Hong Kong Kowtows To China Again, Turns Virtual Police State Into An Actual Police State

from the cutting-edge-advances-in-bootlicking dept

The Chinese government agreed to stay out of Hong Kong's (government) business until 2047 when it took possession of the region in 1997. It has refused to hold up its end of the bargain.

Its steady encroachment into Hong Kong's affairs has been met with increasingly intense pro-democracy protests. Realizing this wasn't going to make its eventual takeover any easier, the Chinese government increased its pressure on the local government. When that wasn't working fast enough, it started replacing legislators with handpicked pro-China representatives.

When all of that still wasn't enough to get the Hong Kong populace to bend the knee, it implemented a new national security law and imposed it on the region. Being anti-China meant being a threat to national security. Pro-democracy protesters were threatened with life sentences. Pro-democracy press outlets were hassled and their leaders arrested.

Apparently, giving Hong Kong the appearance of a police state just isn't enough. If Hong Kong is going to become China 2.0 far ahead of schedule, it needs to become an actual police state.

Hong Kong's leader Carrie Lam announced a reshuffle of her cabinet on Friday, placing two ex-cops in key cabinet positions, including the police commissioner who presided over the widespread use of violence against mostly peaceful demonstrators during the 2019 protest movement.

The ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) approved the appointment of former secretary for security, John Lee, to replace Matthew Cheung as Lam's second-in-command, while former police commissioner Chris Tang was made secretary for security, the government said in a statement on its official website.

What's left of the Hong Kong government isn't willing to fight back against China's omnipresent imposition of its will. Handing the security of the nation over to police officials who encouraged the use of violence against protesters makes it clear the Chinese government is done fucking around. I mean, it never really was. But it's done making incremental changes.

The remnants of Hong Kong's government are on the side that has the power. Insect overlords are just what the region needs.

Asked if Hong Kong had become a police state, as evidenced by the new appointments, pro-Beijing lawmaker Alice Mak dismissed journalists' concerns.

"If it’s a police state, why not? I don’t think there’s any problem with a police state," Mak said. "When we say a police state, I will view the other side, that is the emphasis on security."

The only thing experiencing any insecurity is the Chinese government, which likely viewed the region as a pushover when it took control in 1997. It probably expected pockets of resistance, but whatever plans it had in place prior to its agreement-violating putsch apparently didn't scale well enough to keep Hong Kong's population silent and compliant.

With cops heading the national security team, there's nothing holding the police back. The national security law greatly expanded law enforcement's powers. Jackbootstrapping the government's national security oversight ensures officers will never have to fear reprisal for their actions, pushback for overstepping whatever boundaries remain, or any judicial roadblocks slowing them down as they inflict China's worst aspects on their fellow countrymen.

Filed Under: carrie lam, china, democracy, hong kong, national security law

DRM Strikes Again: Ubisoft Makes Its Own Game Unplayable By Shutting Down DRM Server

from the legit-screwed dept

It's not exactly a secret that we've been very anti-DRM here at Techdirt for some time. It's honestly perplexing how anyone can be otherwise. DRM has shown time after time to be of almost no hindrance whatsoever for those seeking to pirate video games, but has done an excellent job of hindering those who actually bought the game in playing what they've bought. Ubisoft, in particular, has had issues with this over the years, with DRM servers failing and preventing customers from playing games that can no longer ping the DRM server.

And while those instances involved unforeseen downtime or migrations impacting customers' ability to play their games, this time it turns out that Ubisoft simply stopped supporting the DRM server for Might and Magic X-Legacy. And now basically everyone is screwed.

Last month, Ubisoft decided to end online support for a bunch of older games, but in doing so also brought down the DRM servers for Might and Magic X - Legacy, meaning players couldn’t access the game’s single-player content or DLC.

As Eurogamer reports, fans were not happy, having to cobble together an unofficial workaround to be able to continue playing past a certain point in the single-player. But instead of Ubisoft taking the intervening weeks to release something official to fix this, or reversing their original move to shut down the game’s DRM servers, they’ve decided to do something else.

They have simply removed the game for sale on Steam.

