Governments And Internet Companies Agree On Questionable Voluntary Pact On Extremist Content Online

from the well-meaning-but-misguided dept

Yesterday, there was a big process, called the Christchurch Call, in which a bunch of governments and big social media companies basically agreed to take a more proactive role in dealing with terrorist and violent extremist content online. To its credit, the effort did include voices from civil society/public interest groups that raised issues about how these efforts might negatively impact freedom of expression and other human rights issues around the globe. However, it's not clear that the "balance" they came to is a good one.

A free, open and secure internet is a powerful tool to promote connectivity, enhance social inclusiveness and foster economic growth.

The internet is, however, not immune from abuse by terrorist and violent extremist actors. This was tragically highlighted by the terrorist attacks of 15 March 2019 on the Muslim community of Christchurch – terrorist attacks that were designed to go viral.

The dissemination of such content online has adverse impacts on the human rights of the victims, on our collective security and on people all over the world.

The "Call" is not binding on anyone. It's just a set of "voluntary commitments" to try to "address the issue of terrorist and violent extremist content online and to prevent the abuse of the internet...." There are a set of commitments from governments and a separate set from social media companies. On the government side the commitments are:

Counter the drivers of terrorism and violent extremism by strengthening the resilience and inclusiveness of our societies to enable them to resist terrorist and violent extremist ideologies, including through education, building media literacy to help counter distorted terrorist and violent extremist narratives, and the fight against inequality.

Ensure effective enforcement of applicable laws that prohibit the production or dissemination of terrorist and violent extremist content, in a manner consistent with the rule of law and international human rights law, including freedom of expression.

Encourage media outlets to apply ethical standards when depicting terrorist events online, to avoid amplifying terrorist and violent extremist content.

Support frameworks, such as industry standards, to ensure that reporting on terrorist attacks does not amplify terrorist and violent extremist content, without prejudice to responsible coverage of terrorism and violent extremism.

Consider appropriate action to prevent the use of online services to disseminate terrorist and violent extremist content, including through collaborative actions, such as:

• Awareness-raising and capacity-building activities aimed at smaller online service providers;
• Development of industry standards or voluntary frameworks;
• Regulatory or policy measures consistent with a free, open and secure internet and international human rights law.

That mostly seems to stop short of demanding content be taken down, though that last point teeters on the edge. On the social media side, there is the following list of commitments:

Take transparent, specific measures seeking to prevent the upload of terrorist and violent extremist content and to prevent its dissemination on social media and similar content-sharing services, including its immediate and permanent removal, without prejudice to law enforcement and user appeals requirements, in a manner consistent with human rights and fundamental freedoms. Cooperative measures to achieve these outcomes may include technology development, the expansion and use of shared databases of hashes and URLs, and effective notice and takedown procedures.

Provide greater transparency in the setting of community standards or terms of service, including by:

• Outlining and publishing the consequences of sharing terrorist and violent extremist content;
• Describing policies and putting in place procedures for detecting and removing terrorist and violent extremist content.

Enforce those community standards or terms of service in a manner consistent with human rights and fundamental freedoms, including by:

• Prioritising moderation of terrorist and violent extremist content, however identified;
• Closing accounts where appropriate;
• Providing an efficient complaints and appeals process for those wishing to contest the removal of their content or a decision to decline the upload of their content.

Implement immediate, effective measures to mitigate the specific risk that terrorist and violent extremist content is disseminated through livestreaming, including identification of content for real-time review.

Implement regular and transparent public reporting, in a way that is measurable and supported by clear methodology, on the quantity and nature of terrorist and violent extremist content being detected and removed.

Review the operation of algorithms and other processes that may drive users towards and/or amplify terrorist and violent extremist content to better understand possible intervention points and to implement changes where this occurs. This may include using algorithms and other processes to redirect users from such content or the promotion of credible, positive alternatives or counter-narratives. This may include building appropriate mechanisms for reporting, designed in a multi-stakeholder process and without compromising trade secrets or the effectiveness of service providers’ practices through unnecessary disclosure.

Work together to ensure cross-industry efforts are coordinated and robust, for instance by investing in and expanding the GIFCT, and by sharing knowledge and expertise.

