Police In Ferguson Back To Threatening And Arresting Reporters: Tells Them To 'Get The Fuck Out Of Here'

from the wonder-what-they-say-to-protestors dept

The situation in Ferguson seemed briefly like it was getting better last Thursday, but that didn't last long. Over the weekend, the militarized and threatening police fired tear gas at protestors and continued to escalate the situation, rather than de-escalate it. The governor declared a state of emergency and instituted a curfew -- which created some more problems, and resulted in continued protests, but also some looting. In the last few hours, however, things have gone from bad to worse again. Police went back to arresting journalists, including Robert Klemko from Sports Illustrated and Rob Crilly from the Telegraph (who, believe it or not, is the "Pakistan and Afghanistan correspondent" for that paper -- now reporting live from... Ferguson, Missouri). While both were quickly released, police appear to be quite aggressive towards reporters. Chris Hayes, the MSNBC TV host reports that he was threatened with being maced:

Riot cop to me just a few minutes ago: "Get back! Or next time you're gonna be the one maced."

— Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) August 18, 2014

A live stream from the local radio station KARG (Argus Radio -- which is a local volunteer run radio station that has been doing amazing work) caught police screaming, "Get the fuck out of here or you're going to get shelled with this" while pointing a gun at the reporter. Many reports claimed that he was saying, "You're going to get shot," but it's pretty clearly "shelled." Not sure it really makes a huge difference. As you can see from the video (thankfully clipped and uploaded by Parker Higgins), another police officer, "Captain Todd," claims that the lights from the reporters are the problem, not that that somehow makes it okay to point guns at reporters and threaten to "shell" them (or to arrest them). Meanwhile, Ryan Reilly of the Huffington Post reports that reporters were ordered to "leave the area and head back where we wouldn't be able to witness anything for ourselves."

We are being told to leave the area and head back where we wouldn't be able to witness anything for ourselves.

— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) August 18, 2014

All of this really ought to make people wonder: if this is how the police act when they know the world is watching them and live streaming what they're doing, how do you think they act when no one is watching? The photos from Ferguson feel unreal, but are, in fact, quite real:

Biggest barrage of gas so far. Multiple flashbangs #Ferguson pic.twitter.com/EXJzmj3lKZ

— Jon Swaine (@jonswaine) August 18, 2014

The situation has become so ridiculous that Amnesty International has sent in a human rights team, saying this is the first time ever that the group has done so inside the US. Think about that for a minute or two...

The situation in #Ferguson has prompted us to send human rights teams. First time we've deployed inside the US. http://t.co/09HQClqy76

— Amnesty New Zealand (@AmnestyNZ) August 18, 2014

And then recognize that the press are almost certainly being treated significantly better than the residents who are protesting.

Filed Under: ferguson, first amendment, free speech, michael brown, militarized police, missouri, police, police brutality, reporters

Creating Controversy: No, An Upcoming EA Game About Militarized Police Doesn't Need To React To Ferguson, MO

from the imitating-life dept

As the Ferguson, MO saga continues to unfold, there are certainly lessons to be learned. An overly-militarized police force coupled with the oppression of free speech and the press aren't good ways for managing an angry population, for instance. Conversely, a police force that actually connects and serves with the community they're tasked with policing produces far better results. And, of course, we're all forced to have yet another discussion about race-relations in this ostensibly free and equal country of ours. These are good conversations to have.

Strange calls to video game companies that will be releasing a long-produced game featuring militarized police, insinuating that they must somehow be cognizant of Ferguson now that it's happened, are not useful in any way. That link serves as the kind of Kotaku article that features the gaming website occasionally going completely off the rails and twisting itself into angsty-wrong for reasons unknown to this writer. The piece starts with some of the frightening images we've all seen from Ferguson and then tailspins into this:

Into a world where Ferguson has now happened, where people around the world are confused and outraged at this type of police appearance and presence, EA is going to release a video game about heavily-armed police blowin' shit up on the streets of the USA. Nathan wrote about people's concerns (and EA's responses) with Battlefield Hardline's subject matter earlier this year, but that was a piece inhabiting a vacant plot of the media and cultural landscape, where the only thing present were those concerns. Now, we have some reality to sit alongside them.

