stories filed under: "washington"

Federal Judge Tosses Cops' Lawsuit Against A Councilmember Who Said The Police Dept. Had Committed Murder

from the being-offended-isn't-the-same-as-being-harmed dept

Wed, Mar 20th 2019 9:32am — Tim Cushing

A federal judge in Washington just reminded two Seattle police officers that a politician saying unkind things about law enforcement is not defamation. (h/t Peter Bonilla)

Following the killing of Che Taylor by Seattle police officers, councilwoman Kshama Sawant issued statements criticizing the Seattle Police Department for the shooting. From the decision [PDF]:

Approximately five days after the shooting, Sawant appeared before a crowd and media in front of the police department. This was not official city council business, and certainly not a “legislative function.” Sawant, however, implied awareness of inside factual information, and appeared to be making a statement against interest. With gravitas established, she went on to pronounce Che Taylor’s death a “brutal murder” and product of “racial profiling.”

Sawant reiterated these comments throughout the year, according to the lawsuit. However, she never directly accused the two suing officers -- Scott Miller and Michael Spaulding -- of being murderers. Her comments called the shooting a "brutal murder" and implied the PD engaged in biased policing, but at no time did she mention these two officers by name.

The officers argued Sawant's statements impugned them individually even though she only spoke about the police department as a whole. The court says suing as individuals and advancing a group theory of defamation takes far more than the officers showed in their complaint.

[W]whether proceeding under an individual or group theory, Plaintiffs must plead that the statements “specifically” identified or singled them out, or was understood as “referring to [them] in particular.” Sims, 20 Wn. App. at 236.

Here, Plaintiffs have not done so, and the Court finds that Councilmember Sawant’s statements do not satisfy the “of and concerning” requirement. According to the SAC, Councilmember Sawant, while standing in front of the Seattle Police Department, stated that “the police” committed a “brutal murder” which was “racially motivated.” (Dkt. No. 23 at ¶¶ 46, 54.) Councilmember Sawant did not identify Officers Miller and Spaulding by name, nor did she provide any information that would even remotely allow listeners to ascertain their identities, such as their rank or position, division or unit, precinct, or length of time on the force. Finally, Councilmember Sawant’s statements referred broadly to “the police,” the “Seattle Police Department,” and “systematic police brutality and racial profiling.”

Feeling insulted by blanket statements isn't a solid basis for a defamation lawsuit. The officers' attempt to tie reporting from local papers to the councilmember's statements fares even worse.

While Plaintiffs contend that Councilmember Sawant “continually brings it back to these specific officers and this specific incident” her references to “holding the Seattle Police Department accountable for their reprehensible actions, individual actions” and seeking “justice on the individual actions” do not clearly establish Officers Miller and Spaulding as their target. See Sims, 20 Wn. App. at 237 (“[T]he plaintiff must show with convincing clarity that he was the target of the statement.”) (emphasis added).

That the Seattle Times contemporaneously published an article identifying Officers Miller and Spaulding by name does not change this outcome. The “identification of the plaintiff[s] as the person[s] defamed” must be “certain and apparent from the words themselves,” without reference to extrinsic sources. Id. at 234 (emphasis added) [...] Finally, even if Plaintiffs were correct that the references to “individual actions,” coupled with their identification in the Seattle Times, could somehow transform what are otherwise vague and oblique statements into actionable defamation, the SAC does not plead any of these facts.

The officers have already been given one chance to turn their complaint into something actionable. The court isn't willing to give them a third try -- not when it's apparent this defamation lawsuit can't be fixed.

[E]ven if the Court were to grant Plaintiffs leave to amend to include these statements, they cannot satisfy the “of and concerning” requirement, and Plaintiffs make no effort to explain how they could resolve this deficiency, or how additional discovery could possibly uncover additional actionable statements.

The lawsuit is done. Dismissed with prejudice. These cops paid for the chance to learn that people saying unkind things is not actually defamation, especially when the person saying these things never names names. Thanks to this stupid lawsuit, Seattle taxpayers will be doubling up paying for these officers' actions. First, they paid for the city's defense of Councilmember Sawant's non-defamatory statements. They'll be asked to foot the bill again in the near future to defend these officers from a lawsuit brought by the family of the man they killed.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, che taylor, defamation, free speech, kshama sawant, michael spaulding, scott miller, seattle, washington

Federal Court Blocks Washington State's Unconstitutional Cyberstalking Law

Free Speech

from the fixing-stupid dept

Mon, Mar 18th 2019 3:32pm — Tim Cushing

When legislators craft unconstitutional laws, it's a safe bet the first people to abuse them will be members of the government. We've seen this happen with outdated criminal defamation laws and the new wave of "Blue Lives Matter" legislation. Attempts to curb online evils like cyberbullying and revenge porn tend to disregard the First Amendment. If they're not challenged, they go on to be tools deployed by government officials to silence critics.

