Michigan Lawmaker Doesn't Understand Her Own Bill Hamstringing Broadband Competition

from the best-leadership-money-can-buy dept

For the better part of a decade we've noted how if America really wanted to improve its horrible broadband problem it would stop letting industry giants like Comcast write shitty protectionist state telecom law. Over the last fifteen years, more than twenty states have passed laws preventing towns and cities from building their own broadband networks even when no incumbent broadband provider will. In many instances these bills also hamstring public/private partnerships, which are often the only way to creatively bring better broadband to under-served or unserved areas of the country.

Michigan is the latest to highlight this problem. Freshman Representative Michele Hoitenga this month introduced HB 5099, a bill that would make it difficult if not impossible for local towns and cities to build their own broadband networks. The bill would ban towns and cities from using taxpayer funds to improve local telecom infrastructure. According to the Institute for Local Reliance, an organization that fights these protectionist measures and helps municipalities improve broadband coverage, the bill would also deter towns and cities from striking public/private partnerships with the likes of Google Fiber:

"The exception allows local communities to engage in public-private partnerships, but the bill’s ambiguous language is likely to discourage local communities from pursuing such partnerships...Rather than put themselves at risk of running afoul of the law, prudent community leaders would probably choose to avoid pursuing any publicly owned infrastructure initiatives.

ISPs defend these bills by insisting they're just really concerned about wasting tax dollars (despite historically wasting far more taxpayer money than potentially any other industry in America). Lobbyists and hired telecom policy hacks have spent fifteen years demonizing all municipal broadband projects as boondoggles. In reality, their goal is to protect regional duopolies from anything even closely resembling real broadband competition by ghost writing awful state law. They want their cake and to eat it too: they refuse to offer quality service or upgrade their networks, but they want government to prevent anybody else from doing so either.

In reality, municipal broadband networks are like any other business plan. Some are good, some are bad, and all are highly dependent on the particulars of a region. But it should be up to local voters and the towns and cities themselves to make that determination -- not AT&T and Comcast lobbyists and hired policy flacks sitting half a world away.

As people have grown more frustrated with shitty broadband, bipartisan opposition to these kinds of bills has only grown. After all, disdain for Comcast and its abysmal customer service is one of only a few things that can truly bridge partisan divides. Most people seem to realize we need to get creative to compensate for ISPs that feel fully deploying broadband networks (especially to rural markets and the poor) isn't worth the time and money. As a result, Hoitenga this week began facing some notable blowback on Twitter (you really should read this entire exchange while it still exists) for her proposal.

Hoitenga quickly made it clear she doesn't actually understand the proposal she's supporting. For example, while her bill would take rights away from local voters by hamstringing how they can fund their own local infrastructure, she insisted she was somehow protecting voting rights:

Hoitenga then proceeded to display her profound misunderstanding of the broadband market by insisting municipal broadband networks aren't really necessary, because Michigan voters somehow have access to 37 different competing broadband providers:

How did the lawmaker come to this conclusion? Bing (yes, Bing!) apparently told her so. While most people usually have the choice of only one or two broadband providers that barely compete with each other, the lawmaker posted a screenshot in the bizarre belief she was contradicting this reality:

Of course, if you actually visit the page that she saw in her Bing search, it tells, well, a very very different story. It's useful, first, to scroll to the bottom to look at the actual map of Holland, which shows how many providers are where.

Note that most of Holland has only 2 or 3 providers. Not 37. Again, this is from the very link she claims supports her "37 providers" claim. And, of course, if you look at the details of where that "37" number came from, you'll quickly understand why it's bogus. First, it includes wireless and business-only broadband providers. That's totally unrelated to the residential market. Second, it counts different kinds of broadband from the same company (e.g. "DSL" and "fiber") as a separate provider, despite clearly being the same. Finally, and most importantly (and obviously from the map above) it ignores that the vast majority of these providers cover very, very little of the city of the city -- to the point that they're barely offering service in the city at all. Below are the residential offerings, and if you focus on that "availability" column, you'll note that most of them cover well less than 5% and a bunch are around 1%.

At most you could argue people would likely have a choice of 3 providers in their location. And one of them -- TDS DSL -- is apparently limited to 4mbps which, you know, is not broadband according to the very definition provided by the FCC. And, how can we not mention the "customer ratings" column? The whole point here, and the very reason why so many people are clamoring for competition from municipal broadband, is because they hate their expensive, crappy, limited choices.

The biggest problem here however is that these bills are usually quite literally written by incumbent ISPs, then shoveled through the legislative process via organizations like ALEC. Said ghost-written legislation then stumbles through approval with lawmakers barely understanding what they're pushing, which is something we've seen time and time again. If ISPs are so opposed to municipal broadband, there's an easy way to stop these efforts: offer a better, cheaper product and improve their historically-awful customer service.

