are also criticized for collecting and using too much user data. Is this request hypocritical? Are you comfortable with the level of NSA surveillance if it helps thwart terrorism concerns?
Guest:
Kim Zetter, Senior Reporter at Wired
There’s no tech like old tech: Calling all neo-Luddites, late adopters, and staunch holdouts
New tech gadgets seem like the perfect stocking stuffers, but not for a small sector of neo-luddites whose loyalty for whatever outdated technology they own is unshakable. You know those people, those with old flip phones from the early 2000s that aren’t connected to the internet or prefer to watch Monday Night Football on their non-plasmas, non-HD television sets. To be fair, they aren’t just your technophobic grandparents.
According to a recent Financial Times article, some of wealthiest and most powerful people in the European business world have hung on to their old gadgets. Why? “It works, never breaks, has a long battery life,” Julian Dunkerton, CEO of SuperGroup, the international clothing brand, told the newspaper. Even President Obama is a tech holdout when it comes to his mobile communication needs, he is apparently stuck with his Blackberry for security reasons.
How about you? Have you held on to a piece of old technology that you find yourself unable or unwilling to get rid of? Why?
Guest:
Evan Koblentz, computer historian at the InfoAge Science Center--a science history museum in Wall , New Jersey
Should politics dictate when Supreme Court justices retire?
There has been a lot of speculation about when 80-year-old Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg should retire. The oldest member of the court is probably taking a lot of things into consideration when deciding when to leave the bench, but politics may not be one of them.
Some court watchers are now calling for Justice Ginsberg and 75-year-old Stephen Breyer to step aside in the name of politics. Democrats are hoping to clear some space on the bench before the 2014 midterm elections puts control of the Senate in jeopardy.
The best chance that President Obama would have of nominating a liberal-leaning justice would be while the White House and the Senate are both controlled by Democrats. Yet is politics an appropriate reason for a justice to retire? Some argue that defies the purpose of the lifelong appointments written into the Constitution.
With the US becoming increasingly polarized, should that factor into Supreme Court nominations as well? Should a Justice retire so the President can nominate someone with similar political beliefs? What factors should determine when a Justice retires?
Guests:
Jonathan Bernstein, political scientist and columnist for the Washington Post
Lyle Denniston, legal journalist for SCOTUSBlog and the National Constitution Center’s Adviser on Constitutional Literacy
Seeking justice, half-dressed woman chases peeping Tom through store
Modern-day peeping Toms use smartphones to sneak videos of unsuspecting women in change rooms, restrooms, even women wearing skirts as they walk up stairs and escalators.
Last week, a Kansas woman discovered a man video-recording her as she tried on bras in a Kohl's dressing room. In the shocking moment, while she was still topless, she ran after him shouting for help. He was arrested.
From upskirt videos to aggressive catcalls to groping in crowded public places and transit, how should victims respond? What's the risk in confronting the perpetrator or in letting it go?
Guest
Ilse Knecht, Deputy Director, Public Policy, National Center for Victims of Crime
'American Mirror' explores artist Norman Rockwell's contradictions
The creator of those iconic Saturday Evening Post covers exalting an idealized America was no main street simpleton. In her latest biography, Deborah Solomon reveals the man behind the picturesque facades—Norman Rockwell the high-school dropout, the twice-divorced alcoholic, the Vietnam war opponent and tortured artist.
Rockwell’s life was utterly dissimilar from his homespun illustrations. Inadequacy and self doubt? Repressed homosexuality? Certainly not the essence of Rockwell’s mass appeal magazine covers and Boy Scouts visuals. In “American Mirror,” Solomon seeks to illuminate Rockwell’s art by reexamining his persona.
Guest:
Deborah Solomon, Author, “American Mirror: The Life and Art of Norman Rockwell” (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, March 2013); WNYC Radio art critic, New York Times contributor