That's what happened in the state of Washington. A vociferous government critic found himself targeted by a displeased politician who used the state's cyberstalking law to obtain a very restrictive protective order to silence his online nemesis. As the federal court notes in its decision [PDF], the speech the critic engaged in is the very reason for the First Amendment's existence. (via Courthouse News)

Rynearson is an online author and activist who regularly writes online posts and comments to the public related to civil liberties, including about police abuse and the expansion of executive power in the wake of September 11. Rynearson’s writings are often critical—and sometimes harshly so—of local public figures and government officials. These writings are well within the traditions of independent American political discourse, and are intended both to raise the awareness of other citizens regarding the civil-liberties issues that Rynearson writes about, and to hold civic and political leaders accountable to the community through pointed criticism. This sort of expression is at the very heart of political speech which the First Amendment most strongly protects.

Rynearson's online posts were highly critical of politicians he felt didn't condemn the indefinite imprisonment of foreigners, something authorized by the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act). One politician he felt was too enthralled with indefinite detention was Clarence Moriwaki.

[I]n February 2017, Rynearson wrote a series of public posts on Facebook criticizing Clarence Moriwaki, the founder of the Bainbridge Island Japanese-American Exclusion Memorial (“Memorial”), for failing to criticize Governor Inslee and President Obama for voting for/signing the NDAA. The thrust of Rynearson’s posts was that Moriwaki should be removed from his role as board member and de facto spokesperson for the Memorial because Moriwaki used the lessons of the internment, and his role with the Memorial, to criticize Republican politicians (chiefly, President Trump) in many media articles or appearances related to the Memorial, but failed to criticize Democratic politicians.

As the court notes, Rynearson used "invective" and "ridicule" to make his points. Moriwaki reported this ridicule (which, as the court points out, did not contain obscenity or threats) to local law enforcement. This did not result in an arrest, but Rynearson received a letter from the prosecutor notifying him she would "revisit" the possibility of prosecuting him if he didn't shut the hell up.

This also resulted in Moriwaki obtaining a protective order against Rynearson -- one that decided the First Amendment simply didn't exist.

For a period of time, from March 2017 to January 2018, Rynearson was also subject to a civil protection order imposed by the Bainbridge Island Municipal Court based on posts critical of Moriwaki. Moriwaki v. Rynearson, No. 17-2-01463-1, 2018 WL 733811, at *12 (Wash. Sup. Ct. Jan. 10, 2018). The cyberstalking statute was one of the statutes invoked by the Municipal Court in imposing the protection order. Moriwaki, 2018 WL 733811, at *5. The order imposed sharp limits on Rynearson’s speech, such as barring the use of Moriwaki’s name in the titles or domain names of webpages.

This order was vacated by the same court after Rynearson's Constitutional challenge. Now, Rynearson is challenging the law itself, pointing out (very reasonably) that the law's unconstitutional restrictions could see him on the receiving end of future protective orders or criminal charges.

The federal court says Washington's law is unconstitutionally overbroad, threatening a whole lot of protected speech.

Section 9.61.260(1)(b)’s breadth—by the plain meaning of its words—includes protected speech that is not exempted from protection by any of the recognized areas just described. Section 9.61.260(1)(b) criminalizes a large range of non-obscene, non-threatening speech, based only on (1) purportedly bad intent and (2) repetition or anonymity.

The state couldn't come up with much to defend its bad law -- just a couple of unpublished opinions that don't say quite what the state imagines they say. The federal court offers its rebuttal, which only cites the highest court in the land.

[T]he Supreme Court has consistently classified emotionally distressing or outrageous speech as protected, especially where that speech touches on matters of political, religious or public concern. This is because “in public debate our own citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide ‘adequate breathing space’ to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.”

With that, the federal court declares the law unconstitutional, handing Rynearson an injunction preventing the state of Washington from using the law against him.

Based on the record before the Court it is highly likely that in the final analysis the Court will declare the provision is unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. Anonymous speech uttered or typed with the intent to embarrass a person as here, is protected speech. The plain meaning of the italicized words render 9.61.260(1)(b) unconstitutional.

For the reasons given here, this Court concludes that RCW 9.61.260(1)(b) is facially unconstitutional.