Ah, yes, fantastic point. The company that made a fictional game set in real-world American locales must now be concerned because said game features aggressive and militarized police and Ferguson just happened! Because prior to Ferguson, police were never militarized. Before Ferguson, a militarized police forces had never scared the shit out of everyone. That whole thing after the Boston Marathon bombing where the police shut down a major city and rolled SWAT tanks through the streets? Never happened, yo. Police brutalizing civilians wasn't a thing until Missouri.

Except that none of that is true. The game is a work of fictionalized entertainment and, just because the subject matter might somehow remind some folks of a police issue this country is facing, there isn't a whole lot to do from EA's standpoint. As this article admits, before then wishing upon a rainbow that somehow EA would treat their game product like not-a-game product.

So what are EA to do? Well, there's not much they can do, or to be honest anyone should ask them to with regards to Hardline. The game was announced months ago and is well on its way to being completed...What I'd hope EA do, however, and this goes for all video game publishers, is to take the subject matter a little more seriously next time they want to approach it. There's a deeply unsavory element to casting police as assault rifle-toting warriors, one that in the wake of Ferguson - and its inevitable successors - video game companies would do well to remember and be a little more careful with.

I mean, you can say that if you want, but then you had damned well better be calling for the same thing when it comes to the issue of crime in this country and Grand Theft Auto, the issue of war in this country and something like a third of the games ever produced, the issue of animal cruelty and trades-workers in this country and the Mario Bros. franchise. Or, instead, we could realize that slamming makers of entertainment and art for not flinch-reacting to the news of the day, even really important news, is probably a silly thing to do.

Filed Under: battlefield hardline, ferguson, militarized police, missouri, police, video games
Companies: ea

Free Speech, Filters, Algorithms & Net Neutrality: How Big Company Nudging Can Influence Your World View

from the which-way-should-we-nudge dept

Zeynep Tufekci has a really great post talking about how much algorithmic filtering plays a role in how we view the world -- with a specific focus on what's happening in Ferguson, Missouri. As more than a few people have pointed out, much of the public discussion about the mess in Ferguson was happening on Twitter -- while it seemed eerily absent from Facebook (and the mainstream media at first...):

And this is what happened to “Ferguson” on Twitter:

Profile of a social media phenomenon. Minute by minute tweets about #Ferguson in the last 12 hours. pic.twitter.com/RnZ67BdxDl

— Patrick Ruffini (@PatrickRuffini) August 14, 2014

And then I switched to non net-neutral Internet to see what was up. I mostly have a similar a composition of friends on Facebook as I do on Twitter.

Nada, zip, nada.

No Ferguson on Facebook last night. I scrolled. Refreshed.

She notes that eventually the story did break through on Facebook, but not until the next morning when Facebook's algorithm finally caught up to the idea that something important was happening.

This morning, though, my Facebook feed is also very heavily dominated by discussion of Ferguson. Many of those posts seem to have been written last night, but I didn’t see them then. Overnight, “edgerank” –or whatever Facebook’s filtering algorithm is called now — seems to have bubbled them up, probably as people engaged them more.

But, as she notes, it's entirely possible that Facebook's algorithm wouldn't have ever found it important if the story wasn't gaining more and more attention on Twitter. And, of course, even as the story was being told on Twitter, there are questions about whether or not Twitter's algorithms suppressed some of it as well. "#Ferguson" only very briefly trended nationally, though it did trend in certain local markets.

So, there were fewer chances for people not already following the news to see it on their “trending” bar. Why? Almost certainly because there was already national, simmering discussion for many days and Twitter’s trending algorithm (said to be based on a method called “term frequency inverse document frequency”) rewards spikes… So, as people in localities who had not been talking a lot about Ferguson started to mention it, it trended there though the national build-up in the last five days penalized Ferguson.

As she points out: Algorithms have consequences.