But in the United States, it's far easier to ghost write legislation, hand it off to a cash-compromised lawmaker that has no idea what it means, then sit back and enjoy the financial benefits of regulatory capture while America falls farther behind the broadband curve. This really is, as they say, why we can't have nice things.

Filed Under: competition, michele hoitenga, michigan, muni broadband

Michigan Lawmakers Looking To Amend State Constitution To Add Protections For Electronic Data

from the post-Snowden-lawmaking dept

A ballot measure introduced by a bipartisan group of Michigan legislators is sure to encounter some heavy resistance on its trip through the lawmaking machinery. The proposal amends the state's constitution to add a warrant requirement to data that law enforcement is used to obtaining without one.

House Joint Resolution C (HJRC) was introduced by Rep. Jim Runestad (R-White Lake) along with 11 bipartisan co-sponsors. If approved, voters would have the opportunity to alter Article 1, Section 11 of the Michigan state constitution in the following manner:

The person, houses, papers, and possessions, and electronic data and communications of every person shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. No warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things or to access electronic data or communications shall issue without describing them, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to bar from evidence in any criminal proceeding any narcotic drug, firearm, bomb, explosive or any other dangerous weapon, seized by a peace officer outside the curtilage of any dwelling house in this state.

The phrase "electronic data" covers a lot of things normally considered to be "third-party records" and currently given little to no protection under the Fourth Amendment. This amendment would establish an expectation of privacy in electronic communications and data -- at least under the state's constitution.

If passed, courts will have to consider the implications of the state's more stringent privacy protections when dealing with the admissibility of electronic data/communications. This means state law enforcement partnerships with federal agencies could result in unprosecutable charges if any evidence is derived from the warrantless acquisition of protected data and communications. In practical terms, this may not change much, as the feds will just bring the case to federal court in order to (hopefully) bypass the state's more restrictive constitution.

But, as the Tenth Amendment Center points out, if the new law passes, it will discourage local law enforcement from helping themselves to data harvested by federal surveillance programs.

Because the federal government relies heavily on partnerships and information sharing with state and local law enforcement agencies, passage the amendment could potentially hinder federal surveillance programs that depend on state cooperation and information gathering.

State and local law enforcement agencies regularly provide surveillance data to the federal government through ISE and Fusion Centers. They collect and store information from cell-site simulators (AKA “stingrays”), automated license plate readers (ALPRs), drones, facial recognition systems, and even “smart” or “advanced” power meters in homes. Requiring warrants to gather such data would undoubtedly limit the amount of information collected by state and local law enforcement. Information that doesn’t exist cannot be shared with the feds.

If "electronic data" is defined in such a way to include data gathered en masse by electronics, this would institute a warrant requirement for ALPR deployment and would make pen register orders demanding historical cell site data a thing of the past.

The constitutional amendment has a long way to go before it's ratified. Hopefully, it will make its way through the process mostly intact.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, data, electronic data, law enforcement, michigan, privacy, warrants

Appeals Court: A Bunch Of Mostly-Irrelevant Information Is Not 'Probable Cause'

from the drug-warrior-enthusiasm-clouds-judgment dept

A drug conspiracy with no drugs. A house searched because a car carrying no drugs was registered to the address. It's little things like these that add up to a successfully suppressed evidence, even if it took defendant Ricky Brown a trip to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to achieve it.

The DEA, working with Michigan State Police, pulled over two vehicles that had left a house they had under surveillance, apparently on their way to a heroin buy set up by an informant. One vehicle, a Chevy Silverado driven by Steven Woods, was searched after a MSP traffic stop and approximately 565 grams of heroin were recovered. The other vehicle, a GMC Yukon in which Brown was a passenger was stopped as well. However, there were no drugs in this vehicle, just four cell phones.

Despite this lack of evidence, the MSP booked both the vehicle's driver (Marzell Middleton) and Brown on charges of "conspiring to deliver drugs." Search warrants were obtained for both Brown and Middleton's residences, and 90 grams of heroin were found at Middleton's house.

The route to the search warrant for Brown's residence was a bit more circuitous. The idea to search Brown's residence was apparently predicated on little more than the fact that a vehicle he owned (another Yukon, but not the one that was being driven when both parties were arrested) was parked in Middleton's driveway while that residence was searched. From the decision [PDF]:

During their search of Middleton’s residence, the police also searched a 2002 GMC Yukon registered to Brown, which was parked on the street in front of the residence. MSP Trooper Unterbrink allowed a drug dog to walk around and climb into the vehicle. The dog alerted to the odor of narcotics inside Brown’s vehicle, but the affidavit does not indicate that any drugs were actually recovered. Agents seized the 2002 Yukon under Michigan forfeiture laws.

