Philly PD Releases One Document About Its Fake Google Car: The Journalist's Own Open Records Request Email

from the a-twist-in-the-fabric-of-transparency-where-your-request-becomes-a-loop dept

Earlier this year, computer science professor and cryptography expert Matt Blaze happened across a Pennsylvania state-owned vehicle attempting to d/b/a a Google Street View… um, SUV. Taking that info, local reporter Dustin Slaughter dug deeper into the origins of that fake Google Street View vehicle.

Multiple state agencies were contacted by Motherboard for clarification, but the site only received the normal obstruction government officials provide when there's no logical explanation for a thing that has happened under their purview.

The Pennsylvania State Police denied the vehicle belonged to it, suggesting it might belong to a different agency. The placard in the window identified it as state vehicle whose use was governed by the state's fleet manager, who suggested it was actually a city vehicle, but wouldn't narrow down which city agency the vehicle belonged to.

Google denied any involvement, surprising no one, as it was perfectly clear the SUV looked nothing like the tiny, fuel-efficient vehicles Google normally uses -- which are covered from bumper-to-bumper with Google branding, rather than just a couple of badly-printed window stickers.

After some more phone/email tag, the Philly Police Department finally stepped up and admitted the vehicle was theirs, and that it did not condone the sort of thing it hadn't prevented from happening.

In an emailed statement, a department spokesperson confirmed:

“We have been informed that this unmarked vehicle belongs to the police department; however, the placing of any particular decal on the vehicle was not approved through any chain of command. With that being said, once this was brought to our attention, it was ordered that the decals be removed immediately.”

[lol. "Unmarked."]

Motherboard turned to the next weapon in its arsenal: a public records request. It sent one to the Philly Police Department, hoping to find out how this sort of Google trade dress-up might have happened. The Philly PD rooted around in its files and found one responsive document it was willing to release.

On Tuesday, and after several delays, the police department provided access to one document: The original email reporter Dustin Slaughter had sent asking the agency for comment.

In addition to giving Motherboard a copy of a document it already had, the Philly PD suggested there were other documents related to its faux-Googling, but that it wouldn't be releasing those.

One of the explanations cited for withholding those apparent emails was that they reflect the “internal predecisional deliberations of an agency, its members, employees or officials,” which are protected from release under the Pennsylvania Right-To-Know Act.

Reading between the lines of the second-hand copy of Dustin Slaughter's original email and the response letter accompanying it, Joseph Cox of Motherboard was able to obtain an inadvertent confession that no one had approved the use of Google stickers on police vehicles and that this disguise fell outside of existing PD guidelines. However, this information -- unofficially released in the PD's denial of additional documents -- does little more than confirm the statement given to it by the department a couple of months ago.

As it stands now, all Motherboard has is a copy of its own public records request, albeit one that has been processed by the government's favorite document processing service, Dutch Angle Scanning.

Filed Under: fake google car, foia, google maps, philadelphia, philadelphia police, public records, surveillance

Add Philadelphia To The Long List Of Cities That Think Verizon Ripped Them Off On Fiber Promises

from the rinse,-wash-repeat dept

Verizon's modus operandi has been fairly well established by now: convince state or local leaders to dole out millions in tax breaks and subsidies -- in exchange for fiber that's either only partially delivered, or not delivered at all. Given this story has repeated itself in New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York City and countless other locations, there's now a parade of communities asking somebody, anybody, to actually hold Verizon's feet to the fire. Given Verizon's political power (especially on the state level) those calls go unheeded, with Verizon lawyers consistently able to wiggle around attempts to hold the telco to account.

In Pennsylvania, the story is much the same as elsewhere. Verizon was able to convince state leaders in the '90s to dole out billions in handouts for state-wide symmetrical 45 Mbps fiber broadband. But a decade later when people finally noticed fiber was nowhere to be found, Verizon managed to convince state leaders to effectively forget about the obligation entirely. Fast forward another decade and, after striking a 2009 franchise deal with the city of Philadelphia (again promising full city deployment of its FiOS fiber broadband service) you'll be shocked to discover what happened:

"Philadelphia government officials are investigating whether Verizon has met an obligation to bring FiOS service to all residents of the city. Verizon obtained a cable franchise agreement from the city in February 2009, and the deadline to wire up all of Philadelphia passed on February 26 of this year...Philadelphia seems skeptical about whether Verizon actually met its obligation, but it is still looking for proof. The city set up a webpage asking residents to fill out a form to "tell us whether you have tried to order Verizon service but have been told by the company that service is not yet available in your neighborhood."