This is not unlike Eli Pariser's idea of the "filter bubble" and the idea that companies may be effectively nudging you in ways that may not actually be that great. Frankly, that argument is a little strained, since it suggests that everyone only lives within these bubbles, and doesn't do things that exposes them further, but there is a valid point at the core of it worth exploring.

Tufekci notes, however, that this is also why net neutrality is so important. Because without it, not only do you have to worry about internet services determining what's important to you, but also the broadband infrastructure as well. And both will be focused on what enables them to profit the most. She points out the example of locals live-streaming what the police in Ferguson were doing -- including when the police announced over loudspeakers to "turn off their cameras" (a fairly chilling request in its own right). And she ponders what happens to those live streams on a non-neutral network:

But I’m not quite sure that without the neutral side of the Internet—the livestreams whose “packets” were fast as commercial, corporate and moneyed speech that travels on our networks, Twitter feeds which are not determined by an opaque corporate algorithms but my own choices,—we’d be having this conversation.

Obviously, there are lots of other issues at play in Ferguson that go well beyond the internet and things like net neutrality. But they are related. The discussion of those issues -- race, police brutality, police militarization, free speech, etc. -- are all enabled and enhanced by the issues of the internet and what it enables... and what it stifles. If the police could have kept this story from getting attention, it's likely that (1) there would have been even more abuse and (2) that all of those other discussions wouldn't be happening. Who knows if many of those discussions will be able to create real change, but you at least need to have that discussion to start the process of change. And if the technology is getting in the way of that, through non-neutral networks or algorithms that ignore important events like this, it seems like a problem worth solving, if only to speed up all those other important conversations as well.

Filed Under: algorithms, ferguson, filters, free speech, missouri, net neutraliy
Companies: facebook, twitter

Turns Out When Police Act Cordial, Rather Than As An Oppressive Military Force, Things Work Out Better

from the shockingly-unshocking dept

After covering the militarized police fiasco in Ferguson, Missouri the past few days, including highlighting Anil Dash's rather simple point that the way to deal with angry protestors isn't to make them angrier, it appears that someone finally got the message. Missouri's governor kicked out the St. Louis County police, who were responsible for much of the previous escalation, and sent in the Missouri State Highway Patrol, who almost immediately set a very different tone -- one that involved a much smaller police presence, and one that was a lot friendlier. It even involved talking with (not just to) protestors in a cordial manner. The most striking image -- a complete reversal of the day before -- has to be Captain Ron Johnson, who was put in charge, walking with the protestors (in ordinary police garb) rather than having militarized police aiming high powered weaponry at them.

Capt. Ron Johnson of the Missouri Highway Patrol walks along with the Ferguson march. Compare this to Wednesday. pic.twitter.com/Vtezu4MuHk

— Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) August 14, 2014

It's almost as if treating the public as people with rights who the police are supposed to be serving, rather than as an enemy that needs invading... works better. Who would have expected that, other than, well, most normal people?

Filed Under: cordial, ferguson, militarization, missouri, police, police brutality

Ferguson Law Enforcement: An 'Occupying Force' With 'Special Rights'

from the even-the-military-knows-you-have-to-win-hearts-and-minds dept

As we've covered in two previous stories here at Techdirt, Ferguson, Missouri is a mess. The events, which now include three days of cops vs. citizens, were set off by the shooting of an unarmed black man, Mike Brown.

The story behind the shooting is still clouded by contradictory accounts. Police say there was a "scuffle" and that Brown tried to grab the unnamed officer's gun. The police chief points to the officer's "facial swelling" as definitive proof of this narrative. The other story is that Brown was gunned down by a pissed off cop who didn't like the fact that Brown didn't immediately comply with his "get the fuck onto the sidewalk" request.

Here are two facts: Brown's body was 35 feet away from the vehicle where the scuffle supposedly took place. Brown's body was left unattended for hours before being removed by a police.

Here's one more, not that it should matter, but it does: Mike Brown had no criminal record.