This was the first plank of the DEA's probable cause platform: the drug sniff that seemingly failed to turn up any drugs. The next was text messages on a prepaid cell phone containing the message "He said 1175 or 1125 for one," which Agent Fitch claimed was "consistent with Detroit-area pricing for cocaine." Also added to the affidavit were the results of a criminal record database search: an arrest (and an acquittal) for "delivery/manufacture of dangerous drugs" dating back to 1996 and a 1999 conviction for conspiracy to distribute marijuana.

Despite there being nothing linking Brown to the sale of heroin and his most recent conviction being 12 years old at that point, Agent Fitch somehow convinced a judge that a vehicle parked in the driveway of a house being searched was enough of a "nexus" to justify a search of the vehicle owner's home. This warrant was obtained three weeks after Brown's arrest and three weeks from the point Brown had been released after being charged, during which time neither the DEA nor the MSP performed any surveillance of Brown or his residence.

The DEA rolled up to Brown's house and searched it. Agents found some stuff, but nothing that would link Brown to heroin distribution.

DEA agents executed the search warrant at Brown’s residence on March 31. They found a nine-millimeter Smith and Wesson semiautomatic pistol, a loaded 12-gauge shotgun, and 60 grams of marijuana. They also recovered a digital scale, various forms of ammunition, $5,805 in cash, utility bills addressed to Brown, a Michigan certificate of title and insurance document for a 2002 GMC Yukon, and a hand-written document—purportedly a drug ledger—listing names and what appeared to be gram drug quantities. They did not find heroin or any other evidence linking Brown to a heroin conspiracy.

The district court refused to suppress the evidence, claiming the "four corners" made up for the deficiencies in the affidavit, and allowed the good faith exception to paper over the rest of the warrant's flaws. The government continued to pursue the heroin conspiracy charge, but the jury found nothing in the evidence to support it. Brown was acquitted on that charge but convicted on the firearms and marijuana possession charges.

The appeals court is less impressed with the government's attempt to spin nearly nonexistent threads into connective tissue.

In the present case, the search warrant affidavit contained no evidence that Brown distributed narcotics from his home, that he used it to store narcotics, or that any suspicious activity had taken place there. The affidavit did not suggest that a reliable confidential informant had purchased drugs there, that the police had ever conducted surveillance at Brown’s home, or that the recorded telephone conversations linked drug trafficking to Brown’s residence. The Government notes that Brown’s car, which was registered to his residence, was parked outside Middleton’s home and tested positively for narcotics during a canine search. Although these facts supported the search of Brown’s car, they did not establish a fair probability that evidence of drug trafficking would be found at his residence. A more direct connection was required, such as surveillance indicating that Brown had used the car to transport heroin from his home to Middleton’s on the day in question. The mere fact that the car was registered to Brown’s home was too vague and generalized a nexus to support the search warrant.

The government tried to salvage this by claiming Brown's status as a "known drug dealer" was all it really needed to obtain a search warrant of his residence. The appeals court disagrees.

Although this alone establishes that the warrant was issued without probable cause, we note that the evidence supposedly establishing Brown’s status as a drug dealer was also inadequate. The affidavit relied on the following facts to show that Brown was a known drug dealer: Brown was a passenger in Middleton’s car when the arrest was carried out. Police officers seized four cell phones from the car, two of which were believed to belong to Brown because they listed Middleton’s phone number as a contact. One of Brown’s alleged cell phones had a text message that said, “He said 1175 or 1125 for one,” which Agent Fitch alleged referred to local cocaine prices, not heroin. Brown possessed $4,813 in currency at the time of his arrest. Brown’s car was parked at Middleton’s residence and, during a search of Brown’s vehicle, a drug dog alerted to the odor of narcotics.

Although some of these facts suggest that Brown may have been involved in the heroin drug conspiracy—and thus established probable cause to arrest Brown—they are too inconclusive to assume, for the purpose of determining probable cause to search Brown’s residence, that he was a known drug dealer.

The court also denies the government's good faith appeal, finding that law enforcement had 22 days to put together something more resembling probable cause. The court wonders why the DEA -- if it felt it didn't have enough PC to pursue a search of Brown's house right after his arrest (the driver's house was searched the next day) -- suddenly felt it had enough evidence to support a warrant three weeks later, when literally nothing had changed in the interim.

It is hard to account for this delay, as little new evidence was discovered during that period: just a cryptic text message, which Agent Fitch concluded reflected pricing for cocaine—not heroin—and a conviction for conspiracy to distribute marijuana from 1999. Neither the text message nor the 12-year-old conviction was probative of whether Brown was using his current residence for drug trafficking…

Save for a passing reference to Brown’s car registration, the affidavit is devoid of facts connecting the residence to the alleged drug dealing activity. Although the good-faith standard is less demanding than the standard for probable cause, the affidavit still must draw some plausible connection to the residence. Agent Fitch’s affidavit failed to do so.

