Arizona AG Sues Google For Location Data Failures, After Telecom Got A Wrist Slap For Far Worse Behavior

from the somebody's-watching-me dept

Two years ago, an investigation by the Associated Press and Princeton computer scientists found that Google services on both Android and Apple routinely continued to track user location data, even when users opted out of such tracking. Even if users paused "Location History," the researchers found that some Google apps still automatically stored time-stamped location data without asking the consumer's consent.

Fast forward two years later, and Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich has sued Google for violating the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act over the practice. The lawsuit (pdf), filed in Maricopa County Superior Court, is based off of an investigation begun by Brnovich's office back in 2018. Like the aforementioned AP report, the AG found that Google's settings didn't actually do what they claimed they did in regards to ceasing location data tracking:

"Google told users that "with Location History off, the places you go are no longer stored." But as the AP article revealed, this statement was blatantly false — even with Location History off, Google surreptitiously collects location information through other settings such as Web & App Activity and uses that information to sell ads. At the same time, Google’s disclosures regarding Web & App Activity misled users into believing that setting had nothing to do with tracking user location. Google’s account set-up disclosures made no mention of the fact that location information is collected though Web and App Activity, which is defaulted to “on," until early-to mid-2018."

To be very clear, that's bad. Companies (especially companies that have spent years under fire for privacy abuses) should be transparent about what they're collecting, clearly communicate that to end users, and not try to hide opting out under layers of confusing menus. This is, of course, the kind of stuff that would be thwarted by a very simple privacy law that required transparency, working opt out tools, and included penalties for companies that misled users. You know, the kind of basic rules that were passed by the FCC back in 2016, then immediately demolished by telecom lobbyists thanks to the GOP-controlled Senate one year later, just as they were about to take effect.

In an interview with the Washington Post, Brnovich insists he was eager to send a message that companies aren't "above the law":

"At some point, people or companies that have a lot of money think they can do whatever the hell they want to do, and feel like they are above the law,” Brnovich said. “I wanted Google to get the message that Arizona has a state consumer fraud act. They may be the most innovative company in the world, but that doesn’t mean they’re above the law."

While this is all well and good, and Google certainly deserves penalties for not being transparent about how basic privacy settings work, the lawsuit continues to highlight a bizarre asymmetry in policymakers' concerns about privacy. While Google's failure here was bad, it's a far cry from the location data scandals that recently rocked the telecom sector. There, carriers were found to have been selling access to huge swaths of location data to pretty much any nitwit with a nickel. This data was then repeatedly, aggressively abused, by everybody from law enforcement to folks pretending to be law enforcement, to stalkers.

The scope of those scandals were utterly monumental, yet the punishment was virtually nonexistent. The worst that happened was a performative FCC fine that will likely be litigated down to next to nothing over the next year, then forgotten entirely. Many AGs were utterly absent from that particular dance of dysfunction, despite claims to be eagerly cracking down on companies that are "above the law." There were no lawsuits filed against AT&T, Verizon, or T-Mobile. And while the FCC did finally act, it wound up being little more than a belated wrist slap.

We've noted this bizarre tech and privacy policy asymmetry more than a few times, yet it doesn't seem to really change, with "big tech" getting the lion's share of heat and attention, while adtech, telecom, and other equally problematic sectors routinely engage in the same or worse behaviors yet see far less scrutiny. If we are ever going to craft a meaningful privacy law in the United States (and I remain skeptical that's happening without first seeing an historic scandal well beyond what we've seen already), policymakers are going to need to take a far broader, bird's eye view of the modern privacy problem.

Filed Under: android, arizona, location data, mark brnovich, privacy
Companies: google

Arizona Legislator Wants To Strip Platforms Of Section 230 Immunity If They're 'Politically Biased'

from the good-luck-with-that-[stares-at-bio]-'Constitutional-Legislator' dept

Another bill containing some bad ideas is being floated in the Arizona legislature. Rep. Bob Thorpe thinks social media companies are biased against conservatives and feels the best way to address this is to steamroll the Constitution and Section 230. (via Eric Goldman)

Thorpe's bill [PDF] says it will turn platforms into publishers at the drop of a bias accusation:

Specifies a person who allows online users to upload publicly accessible content on the internet and who edits, deletes or makes it difficult for online users to locate and access the uploaded content in an easy or timely manner for politically biased reasons is:

a) Deemed to be a publisher;

b) Deemed to not be a platform; and

c) Liable for damages suffered by an online user because of the person's actions, including damage for violations of rights guaranteed to the online user by the Federal or State Constitutions.

