Brindle

This is how things go in the US, where law enforcement is treated like a favored religion and everyone who isn't on the inside is just grist for prosecution mills. Here's the setup, via Matt Pearce.

A Baton Rouge police officer was arrested Friday on a count of negligent homicide, accused of going 94 mph in a Corvette when he caused an off-duty crash on Airline Highway that killed an infant and injured six others.

The officer, Christopher Manuel, 28, was driving north in a 2007 Chevrolet Corvette shortly after 8 p.m. Oct. 12 on Airline Highway when it struck a Nissan at the intersection at Florline Boulevard that was occupied by four adults and three children.

All of the occupants of the Nissan were taken to the hospital. One of those passengers, a 1-year-old baby, Seyaira Stephens, later died.

The van made a left turn in front of the off-duty officer. Both vehicles had a green light. The speed limit on this road was 50 mph. The speed the officer was traveling was verified by his Corvette's black box. Here's the positive news:

Manuel, of 8508 Greenwell Springs Road, was booked into East Baton Rouge Parish Prison on a count of negligent homicide and speeding, Sgt. L'Jean McKneely, police spokesman, said.

The officer was booked and made bond. So far, so good. Here comes the avalanche of bad news.

Manuel, who has been on paid administrative leave since the accident, will remain on paid leave until after an internal investigation is concluded, McKneely said.

Due process, I suppose, even if it was clear the officer was traveling at nearly twice the posted speed limit. Much of the information needed to conclude the investigation was already in his department's hands, thanks to the Corvette's airbag control module, which recorded this data at the time of impact.

But if there's going to be any justice done, it's going to be severely delayed.

That investigation will not begin until he recovers from his injuries and is released to work by a doctor.

That's the sort of thing never extended to lowly civilians. No officer has ever told an injured arrestee to heal up before worrying about answering questions. No law enforcement agency has backburnered an investigation simply because its subject can't move around on their own yet.

But these investigations took no time to complete. No one at the Baton Rouge PD waited around for victims of the officer's reckless driving to be fully healed before they began their arrests.

Just weeks after a Baton Rouge police officer was arrested on negligent homicide and accused of causing a crash that injured several people and killed a baby, the child's mother was also arrested on the same charge because police said she failed to properly secure the baby's car seat.

Brittany Stephens, 20, was arrested Tuesday after police found that her daughter's car seat was not secured and the straps were not adjusted correctly for the child's height, according to her arrest report. Police said the "lack of securing the seat to the vehicle and the loose straps are a contributing factor in the death" of the child and "show gross negligence" on the mother's part.

Ah, the healing power of criminal charges, brought against someone involved in an accident that was no fault of her own. She (and her daughter) were just passengers in the van. Not to worry, the police issued citations to everyone else in the vehicle the officer hit. But the mother of the infant the cop killed is facing the same charges he is. And she's not going to be given a chance to rest up before the police move forward with their investigation. The PD has already wrapped this one up and forwarded charges to the DA's office.

East Baton Rouge District Attorney Hillar Moore III said Tuesday his office has not yet determined whether Stephens or Manuel will face charges, but prosecutors "will review all reports, charges and arrests and make the appropriate decisions based upon facts and law."

There is nothing right about this, not even technically. The reckless driving performed by the officer should nullify the culpability of the people in the car he hit. While Officer Manuel may have had the right of way, his excessive speed changed the contours of the incident. In a case involving law enforcement officers manufacturing a reason to stop a car, a court pointed out unsafe driving by officers nullifies moving violations performed by other drivers.

[T]he Court finds as a matter of fact and law that Defendant did not fail to yield to the cruiser because the cruiser was not proceeding in a lawful manner. Rather, the cruiser was itself speeding on a dark, rainy night at low visibility further compromised by road glare. By proceeding in such a reckless manner – and in violation of both state and local law – Ofc. Davis forfeited the preferential status afforded a lawful driver under the right-of-way statute.

This isn't apples-to-apples (the court making this declaration was in Ohio, not Louisiana, where this accident took place) but it's a good rule of thumb. If someone is driving 44 mph over the speed limit, they've effectively forfeited their right-of-way status. A left turn taken in front of a speeding officer should give the officer zero preferential treatment in the eyes of the law. The officer should be 100% culpable for the damage and loss of life. Arresting a mother who lost her infant to an officer's reckless actions is needlessly cruel and serves zero deterrent purpose. Her daughter can't be killed again.

The way the Baton Rouge PD is handling this ensures Officer Manuel's eventual conviction will also have zero deterrent value. It shows officers the PD is willing to arrest victims of their unlawful actions and give them all the time they want -- with pay! -- to heal up before they're forced to confront the results of their recklessness. If the DA is smart, the charges against the mother will vanish and the cop will be rung up for his negligent actions.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

In the wake of the FCC's extremely-unpopular repeal of net neutrality, more than half the states in the country are now pursuing their own net neutrality rules. Some of these efforts are taking the form of actual legislation that closely mirrors the discarded FCC rules (as seen in Oregon and Washington), while others involve the creation of executive orders adjusting state policies to ban states from doing business with ISPs that engage in anti-competitive net neutrality violations. In most instances these rules carve out vast exemptions for "reasonable network management," only outlawing anti-competitive behavior.

ISPs have of course been quick to whine about the unfairness of having to adhere to 50 different rules governing net neutrality, even though most implementations closely mirror the FCC rules these same lobbyists just successfully killed. US Telecom, a lobbying organization primarily managed by AT&T, lamented the unfairness of this scenario in a conversation with the Washington Post:

"As we have cautioned repeatedly, we simply cannot have 50 different regulations governing [broadband],” said USTelecom, a major trade association for Internet providers. “It’s time for Congress to step up and enact legislation to make permanent and sustainable rules governing net neutrality."

So one, most of the state-level rules closely mirror the same rules the FCC is trying to eliminate, so most of them are fairly uniform. It's also worth pointing out that these companies already have to navigate a vast array of regulations governing phone, cable and broadband service -- rules that can often vary town by town. In other words, these net neutrality efforts aren't as uncommon, discordant and fractured as the telecom industry might have you believe.

Granted having disparate state-level protections may in some ways be cumbersome, but that's again something ISPs like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast should have thought a little harder about before killing extremely popular and modest (by international standards) federal protections. Large ISP lobbyists created this mess and, unsurprisingly, they're simply refusing to own it.

US Telecom is also being disingenuous in claiming to want "permanent and sustainable rules" via new legislation. As we've noted several times, what they really want is a net neutrality law they know they'll write. One that prohibits ISPs from doing things they never intended to do (like blocking websites entirely), while carving out vast loopholes allowing anti-competitive behavior on numerous other fronts (zero rating, interconnection). The real goal: pass flimsy legislation that pre-empts tougher state rules, or future efforts by the FCC or Congress to implement meaningful protections.

ISPs like Comcast and Verizon successfully lobbied the FCC to include language in its net neutrality repeal banning states from protecting consumers ("states rights" and all that). But the FCC's legal authority on this front is untested, setting up some interesting legal showdowns in the weeks and months to come. And while this too is going to generate ridiculous costs predominately in the form of billable hours, blame for this needs to be placed where it belongs: in the laps of ISP lobbyists and revolving door regulators that thought ignoring the facts and the public interest would be a wonderful idea.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

As we wrote about, the White House's announcement of a summit with video game executives was initially a one-sided affair, with nobody in the video game industry having any idea what Sarah Sanders was talking about. The White House clarified afterwards that it would be sending out invites to industry representatives after the announcement -- which is weird! -- and it made good on that promise. We learned several days later that several invites had been accepted from within the industry, such as Robert Altman of Bethesda, Strauss Zelnick of Take-Two, and Michael Gallagher from the Entertainment Software Association. These are pretty much the names you would expect to be called to discuss video game violence, given the games produced by each organization, such as the Grand Theft Auto series.

Less expected was the list of fierce video game critics that were also invited, including Brent Bozell and Representative Vicky Hartzler of Missouri. Hartzler has been an avid critic of violent video games, while remaining a staunch supporter of gun rights, while Bozell is the founder of the Parents Television Council. The PTC is exactly the type of organization you're already imagining: a money-making machine built on the premise of the desire for a puritanical entertainment culture and one that is about as partisan as it gets. One other attendee at this summit of great minds was Retired Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, who trains police and advocates that they use more force rather than less, apparently at least in part due to his belief that officers that kill suspects will go on to have the best sex of their lives afterwards -- but for some reason still insists that violent video games are horrible and anyone who disagrees is the equivalent of a Holocaust denier.

In other words, this was almost perfectly crafted to be a shit-show.

And it seems that Trump's summit didn't disappoint in this regard. Reports indicate that the whole thing opened up, video game execs on one side of the table and their critics on the other, with Trump showing a sizzle reel of violent video games while commenting on how awful it all is.

Trump himself opened the meeting by showing “a montage of clips of various violent video games,” said Rep. Vicky Hartzler, a Republican from Missouri. Then, Hartzler said the president would ask, “This is violent isn’t it?”

“They were violent clips where individuals were killing other human beings in various ways,” she said.

One wonders just how violent everyone at the meeting suddenly became after witnessing this distillation of video game violence all in one sitting. For its part, the game execs attempted quite patiently to explain to Trump that science is a thing that exists, and that there have been studies done on the effects of video game violence, and how this is a meeting that never should have been called to order in the first place.

"We discussed the numerous scientific studies establishing that there is no connection between video games and violence, First Amendment protection of video games, and how our industry’s rating system effectively helps parents make informed entertainment choices," ESA said in a statement.

Whereas Bozell and Hartzler came away from the meeting bewildered why their non-scientific and ultimately unconstitutional recommendations hadn't been put in place years ago.

Bozell said he also communicated to Trump a need for “much tougher regulation” of the video-game industry, stressing that violent games “needed to be given the same kind of thought as tobacco and liquor.”

Hartzler, meanwhile, said she’s open to crafting legislation that would make it harder for youngsters to buy violent games.

“Even though I know there are studies that have said there is no causal link, as a mom and a former high school teacher, it just intuitively seems that prolonged viewing of violent nature would desensitize a young person,” she said.

"Even though science says otherwise, my magical powers granted to me by giving birth to a human being and teaching other human beings should rule the day" is an interesting argument for crafting legislation and policy, by which I mean that it's flatly insane.

The end result of this summit is about what you'd expect. It essentially serves for public self-gratification for those that think violent media is the culprit for all of America's violent ills, despite this media being available in roughly every other country where these same problems don't exist. The executives from the industry did right by pointing to such antiquated authorities as science and data, while their critics were left shaking their fists with the backing of the ethereal and non-quantifiable. Those outside the meeting with other ideas for crafting policy in the wake of the Florida shooting, meanwhile, saw this as the shiny distraction it was likely always meant to be.

