Attorney General To Law Enforcement Critics: Good Luck Getting A Cop When You Need One

from the pulling-the-veil-off-the-threats dept

Attorney General Barr to America: Fuck you, you ungrateful bastards. You're on your own.

Attorney General Bill Barr suggested in a speech Tuesday night that continued police protection for certain “communities” in the United States could ultimately depend on those communities showing more “respect and support” for law enforcement.

More specifically, vis-a-vis the general public being invited to go fuck itself:

“I think today, American people have to focus on something else, which is the sacrifice and the service that is given by our law enforcement officers,” Barr told the crowd. “And they have to start showing, more than they do, the respect and support that law enforcement deserves―and if communities don’t give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need.”

There are a few ways to read the AG's comments. We're welcome to any one of them because neither the AG nor the DOJ has offered any clarifying comments on Barr's comments, which read like a veiled threat to communities that don't show the proper amount of respect.

The very most charitable way to read this statement by Barr still does no favors to cops. Elliot Hannon of Slate suggests it might link back to comments Bill Barr has made about America's least popular war.

A more benign interpretation of Barr’s comments is: If police are vilified, it is harder to get people to do police work, which, in turn, could make it difficult―or even impossible―to perform the vital functions of law enforcement anywhere. Hence, communities could end up with inadequate policing services. Barr’s reference during his speech―and in previous remarks―to how soldiers were treated returning home from the Vietnam War suggests this reading. “In the Vietnam era, our country learned a lesson. I remember that our brave troops who served in that conflict weren’t treated very well in many cases when they came home, and sometimes they bore the brunt of people who were opposed to the war,” he said. “The respect and gratitude owed to them was not given. And it took decades for the American people finally to realize that.”

Even if we are to assume this "benign" interpretation is more aligned with Barr's meaning than the less charitable (but possibly more accurate) interpretations we'll soon be delving into, this is Barr equating domestic law enforcement officers with soldiers returning from a war. It's an interpretation that buys into the self-delusion so common to law enforcement today. Rather than recognize they're public servants there to protect and serve the public, they've decided they're soldiers in a war zone surrounded by enemies. This should be an awkward position. Somehow it isn't. The people cops consider enemies are the same ones making sure their paychecks clear.

That's the most charitable reading: that cops are vets of the New Vietnam -- persecuted by the uncomprehending masses who churlishly refuse to be grateful for all the freedom secured by law enforcement blood.

Here are the more awful alternatives, in descending order of awfulness.

Option 1: Barr is suggesting cops will engage in "work slowdown" if they're not properly appreciated for the work they do. As community pressure to improve relations increases, cops will respond by doing less enforcement. If the line between regular cop business and the sort of shit that might result in discipline is no longer afforded the level of ambiguity cops have become accustomed to, they'll walk away from anything that might reflect badly on them should they choose to intervene in the manner they've become accustomed to.

This translation of Barr's remarks makes cops look like criminals of opportunity. (And they make Barr look like a union boss.) When the going gets tough, the self-appointed toughs get slacking. When public opinion and a lack of oversight favors applications of excessive force and routine rights violations, cops are willing to work. When they don't, cops won't.

The worst interpretation of Barr's comments is this: cops are a criminal organization running a protection racket. If citizens aren't willing to cough up enough respect, cops will no longer act as protectors. It's pretty close to the interpretation directly above this. The difference, though, is this: the relationship between cops and the people they're supposed to serve is not one of mutual respect. It's a one way street "guarded" by extortionists.

This may be what Barr is implying. It's not surprising he won't own up to it if it is. These comments were given to law enforcement members gathered to receive service awards. The choir got what it came for: an affirmation of their elevation above the people they serve, no matter which interpretation of Barr's comments you select.

This is dangerous stuff. This isn't just Barr big-upping his fellow cops. This is Barr telling cops they're more equal than the people who employ them. This is Barr saying cops are heroes even when so many are undeserving of this title. This is ugly and it's going to make what's already a problem even worse. Law enforcement officers have spent decades cultivating an "us vs. them" attitude that has nothing to do with cops and robbers, and everything to do with separating themselves further from anyone who could hold them accountable for their actions. Barr has affirmed their "rightness" and he's demonstrated he'll back the blue, no matter how much damage it does to the communities these officers serve.