To be clear, there are no enshrined rights guaranteeing unimpeded use of private companies' platforms or access to "uploaded content." Writing a bill that proclaims there are doesn't make the false assertion any more true. If platforms are perceived to be engaging in politically-motivated moderation, the bill allows the affected user (or state Attorney General) to engage in litigation that's doomed to fail.

For someone so concerned about walled gardens of the political variety, Rep. Thorpe doesn't seem all that interested in practicing what he's preaching to his voter base. Thorpe's Twitter account is protected, which means most constituents don't have access to it and it allows him to pick and choose who gets to see his tweets.

This is only Thorpe's latest attempt to adversely affect protections and rights while claiming to be very concerned about rights violations. Journalists and activists have already pointed out Thorpe's tendency to block critics, all while claiming his account (@azrepbobthorpe) is for personal use, rather than for his legislative work. His bio points claims he's a "Christian Constitutional Legislator," but his account is an ongoing Constitutional violation.

In 2017, he introduced a bill that would violate First Amendment under the theory it would somehow make public universities more protective of the rights he's undermining. Thorpe has a problem with any "divisive" speech -- especially the kind that might come from teachers and professors who might -- as the bill put it -- "promote division, resentment or social justice toward a race, gender, religion, political affiliation, social class or other class of people." As Fire noted then, Thorpe's proposed government interference in classroom instruction would only harm the First Amendment, not save it.

Prohibiting instructors from teaching particular perspectives or topics is precisely the kind of content- and viewpoint-based restriction forbidden under the First Amendment. This does not change even if someone on campus might deem those perspectives or topics likely “to promote social justice, division, or resentment.” In practice, this legislation would confer unfettered discretion on campus administrators to shut down discussion on nearly any subject.

During the next legislative session, Bob Thorpe proposed another free speech-threatening bill that suggested free-market capitalism should be shielded from criticism.

This week, Arizona Rep. Bob Thorpe (R – Flagstaff) introduced a bill that would designate "American free-market capitalism" the state's official "political-economic system", and declares the legislature's intent "that taxpayer dollars not be used to promote or to provide material support for any political-economic system that opposes the principles of free-market capitalism."

Thorpe thinks he's a free speech warrior. But all he does is try to erect content-based restrictions on speech -- the kind of thing no court has been sympathetic to. As Reason noted, the bill was stupid political point-scoring bullshit that had zero chance of surviving even the most cursory Constitutional glance..

For starters, the bill contains a naked content-based restriction on the use of taxpayer dollars to promote something other than "free-market capitalism". From what activities Thorpe would want to yank state support is not entirely clear; his bill says only that it would include the promotion of "socialism, communism, and fascism."

Over at the Phoenix New Times, Antonia Noori Farzan notes that "taken to an extreme, it could potentially mean that state universities would be banned from providing any resources to campus chapters of the Democratic Socialists of America." Depending on your definition of free-market, the bill could be used to deny resources to college Democrat and Republican chapters too.

The good times roll on. Bob Thorpe is finally winding down his state house career, exiting his unstoried seven-term career with another stupid bill that ignores the Constitution in favor of allowing people who don't understand Section 230 or the First Amendment feel like their grievances are being redressed.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, arizona, bias, bob thorpe, cda 230, free speech, intermediary liability, platform, publisher, section 230

Report Suggests Rampant Negligence In Uber Self Driving Car Fatality

from the I'm-sorry-I-can't-do-that,-Dave dept

Earlier this year you might recall that a self-driving Uber in Tempe, Arizona killed a woman who was trying to cross the street with her bike outside of a crosswalk. The driver wasn't paying attention, and the car itself failed to stop for the jaywalking pedestrian. Initial reporting on the subject, most of it based on anonymous Uber sources who spoke to the paywalled news outlet The Information, strongly pushed the idea that the car's sensors worked as intended and detected the woman, but bugs in the system software failed to properly identify the woman as something to avoid:

"The car’s sensors detected the pedestrian, who was crossing the street with a bicycle, but Uber’s software decided it didn’t need to react right away. That’s a result of how the software was tuned. Like other autonomous vehicle systems, Uber’s software has the ability to ignore “false positives,” or objects in its path that wouldn’t actually be a problem for the vehicle, such as a plastic bag floating over a road. In this case, Uber executives believe the company’s system was tuned so that it reacted less to such objects. But the tuning went too far, and the car didn’t react fast enough, one of these people said."