“Focusing entirely on video games distracts from the substantive debate we should be having about how to take guns out of the hands of dangerous people,” Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said in a statement.

We need not agree with Blumenthal's policy prescription to recognize that his evaluation of this latest Trump summit is almost certainly correct.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

So we've noted a few times how Trump FCC boss Ajit Pai enjoys wandering the country informing everyone he's a massive champion of closing the digital divide. But those claims have been repeatedly and consistently undermined by Pai's own actions, whether that involves rolling back net neutrality (a move that will make life harder and more expensive for countless consumers, non-profits, minority communities and startups alike), or his slow but steady dismantling of programs intended to make life a little bit easier for the poor.

One of Pai's biggest targets has been the FCC's Lifeline program. It's an arguably modest program that was started by Reagan and expanded by Bush, and it long enjoyed bipartisan support until the post-truth era rolled into town. Lifeline doles out a measly $9.25 per month subsidy that low-income homes can use to help pay a tiny fraction of their wireless, phone, or broadband bills (enrolled participants have to chose one). The FCC under former FCC boss Tom Wheeler had voted to expand the service to cover broadband connections, something Pai (ever a champion to the poor) voted down.

Now Pai is back with a new proposal that would prevent anybody but the nation's biggest carriers from helping provide service to the poor via the Lifeline program. According to Pai's new proposal, only "facilities-based broadband" providers (companies that own and operate their own networks) could participate in the program, forcing millions of the nations' poor off of existing MVNOs and other resellers, and forcing them onto the networks of incumbent wireless carriers.

If you've followed Pai's ideological rhetoric, it's pretty clear he sees government as a pesky impediment to the miracles of the broadband free market, which, in Pai's head, will always do the right thing if left in an accountability vacuum. But if you've also followed the broadband industry, you'll know it's not a free market. It's a mish-mash of regional monopolies that enjoy regulatory capture on the state and federal level, resulting in limited competition, high prices, and awful service. In telecom, history shows us that mindlessly gutting regulatory oversight instead of reforming it doesn't magically fix this problem, it makes it worse.

Still, it's clear that Pai believes that slowly dismantling the FCC as both an agent of altruism (empathy is painfully unfashionable) and oversight is the path to nirvana. And he's justifying his latest efforts to scale back Lifeline by insisting that booting resellers off the program somehow will magically boost broadband deployment:

"[W]e believe Lifeline support will best promote access to advanced communications services if it is focused to encourage investment in broadband-capable networks...We believe this proposal would do more than the current reimbursement structure to encourage access to quality, affordable broadband service for low-income Americans. In particular, Lifeline support can serve to increase the ability to pay for services of low-income households. Such an increase can thereby improve the business case for deploying facilities to serve low-income households."

Consumer advocates argue in their own filings with the FCC (pdf) that the effort is a pointless attempt to help drive additional revenue to incumbent carriers. And former FCC staffer Gigi Sohn recently noted in Wired how this is part of a broader effort that will make life more difficult for low-income Americans to actually get broadband:

"One of Pai’s first acts as chair was to chill competition and innovation in the Lifeline program. Pai reversed a decision made by former FCC chair Tom Wheeler that allowed nine new Lifeline providers into the program. In the process Pai got rid of new competitors who could drive down prices and improve services.

Now, Pai proposes to limit Lifeline even further. Eliminating a Wheeler-era designation that welcomed new broadband providers into the program, the FCC said in December, will “better reflect the structure, operation, and goals of the Lifeline program.” But if the goal of the program is to ensure that low-income Americans have affordable access to broadband, reducing competition in the program will do the exact opposite.

The problem is only compounded by Pai's failure to do anything about a lack of competition in general in the telecom market. And while incumbent ISPs (like Pai's former employer Verizon) routinely applaud Pai's efforts on these fronts, even they doubt the effectiveness of Pai's proposal. For example Verizon was quick to point out in its own filing (pdf) that Pai's plan wouldn't do what he claims and would actually be harmful:

"The proposed exclusion of resellers from the Lifeline program would be highly disruptive to existing Lifeline beneficiaries and is at odds with the Commission's goal of supporting affordable voice telephony and high-speed broadband for low-income households."

Even all of the dollar per hollar think tankers, academics, and others the industry uses to parrot anti-consumer policies aren't impressed by Pai's proposal. US Telecom, a lobbying group spearheaded by AT&T, also panned Pai's plan for Lifeline, saying it wouldn't accomplish what Pai says it would (pdf):

"[T]he proposed elimination of resellers from the Lifeline program would not materially further the deployment of broadband infrastructure, because revenue from resellers already contributes to facilities-based carriers' deployment of broadband facilities."

Again, you've got industry and consumer advocates agreeing here that Pai is wrong and his plan will actually harm the poor.

But as his attack on net neutrality made pretty clear, Pai's blinded by an ideological vision of the telecom market that may or may not be supported by actual reality. And whereas a good leader would listen to opposition to his plans and reconsider positions that run in contrast to the will of the public, the insight of experts, and the facts -- Pai's default tendency is almost always to double down on bad ideas. And it this case Pai's bad idea is pretty clear: dismantling telecom programs that help the poor via death by a thousand cuts, no matter how counterproductive it is.

There's still time for Pai to back off his plan, given the FCC isn't expected to vote on the proposal until sometime after the public comment period ends on March 23. Still, when your definition of "helping the poor" includes ensuring cable boxes stay expensive and closed, allowing duopolies to abuse net neutrality and drive up service costs, protecting prison monopoly telcos that have price-gouged families for years, and preventing smaller ISPs from actually helping the poor you profess to love -- you have to wonder what it looks like when Pai actively wants to harm something.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Rhode Island lawmakers are proposing a new law (pdf) that would force ISPs to filter pornography and other "patently offensive material." It would then force state residents interested in viewing porn to pony up a one-time $20 "digital access fee" to whitelist the internet's naughty bits for each internet-connected device in the home, the money purportedly going toward helping combat human trafficking. ISPs would be required to build entire new support systems (on their dime) to help combat porn, and would face fines of $500 for each instance of offensive content that ISPs failed to censor.

The bill is worded vaguely enough to suggest that hardware vendors could also be held liable if they failed to help censor said "patently offensive" material:

"If a person who manufacturers, sells, offers for sale, leases, or distributes a product that makes content accessible on the Internet is unresponsive to a report of sexual content or patently offensive material that has breached the filter required by this section, the attorney general or a consumer may file a civil suit. The attorney general or a consumer may seek damages of up to five hundred dollars ($500) for each piece of content that was reported but not subsequently blocked. The prevailing party in the civil action may seek attorneys' fees."

Upon initial inspection, this awful proposal would just appear to be garden-variety vanilla stupid. It's technically impossible, annoyingly expensive, unlikely to ever pass, and (like most filter programs) would likely only cause collateral damage to the access of legitimate content. But the proposal is actually just one of more than a dozen similar proposals winding their way through numerous state legislatures. All of these bills follow the same, absurd playbook, and all falsely try to use child trafficking as a bogus straw man to justify censorship.

And they're all being spearheaded by a man named Chris Sevier, whose checkered history suggests he shouldn't be writing love notes on cocktail napkins, much less helping craft state-level legislation:

"Chris Sevier, 40, who sometimes goes by Mark Sevier in court and Chris Severe in communications with state legislators, has a contentious and often intentionally provocative relationship with the American court system that is news to at least some of the bill’s co-sponsors. He once famously tried to legally marry his computer to protest same-sex marriage, and was charged with stalking and harassing both country star John Rich and a 17-year-old girl."

Lovely. Sevier's war on porn, and his effort to obfuscate his real agenda by professing to be combating human trafficking, isn't new. Sevier has also filed suit against Apple in the past for the company's failure to implement more robust porn filters. Said lawsuit was jam-packed with spelling and other errors, and he claimed that Apple's failure to police porn resulted him in seeing "pornographic images that appealed to his biological sensibilities as a male and lead to an unwanted addiction with adverse consequences."

Somehow, Sevier has had some notable success convincing lawmakers to push their own versions of the same draft legislation. We've covered previous iterations of these efforts, which all use human trafficking as a bogeyman to justify ham-fisted and technologically unworkable censorship efforts. South Carolina Senator Bill Chumley pushed one-such incarnation of this effort in late 2016. We've also covered similar efforts in Virginia. Time and time again, the lawmakers backing these proposals fail utterly in explaining how their legislation actually harms human trafficking in any material way.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation last week did a good job highlighting the scope of this absurdity, noting that more than fifteen states are now pushing some flavor of the “Human Trafficking Prevention Act” (HTPA). Again, none of the bills actually do anything to stop human trafficking, but do appear to enjoy using the subject to obfuscate the problems inherent in hysterical puritanical hyperventilation and censorship. And as the EFF notes, the fact that these proposals are logistically unworkable doesn't appear to bother their backers in the slightest:

"The bill would force the companies we rely upon for open access to the Internet to create a massive, easily abused censorship apparatus. Tech companies would be required to operate call centers or online reporting centers to monitor complaints about which sites should or should not be filtered. The technical requirements for this kind of aggressive platform censorship at scale are simply unworkable. If the attempts of social media sites to censor pornographic images are any indication, we cannot count on algorithms to distinguish, for example, nude art from medical information from pornography. Facing risk of legal liability, companies would likely over-censor and sweep up legal content in their censorship net.

Numerous states (like New Mexico) have backed off their own proposals after the EFF raised the alarm, but it remains stunning just how much traction these efforts have seen despite being technologically impossible, hugely expensive, utterly disingenuous, and the intellectual and legislative equivalent of some random internet troll's epic brain fart.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

In the conspiracy against video games that is now in full swing after the school shooting in Florida, it seems that it goes all the way to the top, by which I mean the recent comments by our Dear Leader, Donald Trump. Lower levels of the government have already begun foisting the sins of the shooter on the scapegoat of violent games, with Rhode Island looking for a plainly unconstitutional tax on adult-rated games and the governor of Kentucky trying to blame violent games for the recent shooting, sans evidence. And now it seems that Donald Trump has gotten into the mix, announcing that he will be meeting with "the video game industry" in coming weeks to see how they can stop real-world gun violence.

Presidential Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced at a briefing Thursday that President Trump plans to meet with members of the video game industry next week "to see what they can do" on the issue of gun violence.

Details on specific timing and attendance for the meeting weren't immediately available, but Sanders cast the meeting as of a piece with multiple others that have already taken place between the president and "a number of stakeholders" in the gun violence debate.

Except it appears that the reason the timing for those meetings wasn't provided during the White House briefing is almost certainly because nobody in the video game industry has any idea what Trump or Sanders is talking about. The Entertainment Software Association, which represents the larger game studios and publishers, came out with a statement that it has had no plans to meet with Trump, has received no invitations to meet with Trump, and would push back on any responsibility games have for real life violence were such a meeting to occur.