Traditionally, ISPs can get away with this not only because they effectively own state legislatures, but because nobody in any part of government actually bothers to audit company deployment promises. What passes as an audit generally involves the ISP submitting its own claims that regulators fail to fact check. That's why Philadelphia leaders are being forced to crowdsource whether or not Verizon met its promises. Meanwhile, Verizon tells Philly city council leaders that they're unable to offer statistics right now on their FiOS deployment because, uh, unions:

"Philadelphia should learn from New York's experience, Philadelphia City Council member Bobby Henon said during a hearing two weeks ago. “We do not want this to happen in Philadelphia,” Henon said, according to an article published by Technical.ly Philly. Henon wanted good data, but Verizon said it couldn't provide it yet because of the ongoing Verizon workers' strike. Verizon also said, “Any claims made at the hearing that we haven’t completed our obligations of our franchise agreement are untrue," according to the article."

At this point there's plenty of blame to go around for the fact that history just keeps repeating itself without getting fixed. For one thing, just like in New York City, city leaders keep signing sweetheart deals with endless loopholes designed by Verizon lawyers, then acting shocked when Verizon actually uses those loopholes. For example, several city agreements let Verizon simply pass a set total of homes with fiber (anywhere up to several blocks away), instead of technically "serving" them. Other contracts contain language letting Verizon dodge or buy their way out of deployment obligations if certain TV uptake metrics aren't met.

These are clauses cities have been warned repeatedly about but choose to ignore. Bad deals are struck behind closed doors by one administration, with subsequent city leaders left holding the bag. By that point Verizon can successfully argue that they technically met the terms of such deals, because the terms of such deals were designed to be malleable. Granted that doesn't excuse Verizon's proclivity for ripping off taxpayers on an industrial scale, but this dance of dysfunction wouldn't be quite so embarrassingly uncoordinated if cities would stop signing deals that promise the moon, but deliver stinky cheese.

Filed Under: fiber, philadelphia, promises
Companies: verizon

Philly Cops Tried To Disguise An SUV With License Plate Readers As A Google Maps Vehicle

from the can't-spell-'stupid'-with-an-Alphabet dept

Here's the sort of fun stuff law enforcement gets up to when it thinks no one's paying attention. It all started with Matt Blaze tweeting out a photo of a rather suspicious-looking Google Maps vehicle.

WTF? Pennsylvania State Police license plate reader SUV camouflaged as Google Street View vehicle. pic.twitter.com/0z4yo2rVoR

— matt blaze (@mattblaze) May 11, 2016

As anyone can clearly see, a crappy decal was slapped on the window of a huge SUV, presumably in an attempt to disguise the true purpose of the cameras mounted up front, which are high-powered automatic license plate readers.

Blaze also spotted a Pennsylvania State Police parking placard on the dash.

The Pennsylvania State Police quickly denied the vehicle belonged to it. But it did, at least, (sort of) confirm the cameras were license plate readers.

Matt, this is not a PSP vehicle. If this is LPR technology, other agencies and companies might make use of it.

Philadelphia resident/investigative reporter Dustin Slaughter tracked down the vehicle and shot photos of the parking placard, along with the other side of the vehicle, confirming the bogus Google Maps window stickers were on both sides of the vehicle.

The city's fleet manager denied the vehicle belonged to the State Police. However, he did not clarify which agency the faux Google vehicle belonged to.

“All city vehicles such as police, fire, streets etc.…are registered to the city. Quasi [public] agencies like PPA, Housing Authority, PGW and School District are registered to their respective agencies,” fleet manager Christopher Cocci wrote in an email to Motherboard after reviewing photos of the vehicle.

Google also denied any involvement.

“We can confirm that this is not a Google Maps car, and that we are currently looking into the matter,” Google spokesperson Susan Cadrecha wrote.

Google tends to use vehicles with lower profiles, better gas mileage, and very distinctive branding/camera setups.


A few hours later, another Philadelphia law enforcement agency stepped forward to take credit for the deceptive vehicle.

The Philadelphia Police Department admitted today that a mysterious unmarked license plate surveillance truck disguised as a Google Maps vehicle, which Motherboard first reported on this morning, is its own.

In an emailed statement, a department spokesperson confirmed:

“We have been informed that this unmarked vehicle belongs to the police department; however, the placing of any particular decal on the vehicle was not approved through any chain of command. With that being said, once this was brought to our attention, it was ordered that the decals be removed immediately.”

The spokesperson also claimed that an inquiry is forthcoming.

Well, we have a WHO. What we don't have is a WHY. Of what possible use was this crappy, little fakeout? Anyone stupid enough to believe a hulking SUV with a city parking permit was a Google Maps vehicle is also too stupid to know what the cameras mounted on it are actually used for. For everyone else above that level, the easiest conclusion to draw is that the Philly police are stupid enough to think this would work. If so, they've shorted the wrong set of collective IQ.

