NY AG Opens Inquiry After Charter Spectrum Bungles Its Coronavirus Response

from the monopolizing-stupidity dept

By and large, most major ISPs have handled the labor angle of COVID-19 relatively well, with giants like Comcast and AT&T offered hazard pay, and Verizon slowing new broadband, phone, and TV installations altogether.

Charter, which sells broadband, TV, and phone service under the Spectrum brand, has been a different story entirely. The nation's second biggest cable company is now facing an inquiry by New York's Attorney General after several weeks of bad press highlighting how the company wasn't giving its employees hazard pay or adequate protective gear (many got $25 gift cards to closed restaurants instead), wouldn't let many employees work from home even if it was easy, and even forced people to continue to work in buildings where co-workers tested positive for the virus.

With some 250 Charter employees now sick, New York's Attorney General has opened an inquiry into the company's bungled response:

"The company’s stance on working remotely became the subject of internal debate on March 13, when Nick Wheeler, an engineer in Denver, sent an email to hundreds of colleagues and a senior vice president with the subject line “Coronavirus — Why are we still in the office?”

“Coming into the office now is pointlessly reckless,” wrote Mr. Wheeler, who provided a copy of the email to The New York Times. “Charter, like the rest of us, should do what is necessary to help reduce the spread of coronavirus."

While Charter has since buckled on some of its more stubborn policies, it required weeks of employees leaking to any news outlet that would listen about the company's failure to adequately protect them. Employees are still pissed, and still say the company isn't doing enough to protect its workers (and by proxy many of the communities and customers they serve):

"But even in cases where multiple employees have confirmed testing positive for the virus, which has killed more than 175,000 people worldwide, Spectrum’s call centers and storefronts have kept their doors open, serving as potential hotspots for exposure. While Charter has allowed some workers, in certain circumstances, to temporarily work from home, its pandemic response has largely focused sanitizing its workspaces after hours. Employees fear that this is doing too little to shield them from the disease or prevent them from giving it to customers, whose equipment they handle and whose homes they enter daily."

None of this should be surprising given that Charter literally has one of the lowest customer satisfaction ratings of any company in industry in America (think about that accomplishment for a moment). Big ISPs don't handle disasters very well, as evident by the way cable giants routinely hassle wildfire victims over their cable boxes after having just lost everything. They're not flexible, creative, or adaptive companies, because as government-pampered monopolies in regions with no competition or oversight, there's absolutely no incentive to be.

Speaking of no oversight, the FCC hasn't issued so much as a peep about the company's Keystone-cops-esque approach to handling the pandemic. Nor has the agency had a single word to say about the fact that Charter has been kicking struggling customers offline during the crisis, despite very clearly promising not to as part of a highly theatrical, temporary, and entirely voluntary PR stunt heavily hyped by the agency to give the illusion it was actually helping.

Filed Under: covid-19, employees, hazard pay, new york
Companies: charter

With Schools Shut Down, Educators Turn To Video Games To Help Educate Students

from the evil-video-games dept

It's funny how fast things can change. With the exception of our recent stories on how esports has taken over the sporting world due to the COVID-19 shutdown, any other review of our stories on video games would leave you with the impression that gaming has tons of IP problems and is also the scapegoat for many of the world's problems. Blamed for real world violence, for teenager apathy, for falling school test scores, and even for men not being manly enough, there seems to have been very little for which some beep-boop games couldn't be blamed.

And then came COVID-19 and its shutdown of schools across the world. And so many teachers naturally turned to the evil video games as a tool to continue to educate their students.

Kevin Péloquin, a history teacher from Montreal, hoped to take his high school students of Collège Saint-Hilaire on a trip to Greece. His mixed class from grades 10 and 11 would visit historical sites like the Parthenon and record their observations for a project they would later share with their classmates. Then the covid-19 pandemic scrapped their educational itinerary. Instead of a physical trip to Greece, Péloquin proposed, what if his students could digitally tour Greece — or even better — explore it as it was thousands of years ago? He first weighed the potential of virtual reality, but soon pivoted toward a video game.