The same video games played in the US are played worldwide; however, the level of gun violence is exponentially higher in the US than in other countries. Numerous authorities have examined the scientific record and found there is no link between media content and real-life violence. The US video game industry has a long history of partnering with parents and more than 20 years of rating video games through the Entertainment Software Rating Board. We take great steps to provide tools to help players and parents make informed entertainment decisions.

It's about as perfect a rebuttal to the violent games argument as there is: other countries have these same games, but not the violence. For its part, the White House clarified later that the invitations to meet with Trump would be going out over the next few days. Still, it probably would have been good for meetings to be scheduled before they were announced to the gaggle from the White House podium.

With this being so one-sided, instead, we're left to witness another grandstanding politician with another whipping post talking about protected art and speech being culpable for real-world tragedy.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Well, well, well. At the end of last year we wrote about the weird series of events that could possibly lead to the DOJ getting possession of a one-of-a-kind Wu Tang Clan album called Once Upon a Time in Shaolin. The short version: in 2014 Wu Tang decided to experiment with a different kind of business model: selling a single copy of an album to the highest bidder. Nearly two years later, just as the entire world was learning to absolutely loathe a pharma man-child named Martin Shkreli, it came out that Shkreli was the guy who forked over $2 million or so for the album.

Since then Shkreli has been arrested, and things haven't gone well for him. As you may have heard, a week or so ago, the court ruled that Shkreli caused a loss of $10.4 million for investors. And, yesterday, Judge Kiyo Matsumoto further ruled on the DOJ's asset forfeiture request, granting the request to seize a bunch of Shkreli assets... including Once Upon a Time in Shaolin. The order of forfeiture specifically lays out the following assets:

(a) $5 million in cash that is currently held in an E*Trade brokerage account ending in the digits “0258” as security for the defendant’s bond, pursuant to orders of the Court dated January 7, 2016, August 24, 2016 and October 19, 2017;
(b) Vyera Pharmaceuticals (formerly known as Turing Pharmaceuticals);
(c) the album “Once Upon A Time in Shaolin” by the Wu Tang Clan;
(d) the album “Tha Carter V” by Lil Wayne; and
(e) a Picasso painting.

Of course, don't think that this means that Jeff Sessions will now be releasing the album. I'm guessing he's not a huge fan of Wu Tang Clan, first of all. But, more importantly, it's likely that the DOJ will simply try to sell the album to get the cash value -- which will make for one hell of an interesting asset auction. But... it also means that some other rich dude might buy the album and keep it all to himself as well. Or, alternatively, someone else might try to buy it and release it. As Sarah Jeong wrote years ago (predicting all of this), it's still not clear what contractual obligations there are or if Wu Tang Clan retains the copyright:

The weird thing is that it's not clear what happens to the contract that Shkreli signed when he bought the album. Presumably, the contract allowed him to transfer his limited distribution rights if he ever sold the physical record to another person. But what happens if the record gets seized by the federal government as part of a criminal forfeiture?

Let's say the government seizes the record, sells it on GSA Auctions, and then I buy it and upload the whole thing onto the internet. If Shkreli had uploaded the whole album for free, Wu-Tang couldn't sue him—as per the terms of the contract. But if I do it, there's no contract preventing Wu-Tang from suing me, even though I'm now the rightful owner of the One True New Wu-Tang Album.

That is, unless the government manages to successfully seize Shkreli's intellectual property rights in the Wu-Tang album.

But, as per the order, the forfeiture order appears to only cover the physical album and not the associated copyright.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Call blocking is extremely important feature to have when dealing with unwanted callers. Whether it’s creditors, spam, or an old flame, the tools to block individuals varies according to the specific manufacturer version of Android you have on your device, even carrier model you’re using.

When it comes to “stock Android,” call blocking is a core feature executed by entering a specific number into a menu and that’s it. It’s extremely limited and it’s been that way for countless Android versions but it looks like Google has plans to change this in future versions of Android.

The boys at XDA uncovered some new code commits inside AOSP and found some “enhanced call blocking functions.” The strings show a variety of ways to block numbers — not only be manually entering a phone number — but also by choosing a specific contact, private and unknown callers, or even those made from a payphone (those still exist?). Here’s what you can look forward to:

• The phone number is not in your contacts list
• The phone number is not disclosed by the caller (Private)
• The phone number is from a pay phone
• The phone number does not have any caller ID information (Unknown/Unidentified)

Unsurprisingly, it seems these new call blocking features can be disabled by your carrier which means, once again, they could vary by manufacturer and/or carrier. The good news is you should still be able to find them on unlocked devices, especially those running more stock versions of Android, like this year’s Google Pixel 3.

With rumors that Google could begin rolling out the Android P Developer Preview 1 as early as March, you may not have to wait for long to see this and other new features arrive on your Nexus or Pixel device.

Last month you might recall that the NRA gave FCC boss Ajit Pai the Charleton Heston Award for Courage for his decision to dismantle popular net neutrality rules. The tone-deaf celebration was a pretty hollow attention seeking move, but was also an ouroboros of blistering idiocy. One, the NRA appears oblivious to the fact that net neutrality rules would have helped it as well, since the entire point is to ensure the internet is a level playing field for all competitors and voices. Net neutrality protects free speech (even speech you don't agree with), something you'd think the folks at the NRA would be able to appreciate.

Two, there's simply nothing courageous about teaming up with Comcast to screw over the public and the nation's small businesses and startups. Pai's decision is widely derided as the dumbest decision in the history of modern tech policy. And while ISPs like to frame net neutrality as partisan to sow division and prevent meaningful rules, surveys repeatedly indicate the rules had broad bipartisan support.

It didn't take long for ethics experts to point out that the award and the NRA's gift to Pai (a Kentucky long rifle) was over $200 and therefore violated ethics rules and lobbying restrictions:

After a chat with FCC ethics lawyers, Pai appears to have finally realized that accepting the award probably wouldn't be a particularly bright idea. As such, Pai wrote a letter to the NRA declining the gun while insisting this whole thing simply caught him by surprise:

"As you know, once my staff became aware of what was happening, they asked backstage that the musket not be presented to me to ensure that this could be first discussed with and vetted by career ethics attorneys in the FCC’s Office of General Counsel," Pai wrote, according to an FCC source who relayed the text of the letters.

“Therefore, upon their counsel, I must respectfully decline the award,” he wrote. “I have also been advised by the FCC’s career ethics attorneys that I would not be able to accept the award upon my departure from government service."

Of course Pai and his staff could have rejected the award at any point (the award occurred on February 23), but then they wouldn't have been able to enjoy all the yucks at the expense of startups, consumers, and the health of the internet. From stem to stern this was just a PR disaster, and you couldn't have paid a fiction author to craft a dumber, more absurd narrative. And while those behind the effort likely believe they were being clever trolls, Millennial voters likely got a decidedly different impression from the tone-deaf gala.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The DJI Mavic Pro is normally a pricey investment at a whopping $1,000 to get in on the ground floor, but if you’re ready to take the plunge then you’ll want to do so today. Amazon has the drone for just $769, the lowest we’ve ever seen it.

Note that this price only applies to the base package, which nets you the drone itself, its controller, a 16GB memory card, the battery, and the charger. The Fly More bundle is also discounted to $1,078, though, and comes with a nice carrying backpack, 2 extra batteries, 2 extra propellers, a charging hub, a car charger, and a portable power bank adapter.

The bag and extra battery stuff alone may be worth the cost of admission there, as it’ll be quite a bit more expensive to get all that stuff separately.

As usual, we don’t know how long this deal will be around, so you’d best get the ball rolling on ordering one if you’ve been waiting for a price this good. Hit the link ahead to check it out!

Buy the DJI Mavic Pro at Amazon

In the wake of the FCC's net neutrality repeal, nearly half the states in the union are now in the process of passing new net neutrality rules. Some states are pushing for legislation that mirrors the discarded FCC rules, while others (including Montana) have signed executive orders banning states from doing business with ISPs that engage in anti-competitive net neutrality violations.

Of course incumbent ISPs saw this coming, which is why both Verizon and Comcast successfully lobbied the FCC to include language in its repeal that tries to "preempt" state authority over ISPs entirely. But this effort to ban states from protecting consumers (not just from net neutrality violations) rests on untested legal ground, which is why some ISPs are also pushing for fake net neutrality laws they hope will preempt these state efforts.

So far, states aren't taking the FCC's threats very seriously.

Washington State for example became the first state in the union this week to pass net neutrality legislation (though Oregon is neck and neck). Washington's new law largely mirrors the discarded FCC rules by prohibiting the anti-competitive throttling and blocking of competitors, as well as "paid prioritization" deals that prevent ISPs from letting deep-pocketed content companies buy an unfair advantage over smaller companies and startups. Also like the FCC's rules, it carves out notable exemptions for "reasonable network management" -- as well as for the prioritization of legitimate services that may need it (medical, VoIP services).

Amusingly, the bill's sponsor doesn't appear particularly flummoxed by FCC restrictions on what states can and can't do:

"Just because the FCC claims it has the power to preempt state laws doesn’t mean that it actually does,” says (Drew) Hansen. “I can claim that I have the power to manifest unicorns on the Washington State Capitol lawn. But if you look outside right now, there are no unicorns."

ISPs have already started complaining that complying with an ocean of discordant state-level rules is hard on them, though that's something they might have wanted to give a little more thought to before lobbying to dismantle what were arguably (by international standards) pretty modest federal-level rules.

Note that's not to say state-level protections will be perfect. Many politicians are just trying to score political brownie points, and in many instances the rules will only be as good as those willing to actually enforce them. Several of them also are a little shaky on how they define "reasonable" network management, a term ISP lobbyists have a long, proud history of trying to redefine to include pretty much anything. Still, these are all problems that could easily been avoided by actually listening to the public, the experts, and the data and leaving the federal rules alone.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

This is the Screenholder shower curtain, a $25 transparent shower curtain with exterior pockets of various sizes and vertical and horizontal orientations for holding your phones and tablets. Obviously, they're perfect for sexy cam shows. Oh me? I'm just in the shower washing my hair. What am I wearing? Tehehe -- full body armor obviously you have to be ready for anything. Plus it's conductive so you can still use your devices. What a time to be alive! "I can hear you chewing your cyanide capsule." It'll all be over soon. Keep going for a couple more shots including one of a sexy cam show in progress. Thanks to Galactica, who agrees the most important pockets are the ones at the very bottom for when you're just laying in the shower contemplating life for hours on end.