A more benign explanation is also possible, though. It could have just been a poorly thought out attempt at a joke. Who sports more cameras and hoovers up more photos than Google's mapping vehicles? This may have just been a few cops poking fun at themselves, co-opting Big Data's look for their Big Brother plate scanning: the Google Maps of law enforcement, making sure no obscure side road goes "unmapped."

Filed Under: alpr, disguise, google maps, matt blaze, philadelphia, philadelpia police

So Much For The Fifth Amendment: Man Jailed For Seven Months For Not Turning Over Password

from the enjoying-your-rights,-citizen? dept

The FBI recently spent more than $1 million for assistance in decrypting a device's contents. It may have overpaid. Alternatives exist, whether it's a $5 wrench or indefinite imprisonment for not helping the government with its prosecution efforts.

A Philadelphia man suspected of possessing child pornography has been in jail for seven months and counting after being found in contempt of a court order demanding that he decrypt two password-protected hard drives.

The suspect, a former Philadelphia Police Department sergeant, has not been charged with any child porn crimes. Instead, he remains indefinitely imprisoned in Philadelphia's Federal Detention Center for refusing to unlock two drives encrypted with Apple's FileVault software in a case that once again highlights the extent to which the authorities are going to crack encrypted devices. The man is to remain jailed "until such time that he fully complies" with the decryption order.

The Fifth Amendment should prevent the government from punishing a person for not testifying against themselves, which is what's being argued by the defendant's representation in its appeal to the Third Circuit. (Although it's actually indirect representation. The government's case is actually against Doe's devices ["United States of America v. Apple MacPro Computer, et al"] and his lawyer is hoping for a stay of the contempt order during the appeal process.)

Mr. Doe… has a strong likelihood of success on the second issue: whether compelling the target of a criminal investigation to recall and divulge an encryption passcode transgresses the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Supreme Court precedent already instructs that a suspect may not be compelled to disclose the sequence of numbers that will open a combination lock — clearly auguring the same rule for any compelled disclosure of the sequence of characters constituting an encryption passcode.

Doe's rep also argues that the All Writs order obtained by the government has no jurisdiction over Doe or his devices.

Mr. Doe’s first claim is that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The claim stems from the government’s apparently unprecedented use of an unusual procedural vehicle to attempt to compel a suspect to give evidence in advance of potential criminal charges. Specifically, the government took resort not to a grand jury, but to a magistrate judge pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. (Ex. F at 1).

It is black letter law that the All Writs Act never supplies “any federal subject-matter jurisdiction in its own right[.]” Sygenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 31 (2002) (citation omitted). It is equally well-settled that the Act has no application where other provisions of law specifically address the subject matter concerned. Pennsylvania Bureau of Correction v. United States Marshals Service, 474 U.S. 34, 40-42 (1985). The compelled production of evidence in advance of criminal charges is specifically addressed by Rules 6 and 17 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which authorize the issuance and enforcement of grand jury subpoenas; and by 28 U.S.C. § 1826(a), which specifies the authorized penalties for a witness who refuses without good cause to give the evidence demanded by the grand jury.

As it stands now, Doe is still being held in contempt of court for refusing to decrypt his devices for investigators. The district court that held him in contempt has refused direct appeal of that order, resulting in the labyrinthine legal strategy of using the government's case against Doe's devices as a vehicle for challenging the lower court's contempt order.

Doe has not been charged, yet he's in prison. Backing up the government's assertions for holding him in contempt are two dubious pieces of hearsay. One is from his estranged sister, who claims to have seen child porn on Doe's computer, but can't actually say whether it was located on the devices the government is seeking to have decrypted. The other is from some sort of law enforcement encryption whisperer, who can apparently see things in the scrambled bits.

The government’s second witness was Detective Christopher Tankelewicz, a forensic examiner with the Delaware County District Attorney’s Office. He testified only that it was his “best guess” child pornography would be found on the hard drives. (Ex. J at 346). According to Tankelewicz’s understanding of the Freenet online network (in which he admits having no training), there were signs on an Apple Mac Pro computer seized with the hard drives of a user accessing or trying to access message boards with names suggestive of child pornography. (Ex. J at 306, 311-312, 339-340). In rather ambiguous testimony, Tankelewicz did not appear to say this meant any image traded over these boards was on the hard drives. (See Ex. J at 303-317, 336-340, 345-350). Instead, he identified a single image he believed there to be a “possibility” was on the drives. (Ex. J at 308-309). As he described it, the image was of “a four or five-year-old girl with her dress lifted up, but the image itself was small so you really couldn’t see what was going on with the image.” (Ex. J at 308).