With the evidence suppressed, the convictions for marijuana and firearms possession vanish as well. Considering the Supreme Court recently decided old arrest warrants can salvage illegal searches, it's nice to know mostly-irrelevant criminal history isn't enough to turn a lack of probable cause into a good faith effort.

Filed Under: dea, law enforcement, michigan, probable cause

Michigan Politicians Want People Who Hack Cars To Spend The Rest Of Their Lives In Prison

from the plus-cancer,-where-permitted-by-local-ordinances dept

There's apparently no situation legislators can't make worse. Self-driving cars are an inevitability, as are all the attendant concerns about autonomous vehicles roaming the streets unattended, mowing down buses at 2 miles per hour or forcing drivers behind them to obey all relevant traffic laws.

There are fears that people will just stop paying attention to driving, which is weird, because that's one of the few immediate advantages of self-driving vehicles. There are also fears that a robot car is nothing more than a tempting attack target for malicious hackers. There's some truth to this last one, especially as manufacturers have loaded up vehicles with on-board computers but given little thought to properly securing them.

Even so, that's no excuse for the sort of legislation being proposed by two Michigan politicians, which would reward self-driving car hackers with lifetime stays at the nearest prison.

Michigan Senators Ken Horn and Mike Kowall have proposed a cybersecurity bill aimed at hackers and connected and autonomous cars. While Senate Bill 928 (pdf) sets out the type of crime and corresponding sentencing guidelines for car hacking, Senate Bill 927 (pdf) spells out that car hacking will be a felony. Further down, the legislation says car hacking will be punishable by life in prison.

This would be fine if… well, no, actually it's not fine at all. One tends to think of prison terms as being somewhat related to the harm caused and if someone fires off malware that prevents someone from starting their vehicle, there's no way that should be punished by a life sentence. I'm sure the legislators are contemplating worst-case scenarios where someone electronically hijacks a vehicle and causes someone's death, but that sort of thing should be punishable under other laws more commensurate with the end result of the hacking.

I can also see how not explicitly targeting hacking of vehicles might become a legal loophole which allows perpetrators to walk away from more serious charges. But this is overkill, especially because the list of violations is far too broadly written.

A PERSON SHALL NOT INTENTIONALLY ACCESS OR CAUSE ACCESS TO BE MADE TO AN ELECTRONIC SYSTEM OF A MOTOR VEHICLE TO WILLFULLY DESTROY, DAMAGE, IMPAIR, ALTER, OR GAIN UNAUTHORIZED CONTROL OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE.

Basically the bill says all electronic systems created by manufacturers must be sealed black boxes that purchasers, security researchers, hobbyists, and third-party suppliers should never, ever access under the pain of life imprisonment. "Alter" could mean "make things work better," but it still would be treated as a criminal act under this law. Repairs to on-board computers by "non-certified" mechanics could net them charges, especially if something malfunctions down the road. I'm sure this is a perfectly acceptable outcome to the US automakers still cranking out cars in Michigan, that would now have something more than copyright to threaten people with.

The senators claim this is necessary because they want to stay out in front of any technological developments.

Automotive News quoted Kowall as saying, “I hope that we never have to use it. That's why the penalties are what they are. The potential for severe injury and death are pretty high. Some of these people are pretty clever. As opposed to waiting for something bad to happen, we're going to be proactive on this and try to keep up with technology.”

You don't "keep up" with technology by treating electronic access to certain systems like some particularly powerful form of witchcraft, only punishable by the most severe sentences. This isn't legislators staying abreast of the latest developments. This is legislators bypassing evidence gathering and stocking up on fear. Because nothing eases the mind of the public more than declaring the autonomous car apocalypse to be upon us, with only this badly written bill standing in the way of death and destruction.

Filed Under: autonomous vehicles, crime, hacking cars, michigan

Another Cop Treats Sexting Teens Like Child Pornographers

from the teen-would-have-been-better-off-engaging-in-sexual-activity dept

More sexting stupidity, this time in Michigan.

A Three Rivers, Michigan, teenager is both the victim and perpetrator of a sex crime. He might land on the sex offender registry, and face criminal charges, all because he took an inappropriate photo—of himself.

The boy is unnamed in local news reporters, which note that he is under 15 years of age. He allegedly took a nude photo of himself on a girl’s cell phone. That girl sent the picture to another girl, who sent it to another. Preliminary charges are pending for all three—the boy was charged with manufacturing child porn, and the girls with distributing it. A prosecutor is still weighing whether to pursue the charges.

Hopefully, the prosecutor will realize that pursuing the suggested charges could ruin a few teens' lives. The police detective working the case seems to want to destroy these kids' lives… for the good of other teens, or something.

Police Detective Mike Mohney told WBST.com that sexting is a serious crime because it leads to “bullying,” and “real severe things like people committing suicide or violent crimes against others because they're so embarrassed about it.”