This, of course, does nothing for the people who already bought the game and now suddenly cannot progress through it completely, as all the DLC is non-functional. They can play the game up until a point, but then it just doesn't work.

There are multiple bad actions on Ubisoft's part here. First, using DRM like this is a terrible idea with almost no good consequences. But once it's in use, you would think it would be the obligation of the company to ensure any changes it makes on its end don't suddenly render purchases made by its customers unplayable. In other words, rather than ending support for a DRM server that nixes parts of a paid-for game, the company could have rolled out patches to remove the DRM completely so that none of this happened. After all, with the game no longer even available as a new purchase, what would be the harm in removing the DRM? And, of course, there's the total lack of communication to Ubisoft customers about basically all of this.

Which is what has people so understandably pissed.

Players are now understandably pissed, taking to the game’s Steam reviews to leave messages like:

“Doesn’t work anymore. Ubisoft refuses to fix the game. Pathetic.”

“Ubisoft took my money then shut it down.”

“This is theft, and if Steam and the relevant governments are fine about it, it’s legal theft. I will never purchase anything from Ubisoft anymore on principle, even if they decide to try and do something about this mess.”

All because Ubisoft just cannot imagine a world where the DRM its using could just go away, leading to happier paying customers.

Filed Under: copyright, dlc, drm, might and magic x-legacy, ownership
Companies: ubisoft

Judge Blocks FBI From Moving Forward With Forfeitures Of Property Seized In US Private Vaults Raid

from the get-your-shit-together,-g-men dept

Earlier this year, the FBI raided a privately owned safety deposit box business in Los Angeles. The business provided secure storage for customers' valuables, which were only accessible via biometric scans. The DOJ accused the company of engaging in drug trafficking and money laundering, but has yet to bring charges against any of the company's employees or its customers.

The FBI obtained a search warrant that limited agents to seizing items belonging to the company but, very expressly, not items belonging to customers. This restriction -- and the FBI's own inventory policy -- was ignored. Over the course of five days, FBI agents searched and seized the contents of nearly 1,000 boxes.

The warrant said the FBI would understandably take temporary possession of the boxes. But it forbade them from searching them for criminal evidence. The FBI's policy limited its inventory of the boxes' contents to doing only what was necessary to find information about the property's owner so they could be notified and allowed to retrieve their contents.

This didn't happen. The FBI walked away with millions of dollars and -- months after the seizures -- has yet to accuse any customer of criminal activity. Several customers sued. And a federal judge has just blocked the FBI from taking possession (via civil asset forfeiture) of some of the property seized in the raid.

In a 7-page ruling Tuesday, [Judge R. Gary] Klausner sided with plaintiffs and granted the temporary restraining order preventing the government from forfeiting Jeni, Michael, Joseph and Travis’ property.

To satisfy due process, the government must provide property owners notice of the statutes buttressing forfeiture proceedings, the ruling said, adding that the notices sent to plaintiffs failed to do so.

“The notices therefore fall woefully short of the government’s duty to provide ‘the specific statutory provision allegedly violated,’” Klausner wrote in the order.

As the judge's order [PDF] points out, the law requires specificity when notifying citizens of the government's desire to forcibly transfer ownership. The notices sent by the FBI weren't specific.

Rather than list the specific statutory provisions the Government maintains justify forfeiture of the specific property seized from each USPV box, the Government notices state:

Forfeiture Authority: The forfeiture of this property has been initiated pursuant to 18 USC 981(a)(1)(C) [sic.] and the following additional federal laws: 19 USC 1602-1619, 18 USC 983 and 28 CFR Parts 8 and 9.

The list of purported statutory bases for forfeiture is anything but specific. Title 18 USC 981(a)(1)(C) lists thirty-five sections of the United States Code. A violation of any one of those code provisions can provide a basis for forfeiture… These include code sections outlawing influencing a loan officer, forgery, counterfeiting, uttering counterfeit obligations, smuggling, loan fraud, computer fraud, and bank fraud, among others.

No specificity, no seizure. The FBI is blocked from moving forward with forfeiture belonging to the four plaintiffs until it can provide them with the proper notice -- one that specifies what criminal activity the government believes the seized property is linked to or the result of.