Thanks to that report, a narrative emerged that the vehicle largely worked as designed, and the only real problem was a modest quirk in uncooked programming.

But a new report by Bloomberg this week shatters that understanding. According to NTSB findings seen by Bloomberg, the vehicle in question wasn't even programmed to detect jaywalkers. Like, at all:

"Uber Technologies Inc.’s self-driving test car that struck and killed a pedestrian last year wasn’t programmed to recognize and react to jaywalkers, according to documents released by U.S. safety investigators."

Assuming Bloomberg's read of the 400 page report (only a part of which has been made public) is accurate, that's a far cry from a bug. The NTSB report found that Uber staff had also disabled Volvo auto-detection and breaking software that could have at least slowed the vehicle if not avoided the pedestrian impact altogether. Investigators also noted that despite the fact that Uber was conducting risky trials on public streets, the company had little to no real system in place for dealing with safety issues. Again, not just underwhelming public safety protocols, but none whatsoever:

"The Uber Advanced Technologies Group unit that was testing self-driving cars on public streets in Tempe didn’t have a standalone safety division, a formal safety plan, standard operating procedures or a manager focused on preventing accidents, according to NTSB."

Again, that's not just buggy or "poorly tuned" software, it's total negligence. Despite the fact the driver was distracted, the car was never adequately programmed to detect jaywalkers, some safety features were disabled, and Uber had little to no safety protocols in place, prosecutors have already absolved Uber of criminal liability (though the driver still may face a lawsuit). The NTSB also hasn't formally affixed blame for the crash (yet):

"The documents painted a picture of safety and design lapses with tragic consequences but didn’t assign a cause for the crash. The safety board is scheduled to do that at a Nov. 19 meeting in Washington."

Self driving cars are remarkably safe, and most accidents involve autonomous vehicles getting confused when people actually follow the law (like rear ending a human-driven vehicle that stopped at a red light before turning right). But that's only true when the people designing and conducting trials are competent. If the NTSB report is anything to go by, Uber fell well short, yet got to enjoy a lot of press suggesting the problem was random bad programming luck, not total negligence and incompetence. Later this month we'll get to see if Uber faces anything resembling accountability for its failures.

Filed Under: arizona, autonomous vehicles, jaywalkers, self driving cars, sensors, tempe
Companies: uber

Arizona The Latest To Explore Dumb Porn Filter Law, This Time To Help Fund Trump's Fence

from the filtering-the-naughty-bits dept

For some time now, a man by the name of Chris Sevier has been waging a fairly facts-optional war on porn. Sevier first became famous for trying to marry his computer to protest same sex marriage back in 2016. He also tried to sue Apple after blaming the Cupertino giant for his own past porn addiction, and has gotten into trouble for allegedly stalking country star John Rich and a 17-year-old girl. Sevier has since been a cornerstone of an effort to pass truly awful porn filter legislation in more than 15 states under the disingenuous guise of combating human trafficking.

Dubbed the "Human Trafficking Prevention Act," all of the incarnations of the law would force ISPs to filter pornography and other "patently offensive material." The legislation 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 proposal is patently absurd, technically impossible to implement, and yet somehow these bills continue to get further than they ever should across a huge swath of the boob-phobic country.

Once people have realized the ignorant futility (and under-handed sales pitch) of such model legislation, it usually fails to gain any steam in most states. But it's back this week with a decidedly new wrinkle in Arizona, where State Rep. Gail Griffin is pushing Arizona House Bill 2444. HB 2444 would mandate that any Arizona internet user would need to file a request if they want to access porn online, proving they're at least 18 years of age. Porn seekers would then pay a one-time fee of $20 (plus additional fees) to access porn. Of course since this effort (like past efforts) is technically futile, the proposal is going nowhere.

But it's getting some extra attention this week because the bill mandates the creation of something called the "John McCain Human Trafficking and Child Exploitation Prevention Fund," which, if past precedent for these bills holds, likely has less than nothing to actually do with, and was never sanctioned by, the family of John McCain.