Alongside its action-packed fictional story line, Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey includes a robust education mode and a research-based recreation of ancient Greece. Péloquin’s students will play individually in the coming weeks from their homes and use that as the foundation for their reports.

Now, the Assassin's Creed example isn't alone. Teachers of students young and old are also using games like Minecraft, which also has an educator mode, and Roblox to keep students engaged, teach versions of planned lessons, and otherwise continue their education.

This really shouldn't be all that surprising. Entertainment mediums have always been repurposed for educational use. Whether its film, music, or art, these things have always found their way into the classroom as teaching tools. If anything, video games are more natural allies of teachers, given that they are interactive and can be modded or altered for educational reasons, whereas film and books cannot. And apparently both students and game makers are getting on board with this.

“My intention is to motivate my students to continue with the course,” Péloquin said, whose course is optional at Collège Saint-Hilaire. “When I spoke about it with my students, they seemed really, really pleased and surprised that we can work on our history course through a video game.”

Ubisoft granted Péloquin and his 23 students free access to Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey for three months through Google Stadia, a cloud-based streaming service. This lets all the students play through the game via an Internet connection, no matter how powerful their home computers are.

We're all somewhat in the business of finding silver linings these days, lest we go insane. The silver lining I propose is that it sure would be nice if coming out of this self-imposed isolation and shutdown of our daily lives also saw a shift in how video games are viewed.

Filed Under: covid-19, distance learning, education, lockdown, shutdown, video games

UNESCO Suggests COVID-19 Is A Reason To Create... Eternal Copyright

from the what-the-actual-fuck? dept

Yes, we've seen lots of folks using COVID-19 to push their specific agendas forward, but this one is just bizarre. UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) is an organization that is supposed to be focused on developing education and culture around the globe. From any objective standpoint, you'd think it would be in favor of things like more open licensing and sharing of culture, but, in practice, the organization has long been hijacked by copyright maximalist interests. Almost exactly a decade ago, we were perplexed at the organization's decision to launch an anti-piracy organization. After all, "piracy" (or sharing of culture) is actually how culture and ideas frequently spread in the developing countries where UNESCO focuses.

So, I guess it isn't so surprising a decade later that UNESCO is using COVID-19 to float the idea of an eternal copyright. I only wish I was kidding:

They phrase this as "just started the conversation," but that's a trollish setup for a terrible, terrible idea. In case you can't see the video, it's electronic music creator Jean-Michel Jarre suggesting eternal copyright as a way to support future artists:

Why not going to the other way around, and to create the concept of eternal copyright. And I mean by this that after a certain period of time, the rights of movies, of music, of everything, would go to a global fund to help artists, and especially artists in emerging countries.

First, we can all agree that helping to enable and support artists in emerging countries is a good general idea. I've seen a former RIAA executive screaming about how everyone criticizing this idea is showing their true colors in how they don't want to support artists. But that's just silly. The criticism of this idea is that it doesn't "support" artists at all, and will almost certainly make creativity and supporting artists more difficult. And that's because art and creativity has always relied on building upon the works of those who came before -- and locking up everything for eternity would make that cost prohibitive for all but the wealthiest of creators. Indeed, the idea that we need copyright and copyright alone to support artists shows (yet again) just how uncreative the people who claim to support copyright can be.

The way copyright works, with content (eventually) aging out into the public domain is exactly how these works already support emerging artists, by giving them more raw materials to build on and be creative around and to share further around the globe. It's the locking up of content behind copyright and paywalls that limits that cultural sharing and cultural raw material.

And, of course, one can only imagine how much Disney would need to pay into this global fund for all the public domain works it turned into its movies.