As Reason's Robby Soave points out, Detective Mohney is a walking contradiction. Apparently, it's never occurred to him that bringing child porn charges against these young teens might result in bullying and suicide. Nothing makes the future look dim and hopeless like a long stint on the sex offender registry. Nothing destroys someone's reputation faster than being listed alongside criminals who manufactured actual child porn, rather than just took a photo of their own adolescent body.

For that matter, the preliminary charges make this teen's decision to photograph his own body and send it to another teen a far worse crime than if he'd simply showed up at the girl's house, stripped off his clothes and proceeded to engage in sexual activity with her.

Taking off his clothes at her house would have been nothing more than indecent exposure, a misdemeanor. More importantly, unless the person has been convicted for other sexual-related crimes, there's no sex offender registration tied to the charge.

Even if he'd pursued sexual contact with the other teen, it still would have been a better outcome than being branded a child pornographer. Michigan has no "Romeo and Juliet" law, so any contact between teens -- no matter their closeness in age -- could trigger statutory rape charges. (Obviously, if the sexual activity was not consensual, this would be actual rape, but there's no reason to believe a [possibly] unsolicited naked photo rises to the level of aggravated sexual assault.)

If the activity was consensual, the worst charge would be statutory rape, which does not require sex offender registration for teens.

[P]eople who are convicted of criminal sexual conduct based on consensual sexual conduct with children over the age of 13 who are not more than four years older than their victims are not required to register.

And, if the sexual contact contained no penetration, no criminal charges would be brought at all.

[A] 17-year-old who engages in consensual petting with a 14-year-old could not be prosecuted for a crime. However, if the parties engaged in oral sex, the 17-year-old could face prosecution.

So, this so-very-concerned detective has taken a digital photo -- taken by a teen of his own body -- and turned it into something worse than actual in-person nudity and/or sexual contact. That's a pretty fucked up way to show concern for sexting teens. Treating photos taken by minors and distributed to other minors as child porn is the worst possible way to handle a situation that, in all reality, should be left to the discretion of the teens' parents.

Filed Under: child porn, michigan, mike mohney, police, sexting, teens, three rivers

Another Politician Attempts To Build A Wall Between The Public And The Police Who Serve Them

from the cops-need-to-have-rules-all-their-own dept

Body camera footage is a great tool for law enforcement accountability. But all the potential good can all be undone by ensuring the public has no access to the recordings. If recordings become just another internal "document," nothing has been gained by the addition of body-worn cameras.

That outcome is perfectly fine with some legislators, like Michigan Senator Rick Jones.

A House bill that would exempt police body camera video from being released to the public under Michigan's Freedom of Information Act is raising red flags among some attorneys and civil libertarians.

The proposal by Sen. Rick Jones would amend Michigan's 1976 Freedom of Information Act by keeping police body camera audio and video shielded from public disclosure.

Of course, Rick Jones -- a former sheriff with 31 years in law enforcement -- sees nothing wrong with preventing the public from keeping an eye on their public servants. This isn't being done to shield officers from accountability, according to Jones. No, this is being done to keep cops from being mocked by infamous cop-basher, the Internet.

"This is a first step and it will be tweaked,'' he said. "All of the police I have talked with believe that there are many times that private moments are filmed and it's not the sort of thing you want somebody to FOIA and then put on the Internet for entertainment, for people to laugh at.''

Jeezus. Got some very sensitive individuals hiding behind badges, bulletproof vests and FOIA exemptions. I think most would rather be laughed at than reviled. If the worst thing that happens to Michigan cops is a few embarrassing moments (and a host of just-as-embarrassing comments below them) being uploaded to YouTube, they should be grateful. It's far better than having footage of misconduct or excessive force circulating the 'net.

Even the senator's ostensible opponent -- the Michigan ACLU -- agrees that some footage should be exempt from public records requests.

"If the police are sitting in their squad car talking to one another about their personal matters – that doesn't need to be on YouTube,'' [ACLU's Miriam] Aukerman said. "If police go to someone's home and tell them your child has died or your child's been in an accident, that doesn't need to be out in the public.''

Jones says the wording will be "tweaked," but it's unclear how much of it. So far, he's only talked to police officials and officers about their perspective. Until that changes, nothing in his amendment will either. As it stands now, the untweaked version grants a blanket exception to all body camera footage without exception. The following would be added to the list of items Michigan citizens can't obtain via FOIA requests:

(Z) AN AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDING RECORDED BY A BODY-WORN CAMERA WORN BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF HIS OR HER DUTIES AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.

An earlier bill introduced by a Michigan representative in the House asked for a much slimmer exemption -- footage recorded in private homes. Jones wants it all exempt. Supposedly, he'll be meeting with the ACLU and other interested parties to discuss changes to the wording.