Filed Under: doj, police, respect, william barr

DOJ Wimps Out On Wireless Sector eSIM Antitrust Investigation

from the what-collusion? dept

Last year, the DOJ announced it had launched an investigation into whether AT&T, Verizon and a telecommunications standards organization had conspired to make it harder for consumers to switch mobile carriers. At the heart of the controversy was eSIM, a technology that's supposed to make it easier than ever to switch carriers without consumers needing to buy and install a new SIM card. With eSIM, user identification technology of a traditional SIM card is instead transferred to the device's processor or modem itself. Ideally, that could let a consumer switch carriers within just a few seconds.

But given AT&T and Verizon had already been losing subscribers hand over fist to smaller competitors like T-Mobile, they had a vested interest in ensuring this technology never fully materialized. As a result, they leveraged their influence over the GSM Association (GSMA) -- a trade association for mobile network operators -- to hamstring the technology's rise. By and large this was done by ensuring the inclusion of bizarre and arbitrary restrictions and bureaucracies the DOJ found served no technical purpose outside of slowing the actual implementation of the tech and locking users to one carrier.

Just before Thanksgiving the DOJ quietly did a news dump announcing the completion of its two year investigation into the sector collusion, and it's not particularly impressive. According to the DOJ announcement, the investigation has ended with no punishment or penalty of any kind. Why? The industry effectively pinky swore to the DOJ that it would try to do better in the future:

"The Antitrust Division’s investigation revealed that, in recent years, the GSMA used its industry influence to steer the design of eSIMs technology in mobile devices. In response to the investigation, the GSMA has drafted new standard-setting procedures that will incorporate more input from non-operator members of the mobile communications industry. The new standard-setting process will have a greater likelihood of creating procompetitive benefits for consumers of mobile devices; it will also curb the ability of mobile network operators to use the GSMA standard as a way to avoid new forms of disruptive competition that the embedded SIMs (eSIMs) technology may unleash."

Granted, just because the industry organization created voluntary standards doesn't mean anybody will actually adhere to them. But that was enough for the Trump DOJ, which will end the inquiry without actually doing much of anything to, you know, actually stop the behavior or punish sector giants for past misdeeds. Did I mention that the DOJ is now run by a former Verizon lawyer?

Recall, the antitrust investigation began because Apple and one wireless carrier (likely T-Mobile or Sprint) filed formal complaints with the Justice Department, saying AT&T and Verizon were abusing the standards process to hamstring competition and innovation. Apple was excited about eSIM because the elimination of a physical SIM card would free up design space for additional features and improve the customer experience. Smaller carriers like it because it would technically make it a snap to change carriers. AT&T and Verizon did everything in their power to hamper the effort.

Ultimately the GSMA, AT&T and Verizon pinky swore they'd play nice going forward, which is effectively a worthless promise. While a big deal, this is just one of countless offenses AT&T and Verizon have engaged in over the years to ensure that the industry remains less competitive than advertised, leading to US wireless prices being some of the highest in the developed world. And just like those past offenses, the US government is, by and large, generally ok with that.

Filed Under: antitrust, competition, doj, esim, mobile carriers
Companies: apple, at&t, verizon

Attorney General Calls FOIA Requests 'Harassment' During Long Rant About How Much It Sucks To Be Running The Nation

from the sit-your-whiny-ass-down dept

I've never seen a Presidential administration so thoroughly pissed off it's in power. Despite having his boy in the White House and a Senate majority, the DOJ's top man spent most of a memorial lecture complaining about how hard it is to be in charge.

Attorney General William Barr's main complaint -- which runs for a majority of his speech to the Federalist Society -- is that the Executive Branch just doesn't have enough power. Barr believes one part of the co-equal government should be more equal than the others.

The most telling moment is this: Barr believes things began to go downhill for the Executive Branch during an administration that made the best case for limiting Presidential power.

I am concerned that the deck has become stacked against the Executive. Since the mid-60s, there has been a steady grinding down of the Executive branch’s authority, that accelerated after Watergate. More and more, the President’s ability to act in areas in which he has discretion has become smothered by the encroachments of the other branches.

Using a president that resigned on the verge of impeachment as an example of the "weakening" of the Executive Branch may be timely, but it's also amazingly tone deaf. A person who provided a clear example of how dangerous an unchecked Executive could be really shouldn't be touted in mid-bemoanment of the current state of affairs… unless you're arguing for fewer checks and balances, which is what Barr is doing.

Barr also conveniently glosses over the expansion of the Executive Branch's powers following the 9/11 attacks. It also glosses over Barr's unilateral expansion of the DOJ's powers under his leadership back in 1992. His complaints aren't backed by facts. They're only backed by Barr's bitterness, which is aimed at Congressional leaders, who are investigating the President, and at the nation's courts, which have shot down a few of the president's immigration edicts.