The law is effectively dead. The only thing surprising about this is that the law has survived so long without being struck down. For 15 years, it's been illegal to "embarrass" people online. It took a politician abusing the law to silence a critic to finally get it struck down.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, cyberstalking, free speech, washington

Techdirt Podcast Episode 202: Delivery-Driven Government

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the different-thinking dept

Wed, Mar 6th 2019 1:30pm — Leigh Beadon

Lots of people have tried to sum up the differences between Silicon Valley and Washington, D.C. — but it isn't so easy to hone in on. Nevertheless, it's clear that at least some aspects of the west-coast tech approach could benefit a government that all-too-often appears incapable of accomplishing anything much. This week, we're joined by former US Deputy Chief Technology Officer and Code For America founder Jennifer Pahlka to discuss what the Hill can learn from the Valley.

Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes or Google Play, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

Filed Under: government, podcast, silicon valley, washington

Seattle Newspaper Wins Federal Court Case, Opens Up Reporting On Secret Law Enforcement Surveillance

Privacy

from the right-to-know-meets-code-of-silence dept

Wed, Jan 23rd 2019 1:29pm — Tim Cushing

Late last year, a Seattle newspaper petitioned the court to unseal dockets related to electronic surveillance by law enforcement. The position was clear: the First Amendment provides citizens with a right to information, hence the presumption of openness that's supposed to govern court proceedings. The government has long argued the need to protect law enforcement means and methods outweigh the public's right to know, and has secured a lot of compliance from judges at all levels of the court system.

In recent years -- no doubt at least partially as a result of the Snowden leaks -- courts have begun pushing back. Warrant affidavits are receiving more scrutiny from some judges and litigation has resulted in courts agreeing to unseal large numbers of proceedings involving law enforcement surveillance tech.

The Seattle case deals with the same concern: law enforcement is increasingly deploying secretive tech and locking the public out of the discussion by sealing documents and dockets. The good news is the federal court presiding over the case agrees with the EFF and The Stranger, the Seattle publication that put the litigation in motion.

In response to The Stranger’s petition, the United States Attorney’s Office for Western District of Washington and the Clerk of the Court have launched a new pilot program for tracking these surveillance tools. The court is now collecting data each time one of these surveillance tools is used and will publish that data in semi-annual reports. These reports will include the case numbers and the principle crime being investigated every time the government asks to use one of these surveillance methods, giving the public in Seattle an unprecedented understanding of how investigators spy on Americans.

This isn't as broad as the unsealing ordered by the court following a lawsuit by Jason Leopold, but it's a start. It appears filings will still remain under seal, but at least the public will have some idea how often surveillance tech is deployed by local law enforcement as well as what case numbers to target in future First Amendment-based litigation.

The first report won't be available until 2020 and, unfortunately, won't be retroactive. It will only affect cases brought from 2019 forward. It also will remain in operation at the US Attorney's discretion, which means it could be shut down anytime after its two-year trial run.

But we'll take what we can get for now and hope the US Attorney sees the value of partial transparency, rather than just the limited downsides law enforcement will likely complain about repeatedly. It's a big win for The Stranger, which has been instrumental in exposing legally-dubious surveillance programs rolled out by the Seattle Police Department.

In 2013, Brendan Kiley and Matt Fikse-Verkerk’s reported on a then-secret wireless spying network that the Seattle Police Department (SPD) had installed in downtown Seattle. Six days after the story was published the department deactivated the network. In 2016, Ansel Herz uncovered a secret, and illegal, SPD software program that lets them snoop on people’s social media feeds.

This is the sort of thing that happens when the public is locked out of the conversation, whether it's by city government officials failing to fulfill their oversight duties or judges obliging law enforcement every time they ask for public courtroom filings to be taken out of the public's hands. Less transparency equals less accountability, and the government has repeatedly shown it will exploit holes in public knowledge to engage in shady surveillance tactics.

Filed Under: courts, law enforcement, surveillance, transparency, warrants, washington
Companies: the stranger

9 Comments

Washington State Laughs At Federal Attack On State Net Neutrality Laws

Legal Issues

from the good-luck-with-that dept

Fri, Oct 12th 2018 6:49am — Karl Bode

In the wake of the FCC's net neutrality repeal, nearly half of the states in the union are now in the process of passing new net neutrality rules. Some states are pushing for legislation that mirrors the discarded FCC rules, while others (including Montana) have signed executive orders banning states from doing business with ISPs that engage in anti-competitive net neutrality violations.