Given the total of the take from US Private Vaults raid, I would expect the government to give up this property rather than head into some litigation that may result in similar lawsuits or court orders affecting the dispensation of other seizures/searches that haven't been challenged yet. This could have been avoided if the government had followed its own warrant restrictions, its own internal policies, and the contours of the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, civil asset forfeiture, civil asset seizure, doj, fbi, safety deposit box, seizure

Even Elon Musk Makes It Clear Starlink Could Have Limited Impact, May Not Be Financially Viable

from the subsidize-me-please dept

When even Elon Musk is reining in expectations and speaking carefully about one of his products, you know you probably shouldn't get too excited.

We've noted how Musk's Starlink satellite broadband venture will certainly help a few people out of the reach of broadband options, but isn't going to meaningfully disrupt telecom. Limited capacity means Starlink will be able to provide broadband service to somewhere between 400,00 and 800,000 subscribers, in a country where up to 42 million Americans lack access to broadband, 83 million live under a broadband monopoly, and tens of millions more live under a duopoly. In short, Starlink will "fix" US broadband much like a squirt gun will kill an elephant.

Musk clearly knows that Starlink's reach doesn't meet the usual hype surrounding the billionaire's products, so he continues to be more candid and honest when talking about Starlink versus many of his other abundantly hyped projects. Like during his onscreen talk at Mobile World Congress (MWC) in Barcelona, where he once again tempered enthusiasm about Starlink's real-world impact:

"You can think of Starlink as filling in the gaps between 5G and fiber, and really getting into parts of the world that are hardest to reach,” he told interviewer Justin Springham, publisher of Mobile World Live, in a keynote Tuesday at the wireless industry trade show. As in, the last "3%, maybe 5%."

Musk also made it clear that the low orbit satellite broadband business is littered by failures, something he'd like to avoid:

"Every other low earth orbit constellation ever done has gone bankrupt,” Musk said early in the half-hour talk, citing such past collapses as Iridium. “Step number one for Starlink is don’t go bankrupt."

At the same speech Musk noted he's currently selling his "Dishy" terminals to users for around $500 despite costing $1000 to make. Other outlets, like Reuters, were even more pointed about the chance of Starlink success given it lacks the capacity to really obtain any real scale:

"Starlink would need a few million subscribers paying about $99 a month each to recoup a $5 billion investment in a year's time, said analyst Tim Farrar, president of TMF Associates.

A $30 billion investment over a decade would not require a dramatic rise in subscribers, but to achieve Musk's 2020 projection of roughly $30 billion revenue a year would require tens of millions of subscribers, he said.

But even the most rosily optimistic projections I've seen, which assume a full fleet of 42,000 satellites capable of offering 60 Gbit/s each many years from now, tops out at around 6 million max subscribers. So in other words there's a very real potential that Starlink not only doesn't really make much of a dent in the US broadband problem, but can't get anywhere close to financial viability anytime soon.

So the question then becomes, why bother? And the answer is because much like his heavily-ridiculed Las Vegas space tunnel, he's using potentially doomed side projects to nab government subsidies to finance his space ambitions. The FCC recently came under fire for giving the planet's second-wealthiest human being $883 million to deliver satellite broadband to a handful of traffic medians and already served airports. Instead of funding future-proof fiber, the FCC has been criticized for throwing money at a man who doesn't need it, to finance a project that may not even be around a few years from now.

To be clear, Starlink, if it survives, can genuinely help Americans out of the reach of traditional options. But keep in mind with a $600 first month cost ($500 for hardware, $100 a month) it's not exactly helping those who can't afford broadband. And with only 300,000 to 800,000 initial slots, those who really need the service will have to battle with Musk fanboys who already have decent options, but just want to be early adopters due to the Musk brand. In short there's an awful lot that can go very wrong here, and even the most optimistic projections for the venture aren't particularly productive or disruptive.