Facebook put up its own list of actions that it's taking in response to this, but as CDT's Emma Llanso points out, it's missing some fairly important stuff about making sure these efforts don't lead to censorship, especially of marginalized groups and individuals:

In response to all of this, the White House refused to join with the other countries who signed on to the voluntary commitments of the Christchurch Call, noting that it had concerns about whether it was appropriate and consistent with the First Amendment. That's absolutely accurate and correct. Even if the effort is voluntary and non-binding, and even if it makes references to protecting freedom of expression, once a government gets involved in advocating for social media companies to take down content, it's crossing a line. The Washington Post quoted law professor James Grimmelmann, who makes this point concisely:

“It’s hard to take seriously this administration’s criticism of extremist content, but it’s probably for the best that the United States didn’t sign,” said James Grimmelmann, a Cornell Tech law professor. “The government should not be in the business of ‘encouraging’ platforms to do more than they legally are required to — or than they could be required to under the First Amendment.”

“The government ought to do its ‘encouraging’ through laws that give platforms and users clear notice of what they’re allowed to do, not through vague exhortations that can easily turn into veiled threats,” Grimmelmann said.

And he's also right that it's difficult to take this administration's position seriously, especially given that the very same day that it refused to join this effort, it was also pushing forward with its sketchy plan to force social media companies to deal with non-existent "conservative bias." So, on the one hand, the White House says it believes in the First Amendment and doesn't want governments to get involved, and at the very same time, it's suggesting that it can pressure social media into acting in a way that it wants. And, of course, this is also the same White House, that has made other efforts to get social media companies to remove content from governments they dislike, such as Iran's.

So, yes, we should be wary of governments telling social media companies what content should and should not be allowed, so it's good that the White House declined to support the Christchurch Call. But it's difficult to believe it was doing so for any particularly principled reasons.

Filed Under: censorship, christchurch, christchurch call, extremism, free speech, human rights, social media, terrorist content, voluntary, white house
Companies: facebook, google, microsoft, twitter, youtube

White House Sets Up Echo Chamber For Complaints About Social Media Bias Against Conservatives

from the complainer-in-chief dept

After months of fact-free complaints about bias against conservatives on social media, the White House has finally decided to engage in a fact-finding mission. And by "fact-finding mission," I mean "knock together a shitty webform to collect complaints." Or build a mailing list for the 2020 election run. Who knows. But here it is in all of its "will this do" glory.

It opens with this statement before it starts harvesting personal info.

SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS should advance FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Yet too many Americans have seen their accounts suspended, banned, or fraudulently reported for unclear “violations” of user policies.

No matter your views, if you suspect political bias caused such an action to be taken against you, share your story with President Trump.

From there, the form asks for first name, last name, citizenship, zip code, phone number (optional), and email address. If you're not a US citizen or resident, the White House's form says it can't help you. That's pretty weird considering this form does nothing more than harvest information, most of it personal. If non-US citizens want to share their personal information -- and their stories of social media bias -- with the administration, they should be able to. But that's how the White House set this up: Americans only.

After that, it's time to start detailing the bias. Pick a platform and start bitching. Start by giving the government the link to your social media account, describe the incident, and upload screenshots of the tweet/post removed for violating terms of use being conservative.

You also have the option of being added to the White House's newsletter email list. Then you have prove you're not a robot by typing in the year the Declaration of Independence was signed. Fortunately for the bots, the question and answer never change, so not much a bulwark against exploitation.

Finally, you have to agree to the White House's "user agreement," conveniently located at another site and hidden behind a shortened link.

At the White House's site, you'll learn that complaining about bias via this webform gives the government permission to:

...use, edit, display, publish, broadcast, transmit, post, or otherwise distribute all or part of the Content (including edited, composite, or derivative works made therefrom).

Forever.

The license you grant is irrevocable and valid in perpetuity, throughout the world, and in all forms of media.

And there's nothing you can do if the government decides to alter your tweet and turn it into the centerpiece of its next Congressional hearing.

You waive any right to inspect or approve any Content or edited, composite or derivative works made from Content (including those which may contain your Information) before use. You are not entitled to any prior notice before the U.S. Government uses Content or Information. You are not entitled to any compensation for Content.

And even though the government has taken irrevocable possession of your content, it's still your content where it matters most.

You solely bear all responsibility for all Content.

This isn't about political bias. This is about confirmation bias. The White House has asked people to complain about being blocked or banned. Only those with negative experiences are invited to participate and that slant guarantees a bunch of unreliable narratives. Everything fed into this ad hoc complaint box will be vetted by an administration already convinced the social media deck is stacked against conservatives.

This will allow the administration to cherry-pick what it needs to back up the claims it's been making for months and ignore everything else. It will give the President a stack of printed-out tweets to wave at social media company execs during the next closed door meeting. What it won't produce is much reliable evidence of bias. The lack of reliability won't matter to the administration or the man at the top.

