Tuesday, September 25, 2007

The risks of propping up a corpse

Those of you who have--ahem--occasionally shared copyrighted content through peer-to-peer (P2P) networks know that the music and movie industries have their panties in a bunch over the free distribution of copyrighted material. In fact, these industries are so upset that they've sued uploaders and downloaders of copyrighted material (risking horrible PR among entertainment media end-users) and even hired private firms to sabotage networks like Gnutella and Bittorrent.

Prominent among the companies that hire out their services to track file sharers and monkeywrench P2P networks is Media Defender. This company has earned boos and hisses from around the world from folks who like their information to be free in the most literal sense possible for its efforts, including uploading worthless files to clog file-sharing networks and the establishment of bogus file-sharing sites to entrap would-be sharers.

But the copyright vigilantes have proven vulnerable to high-tech counter-vigilantism (is that even a word?) Media Defender has been targeted by a group of activists who style themselves as Media Defender-Defenders, and who've scored an impressive coup by nabbing vast quantities of internal company emails revealing the painful details of the the pro-copyright business as well as source code for the company's decoy files.

All of this is either good or bad depending on where you stand on the subject of intellectual property and on file-sharing. There's certainly an argument to be made in favor of protecting property rights and respecting the integrity of intellectual property--that argument defines file-sharers as, to one extent or another, thieves who can justly be thwarted. That makes the folks at Media Defender the good guys and Media Defender-Defenders a gang of bad actors who should be vilified for what it's done.

But intellectual property isn't quite like other types of property--it's much different, in fact. There's no inherently exclusive possession of words or images the way there is with land or things. Out of necessity, civilizations around the world have long seen the need to establish who has the proper claim to a field or a horse, but the practice of establishing some sort of claim to all copies of a book or a picture or an idea is a bit more esoteric--and much more recent. Protection of intellectual property is an artificial construct meant to encourage writers, artists and inventors to innovate, rather than a formalized system meant to preclude the need for Ogg to bash Bogg over the head for trying to steal his corn crop.

My own take is that protection of intellectual property is a good thing--but that it has to operate within the needs and limitations of the real world. Yes, writers (especially writers, damnit), artists and inventors should be encouraged to produce and enrich the world around them. But if you reach the point where products of the mind can be reproduced at a whim--or the click of a mouse button--so that intellectual property as we currently understand it can be protected only by prosecution of the public-at-large, sabotage and suppression of technology, then something has to give. And what has to give is the artificial model of intellectual property that has served us so far, but may no longer be relevant.

What should replace that model? I'm not sure--but I think that replacement shouldn't be dictated; it should evolve to meet new conditions.

That means that file sharing and the hacking of Media Defender aren't questions of good vs. evil, but rather fundamental changes in the world in which intellectual innovations are made. Technology has outstripped the old model; it's time for something new. And Media Defender got tripped up in the act of propping up a corpse.

Labels: ,

Monday, September 24, 2007

A peek behind bars continues

Remember Dave Ridley? He's the man who told his tale of arrest and non-violent non-cooperation after he was targeted for distributing leaflets at an IRS office. Well, he continues his fascinating story here.

My tormentor from the previous night returns, now interested in debate more than deprivation.

First he parades back and forth in front of my cell pretending to fire a machine gun in the air. He says: "militiaaaaaaaaa!" Apparently he has decided that I am in one. We talk for a while about open carry and other topics. You never gave me your name, I tell him. Ralph DiFelipo, he says. I reply that he did not need to give me his full name. It's okay, he says, you militia boys can find me and we'll fight it out. I tell him I have no interest in that sort of thing, and he leaves.

When the conversation resumes I remind DeFelipo that I have never used violence since the day I punched a schoolmate in 11th grade. I say probably you use violence once a week or so in this jail. So don't judge me so quickly. He concedes the point. We talk about the legality of so many controversial things in New Hampshire, the libertarian culture there, the unfair taxation in Mass.

And as the hours turn into days, my tormentor begins to relax, to look out for my interests, to serve as my best source of conversation. He returns to the cell every hour or so with questions about our movement. We'll turn violent someday, he taunts....everyone starts out peaceful with pamphlets. You're going to be just like David Koresh.

But, he says grudgingly, you're stubborn.