Filed Under: broadband, capacity, competition, elon musk, satellite, starlink
Companies: spacex

Supreme Court Rejects Another Questionable Qualified Immunity Decision By An Appeals Court

from the SCOTUS-plays-another-round-of-QI-hot-potato dept

The Supreme Court appears to be continuing to make amends for the mess it's made of qualified immunity over the years. Having tilted the playing field so far in favor of law enforcement even appeals court judges started making audible noise about the injustices encouraged by this doctrine, the Supreme Court seems to be trying to make things a bit more level.

Within the past eight months, the nation's top court has reversed two cases in which qualified immunity was granted to law enforcement officers. Both cases came from the Fifth Circuit -- the circuit that most often finds in favor of officers in civil rights lawsuits.

Its most recent reversal adds the Eighth Circuit to the list of appellate courts the slightly-more-woke Supreme Court has asked to reconsider a qualified immunity decision. (h/t Mark Joseph Stern)

Like the two decisions sent back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, this reversal comes from the Supreme Court's "shadow" docket. No separate opinion was released. Instead, the short reversal is contained in court's most recent disposition list, which is mostly made up of cases granted or denied an opportunity to be heard by the nation's top court.

The case deals with six St. Louis police officers who killed a man they had just arrested by pinning him in a prone position while he was already shackled. Nicholas Gilbert was arrested for trespassing and for failing to appear in court for an outstanding traffic ticket. While in the holding cell, Gilbert began behaving erratically. One officer claimed to see Gilbert trying to craft a makeshift noose out of an article of clothing.

Three officers entered the cell and attempted to restrain Gilbert. The combative Gilbert tried to kick the cops but ended up doing nothing more than injuring his own head on the concrete bench. The struggle continued and more officers entered. A couple of officers left, claiming they felt winded from the struggle.

Shortly after this, officers managed to cuff Gilbert and shackle his legs. They placed him in a prone position and three officers put their weight on Gilbert's 5'3" 160-pound body. Eventually Gilbert stopped struggling because he was dying. This is from the Eighth Circuit's affirmation of the district court's decision in favor of the officers.

After fifteen minutes of struggle in the prone position, Gilbert stopped resisting and the officers rolled him from his stomach onto his side. By this point, each of the named officers had participated in the effort to physically control Gilbert.

At some point while in the prone position, Gilbert had stopped breathing. Officer Mack rolled Gilbert onto his back and initially found a pulse in his neck but eventually was unable to find one. Gilbert was transported to the hospital where he was pronounced dead.

The Eighth Circuit Court said there was no excessive force and qualified immunity was granted to all officers involved.

The Supreme Court [PDF] says this is the wrong conclusion. And its depiction of the events is a bit more disturbing than the summary written by the Appeals Court, which doesn't include this part:

The officers moved Gilbert to a prone position, face down on the floor. Three officers held Gilbert’s limbs down at the shoulders, biceps, and legs. At least one other placed pressure on Gilbert’s back and torso. Gilbert tried to raise his chest, saying, “‘It hurts. Stop.’”

The Supreme Court says the Appeals Court was too hasty and overlooked too many details when coming to the conclusion the force used in this case wasn't excessive.

Although the Eighth Circuit cited the Kingsley factors, it is unclear whether the court thought the use of a prone restraint—no matter the kind, intensity, duration, or surrounding circumstances—is per se constitutional so long as an individual appears to resist officers’ efforts to subdue him. The court cited Circuit precedent for the proposition that “the use of prone restraint is not objectively unreasonable when a detainee actively resists officer directives and efforts to subdue the detainee.” 956 F. 3d, at 1013. The court went on to describe as “insignificant” facts that may distinguish that precedent and appear potentially important under Kingsley, including that Gilbert was already handcuffed and leg shackled when officers moved him to the prone position and that officers kept him in that position for 15 minutes.

The Appeals Court could only reach this conclusion by deciding important facts were actually "insignificant." To the contrary, says the Supreme Court. These facts are, in fact, very significant.