No one wants to see a sex offender walk away from charges, but at this point, Doe hasn't even been officially charged with anything more than contempt. The problem with that charge is it has no end date. He can either stay in jail or comply with the order, even when the order conjures jurisdiction out of nowhere and violates his Fifth Amendment rights. If the government doesn't have enough evidence to pursue a case against Doe, it should cut him loose until it does.

Filed Under: all writs act, child porn, contempt, encryption, fifth amendment, in rem, jail, password, philadelphia

Comcast Thinks Using Misleading Polls Will Somehow Fix Its Horrible Reputation

from the my-truth-is-better-than-your-truth dept

Comcast is currently trying to negotiate a new franchise agreement in its hometown of Philadelphia, but is running into the kind of fierce consumer disgust for the company that ultimately helped derail its failed acquisition of Time Warner Cable. Back in April, the city was criticized for refusing to publicize a city survey on Comcast that took two years to conduct, but only Comcast executives were allowed to see. When the 571-page report (pdf) was finally released, the results weren't surprising: Philadelphia locals by and large loathe Comcast and its documentably atrocious customer service.

Of the roughly 1,700 people who submitted online comments for the city’s survey, around 99% of those were negative. Comcast, as you might expect, denied that the survey's findings were accurate, and promised the Philadelphia city council that it would provide evidence proving as much.

Fast forward a few months, and Comcast is now facing allegations that it's engaging in misleading polling in the Philadelphia region. Apparently, Comcast hopes to use garbage polling to "disprove" the obvious reality that Comcast just isn't very good at what they do. ISP lobbyists have leaned heavily on inaccurate polls for years. Especially push polls -- often using them to scare locals away from municipal broadband ahead of local votes, sometimes by implying that tax dollars will be used to fund pornography, or that the government would come in and try to ration their TV viewing.

The effort was first spotted by Eric Rosso, Political Director for Pennsylvania Working Families:

Just got a ridiculous push poll call from @comcast trying to garner results that favored them as a corporate citizen. Time to @CAP_Comcast.

— Eric Rosso (@ericopinion) June 7, 2015

Rosso notes that the questions were phrased in such a way as to generate positive responses to controversial programs like Comcast's Internet Essentials, a low-income broadband program we've noted as being intentionally restrictive and a bit of a PR show pony. Rosso says questions focused on Comcast's employment and tax record were also phrased in such a way as to generate limited or positive responses. Other locals well-versed in the practice of polling science agree that Comcast is up to no good:

"Chris Rabb, author of Invisible Capital: How Unseen Forces Shape Entrepreneurial Opportunity and a professor at Temple University’s Fox School of Business, also took part in the phone survey. He tells Consumerist it was one of the most egregious examples of non-electoral push polling he’s seen in decades. This was particularly true, says Rabb, when the survey transitioned to questions about demands Philadelphia could make of Comcast in the company’s renewed franchise agreement, and how these could increase costs for the company."

Comcast has confirmed that it has hired a "reputable third party, independent company" to conduct polls in the city, but has, rather unsurprisingly, been unable to provide an exact copy of the precise language used in the poll questions. Of course, in a few weeks the findings will be trotted out by city leaders as a shining example of Comcast's sterling reputation, and Philadelphia city leaders will likely grant Comcast a very cozy new franchise agreement that helps cement the cable giant's monopoly power in the city for another decade.

Filed Under: customer service, misleading polls, philadelphia, polls
Companies: comcast

Philly PD Declares All Drivers To Be 'Under Investigation' While Denying Request For License Plate Reader Data

from the the-REAL-wretched-hive-of-scum-and-villainy dept

We've all heard nasty things about the citizens of the apparently ironically-named "City of Brotherly Love." They'll boo Santa Claus. They throw batteries at opposing baseball players... and their own. And that's just the sports fans.

More bad news has just arrived on the "We're all not that terrible" PR front: according to Philly's police department, each and every car owner whose vehicle's license plate has had the misfortune of being scanned by the PD's license plate readers is some sort of criminal. Charges TBD.

The City of Philadelphia does not want you to know in which neighborhoods the Philadelphia Police Department (PPD) is focusing their use of powerful automatic license plate readers (ALPR), nor do they want disclosed the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of this technology, as they continue to fight a Declaration public records request filed in January with MuckRock News.

City officials argue in their response that every metro driver is under investigation, in an effort to exempt so-called criminal investigatory records from release under PA’s Right-to-Know Act:

Moreover, records “relating to or resulting in a criminal investigation” are exempt from disclosure under the Act, in particular “[i]nvestigative materials, notes, correspondence, videos and reports.” 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(16)(ii). Such individual license plate readings and accompanying information are investigative materials that relate to individual criminal investigations, and, as your request indicates, these investigations may result in vehicle stops, arrests, or other police actions. Therefore, the individual license plate reading data is exempt from disclosure under the Act.