It'w worth reading for a little insight into the mindset of people who willingly serve the state, and also for a taste of what appears to be a productive strategy to follow when seized by such people.

Labels: ,

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Paey freed

Richard Paey, the chronic pain sufferer prosecuted and imprisoned as a "drug trafficker" for securing the medication he needs to treat his condition, has been exonerated. Florida Governor Charlie Crist granted him a full pardon, allowing him to return to his family with his rights restored.

A major irony of Paey's time behind bars has not passed without notice:

Since his incarceration, prison doctors have hooked him up to a morphine drip, which delivers more pain medication daily than he was convicted of trafficking.

Best of luck to Paey as he rebuilds his life.


Wednesday, September 19, 2007

HillaryCare deconstructed

Cato's Michael D. Tanner does the hard work of critiquing Hillary Clinton's socialized medicine by proxy so I don't have to. Among the points he makes:

Sen. Clinton would require every American to purchase health insurance or face penalties. There are many problems with such a mandate. It restricts individual choice and liberty. It will require a massive new bureaucracy to enforce. And it sets in motion a whole series of regulatory requirements that will ultimately lead to greater government control of our health care.

Of particular concern to me is the proposal to require small businesses to offer coverage to their employees or pay extortion to the feds to fund a government program. I'm involved in small-scale real-estate investments that (I hope) will grow larger and perhaps require employees in the future--a prospect that becomes less likely the more costly barriers are placed in the way of growth. My wife would also be affected, since she owns a small but thriving business which would be hit hard by such a mandate.

The current issue of the Cato Policy Report provides a more detailed analysis of the flaws inherent in individual health mandates. That's timely not just because of Hillary Clinton's dictate-heavy proposal, but because such promises to provide everybody with the health coverage of their dreams at low, low prices through the wave of a magical legislative wand have proven to be crowd-pleasers--just ask Mitt Romney. As Glenn Whitman says, somewhat ominously, in the piece:

Effective health care reform would involve making customers more cost-conscious. The individual mandate, sadly, will tend to shield customers from costs and impede innovations that could push costs down. Rising insurance premiums, as a result of a growing mandated benefits package, will fuel greater public dissatisfaction with the health care system. Further regulations that hitchhike on the individual mandate will only make matters worse. Ironically, free markets rather than government will likely catch the blame, thus fueling demand for more intrusive interventions into the health care market.

Isn't it always the case that liberty is blamed for the failings of authoritarianism? People may chafe at the occasional government dictate, but let some crisis (or even a mere annoyance) arise and rather than demand more freedom to make their own choices, they insist that somebody do something to free them from the terrible responsibility of making things better by their own initiative.

If the past is any guide, we'll be lucky if the worst we suffer is HillaryCare.


The most important lesson of the year

The school year is now well underway, so it's as good a time as any to remind new and returning students and faculty at America's institutions of higher learning that the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education stands ready to protect their liberty from sometimes overbearing or simply craven campus authorities. From speech codes to tenure battles to star-chamber-like judicial proceedings, FIRE has repeatedly waded in to remind college administrators that personal freedom and due process really are good things.

On its website, FIRE has a good roundup of the resources it offers right here.

Labels: , ,

At odds with my hometown

Well, it's been several weeks since I've heard from my major client of recent months, so I think this a timely juncture at which to ask this genteel question:

What in Hell is wrong with New York City-based companies?

I've worked for many companies and organizations based in the Rotten Apple over the years--as both an employee and a contractor. Only one of those experiences--the very first--can be described as positive.

Overall, I find an extraordinarily high level of drama, neuroses and conflict when I deal with New Yorkers. When working with my latest client--a magazine publisher that will otherwise remain unidentified--I dealt primarily with two people who actively disliked each other and worked at cross-purposes, effectively undermining each other's efforts. My contacts were almost stereotypical New Yorkers too--very high energy, disorganized, more than a bit weird and heavily invested in the job at the expense of everything else (read that as business emails sent at midnight--on Saturdays and Sundays).

The one saving grace was that, as a contractor, I was able to charge more when efforts were complicated and duplicated. The situation would have been intolerable if I were an employee.

I'd write it off as the luck of the draw if it weren't for two decades of similar experiences.

Two decades? So why do I keep going back for more abuse?