The real question, though, is what the administration plans to do with this info. It seems the ultimate goal is to talk itself into believing the bias problem is bad enough the First Amendment and Section 230 immunity will need to be damaged to make it right.

But, for now, at least the government has given the public a platform to complain about beverage companies threatening to send their urine to journalists.

Filed Under: bias, campaigns, conservative bias, content moderation, echo chamber, social media, social media bias, white house
Companies: facebook, twitter, youtube

New White House Press Conference Rules Leave Door Open To Future Challenges

from the doesn't-change-much dept

As you've likely heard by now, the Trump administration has restored Jim Acosta's hard pass for media briefings, and CNN has accordingly dropped its lawsuit, returning the battle between Trump and the media to cold-war-status for the time being. But the White House also took the opportunity to issue new rules for its press conferences which, rather than truly addressing any of the issues that formed the basis of the lawsuit, appear to leave the door wide open for future abuses by Trump and challenges by the press:

(1) A journalist called upon to ask a question will ask a single question and then will yield the floor to other journalists;

(2) At the discretion of the President or other White House official taking questions, a follow-up question or questions may be permitted; and where a follow up has been allowed and asked, the questioner will then yield the floor;

(3) “Yielding the floor” includes, when applicable, surrendering the microphone to White House staff for use by the next questioner;

(4) Failure to abide by any of rules (1)-(3) may result in suspension or revocation of the journalist’s hard pass.

Basically, the White House seems to be setting itself up with the absolute bare minimum framework that it could kinda-sorta claim constitutes viewpoint-neutral due process the next time it wants to kick out a reporter. Functionally the rules don't seem to change much, since who gets the floor at White House press conferences has always ultimately been at the discretion of the person at the podium, but this formalizes the threat of pass revocation for those who don't play nice enough for Trump's tastes. Though many reporters are (rightfully) speaking out against the clear anti-press tone of the rules, and (correctly) pointing out that followup questions are one of the most critical components of good journalism, the reality is that this just puts things in a holding pattern until the next time Trump kicks someone out.

For one thing, the rules don't actually address any of the due process requirements set out in Sherrill v. Knight and expanded on by the judge's TRO restoring Acosta's pass, so the entire fifth amendment question still falls to how these rules get enforced:

The court in Sherrill held that this process must include notice, an opportunity to rebut the government's reasons and a written decision. And ... although the court in Sherrill did not have occasion to address it, when an important interest is at stake and when the government is able to provide this process before deprivation, it generally must do so.

Moreover, simply stating that the president has discretionary power doesn't eliminate the first amendment issue. Again, it will come down to how that power is used — specifically, whether it's used for viewpoint-based discrimination. If there is another incident and another legal challenge, these rules won't change much, and something like CNN's initial first amendment argument could easily still apply:

Defendants' justifications for impeding Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights are hollow and hardly sufficiently compelling to justify the indefinite revocation of Acosta’s White House credentials. Consequently, the only reasonable inference from Defendants’ conduct is that they have revoked Acosta's credentials as a form of content- and viewpoint-based discrimination and in retaliation for Plaintiffs' exercise of protected First Amendment activity.

The sole justification for Defendants’ conduct is their dislike for Plaintiffs’ coverage of the administration and critique of the President. But that is insufficient to justify such a substantial restriction on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.

Meanwhile, in the full statement laying out the new rules, Sarah Sanders laments that they were created with "a degree of regret" and are only necessary because they can tragically no longer rely on "a set of understood professional norms."

If only they cared so much about presidential norms.

Filed Under: due process, fifth amendment, first amendment, jim acosta, journalism, sarah sanders, white house
Companies: cnn

Judge Blocks White House From Pulling Jim Acosta's Press Pass, But The Battle Continues

from the freedom-of-the-press dept

Update: The White House has officially restored Acosta's press pass, and also established new rules for press conferences. We'll bring you more info on those rules after we've had a closer look.

Last week I wrote about the case that CNN and its reporter Jim Acosta had filed against the White House for the removal of his press pass over some trumped up claims that he had "assaulted" a White House intern (he did not, he simply resisted returning the microphone to her after she attempted to grab it from him). As we noted, the removal of the pass was clearly based on the content of his questioning and it seemed fairly obvious that the White House would lose the lawsuit, especially based on the existing precedent in Sherrill v. Knight, which gave CNN clear basis under both the 1st Amendment and the 5th Amendment.