But it goes further than an angry man shaking his fist at checks and balances. Barr also takes a shot at the Freedom of Information Act -- yet another way the Executive Branch is somehow being screwed. The most powerful executive branch in the world is being "harassed" by citizens.

The costs of this constant harassment are real. For example, we all understand that confidential communications and a private, internal deliberative process are essential for all of our branches of government to properly function. Congress and the Judiciary know this well, as both have taken great pains to shield their own internal communications from public inspection. There is no FOIA for Congress or the Courts. Yet Congress has happily created a regime that allows the public to seek whatever documents it wants from the Executive Branch at the same time that individual congressional committees spend their days trying to publicize the Executive’s internal decisional process. That process cannot function properly if it is public, nor is it productive to have our government devoting enormous resources to squabbling about what becomes public and when, rather than doing the work of the people.

All of this is true (minus the editorializing). The public can seek documents from Executive Branch agencies like the DOJ. However, they cannot seek documents directly from the President. Congress is exempt from most FOIA requests. So is the judicial branch, although the presumption of an open court does tend to make the concept of public records requests redundant. (Citizens can sue for the release of sealed documents though.)

This isn't harassment. Quite possibly the agencies Barr is speaking for -- 15 agencies, including the State Department, DHS, DOJ, and DoD -- view FOIA requests as "harassment." But it's not. It's something a 1967 law established to make the government more accountable and transparent. Barr feels this mandatory openness is bullshit. Worse, he claims this is somehow partisan bullshit that unfairly targets his president and his executive agencies, overlooking the fact that this same "harassment" has "targeted" other Executive Branches for more than 50 years.

Barr's speech is nothing more than a preacher whining to the converted that life is unfair. He seems to have bought into Trump's mistaken belief that being in charge should prevent criticism, accountability, or professional responsibility. Barr is about as unhinged as Trump, but he doesn't have the excuse that he's new to the job. Trump was elevated into the Oval Office after a lifetime of grandiose real estate failures and a stint as the host of a successful "reality" show. But Barr is a g-man with plenty of government experience. He knows how all of this really works. He's just angry it doesn't work the way he wants it to. He's a dangerous man in a position with a lot of power. He's abused the office before. His attitude toward the public suggests he's willing to abuse it again.

Filed Under: doj, executive branch, executive power, foia, william barr
Companies: federalist society

Judge Says The FBI Can't Keep Refusing To Confirm Or Deny The Existence Of Social Media Monitoring Documents

from the that-thing-we're-all-doing...-we-can't-really-say-we're-doing-it dept

The ACLU is one step closer to obtaining documents detailing the FBI's use of social media monitoring tools. The FBI replied to the ACLU's FOIA request with a Glomar and a denial.

First, it neither confirmed nor denied it had responsive records. Then it said even if it did have some, it still wouldn't release them. According to the FBI, releasing documents about the government's well-known use of social media monitoring software would somehow allow criminals to take a peek at super-secret law enforcement tools. It made these assertions despite the fact it publicly secured contracts for social media monitoring tools.

The ACLU sued. And now, it's obtained at least a partial victory. The court says it's not quite accurate to say the DOJ has already publicly acknowledged use of social media monitoring tools. Citing the ACLU's victory in an FOIA lawsuit over drone strike documents, the court points out the bar to clear first is whether it can be said the DOJ -- not the FBI -- has made it clear it's in the social media monitoring business. From the decision [PDF]:

[ACLU v. CIA] does not suggest that the known use of a technique by one agency creates public knowledge of use by a different agency, unless it is publicly known that the agency’s parent agency utilizes that technique. Here, the FBI’s parent agency is the Department of Justice, and the ACLU presents no evidence that it is publicly known that the Department of Justice utilizes the social media monitoring techniques in question.

But that's not the end of the discussion. The FBI works with several other federal agencies and the documents requested would cover any secondhand use of monitoring tools. So, is it public knowledge other federal agencies engage in social media monitoring?

Given the wide array of evidence indicating (1) that other agencies engage in social media monitoring in the immigration and transportation contexts, and (2) that those agencies cooperate, coordinate, and share information with the FBI, the Court also considers whether such evidence makes it possible to impute, for purposes of applying Exemption 7(E), social media monitoring in the immigration and transportation contexts to the FBI. The ACLU presents extensive evidence that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (“CBP”), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and the Department of State (“DOS”) engage in social media monitoring.