That fund, in turn, would go to a number of different causes, including a program designed "to uphold community standards of decency" and develop "programs for victims of sex abuse." But Arizona's incarnation of this dumb law has a small wrinkle in that Griffin is trying to claim this money could also be used to help fund Trump's unnecessary border fence:

"At the top of the list of 10 explicit things the grants can be used for is “build a border wall between Mexico and this state or fund border security." Other grant purposes include mental health services, temporary housing, assisting victims, training, assisting school districts and assisting law enforcement. It is unclear if the McCain family is supportive of the legislation or a fund created in the late senator’s name."

Again though, that funding is never going to happen because this law, like the last fifty times we've covered it, isn't likely to pass. It isn't likely to pass because filtering porn on such a level is arguably impossible, as we've seen every time someone attempts to erect such government-mandated censorship of porn. And it's not going to pass because the folks behind the draft legislation it's based on not only have absolutely no idea how the internet actually works, they consistently misrepresent what the law is supposed to actually do (and fund).

But the real story here isn't the dumb filter, or the Trump wall wrinkle (though both will happily feed the clickbait machine for much of the week). The real story is how successful Sevier has been, despite his very checkered past, at getting more than a dozen state legislatures to mindlessly embrace terrible, unworkable legislation that happily gives a giant middle finger to the Constitution.

Filed Under: arizona, chris sevier, donald trump, filters, gail giffien, human trafficking prevention act, john mccain, porn, porn laws, porn license, wall

Another State Lawmaker Thinks Teachers Should Be Banned From Discussing 'Controversial' Issues

from the 'party-of-free-speech'-strikes-again dept

Having gotten it into his head that teachers are "indoctrinating" the mushy minds of school students, an Arizona lawmaker has introduced a bill almost certainly headed for a Constitutional challenge.

State Rep. Mark Finchem wants to ban public and charter school teachers from spreading “controversial” political, racial and religious messages in their classrooms.

The Oro Valley Republican introduced House Bill 2002 in the Legislature last week. If it passes, teachers could face consequences as severe as losing their jobs for engaging in any “political, ideological or religious” advocacy or discussion with their students.

The bill [PDF] introduces, among other things, a requirement for teachers to attend three hours of annual "ethics training" and adopt a strict "ethics code" that prevents them from talking about a long list of things Rep. Finchem finds "controversial." The list begins with blocking teachers from advocating for political parties, candidates, and legislation, which already makes part of the bill redundant.

State law already bars public and charter school employees from using school resources, including personnel, to influence the outcome of an election.

But that's only part of the list of forbidden subjects. The bill also forbids teachers from:

Discussing any litigation making its way through the nation's courts.

Introducing "controversial issues" not related to the course being taught

Endorsing any activity that "hampers or impedes lawful access of military recruiters to the campus"

Endorsing or engaging in any activity that "hampers or impedes the actions" of law enforcement

"Singling out" one racial group as "being responsible" for the suffering of another race

It also introduces some weird form of "Fairness Doctrine" by demanding teachers provide resources supporting both sides of any controversial subject that somehow makes it way past Rep. Finchem's speech barrier. These multiple incursions on the First Amendment are followed by dubious "findings" Finchem wants to have codified as legislative facts.

A. The legislature finds and declares that:

1. The purpose of public education in Arizona is to produce knowledgeable and competent adults who are able to participate as informed citizens in the democratic process of selecting representation in our constitutional republic.

2. Education in a democracy is best served by teaching students how to think, not telling them what to think. Our country is divided over many issues affecting its citizens. It has been established through surveys that a majority of K-12 teachers discuss controversial issues in their classrooms.

3. It has been established that some teacher training institutions, teacher licensing agencies, state education departments and professional teacher organizations have condoned and even encouraged this behavior under the guise of "teaching for social justice" and other sectarian doctrines. Time spent on political or ideological indoctrination takes time away from instruction in the academic subjects taught by public educational institutions, including the foundational subjects of mathematics, science, English, history and civics, and prevents students from receiving the best possible public education as funded by the taxpayers of this state.

4. Parents and taxpayers have a right to expect that taxpayer resources will be spent on education, not political or ideological indoctrination.

Perhaps Mark Finchem will allow these many surveys supporting his indoctrination theory to be read into the state record along with the rest of his bullshit bill. Finchem claims a "stunning number" of calls from concerned parents has prompted this action, rather than the organized #RedForEd educator walkout that accompanied educators' demands for increased funding.