The NRA last week thought it would be a good idea to give FCC boss Ajit Pai an award for killing net neutrality. More specifically, the NRA gave Pai the Charleton Heston Award for Courage at the CPAC conference for killing the popular consumer protections. The entire affair was a tone deafness supernova from beginning to end, with American Conservative Union (ACU) Executive Director Dan Schneider making it abundantly clear that he and other attendees have absolutely no coherent idea what net neutrality even is. Schneider went so far as to declare the unpopular agency boss the "most courageous, heroic person that I know":

"Pai "fought to preserve your free speech rights" as a member of the FCC's Republican minority during the Obama administration, Schneider said. Pai "fought and won against all odds, but the Obama administration had some curveballs and they implemented these regulations to take over the Internet." "As soon as President Trump came into office, President Trump asked Ajit Pai to liberate the Internet and give it back to you," Schneider added. "Ajit Pai is the most courageous, heroic person that I know."

Of course if you've been paying even a shred of attention, you should realize there's nothing courageous about ignoring the public, ignoring the experts, ignoring all objective data just to give a sloppy wet kiss to despised telecom monopolies like Comcast. Pai's repeal is widely derided as one of the worst tech policy decisions in the modern internet era, making the backlash against legislative shitshows like SOPA look like a cozy beach side picnic in comparison. And despite every effort by the telecom industry to frame net neutrality as a partisan issue, that is, and continues to be, bullshit.

While a petty and blatant attention-seeking move, the stunt may have given both the NRA and Pai a little more than they bargained for. As part of the award Pai was given an antique musket, a move former Office of Government Ethics boss Walter Shaub was quick to criticize as a violation of FCC ethics rules:

It's possible Pai can tap dance around this by claiming the musket (which the NRA said would be stored and displayed at their offices in Virginia) never formally entered Pai's legal ownership. Of course that doesn't make this effort any less idiotic and tone deaf. CPAC apparently doesn't realize that Millennials are starting to vote in greater numbers than ever before, and while CPAC leadership may have thought combining the NRA (while in the middle of a massive PR kerfuffle) with the attack on net neutrality was an "epic troll," all younger voters are going to see here is a giant neon sign blinking the words "incompetence" and "corruption" in endless repetition.

Pai wasn't alone in potentially violating ethics rules during CPAC. Under the Hatch Act, FCC Commissioners can't openly pitch for a specific political candidate, a rule Pai's fellow Commissioner Mike O'Rielly violated when he urged CPAC attendees to vote for Trump:

"O’Rielly, however, later found himself embroiled in his own controversy. His trouble started with a question about what the FCC could do to stop the constant “ping-pong” of issues, such as net neutrality, every time the party in power changes in the nation’s capital.

“I think what we can do is make sure as conservatives that we elect good people to both the House, Senate and make sure that President Trump gets reelected,” O’Rielly began.

The GOP commissioner’s plug for the president riled some ethics watchdogs. Under a set of rules known as the Hatch Act, government officials such as O’Rielly generally aren’t supposed to use their stations to advocate for election outcomes.

Remember, these are the same FCC staffers that had an epic hissy fit a few years back when they claimed the former White House "improperly" violated nonexistent ethics rules by openly advocating for tough net neutrality rules. They're now embroiled in numerous GAO inquiries, face a growing mountain of lawsuits, and now face an FCC Inspector General Inquiry for potentially being too cozy with the industries they're supposed to be holding accountable on behalf of the American Public. Keep digging that hole, gentlemen.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Over the past five years, Mondrea Hasty has had officers come to his house multiple times to arrest him, had his mugshot taken, and been handcuffed during a routine traffic stop. His 10-year-old daughter now cries when she sees a person in a police uniform, fearing they could be coming for her father.

Read more...

These are the 1,000 and 2,000 piece 'Pure Hell' jigsaw puzzles manufactured by Beverly of Japan (available for ~$20 - $34 on Amazon). The puzzles, which are made up entirely of micro-sized pieces for extra difficulty, are available in pure white or black and measure a scant 26 x 38cm (~10 x 15-inches) for the 1,000 piecer and 40 x 50cm (~16 x 20-inches) for the 2,000. It says they're recommended for ages three and up although I can't imagine a three year old doing anything but eating the pieces. Same goes for my dog. Translated item description:

Please do beginners Never buy. The world's smallest 2000 piece puzzle. You must have great spirit! - Difficult! - Small! - Please do beginners Never buy.

So they're for ages three and up but not for beginnners, got it. You know I remember when I was in my early teens I was super into jigsaw puzzles and bought one of the "world's most difficult" at the time and it was a double-sided circle puzzle with the same solid blue on both sides. It was DIFFICULT. I wonder whatever happened to that puzzle. "You set it on fire." I burnt that impossible bastard to a crisp! Keep going for one more shot. Thanks to Jess, who agrees the best puzzles are found in Monkey Island point-and-click adventure games.

Time and time again, courts remind officers of the law don't actually have to know the law to enforce the law. Yes, that's how it all works out for citizens, who are just as frequently reminded ignorance of the law is no excuse. This has lead to the prevalence of pretextual stops where minor traffic violations (that may not even be violations) are used to initiate long conversations with law enforcement officers with the end goal of obtaining consent for a search or to bring a drug dog onto the scene.

Qualified immunity, along with the good faith exception, have allowed an untold amount of law enforcement abuse. This has completely skewed judicial perception, turning law enforcement into noble fools and raising expectations of citizens' legal knowledge to that of seasoned criminal defense lawyers. Here's how occasional Techdirt contributor Andrew Norton breaks down the current state of judicial affairs:

2005, when [Tasers] were still being introduced to law enforcement at large, was a bad year for taser-victims, but not cops. In a California case, Bryan v. McPhearson, the court decided the officer’s actions qualified under the doctrine of qualified immunity (cops will only be responsible for excessive force if they act in a way that is so unreasonable any cop would have known such conduct was against the law – basically acting criminally) Since ‘the law on taser police brutality’ was still evolving when the incident happened in 2005 the cop should get a break from liability. You read that right, because no-one had told the cop, he didn’t have any notion of right and wrong. Ignorance is an excuse, if you wear the badge.

It’s this that characterizes many police brutality and excessive force cases. On one hand the police officers are professionals dedicated to knowing and enforcing the law, when they’re on the prosecuting side, their word is solid and their testimony is unquestionable. However if they’re a defendant, they’re amateurs who don’t know the law, can’t tell right from wrong, and whose training and instincts are so poor, that they can’t be held responsible for decisions made when doing their job because they have to do them quickly.

That's the ugly reality. Things that seem obvious to citizens are somehow inscrutable to police officers with years of legal training and, quite often, a degree in criminal law. Yet another "case in point" is this recent Fourth Circuit Appeals Court decision, in which something that seems obviously wrong is given a judicial hand-wave because the obvious wrong had not been "clearly established" by these judges in this circuit dealing with a carbon copy of these circumstances.

The civil rights lawsuit involves a minor who was in fourth grade at the time the violation occurred. E.W. is the minor suing. A bus surveillance camera caught her and another student fighting on the bus. Both were suspended by the school from riding the bus.

For whatever reason, the school didn't do anything about the altercation for 72 hours. Then they called in deputy sheriff Rosemary Dolgos, the school's resource officer. Dolgos questioned the other party in the fight and asked if she was injured. A.W. (the other minor in the altercation) showed the officer a couple of small bruises on her leg.

E.W. was summoned to the office. According to the deputy, E.W. didn't seem to care enough about the fight on the bus. From the opinion [PDF]:

Dolgos attempted to emphasize to E.W. the seriousness of the situation and the possible repercussions, telling her that adults could be jailed for such behavior. Still, in Dolgos’s opinion, “E.W. continued to act as if the situation simply was not a ‘big deal.’”

It wasn't a big deal. Or at least it wasn't something the school couldn't have handled without a law enforcement officer. But since a law enforcement officer was involved, law enforcement proceeded without any regard for the actual severity of the situation. Deputy Dolgos, presiding over an apathetic fourth grader, feared for her safety.

Dolgos placed E.W. in handcuffs from behind and reseated her. Dolgos inserted two fingers between the handcuffs and E.W.’s wrists to ensure that they were not too tight. In her affidavit, Dolgos stated that she was concerned about the physical safety of herself and the school administrators because of both the incident she observed in the surveillance video and E.W.’s apathy. Dolgos expressed concern in the affidavit that E.W. might act violently against her or someone else if she attempted to walk E.W. from the school to her patrol car.

Dolgos based these observations on her lack of knowledge.

Dolgos also admitted, however, that she had no idea whether E.W. had “any past or current behavioral issues or past involvements with law enforcement.”

She also likely could have controlled the situation without handcuffs, especially considering E.W.'s apparent compliance.

According to Dolgos, E.W. stood 4’4” and weighed about 95 pounds, while Dolgos stands 5’4” and weighs 155 pounds.

Once placed in handcuffs, E.W. began crying and apologized for the fight. She said she did not want to go to jail and promised she wouldn't hit A.W. again. Apparently this was the reaction Dolgos was looking for. Having been taken seriously enough as a law enforcement officer, Dolgos removed the cuffs and released E.W.

The school, however, remained unmoved. It contacted E.W.'s mother and told her they would refer the matter to juvenile services. E.W.'s mother responded with disbelief ("[s]o you're going to put my… daughter in the system when she's 10?") and came to the school to retrieve her daughter. The lawsuit followed.

The district court took a brief glance at Dolgos' motion to dismiss and sided with the deputy. The decision was, at best, perfunctory.

In a short paragraph, without citing any case law, the district court concluded that Dolgos’s actions did not amount to excessive force because E.W. was handcuffed for only two minutes and then released to her mother. The court further concluded that Dolgos was “at least” entitled to qualified immunity as to the § 1983 claim.

The appeals court disagrees with the will-this-do assessment of the lower court. It finds the use of force excessive, considering the surrounding circumstances. In doing so, it finds Dolgos' assertions ridiculous.

Here, Dolgos could not have reasonably believed that E.W. presented any immediate risk of harm to anyone. Like the adult suspect in Solomon, E.W. had no weapons and made no threats, see 389 F.3d at 174, and like the eleven-year-old in Sonora, she was calm and compliant as Dolgos spoke to her, see 769 F.3d at 1030. In fact, Dolgos recognized that E.W. appeared calm. See J.A. 23–24. Also similar to the suspects in Solomon and Sonora, E.W., at 4’4” and ninety-five pounds, was quite small relative to Dolgos, the arresting officer, who was a foot taller and sixty pounds heavier. See Sonora, 769 F.3d at 1030; Solomon, 389 F.3d at 174. Not to mention, E.W. was in a closed office and surrounded by two school administrators and a deputy sheriff. Given these facts, E.W. posed little threat even if she were to become aggressive.

The significant time that had elapsed—without incident—since the fight on the bus further negates any notion that E.W. posed an immediate threat. While the scuffle took place on Tuesday, January 6, East Salisbury Elementary School waited three days to even contact Dolgos. In the interim, E.W. was allowed to and did in fact attend school without incident, indicating that she did not pose a risk to the children around her, much less to the adults.