Such details could matter when deciding whether to grant summary judgment on an excessive force claim. Here, for example, record evidence (viewed in the light most favorable to Gilbert’s parents) shows that officers placed pressure on Gilbert’s back even though St. Louis instructs its officers that pressing down on the back of a prone subject can cause suffocation. The evidentiary record also includes well-known police guidance recommending that officers get a subject off his stomach as soon as he is handcuffed because of that risk. The guidance further indicates that the struggles of a prone suspect may be due to oxygen deficiency, rather than a desire to disobey officers’ commands. Such evidence, when considered alongside the duration of the restraint and the fact that Gilbert was handcuffed and leg shackled at the time, may be pertinent to the relationship between the need for the use of force and the amount of force used, the security problem at issue, and the threat—to both Gilbert and others—reasonably perceived by the officers. Having either failed to analyze such evidence or characterized it as insignificant, the court’s opinion could be read to treat Gilbert’s “ongoing resistance” as controlling as a matter of law. Such a per se rule would contravene the careful, context-specific analysis required by this Court’s excessive force precedent

The Supreme Court says it has no opinion to offer on the constitutionality of the force used in this case. But it does say the current decision can't stand. The Appeals Court needs to examine the facts more closely, rather than simply decide some crucial facts aren't worth paying attention to.

Filed Under: eighth circuit, nicholas gilbert, qualified immunity, supreme court

Facebook Is Banning Anyone Charged With Participating In Capitol Hill Insurrection

from the really? dept

Mark Gray spotted an interesting tidbit buried in a Washington Post story about online activism among Trumpist supporters. Most of the story is the usual stuff about how propagandists are finding each other and organizing movements online. There is some of the usual hand-wringing that is standard in these stories about how social media is "enabling" this kind of activity, though it also notes that users very quickly migrated to other welcoming sites (and, also, how they've figured out ways to sneak back onto the bigger platforms):

The mainstream tech companies‘ crackdown on Trump and his followers helped splinter that vast network, researchers have found, without fundamentally weakening it. Influencers kicked off Facebook or Instagram ported followers to the lightly-policed app Telegram or right-wing YouTube rival Rumble, but they’ve also found ways to get back on the mainstream platforms by creating new accounts or using alternate language to avoid detection.

But later, the article claims that Facebook has a policy to shut down any account of anyone charged in the January 6th insurrection:

Alan Hostetter, a former local police chief and yoga teacher as well as a speaker at the June rally attended by The Post, was indicted on a charge of his alleged role in the insurrection June 10. Shortly after, he went back on Facebook Live, YouTube, Spotify, Rumble and several other services, filming himself walking on the beach in San Clemente in a “Free Man" baseball cap. He decried the Jan. 6 riot as a “false flag staged event” and a “fakesurrection” because he believed infiltrators were in the crowd.

[....]

Within hours, his accounts were banned on Facebook and Instagram. Facebook says that it does not allow people charged in the insurrection on the platform and that it may fact-check claims that the riot was staged. Spotify and YouTube removed the videos a week later.

That part I've bolded is news to me -- and quite interesting. We've talked somewhat about how off-platform activities are increasingly coming under scrutiny by platforms in their content moderation/trust and safety efforts, but this is the first I've heard of any platform (let alone Facebook) having a blanket policy of refusing to allow those charged in the January 6th attack from using their platform.

At the very least, this does raise some questions. Since it's just based on charging, and not on conviction, what happens if the charges are dropped or the person is acquitted? That may be unlikely with many (if not all) of the January 6th folks, but it does raise some questions. And is the ban permanent? So far, the initial January 6th cases, against those who didn't seem to do that much once in the Capitol, have involved relatively mild sanctions. Will that also include a lifetime ban from Facebook? Should it?

Obviously, Facebook is free to moderate how it wants, and I think this will be interesting to follow over time. Will there be other situations in which being charged with a crime leads to your removal from Facebook? The Supreme Court weighed in on this issue in the Packingham case, that you can't have a law that requires the loss of internet service in response to a crime, but that only applies to laws. Facebook still has the freedom to refuse service to anyone it chooses.

At the very least, it will be interesting to watch how this kind of policy -- regarding off platform activities -- evolves on Facebook and other social networks.