Of course incumbent ISPs saw this coming, which is why giant ISPs like Verizon and Comcast successfully lobbied the FCC to include language in its repeal that tries to preempt state authority over ISPs entirely. But this effort to ban states from protecting consumers (not just from net neutrality violations) rests on untested legal ground, which is why some ISPs are also pushing for fake net neutrality laws they hope will preempt these state efforts.

So far, some states aren't taking the FCC's threats very seriously, despite California being sued by both major ISPs and the Department of Justice. Washington State Governor Jay Inslee this week had some choice words for the Ajit Pai FCC:

“Bring it on. If the president sues us, we’ll be ready."

That sentiment was mirrored by Washington State Senator Rep. Drew Hansen at a panel in Seattle on Wednesday:

"At the state level, we’re still, to some extent, a functioning democracy and if you get a broad bipartisan coalition around standing up for a free and open internet, as it turns out, you can actually get that written into state law,” Hansen said."

While the worry is that the DOJ and ISP lawsuit against California will set precedent that ruins other state efforts on this front, numerous lawyers I've been speaking to over the last few weeks say the heart of these lawsuits rests on some very unsound legal footing. In short, when the FCC gave up its authority to seriously regulate broadband providers, it also gave up its authority to tell states what to do. As such, the preemption language ISPs convinced the FCC to embed in its "Restoring Internet Freedom" proposal isn't likely worth the paper it was printed on:

"An agency that has no power to regulate has no power to preempt the states, according to case law,” Stanford Law professor Barbara van Schewick said.

“When the FCC repealed the 2015 Open Internet Order, it said it had no power to regulate broadband internet access providers,” van Schewick said. “That means the FCC cannot prevent the states from adopting net neutrality protections because the FCC’s repeal order removed its authority to adopt such protections."

At best, lawyers believe the DOJ's lawsuit against California will only delay the state's law until the courts settle the looming, separate lawsuit against the FCC by 21 state AGs. So even if the broadband industry and FCC win that case, the attempt at state preemption isn't likely to stand. Even if it does, the broadband industry also has to find a way to prevent any future Congress and FCC from just passing tough rules again, which is why the industry is having their most loyal political allies (like Tennessee's Marsha Blackburn) push bogus net neutrality laws they write with a specific aim at crushing tougher state or federal efforts.

But even in the deepest swamps of DC a majority of politicians aren't dumb enough to sign off on such incredibly unpopular legislation, a sentiment that's only likely to grow after the midterms. Meanwhile, as ISPs (and the politicians paid to love them) continue to whine about the state effort to craft "discordant and fractured" state level laws, remember that none of this would be happening if those same politicians hadn't dismantled popular, modest, federal level net neutrality (and privacy) rules at the behest of giant, widely-despised telecom monopolies.

Filed Under: fcc, net neutrality, washington

20 Comments

DHS Fusion Center Gets Request For Documents On Extremists, Decides To Hand Over Mind Control Docs Instead

Too Much Free Time

from the here's-the-thing-you-didn't-ask-for-but-will-probably-enjoy-reading dept

Thu, May 24th 2018 6:22am — Tim Cushing

Once you release a document to a public records requesters, it's a public record, whether you meant to release it or not. The person handling FOIA requests for the Washington State Fusion Center (a DHS/local law enforcement collaboration known more for its failures than successes) sent Curtis Waltman something unexpected back in April. Waltman asked the Fusion Center for records pertaining to Antifa and white supremacy groups. He did get those records. But he also got something titled "EM effects on human body.zip."

Instead of intel and assessments on local Antifa/white supremacists, Waltman found things like this:

And this:

The files did not appear to have been generated by any government agency, but rather collected from other sources who thought there might be some way the government could control minds using electronic stimulation or "remote brain mapping." Why the Fusion Center had them on hand remains a mystery, as does their attachment to a FOIA request containing nothing about electronic mind manipulation.

This inadvertent disclosure has led to more requests for the same documents. Only this time, requesters -- like Joshua Eaton of ThinkProgress -- are asking specifically for government mind control files. It appears the Fusion Center first thought about withholding some mind control docs, but somewhere along the line decided it couldn't pretend the documents that weren't supposed to be released hadn't actually been released.

An email chain in the release [PDF] to Eaton contains an apology from the staffer who accidentally sent Waltman the mind control files.