Even if he was a criminal, his killing wouldn't be justified. But even the most die hard cop supporter has to wonder why a person with no criminal record would suddenly escalate a jaywalking beef to the point of trying to take an officer's gun. That doesn't add up. Nothing does, not when filtered through the source delivering its top down narrative.

Local law enforcement has gone into complete lockdown mode. It has detained journalists without explanation. It has fired tear gas at an Al Jazeera America camera crew. It has filled the streets with armored vehicles, police officers in combat fatigues and has done nothing to defuse the situation.

Beyond that, local law enforcement has done the following:

Enacted a no-fly zone over the town.

Told people they can't protest after dark.

Refused to release the name of the officer who shot Mike Brown.

Refused to release Mike Brown's autopsy results.

Instructed people to return to their homes to "avoid tear gas" and then fired tear gas into people's yards.

It's ugly all over and it's a prime example of the "what could go wrong" with the steady militarization of the police. Law enforcement has rolled in like an invading force, with gunners peeking out of the top of armored cars and citizens confronted by multiple gun barrels everywhere they look.

The police department demands patience and understanding as it investigates the shooting. But it deserves none of that. For one, it's handling of the situation has gone from bad to horrific and it shows little desire to scale back its aggression. Anil Dash at Medium points out that none of this needed to be handled this way.

It's plain as day that the cops have no strategy, no end goal in Ferguson. There's no leadership. They don't even understand the situation that they've found themselves in.

Basic crowd management for a group that will not, or can not, disperse is to de-escalate. The rent-a-cops at a hippie music festival know exactly what to do when the sound cuts out, but somehow the heavily militarized police force in Ferguson missed the lesson. It's a hot summer day? Well, then you hand out some water to folks. You even smile while you do it. No, the water shouldn't be coming out of firehoses while you hold back your German Shepherds.

For that matter, take off the helmets, and holster your weapons. This is basic shit for police! Never point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy. Don't point an assault rifle at someone unless you intend to kill them. These are fundamentals of firearms safety that every 8-year-old who's ever gone on a hunting trip learned.

Instead of being cops, they're now an occupying force, setting new rules for public interaction, intimidating journalists and doing everything but ousting the population and taking over their dwellings.

This is the byproduct of militarization. No longer are they peace officers. They are now soldiers, fighting a war against their fellow citizens. Billions of dollars have been funneled into local law enforcement agencies by the DHS, giving them military tools, tactics and vehicles. And in Ferguson, we now see that every dollar of it was misspent. The local cops are geared up for a war, but they're missing one piece of technology that could likely have cleared up the mystery surrounding Mike Brown's shooting almost immediately.

#Ferguson Police Department: Riot Gear ✔️ Tear Gas ✔️ Camouflage ✔️ Assault Rifles ✔️ Armored Land Mine Vehicles ✔️ Dashboard cameras 🚫

— RB Blair (@TuxcedoCat) August 13, 2014

The police department doesn't have a single dashboard camera in operation. It owns both dash cams and body cams, but not a single one is in use.

What it does have in full working condition (along with its war toys) is a handful of rights that only law enforcement officers possess. These rights aren't found in the Constitution and the only way to access them is to be a cop. Citizens don't have this extra layer of protection. Ken White at Popehat:

If you are arrested for shooting someone, the police will use everything in their power — lies, false friendship, fear, coercion — to get you to make a statement immediately. That's because they know that the statement is likely to be useful to the prosecution: either it will incriminate you, or it will lock you into one version of events before you've had an opportunity to speak with an adviser or see the evidence against you. You won't have time to make up a story or conform it to the evidence or get your head straight.

But what if a police officer shoots someone? Oh, that's different. Then police unions and officials push for delays and opportunities to review evidence before any interview of the officer. Last December, after a video showed that a cop lied about his shooting of a suspect, the Dallas Police issued a new policy requiring a 72-hour delay after a shooting before an officer can be interviewed, and an opportunity for the officer to review the videos or witness statements about the incident. Has Dallas changed its policy to offer such courtesies to citizens arrested for crimes? Don't be ridiculous. If you or I shoot someone, the police will not delay our interrogation until it is personally convenient...