Investigative reporter Dustin Slaughter and The Philly Declaration have been battling the city for access to two weeks of raw ALPR output and, after multiple appeals, have been told every scan is exempt because every scan is part of a criminal investigation. This bizarre claim echoes the Los Angeles Police Department's public records request-thwarting declaration: all scans are, and always will be, tied to investigations.

The Declaration is seeking this data to see if deployment patterns signal any sort of bias or prejudicial treatment. What it has managed to pry free from law enforcement are the following facts: At least 10 ALPRs are in steady use. Non-hit data is retained for a year. Data actually related to investigations is held indefinitely. (Which would mean -- if the PD's stated logic holds -- that all scans are held indefinitely...)

The PD did hand over some summary data "pertaining to the time period requested," but it must have grabbed the wrong figures or misread Dustin Slaughter's request. He asked for data for a two-week period (Jan. 1-14, 2015). These are the numbers the PD handed over.

Number of Tags Read: 22,810,687
Terror Watch Reads: 77
Stolen Autos Recovered: 420
Stolen Plates Recovered: 23
Felony Arrests Made: 19
Misdemeanor Arrests Made: 9
Total Read Hours ALPR Fleet: 81,197

While it's theoretically possible 22 million plates could be scanned in two weeks, there's no way the Philly PD racked up 81,197 read hours during that time period, even if distributed across multiple vehicles. If this is a two-week period summary, the PD would need 241 units running 24 hours a day to hit the quoted "read hours."

But even if these numbers are a lifetime summary of the the ALPR program, they're still pretty impressive… at least in terms of scanning efficiency.

The department launched its ALPR program in or around 2011, according to Newsworks’ reporter Tom MacDonald.

This means the department is raking in around 7 million scans per year. On the other hand, if 22 million scans have only generated 19 felony arrests, you have to start wondering about the return-on-investment -- something that doesn't exactly back up Commissioner Charles Ramsey's claim that the ALPRs are "highly effective crime fighting tools." While it's nice to see the department is recovering around 140 stolen vehicles every year, it's a bit more disheartening to hear that it's only led to 28 total arrests -- especially when it considers every single one of these 22 million scans to be part of criminal investigations.

Filed Under: alpr, investigations, license plate readers, license plates, philadelphia, philadelphia pd, philadelphia police, privacy

Lawsuit: TSA Supervisor Got Traveler Arrested For Bogus 'Terroristic Threat' Charge, Lied About Incident In Court

from the obviously,-the-'T'-stands-for-'Thug' dept

Here's more evidence the TSA really isn't about keeping travelers safe. What it is about is malevolent middle-management-types fiercely guarding the borders of their microfiefdoms and arbitrarily ejecting ticket-holding serfs for any conceivable reason.

Roger Vanderklok, a distance runner who frequently flies to events around the country, had the misfortune of passing through TSA supervisor Charles Kieser's turf at the Philadelphia airport. Vanderklok faced some legitimate questions (as legitimate as any questions based on the ever-shifting TSA list of suspicious items can be, anyway) and answered them all satisfactorily.

On this day, he was headed to Miami. In his carry-on bag was a packet of PowerBars and a heart-monitoring watch. When the bag went through the X-ray scanner, the items looked suspicious to a TSA agent whom Kieser supervises.

For the next 30 minutes, screeners checked the bag several times. Vanderklok told them that a tube-shaped case in the bag contained his watch. Then he was asked if his bag contained "organic matter." Vanderklok said no, as he thought "organic matter" meant fruits or vegetables.

PowerBars, which contain milk, grain and sugar, are considered "organic matter" and can resemble a common explosive. Terrorists often use a small electronic device, like a watch, to detonate the explosive. Hence the agent's concern.

But the TSA's Charles Kieser took issue with Vanderklok's suggestion: that agents make it a bit more clear what "organic matter" entails. Keiser decided Vanderklok didn't appreciate the severity of the situation (that situation being, apparently, that the TSA makes suggestions, not the other way around). According to Vanderklok's lawsuit [pdf link], Kieser became "confrontational." Vanderklok then asked if he could file a complaint. Bad move.

Instead, Kieser summoned the Philadelphia Police. Vanderklok was taken to an airport holding cell, and his personal belongings - including his phone - were confiscated while police "investigated" him.

Vanderklok was detained for three hours in the holding cell, missing his plane. Then he was handcuffed, taken to the 18th District at 55th and Pine and placed in another cell.

He says that no one - neither the police officers at the airport nor the detectives at the 18th - told him why he was there. He didn't find out until he was arraigned at 2 a.m. that he was being charged with "threatening the placement of a bomb" and making "terroristic threats."

Vanderklok's Kafkaesque odyssey finally ended at 4 a.m., when his wife paid 10 percent of his $40,000 bail.