Following this are six straight pages detailing these agencies and their monitoring programs, all of which have previously been discussed publicly. But that still isn't enough.

[T]he Court finds that the weight of authority suggests that the ACLU cannot seek disclosure of the FBI’s policies based on other agencies having disclosed their own policies, together with acknowledgement that they share information with the FBI.

If this seems to be going the government's way, it actually isn't. The Glomar and the attached exemption don't pair as well as the government would like. The Glomar, at least, is a step too far in the direction of unjustified opacity.

The problem for Defendants is that disclosure of social media surveillance—a well known general technique—would not reveal the specific means of surveillance. Denying a Glomar response would only reveal in general the application of a known technique by the FBI to immigration- or transportation-related investigations. Merely requiring the FBI to answer whether there are documents of the kind requested would not, at this juncture, require the disclosure of those documents which might reveal specific tools and techniques utilized by the FBI.

The government then argued denying a Glomar might expose the FBI's lack of social media monitoring. The court says the FBI can't have its Glomar and its FOIA exemption if it wants to make that argument.

[T]he language of Exemption 7(E) refers only to disclosure of techniques and procedures, and not to the lack of any such technique or procedure, and the Ninth Circuit has limited the application of “risk of circumvention” of the law under Exemption 7(E) to guidelines, not techniques and procedures. Hence, it is not clear whether Defendant’s negative inference argument is cognizable under Exemption 7(E).

In the end, it's the level of perceived harm that gives the ACLU a shot at obtaining these records. The FBI and DOJ claim any release of info would result in criminal mayhem due to criminals suddenly being made aware of the existence of social media monitoring programs. The court says that's just not going to happen.

[T]he risk of criminal activity escaping detection thru social media if the FBI were to reveal it has no records is substantially mitigated by two facts. First, it is well known that many related agencies do engage in social media surveillance in the immigration centers and share that information. This lessens the risk that people will be emboldened by the FBI’s disclosure to spread criminal or terrorist messages through social media. Second, even if the FBI were to disclose it has no records of purchasing or acquiring products or services used to surveil social media, that does not mean that the FBI has no such tools at its disposal, as it could have developed such tools internally.

This kills the FBI's Glomar. It will now have to at least confirm or deny it has records relevant to the ACLU's request. And once it's done that, it can start arguing about whether or not it can use Exemption 7(e) to keep them out of the ACLU's hands. Given the previous paragraph, it's difficult to see how the FBI can possibly justify a refusal to release any of the documents it may (or may not lol) have on hand. Social media monitoring efforts are well-known in the public and private sectors. If the FBI is doing something new and interesting with this, it might have a point. But if it's just doing the same thing other agencies are doing, it really can't justify rejecting this request.

Filed Under: doj, fbi, foia, glomar, social media monitoring, transparency

Federal Judge Asks DEA To Explain Why All 179 Of Its Stash House Sting Targets Are Minorities

from the stings-themselves-still-problematic-even-without-the-bias dept

Federal judges appear to be tiring of the government's long-running entrapment programs. One of the federal law enforcment's favorite "enforcement" efforts is creating crime in order to bust "criminals." Agencies like the ATF and DEA find someone in need of cash -- usually a minority someone -- and use undercover agents and confidential informants to convince them to raid a drug stash house for some easy money.

The twist is the drug stash house is fake. There are no drugs. There are no armed guards protecting the drugs. Once the mark arrives with a weapon and a plan of attack, the ATF arrests the person for thinking about robbing a fake stash house to steal nonexistent drugs.

The other twist is the prosecution. Since the drugs never existed, the ATF is free to claim the targeted stash was large enough to trigger mandatory minimum sentences.

A handful of judges have already found stash house stings to be a questionable use of government resources, if not ultra-shady operations that put the government in the position of being the judge and the jury by fabricating drug amounts to ensure longer sentences are handed down.

Here's what federal judge Ruben Castillo had to say about stash house stings:

It is undisputed that between 2006 and 2013, the defendants charged in this District in the ATF false stash house cases were 78.7 black, 9.6 percent Hispanic, and 11.7 percent white. During this same period, the District's adult population was approximately 18 percent black, 11 percent Hispanic, and 63 percent White. These numbers generate great disrespect for law enforcement efforts. Disrespect for the law cannot be tolerated during these difficult times. It is time for false stash house cases to end and be relegated to the dark corridors of our past. To put it simply, our criminal justice system should not tolerate false stash house cases in 2018.

Castillo also noted that the government never engaged in this type of borderline entrapment during the darkest days of Prohibition.