There's no chance this bill survives a Constitutional challenge if it somehow becomes law. Restrictions on speech -- even that of government employees -- demands a narrow crafting. Targeting speech with legislation requires a sniper's mentality. Finchem is carrying a shotgun loaded with birdshot and hoping it's enough to prevent speech he doesn't like from being spoken in the state's classrooms.

Filed Under: arizona, controversial topics, free speech, mark finchem, oro valley, schools, teaching

Court Says CBP Likely Violating First Amendment By Forbidding Photography Of Publicly-Viewable Border Crossings

from the muh-national-security dept

Another (partial) win for the First Amendment, the ACLU, and American citizens. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a decision forbidding the photography of CBP officers at border crossings. (h/t Mitra Ebadolahi)

The CBP seems to have a problem respecting the First Amendment rights (along with several other rights) of American citizens when engaged in its border patrolling and protecting. This same appeals court recently allowed the heavily-harassed citizens of an Arizona border town to move forward with their First Amendment lawsuit against the agency, ruling that the CBP acted arbitrarily when dealing with protesters and activists documenting checkpoint activity. The record clearly showed the CBP removed people it didn't like from its imaginary zone of exclusion while allowing other random citizens more aligned with the CBP's open harassment of American citizens to venture inside the ad hoc DMZ to harass citizens documenting harassment.

This lawsuit centers on allegations CBP officers confiscated cameras and phones of people documenting border checkpoint activity and destroyed photos and videos. Here are the narratives of the two plaintiffs, taken from the Appeals Court decision [PDF]:

On the afternoon of April 19, [Ray] Askins stood at the intersection of First Street and Paulin Avenue on the U.S. side of the border, near the shoulder of the streets and immediately in front of the park. He was approximately 50–100 feet from the exit of the secondary inspection area, and he had not crossed the border or otherwise passed through border security to reach his location. Standing in the street, Askins took three or four photographs of the exit of the secondary inspection area. Multiple CBP officers approached Askins on the street to demand he delete the photographs he had taken. When Askins refused, the officers threatened to smash his camera, then searched and handcuffed him, confiscated his property, and detained him inside a secondary inspection area building. Askins was released after approximately twenty-five to thirty-five minutes and his property was returned, at which time he discovered that CBP had deleted all but one of his photographs of the exit of the secondary inspection area.

[...]

[Christian] Ramirez observed male CBP officers at a security checkpoint below inspecting and patting down only female travelers. Concerned that the officers might be acting inappropriately, Ramirez observed the checkpoint from the bridge for ten to fifteen minutes and took approximately ten photographs with his cellphone camera. Ramirez and his wife were approached by men who appeared to be private security officers. The men ordered them to stop taking photographs. The officers also demanded their identification documents, which Ramirez refused to provide as they had already passed through border inspection. The officers radioed for backup as Ramirez and his wife walked away, and at the bottom of the bridge, Ramirez was met by five to seven CBP officers. The CBP officers questioned Ramirez, and, without Ramirez’s consent, a CBP officer confiscated Ramirez’s cellphone and deleted all of the photographs Ramirez had taken from the bridge. A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer confiscated the Ramirezes’ passports and walked away, leaving Ramirez surrounded by the CBP officers. After ten to fifteen minutes, their documents were returned to them and the Ramirezes were allowed to leave.

Both plaintiffs allege the CBP's practices violate the First Amendment. They are not seeking to photograph the inside of buildings or other sensitive areas not visible to the public eye, but rather border checkpoints where inspections and questioning are performed in public, completely visible to passersby. The CBP somehow believes what happens in public can't be documented by the public.

The district court decided to take the CBP up on its irrational argument, tossing aside logic to embrace the agency's claims about the super-secret nature of national security activities performed out in the open, visible to the unadorned eye. The appeals court says this isn't the way things are done. The lower court should not have lifted the government's burden of proof onto its own shoulders and carried it home for it.

The district court found that the CBP policies survived strict scrutiny because of “the extremely compelling interest of border security” and the government’s general interest in “protecting United States territorial sovereignty.” To this, the government adds that the CBP policies serve compelling government interests in protecting CBP’s law enforcement techniques and the integrity of on-going investigations; protecting the privacy of travelers, suspects, and sensitive digital information; ensuring the safe and efficient operation of the ports of entry; and protecting against terrorist attacks. In conclusory fashion, the district court held that the policies were the least restrictive means of serving these interests.