Kieser provided his version of the story at Vanderklok's trial -- one that was mostly lies. He claimed Vanderklok "threatened" to bring a bomb through security. He also claimed Vanderklok made aggressive arm movements and pointed his finger in Keiser's face. Unfortunately for Kieser, surveillance footage proved nearly every accusation false.

Throughout the search, Vanderklok appears calm. His laptop computer is tucked under his arms and his hands are clasped in front of him the entire time. Without any fuss, he follows TSA agents when they move from one part of the screening area to another. He even smiles a little.

Not once does he raise his hands. Not once does he point a finger in Kieser's face. If anyone is becoming agitated, the video shows, it is Kieser.

And as for the only claim that might have held up -- the "bomb threat" -- Keiser's own words on the police statement, as well as his underlings' actions, undercut that assertion as well. No agent other than Kieser appears to be the least bit alarmed by Vanderklok's alleged bomb threat. One messes with his cellphone. Another rearranges bins. No passengers are prevented from entering the area.

In his statement to the police, Kieser claims Vanderklok said "Anyone could bring a bomb through here and you wouldn't know it." That's not a threat. That's an opinion. And, given the TSA's track record on stopping airborne terrorists, the protected opinion/non-threat comes disturbingly close to being a factual statement.

The presiding judge dismissed the charges against Vanderklok "within minutes" of Kieser's statements. Kieser's testimony must have been incredibly terrible, considering the judge never even bothered to view the video evidence that contradicted most of his claims. There must have been an obvious odor of vindictiveness permeating the courtroom during the TSA supervisor's statements. And it's that same respect-my-authority-or-else attitude that's likely going to cost the TSA some money.

Vanderklok has filed a lawsuit against the agency for his wrongful arrest, one that also names the Philly police department as co-defendants. Perhaps the video clearing Vanderklok will be seen during this court battle, or perhaps the agency will just settle quickly, rather than allow Kieser to further embarrass himself. And perhaps, Kieser will finally be out of a job. But for now, he still wields a level of power that far outpaces his ability to perform his duties in a credible and responsible manner.

Filed Under: arrests, charles kieser, philadelphia, roger vanderklok, security theater, threats, travelers, tsa

Philadelphia DA Drops Case Against Parents Whose House Was Seized Over A $40 Drug Sale By Their Son

from the a-man's-home-is-his-presumably-guilty-castle dept

The belated public outing of abusive asset forfeiture laws and programs is finally having some effect. Last week, news arrived that the IRS was dismissing its case against a restaurant owner -- something that was triggered by three years of sub-$10,000 deposits rather than any evidence of criminal involvement or activity.

This week, it's Philadelphia's district attorney dropping a couple of suddenly toxic cases.

The Philadelphia District Attorney has dropped its efforts to seize the houses of two area families after their cases drew national and critical attention to the city’s use of asset forfeiture to seize citizens’ property.

The Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm, announced on Thursday morning that the Philadelphia D.A. was dropping its asset forfeiture cases against the homes of Christos Sourovelis and Doila Welch.

As C.J. Ciaramella reports, the case against Christos Sourovelis's home (notably, not against the Sourovelises themselves) was particularly weak. The home was seized solely because of a $40 drug sale by their son.

In Welch's case, her estranged husband was selling marijuana out of the house while she was mostly confined to a bed upstairs by her disability.

Philadelphia hauls in about $6 million a year from asset forfeiture, a program ostensibly aimed at curbing drug trafficking. Ciaramella points out that this total is greater than Brooklyn and Los Angeles combined. As is the case with any easily-abused program, it can quickly become too much of a "good" thing. What may have started as a way to cripple drug organizations has become a form of petty government theft.

A City Paper review of 100 cases from 2011 and 2012 found the median amount of cash seized by the District Attorney was only $178.

Despite the dismissals of cases against Sourovelis's and Welch's homes (and I'm pointing this out again to highlight the ridiculousness of asset forfeitrue), the district attorney is still claiming both a victory and prime, beachfront real estate on the Moral High Ground.

"The class-action lawyers are trying to portray today's events as some sort of victory. The truth is that we resolve most of our real estate forfeiture actions by agreement, just as we are doing here, and we have been doing that since long before this lawsuit was filed.

"We do it because the purpose of the forfeiture process is to protect public safety and relieve neighborhoods of rampant drug dealing."

Sure. And it has nothing to do with the rising public outcry over these easily-abused programs. Or the continuing class-action lawsuit against the city over asset forfeiture. The fact that the DA just gave up two homes the city could have easily kept is actually the admission of a small defeat. The ease with which the city can seize and liquidate assets is truly amazing, especially considering how hard those whose assets have been seized have to fight to regain control of their property.