Errr. Good question. The fact is that there are a lot of companies based in NYC, and they tend to pay better than businesses elsewhere. Also, I'm a former New Yorker myself, and I still have contacts in that city. It's hard to turn my back on lucrative projects from my hometown.

Also, I did have that one good experience with a New York-based company--and I have had an occasional bad experience with clients based elsewhere.

I wonder how much of the discomfort I have with New York clients has been the cultural transition I've personally made over the past ten years. Despite my upbringing in and around that city, I now have far less in common in terms of values and attitudes with New Yorkers than I do with folks from that great unknown area between the Hudson River and the California border.

Yeah, I've changed. But New Yorkers are nuts.


Tuesday, September 18, 2007

The 50,000-volt question

Amateur provocateur Andrew Meyer sounds like a self-indulgent asshole, but Tasering him for hogging the microphone at a gab-fest with Sen. John Kerry is, without a doubt, excessive. Frankly, it sounds as if the boys and girls in blue were offended that somebody declined to display instant obedience to their commands, and elected to apply a little on-the-spot punishment.

The idea of Tasers and other less-lethal weapons is a good one. They're intended to be used in place of firearms to reduce the need for lethal force to conclude confrontations. Unfortunately, as in the situation with Meyer, it's proven too easy for police to instead turn to the new weapons as a means of escalating the use of force beyond that necessary to control the situation--but without incurring the consequences inherent in outright shooting a subject or jumping up and down on his head.

Of course, what technology giveth, it also bestows upon somebody else. Even as police zapped Meyer with 50,000 volts, they were being simultaneously video-recorded by members of the audience--recordings which then ended up on YouTube to convert a local outrage into national scandal.

Whether Meyer was hoping for a taste of martyrdom is beside the point. It's usually the worst troublemakers who are most willing to put the hard questions to politicians and say "no" to authority. They help to remind officialdom that they owe their power and privilege to those annoying folks out their in fly-over land. The troublemakers are often jerks, but they're frequently much-needed jerks.

And it's just never acceptable to shut them up by running 50,000 volts through their bodies.

Labels: ,

Monday, September 17, 2007

A little love for Larry Craig

OK, so I had a little fun a couple of weeks ago with Larry Craig's uncomfortable situation. Now he's found new allies in the ranks of the American Civil Liberties Union, which says the sting that busted him for allegedly cruising for "dates" in an airport men's room is likely unconstitutional. Pundits have found a little irony in the notably anti-gay senator's representation by the ACLU in a gay sex scandal.

But, having already joined in the pile-on, let me back off a bit to give Sen. Craig his due. It was just a couple of years ago that he reportedly drew the wrath of President Bush for questioning the wisdom of the Patriot Act. In fact, according to Doug Thompson, of Capitol Hill Blue, "Bush referred to Craig as 'a goddamned traitor' and told the National Republican Senatorial Committee to start recruiting someone to run against the Idaho Senator in 2008."

Sen. Craig didn't outright try to kill the odious Patriot Act, but he did break with the White House and his own party's leadership to demand major revisions. That's an atypically courageous gesture--and the right move--for a sitting politician.

Larry Craig is no across-the-board civil libertarian--few members of Congress are--but he's one of the few Republicans in Congress who ever, however inconsistently, expressed concern about the rights of the individual.

Before we celebrate his downfall, let's just see who's likely to replace him.

Labels: ,

Friday, September 14, 2007

Those hippy, peace-nik troops

When it comes to raising contributions from military personnel, the Republican presidential candidate raking in the most cash is ... Ron Paul! He comes in second among all presidential candidates, after Barack Obama.

Yes, that Ron Paul--the one who wants to end the war and bring the troops home.

It makes you think, doesn't it?


Thursday, September 13, 2007

Doomed youth

Staff Sgt. Yance Gray and Sgt. Omar Mora, two of the soldiers who signed an op-ed piece in The New York Times critical of the war in Iraq, died in a truck accident in that ravaged country.

Read the full text of "Anthem for Doomed Youth" and other antiwar poems by Wilfred Owen here.


Tell me this isn't cool ...

Google is putting up $30 million to create the Lunar X-Prize--a reward for the first team to land a privately funded spacecraft on the moon.