The police department has not released the name of the shooter. Because he's one of the insiders. As has been pointed out by several people, we know the names of everyone charged with looting-related felonies in Ferguson. But we still don't know who shot Mike Brown. The police chief wants to protect the officer and his family, but law enforcement agencies will not return that favor should a citizen kill someone. And they will unleash entire police departments to destroy you if you shoot a cop. If you're still alive enough to give a statement, your name will be prominently displayed everywhere. Your family will be harassed by cops and citizens. Death threats will make their way through phone lines and into the mailbox. But only cops are immunized against this by policies backed by police unions and government officials.

If anyone is still wondering what happens when you increase police power (with protective policies and secondhand war machines) while decreasing accountability, Ferguson is your answer. And it's only the most visible indicator. Around the nation, it's more of the same -- but seething under the surface.

Filed Under: due process, ferguson, michael brown, militarization, missouri, occupying force, police, rights

Police Militarization, Citizen Journalism And The Suppression Of Free Speech: The Ferguson Fiasco Highlights Systemic Problem

from the time-to-change-things dept

Last night we wrote briefly about the police in Ferguson, Missouri, detaining two journalists -- Wesley Lowery of the Washington Post and Ryan Reilly of the Huffington Post. The situation in Ferguson was already a mess in terms of the police killing an unarmed teenager, responding poorly to that situation, and then making things worse by challenging citizens' rights to free speech and to assemble. Taking it a step further and targeting journalists further shows that the police in Ferguson, beyond having little plan on what to do, were looking to suppress the flow of information about what was happening. Soon after that post went up, the police went even further in teargassing a reporting team from Al Jazeera America. Living in the US, the idea that reporters from Al Jazeera might face teargassing from "security forces" may not seem that strange... if it were in the Middle East. But this is in Missouri, which should say something about how much we've lost the plot here in America. It's pretty clear from the video that the teargas was shot directly at the press -- who were obviously members of the press getting their lights ready for a live shot. There were further reports that the police also fired rubber bullets at those same reporters.

But of course, in this day and age, focusing just on the "professional" press is kind of meaningless. Anyone can be a part of the press, and that's happening quite frequently. Local Alderman Antonio French went out into Ferguson and was doing plenty of reporting, even if he wasn't professional media. Here were some of his tweets from last night:

Happening now in #Ferguson https://t.co/64RGlmDXBc

— Antonio French (@AntonioFrench) August 14, 2014

Happening now in #Ferguson https://t.co/qg6vDs916H

— Antonio French (@AntonioFrench) August 14, 2014

Happening now in #Ferguson https://t.co/SrpzSfMBkq

— Antonio French (@AntonioFrench) August 14, 2014

Wesley Lowery, the Washington Post reporter who was detained, noted that French provided the "biggest public service" he'd seen so far in covering what was happening... and that he was "appalled" to find out that, of course, French was arrested. Unlike with Lowery and Reilly, who were detained and not charged, French was charged with "unlawful assembly" and was thrown in jail. While police said he would be in jail for 24 hours, after protests emerged around the arrest, French was released this morning.

The whole thing highlights just how dangerous this situation has become and how police in Ferguson appear to be trampling over basically every constitutional right they can come up with (there was a joke on Twitter last night -- and forgive me for not being able to track down where it originated -- that before too long, police in Ferguson will be demanding to be quartered in residents' houses...).

We've been covering the ridiculous trend of militarizing the police for quite some time (though nowhere near as long as Radley Balco, who has been warning about this for ages, with very few people paying attention...), and just last month highlighted just how ridiculous it has become. In many, many cases, the militarization is actually driven by the Department of Homeland Security giving local police forces cast off military equipment for free. In the past 12 years, DHS has given $35 billion (with a b) in grants and equipment to local police forces. I recently found out that the local police in the small sleepy suburb where Techdirt's offices are located got themselves an MRAP, and it scares me silly.