Good afternoon Gretchen,

First of all I want to apologize the same way I apologize with my supervisor Lt Boyle and [redacted] I do not like to give excuses but I really sent this without intention when it was not responsive. I sent the original email to [redacted] with the attachments. I will try not make more mistakes…. Now, because of my error MuckRock sent another PDR. Sorry again for the situation and have great afternoon…

Gretchen (the Public Records Officer for the Washington State Police) tells the staffer not to worry about it. Apparently, sending the wrong files to requesters happens frequently, but otherwise, everyone is doing a great job, including the person who sent mind control files with a batch of extremist docs.

But that apology and forgiveness is preceded by the same staffer asking for another review of documents she already released to another requester, possibly in hopes of denying this release.

Erik,

[redacted] told me if you could review this. Mudrock is claiming that DHS did created this. I think I was not supposed to release this but it was public.

Can you help me what can I tell my Public Disclosure coordinator?

Sorry for the inconvenience

No response from Erik is included in the document so one assumes the release went ahead without his additional input. Now this requester has a copy of this email chain, something pulled from an internet "mind control forum," and, inexplicably, the KKK documents released to Waltman in response to his FOIA request.

So, if you're looking to obtain public records but don't particularly care what records you receive, it appears the Washington State Fusion Center is a great place to try your luck.

Filed Under: antifa, dhs, extremists, foia, fusion center, mind control, washington, white supremacists

Washington State Laughs In The Face Of FCC Attempts To Ban States From Protecting Net Neutrality

Broadband

from the unicorns-at-the-fcc dept

Fri, Mar 2nd 2018 6:28am — Karl Bode

In the wake of the FCC's net neutrality repeal, nearly half the states in the union are now in the process of passing new net neutrality rules. Some states are pushing for legislation that mirrors the discarded FCC rules, while others (including Montana) have signed executive orders banning states from doing business with ISPs that engage in anti-competitive net neutrality violations.

Of course incumbent ISPs saw this coming, which is why both Verizon and Comcast successfully lobbied the FCC to include language in its repeal that tries to "preempt" state authority over ISPs entirely. But this effort to ban states from protecting consumers (not just from net neutrality violations) rests on untested legal ground, which is why some ISPs are also pushing for fake net neutrality laws they hope will preempt these state efforts.

So far, states aren't taking the FCC's threats very seriously.

Washington State for example became the first state in the union this week to pass net neutrality legislation (though Oregon is neck and neck). Washington's new law largely mirrors the discarded FCC rules by prohibiting the anti-competitive throttling and blocking of competitors, as well as "paid prioritization" deals that prevent ISPs from letting deep-pocketed content companies buy an unfair advantage over smaller companies and startups. Also like the FCC's rules, it carves out notable exemptions for "reasonable network management" -- as well as for the prioritization of legitimate services that may need it (medical, VoIP services).

Amusingly, the bill's sponsor doesn't appear particularly flummoxed by FCC restrictions on what states can and can't do:

"Just because the FCC claims it has the power to preempt state laws doesn’t mean that it actually does,” says (Drew) Hansen. “I can claim that I have the power to manifest unicorns on the Washington State Capitol lawn. But if you look outside right now, there are no unicorns."

ISPs have already started complaining that complying with an ocean of discordant state-level rules is hard on them, though that's something they might have wanted to give a little more thought to before lobbying to dismantle what were arguably (by international standards) pretty modest federal-level rules.

Note that's not to say state-level protections will be perfect. Many politicians are just trying to score political brownie points, and in many instances the rules will only be as good as those willing to actually enforce them. Several of them also are a little shaky on how they define "reasonable" network management, a term ISP lobbyists have a long, proud history of trying to redefine to include pretty much anything. Still, these are all problems that could easily been avoided by actually listening to the public, the experts, and the data and leaving the federal rules alone.

Filed Under: fcc, net neutrality, states rights, unicorns, washington

24 Comments

Apple, Verizon Continue to Lobby Against The Right To Repair Your Own Devices

Legal Issues

from the monopolizing-repair dept

Thu, Feb 1st 2018 6:26am — Karl Bode

A few years back, frustration at John Deere's draconian tractor DRM resulted in a grassroots tech movement. John Deere's decision to implement a lockdown on "unauthorized repairs" turned countless ordinary citizens into technology policy activists, after DRM and the company's EULA prohibited the lion-share of repair or modification of tractors customers thought they owned. These restrictions only worked to drive up costs for owners, who faced either paying significantly more money for "authorized" repair, or toying around with pirated firmware just to ensure the products they owned actually worked.