We'll see how much he's willing to budge, considering there's only room on his side for concessions. I'm guessing it won't be much. Jones didn't get named "Legislator of the Year" by the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police for nothing. He was the one who safely shepherded the state's asset forfeiture "reform" bill through the legislature -- one so badly-neutered by law enforcement meddling that the Michigan Association of Police Officers actually endorsed the final version.

Filed Under: body cameras, foia, michigan, police, public, rick jones

Michigan State Police Used Forfeiture Funds To Upgrade Its Stingray

from the first-with-the-'terrorism,'-then-with-the-'free-money' dept

There are a few ways law enforcement agencies acquire cell tower spoofers. Very rarely do agencies pay for these expensive devices themselves. (Meaning with their funds drawn from their own departments. Obviously, no government agency is self-funded.) In most cases, funding in whole or in part is obtained from the DHS -- something nearly any agency can obtain simply by checking [X] BECAUSE TERRORISM when applying for a Homeland Security grant.

Agencies are also using seized funds from asset forfeiture programs. The Michigan State Police used both methods to buy and upgrade its Stingray, according to documents obtained by the ACLU.

For nearly a decade, the Michigan State Police has had secretive cellphone tracking devices that were bought to fight terrorism but instead are used to solve everyday crimes, internal documents show.

More than 250 pages of emails, invoices and other documents show the state police in 2006 acquired cellphone simulator technology, which lets police collect large amounts of data including the location of users. The equipment was upgraded in 2013 and an internal memo indicates it was used last year on 128 cases ranging from homicide to burglary and fraud, but not terrorism.

But that didn't stop the state police from telling the DHS that it was going to use the device to beat back terrorists.

The documents acquired by the ACLU indicate the state police paid Harris Corp. $206,500 in 2006 for equipment that was “vital to the war on terrorism” and allows “the state to track the physical location of a suspected terrorist.”

The equipment was fully funded by a U.S. Homeland Security grant and the cost matches Harris Corp. prices lists for its Stingray device, Wessler said.

Seeing as burglary and fraud aren't nearly as fund-worthy as actual terrorism, the agency apparently decided against going to the DHS well twice. The second round of funding was internal, but padded by plenty of external "donors."

In 2013, the state used asset forfeiture funds to pay Harris $593,450 for “surveillance and countersurveillance equipment and supplies,” records show.

The money isn't going to waste though. While the state police may have trouble finding enough "serious" crime (documents show 82 arrests and the location of six missing persons… but still no terrorism) to deploy the device against, it apparently needs very little prompting to put it to use. According to the records, the state police fire up the Stingray (now most likely a Stingray 2.0, aka, Hailstorm) once every three days.

Whether further upgrades will be this easy for the state to obtain remains to be seen. For one, this document release, along with last year's discovery of Oakland County (MI) Sheriff's Department's previously-unmentioned Stingray, has placed the use of these surveillance devices under additional scrutiny by legislators.

Additionally, the state government recently passed an asset forfeiture reform bill. While it didn't go as far as many had hoped (thanks to the objections of law enforcement lobbyists), the new law does raise the level of evidence needed to process a forfeiture from "a preponderance" (which sounds much weightier than it is) to "clear and convincing." It also requires additional reporting from law enforcement agencies on the seizure and distribution of funds and property.

That being said, some legislators still don't see a problem with law enforcement agencies doing whatever they want with surveillance equipment they don't want to talk about.

State Rep. Kurt Heise, R-Plymouth Township, chairman of the House Criminal Justice Committee, said McMillin’s bills [introducing a warrant requirement for Stingray use] would have “tied the hands of police.”

“Right now, I don’t think this is an issue ripe for state action,” Heise said. “The burden is on law enforcement to demonstrate they are operating under the constitution ... If the ACLU wants to challenge this in court, then we may have to let the courts sort it out.”

There's a company man. Heise, of course, speaks with authority on the subject of Stingrays, law enforcement burden and the ripeness of the issue. After all, he had no clue about the technology or who had it until someone else pointed it out to him.

Heise said he wasn’t aware the state police have the technology and isn’t concerned about it.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, imsi catchers, michigan, police, stingrays, surveillance

Mi Amiga: One Michigan School District's Three-Decades-Old Hero Computer That Still Manages HVAC Today

from the salute dept

As I'm sure I've mentioned in the past, I've worked most of my professional life in the tech industry, specifically working for a managed services consultant in Chicago. One of the things we do is advise our clients on hardware rotations. Client machines, like desktops and laptops for instance, are typically recommended on a four to five year rotation. Because, let's face it, a five year old computer is either functionally worthless or is probably hanging onto a single strand of twisted copper before crapping out entirely, amirite?

Please don't send this post to my customers. Why? Well, because this is the story of the Grand Rapids Public School System in Michigan and the Commodore Amiga, originally bought during the Reagan administration, that is still running the schools' heating and air conditioning today.

