follow Steve on Twitter

This website is a personal blog maintained by Steve Glista, who is a licensed attorney in the states of Michigan and Oregon. Steve is a lawyer at Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn, LLP. Opinions or comments expressed on this site belong to the commenter or the author and do not represent legal advice from or the official position of the Honigman firm.

This website does not offer legal advice. No person should act or refrain from acting solely as a result of the information presented here. Your use of this website does not create an attorney-client or other confidential relationship. If you make an initial contact seeking legal advice, please do not send confidential information.

Contact us here:

269.389.0385 | Kalamazoo

503.406.8651 | Portland

GPS tracking: don’t celebrate yet

Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSBlog offers some detailed thoughts about Jones v. United States, along with some SCOTUS kremlinology and the following prediction:

[A]lthough the government lost Jones 9-0, it did far better than everyone has recognized so far. I believe that it is more likely than not to prevail in a later case in which it installs a GPS monitor without a warrant and tracks the individual for only a couple . . . → Read More: GPS tracking: don’t celebrate yet

PirateBay opens new section for 3D models

The Pirate Bay Wants You To Really Download A Car | TorrentFreak:

“We believe that the next step in copying will be made from digital form into physical form. It will be physical objects. Or as we decided to call them: Physibles,” says The Pirate Bay as they announce a new 3D printing section of their site.

“Data objects are able (and feasible) to become physical. We believe that things like three dimensional printers, scanners and such are just the first step. We believe that in the nearby future you will print your spare parts for your vehicles. You will download your sneakers within 20 years,” they add.


This is like the prequel to Cory Doctorow’s dystopian vision of the future:

The coppers smashed my father’s printer when I was eight. I remember the hot, cling-film-in-a-microwave smell of it, and Da’s look of ferocious concentration as he filled it with fresh goop, and the warm, fresh-baked feel of the objects that came out of it.

Maybe, just for once, the people who are actually making legitimate use of this technology (like the artists and makers at Shapeways) will heed the warning and get out in front of the inevitable and yet . . . → Read More: PirateBay opens new section for 3D models

Parents Sue Minnesota Over Newborn DNA Retention Policy

Via the Courthouse News Service this article about mandatory infant health screening and what the state does with the information -and biological material- that it collects.  Apparently, apart from being a massive invasion of privacy, the state of Minnesota actually has a law that prevents the state from retaining unnecessary health information.  The complaint alleges:

After testing the minor plaintiffs’ blood for disorders, defendants did not destroy the blood sample, but instead stored or retained the blood sample,” the complaint states. The parents say the state did this without their informed consent, and that the state then “disseminated the genetic information, and conducted tests and research on the genetic information belonging to numerous other persons in Minnesota,” also without consent.

Generally speaking, it is a good idea to require infant health screening for some conditions that may not be immediately apparent to outside observation but that will have an ongoing negative impact on the development of the child.  One disorder that leaps to mind is phenylketonuria.  Another is hearing impairment (although some deaf culture supporters might disagree).  In fact, national funding for infant hearing loss testing is in place in nearly every state.
On the other hand, it is generally bad . . . → Read More: Parents Sue Minnesota Over Newborn DNA Retention Policy