The John Deere fiasco resulted in the push for a new "right to repair" law in Nebraska. This push then quickly spread to multiple other states, driven in part by consumer repair monopolization efforts by other companies including Apple, Sony and Microsoft. Lobbyists for these companies quickly got to work trying to claim that by allowing consumers to repair products they own (or take them to third-party repair shops) they were endangering public safety. Apple went so far as to argue that if Nebraska passed such a law, it would become a dangerous "mecca for hackers" and other rabble rousers.

In the wake of Apple's recent iPhone battery PR kerfuffle (in which it claimed it throttled the performance of older iPhones to protect device integrity from dwindling battery performance), longer than normal repair waits have resulted in renewed interest in such laws. A new bill that would make it easier for consumers to repair their own electronics or utilize third-party repair shops is quickly winding its way through the Washington state legislature. That bill would not only protect the consumers' right to repair, but prevent the use of batteries that are difficult or impossible to replace:

"Starting in 2019, the bill would ban the sale of electronics that are designed “in such a way as to prevent reasonable diagnostic or repair functions by an independent repair provider. Preventing reasonable diagnostic or repair functions includes permanently affixing a battery in a manner that makes it difficult or impossible to remove."

Washington State Representative Jeff Morris says the bill was born directly from frustration by consumers and third-party repair shops in the wake of Apple's PR face-plant late last year:

"Morris told me this provision in the bill came out of a conversation with an independent repair shop owner in his district, who noted that many electronics now use glued-down batteries, which makes them difficult to repair and much harder to recycle, because batteries are flammable when shredded. There is currently no easy way for recyclers to remove the batteries from MacBook Pros at scale, for instance.

“With Apple phones in particular, they glue the battery in the case, so for me, that sounds like a purposeful attempt to make it so you couldn’t repair the phone,” Morris said. “It helps accelerate the path of those devices to the waste stream. So we’re trying to keep the philosophy our state is behind, which is recycle, repair, reuse."

Needless to say, Apple is furiously lobbying to kill Washington State's new law. As are fourteen other lobbying organizations representing hardware companies. Verizon's also lobbying against the bill (via the CTIA and the Telecommunications Industry Association), obviously concerned such a law would hurt the company's phone repair and insurance business it runs with Asurian. Unfortunately for Verizon and Apple, with 12 states introducing such bills last year and 17 such laws already proposed so far this year, this isn't an issue that's going away anytime soon.

Filed Under: drm, eula, iphone, iphone battery, ownership, right to repair, washington
Companies: apple, verizon

93 Comments

Washington State AG Sues Motel 6 For Handing Over Guest Registry Info To ICE

Legal Issues

from the keep-it-in-your-proverbial-pants,-moteliers dept

Tue, Jan 16th 2018 3:24am — Tim Cushing

At some point in the recent past, Motel 6 owners decided they were deputized law enforcement personnel. So what if people paid for a night's worth of uninterrupted sleep and expected that visits from federal and local officials would be kept to a minimum. These owners -- which the Motel 6 corporation takes great pain to point out are "independent" owner/operators -- have decided to ingratiate themselves with untrustworthy organizations like ICE… or the local PD.

Some Motel 6s decided to fax guest lists to police departments every night. Others decided they'd turn over every name that looked slightly non-Caucasian to ICE. In both cases, Motel 6 (the corporation) brought the hammer down, swearing it had never given franchisees the permission to turn guest lists into tip sheets for law enforcement. The post-facto corporate rollback wasn't enough for Washington's Attorney General. The state looked into local policies after hearing about rogue ICE relationships in Arizona. It found more of the same occurring in Washington, resulting in a state lawsuit against company for turning guests list into ICE fodder.

The hotel chain Motel 6 routinely gave federal immigration agents guest lists with personal information that it used to make arrests, according to a lawsuit filed on Wednesday by Washington’s attorney general.

At least six Motel 6 locations in the state provided the information to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents — some on a near-daily basis — without any reasonable suspicion, probable cause or search warrants, the lawsuit charges. Agents would then single out guests by their national identity, at times circling “Latino-sounding” names on the list, according to the court complaint.

The lawsuit [PDF] requests an injunction preventing Motel 6 employees from passing on information to ICE agents without being provided with at least some legal reason to do (probable cause) by government agents. If this were filed at a federal level, it wouldn't likely find a sympathetic court. A Supreme Court decision overturning a Los Angeles statute granting law enforcement constant, unchallengeable access is about the only restriction on sharing guest lists with law enforcement.

The allegations the Washington AG raises are concerning, but they're not actually illegal... at least not under federal law.

Since at least 2015, Motel 6 has had a policy or practice of providing to ICE agents, upon their request, the list of guests staying at Motel 6 the day of the agents' visit. The guest lists included some or all of the following information for each guest: room number, name, names of additional guests, guest identification number, date of birth, driver's license number, and license plate number.