These conclusions are too thin to justify judgment for the government on a motion to dismiss. [...] It is the government’s burden to prove that these specific restrictions are the least restrictive means available to further its compelling interest. They cannot do so through general assertions of national security, particularly where plaintiffs have alleged that CBP is restricting First Amendment activities in traditional public fora such as streets and sidewalks.

The decision does not hand the plaintiffs a complete victory. It does shift the burden of proof back on the government and instructs the lower court to allow the case to proceed to see if the government can actually offer up anything supporting its random time/place restrictions that border on total violation of established First Amendment principles. The appeals court seems inclined to believe the CBP cannot simply forbid photography of publicly-viewable enforcement activities by members of the public. We'll have to see what the lower court does on remand, considering it already granted the government a free pass once, because National Security > Established Constitutional Rights, apparently.

Filed Under: arizona, border patrol, cbp, first amendment, free speech, photographing border patrol

County Attorney Formally Asks ACLU To Stop Saying Factual Things About Pending Drug Legislation

from the please-stop-undermining-my-spin dept

A state prosecutor who claims to be supportive of lowering drug possession incarceration rates is mad at the ACLU for pointing out the legislation she's backing doesn't support this position at all. The ACLU's activism has led to the county attorney's unfortunate decision to send a formal letter to the group kindly asking it to knock it off. (via the ACLU's Will Gaona)

In response to an online campaign, Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall sent a letter to the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona asking that it “cease and desist from disseminating a misleading solicitation.”

The ACLU was “dumbfounded” by the letter, which it found to be without “legal merit,” a spokesman told the Star.

Earlier this month, the civil-rights group urged people to contact LaWall and ask her to withdraw her support for House Bill 2241, which would increase penalties for people convicted of several crimes involving certain opiates, including heroin and fentanyl.

“This is a dangerous bill that will force Arizonans suffering from drug addiction into prisons for years without treatment,” a March 19 ACLU of Arizona Facebook post reads. “Take action now and tell Barbara LaWall to publicly withdraw her support for HB 2241!”

As cease-and-desists go, LaWall's is pretty low-key. The letter [PDF] notes LaWall is not complaining about the people who've contacted her office as a result of the ACLU's post. She's also not requesting the ACLU say nothing more about the issue. Instead, she's asking the ACLU to correct its "misinformation."

Contrary to the statement disseminated in the ACLUs solicitation, HB 2241 does NOT punish individual drug users who possess or use these drugs to feed their addictions, and it is highly misleading to suggest that HB 2241 would punish drug users by sending them to prison. This Bill increases the sentence for convicted drug traffickers and drug dealers who flood our community with the deadly poisons of fentanyl, carfentanyl, and heroin. It docs NOT punish those who are arrested for simple drug possession.

This is not even technically true. Under LaWall's guidance, the county has already incarcerated people for possessing as little as one-tenth gram of heroin. Statewide, more than 20% of drug felony cases involve less than one gram. The ACLU's opposition to the bill stems from the lack of language separating those who sell small amounts to fund their own habits from those actually "flooding" communities with large quantities of opioids. Even drugs traded for anything of value -- no matter what quantity -- would trigger mandatory minimum five-year sentences for those convicted.

LaWall's letter has prompted an angry response from the ACLU, which believes the letter was sent to intimidate it into silence. All the ACLU has done is point out the flaws with the bill and that it runs contrary to LaWall's publicly-stated support for reducing drug-related incarcerations. LaWall's response to the ACLU's criticism -- no matter how mildly stated -- is still a demand the ACLU stop making factual statements about the bill she supports.

It's not that LaWall is unaware of these criticisms. Earlier debate on the bill produced the same criticism the ACLU is now being asked to stop: that the bill would result in more incarceration and less diversion of addicts to resource that may allow them to kick the habit and return successfully to society.

But anything drug-related -- especially bills attempting to address drug overdoses -- is going to be propelled more by emotion than logic, as is evidenced by this statement from a supportive state legislator.

Explaining his vote in support of the bill, state Rep. Mark Finchem, R-Oro Valley, said: “I don’t care how much one person hands off to another. If somebody is selling dope to my kid, I want them in prison.”