It's also not clear how all of this works. He seems to suggest that the eternal copyright would lead to money going into a fund that is used to support artists, rather than the heirs of the copyright holders. So, more or less a giant collection society for old copyright. Of course, we've spent decades detailing how nearly every collection society is rife with corruption. There are stories of them using the money to pad execs' pockets, of using it to lobby, and of frequently distributing the money in unfair ways that actually tend to favor successful artists at the expense of up-and-coming artists. Or in some cases, they just claim they they "can't find" the artists they owe money to.

Does anyone really expect that this new mega fund, taking money from ancient works will somehow magically give the money to smaller artists? Or will it just be used to divert funds to the already successful?

Again, there are plenty of reasonable concerns about artists making money -- especially during the pandemic. But an eternal copyright may be the worst possible suggestion, and I'm only skimming the reasons why. Dan Takash has an excellent Twitter thread detailing many more reasons as well, including how this would almost certainly lock-in certain forms of "western" culture, at the expense of cultures around the globe.

Incredibly, just days later, UNESCO is tweeting about how culture is part of our "shared humanity." Yeah, that's why we have the public domain. To make sure that the public can share in it all. The plan for a universal copyright is to literally take away that culture and to lock it up with bureaucrats who get to determine who is allowed to do what with culture and for how much. That's not a shared humanity.

Filed Under: artists, collection society, covid-19, eternal copyright, jean-michel jarre, unesco

French Hypocrisy: Fines Google For Being Soft On Privacy; Now Angry That Google Won't Let It Spy On Users

from the who-said-what-now? dept

We keep trying to explain to people that privacy is always about trade-offs, and arguing for privacy laws that protect "privacy" as if it's a constant thing, will run into trouble. Most of that trouble is in the form of locking in big companies, but sometimes, the trouble is in showing you why understanding trade-offs matters so much.

France has been among the most vocal critics of "big internet companies" and demanding various regulatory pressures be used to punish them. Last year it fined Google $57 million for breaching privacy laws, and appears to be angling for even larger fines.

So it's difficult not to burst out in laughter after finding out that the French government is really, really mad that Google and Apple are protecting people's privacy, when suddenly the French government wants to use those companies to engage in contact tracing. Indeed, it's literally demanding both companies ease their privacy protections to help France track people who might have COVID-19.

France has become the first country to call publicly for Apple and Google to weaken privacy protections around digital contact tracing, after its government admitted that its current plans would not work without changes to smartphone operating systems.

The issue is that, as you likely recall, earlier this month, Google and Apple collaborated on an API system to enable some form of contact tracing in various apps, but that is (a) voluntary, (b) privacy retaining (via regularly rotating identifiers), and (c) limits how much information would be sent to the government. And apparently that's getting in the way of France's more aggressive tracking plans:

France wants to deploy its app by 11 May, without using the special measures Apple and Google have put in place, which are targeted for release in mid-May. That means the country will be forced to use the more limited features already built into iOS, unless Apple changes its policies and allows for far more invasive use of the Bluetooth radio at the heart of its devices.

It's quite incredible to see this play out in practice, in France of all places. Again, the French government has been among the most vocal and aggressive in attacking Google and insisting that its privacy practices are terrible... but as soon as those privacy efforts get in the way of the French government spying on people's whereabouts, its suddenly mad at these companies for doing too much to protect privacy? Maybe Google should see if the French government wants to pay back the fines it levied before it'll take the government's requests seriously.

Filed Under: contact tracing, covid-19, france, gdpr, hypocrisy, privacy
Companies: apple, google

NYC Mayor Asks Residents To Snitch On Social Distancing Violators, Gets Dick Pics And Hitler Memes Instead

from the socially-distance-THIS-yo dept

"See something, say something" but for the coronavirus. How could it possibly go wrong?

Everyone put your hands down. Of course we know how it could go wrong. Opening up the lines to callers never works. The DHS knows this, even if it chooses to ignore this. Years of "see something, say something" did nothing more than fill its data stores with reports from curtain twitchers about things their brown neighbors were doing and do-gooding randos calling in everyone they saw walking around with a camera.