Google's official announcement says that the company hopes to stimulate interest in fields like math, engineering and computer science, but I think the folks in charge just couldn't resist the "cool" factor.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Real--and unreal--threats to the First Amendment

The newspapers are full of a fair amount of hand-wringing over a First Amendment Center poll finding that almost two-thirds of Americans "believe that the nation's founders intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation and 55% believe that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation." That the belief is ill-founded should be apparent to anybody who knows American history. Many of the founders were deists, who believed in the concept of a "creator," but didn't believe that the creator involved itself in human life and generally rejected the trappings of organized religion--including those of Christianity. There's no evidence that the founders sought to mold their new country along the lines of religious views that they didn't share.

But even though I think that a majority of Americans are wrong about their country's religious identity, I'm not convinced that I should fret more about their theological failings than I do about their overall historical ignorance. For starters, the term "Christian nation" is vague as hell. It could mean anything from a general adherence to Judaeo-Christian values (a position that wouldn't offend even my atheistic heart) to outright endorsement of theocracy and subjugation of non-believers--that covers a lot of ground. A better idea of how many poll respondents actually want to lock church and state in a close embrace lies in the 28% that want to deny religious liberty to those deemed "extreme or on the fringe."

The folks who make up that 28% are scary, but they're a far cry from two-thirds of the population.

More troubling to me--though less ballyhooed in the media--are the large numbers of Americans in the poll who apparently favor choking off private support of political campaigns.

The survey also found that 71% of Americans would limit the amount a corporation or union could contribute to a political campaign, with 64% favoring such a limit on individual contributions. Sixty-two percent would limit the amount a person could contribute to his or her own campaign.

Solid majorities of Americans apparently have no problem with letting politicians throttle off the flow of money from Americans to the activists and candidates who represent their views. That's a lot of power to hand to officials who have a personal interest in wielding such authority. We've had experience with so-called "campaign finance reform" in recent years, and the result has been to increasingly turn politicking into a specialized field reserved to well-connected experts.

It's become legally perilous to advocate for or against candidates and ballot initiatives. Spend the wrong money, in the wrong way, or at the wrong time, and you may face crippling fines. It's safer to just keep your mouth shut--and let the politicians slip just a little further out of control.

I certainly don't want to live in the worst-case version of a "Christian nation," but in the modern world, state-controlled political speech is more of a threat than the specter of theocracy.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

When government officials get down and dirty

Radley Balko has fascinating news about the ongoing persecution of bar owner David Ruttenberg in Manassas Park, Virginia. The story fulfills pretty much every paranoid nightmare about just how low government officials can go when they're out to screw private citizens.

Labels: ,

Monday, September 10, 2007

Justice--a bit delayed

The infamous Patriot Act--parts of it, anyway--just may, finally, be on the ropes. I hope you haven't been holding your breath.

The scandal over the FBI's abuse of national security letters has reaped appropriate rewards. Last week, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero ruled (PDF) that the use of the letters, without a warrant, to snoop through e-mail and telephone data is unconstitutional. Specifically, Marrero said the letters violate the separation of powers, since there's little judicial oversight, and the First Amendment, since the FBI can forbid recipients of the letters to reveal that they've received the nasty things.

Not mincing words, Marrero said the use of NSLs is "the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering."

Ain't that right.

As court challenges go, this is relatively fast work--only half a decade, give or take, for the courts to find (for the second time) that the Patriot Act's national security letters are an outrageous invasion of our rights. That really is about as fast as the judicial system is capable of moving--which is not a particularly encouraging thought as we tally up the tens of thousands of national security letters the FBI issued every year after the passage of the Patriot Act.

If you're looking for quick solutions to civil liberties violations, lawsuits are probably not the way to go. Even now, the federal government is expected to appeal Marrero's decision and further drag out the process.

On another front, Oregon attorney Brandon Mayfield--he of wrongly-fingered-by-the-FBI -as-a-terrorist fame--is in court with his own challenge to the Patriot Act provisions that resulted in his incarceration in the wake of the Madrid bombings. He spent two weeks in stir before the feds admitted they'd made a mistake.

Note, the Madrid attack, and Mayfield's resulting incarceration, were three years ago.

Once again, the legal system proves to be a circuitous route for righting a wrong inflicted by government officials.

I'm heartened that the courts are still capable of being outraged by some government actions. But when I consider how much officials can get away with during the long process of lawsuits and appeals, I'm not sure that such civil liberties decisions are much more than hollow victories.