[E]ven during the low points of the great violence caused by the alcohol wars of Prohibition, the ATP did not seek to use "false alcohol warehouse" tactics against any ethnic organized crime groups to promote public safety.

Judge Jane Stranch's words -- written for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals -- were no less harsh.

The unseemly nature of the Government’s activity is emphasized by its failure to achieve its declared goals of jailing dangerous criminals and making our streets safer. Evidence showing that these hurry-up set-ups achieve the stated goals was not proffered and the facts here demonstrate why: no known dangerous individuals or criminal enterprises were researched or targeted and no pre-existing drug rings or conspiracies were broken up. In fact, this sting trapped Flowers, a gainfully employed young man with no criminal record.

Unfortunately, the court found no way to reverse the sentence handed down. The barriers to a successful lawsuit against a federal government agency are almost insurmountable, and the ATF knows this, so it has no reason to stop performing the laziest form of "enforcement" it can engage in.

Judge Otis Wright tore into the ATF in his decision as well:

In these stash-house cases, the Government’s “participation in the offense conduct” is what makes them particularly repugnant to the Constitution. Everything about the scheme—and therefore almost everything bearing upon a defendant’s ultimate sentence—hinges solely on the Government’s whim. Why were there not 10 kilograms in the stash house? Or 100? Or 1,000? Why were the guards allegedly armed—necessitating that Defendants bring weapons along with them? All of these factors came down to the ATF and the undercover agent alone. That sort of arbitrariness offends the Constitution’s due-process demands.

The end result was only five years shaved off the defendant's 19-year sentence -- a sentence that rested solely on the ATF's claims about the total weight of the nonexistent drugs in the nonexistent stash house the defendant never raided.

Perhaps the remedy lies somewhere earlier in the process, well before mandatory minimum sentences -- prompted by government agents' claims about nonexistent drugs -- are imposed. Judge Jed Rakoff is demanding the government produce some evidence that its stings don't primarily target minorities.

This case involves a DEA sting operation utilizing a number of fictitious drug shipments. They follow the same pattern as the ATF's stings. The government approaches its marks and tries to talk them into robbing fake drug dealers of their fake drugs. Then it swoops in and arrests its dupes the moment they start moving forward with robbery suggested by the government.

The opening paragraph of the order [PDF] makes it clear Judge Rakoff thinks these stings are bullshit:

By their very nature, so-called "reverse sting" operations, in which the Government creates the illusion of crimes in order to catch would-be criminals, are open to potential abuse, since they are not cabined by the demands of reality, but only by the vagaries of imagination.

The seven defendants in this case -- all "men of color" -- are arguing the government is engaging in selective enforcement by primarily targeting minorities with sting operations. Judge Rakoff appears to think that might be true. Or, at the very least, the government should be obliged to explain why every single one of its sting efforts result in arrested minorities.

After some discussion about which discovery standard should be applied to selective enforcement allegations, the court comes to this conclusion:

[T]he appropriate standard is that where a defendant who is a member of a protected group can show that that group has been singled out for reverse sting operations to a statistically significant extent in comparison with other groups, this is sufficient to warrant further inquiry and discovery.

Here, defendants have presented evidence that not a single one of the 179 individuals targeted in DEA reverse sting operations in SDNY in the past ten years was white, and that all but two were African-American or Hispanic. This is in stark contrast to the racial makeup of New York and Bronx Counties, which are 20.5% African-American, 39.7% Hispanic, and 29.5% White. This is also in contrast to NYPD crime and enforcement data for felony drug arrests (42.7% African-American, 40.8% Hispanic, and 12.7% White), firearms arrests (65.1% African-America, 24.3% Hispanic, 9.7% White), and robbery arrests (60.6% African-American, 31.1% Hispanic, 5.1% White).

And, just in case the government wants to argue this is merely a statistical fluke, the defendants also have some expert testimony they'd like the DEA to attempt to rebut.

Furthermore, defendants have provided compelling expert analysis demonstrating that these numbers are statistically significant. According to a rigorous analysis conducted by Dr. Crystal S. Yang, a Harvard law and economics professor, it is highly unlikely, to the point of statistical significance, that the racially disparate impact of the DEA' s reverse sting operations is simply random.

Here's how Yang explains the unlikeliness of 177 of 179 targets being "randomly" Black or Latino:

[U]nless the pool of similarly situated individuals is comprised of at least 96.0% Latinos or Blacks~ it is highly unlikely that one could get a sample of 179 targeted individuals where 177 or more individuals are Latino or Black.

