Constitutional Rights -or- Lynch Mob Rules

It's been less than 24 hours since Dzhokar Tsarnaev was taken into custody in the Boston area. He was found injured and bloody, hiding in a land-bound boat in some back yard. He was hunted down, literally, by local and federal law enforcement agencies under suspicion of the Boston Marathon bombing. Those of us who are wired and socially connected have been barraged, nay, drowned with Headlines, 'Breaking News!' and page after page of social network outcry and memes, all declaring the judgement, sentencing, guilt and possible arraignment of the suspect.

What happened in Boston was an act of terrorism, no question. The various law enforcement agencies partnered with local citizens and businesses to gather and process tons of photo and video evidence so as to help lead them to suspects. The partnership and immediate outpouring of help was nothing less than heroic. Period.

But what happened to Constitutional Rights in all this?

Don't get me wrong. I am fairly confident the cops are on to the right guy, given his older brother and accomplice went out in a hail of gunfire. But let's not lose sight of due process.

We need to make sure we are honoring the rights and Amendments for which our forefathers died. We need to make sure that we duly process Dzhokar Tsarnaev to the fullest extent of law and in light of Constitutional rights. Nothing less. Which means we cannot so quickly dismiss our Sixth Amendment: The right to a fair and speedy trial of impartial peers.

I'm not defending Tsarnaev, or any other goomba who tries the same shenanigans. No way. I want to make sure he's tried fairly, and IF FOUND GUILTY by a jury of impartial peers, sent away for a long, long time. The problem is with our 24x7 "Breaking Headlines!" and always-connected social networks, all pre-judging his guilt, he has no hope for a fair or impartial jury. Which leaves some "wiggle room" in the eyes of the law to throw out vital evidence and data, and potentially lead to a hung jury...or worse, "innocence." Two words: Oh Jay.

We can't let that happen. Again.

I challenge you to clamor and shout for "Fair, Speedy Trial!" Let's find Tsarnaev guilty beyond the shadow of doubt and get this ugly action put behind us all so we can get on with healing.

Google Glass: Modern Technology Mopeds

We've all see the reports about how Google Glass will come with caveats; Google may 'neuter' any Google Glass that is sold or traded without gaining permission to do so in writing. 

Google has confirmed it is barring current buyers of its Google Glass spectacles from passing them on to somebody else. It’s not clear if the restrictions will still apply once the devices go on general sale.

Here's the question: Other than MIT and Stanford grad students, who's really going to wear these ridiculous things? Seriously.

We've seen articles about how Google Glass will be banned in some businesses and locations, like it's some kind of weapon. I get the privacy concerns, but those places aren't banning cellphones with cameras today. Why, all-of-a-sudden, are they getting concerned with privacy?

I can't imagine anyone in their right mind paying $1500+ for "eye tech" that force-feeds everything directly into your retina...except protection from UV rays. 

Why isn't Google partnering with Ray Ban, Oakley or any designer eye wear vendor? These need to be way more attractive before they will be worn en mass. If Google is ever to monetize this kind of technology they need to make them attractive. Which brings me to my point.

Mark my words: Google Glass will be the Moped of modern technology. Totally fun to ride, but no one wants to be caught in the act.

Credit: Geeks are Sexy, Google