The home to the most "every Muslim is a suspect" city in the US should have known better than to open up a snitch line to the public. But officials like Governor Andrew Cuomo have already shown they're unable to fathom the concept of unintended consequences. Cuomo issued a mandate for mask-wearing in public while allowing an anti-mask law to run concurrently, inviting state law enforcement officers to engage in very selective enforcement.

Without a doubt, the state has a COVID problem. But doing dumb shit isn't going to fix it. At best, it's just going to tie up city resources.

Enter NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio. A city in the deep throes of a pandemic needs solid leadership. This isn't it. This is only something that seems sort of useful until someone gives it a few seconds of thought.

On April 18, Mayor De Blasio took decisive action in an effort to curb the spread of the coronavirus:

If you see someone failing to practice social distancing, rat them out, Mayor Bill de Blasio urged Saturday as part of a new city effort to corral the coronavirus.

“We still know there’s some people who need to get the message. And that means sometimes making sure the enforcement is there to educate people and make clear we’ve got to have social distancing,” Hizzoner said in a video posted to Twitter

To do that, is “simple,” he explained.

Snap a photo of an offending person or crowd, set the location on the image, and text it to 311-692.

I don't know what he expected, but anyone who's had any internet experience knows what the public will do when it's given access to a government hotline (or an internet poll, etc.).

Photos of extended middle fingers, the mayor dropping the Staten Island groundhog and news coverage of him going to the gym have all been texted to a special tip line that de Blasio announced Saturday, according to screenshots posted on Twitter.

Believe it or not, that's the better stuff. The government wanted the public to respond and respond the public did. Emphatically and obscenely.

An NYPD source said that “dick pic” photos of real penises have also been texted to 311, and a caller phoned in a tip that de Blasio was seen performing oral sex on someone “in an alleyway behind a 7-11” early Sunday.

Feeling any safer, New York? If you ask people to become informants, you're going to have to sift through a lot of bullshit. If you ask people to report their neighbors for being in the proximity of other people, you're going to get Hitler references and dick pics. And if you haven't prepared for this inevitable eventuality, you're going to have to cut off your access to the very small amount of genuine tips to clean out all the garbage you didn't realized you'd asked for.

City Hall confirmed Tuesday that the 311 text line was shuttered to clear out a backlog of crank complaints on Sunday.

The solution isn't a new tip line that's going to quickly turn into an IRL 4Chan. The solution is to let existing systems handle the influx and hope for the best. Yes, too many people still use 911 and dispatch lines like all-purpose complaint boxes but asking New Yorkers to snitch on each other for being social was never going to work out well.

People are already feeling the encroachment of the government as the pandemic wears on. Asking residents to be part of the perceived problem is always going to result in little-a anarchy. Government officials never seem to understand most Americans think being a snitch is pretty much un-American. This is something we expect authoritarian nations to do: turn citizens against each other. We don't care for it much in the Land of the Free. There will always be outliers willing to sell the person across the street out to the fuzz, but most Americans would rather let their fingers (or other appendages) fly when the government asks them to be unpaid informants.

Filed Under: 311, bill deblasio, covid-19, new york, nyc, say something, see something, snitch line, social distancing, tipline

Famed Law Professor Richard Epstein's Ever Changing Claims About How Many People Will Die From COVID-19

from the armchair-epidemiology dept

Richard Epstein is a very famous law professor, known for his "libertarian" take on the world. Lots of people who know him insist he's a brilliant legal mind... who seems to think that his brilliance in that area allows him to be brilliant in fields where he has no experience at all. For years, I've followed him being just ridiculously wrong when it comes to internet law and (even more so) on any issue related to copyright or patents, which he views as identical to tangible property. He has long refused to even consider that he might be wrong about that. Still, it was pretty shocking last month to see him jump into the deep end of the debate over the seriousness of COVID-19 by writing a piece claiming that he expected US deaths to top out at 500 tops. This was on March 16th, at which time California and Washington were already shutting down and it was blatantly clear many more people would die. Still what he initially wrote was:

[I]t seems more probable than not that the total number of cases world-wide will peak out at well under 1 million, with the total number of deaths at under 50,000 (up about eightfold). In the United States, if the total death toll increases at about the same rate, the current 67 deaths should translate into about 500 deaths at the end.