The government will need to produce paperwork showing how it initiates stings and how it decides on sting targets.

Accordingly, and for now, discovery will be limited to the Government providing to the defendants, by no later than November 22, 2019, (1) all DEA manuals, circulars, protocols, and the like that provide guidelines for how and when reverse stings should be originated; and (2) all notes, memoranda, or other investigative material showing how defendants were identified and evaluated as targets in this particular reverse sting operation.

It's unlikely anything turned over by the DEA will say "exclusively target Latinos and Blacks." But this won't help the government, which will still need to explain how guidelines and protocols that don't insist on targeting minorities seem to produce nothing by minority defendants. And if it can't explain that to Judge Rakoff's satisfaction, the claims of selective enforcement will move forward.

More judges should push back against "reverse sting" operations. There's been no evidence offered these operations do anything more than put harmless people behind bars for years. When the targets are fake drugs and fake drug runners, zero drugs/drug runners are being taken off the streets.

Filed Under: dea, doj, entrapment, jed rakoff, racism, stash houses, targeting minorities

Interpol Confirms, Denies It's Against Strong Encryption

from the wait-that-sounded-better-before-we-said-it-out-loud dept

The latest law enforcement agency to offer up its opinion on end-to-end encryption doesn't seem to like it either. Joseph Menn reports for Reuters that Interpol is siding with the FBI, DOJ, and a handful of European government agencies in finding that encryption is bad and lets bad people do bad things.

The international police organization Interpol plans to condemn the spread of strong encryption in a statement Monday saying it protects child sex predators, three people briefed on the matter told Reuters.

At the group’s conference in Lyon, France on Friday, an Interpol official said a version of the resolution introduced by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation would be released without a formal vote by representatives of the roughly 60 countries in attendance, the sources said.

This follows the anti-encryption agitating performed by Attorney General William Barr and FBI Director Chris Wray in response to Facebook's announcement it would add end-to-end encryption to its Messenger service, bringing it more in line with Whatsapp, another of Facebook's acquisitions. Both used the specter of child exploitation to argue against this implementation -- an effort to sacrifice the security of millions for some slight gains in law enforcement efficiency.

Sean Gallagher of Ars Technica obtained a draft copy of the resolution, which adds more redundancy to earlier "think of the children" arguments.

The current path towards default end-to-end encryption, with no provision for lawful access, does not allow for the protection of the world’s children from sexual exploitation. Technology providers must act and design their services in a way that protects user privacy, on the one hand, while providing user safety, on the other hand. Failure to allow for Lawful Access on their platforms and products, provides a safe haven to offenders utilizing these to sexually exploit children, and inhibits our global law enforcement efforts to protect children.

Encryption does not "provide safe havens" for child abusers. This is Interpol's version of AG Barr's "lawless spaces" assertions, which doesn't improve at all on Barr's fatuous statements. As former FBI General Counsel Jim Baker recently pointed out, Barr's argument isn't about where the law is being circumvented, but rather about how he doesn't like the way relevant laws work.

So, encryption has not, as the attorney general complained in his speech, really created a “law free zone.” It’s just that the law that applies in this area is not what Barr or the Justice Department want the law to be.

Interpol could not be reached for comment in time for publication but it sure had a lot to say about the issue now that its apparent stance on encryption has been made public. It told the New York Times' Nicole Peroth the Reuters story was inaccurate.

If you can't read/see the tweet, it says:

Dear Ms Perlroth,

As per our statement there are, and were, no plans at this time for the INTERPOL General Secretariat to issue a statement in relation to encryption.

This contradicts statements made by conference attendees, who said Interpol's resolution/statement was "due to be published this week." Perhaps Interpol has undergone some hasty reconsideration after reading its own words on the pages of multiple press sites. Or maybe the timetable is off. All Interpol is really saying is that it won't be issuing this "at this time." This isn't a rejection of these articles' substance. It appears to be nothing more than a dispute about when Interpol will take a public stance against encryption.

Or maybe it has decided to let the 60 representatives from countries Interpol serves actually vote on the resolution. This would be a far better route than issuing a resolution unilaterally declaring opposition to encryption that many members may not actually support.

Whatever the case, Interpol's suggestion that encryption's main beneficiary is international crime is shortsighted and selfish. It's also dangerous. In a world filled with cyberthreats, efforts to undermine encryption "for the good of the public" won't actually result in the public being better served. It certainly won't make them any better protected.