In addition, the ignorance of the underlying circumstances Dolgos admitted to (and likely hoped would weigh in her favor by making her unreasonable actions reasonable) only further adds to the factors weighing against handcuffing a compliant 10-year-old.

Moreover, Dolgos had no reason to think that the scuffle between E.W. and A.W. was anything but an isolated incident. E.W. had no prior behavioral issues or involvement with law enforcement, nor did Dolgos have any indication that she did. The use of force is an intrusion on Fourth Amendment rights, and an officer must have a reason for using or escalating force. See Graham, 490 U.S. at 396 (intrusions on Fourth Amendment rights must be reasonably necessary given countervailing governmental interests). Even as to the altercation on the school bus, E.W., while unjustified in retaliating, did not become violent without physical provocation by A.W. Indeed, even a child with a history of attacking school officials should not be handcuffed if, at the time of handcuffing, she did not present a danger.

The appeals court also points to plenty of precedent, finding that handcuffing children tends to be excessive force in almost any situation. It also notes that the use of handcuffs in a school setting tends to undermine the mission of schools and school personnel. Students who see other students handcuffed for behavior that could be addressed by parental or school discipline are far more likely to distrust school administration and will be less likely to bring disciplinary issues to their attention. In extreme cases, parents and students may decide to take their scholastic business elsewhere, leaving the school with fewer students.

The court finds Deputy Dolgos violated the Fourth Amendment.

Dolgos took a situation where there was no need for any physical force and used unreasonable force disproportionate to the circumstances presented. We therefore find that Dolgos’s actions amount to excessive force. As such, E.W. has demonstrated a violation of her constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment.

But here's where it all goes haywire. The court lists numerous reasons -- including circuit precedent -- why Dolgos should have known handcuffing children (absent extreme circumstances) would result in Fourth Amendment violations. It holds that this handcuffing was a Fourth Amendment violation. And then it goes on to declare that Dolgos can rely on her ignorance and her complete lack of better judgment to escape liability.

Conversely, it was not obvious that Dolgos could not handcuff E.W. here. Although precedent supports the conclusion that Dolgos acted unreasonably and violated E.W.’s Fourth Amendment rights, it did not put Dolgos on sufficient notice that her conduct was unlawful. Indeed, this Court previously stated that the use of handcuffs would “rarely” be considered excessive force when the officer has probable cause for the underlying arrest. See Brown, 278 F.3d at 369. And the parties do not point us to any controlling authority sufficiently similar to the situation Dolgos confronted. In fact, E.W. chiefly relies on Graham to define the clearly established law. Without more, we cannot conclude that it would have necessarily been clear to a reasonable officer that handcuffing E.W. would give rise to a Fourth Amendment violation.

This will help handcuffed students in the future, but it does nothing for E.W. And this conclusion comes after a lengthy diversion in the opinion in which the concurring opinion is called out for its willingness to say that handcuffing children reasonable.

The concurrence seems to suggest that elementary school children like E.W. are so inherently unpredictable and uncontrollable that officers would be reasonable in restraining them for our collective safety. Unsurprisingly, the concurrence’s authorities do not actually support that position or apply to this case. The concurrence cites to Knox Cty. Educ. Ass’n v. Knox Cty. Bd. of Educ., 158 F.3d 361 (6th Cir. 1998), for the proposition that young children are “unpredictable, in need of constant attention and supervision,” such that “[e]ven momentary inattention or delay in dealing with a potentially dangerous or emergency situation could have grievous consequences.” Post at 41 (quoting Knox, 158 F.3d at 378). What the concurrence leaves out is that Knox was discussing whether teachers may be required to undergo drug-testing in order to protect young children, who “could cause harm to themselves or others while playing at recess, eating lunch in the cafeteria (if for example, they began choking), or simply horsing around with each other.” See 158 F.3d at 378–79. Unless the concurrence suggests that we handcuff children as a reasonable method of “supervision” to prevent choking and horseplay, Knox has little relevance to the case at hand.

So, the concurrence is only right so far as it agrees with the rest of the court that Deputy Dolgos can walk into a school office and slap handcuffs on a ten-year-old without having to worry about being held liable for violating the student's Fourth Amendment rights. On all other points, it's somehow wrong, but only because it chose the wrong standard of law enforcement ignorance to cite. The concurring opinion somehow manages to be worse than the majority opinion, because it wouldn't even go so far as to establish the handcuffing of compliant prepubescents as "unreasonable."

This is a good decision as far as establishing a baseline goes, but the cases cited suggest the baseline had already been set, but only as to eight-year-olds (James v. Frederick Cty. Pub. Sch.) and eleven-year-olds (Tekle v. United States). Ten-year-olds are apparently in need of their own separate precedent. This is how much the doctrine of qualified immunity has erased the word "justice" from the justice system. Anyone who suffers a Fourth Amendment violation had better hope someone in exactly the same circumstances landed a appellate unicorn with their lawsuit, or law enforcement skates away with another win and a very slight narrowing of the scope of civil rights violations officers can get away with.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Man, I was just flying so high after those shitty Olympic skiing robots and then Boston Dynamics has to come along and rain on my parade. Which technically wasn't so much a parade as one man stomping around in his underwear waving his blankie, but my mom said it's nap time and I'm not tired yet. This is a video of a Boston Dynamics hand-headed SpotMini quadruped robot coming along to open a door for his non hand-headed accomplice so they can go assassinate their target and complete the mission. The way they move -- I don't like it. Too fluid. They're like the raptors from the first Jurassic Park movie. I liked it better when robots were all jerky and parts were constantly falling off. Something you could really point and laugh at. Now you look at these two and you think to yourself, "Damn, I could honestly see that coming to kill me." The laughter is gone -- there's only pain left. *tucks cyanide capsule into cheek like chewing tobacco* "That was a Tide Pod." Jesus, do you think I actually know how to get my hands on cyanide? The checkout lady at Kroger barely let me buy these. Keep going for 45 seconds of the future. Thanks to Bovis, Jamie, Stephanie B and n0nentity, for really knowing how to ruin a guy's day.

Digital cameras can store a wealth of personal information and yet they're treated as unworthy of extra protection -- both by courts and the camera makers themselves. The encryption that comes baked in on cellphones hasn't even been offered as an option on cameras, despite camera owners being just as interested in protecting their private data as cellphone users are.

The Freedom of the Press Foundation sent a letter to major camera manufacturers in December 2016, letting them know filmmakers and journalists would appreciate a little assistance keeping their data out of governments' hands.

Documentary filmmakers and photojournalists work in some of the most dangerous parts of the world, often risking their lives to get footage of newsworthy events to the public. They face a variety of threats from border security guards, local police, intelligence agents, terrorists, and criminals when attempting to safely return their footage so that it can be edited and published. These threats are particularly heightened any time a bad actor can seize or steal their camera, and they are left unprotected by the lack of security features that would shield their footage from prying eyes.

The magnitude of this problem is hard to overstate: Filmmakers and photojournalists have their cameras and footage seized at a rate that is literally too high to count. The Committee to Protect Journalists, a leading organization that documents many such incidents, told us:

"Confiscating the cameras of photojournalists is a blatant attempt to silence and intimidate them, yet such attacks are so common that we could not realistically track all these incidents. The unfortunate truth is that photojournalists are regularly targeted and threatened as they seek to document and bear witness, but there is little they can do to protect their equipment and their photos." (emphasis added)

Cameras aren't that much different than phones, even if they lack direct connections to users' social media accounts or contact lists. We've covered many cases where police officers have seized phones/cameras and deleted footage captured by bystanders. The problem is the Supreme Court's Riley decision only protects cellphones from warrantless searches. (And only in the United States.) While one state supreme court has extended the warrant requirement to digital cameras, this only affects residents of Massachusetts. Everywhere else, cameras are just "pockets" or "containers" law enforcement can dig through without worrying too much about the Fourth Amendment.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like camera manufacturers are considering offering encryption. The issue still doesn't even appear to be on their radar, more than a year after the Freedom of the Press Foundation's letter -- signed by 150 photographers and filmmakers -- indicated plenty of customers wanted better protection for their cameras. Zack Whittaker of ZDNet asked several manufacturers about their encryption plans and received noncommittal shrugs in response.

An Olympus spokesperson said the company will "in the next year... continue to review the request to implement encryption technology in our photographic and video products and will develop a plan for implementation where applicable in consideration to the Olympus product roadmap and the market requirements."

When reached, Canon said it was "not at liberty to comment on future products and/or innovation."

Sony also said it "isn't discussing product roadmaps relative to camera encryption."

A Nikon spokesperson said the company is "constantly listening to the needs of an evolving market and considering photographer feedback, and we will continue to evaluate product features to best suit the needs of our users."

And Fuji did not respond to several requests for comment by phone and email prior to publication.

The message appears to be that camera owners are on their own when it comes to keeping their photos and footage out of the hands of government agents. This is unfortunate considering how many journalists and documentarians do their work in countries with fewer civil liberties protections than the US. Even in the US, those civil liberties can be waived away if photographers wander too close to US borders. If a government can search something, it will. Encryption may not thwart all searches, but it will at least impede the most questionable ones.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The rise of cryptocurrency mining software like Coinhive has been a decidedly double-edged sword. While many websites have begun exploring cryptocurrency mining as a way to generate some additional revenue, several have run into problems if they fail to warn visitors that their CPU cycles are being co-opted in such a fashion. That has resulted in numerous websites like The Pirate Bay being forced to back away from the software after poor implementation (and zero transparency) resulted in frustrated users who say the software gobbled upwards of 85% of their available CPU processing power without their knowledge or consent.

But websites that don't inform users this mining is happening are just one part of an emerging problem. Hackers have also taken to using malware to embed the mining software into websites whose owners aren't aware that their sites have been hijacked to make somebody else an extra buck. Politifact was one of several websites that recently had to admit its website was compromised with cryptocurrency-mining malware without their knowledge. Showtime was also forced to acknowledge (barely) that websites on two different Showtime domains had been compromised and infected with Coinhive-embedded malware.

While Bloomberg this week proclaimed that governments should really get behind this whole cryptocurrency mining thing, the reality is that numerous governments already have -- just not in the way they might have intended. Security researcher Scott Helme this week discovered that more than 4,000 U.S. and UK government websites -- including the US court system website -- have been infected with cryptocurrency mining malware, a number that's sure to only balloon.

As Helme notes, attackers don't need to even attack each website individually, as they've found a way to compromise shared resources like Text Help, whose modified script files were then loaded by thousands of websites at a pop:

Fortunately this attack isn't particularly hard to neutralize, with a tiny modification to the share script being able to nip similar, future attacks in the bud. But Helme also notes that this entire kerfuffle could have been substantially worse:

Ultimately it seems like these kinds of attacks should be easy to avoid once site administrators and governments wise up to the rising threat. That said, reports by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike have suggested things will get a little worse before they get better. Again though, the malware angle is just one conversation we need to be having. How sites can responsibly and transparently implement miners as an alternative revenue stream is going to be something we'll be talking about for a while, as Salon made evident this week as the first website to offer the option as an alternative to traditional advertising.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Officials at ICE are pitching a dangerous idea to an administration likely to give it some consideration. It wants a seat at the grown-up table where it can partake of unminimized intel directly.