Perhaps not surprisingly, a bunch of Trump supporters quickly ran to the comments to screech at me about how wrong and biased I was against them. Let's be clear: this is bullshit. I would have written the same article had Obama removed the press pass of a Fox News reporter under identical circumstances (and, frankly, the Trump supporters here should learn to think beyond their obsession with defending "dear leader" in everything he does, because the same rules will apply when other Presidents are in charge, and they may not always like it in the other direction). The Constitutional elements here are pretty clear. The White House is allowed to set non-content-based rules for who gets a press pass, but once they do that, they absolutely cannot remove a press pass for anything having to do with content, and they can't simply make up rules to remove someone without any form of due process.

The judge in this case, Timothy Kelly, (who, we'll note, was appointed by Trump, even though it shouldn't make a difference), moved quickly on this case, issuing a temporary restraining order on the White House and ordering it to return Acosta's press pass Friday afternoon. The basis for his ruling from the bench was the 5th Amendment due process question, noting that there was no clear reason at all given by the White House:

the government must provide Mr. Acosta due process if it is to revoke his hard pass. Accordingly, the likelihood that the plaintiffs succeed on the First -- on the Fifth Amendment claim hinges on whether the government provided adequate due process to Mr. Acosta. The court in Sherrill held that this process must include notice, an opportunity to rebut the government's reasons and a written decision. And all the court -- although the court in Sherrill did not have occasion to address it, when an important interest is at stake and when the government is able to provide this process before deprivation, it generally must do so. There is no evidence that one of the few exceptions to this rule would apply here such as some kind of emergency. So I do hold that plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on their claim that adequate process was not provided to Mr. Acosta. Indeed, whatever process occurred within the government is still so shrouded in mystery that the Government could not tell me at oral argument who made the initial decision to revoke Mr. Acosta's press pass -- his hard pass.

Now, it is true that the public and Mr. Acosta were eventually provided two things. First, explanations as to why his hard pass was revoked through Ms. Sanders's tweets; and a written statement of explanation, apparently prompted by this litigation, but given their timing and their lack of connection to Mr. Acosta's opportunity to rebut -- which we'll talk about in a moment -- these belated efforts were hardly sufficient to satisfy due process.

Of course, in typical White House fashion, members of the Trump Administration have continued to trip over each other to make the dumbest statement possible in response to all of this, some of which mean that CNN has already gone back to court in this case, and it's going to continue. First, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders made the following nonsense statement:

"...the court made clear that there is no absolute First Amendment right to access the White House."

Except... that's not what the court said at all. The court actually said that reporters absolutely are protected by the 1st Amendment once they are given a press pass, but that it was premature to rule on the 1st Amendment question when the 5th Amendment procedural question could be dealt with first.

Then the President himself stepped in with more nonsense claiming:

"We want total freedom of the press."

Uh, no you don't. You're constantly whining about the press, threatening them and their revenue sources, or threatening to "pull" some non-existent licenses. And, of course, Trump then went on to misstate what Kelly's ruling said:

But you have to act with respect when you're at the White House, and when I see the way some of my people get treated at news conferences, it's terrible. So we're setting up a certain standard, which is what the court is requesting.

No, the court is requiring (not requesting) due process, which is not that you get to make up new rules to kick out reporters who are asking you questions you don't like (or even ones who are grandstanding). And, reporters don't need to "respect" the President. Indeed, it's better if they don't, because their role is to challenge the President and to ask tough questions that no administration likes.

Then, over the weekend, things got even more ridiculous, with the White House telling Acosta they plan to remove his press pass again once the 14 day temporary restraining order is up, and arguing that this is part of their due process to get around the 5th Amendment issues:

After CNN won a temporary restraining order on Friday, forcing the White House to restore his press pass for 14 days, White House officials sent Acosta a letter stating that his pass is set to be suspended again once the restraining order expires.

From the looks of the letter, the W.H. is trying to establish a paper trail that will empower the administration to boot Acosta again at the end of the month.

Of course, as Julian Sanchez points out, telling a reporter ahead of any process that you'll be removing his press pass would seem to be evidence of your own lack of due process, so this might get rejected on 5th Amendment grounds again (while still avoiding the 1st Amendment questions, which would likely go against the White House as well...).

The letter itself is quite ridiculous. It still says that they're planning to remove the press pass for his actions back at the November 7th press conference, when the court already made clear that the White House had no legitimate reason to do so based on that conference.