The Commodore Amiga was new to GRPS in the early 1980s and it has been working tirelessly ever since. GRPS Maintenance Supervisor Tim Hopkins said that the computer was purchased with money from an energy bond in the 1980s. It replaced a computer that was “about the size of a refrigerator.” The computer is responsible for turning the heat and the air conditioners on and off for 19 school buildings.

Great. My HP laptop from six years ago has the keys falling off the keyboard and I'm pretty sure the fans inside the chassis have had their fins whisked down to tiny little fan-nubs, but this beast from the cold war times is still making sure little Johnny doesn't get sweaty during his lunch period. What's insane about all of this is the intricacy with which the whole thing manages to work. The computer controls the boilers, fans and pumps, while also monitoring temperatures within the schools... and it was programmed by a local high school student in the 80's. Not only that, but because the Amiga is a thing that belongs in a museum somewhere, whenever the school district needs help with the machine they still go back to that very same "programmer" who is all grown up now and happens to still live in the area. I mean, just listen to this.

“It’s a very unique product. It operates on a 1200-bit modem,” said Hopkins. “How it runs, the software that it’s running, is unique to Commodore.”

Hopkins said the system runs on a radio frequency that sends a signal to school buildings, which reply within a matter of seconds with the status of each building. The only problem is that the computer operates on the same frequency as some of the walkie-talkies used by the maintenance department.

“Because they share the same frequency as our maintenance communications radios and operations maintenance radios — it depends on what we’re doing — yes, they do interfere,” Hopkins said.

If that happens, “we have to clear the radio and get everyone off of it for up to 15 minutes.”

The school had received funds to address infrastructure problems from something called the "Warm Safe and Dry" bond in 2011, which seems like it was named specifically to get the schools' HVAC systems up to date. But GRPS was all, "eh, fuck it, this thing's still running like a champ, so let's put our ancient computer down the priority list." And it looks like it was the right decision. The Amiga runs day and night to this day, with only some minor inconveniences and replacement parts getting in the way of saying this thing is working flawlessly.

The article notes that the locals there are considering a new $175 million bond proposal that would free up money for the school system to replace the Amiga with a modern system that would cost something like $2 million or so. If it passes, Hopkins is expecting it to be a high priority, which will result in the sad day when we have to retire the old girl and put her out to pasture. In the meantime, this machine deserves some kind of Ironman award. We salute you, Commodore!

Filed Under: amiga, grand rapids, grand rapids public school system, heating system, michigan, schools

FTC Smacks Down Michigan For Trying To Ban Tesla Sales: Didn't We Already Warn You About This?

from the go-go-ftc dept

A little over a year ago, we noted how nice (if somewhat surprising) it was to see the FTC take a stand for Tesla and its direct sales model. Just as states -- generally under pressure from auto dealers who hate competing with Tesla -- were starting to explore laws to ban Tesla from those states, the FTC noted that it felt many of these plans were designed to hold back competition and innovation and it was prepared to step in. A year ago, it said things like this:

Removing these regulatory impediments may be essential to allow consumers access to new ways of shopping that have become available in many other industries.

Shots fired. In response to this (and public outcry), New Jersey and some other states appeared to back down. But not Michigan, home to the big US automakers, who aren't at all happy with this new upstart competitor from California. Last fall, Michigan passed a law that made it even more difficult for direct sales like Tesla. The FTC didn't do anything specifically about that (yet), but there's a new bill under discussion in Michigan that would carve out an exception to the new ban on direct sales of vehicles, but just for a new category called "autocycles," such as those from Elio Motors. The FTC used this opportunity to question why there's a ban on direct sales of vehicles in the first place.

In a letter commenting on the Michigan proposal, FTC staff supports the movement to allow for direct sales to consumers—not only Tesla or Elio, but for any company that decides to use that business model to distribute its products. Blanket prohibitions on direct manufacturer sales to consumers are an anomaly within the larger economy. Most manufacturers and suppliers in other industries make decisions about how to design their distribution systems based on their own business considerations, responding to consumer demand. Many manufacturers choose some combination of direct sales and sales through independent retailers. Typically, no government intervention is needed to augment or alter these competitive dynamics—the market polices inefficient, unresponsive, or otherwise inadequate distribution practices on its own. If the government does intervene, it should adopt restrictions that are clearly linked to specific policy objectives that the legislature believes warrant deviation from the beneficial pressures of competition, and should be no broader than necessary to achieve those objectives.

Opening the door by a crack is a step in the right direction, and we urge policymakers in Michigan to take this small step. But beyond company-specific fixes lies a much larger issue: who should decide how consumers shop for products they want to buy? Protecting dealers from abuses by manufacturers does not justify a blanket prohibition like that in the current Michigan law, which extends to all vehicle manufacturers, even those like Tesla and Elio who have no interest in entering into a franchise agreement with any dealer.