Internal advocates for joining the America’s spy agencies—known as the Intelligence Community or the IC—focus on the potential benefits to the agency’s work on counterproliferation, money laundering, counterterror, and cybercrime. The official added that joining the IC could also be useful for the agency’s immigration enforcement work––in particular, their efforts to find and arrest undocumented immigrants with criminal arrest warrants (known in ICE as fugitive aliens).

At this point, no one other than a few ICE officials really wants this to happen. Privacy and accountability activists say the last thing the White House should do is give the agency access to warrantless surveillance. ICE is a domestic enforcement agency and has no need to root around in foreign-facing data collections. The agency, however, feels foreign intel -- along with the unmentioned backdoor searches of domestic communications -- could aid it in tracking down drug traffickers, money launders, and various cybercriminals.

But it shouldn't have direct access. Nor should it ever really need it. Information sharing has been expanded, thanks to the last president, which means ICE likely already receives second-hand info from other IC members like the DHS, FBI, and DEA. Former government officials are wary of the idea of direct intel access, noting that it would result in more complications, rather than better immigration and customs enforcement. Peter Vincent, ICE's general counsel under Obama, had this to say:

Unlike most intelligence agencies, which focus on gathering information about America’s adversaries, ICE’s agents and officers deal with federal courts every day. If they use classified material to generate leads, that information could be inadmissible in court. Both the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration, which are in the Intelligence Community, deal with this issue. Adjusting would be a challenge for ICE.

Vincent said this could create “many potential mission creep spectres, especially in this current climate,” and that he doesn’t think it would be necessary for ICE to join the Intelligence Community.

We've seen how well dips into NSA stores has worked for these two law enforcement agencies. Parallel construction becomes the rule, rather than the exception, and cases are far more likely to be dropped if defense lawyers and judges start asking too many questions about presented evidence.

Another former DHS intelligence official claims the added intel would do little more than "complicate the architecture," making it harder for ICE to do its job. If critical information needs to be shared with ICE, it could be done by bringing the head of ICE in on intel meetings, rather than adding ICE into the IC mix and adding yet another set of minimization rules to intel sharing.

Bad idea or not, the push for ICE to join the Intelligence Community comes at the right time. While Trump has been extremely critical of other IC components -- particularly the FBI -- he's very fond of his domestic immigration enforcers, having given them free rein to enforce the law in whatever way they see fit.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The Nunes Memo, capitalized to give it far more gravitas that it actually possesses, was released late last week to mixed reviews. Nunes had built it up to be a mind-blowing damnation of a politically corrupt Federal Bureau of Investigation, more interested in destroying Trump than performing its appointed duties. The memo showed the FBI had relied on questionable evidence from the Steele dossier while securing FISA warrants to surveill former Trump adviser Carter Page. This memo was composed by the House intelligence oversight head -- one who had rarely expressed concern about domestic surveillance prior to investigations of Trump officials.

The memo showed the basis for the warrants may have been thin, but it didn't show it was nonexistent. In fact, the underlying warrants actually did inform the FISA court about the political background of Christopher Steele and his dossier. Nunes didn't know this because Nunes hadn't actually read the warrants. When he was finally apprised of this contradiction, he claimed the FBI disclosure didn't count because the disclosure was contained in a footnote.

The memo's release has had some serious side effects, however. But it will be Congressional oversight taking the damage, rather than the FBI. The memo's release showed the dumping of sensitive, classified info could be motivated by political whims, rather than as the result of a thoughtful, deliberative process. It showed oversight committee members were willing to jeopardize law enforcement sources and methods to score political points -- ironically the same claim Nunes was making about the FBI's motivations.

The damage will also be felt -- indirectly -- by the American public. Intelligence oversight is supposed to protect Americans from surveillance abuses. With this move, Nunes has destroyed its credibility, as Julian Sanchez points out.

It will be hard for anyone who has read the Nunes memo to regard the committee’s output as nonpartisan now. And by crying wolf about intelligence abuses with no serious evidence, Nunes and his enablers have made it far easier for America’s spy agencies to dismiss any future allegations, however meritorious, as yet another self-serving partisan distraction: at best, baseless conspiracy theorizing; at worst, an effort to obstruct legitimate investigations.

And that may not even be the worst of it. As Sanchez notes, the effectiveness of intelligence oversight will be blunted further. It's already mostly ineffective. Now, it may be completely broken.

[T]he committees are ultimately dependent on the intelligence community itself to direct their attention to areas that demand further scrutiny—whether in the form of official briefers, or whistleblowers who approach members with their concerns. Neither type is likely to repose much confidence in a committee that seems so enthusiastic to make a partisan circus of its grave task.

If the end game was to stop whistleblowing and give the nation's surveillance apparatus even more autonomy, well… mission accomplished. What was merely "dysfunctional" (according to the 9/11 Commission) will now be utterly useless.

And in the end, it won't matter to those who went along with Nunes' plan to own the libs (FBI Edition). For most committee members, intelligence oversight is a do-nearly-nothing job with zero political payoff. When things are fixed or further broken, the public is rarely informed. The few times the public is apprised of changes, it's handled obliquely with as many redactions as possible. Home state constituents waiting for their bridge to nowhere / vanity airport aren't going to be pouring funds into the re-election hoppers based on some shadowy, poorly-explained intelligence reforms. Everyone involved -- the overseers and the overseen -- would prefer as little interaction with each other as possible. By showing the House Oversight Committee is not above playing political football with FISA warrants, Nunes has virtually guaranteed the committee will be left alone.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Anything you do can be suspicious. Just ask our guardians of public safety. People interacting with law enforcement can't be too nervous. Or too calm. Or stare straight ahead. Or directly at officers. When traveling, travelers need to ensure they're not the first person off the plane. Or the last. Or in the middle. When driving, people can't drive too carefully. Or too carelessly. Traveling on interstate highways is right out, considering those are used by drug traffickers. Traveling along back roads probably just looks like avoiding more heavily-patrolled interstates, thus suspicious.

Having too much trash in your car might get you labelled a drug trafficker -- someone making a long haul between supply and destination cities. Conversely, a car that's too clean looks like a "trap" car -- a vehicle carefully kept in top condition to avoid raising law enforcement's suspicion. Too clean is just as suspicious as too dirty. Air fresheners, a common fixture in vehicles, are also suspicious. Having too many of them is taken as an attempt to cover the odor of drugs. There's no specific number that triggers suspicion. It's all left up to the officer on the scene.

So, avoiding rousing suspicion is impossible. Fortunately, courts can push back against law enforcement assertions about suspicious behavior. Some have pushed back more forcibly than others. Thanks to another court pushback, we have two new items to add to the list of suspicious indicators. From the Texas Appeals Court decision [PDF]:

At the motion to suppress hearing, the Trooper who pulled Cortez over testified that he began following Cortez’s minivan down Interstate 40 because it had “a newer registration” on it, and because it was “[a] minivan, clean, with the two occupants in it:”

Q. So you’re telling the Court that because you see a van, it’s clean and it’s got two people in it, that was [sic] indicators of potential criminal activity for you?

A. Yes, sir, they are. . . .

Beware, soccer moms and shuttle drivers: newer minivans with more than one person in them are indicative of drug trafficking. In this case, the stop resulted in the discovery of drugs in a spare tire. But the court won't allow the government to keep its illegally-obtained evidence. According to the court, no traffic violation occurred to justify the stop and the mere existence of a newer minivan with two people in it does not even come close to "reasonable" suspicion.

There's a long discussion about the supposed moving violation that instigated the stop. It's worth reading as well. The government's assertions about state laws and driving on the shoulder would make it impossible for any driver to avoid being stopped by law enforcement. The officer testified he saw the vehicle's tire hit the fog line twice, supposedly in violation of state law. But the court points out two things: first, the law allows vehicles to drive on improved shoulders under certain circumstances, including the circumstances surrounding this stop. It repeats the trial court's findings.

As [the Trooper’s] vehicle approached and pulled into the left hand lane, defendant’s vehicle moved toward the improved shoulder.

A short time later, Defendant’s vehicle moved toward the improved shoulder a second time as the Defendant’s vehicle exited the Interstate to the right at a marked exit ramp.

The State produced no evidence that [the Trooper] observed, or believed he had observed, any portion of the Defendant’s vehicle pass outside the outermost edge of the fog line.

The improved shoulder of a state roadway begins at the point of the fog line which is furthest from the center of the roadway.

The defendant’s vehicle did not cross outside the outermost edge of the fog line onto the improved shoulder of the roadway. Crossing over the portion of the fog line nearest the center of the roadway or upon the fog line is not a violation of Texas traffic law; therefore the vehicle was not operated on the improved shoulder of the roadway on either occasion made the basis for [the Trooper’s] traffic stop.

The state's evidence included the officer's dashcam, which didn't show what he claimed it did. The officer expended a lot of words trying to make a mere momentary touch of the white fog line into "driving on an improved shoulder," but the court doesn't buy it. And there's no way it could, thanks to the officer's testimony, which included this apparent physical impossibility.

Q. So, Trooper, tell the Court exactly where my client was at the time you say you witnessed the first violation?

A. The first violation was just – just as I’m paralleling him, I’m off his left quarter. Actually, I usually run the license plate at that point. I’m sitting there and you see him fade to the right-hand side, crossing the white line.

But, we conclude that, from the vantage point of driving in the left lane, next to a vehicle in the right lane, it cannot be seen, and there is no way to know, that the vehicle in the right lane is touching the fog line on that vehicle’s right. Thus, the dashcam video dispels the Trooper’s testimony that Cortez crossed the fog line.

Even if the trooper's testimony hadn't veered detailing his super-heroic ability to see through opaque body panels, the court still would have found a couple of momentary tire rubs on the fog line would not have constituted a violation of the law. As the court points out, there are times when it's legal to drive on the shoulder and the vehicle stopped by the trooper satisfied two of those exceptions to the "don't drive on the shoulder" law.

Regarding the first “offense” observed by the Trooper, as the trial court found, because section 545.058(a)(5) allows a driver to drive on an improved shoulder to “allow another vehicle traveling faster to pass,” and since it appeared that the Trooper was intending to pass Cortez’s vehicle on the left, Cortez was statutorily permitted to drive on the improved shoulder during that very brief period of time.