Filed Under: banning, charges, content moderation, insurrection, january 6th
Companies: facebook

Daily Deal: Apple AirPods Pro

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

The AirPods Pro are designed to deliver Active Noise Cancellation (ANC) for immersive sound, with transparency mode so you can hear your surroundings and a customizable fit for all-day comfort. These earphones have force sensors on the stem making it easy to control music and calls as well as switch between ANC and Transparency mode. You can also read your messages through your AirPods with Siri, and even share an audio stream on two sets of AirPods connected to the same device! Enjoy all of these perks and more for up to 5 hours and 24 additional hours with the included Wireless Charging Case. They're on sale for $230.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

Law Enforcement Officer Openly Admits He's Playing Copyrighted Music To Prevent Citizen's Recording From Being Uploaded To YouTube

from the [sad-trombone-copped-from-public-domain] dept

Law enforcement officers are no longer pretending they're such big fans of recorded music they can't help but start playing their favorite tracks while interacting with citizens who are recording them.

Earlier this year, police accountability activists noticed a new trend: officers were playing tracks by IP big hitters like Taylor Swift and the Beatles when being filmed, apparently in hopes of triggering copyright strikes that would prevent the videos from being uploaded, if not shut down these activists' accounts completely.

The officers never admitted this was the reason for the spontaneous tune playing. At least not until now. Sergeant D. Shelby of the Alameda County (CA) Sheriff's Department started playing a track by Taylor Swift while being recorded by members of the Anti Police-Terror Project. And he admitted this was exactly why he was playing this track.

Here's a description of what can be observed in the embedded video below, courtesy of Zoe Schiffer and Adi Robertson of The Verge.

A confrontation Tuesday between a police sergeant and member of the public didn’t start out unusually. James Burch, policy director of the Anti Police-Terror Project (APTP), was standing outside the Alameda Courthouse in Oakland, California when an officer approached him and asked him to move a banner. As the two argued, the sergeant noticed he was being filmed. Then, he pulled out his phone and started playing “Blank Space” by Taylor Swift — in an apparent play to exploit copyright takedowns and keep the video off social media.

Here's the recording:

As you can see, this doesn't always work. The video -- with Taylor Swift's song audible in the background -- is still live on YouTube. That this one snuck past the copyright protection algorithms isn't necessarily a sign the system being reverse-engineered by cops scared of accountability doesn't work. It probably does. But YouTube has gotten a little better at handling DMCA takedown requests and has made some efforts to respect fair use of copyrighted material.

But if sixty-percent of the time it works every time, it will be enough for garbage law enforcement officers like Sergeant Shelby. This is an officer who confidently told activists the sole reason he was playing music was to keep the public from witnessing his encounter with police accountability activists.

Unfortunately for Sergeant Shelby, none of this worked. Not only did the video make its way to YouTube intact, he's now under investigation for being a fuckhead (paraphrasing here).

An Alameda County sheriff's sergeant who played Taylor Swift on the courthouse steps in Oakland will be investigated by higher-ups because it appears as though he was trying to avoid having his interactions recorded and uploaded to social media platforms.

Sgt. Ray Kelly, a department spokesman, said the actions of the sergeant, identified on the video as Sgt. Shelby, "is not something we condone or approve. We have a code of conduct all officers must follow," adding that the matter will be sent to Internal Affairs.

According to Ray Kelly, the sergeant was also instructed to stop doing this while being filmed. We'll see if that works. It seems the best way to keep Sgt. Shelby from doing this again would be to can him and let him see if his zero personal accountability attitude will fly in the private sector. At the very least, the department should give him an unpaid vacation and a demotion. He knew what he was doing and he was so sure it would work that he said it out loud while on camera.

Filed Under: accountability, alameda, alameda sheriff's department, copyright, filming police, police

Federal Watchdog Finds Lots Of Facial Recognition Use By Gov't Agencies, Very Little Internal Oversight

from the getting-a-real-'Wild-West'-vibe-from-this dept

Facial recognition tech remains controversial, given its tendency to produce false positives and send cops after the wrong people. Private companies offering even sketchier tech than what's already in use (looking at you, Clearview) have made everything worse.