Labels: , ,

Cop needs a beating

If you want a fly-on-the-wall view of a cop behaving like an asshole, click here.


Friday, September 7, 2007

New wheels

I picked up a new mountain bike today. I've been banging around on an entry-level Raleigh M50 for eight years, and I've reached the point where the cost of maintenance and repairs is more than the bike is worth. I talked it over with my wife, and we decided that an early combination birthday/Christmas present is in order. So, after copious research, a lot of back and forth on the options available in stores and on the Internet and a little tugging at the edges of a budget dictated by the realities of family life, I went to the local bike shop and dickered my way to a pretty good price on a Gary Fisher Cobia.

The Cobia is a 29er--a bike with 29-inch wheels--in contrast to the 26-inch wheels found on most mountain bikes. The component set isn't stellar, but the bike is within my budget (after a little bargaining) and is well-reviewed in all the online biking forums. More important, it feels good to ride. It's a huge step up from what I've been riding. The Cobia is my first 29er and, I'm embarrassed to say, my first bike with clipless pedals--I've been using platforms since the Jurassic Era.

Yeah, I had to bargain over the price of a pair of cycling shoes too.

After I bought the bike, I talked to my wife on the phone and started waxing eloquent about my new purchase. I went on about how much I loved the 29-inch wheels, the feel of the bike under me and the easy shifting. She had one question: What color is the bike? The funny thing is, after all the research, all the time hashing over the relative attributes of bikes in my price range with bike-shop sales staffers, the test ride, and the time in the shop while my bike was tuned, I drew a blank.

It's dark now, and the bike is out in the shed. I still can't picture the color of the frame.

But I remember what it felt like on the test ride.

Thursday, September 6, 2007

You mean there's a war on?

As part of their campaign to demonstrate that they're no better than the Republicans they replaced, congressional Democrats have backed off efforts to set a firm date for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

Granted, the Democrats don't have the votes to override a presidential veto, but wouldn't it be nice if they made even a symbolic effort to win through on the one issue that most clearly differentiates them from the GOP and which won them the backing of American voters last year? I mean, c'mon, they should at least pretend that they give a damn.


You can trust us. Really

It sounds like the federal securi-crats tripped over their own assurances to the public about the safeguards inherent in the government's data-mining schemes:

The Homeland Security Department scrapped an ambitious anti-terrorism data-mining tool after investigators found it was tested with information about real people without required privacy safeguards. ...

Pilot tests of the program were quietly suspended in March after Congress' Government Accountability Office warned that "the ADVISE tool could misidentify or erroneously associate an individual with undesirable activity such as fraud, crime or terrorism."

Since then, Homeland Security's inspector general and the DHS privacy office discovered that tests used live data about real people rather than made-up data for one to two years without meeting privacy requirements. The inspector general also said ADVISE was poorly planned, time-consuming for analysts to use and lacked adequate justifications.
But it's just an isolated screw-up, you say. The potential benefits of such an intelligence program certainly off-set the chance of the occasional error.

Ah, but were it so.
This is the second such error at DHS.

The Secure Flight program to screen domestic air travelers was blocked by Congress after it acquired live personal data for testing. That program has since issued a privacy impact assessment, dropped use of commercial data such as personal credit card histories, and will begin tests this fall.
In fact, federal officials seem overwhelmingly prone to give rather cavalier treatment to sensitive data about individuals and businesses. At least these abuses came during the test phase of these data-gathering operations, at a time when they're likely to be subject to much more scrutiny than they would be during routine operation, and when they have access to less information than they would when in their full glory.

These programs are also more vulnerable now. How likely is it that the feds would shut down data-mining operations once they've become an established part of the bureaucracy--even in the face of a much larger scandal about the abuse of information?

let's just take this as a warning about what the government should not be allowed to do.


Wednesday, September 5, 2007


Please tell me how an Air Force plane can be accidentally loaded with nuclear weapons. You'd think that somebody would be keeping an eye on the stock of bombs--especially those that go off with a big "BOOM." I mean, way to keep inventory, folks.


Tuesday, September 4, 2007

In praise of illegal immigration

A statewide boycott of shopping and work by (mostly) Mexican immigrants to protest Arizona's draconian new law which punishes business that hire illegal workers appears to be sputtering. I'm not surprised. Mexican immigrants, legal or illegal, are probably too busy working and raising families to stand on corners waving placards.