Regarding the second “offense” observed by the Trooper, the dash cam video shows Cortez driving steadily in the right hand lane on the highway, turning on his right turn signal to exit the highway. By the time that there was any type of contact between Cortez’s right tires and the white fog line, Cortez was at the end of the exit ramp, almost to the access road, and he was still signaling a right turn. Because section 545.058(a)(3) allows a driver to drive on an improved shoulder “to decelerate before making a right turn,” and since it was clear that Cortez was intending to exit the highway and turn right, Cortez was statutorily permitted to drive on the improved shoulder for that brief period of time.

Even if this wasn't the case, the court does not expect drivers to maintain perfect driving lines on roads -- no more than it expects officers to know every nuance of every law they're tasked with enforcing. Never touching a fog line is an impossibility. To do so is human, not a violation of the law.

As the court of appeals pointed out, “[d]riving is an exercise in controlled weaving. It is difficult enough to keep a straight path on the many dips, rises, and other undulations built into our roadways.” Even a driver who is sober, alert, and careful may occasionally drift within their lane only because the roadway surface is not perfectly smooth. Moreover, drivers are not able to see if their tires are touching the fog line. They are likely to veer over at some point and touch the fog line alongside the roadway without being aware they have done so.

So ends this trooper's unconstitutional attempt to turn a non-violation into a drug bust. And the court prevents minivan+1 from entering the "suspicious behavior" lexicon. Imperfect driving is nothing more than that, not a tacit admission of drug trafficking.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

House intelligence oversight leader Devin Nunes released his supposed bombshell Friday. The Nunes memo was supposed to contain info showing the FBI had engaged in a questionable, politically-motivated investigation of Trump staff. How this news was supposed to be shocking was anyone's guess. Anyone who has followed the FBI's activities since the days of J. Edgar Hoover already knows the FBI engages in questionable, politically-motivated investigations. The only new twist is the FISA court's involvement and the use of secretive surveillance powers to collect domestic communications.

The FBI responded by noting the memo [PDF] contained "material omissions of fact." What's contained in the memo likely provides rhetorical ammo to those who believe Trump and his advisors did nothing wrong during the run-up to the election. But it will only provide limited support. What's contained in the memo are accusations the FBI sought (and obtained) FISA warrants to surveill one-time Trump advisor Carter Page. The FBI -- according to the memo -- used the dubious Christopher Steele dossier to buttress its allegations. It apparently continued to do so even after it knew the Steele dossier had been paid for by the Democratic National Committee.

The memo notes this interception was not performed under Title VII, which covers the recently-renewed Section 702 collection powers. This surveillance was performed under Title I -- a more "traditional" FISA process in which the government seeks probable cause-based warrants from the FISA court, much like law enforcement officers seek warrants from magistrate judges.

The memo suggests the FBI should have dropped the investigation -- or at least given the FISA court heads up -- once it became apparent the Steele dossier was politically compromised. But the FBI continued to ask for renewals and these requests were approved by law enforcement officials Trump and most of the Republican party no longer care for. The list includes James Comey (fired), Andrew McCabe (resigned), Sally Yates (fired), and Rod Rosenstein (who Trump would apparently like to fire).

The memo also points out that Christopher Steele was "terminated" (as a source) by the FBI for disclosing his relationship with the agency to the press. Steele also apparently stated he was very interested in preventing Trump from winning the national election. There's also mention of a conflict of interest: a deputy attorney general who worked with those pursuing an investigation of Carter Page was married to a woman who worked for Fusion GPS, the research group paid by the DNC to dig up dirt on Trump.

This all seems very damning at first blush. The Nunes memo is the party's attempt to derail the FBI's ongoing investigation of the Trump campaign and its involvement with Russian meddling in the presidential election. But there's a lot missing from the memo. The facts are cherry-picked to present a very one-sided view of the situation.

The rebuttal letter [PDF] from Democratic legislators is similarly one-sided. But adding both together, you can almost assemble a complete picture of the FBI's actions. The rebuttal points out Christopher Steele had no idea who was funding his research beyond Fusion GPS. It also points out the dirt-digging mission was originally commissioned by the Washington Free Beacon, a right-leaning DC press entity.

It also points out something about the paperwork needed to request a FISA warrant. To secure a renewal, the FBI would have to show it had obtained evidence of value with the previous warrant. If it can't, it's unlikely the renewal request would be approved by FBI directors and/or US attorneys general. The multiple renewals suggest the FBI had actually obtained enough evidence of Carter Page's illicit dealings with the Russians to sustain an ongoing investigation.

Beyond that, there's the fact that Devin Nunes -- despite spending days threatening to release this "damning" memo -- never bothered to view the original documents underlying his assertions of FBI bias. In an interview with Fox News after the memo's release, Nunes admitted he had not read the FBI's warrant applications. So, the assertions are being made with very limited info. Nunes apparently heard the Steele dossier was involved and that was all he needed to compile a list of reasons to fire current Trump nemesis Robert Mueller... disguised as a complaint about improper surveillance.

It's this complaint about abuse of surveillance powers that really chafes. Nunes throttled attempts at Section 702 reform last month and now wants to express his concerns that the FBI and FISA court may not be protecting Americans quite as well as they should. Marcy Wheeler has a long, righteously angry piece at Huffington Post detailing the rank hypocrisy of Nunes' self-serving memo.

Because Nunes and others ― up to and including House Speaker Paul Ryan ― claimed to be motivated by a concern about civil liberties, it was generally assumed the privacy community would join the clamor. But those of us who’ve been through several surveillance fights with these posers know the reality is far more complex. Ultimately, two principles are at issue: the rule of law and privacy. In both instances, Nunes and Ryan are on the wrong side of the issue.

[...]

A mere three weeks ago, Nunes and Ryan were happy to have Americans surveilled with no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing. Back then, Ryan backed suspicionless, warrantless searches of Americans as a necessary trade off. “This [bill] strikes the balance that we must have between honoring and protecting privacy rights of U.S. citizens, honoring civil liberties, and making sure that we have the tools we need in this day and age of 21st century terrorism to keep our people safe.”

Today, however, when a former Trump campaign adviser is at issue, Nunes and Ryan have discovered the due process they personally refused for so many Americans.

This isn't Devin Nunes' first ride on the surveillance hypocrisy merry-go-round. Just like Dianne Feinstein on the other side of the political aisle, Nunes doesn't give two shits about domestic surveillance unless it's being used against him and his. Somehow, Nunes believes libertarians and anti-surveillance progressives will join him in his excoriation of the FBI and its alleged abuse of domestic surveillance powers. But he's not going to win any converts. The hill Nunes has chosen to die on with this memo is this: the law should protect the powerful from questionable snooping. It has nothing to say about the marginalized groups targeted most frequently by security agencies and law enforcement.

Every single privacy activist I know cares about privacy in significant part to ensure the rule of law and to prevent the arbitrary exercise of justice to focus just on select groups like Muslims or Chinese-Americans, rather than those who pose the greatest risk to society, like people allegedly doing Russia’s secret bidding. Yet the actions of Ryan and Nunes reverse that, using a sham concern for civil liberties as a way to prevent themselves, their associates, and the president from being subject to the rule of law like the rest of us would be.

Moving beyond that, there's the damage done to the FBI by the president and the party that follows him. Trump proclaimed himself a "law and order" president and stated he would always have law enforcement's back. But he's spent most of his time in the White House battling the FBI and DOJ, hoping to make investigations into his campaign's questionable relationship with Russia vanish. He wasted no time alienating the FBI simply because its former director wouldn't give him a pledge of loyalty.

Now, with Nunes releasing a completely unredacted memo, the FBI will suffer even more harm. The agency now knows its sources might be exposed for purely political reasons. Very few people will work with the FBI knowing their names might be splashed all over documents released voluntarily by intelligence oversight committee members. This administration has made it clear no one is safe from public disclosure, even as it does everything it can to shut down unauthorized leaks. Again, the hypocrisy is undeniable. While every administration desires to control the narrative, few have been this transparent about their motives.

There should be no rush to lionize the FBI and the officials Trump has discarded because of perceived lack of loyalty. The FBI is no better than it was before Trump took office. It's no champion of civil liberties and it is in the wrong position to pretend to speak truth to power simply by continuing to exist. Abuse of surveillance powers is a very real thing and the FBI remains one of the worst offenders. The memo is Nunes photoshopping a bunch of smoke over a small, ordinary flame and claiming it's photographic evidence of the FBI's antipathy towards Trump. If abuse occurred under Nunes' watch, then it should be called out. But laying bare the details of an ongoing investigation just to score political points is a terrible abuse of Nunes' oversight powers.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The Blue Lives Matter movement has traveled overseas. Here in the US, we've seen various attempts to criminalize sassing cops, although none of those appear to be working quite as well as those already protected by a raft of extra rights would like. Meanwhile, we had Spain lining itself up for police statesmanship by making it a criminal offense to disrespect police officers.

Over in Hong Kong, the police chief -- while still debating whether or not he should offer an apology for his officers' beating of bystanders during a 2014 pro-democracy protest -- has thrown his weight behind criminalization of insults directed at officers.

Hong Kong’s police commissioner said he would support a law to make insulting officers on duty a crime on Tuesday, in what appeared to be a move to placate the city’s police union.

Stephen Lo Wai-chung said an increasing number of disputes in the city was a reason a law was needed – an apparent reversal from his stance a year ago.

“Over the past few years, our officers have been carrying out duties in a society that full of disputes. They caught in the middle in many circumstances. They were insulted in certain extents at work with their jobs sometimes disrupted,” Lo told reporters as he announced last year’s crime statistics, adding that the force had overcome “several big challenges” in recent years.

Disrupting officers is already a criminal offense. It's the sort of thing that's illegal everywhere. But disruption of official duties needs to be far more than derogatory remarks. If insults hurled at officers are preventing them from doing their jobs, the police chief doesn't need new legislation. He needs new officers.

This change in stance can be traced back to Hong Kong's largest police union. The Junior Police Officers Association, which represents two-thirds of Hong Kong's police force, thinks officers need to be better protected from certain arrangements of letters.

This legislative push also comes with plenty of hypocrisy. As South China Morning Post editor Luisa Tam points out, officers regularly use "insulting" language and profanity when dealing with citizens.

Police officers are notorious for swearing anyway, so it does look a bit out of character for the police chief to push for a ban and punish the public for swearing at them.

This aligns the Hong Kong police chief with many other law enforcement officials who believe respect is something that can be demanded rather than earned.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Every once in a while, you'll come across stories about one government or another looking to censor or discourage pornography online, typically through outright censorship or some sort of taxation. While most of these stories come from countries that have religious reasoning behind censorship of speech, more secular countries in Europe have also entertained the idea of a tax or license for viewing naughty things online. Occasionally, a state or local government here in America will try something similar before those efforts run face first into the First Amendment. It should be noted, however, that any and all implementations of this type of censorship or taxation of speech have failed spectacularly with a truly obscene amount of collateral damage as a result. Not that any of that keeps some politicians from trying, it seems.