Filed Under: doj, encryption, fbi, going dark, interpol

ACLU Sues DOJ Over Facial Recognition Documents

from the catching-some-heat-from-backburnered-requesters dept

It's no secret the federal government is using facial recognition tech. The DHS wants to use it at all ports of entry (including airports) on pretty much every traveler. Amazon wants every government agency possible to buy its version of the tech, even as the company (and the agencies it hopes to supply) undergo Congressional investigations. And the FBI's facial recognition database has been growing steadily since 2014, outpacing required Privacy Impact Assessments and the FBI's willingness to vet the accuracy of its search tools.

The public would definitely like to know more about the government's use of biometric tracking, but the government's way less interested in talking about it. The ACLU filed a FOIA request in January seeking biometric/facial recognition documents held by the FBI and DEA. Those requests have been ignored for 10 months.

The ACLU is now suing these federal agencies. The feds' deafening silence echoes against a backdrop of enacted facial recognition bans in a handful of cities and one statewide ban on use of the tech in police body cameras. The lawsuit [PDF] points out both agencies refused to give the ACLU's request expedited processing and the DEA went so far as to grant itself a 10-day extension to respond. That 10-day period stretched into 60 days before the DEA sent its second response -- one that stated none-too-believably that the ACLU's request was "being handled as expeditiously as possible."

The complaint asks for a judge to order the immediate release of responsive records, an injunction preventing the agencies from charging the ACLU processing fees, and attorney fees in the event the ACLU wins its suit.

The attached FOIA request shows how much information is already in the public domain, which will make it very difficult for the feds to claim they don't have responsive documents. Facial recognition is the government's new kudzu. It's everywhere and it just keeps growing.

The FBI… operates the Next Generation Identification-Interstate Photo System, which a 2016 Government Accountability Office report described as “a face recognition service that allows law enforcement agencies to search a database of over 30 million photos to support criminal investigations.”

[...]

Amazon Web Services (AWS) provides cloud services for all 17 United States intelligence agencies, including the DOJ and its component agencies the FBI and DEA.5 According to recent media reporting, the FBI is testing Amazon’s Rekognition face recognition product, which is part of the suite of software products available on AWS, in a pilot program. In May 2018, the intelligence community awarded Microsoft a contract enabling all 17 agencies to use Azure Government, Microsoft’s cloud service for public entities. Microsoft, like Amazon, offers its customers a face surveillance product that runs on its own cloud service; Microsoft’s face surveillance product is called Face API. Additionally, as of 2015, the FBI has utilized NEC Corporation of America’s “Integra ID 5 biometric solution software,” which provides facial recognition capabilities, in conjunction with the agency’s NGI system.

Hopefully, the ACLU will succeed. Public records requests are pretty much the only way the public can access details about the government's surveillance plans and tech tools. The FBI and DEA aren't willing to discuss these openly but they're more than willing to deploy them against the same public these agencies insist have no business asking what the government's up to.

Filed Under: doj, facial recognition, foia
Companies: aclu

DOJ, Apparently Unaware Of 1st Amendment, Threaten Anonymous White House Official About To Release A Book

from the that's-not-how-this-works dept

In the past, when unflattering books about the Trump White House have been about to come out, the President has had one of his personal lawyers (such as the one famous for sending questionable threat letters to various media organizations) send dubious threat letters warning that the book not be published. However, since Trump often seems to think of the DOJ as his personal lawyers, perhaps it's no surprise that the DOJ has now sent a similar threat letter in an attempt to (1) block the publication of an allegedly anonymous White House official, and (2) identify who the individual is.

The book, called "A Warning" is apparently written by the person who last year wrote an anonymous NY Times op-ed revealing how staff in the administration worked to "thwart" parts of Trunmp's agenda to protect the country from his "worst inclinations." From all that's been revealed about the book so far, it sounds as though it won't be difficult for the administration to figure out who the author is based on what's included in the book, but they're still going for broke with this dumb strategy:

The Justice Department is going on the offensive against the anonymous author of "A Warning," telling them in a letter obtained by CNN Business that he or she may be violating "one or more nondisclosure agreements" by writing the anti-Trump book.

[.....]

"If the author is, in fact, a current or former 'senior official' in the Trump Administration, publication of the book may violate that official's legal obligations under one or more nondisclosure agreements, including nondisclosure agreements that are routinely required with respect to information obtained in the course of one's official responsibilities or as a condition for access to classified information," assistant attorney general Joseph H. Hunt wrote in the letter.

"Such agreements typically require that any written work potentially containing protected information be submitted for pre-publication review," Hunt added.