The upside is this state of affairs has prompted at least one federal government oversight entity to do some actual oversight. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released its report [PDF] on federal agencies' use of facial recognition tech and it contains a couple of surprises and, unfortunately, several of the expected disappointments. (via the Washington Post)

For instance, while we expect law enforcement agencies like the FBI, DEA, ATF, and TSA to use facial recognition tech, the report notes that a total of 20 agencies own or use the tech. That list also includes some unexpected agencies, like the IRS, US Postal Service, the FDA, and NASA.

There's also a surprising number of Clearview users among federal agencies, which seems unwise given the company's history for being sued, investigated, exposed as dishonest, and just kind of terrible in every way. Of the 20 agencies that admitted using this tech, ten have used or have contracts with Clearview, outpacing other third-party offerings by a 2-to-1 margin.

What are these agencies using this tech for? Mainly criminal investigations.

According to the FBI, the system has been used for investigations of violent crimes, credit card and identity fraud, missing persons, and bank robberies, among others. The Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Biometric Identity Management offers a similar service to its partners (e.g., U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement). Specifically, the agency’s Automated Biometric Identification System can be used to search a photo of an unknown individual and provide potential matches (i.e., generate leads) to support criminal investigations. Federal agencies also reported using state, local, and non-government systems to support criminal investigations.

This includes people who may have committed criminal acts during last summer's nationwide anti-police violence protests. One of the agencies on this list is the US Postal Inspection Service, which used Clearview to identify suspects who damaged USPS property or stole mail. The US Capitol Police also used Clearview to "generate leads" following the January 6th attack on the US Capitol.

That's what's known. There's a lot that's unknown, thanks to federal agencies apparently not caring who's doing what with whatever facial recognition tech they have access to.

Thirteen federal agencies do not have awareness of what non-federal systems with facial recognition technology are used by employees. These agencies have therefore not fully assessed the potential risks of using these systems, such as risks related to privacy and accuracy. Most federal agencies that reported using non-federal systems did not own systems. Thus, employees were relying on systems owned by other entities, including non-federal entities, to support their operations.

Yay! Your federal tax dollars at work putting citizens at risk of being misidentified right into holding cells or deportation or whatever. The less you know, I guess. Some agencies had to "poll" employees to figure out how often this tech had been used, something that relies on honest self-reporting for accuracy. Literally any other system would provide better data, including the old standby "making some shit up."

Then there's mind-boggling stuff like this:

Officials from another agency initially told us that its employees did not use non-federal systems; however, after conducting a poll, the agency learned that its employees had used a non-federal system to conduct more than 1,000 facial recognition searches.

The line between "we don't do this" and "we do this pretty much nonstop" is finer than I thought.

The CBP, which has used this tech for years, says it's still "in the process of implementing a mechanism to track" use of non-federal facial recognition systems for employees. So far, the CBP has come up with nothing better than hanging up a couple of clipboards.

According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, in November 2020 they were in the process of developing a list of approved facial recognition technologies that employees can use. In addition, log-in sheets will be made available to employees, allowing supervisors to monitor employee use of the technologies.

Behold the awesome power of the CBP, utilizing its billions in budget to send someone to Office Depot with a $20 bill and telling them to bring back change and a receipt.

In addition to being careless and cavalier about the use and deployment of unproven tech, the sullen shrugs of these thirteen government agencies are also possibly admissions of criminal activity.

When agencies use facial recognition technology without first assessing the privacy implications and applicability of privacy requirements, there is a risk that they will not adhere to privacy-related laws, regulations, and policies. There is also a risk that non-federal system owners will share sensitive information (e.g. photo of a suspect) about an ongoing investigation with the public or others.

The GAO closes its depressing report with 26 recommendations -- thirteen of them being "start tracking this stuff, you dolts." The second -- which makes two recommendations per failing federal agency -- is to assess the risks of the tech, including possible violations of privacy laws and the negative side effects of these systems misidentifying people.