I've recently admitted the obvious limits of my home-improvement skills and hired professionals for three big renovation projects. In two of the cases, much of the work ended up being done by Mexican workers with limited language skills who put in long hours under the summer desert sun. I didn't inquire as to their immigration status--I don't really care. But I'm sufficiently plugged into the local building contractor community to make an educated guess that any green cards held by the workers who helped make my house so much nicer to live in are about as legit as the ID I used to get into bars back in the age of New Wave music.

Contractors and skilled craftsmen I know tell me that there are two groups of preferred workers in the construction trades in this area: "older" Anglos who've seen their 40th birthdays come and go (and it pains me to refer to 40-plus as "older") and Mexicans of any age. That's because those workers tend to be stable and reliable--they show up on time and give value for the money they're paid. Younger Anglos, on the other hand, have a reputation for disappearing after they get their first paychecks. I have no doubt that it's unfair to paint all twenty-something carpenters named "Smith" as meth-heads and layabouts, but that's the stereotype.

There aren't enough older Anglos to go around, and some of them are, perhaps, not as spry as they once were, so that leaves the other preferred group. Tradespeople I've spoken with are convinced that the industry would collapse without the flow of illegal immigrants from across the border.

What does that all mean?

It means that, at least in the small area in which I live, illegal immigrants are largely seen by employers as a vital boon to the economy--they're high-quality imported labor for a region that is no longer so good at producing decent labor on its own. They come to an area where the jobs are ripe for the plucking, leaving behind a country that may produce good laborers and tradespeople, but which fails to produce a sufficient stock of well-paying jobs.

It seems to me that both Mexico and Arizona are benefiting from a cross-border flow that wouldn't exist if the two places didn't have complementary assets--and deficits.

So, while I don't expect the current boycott to have much effect, I do appreciate its message. I wish more Americans were fully appreciative of the willingness of some people to risk arrest and even death to sneak into a foreign country, just so they can work.


Monday, September 3, 2007

Reason 931 why I'm glad I left New York

The Gotham Gazette covers a new government scheme to create a "ring of steel" in lower Manhattan that would place people in the street under an unprecedented degree of intrusive surveillance by law enforcement agents.
The New York City Police Department will soon launch a new counter-terrorism surveillance program named the "Lower Manhattan Security Initiative." It will include some 3,000 cameras – both public and private – below Canal Street to monitor people and cars moving through Lower Manhattan, along with license plate readers, a command center and movable roadblocks. The program is generally seen as having been modeled on London’s so-called ring of steel, a security and surveillance system that keeps many eyes on London’s financial district and historic sites. Some counts estimate that with this system the average London resident is photographed 300 times a day.
As always, the plan is being sold as a necessary means of preserving public safety in these unfortunate days post-9/11. Unmentioned is any matching scheme to protect New Yorkers from the folks running the ring of steel. And, as the article explains, the abuses of such a surveillance system are far from theoretical.
In a television interview, George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen recalled sitting in a camera control room one night. When boredom set in after midnight, the workers focused not on miscreants but on attractive women and people making out in the park. During the 2004 Republican convention in New York, Rosen recalled, "surveillance cameras on airplanes took pictures of a couple making love on a roof garden, followed them, watched this whole thing and then actually trailed the woman as she left."

Now multiply such petty intrusions by the thousands of planned new cameras and the fallible people hired to monitor them--as well as the officials bound to "discover" new uses for their
data--and you have a recipe for disaster.

Will New Yorkers stand for it? I'll bet they will. Long famous for their stubborn rebelliousness, New Yorkers have proven every bit as receptive as anybody else to phony promises of safety in return for a little liberty.


Showing us who's boss

A Labor Day, a day of brief respite from drudgery, barbecues, family gatherings and muscle-flexing shows of strength by the government's own arm-twisters.
State troopers were watching and waiting, clocking speeds and flagging drivers down. And if that didn't work, they didn't hesitate to chase drivers down.

Local 12 also saw how a simple speeding ticket can turn into a lot more as one driver was arrested. He had no license and no insurance.

So, you did not imagine it. There were more troopers on the road Monday, and we learned that drivers on I-71 certainly did notice.
Don't think that a brief holiday is any sort of escape from the folks in power.