ICE's usual practice was to come to Motel 6's reception desk and request the guest list from the receptionist. The receptionist would print out the guest list and give it to the ICE agent, along with a "law enforcement acknowledgment form" for the agent to sign, acknowledging receipt of the guest list. The ICE agent would review the guest list and identify individuals of interest to ICE. Motel 6 staff observed ICE identify guests of interest to ICE, including by circling guests with Latino-sounding names.

On a number of occasions after reviewing the guest list, ICE agents arrested or detained Motel 6 guests.

Motel 6 trained its new employees to follow the practice described above to provide guest lists to ICE agents upon request, without requiring the agents to show any reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or search warrant for the guest registry information.

However, at the state level, this appears to be a violation of local statutes.

Motel 6's privacy policy also states that Motel 6 may disclose guest registry information to law enforcement agencies pursuant to a court order or in compliance with any applicable law, regulation, rule, or ordinance.

Under Article 1, § 7 of the Washington Constitution, motel guest registry information constitutes a private affair protected from disclosure without probable cause. Motel 6 guests in Washington have a reasonable expectation of privacy that their guest registry information will not be disclosed to ICE without probable cause.

Motel 6 guests in Washington also have a common law right to the privacy of their guest registry information.

This is where the State AG hopes to prevent Motel 6 from using guest lists for ICE bait: at the state level where guest registry info is given more privacy protections than other places in the nation. It seems like ICE shouldn't be too put out by having to show a little probable cause paperwork before it starts browsing registries, but the government doesn't roll like that. It would be pretty easy for Motel 6 to get out from under this lawsuit. All it has to do is tell Washington franchisees to knock it off. It's unclear what benefit Motel 6 receives from this possibly-illegal relationship with ICE. So why not just institute a policy that actually complies with local laws?

It certainly won't make ICE happy. No federal agency likes having to ask permission from judges to perform searches. ICE is not a party to this lawsuit, but I'm sure it will find some way to make its presence felt. It may argue the Fourth Amendment does not require warrants to access third party records. Hopefully, the court presiding over this will remind ICE (and Motel 6) state laws can provide more protection than the Fourth Amendment without damaging federal authority. The Fourth Amendment is the baseline. Everything else above that -- established at the local level -- is a completely legal bonus for the state's residents.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, ice, motel guests, privacy, washington
Companies: motel 6

Comcast Busted For Signing People Up For Services They Didn't Want, Never Asked For

Scams

from the pay-more-for-nothing dept

Wed, Dec 27th 2017 6:32am — Karl Bode

Earlier this year Washington State sued Comcast for routinely ripping off its customers. The original complaint (pdf) argued that Comcast violated Washington state’s Consumer Protection Act (CPA) by misrepresenting its "Service Protection Plan," which lets users pay a $5 per month additional fee to cover "all" service calls. But the investigation found that Comcast not only over-stated what the plan covered, but routinely signed customers up for the plan who never asked for it, resulting in an additional $73 million in subscription fees over the last five years for what the State AG called a "near-worthless" plan.

The original complaint found that Comcast reps repeatedly sold the plan as being "comprehensive," covering all service calls, including those related to inside wiring, customer-owned equipment connected to Comcast services and "on-site education about products." But when customers subscribed to the plan called up thinking they'd then get a break from Comcast on service charges, the company would routinely bill customers anyway for all manner of services and repairs that should have been covered under the plan.

Amusingly, last week while Comcast was busy celebrating the vote to kill net neutrality, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson announced that his office would be amending and expanding its original complaint. According to investigators, the width and breadth of Comcast's protection plan scam went far deeper than investigators originally realized. After reviewing company interactions with subscribers, the AG found that "Comcast may have signed up more than half of all SPP subscribers without their consent," and in numerous instances charged customers for the SPP plan after telling them it was "free."

Ferguson's office claims they were "shocked" by the level of deception that occurred at Comcast:

"This new evidence makes clear that Comcast’s conduct is even more egregious than we first realized,” Ferguson said. “The extent of their deception is shocking, and I will hold them accountable for their treatment of Washington consumers."

If you've watched as Comcast gleans millions of dollars from unnecessary usage caps, extremely misleading fees (which it's also being sued over), or surcharges thanks to its monopoly over cable boxes, none of this should be remotely shocking. Being misleading is a rite of passage in the broadband sector, where captive customers, a lack of competition and blindly loyal state and federal regulators and lawmakers means accountability of any sort is frequently in short supply (though this is precisely the sort of stuff many falsely believe "the market" will magically take care of on its own accord).