In response to this, CNN has already gone back to court, saying that this retrospective due process is not nearly enough. They ask for a hearing as quickly as possible to deal with the White House making this move.

Either way, this whole fight seems particularly stupid, and one that the White House simply cannot win in any court other than the one of Trump's super fans insisting that everything the President does must be perfectly correct. It is not. It is unconstitutional. And the sooner Trump's kneejerk fans recognize that Trump can and does make mistakes, the sooner they can get back to actually respecting the Constitution they now only pretend to support.

Filed Under: donald trump, due process, fifth amendment, first amendment, free speech, jim acosta, white house
Companies: cnn

White House Admits Exec Order To Regulate Social Media Is 'Real,' But No Idea Who Wrote It, And Won't Use It

from the well,-there's-that dept

On September 14th, we wrote about a draft executive order basically tasking the executive branch with "investigating" the major internet companies for evidence of "bias" that might lead to antitrust activity. As we wrote at the time, the draft executive order was poorly drafted, didn't make much sense, and was almost certainly unconstitutional. It took a week, but the rest of the tech policy world finally discovered the same draft executive order this past Friday (amusingly with some insisting that they had the "scoop" a week after we wrote about it).

Now, the White House has admitted that the document is "real", though they're not entirely sure who crafted it, it hasn't gone through any of the normal processes, and there's no intention of moving forward with it. In other words, it sounds like a pet project of someone in the White House to have in a drawer in case it was needed at some future date. From the Washington Post:

But three White House aides soon insisted they didn’t write the draft order, didn’t know where it came from and generally found it to be unworkable policy. One senior White House official confirmed the document had been floating around the White House but had not gone through the formal process, which is controlled by the staff secretary.

Asked about the document, Lindsay Walters, the deputy White House press secretary, said of the digital-age ‘whodunit’ on Saturday: “Although the White House is concerned about the conduct of online platforms and their impact on society, this document is not the result of an official White House policymaking process.”

There is some speculation in the article that the document actually originated from Yelp, which has spent the past decade or so trying to get any government anywhere to bring the antitrust hammer down on Google. If that turns out to be true, it speaks very poorly of Yelp, as a company trying to leverage an obviously bullshit claim of "search bias" to try to achieve its unrelated goals. It would also almost certainly backfire on Yelp in a big way, as the biggest tool that the government has to try to "punish" Google would be to modify Section 230 of the CDA -- which, arguably, Yelp relies on much more than Google does.

It's good that this document is clearly going nowhere, though it still is worth noting that at least someone in the White House thought it was worth passing around for discussion as they try to determine "what to do" about the made up problem of "bias" in search.

Filed Under: administration, executive order, political bias, social media, white house
Companies: google, yelp

Shocker: FOIA Request Shows Yet Another Core Justification For Repealing Net Neutrality Was Bullshit

from the post-truth-apocalypse dept

We've pretty well established by now that the FCC's repeal of net neutrality is being justified by a lot of fluff and nonsense with no factual basis in reality. Like claims that net neutrality killed sector investment, which are easily debunked by SEC filings, earnings reports, and numerous public CEO comments to investors (who, unlike you, they're legally not allowed to lie to). From Ajit Pai's claims that net neutrality emboldens fascists in North Korea and Iran, to his most recent claim that net neutrality fears were overhyped because Twitter still somehow works, blatant bullshit is the foundation of this entire repeal effort.

For years now, one constant bit of bullshit spread by ISPs was the claim that the Obama-era White House somehow "illegally pressured" Tom Wheeler's FCC into passing tougher net neutrality rules. As we noted at the time that claim was nonsensical, since there's no law stopping the White House from expressing its opinion on what policy should be. From Bill Clinton urging then FCC boss Reed Hundt to ban alcohol ads on TV, to George W Bush telling then FCC boss Michael Powell to deregulate media ownership, such behavior is historically perfectly normal.

Again, this fact didn't stop ISPs and their water carriers in Congress and key media outlets from repeatedly trying to claim that Obama engaged in all manner of shifty behavior to force the FCC to create the rules. The Wall Street Journal in 2014, for example, professed that "unusual, secretive efforts inside the White House" caused FCC boss Tom Wheeler to shift his position from weaker, Title I based rules, to tougher Title II based rules. The idea that Obama's White House had undertaken a covert "federal takeover of the internet" quickly became gospel across countless partisan echoverses.