Well, let's hope your kid doesn't get caught with any purchased drugs, Mr. Finchem. If they do, the new law does them no favors. Considering prosecutors are viewing amounts less than a gram as felonious -- with the possibility of tacking on distribution charges if Finchem's child has shared or sold any to others -- his offspring could be facing five years minimum just for purchasing enough drugs to feed their own habit. The bill doesn't absolve purchasers, nor make it any easier for them to end up in a diversion program, rather than in jail.

The ACLU's criticisms are valid. The county attorney's request the ACLU stop portraying the legislation as opposed to LaWall's stated beliefs is not. Fortunately, neither the bill nor LaWall's demands are moving forward at this point. It's always a bad look when public servants start telling members of the public to exercise their First Amendment rights less. But it's even worse when this attempt starts with the public servant calling facts "misinformation."

Filed Under: arizona, barbara lawall, cease and desist, criminal justice, free speech
Companies: aclu

Arizona Bans Self-Driving Car Tests; Still Ignores How Many Pedestrians Get Killed

from the plenty-of-blame-to-go-around dept

By now, most folks have read about the fact that Uber (surprise) was responsible for the first ever pedestrian fatality caused by a self-driving car in the United States. Investigators in the case have found plenty of blame to go around, including a pedestrian who didn't cross at a crosswalk, an Uber driver who wasn't paying attention to the road (and therefore didn't take control in time), and Uber self-driving tech that pretty clearly wasn't ready for prime time compared to its competitors:

"Uber’s robotic vehicle project was not living up to expectations months before a self-driving car operated by the company struck and killed a woman in Tempe, Ariz.

The cars were having trouble driving through construction zones and next to tall vehicles, like big rigs. And Uber’s human drivers had to intervene far more frequently than the drivers of competing autonomous car projects."

All of the companies that contribute tech to Uber's test vehicle have been rushing to distance themselves from Uber's failures here. Many of them are laying the blame at the feet of Uber, including one company making it clear that Uber had disabled some standard safety features on the Volvo XC90 test car in question:

"Uber Technologies Inc. disabled the standard collision-avoidance technology in the Volvo SUV that struck and killed a woman in Arizona last week, according to the auto-parts maker that supplied the vehicle’s radar and camera.

“We don’t want people to be confused or think it was a failure of the technology that we supply for Volvo, because that’s not the case,” Zach Peterson, a spokesman for Aptiv Plc, said by phone. The Volvo XC90’s standard advanced driver-assistance system “has nothing to do” with the Uber test vehicle’s autonomous driving system, he said."

Mobileye, the company that makes the collision-avoidance technology behind Aptiv's tech, was also quick to pile on, noting that if implemented correctly, their technology should have been able to detect the pedestrian in time:

"Intel Corp.’s Mobileye, which makes chips and sensors used in collision-avoidance systems and is a supplier to Aptiv, said Monday that it tested its own software after the crash by playing a video of the Uber incident on a television monitor. Mobileye said it was able to detect Herzberg one second before impact in its internal tests, despite the poor second-hand quality of the video relative to a direct connection to cameras equipped to the car."

In response to Uber's tragic self-driving face plant, Arizona this week announced that it will be suspending Uber's self-driving testing technology in the state indefinitely:

Plenty have justly pointed out that Arizona also has plenty of culpability here, given the regulatory oversight of Uber's testing was arguably nonexistent. That said, Waymo (considered by most to be way ahead of the curve on self-driving tech) hasn't had similar problems, and there's every indication that a higher quality implementation of self-driving technology (as the various vendors above attest) may have avoided this unnecessary tragedy.

Still somehow lost in the finger pointing (including Governor Doug Ducey's "unequivocal commitment to public safety") is the fact that Arizona already had some of the highest pedestrian fatalities in the nation (of the human-caused variety). There were ten other pedestrian fatalities the same week as the Uber accident in the Phoenix area alone, and Arizona had the highest rate of pedestrian fatalities in the nation last year, clearly illustrating that Arizona has some major civil design and engineering questions of its own that need to be answered as the investigation continues.

Again, there's plenty of blame to go around here, and hopefully everybody in the chain of dysfunction learns some hard lessons from the experience. But it's still important to remember that human-piloted counterparts cause 33,000 fatalities annually, a number that should be dramatically lower when self-driving car technology is inevitably implemented (correctly).

Filed Under: arizona, autonomous vehicles, pedestrians, safety, self-driving cars
Companies: uber