Remember, Epstein is a law professor, not an epidemiologist, not a statistician, and not an economist (though he often acts as if he is one). That pronouncement, which bolstered the claims coming from the White House and Trump's supporters at the time that COVID-19 was still no big deal, quickly made its way to the White House, because clueless powerful people love an echo chamber.

As the death toll quickly passed 500, Epstein hastily revised his article to say he actually meant 5,000 US deaths, and that he regretted what he called "a simple stupid error" in his calculations. Epstein was roundly mocked for all of this, and continues to appear painfully unwilling to recognize his own ignorance in this issue, as was evidenced in this truly incredible interview Epstein gave with the New Yorker's Isaac Chotiner in which he tries to defend his indefensible argument, and comes off like a total condescending asshole who assumes that because he's a law professor he somehow knows more about epidemiology than a journalist who he insists must know nothing at all.

I know, but these are scientific issues here.

You know nothing about the subject but are so confident that you’re going to say that I’m a crackpot.

No. Richard—

That’s what you’re saying, isn’t it? That’s what you’re saying?

I’m not saying anything of the sort.

Admit to it. You’re saying I’m a crackpot.

I’m not saying anything of the—

Well, what am I then? I’m an amateur? You’re the great scholar on this?

No, no. I’m not a great scholar on this.

Tell me what you think about the quality of the work!

O.K. I’m going to tell you. I think the fact that I am not a great scholar on this and I’m able to find these flaws or these holes in what you wrote is a sign that maybe you should’ve thought harder before writing it.

What it shows is that you are a complete intellectual amateur. Period.

O.K. Can I ask you one more question?

You just don’t know anything about anything. You’re a journalist. Would you like to compare your résumé to mine?

No, actually, I would not.

Then good. Then maybe what you want to do is to say, “Gee, I’m not quite sure that this is right. I’m going to check with somebody else.”

Of course, Chotiner did check with many other people and added multiple fact checks to his interview, quoting actual experts who respond with things like saying that what Epstein is saying is "completely inaccurate."

Incredibly, earlier this week, Epstein tried again, with a new piece complaining that governors are overreacting with their lockdown decrees. Incredibly, he uses the evidence that these lockdowns are working and bending the curve to decrease the number of deaths as evidence that we should end the lockdowns, and that magically businesses will be able to handle the rest.

The question is why Cuomo thinks that doubling down on government restrictions is justified by the science and data. His own daily report of April 17 indicates that the rate of new infections is down and that the number of hospital discharges in the state now far exceeds the number of new admissions. Further data prepared by the New York Times reveals that the rate of infection is now slowing down rapidly throughout the United States. It also shows that new cases peaked at about 35,000 on April 3, with an erratic decline since that time.

That's because of the lockdown. If we lift the lockdown too soon, those infection and death rates go back up.

Still, when the article came out, I went to go look for the original Epstein piece claiming only 500 deaths, and was surprised to find that the link now contains this:

[Correction & Addendum as of March 24, 2020:

My original erroneous estimate of 5,000 dead in the US is a number ten times smaller than I intended to state, and it too could prove somewhat optimistic. But any possible error rate in this revised projection should be kept in perspective. The current U.S. death toll stands at 592 as of noon on March 24, 2020, out of about 47,000 cases.

So... uh... what? Everything about that appears to be gas lighting. First off, the original estimate was 500 deaths, not 5,000. And he claims that was due to a "simple stupid error." But now that we're rapidly approaching 50,000 deaths, he's claiming that it was the 5,000 that was the "original erroneous estimates" and that he "intended to state" 50,000? Really?