Filed Under: asset seizure, forfeiture, philadelphia, police, seizure

How It's Supposed To Work: Twitter Sleuths Nab Hate Crime Perps

from the smh dept

While we've covered several instances in the past of local law enforcement actually using Twitter and social media services productively in order to capture criminals, as opposed to when they use Twitter horribly, it's far more fun to show what a connected public can do on their own. There are plenty of examples of how crowd-sourcing police efforts to track down the bad guys can go horribly wrong (ahem, Boston Marathon bombing), but this is the story of how it can also work quite well.

The crime was an attack on two gay men who were simply walking down the street in Philadelphia when a large group of men and women approached them, harassed them, and eventually beat them savagely enough that one of the victims had to have his jaw wired shut. Then, because one good evil turn deserves another, they robbed one of the victims as well. While such brutality may bring on depression, take heart, for the local people were outraged and actively took to social media sites to voice their concern. Local police smartly released surveillance footage of the attack, with pictures of the assailants:

Almost immediately, Twitter ignited to help find the people responsible for the crime. One user in particular seems to be getting credit for identifying the perps.

Twitter user fansince09 told Action News he was disgusted by the attack. Apparently many of his followers were, too, and they joined in the effort. Fansince09 tweeted the video to his thousands of followers, and soon re-tweeted a picture apparently taken of this group at a nearby restaurant. He looked on Facebook to see who had checked into that restaurant, and started clicking links, matching pictures to the video. His effort resulted in a picture of a large party dining at a Center City restaurant. Police sources say that photograph is now part of the investigation.

If you'd like to follow how the whole thing unfolded on Twitter, here's a great rundown put together by Melody Kramer, which we've also embedded below.

The police even gave him a shout out on Twitter to say thanks. Those responsible for the crime are reportedly now in touch with their attorneys and are making arrangements to turn themselves in to the authorities. As someone living in a metropolitan city, I can't even begin to tell you how often these types of attacks go unpunished, so it's good to see social media working to get a little justice done.

Nicely done, Philly.

Filed Under: assault, crime, philadelphia, police, sleuths, social media

Philly Court Orders Website To Unmask Anonymous Commenter 'Named' In Defamation Suit [Update]

from the not-all-that-'anonymous'-once-you-start-looking dept

Anonymous commenters are often held up as examples of the worst aspects of the internet. It's an enabler of abhorrent behavior, as the lack of identification allows people to make statements without suffering consequences. Of course, this isn't the only "benefit" of anonymity, but it's the one that gets the most press, so to speak.

A new website has just been ordered to turn over information on an anonymous commenter who's currently the target of a defamation lawsuit.

A Philadelphia judge has ordered the owners of Philly.com - who also own The Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News - to disclose the identity of a person who posted a comment online.

The ruling came in a defamation suit filed by John J. Dougherty, the powerful head of Local 98 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

In October 2012, Dougherty sued over a comment posted two months earlier on a Daily News blog that described a public feud involving Dougherty. The comment identified Dougherty by his well-known nickname, "Johnny Doc," and called him "the pedophile."

Dougherty sued the anonymous poster, and his lawyers subpoenaed Philadelphia Media Network, Philly.com's parent company, to supply the person's identity.

Philly.com apparently has more than just an IP address on hand. (Or just did a minimum amount of research -- more on that below.) The report notes that Philly.com contacted the anonymous poster to make sure "he or she got notice of the lawsuit and hired a lawyer." The anonymous poster (screen name: "fbpdplt") has, so far, maintained his/her anonymity during the legal proceedings and is being represented by Philip L. Blackman, who claims the specified comment isn't "defamation per se."

As you'll note, Philly.com made contact with the anonymous commenter, something the plaintiff should have done. A "good faith effort" by the party bringing the suit is supposedly required according to the Dendrite rules, (which Pennsylvania courts have adopted in modified form) but as I detail below, it looks as if little to no effort was made by Dougherty or his legal team to track down the person behind the screen name "fbpdplt." Dougherty did at least specify which comment ("the pedophile") was actionable and presumably presented some evidence to the contrary, but it appears the court made no real attempt to balance the commenter's First Amendment rights versus the plaintiff's complaint before deciding unmasking was the only way to handle this.

Philip Blackman has pointed this out, claiming the court's actions threaten his client's free speech. Defamation isn't protected by the First Amendment, but whether the comment actually is defamatory still hasn't been decided. On the other side of the legal fence, Joe Pedraza, attorney for John Dougherty, feels this is a forgone conclusion.

In the Dougherty case, the union leader's lawyers contended that he had a defamation claim likely to succeed at trial but no way of communicating with or identifying the person being sued.

