Insane cartelization effort in Texas

Thanks to the Institute for Justice, I've read of numerous laws which create legal cartels, artificially limiting the people who are allowed to perform certain kinds of work; but this takes the cake.

In Texas, it is illegal to do many kinds of data analysis on a computer without a private investigator's license. According to the printed article in Liberty & Law:

The Texas Private Security Board, the state agency charged with enforcing the law, has issued a series of increasingly aggressive interpretations of the new statute. Those interpretations cleary put computer repair shops on notice that performing commonplace data analysis -- which is crucial to effectively diagnose and repair computer problems -- is a crime. ...
 
Getting a private investigator's license is no solution because that would require a criminal justice degree or a three-year apprenticeship under a licensed private investigator.

The law is convoluted, and its effect on computer repair shops may have been an unintended consequence of efforts to monopolize elsewhere, but there has to be a reason a state board is aggressively enforcing it. Normally the protected group hopes to get a monopoly on some business area, but what interest would private detectives have in controlling the computer repair business? I could also imagine that it's the result of privacy activism gone berserk, except that the notion that private eyes are especially protective of people's privacy is laughable. The point isn't to protect consumers from prying repair shops; IJ reports that "consumers face the same penalties if they knowingly use an unlicensed repair technician."

My best guess -- and it's purely a guess -- is that some large P.I. firm is angling to buy out computer shops at fire-sale prices and let them continue running while taking in a large chunk of the profits.

Update:Kevin W. Baker's commentary provides some additional insight. It's businesses, not individuals, that are licensed for private investigation in Texas; the business has to have a "person responsible for all activities" who meets the requirements the IJ mentioned. So computer repair shops can make themselves legal by hiring a qualified private-eye "manager" who does nothing except collect a salary. Nice racket.

The FCC's regulation by whim

"Net neutrality" bloggers are thrilled not only because the FCC ruled against Comcast, but because of the arbitrary nature of its decision. Ed Felten writes, under the title "Comcast Gets Slapped, But the FCC Wisely Leaves its Options Open": "But the majority, despite technical competence, avoided a bright line rule—and that might itself turn out to be great policy." He understands fully what the absence of a "bright line" means:

The majority decision, in finding Comcast’s activities collectively to be over the line from “reasonable network management,” leaves substantial uncertainty about where that line lies, which is another way of saying that the decision makes it hard for other ISPs to predict what kinds of network management, short of what Comcast did, would prompt sanctions in the future. ...
 
The Comcast ruling’s uncertainty guarantees a future of envelope-pushing and resource intensive, case-by-case adjudication, whether in regulatory proceedings or the courts. But I actually think that might be the best available alternative here. It preserves the Commission’s ability to make the right decision in future cases without having to guess, today, what precise rule would dictate those future results.

With specific rules, regulators indeed face uncertainty about whether they can implement their vision, and conversely private businesses know the ground rules (even if they're unreasonable) about what they can and can't do. This is as it should be. One cannot know the future, and regulators seeking arbitrary power in order to implement their predetermined vision only impose fear, uncertainty, and doubt on innovative business models, leading to stagnation. This undermines the "freedom to tinker" -- which is, ironically, the title of Felten's blog.

Harold Feld calls it regulation by adjudication. But adjudication, in the proper sense, can happen only when there is a clearly defined regulation to adjudicate. What the FCC has imposed on the Internet is regulation by whim. It's a deadly precedent.

Olympics: Showcase for a dictatorship

The US Olympic Committee has rebuked American athletes for not wanting to choke on Beijing's smog.

China revoked Joey Cheek's visa for speaking out -- about Darfur.

China rebuked Bush for timidly suggesting the Chinese people should have a little more freedom.

It's Munich 1936 all over again.

Anti-wiretap moneybomb

The idea of the above is to raise a large amount of money all on one day -- August 8 -- for a "moneybomb" for a left-right coalition PAC opposed to "rampant presidential lawbreaking and a limitless surveillance state." I haven't made a decision yet on whether to provide financial support; that depends in large part on how reliable and secure their online payment mechanism looks. But I like the idea enough to spread the word. Please consider doing the same.

Update: I've given them a contribution; the site seems to handle credit card input responsibly. It's annoying that they insist on an e-mail address, and by default check the box that will put you on their mailing list. It's also annoying that they insist on knowing who your employer is, but federal snoops demand that information. In both cases, there's nothing that requires you to give accurate information. If you make up an e-mail address, though, be sure to use either a blackhole address which you own or a nonexistent domain, so that you aren't sticking someone else with the spam.

pissedconsumer.com is a comment spammer

Sometimes complaint sites are themselves abusive. I've received comments with links to pissedconsumer.com on three or four of my scam-reporting posts. The accounts from which they're submitted vary, but they're all from the same boilerplate:

Hello. I think your blog is great. Recently, I have read a lot about [company I posted about]. The most useful information came from www.pisseconsumer.com.

It's always spelled "pisseconsumer.com" in the plain text, though that site doesn't exist. That is followed by an innocuous-sounding description of the company. If you click through the link, you find lots of plausible-looking complaints about the company.

The first couple of times, I had some doubts; any comment which starts with a compliment that could be used anywhere is likely spam. But the page looked as if it had legitimate information, so I allowed the comment.

This morning I got the third or fourth comment of that kind, with the same opening boilerplate and misspelling. This one, posted by "Shon Bi," was praising Direct Buy and yet providing a link to a page with lots of complaints about the company.

Given that pissedconsumer.com is a comment-spamming operation, it may well be inventing its own complaints about companies as well. Note to "Shon Bi," "Denny," and your other sock puppets: I've gone back and deleted your comments, and any further comments you post won't see the light of day.

See also:

• Pissedconsumer.com: spammers and maybe more (The Spam Diaries)

Weekend links

The blogosphere is choking from unoriginality. Search for any topic, and most of what you'll find is material recycled from someone else, with no more than a line or two of original commentary. That's not counting the outright spam. So to help find a bit of authentic material, here's a roundup of links to thoughtful articles on issues I've posted about. I'm focusing here on lesser-known blogs, ones where my link might actually make a noticeable difference.

• Maria Robinson writes on federal wiretap legislation
(AFF Doublethink Online)
• Miss Behavin's Sh*t List (Miss Behavin)
• Clarity at last: Border guards don't need a reason... (Winter Patriot)
• US Customs Has The Right To Search Your Laptop Without Cause: What You Can Do (Flying with Fish)