I was confused and really wondered what happened to that original 500 estimate, and thankfully John Macke figured it out making use of the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, and it appears that someone did some tricky shit to try to hide the original estimate -- whether it was Epstein directly or someone else at the Hoover Institution:

As Macke dug into how the original article changed over time, he found that in early April, after the original hubbub died down, Epstein (or someone else at the Hoover Institution) appeared to change the "correction" from one that admitted the original estimate was 500, to the one that claimed it was actually 5,000.

As plenty of others have pointed out, this is "beyond academic fraud":

Of course, now that those revisions have been caught and started to go viral, with little fanfare (and it appears to have happened while I was writing this post, someone quietly added a new correction to the old corrected correction (got that?):

[APRIL 21, 2020 EDITOR'S NOTE: DUE TO AN EDITING ERROR, THE CORRECTION & ADDENDUM ABOVE IS INACCURATE. IT SHOULD STATE:

That estimate is ten times greater than the 500 number I erroneously put in the initial draft of the essay, and it, too, could prove somewhat optimistic. But any possible error rate in this revised projection should be kept in perspective. The current U.S. death toll stands at 592 as of noon on March 24, 2020, out of about 47,000 cases. So my adjusted figure, however tweaked, remains both far lower, and I believe far more accurate, than the common claim that there could be a million dead in the U.S. from well over 150 million coronavirus cases before the epidemic runs its course.

WE REGRET THE ERROR AND ANY CONFUSION IT HAS CAUSED]

But again, that "editing error" was only introduce weeks later after the "correct" error message was there. What would make them go back and change an error message that was shown for two weeks and make it false? Is it possible that an editor somehow went in and changed around the correction to take it from accurate to false? Perhaps, but it still seems... quite odd.

Of course, the bigger question is why should anyone ever take Epstein's ideas on all this seriously, given his dreadful track record, and lack of expertise in this particular field?

Filed Under: covid-19, economics, epidemiology, law, rewriting history, richard epstein

Esports Milestone: Gambling On Esports Will Double To $14 Billion In 2020

from the wanna-bet? dept

We've chronicled the many milestones esports has hit on its way to becoming the mainstream cultural occurrence that it is today. From having participants gain notoriety and fame by being featured on mainstream sports publications, to universities handing out esports scholarships, to esports being broadcast on ESPN, to the major IRL sports leagues getting involved. Now, with the world enveloped in the COVID-19 pandemic, a crisis that has shut down many if not most of the world's traditional sporting leagues, esports is having something of a moment, rocketing in popularity as a result.

All of that being said, there has been one lagging indicator in the popularity rise of esports compared with its IRL counterparts: betting. You're not a big boy event until the gamblers get involved. Well, as we've seen with other indicators of esports' popularity, betting on esports is set to rise significantly as well.

Esports global gambling revenue is set to double to US$14 billion in 2020, according to new research from global consumer surveyors 2CV and market analysts ProdegeMR. The survey took responses from 1,028 gamblers aged 18 to 64 and looked at how the current climate is affecting gambling in the UK, as well as the potential role that esports could play in becoming a new revenue driver for the industry.

The research also reveals a shifting interest towards other betting properties such as esports, with 36 per cent of gamblers having made a bet on competitive gaming in the last three months. It also found that 30 per cent of consumers betting on esports have only started to do so within the last month. Moreover, 22 per cent of gamblers who have not tried betting on esports before revealed that they will consider doing so within the next three months.

Now, it is certainly true that this level of growth has been spurred on by the COVID-19 shutdown of IRL sports. Still, the trends were already in place for a rise in esports betting. And for those who regularly bet on sports, or esports, there is a certain degree of this bell not being able to be un-rung. Once gamblers fold esports into the portfolio of betting opportunities they have, it's not clear if or why they would fall back to IRL sports only once this pandemic is all over. On that note, it's the new adoption rate of betting on esports that is most illuminating in the numbers above.

And just in case you thought this was fringe operations getting into this stuff, it sure as hell isn't.

The forecast comes as the Nevada Gaming Control Board issued a notice of approval permitting sportsbooks to offer wagers on the Call of Duty League through 2020. Licensed bookmakers may offer the following wager types: head to head, match winner, and overall winner.