The full letter is below -- and it does a nice point-by-point debunking of the laughable arguments by those who insist bans on direct sales to consumers are necessary. Here's just a snippet:

Those who support a blanket prohibition on direct manufacturer sales have made a number of arguments that FTC staff find unpersuasive. Perhaps the central concern reflected in the current laws regulating the manufacturer-dealer relationship is that government intervention is required to protect independent dealers from abusive behavior by their suppliers. But a blanket prohibition of direct manufacturer sales is not a narrowly crafted provision to protect franchised dealers from abuse in their franchise relationships. Such a prohibition is categorical, going well beyond the many other statutory provisions that protect dealers from such abuse. It extends to every entity engaged in manufacturing, assembling, or distributing new motor vehicles, even a manufacturer that has never entered into a franchise agreement.

Advocates for existing dealers also argue that manufacturers that sell directly to consumers will not provide them with adequate service. This argument presupposes that automobile manufacturers in a competitive environment will act contrary to their economic self-interest. If consumers greatly value post-sale service and would be unlikely to purchase or recommend any automobile without a reasonable assurance of quality future service, then any manufacturer will have an incentive to supply such service or else see its sales decline to the benefit of its rivals. This competitive pressure is a strong motivation for manufacturers to either provide good service themselves or continue to contract with an independent service provider, such as a dealer, to do so.

Finally, advocates for a categorical ban on direct sales argue that direct-selling manufacturers would charge higher prices to consumers. In their view, consumers benefit from the “intrabrand” competition between dealers of the same brand of vehicle. In other words, rival dealers in the same area that sell the same make and model of car compete for business and competition between them can lower prices for car buyers. Manufacturers, they maintain, would not be subject to the same competitive pressures.

This view is inconsistent with modern economic learning and with the Supreme Court’s widely accepted observation that strong “interbrand” competition—competition between rival manufacturers—can suffice as a source of downward pressure on price. Manufacturers in a competitive market face acute pressure to keep prices low to keep buyers from shifting their purchases to a competing manufacturer’s product. Thus, forcing firms to use inefficient distribution methods can result in higher prices and other forms of consumer harm. As described above, this is not merely a theoretical possibility. Statistical evidence shows that states that have placed strong limitations on gasoline refiners’ ability to operate their own retail outlets tend to have higher prices than those that allow refiners to use whatever combination of dealer and company-operated stations they prefer.

A continuing ban on direct sales by manufacturers perpetuates the current closed system of motor vehicle sales in Michigan. The system limits competition among existing, well-established manufacturers, all of whom must sell through the established network of independent auto dealers. A direct sales ban deters experimentation with new and different methods of sales by current auto manufacturers, and also by future entrants to the market. Michigan’s consumers are paying the price of such a dictate. The essential mechanism that drives markets—the interaction between the supply by manufacturers and the demands of consumers—is being curbed. The market is less responsive to consumer preferences and less innovative in anticipating their evolving needs.

It's nice to see the FTC continuing to monitor this situation and to speak out against clearly anti-competitive moves.

Filed Under: automobiles, cars, direct sales, ftc, michigan
Companies: elio, tesla

Michigan Attorney General Slaps Reporter With Bogus Subpoenas For Doing Her Job

from the abuse-of-power dept

Why is it always the state Attorneys General? Time and time again we see examples of state AGs who seem to think they're above the law and can abuse their position to attack those they dislike. The latest? Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette. Apparently, he was none too happy that Huffington Post reporter Dana Liebelson was investigating juvenile prison conditions in the state, and had a representative from his office follow her for two hours across the state to slap her with two separate, but equally questionable, subpoenas, demanding all of her notes: As Liebelson notes on her Twitter feed, she had had permission to visit the prisons, and agreed not to bring in a recording device. She noted that she followed all the rules that she was given for reporting from the prison -- and yet, she immediately gets slapped with a subpoena demanding her notes.

And she wasn't the only one. Another report notes that Schuette also sent a subpoena to Michigan Radio, demanding its recording of a prisoner/attorney interview.

Of course, after Liebelson's story started getting social media and press attention, Schuette's office quickly backed down, and promised to rescind the subpoenas. The excuse given by his office, to MLive, is absolutely ridiculous:

A spokesperson for Schuette, responding to a request for comment, issued a statement indicating a civil service attorney had been "doing the department's job of defending the state" from lawsuits.

The attorney "followed a common legal procedure" of subpoenaing information from individuals "entering Michigan prisons to speak to prisoners who are suing state taxpayers," said spokesperson Andrea Bitely.

That makes no sense at all. Defending the state from lawsuits should never involve sending reporters subpoenas demanding all of their notes. It's a clear intimidation technique that violates all basic concepts of a free and open press.

Filed Under: bill schuette, dana liebelson, journalism, michigan, prisons, subpoenas