Right or wrong, Philly.com did at least put up a fight. It turned down Dougherty's subpoena, stating it would only reveal the commenter's information with a court order. The order itself is fairly expansive, not only asking for identifying info, but also for all comments posted by "fbpdplt" from August 2012 thru January 2014. (Apparently, only one comment is currently being referred to as defamatory.)

But you have to wonder why any of this is necessary. Did anyone on Dougherty's legal team even bother searching around for the person behind the "nonsense" screen name "fbpdplt?"

The screen name isn't just a nonsensical jumble of letters. The keys are too far apart to make it a simple "mash keyboard; get screen name" effort. Searching those characters brings up this profile over at conservative website The Blaze.

As you can see, fbpdplt's profile uses a fireman's hat, something the screen name hints at. fbpdplt also left this comment reviewing the Philadelphia Fire Department, which seems to indicate he's an insider [the comment is only visible in the text-only archive]:

under a lot of strain
They have been doing more with less for years. Lip service from politicians and no support from IAFF or the so called union brotherhood…

The same screen name shows up at Sailnet.com, a sailing community forum, which contains a profile listing fbpdplt's real name and address. Searching for that name brings up this profile at Boat Talent, which contains this useful bit of biographical information:

Former Phila Fireboat Pilot

Fire Boat [PhilaDelphia??] PiLoT = fbpdplt

This would appear to be the post where fbpdplt called John Dougherty a "pedophile." (The date on it is August 10,2012, matching up with Philly.com's narrative -- contacted in October 2012 about a post from "two months earlier".) There are currently no comments on the post. But there was at one time. Searching "fbpdplt johnny doc" brings up this post on the first page, meaning that at some point, the comment was there to be cataloged by Google. The Wayback Machine is no help, suggesting Philly.com has had it removed from there as well. Adjacent posts from the same month are archived, meaning there's no sitewide block on the Internet Archive's crawler.

Using site specific searches for "fbpdplt" only brings up a short list of comments on various Philly entities and services at Philly.com (and no hits at all at its other sites, Inquirer.com and phillydailynews.com), but no comments on news articles or blog posts. The only comments showing up in search results are hidden from readers, accessible only through archived, text-only versions.

So, it would appear that Philly.com scrubbed its site of fbpdplt's presence after being notified of his allegedly defamatory comment. Not exactly innocuous behavior. The question is why it would do this. It's not a named party in the lawsuit and Section 230 protects it from being held accountable for third-party content. It looks, sadly, like a panicked move to clean up its image in the wake of being served a subpoena.

Seeing an anonymous commenter go down for posting possibly defamatory comments usually prompts cheers from those who consider online anonymity to be only the tool of trolls and jackasses. But an attack on anonymity also threatens those who have good reason to withhold their identity -- or just feel more comfortable not making their personal info available for every commenting system that comes knocking. It also pushes site owners to move towards requiring Facebook or Twitter connections for all commenters.

Beyond all that, this appears to be a very sloppy case. The plaintiff's legal team apparently made only a minimum of effort made to uncover the anonymous (but not really) commenter before deciding to pursue subpoenas and court orders. Philly.com's comment scrubbing efforts were not only unnecessary, but give the appearance of covering up evidence. John Dougherty has now been provided a name, but it's up to his legal rep to prove the comment was defamatory. Proving damages will be even tougher, unless Dougherty's team is willing to advance the notion that an anonymous online commenter is capable of influencing the opinion of a great many Philly.com readers, which seems unlikely to say the least.

[Update: Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen (which has appeared in these pages more than once, most recently for suing on behalf of KlearGear's victim, Jen Palmer) has put together a post at the Public Citizen blog detailing the questionable assertions made in this post. Levy was kind enough to ask for my reasoning behind some of the claims I made and took that into account when composing his response. (He was also kind enough to not name me in his post, but I'm outing myself.)

As I told him, some of my assertions were related to my misreading of a key aspect of the case. I thought the defendant hadn't been notified until the court ordered Philly.com to reveal the commenter's identity. In fact, the commenter had been notified nearly a year ago, when Philly.com was first hit with the subpoena. That misreading led to me questioning the court's application of the Dendrite rules and, of course, that misguided thought also bore its own weight on the remainder of the post.

Levy's post rightly asserts that it's very dangerous (and irresponsible) to draw too many conclusions from a dearth of information, as I did here. He also warns against automatically assuming the demand to strip anonymity is also an attack on free speech. Clearly defamatory comments/libel per se aren't protected by any stretch of the First Amendment and free speech defenders need to steer clear of presenting a "sky is falling" scenario when the facts available don't actually suggest that.

Levy's entire post is worth reading, whether you feel I'm a worthwhile contributor or not. Either way, you'll take something away from it. I know I did.]

Filed Under: anonymity, comments, defamation, philadelphia