With the Call of Duty League moving its operations online amid the Covid-19 outbreak, the Nevada Gaming Board has deemed that the esports competition can join Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, League of Legends, Dota 2, iRacing and Overwatch League (OWL) as available markets. All of those competitions were approved by Nevada regulators during the last few weeks.

Whatever you think of esports, whatever you think of betting on sports, this is indeed a milestone of sorts. I, for one, look forward to reading the story of whatever the esports version of the Chicago Black Sox is going to be.

Filed Under: betting, covid-19, esports, gambling

New York's Governor Hands Down A Mask Mandate While The State's Anti-Mask Law Remains On The Books

from the house-divided-against-itself-can-still-disproportionately-arrest-young-black-men dept

The spread of the coronavirus throughout the nation is turning some old laws into new ridiculousness. One of the hardest hit areas in the US is New York, which has nearly 30% of the nation's total cases. This has led to lockdown orders and spread deterrent efforts more severe than seen elsewhere in the country.

One of the new mandates handed down by Governor Andrew Cuomo is a mask requirement when in public. The executive order that went into effect a few days ago says this:

Effective at 8 p.m. on Friday, April 17, 2020 any individual who is over age two and able to medically tolerate a face-covering shall be required to cover their nose and mouth with a mask or cloth face-covering when in a public place and unable to maintain, or when not maintaining, social distance.  

Sounds good and necessary, but as appellate public defender Sam Feldman points out on Twitter, this executive order conflicts with a law that's been around since the middle of the 19th century. That's going to be a problem.

If you can't read/see the tweets, Feldman says the new order does not suspend Penal Law § 240.35(4), which has been in existence since 1845. People trying to follow the executive order may find themselves engaging in criminal behavior. Here's Feldman:

As of 8pm tonight, wearing a mask in public places around other people who are also wearing masks is both forbidden and required by New York law. I'm sure the police will enforce these contradictory mandates in a completely rational & nondiscriminatory fashion.

Here's the law that's still on the books while the governor is mandating mask-wearing:

Being masked or in any manner disguised by unusual or unnatural attire or facial alteration, loiters, remains or congregates in a public place with other persons so masked or disguised, or knowingly permits or aids persons so masked or disguised to congregate in a public place;  except that such conduct is not unlawful when it occurs in connection with a masquerade party or like entertainment if, when such entertainment is held in a city which has promulgated regulations in connection with such affairs, permission is first obtained from the police or other appropriate authorities…

Perhaps the swiftest (or at least most entertaining) resolution would be for Governor Cuomo to issue an executive order declaring the entire state a "masquerade party" until the COVID-19 threats subsides. It might be the best thing for Cuomo himself, who appears to have run afoul of the law by "knowingly permitting or aiding persons so masked or disguised to congregate in a public place."

Given the law's origins, maybe it's time to take it off the books. Unlike others in the nation targeting KKK members, this one was a response to the "Anti-Rent War" in which protests by tenants culminated in a battle between anti-renters and local law enforcement. Some protesters disguised themselves as Indians, leading to the anti-mask ordinance. Rent is a pretty hot topic at the moment, what with 22 million Americans now unemployed. With planned rent strikes on the way in New York City, the new mask mandate is likely to run head on into the state's anti-mask law once law enforcement arrives on the scene.

A mask-wearing mandate coupled with an anti-mask law is selective enforcement just waiting to happen. And if it's anything like the last few hundred years of selective law enforcement, it will be minorities who pay the price for conflicting messages. We've already seen this happening elsewhere in the nation, where social distancing mandates are being enforced against minorities who throw parties but ignored when a bunch of white people decide stay-at-home orders violate their god-given right to act as attack vectors during a pandemic. Leaving it up to police officers to decide whether a person wearing a mask is a compliant citizen or a lawbreaker is going to result in a lot of blown judgment calls.

Filed Under: andrew cuomo, anti-mask law, covid-19, executive order, mask mandate, masks, new york