And it's all about to get much worse. As we've well established, the Trump administration is gutting most meaningful FTC and FCC oversight of uncompetitive duopolies companies like Comcast. Worse, Comcast and Verizon have successfully lobbied the FCC to block any states that try to hold these ISPs accountable on the net neutrality, privacy, or errant billing fronts. All while the already flimsy competition Comcast faces in many of its markets weakens further thanks to telcos being unwilling to upgrade their networks. In other words, if you thought Comcast's behavior was bad in the past, you likely haven't seen anything yet.

Filed Under: scams, service protection plan, washington
Companies: comcast

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Read the latest posts:

read all »

Techdirt Deals

Report this ad | Hide Techdirt ads

Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Older Stuff

Tuesday
06:22	15 Years Late, The FCC Cracks Down On Broadband Apartment Monopolies (31)
Sunday
12:05	Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt (11)
Saturday
12:00	This Week In Techdirt History: February 13th - 19th (1)
Friday
19:39	Letter From High-Ranking FBI Lawyer Tells Prosecutors How To Avoid Court Scrutiny Of Firearms Analysis Junk Science (25)
15:52	Nintendo Is Beginning To Look Like The Disney Of The Video Game Industry (44)
13:49	Seattle Public Radio Station Manages To Partially Brick Area Mazdas Using Nothing More Than Some Image Files (44)
12:13	Thankfully, Jay Inslee's Unconstitutional Bill To Criminalize Political Speech Dies In The Washington Senate (8)
10:52	How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young (136)
10:47	Daily Deal: The Complete Blocs Website Builder Bundle (0)
09:33	Arizona Prosecutor Who Brought Bogus Gang Charges Against Protesters Files Ridiculous Defamation Suit Against Her Boss (12)
05:10	FTC Promises To Play Hardball With Robocall-Enabling VOIP Providers (23)
Thursday
20:30	FOIA Lawsuit Featuring A DC Police Whistleblower Says PD Conspired To Screw Requesters It Didn't Like (7)
16:06	Senator Blumenthal: Dismissing All Critics Of EARN IT As 'Big Tech Lobbyists' Shows Your Unwillingness To Recognize The Massive Problems In Your Bill (14)
13:43	California Sheriff, US DOJ Sued For Seizures Of Cash Generated By Legal Pot Businesses (33)
12:05	The Josh Hawley Mug: It Makes Him An Asshole, But Shouldn't Make Him A Copyright Infringer (42)
10:48	Blackburn & Blumenthal Introduce Terrible, Dangerous Bill To Make Sure Children Are Constantly Surveilled Online (21)
10:43	Daily Deal: The GameCreators Mega Maker Pack Bundle (0)
09:37	Whatever Problem EARN IT Is Trying To Solve, It Doesn't (12)
06:32	Gift Of Sight Stolen As Medical Implant Company Implodes (41)
Wednesday
20:13	Auguste Rodin's Sculptures Are In The Public Domain; 3D Scans Of Them Should Be, Too (34)
15:32	Content Moderation Case Study: YouTube Doubles Down On Questionable 'graphic Content' Enforcement Before Reversing Course (2020) (9)
13:42	NASA Says 2nd Gen Starlink Satellites Will Cause Headaches For NASA, Hubble (9)
12:09	Alabama Speed Trap Town's PD Called Out On Its Bullshit By Nearby Sheriff, Limps On Without Most Of Its Officers (17)
10:45	Senator Klobuchar's Next Unconstitutional Speech Control Bill: The NUDGE Act (37)
10:40	Daily Deal: The Complete 2022 Microsoft Office Master Class Bundle (0)
09:33	Nonprofit Forced To Delete Thousands Of Court Documents Obtained With A Fee Waiver Because PACER Is Greedy And Stupid (19)
05:45	Judge And Jury Say Sarah Palin Failed To Prove 'Actual Malice' In Defamation Case Against The NY Times (41)
Tuesday
20:09	DC Comics Goes To UK High Court Over Trademark Granted To Unilever For 'Wonder Mum' (7)
15:57	Some Senators Are Freaking Out Because The White House Is Pitching Some Extremely Minor Police Reforms (26)
13:30	Techdirt Podcast Episode 311: EARN IT Is Still Bad (5)

Federal Judge Tosses Cops' Lawsuit Against A Councilmember Who Said The Police Dept. Had Committed Murder

from the being-offended-isn't-the-same-as-being-harmed dept