The criticism was enough to drive investigations in both the Senate and by the FCC’s Inspector General. And while nobody from either government body could be bothered to tell the public the outcome of these investigations, Motherboard recently filed several FOIA requests that now show the outcome of these investigations wound up being a giant bupkis:

"After reviewing more than 600,000 emails, the independent office found that there was no collusion between the White House and the FCC: “We found no evidence of secret deals, promises, or threats from anyone outside the Commission, nor any evidence of any other improper use of power to influence the FCC decision-making process."

Which again, was what we suggested back in early 2015. None of the claims that heralded Obama's "illegal takeover of the internet" had the slightest bit of evidence in support of them, noted the FCC Inspector General's report:

"Nothing we found refuted the factual findings in the Senate Staff Report,” the IG wrote (bolding by agency). “More importantly, nothing we found in the complete, unredacted record evidenced any undue influence that would have militated in favor of a more comprehensive investigation."

What the Inspector General found, then, were career public servants doing their job: “Nothing in these, or in any other emails appeared to indicate there was pressure to delay the Order from the December meeting from any source other than concerned FCC staffers,” the report found, adding that there was “no indication” that a draft of the net neutrality regulations had been circulated improperly.

Obama's first FCC boss Julius Genachowski was arguably a wishy washy fence sitter. But his replacement Tom Wheeler wound up actually being the rare type of person capable of changing his mind based on the available evidence. And when the available evidence (and the courts) made it clear that you can't have effective net neutrality rules without classifying ISPs as common carriers until Title II of the Communications Act, that's exactly what Wheeler did. He didn't make an evidence-based decision because of some secret White House cabal, he did it because that was his fucking job. And he's subsequently been punished for it.

Of course the very idea that net neutrality (aka wanting a healthy, competitive internet) is somehow partisan was already bullshit in and of itself. It's a construct built by the telecom industry's lobbying and policy apparatus, perpetuated by numerous ISP-funded groups. The express goal is to divide the public, sow dissent, and stall meaningful reform of a broken, uncompetitive market. If you hadn't noticed, this tactic has proven immeasurably successful.

Filed Under: ajit pai, barack obama, fcc, inspector general, interference, lies, tom wheeler, white house

State Dept. Memo To End Leaks Promptly Leaks To The Media

from the grilled-leaks dept

The phone calls are coming from inside the house, it seems. The newly minted Trump government has suffered under one of the most porous climates in recent Presidential memory, with leaks leaking to the press from seemingly everywhere. This is happening for several reasons, which include enabling technology for such leaks to occur, the controversial nature of our current President and some of his actions, and the fact that, whatever else one might want to say about President Trump, his administration is certainly active, meaning there is much more about which to leak. This has led to Trump, along with members of his team, making strange noises about a crackdown of these leaks. The threats incorporated in this crackdown have included FBI investigations (where many of the leaks have come from), random phone checks by the communications staff with Sean Spicer playing Angry Dad, and the promise of the purging of any longstanding government staffers suspected of leaking information to the press.

And, yet, the leaks persist. And they often persist in laughable ways. We already had Spicer's phone-check and leak-plugging emergency meeting with his staff leak to the press. Now the Washington Post has an article all about the State Department's memo that warned State staff against leaking anything to the press.

The State Department legal office prepared a four-page memo for Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warning of the dangers of leaking by State Department employees. It promptly leaked, to me. That’s only the latest sign that the relationship between the Trump administration political appointees and the State Department professional workforce is still very much a work in progress.

The Feb. 20 memo by State Department acting legal adviser Richard Visek to Tillerson is entitled “SBU: Protecting Privileged Information.” The SBU stands for Sensitive But Unclassified, a designation used on documents that are not technically secret but also not supposed to be shared. The memo itself is marked SBU and begins with detailed explanation of how and when Tillerson has the privilege of protecting certain types of information from public disclosure, such as anything that has to do with internal State Department deliberations. But the bulk of the memo is devoted to arguments for clamping down on unauthorized disclosures of sensitive information, also known as leaking.

One can only hope that whoever leaked the memo to the Washington Post chuckled to themselves as they did so -- so tasty the irony was. Look, it's understandable why a White House or government would be irritated by press leaks. But trying to wage some kind of war against them is only going to result in the administration looking very, very foolish, as it does in this story. Leaks have always been a thing in government. They always will be. Trump can shake his fist angrily at the clouds all he wants, but the rain will still come. Even Tillerson's admittedly tightened grip over the State Department isn't going to help.