First off, this isn't how the 1st Amendment works (nor is it how the DOJ is supposed to act). Hell, even with the Snowden book, the worst the government did was seek to seize his profits. And that was because he actually had signed a lifetime pre-publication review contract, which is common for those in the intelligence community (though, there's an ongoing lawsuit challenging the Constitutionality of such things). Here, they're literally trying to block the publication, which is clearly not allowed under the 1st Amendment -- and they don't seem to have any evidence that this person is in the intelligence community or signed such a contract. In other words, this is bluster on the level that Trump normally employs with his personal lawyers, and not something the DOJ should be engaged in at all.

The DOJ letter does ask the publisher, Hachette, to at least let the DOJ know if the individual had signed a pre-publication review:

"We request that you immediately provide us with your representations that the author did not sign any nondisclosure agreement and that the author did not have access to any classified information in connection with government service," Hunt's letter concluded. "If you cannot make those representations, we ask that you immediately provide either the nondisclosure agreements the author signed or the dates of the author's service and the agencies where the author was employed, so that we may determine the terms of the author's nondisclosure agreements and ensure that they have been followed."

Obviously, asking for the NDA or the dates of service are fairly obvious attempts to figure out who the author is. Again, this is beneath the DOJ.

Indeed, the group PEN America, which works on free expression for writers around the globe, has come out with a dead on, but harsh statement, calling this move "a new low" from this particular administration.

“While we’ve gotten used to seeing President Trump’s private attorneys send letters aimed to intimidate authors and book publishers, for the Justice Department to stoop to such tactics represents a new low. The administration doesn’t know who wrote the book nor what it says. Its claim that a non-disclosure agreement may have been violated is pure speculation.

“Instead, this letter is part of the Trump administration’s ongoing campaign to turn the tables on those who expose and call out its wrongdoing. If it turns out upon publication that the author has violated a legal obligation, the Justice Department can pursue remedies at that point. To try to deter publication or bully the author and publisher are an effort at censorship through the heavy hand of government. Hachette is right to deny this spurious request.”

The DOJ should not be acting as the President's personal censor, and it's shameful that it has agreed to do so.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, anonymous, contracts, doj, donald trump, free speech, nda
Companies: hachette

AT&T Jacks Up TV Prices Post Merger After Repeatedly Claiming That Wouldn't Happen

from the price-hikes-for-everyone dept

You may be shocked to learn this, but nearly all of the promises AT&T made in the lead up to its $86 billion merger with Time Warner wound up not being true.

The company's promise that the deal wouldn't result in price hikes for consumers? False. The company's promise the deal wouldn't result in higher prices for competitors needing access to essential AT&T content like HBO? False. AT&T's promise they wouldn't hide Time Warner content behind exclusivity paywalls? False. The idea that the merger would somehow create more jobs at the company? False.

This was all laid out to US District Judge Richard Leon during the trial (twice), who ignored all of the warnings and rubber stamped the deal without a single condition. At absolutely no point did Leon in his absurd ruling recognize the threat of AT&T owning both a monopoly over broadband and a massive media empire in charge of content needed by competitors. And when lawyers and economists warned him that kind of power would only lead to higher rates, he almost happily ignored them.

Fast forward a year or so and AT&T is already imposing another significant hike on its TV customers (both traditional and streaming). New and existing users are seeing price hikes upwards of $10 to $15 per month. It's the second price hike in less than a year. And despite being the broadcaster in this equation, AT&T blamed the hikes on broadcasters:

"In the email to customers that one customer shared with Ars, AT&T blamed the price increase on rising programming costs. Of course, AT&T itself is partly responsible for rising programming costs because it now owns Time Warner. AT&T told a federal judge last year that its acquisition of Time Warner would "enable the merged company to reduce prices," but it's been the opposite in reality."

Funny, that. One of the reason for the hikes is AT&T needs to pay down debt from its 2015 acquisition of DirecTV ($67 billion) and the 2018 acquisition of Time Warner ($86 billion). AT&T thought it could simply just merge its way to video advertising market dominance. But after hiking prices to recoup this debt, consumers are fleeing AT&T's services at an alarming rate. While AT&T is an incredible political tactician, it's just another example of how the government-pampered monopoly can't help but do a face plant any time bare-knuckled competition is required.

The saga again points to a US regulatory and legal system that has effectively given up on consumer protection or enforcing antitrust law, and the end result couldn't be more obvious (or so you'd think).

Filed Under: competition, consumer welfare, doj, fcc, fees, merger, prices, promises, tv
Companies: at&t