There's no good news in this report. Agencies are using unproven, sometimes completely unvetted tech without internal or external oversight. They've rolled out these programs well ahead of required Privacy Impact Assessments or internal tracking/reporting measures in place. The only pleasant surprise is that this hasn't resulted in more false arrests and detainments. But that definitely can't be attributed to the care and diligence of agencies using this tech because the GAO really wasn't able to find much evidence of that. But this does put the issue on the radar of Congress members who haven't been paying much attention to this tech's drift towards ubiquity.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, accountability, facial recognition, federal government, gao, oversight, surveillance

Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the raised-voices dept

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side Bloof making a point that really shouldn't need to be made anymore but apparently always does:

The first amendment does not guarantee you access to other people's property so you can access to the largest available audience. If you want access to a platform, obey the terms of service you agreed to when you signed up. It's not hard, millions of us have done so since these platforms were in their infancy without issue.

'Conservative beliefs' are not a 'get out of consequences free' card. You guys love telling others 'If you can't do the time, don't do the crime', well, maybe you should think about that next time you post things you know violate rules you chose to accept.

In second place, it's an anonymous commenter with a suggested resolution for the standoff between newspapers and Google:

Google is missing an amazing business opportunity.

Here's the proposal:

1. Google will pay the Newspapers 10% of the revenue they get from news.google.com.
2. The newspapers pay Google 10% of the ad revenue from the pageviews sent to them by Google News.

At the end of each month, tally up the numbers, and see who gets the Free Parking money.

For editor's choice on the insightful side, we've got a pair of comments from our post about Florida's insane social media law. First, it's James Burkhardt expanding on the relationship between platforms and users:

Contracts require that each side is giving up something of value. Social media gives you access to their property. That is the 'consideration' they bring. Analogous Physical situations (museums, theme parks) explicitly understand that access can be revoked on the discretion of the property owner or their representative. The best compensation you could get is your consideration back. Normally that is money.

You don't pay facebook money. But at best the 'consideration' you provide is your content. Banning you involves stripping that content out of their site. If fact, that is the goal.

This gets right back to the point you were responding to. Either you aren't providing consideration, and therefore you can't rely on a contract, or your consideration, your thing of value, is your content. And if that consideration in the opinion of the property holder does not have value, or has negative value, they have a right to remove you to protect the value of the property. This is well adjudicated in the courts.

This is why free speech has long been the point of argument. You need a wedge to drive through long standing judicially recognized property rights and force new contract terms into the contract. Conservatives have been convinced free speech is that wedge as it was in the past for bigotted speech on TV, radio, and print. That you aren't even that far into the logic tells me how surface level your understanding of everything is.

Next, it's an anonymous challenge for the governor:

I would love DeSantis to give one example where a twitter ban meant that the person banned could no longer speak freely "throughout society."

Let's take Trump as an example, after being banned from most all social media, he is still able to publish his own blog site, can still have rallies, and whenever he wants, he can call up fox news and be heard by millions.

Explain to me how he is "silence[d] both on their platforms and throughout society."

Over on the funny side, both our winners come in response to our post about Trump allegedly demanding Parler kick off his critics before he would use the platform. In first place, it's Stephen T. Stone musing about possibilities:

Right-wing social media has too much of an anti-liberal bias. Surely there must be some law we can enact to take care of this issue. An equality declaration of some sort, a doctrine dedicated to allowing the fair and equitable expression of opposing ideas, could handle that.

…or we could all come to our fucking senses and laugh at Trump for being such a basic bitch that he can’t handle even the mildest criticism of his bullshit.

In second place, it's Greg Glockner with a quick quip:

Silly Techdirt, freedom of speech only applies to my speech, not the other guy. #sarcasm

For editor's choice on the funny side, we start out with a comment from Bloof about the oh-so-awful political tragedy of courts shutting down Florida's law:

They'll be MARXIST, LENINIST LEFT WING ACTIVIST JUDGES.. Chosen by Conservative pressure groups and appointed by known liberals George Bush, George W. Bush and Donald Trump.

Last but not least, it's Norahc with a comment on our post about the 2nd Circuit upholding sanctions against Richard Liebowitz:

Righthaven: We're the best copyright trolls ever.

Prenda: You're not even in the big leagues yet.

Liebowitz: Hold my beer.

That's all for this week, folks!