Several State Department officials told me that they see evidence of an effort by Tillerson to stymie leaking is already underway. For example, detailed readouts of Tillerson’s meetings with foreign officials are no longer distributed widely inside the building, leaving officials in relevant bureaus unsure exactly what transpired. Another official told me Tillerson has shortened the list of officials allowed inside the daily 9:15 a.m. senior staff meeting, which has previously served as a key channel through which various State Department offices and bureaus learn about the day’s agenda and get direction from the secretary’s office. A third State Department official told me he was instructed to make requests for policy information and guidance over the phone or in person, rather than commit any policy discussions to an email that might be leaked.

Making government less efficient in the interest of plugging leaks works against good government operations and obviously isn't solving the problem.

And, like so many things Trump, there's no consistency in his anger on the topic. Trump was perfectly happy to discuss leaks from the DNC while on the campaign trail. In addition to that, members of both his campaign team and his administration are known to regularly leak information to the press for the purposes of steering media discussion in the President's favor. As with so many things, it's fine if Team Trump does it, but not anyone else.

Regardless, it sure will be fun to watch the White House attempt to keep press leaks from being a thing. After all, if you can't even keep the memos about not leaking from leaking, the really good stuff is almost sure to come out.

Filed Under: administration, journalism, leaks, sean spicer, state department, white house

Sean Spicer Launches Witch Hunt Over The 'Secure' App He Just Said Was No Big Deal

from the keep-up dept

So here's a story that goes from weird to bizarre in record time. A few weeks ago, Axios was among the first to report that White House staffers were using an app called "Confide" to make use of its disappearing message feature, specifically to avoid putting things down on the record, that might later be leaked or revealed:

We spoke with one influential GOP operative who is using the app. He told us he especially likes that Confide makes it harder to take a screenshot—you have to slide your fingers over text and it only captures a portion of the screen. He also likes the integration with iMessage, allowing him to write self-destructing encrypted messages within the confines of the iPhone's standard-issue messaging platform.

He says Republicans like him are especially paranoid about their communications after Hillary Clinton's email scandal. "For folks that are on the inside in this city, it provides some cover," he said.

Among those found to be using the app? Trump Press Secretary Sean Spicer, who got upset that anyone might think it was a big deal that the app was on his phone:

BuzzFeed News found the phone numbers of Spicer, along with Hope Hicks, the director of strategic communications, via a feature that allows users to see friends who have already joined.

In a phone call with BuzzFeed News, Spicer confirmed that he used the app, but said that he had done so only once, when asked to by a reporter “months ago.” He offered to show a BuzzFeed News reporter his phone as proof.

“I downloaded it, but I’m glad to show anyone my phone and that I’ve literally sent one message on Confide,” said Spicer. “These are personal phones… I also have iTunes on my personal phone, Solitaire, and other apps. Frankly I think the idea that you guys are writing a story, the idea of what apps I use on my phone, is an invasion of my privacy.”

Of course, if the messages are deleted soon after sending, as the app advertises, then showing the app to a reporter doesn't really prove much of anything. Either way, hold that thought.

Security experts have ripped apart Confide, saying that it's claims of being secure are "a triumph of marketing over substance," however others in the White House are making use of an app that is generally considered more secure: Signal.

And, apparently, that has some in Congress worried that the apps are being used not to undermine things like federal record keeping laws, but rather that it may be used by people inside the government to go undermine the administration or to leak information to the press.

And, indeed, this weekend it was reported that Sean Spicer (remember him from above?) conducted a surprise leak crackdown last week, ordering staffers into a conference room and then searching their phones for Confide or other apps, and telling them not to use such apps:

Upon entering Spicer’s office for what one person briefed on the gathering described as “an emergency meeting,” staffers were told to dump their phones on a table for a “phone check," to prove they had nothing to hide.

Spicer, who consulted with White House counsel Don McGahn before calling the meeting, was accompanied by White House lawyers in the room, according to multiple sources.

There, he explicitly warned staffers that using texting apps like Confide — an encrypted and screenshot-protected messaging app that automatically deletes texts after they are sent — and Signal, another encrypted messaging system, was a violation of the Presidential Records Act, according to multiple sources in the room.

Leaving aside, for now, the humor in this information (of course) then leaking to the press, it does seem somewhat amusing that Spicer is now suddenly running surprise phone checks on staff members over these apps when he, himself, admits to having used at least Confide, and his insisting that its presence on his phone was really no big deal. Remember, "Frankly I think the idea that you guys are writing a story, the idea of what apps I use on my phone, is an invasion of my privacy." And yet... it's not such an invasion of privacy to suddenly order lower ranked staff members into a conference room to do a "phone check" to see if they have any of those apps on their phones?