The latest evidence of that unfortunate persistence would be from the great state of Virginia, where the General Assembly will be entertaining legislation to make the state the toll booth operators of internet porn. The bill (which you can see here) was introduced by Viriginia House member David LaRock (and there's a Senate version introduced by State Senator Richard Black).

There is a new bill being proposed in the General Assembly that would lock all pornographic sites from your phones and computers, and the only way to unlock them is to pay the state $20. Virginia House Bill 1592 is also known as "The Human Trafficking Prevention Act." Lawmakers who proposed the bill said that by making pornography less accessible on the internet, it will reduce the amount of human trafficking.

It should go without saying at this point that attempts to tie human trafficking to the global pornography industry are specious claims at best. It also seems to have escaped those supporting this legislation that pornography, an entirely legal industry in America, is absolutely full of companies and providers that in no way are involved in human trafficking or any other illegal behavior, either. As you can imagine, the industry is actually heavily regulated and tightly controlled for the obvious reasons. This tax would impact their legitimate business as much or more than any nefarious party that might be impacted. Nothing screams great legislation like a bill that would punish the innocent and guilty alike.

Of course, there's also the fact that pornography, whatever you personally think of it, is certainly protected speech as well. And taxing protected speech is sort of a thing we don't do 'round these parts because, again, the First Amendment. And the people of Virginia aren't going to take kindly to having their rights infringed over specious claims.

“I think that’s a freedom we all have as Americans,” said Grace Owens. “I just don’t see the relevance at all.”

Others say it's not farfetched to link human trafficking to porn, but restricting all adult sites might be going too far.

“I feel there are a lot of side alleys you could go down, maybe only types of porn verses other types,” said a woman named Carrie.

Some people say it’s like the state is punishing you for looking at something perfectly legal that some find offensive.

“It’s like a sin tax, getting cigarettes or alcohol or anything else,” said Charles Plant.

And there's another side to this still. What this tax will essentially do is put the state of Virginia in the pornography business. After all, if it is collecting taxes and tolls for the service of porn, in some way it is itself monetizing that porn. It does this to some extent with alcohol and cigarettes, of course, except that those are physical products already subject to some form of sales taxation. A sin tax on those items, while still itch-inducing to those of us with a libertarian bent, makes more logical sense than a sin tax on internet streamed speech.

So, does Virginia really want to dive into the porn business while infringing on speech and the rights of consumers in the state, all in the specious name of preventing human trafficking?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

ICE is finally getting that nationwide license plate reader database it's been lusting after for several years. The DHS announced plans for a nationwide database in 2014, but decided to rein that idea in after a bit of backlash. The post-Snowden political climate made many domestic mass surveillance plans untenable, if not completely unpalatable.

Times have changed. The new team in the White House doesn't care how much domestic surveillance it engages in as long as it might aid in rooting out foreign immigrants. The first move was the DHS's updated Privacy Impact Assessment on license plate readers -- delivered late last year -- which came to the conclusion that any privacy violations were minimal compared to the national security net benefits.

The last step has been finalized, as Russell Brandom reports for The Verge.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency has officially gained agency-wide access to a nationwide license plate recognition database, according to a contract finalized earlier this month. The system gives the agency access to billions of license plate records and new powers of real-time location tracking, raising significant concerns from civil libertarians.

For those counting tax beans, the good news is this database won't cost much. Billions of license plate records have already been collected (and continue to be collected). All the winning contractor has to do is hook ICE up to the firehose.

The source of the data is not named in the contract, but an ICE representative said the data came from Vigilant Solutions, the leading network for license plate recognition data. “Like most other law enforcement agencies, ICE uses information obtained from license plate readers as one tool in support of its investigations,” spokesperson Dani Bennett said in a statement. “ICE is not seeking to build a license plate reader database, and will not collect nor contribute any data to a national public or private database through this contract.”

Nice use of wiggle words to minimize ICE's new surveillance power. ICE won't "build" a database. Great, but it doesn't need to. Vigilant has been collecting records for years via private companies and partnerships with law enforcement agencies. Around two billion plate/location records are already stored by Vigilant, presumably indefinitely. According to the Verge report, ICE will have access to at least five years of records for historical searches.

But ICE won't be just be diving into Vigilant's plate record archives. ICE will also be able to hand Vigilant "hot lists" for automatic notification any time the nation's many ALPR cameras capture a shot of targeted license plates.

ICE agents can also receive instantaneous email alerts whenever a new record of a particular plate is found — a system known internally as a “hot list.” (The same alerts can also be funneled to the Vigilant’s iOS app.) According to the privacy assessment, as many as 2,500 license plates could be uploaded to the hot list in a single batch, although the assessment does not detail how often new batches can be added.

According to the report, ICE first tried out Vigilant's system in 2012. It hoped to go live in 2014, but the Snowden documents chilled enthusiasm for mass surveillance temporarily. Now, the system is ready to roll, pre-stocked with a couple billion plate records for ICE to peruse as it expands its enforcement activities past the deportation of foreign criminals.

There are few nods to privacy, but they're mostly useless. ICE owns it own ALPR cameras but those won't feed into this database, which means other law enforcement agencies won't have access to ICE-generated plate records. Hot lists aren't forever. They'll expire after a year. And there will be audit trails for ICE agents who use the system, although it remains to be seen how serious ICE is about punishing misuse of this authority.

There's not much that citizens can do to keep their inland plates from becoming part of ICE's border enforcement activity. Most states require visible, legible license plates at all times, even when parked at homes or private businesses. One state, however, is doing something about that. California legislators recently offered up a bill that would provide a little pocket of privacy for citizens and their vehicles.

S.B. 712 would allow drivers to apply a removable cover to their license plates when they are lawfully parked, similar to how drivers are currently allowed to cover their entire vehicles with a tarp to protect their paint jobs from elements. While this would not prevent ALPRs from collecting data from moving vehicles, it would offer privacy for those who want to protect the confidentiality of their destinations.

Unfortunately, this legislation has struggled to find enough support to get it to the governor's desk. As the EFF reports, state senators who have stated support for pushing back against the White House's anti-immigrant policies failed to show support for a bill that would have slowed ICE's acquisition of plate records from their state. The initial vote, however, took place before the Verge broke the story of ICE's partnership with Vigilant Systems. Things could change on January 31's vote, now that new information has come to light.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

This is the upcoming 'Cheaters Edition' of Monopoly Hasbro will be releasing this fall. It includes 15 "cheat cards" that encourage players to do naughty things behind the other players' backs, rewarding them with bonus cash or property if they get away with it, and a handcuff to wear if they get caught. Naughty things indeed! *wink* (We're gonna need a leather riding crop and blindfold too)

"We've finally decided to embrace our less-than-honest fans by encouraging them to partake in those iconic (yet sometimes unspoken) Monopoly moments that occur during family game nights,"...."We're excited to see what fans can get away with and how they'll react to the new sneaky twists in the game." Some of the cheats include: - Stealing money from the bank - Placing a hotel on one of your pieces of property - Removing a hotel from someone else's property - Taking an extra $100 in Monopoly money from the bank when you pass go. - Moving another player's token instead of your own on your turn. - Giving someone less money than you owe them. - Collecting rent for someone else's property

Man, I remember the last time I played Monopoly. EVERYONE was cheating. It was November 14th, 2004. "Jesus, that was along time ago, and you remember the DATE?" Hahaha, when game night ends with a double murder, you don't forget. Thanks to Caroline, who agrees Hasbro must have calculated that everybody already owns a regular copy of Monopoly and is desperate to bolster sales.

You'll recall that the FCC ignored the public, the people who built the internet, and all objective data as it rushed to repeal net neutrality at Verizon, Comcast and AT&T's behest. Things got so absurd during the proceeding, the FCC at one point was directing reporters who had questions regarding the FCC's shaky justifications to telecom industry lobbyists, who were more than happy to molest data until it "proved" FCC assertions on this front (most notably the false claim that net neutrality killed sector investment):

"During a conference call FCC officials held with reporters last week, I asked about this discrepancy between Pai's assertion that investment is declining and what the actual data shows. The officials dismissed my question, saying I had my facts wrong. But they didn't offer any data that would prove Pai's argument.

Reached later, an FCC representative pointed to the USTelecom data (posted above) that Pai previously referenced. The representative declined to make the chairman or anyone else on his staff available for an interview."

With that as a backdrop, it's rather amusing to see the FCC this week hyping the creation of a new "Office of Economics and Analytics." This office, the FCC declares, will be focused on helping to ensure "that economic analysis is deeply and consistently incorporated" into the FCC's regular operations:

"The Federal Communications Commission today voted to create an FCC Office of Economics and Analytics. This new unit will help ensure that economic analysis is deeply and consistently incorporated as part of the agency’s regular operations. The Office of Economics and Analytics will use existing staff resources by bringing into one office FCC economists, attorneys, and data professionals who work on economic analysis, data policy and management, and research."

FCC staffers were quick to highlight the office's creation as a major paradigm shift and a return to "big picture policy thinking":

In an ideal world, this would be something to applaud the FCC for, since it has a long, proud history of using industry-provided data to justify federal apathy to the limited competition inherent in the broken telecom market. Real-world data has always inherently frightened incumbent ISPs like Comcast, since it shows how a lack of competition in countless markets is the primary reason American broadband suffers from high prices, historically awful customer service, and net neutrality violations (which themselves are just another symptom of limited competition).

The former FCC under agency head Tom Wheeler had actually taken some uncharacteristically-concrete steps on that front, including redefining broadband more realistically at 25 Mbps downstream, 3 Mbps upstream (something ISPs and their loyal lawmakers whined incessantly over). The FCC had also been working hard on basing policy decisions based on real world data provided by consumer routers with custom firmware, instead of its long-standing history of blindly taking ISPs' word at the speeds they deliver consumers.

But Ajit Pai and Trump's FCC is an entirely different animal.

Ajit Pai's agency has shown time and time again that its interest in "objective data" consists of blindly parroting "research" by ISP economists, hired specifically to molest the numbers until they justify the agency's frontal assault on consumer protections and meaningful sector oversight. Pai himself has similarly parroted all manner of falsehoods as he rushed to axe net neutrality, from claims that net neutrality emboldens dictators in Iran and North Korea, to the claim the U.S.' modest neutrality rules utterly devastated sector investment (disproven by SEC filings, earnings reports, and countless CEO statements).

So yeah, ideally you'd hope this office is used to make sure genuine, objective data is used to fuel agency decisions. But based on the last year's worth of behavior by Pai, it seems much more likely that the office will simply be used to industrialize the act of using telecom lobbying data to justify federal apathy to the lack of competition in the U.S. broadband market. Perhaps we can start a Techdirt pool on which outcome is the most likely?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story