Filed Under: confide, donald trump, encrypted chat, leaks, sean spicer, signal, trump administration, white house

Upset About Border Patrol Cruelty? It Didn't Start Under Trump

from the speak-up dept

In the last few weeks, there's obviously been a lot of attention on the cruel actions of Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), a part of the Department of Homeland Security. Slate has an article detailing some of the awful stories coming out after the Trump executive order on immigration and travel (here are just a few):

At Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, CBP officers reportedly detained an elderly Sudanese woman suffering from diabetes, high blood pressure, and severe kidney stones. They refused to provide her attorney or her family with any information on her health, status, or whereabouts. Her attorney later learned that CBP officers had demanded that his client withdraw her request for admission into the United States or be barred from entering the country for five years. She signed the document and was promptly deported. Her family never got to see her.

Also at DFW, CBP agents allegedly detained a lawful permanent resident along with her 11-month-old daughter, a U.S. citizen. They refused to let attorneys speak with the mother. When the child’s father came to the CBP office, agents refused to let him see his daughter.

CBP officers at Los Angeles International Airport allegedly deported an Iranian student 90 minutes after a federal judge explicitly barred the deportation of anyone targeted by Trump’s order. They ignored efforts by attorneys to halt the deportation.

CBP officers at San Francisco International Airport allegedly detained an elderly Iranian couple with valid visitor visas for 30 hours. Nineteen of those hours came after a federal judge halted deportations under Trump’s order. One officer informed the couple’s attorney that they might soon be deported. When the attorney explained that this action would violate a federal court order, the officer responded that he was “just following orders.”

An elderly Iranian couple—both of whom were lawful permanent residents—say they were detained for 10 hours at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport after returning from their son’s wedding in Iran. The two were denied access to food for the length of their detention. Another elderly person being detained along with the couple was shaking from hunger and nearly passed out. CBP officers refused to inform the couple’s immediate family whether the couple had been allowed to take necessary medications.

A complaint to DHS over the implementation of the travel ban noted 26 accounts of abuse by the CBP.

But here's the thing: none of this is new, unfortunately. Yes, the specifics of the executive order are new, and the awful plan and rollout by the administration are new, but CBP being arbitrarily cruel to people is not at all new. We've reported on it many times in the past. Last week, On the Media put together a collection of stories that it had done in the past about egregious behavior by CBP at the border, almost all of which we covered in the past -- and all of which occurred under President Obama.

There was the horrific treatment of On The Media Producer Sarah Abdurrahman and her family (all US citizens) detained at the US border for hours and treated horribly when trying to return to the US from a wedding in Canada. There's also the insane story of Pascal Abador, a student studying Shiites in South Lebanon (he's an atheist himself), who was detained and had his laptop seized while on a train traveling from Canada to the US. CBP found photos on his laptop of Hamas and Hezbollah and then wouldn't give him back his computer. And then there's the truly sickening stories (plural) of CBP bringing people to doctors to be horrendously strip searched for drugs, often undergoing hours-long "inspections" by medical professionals despite never turning up any actual drugs. Here's one example we wrote about, which is similar to, but not the same one discussed in the OTM recording:

1. Eckert's abdominal area was x-rayed; no narcotics were found.
2. Doctors then performed an exam of Eckert's anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.
3. Doctors performed a second exam of Eckert's anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.
4. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
5. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema a second time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
6. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema a third time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
7. Doctors then x-rayed Eckert again; no narcotics were found.
8. Doctors prepared Eckert for surgery, sedated him, and then performed a colonoscopy where a scope with a camera was inserted into Eckert's anus, rectum, colon, and large intestines. No narcotics were found.

None of this is to say that what Trump is doing is okay. What he's doing is expanding the CBP's power to continue to expand its often arbitrary and capricious activities without any fear of oversight or any sort of reprimand for egregious behavior. But if you're suddenly concerned with how CBP appears totally free to mistreat basically anyone at the border, at least recognize that it's been going on for quite some time and that plenty of people (including us) have been trying to call attention to it for years. And don't assume that just because you're suddenly hearing these stories in the news, that they're a new phenomenon. Unfortunately, they are not. Hopefully, greater attention on CBP cruelty will lead to fixing it, but this administration, unfortunately, seems to want to encourage and expand it.

Filed Under: barack obama, border patrol, cbp, dhs, donald trump, oversight, white house