Glenn Greenwald is noting that the events in Ferguson are finally dragging the horrors of a militarized police force into the limelight, and I hope it leads to a severe about-face. Ryan Cooper, at The Week, has a similar piece, saying that what's happening in Ferguson shows why you don't militarize police. Another comment (again, sorry for the lack of attribution as I can't find it now) that flew by on Twitter was something to the effect of that the military is trained to take out an enemy, while the police are supposed to be the public's servants. But when you militarize the police, the public becomes the enemy.

Given all this, Trevor Timm, of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, rightly notes that the militarization of the police is now a press freedom issue as well:

But until now, this issue has not really reached the mainstream, or if it has, it's been thought of as something that happens in a foreign authoritarian country and not the United States. Besides the arrests yesterday, you can watch video of Al Jazeera journalists being tear-gassed by these police forces (and perhaps mistake it for footage from Tahrir Square in Egypt). Or you listen to a brave citizen journalist operating a livestream describe events as police demand people to turn off their cameras, just as the tear gas and rubber bullets start to fly. Or you can think about citizen journalist Antonio French who was not as lucky as the other two reporters and is still sitting in jail.

In response to the travesty in Ferguson, the Justice Department indicated it may re-open a broad review of local police tactics around the country to investigate some of these issues. That is the least they should do. The rights of countless lawful citizens have been trampled on in Ferguson and around the country thanks to these police tactics, and something needs to be done soon.

But reporters should take note: these issues don't just affect protesters, but also affect those who cover the protest. It creates an environment where police think they can disregard the law and tell reporters to stop filming, despite their legal right to do so, or fire tear gas directly at them to prevent them from doing their job. And if the rights of journalists are being trampled on, you can almost guarantee it's even worse for those who don't have such a platform to protect themselves. Mr. Lowery said it best after he was released from jail yesterday:

“I knew I was going to be fine,” he said. “But the thing is, so many people here in Ferguson don’t have as many Twitter followers as I have and don’t have [Washington Post owner] Jeff Bezos or whoever to call and bail them out of jail.”

And, of course, what that really shows is that this is not just a freedom of the press issue, but a freedom of speech issue -- and, more broadly, a freedom issue, period. By militarizing the police, DHS and the federal government have set up a situation that is designed to snuff out free speech, freedom of assembly and the rights of everyone. It is trampling the very constitution it is supposedly defending. It's a complete travesty. It's been going on for a while, but the events in Ferguson only serve to highlight just how ridiculous and dangerous the situation has become.

Filed Under: antonio french, dhs, ferguson, first amendment, free speech, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, journalism, missouri, police, police militarization, ryan reilly, wesley lowery

Missouri Judge Shuts Down Department Of Corrections' Attempt To Move The Goalposts During A FOIA Lawsuit

from the still-always-a-few-minutes-before-sunrise-in-most-govt-agencies dept

You can't tell the players without a program and, apparently, you can't get your public documents without a lawsuit. Freedom of Information laws -- both at federal and state level -- were supposed to make the government more accountable to its citizens. In practice, this has often taken the form of withholding requested information until ordered otherwise by a judge. Not exactly transparent and not exactly a brand new level of accountability. It bears more resemblance to a three-year-old being forced to relinquish whatever's currently being clenched in a tightly-closed fist.

The three-year-old in this case is the Missouri Dept. of Corrections. And not only did it have a tight grip on some documents, it also wanted to make up the rules as it went along.

While plaintiff Allaedin Qandah was being held at one of its facilities, his copy of the Quran was damaged during a cell search, something he alleges was done intentionally. The ACLU, representing Qandah, requested documents pertaining to "copies of any and all records relating to [Qandah's] IRR # NECC 11321 - property damage."

The Missouri DOC found 14 responsive documents but refused to surrender any of them.

On May 17, 2012, Heather McCreery, Legal COunsel for DOC, replied in writing to Hill denying the request for the records. In her letter she cited Federal Regulation 28 CPR. 40.10 as grounds for denial pursuant to Section 610.021(14).

So, the ACLU sued for the release of the documents. The DOC filed response to the lawsuit suddenly added even more exemptions, none of which had been contained in its original denials.

DOC modified its position in its First Amended Answer to claim three additional reasons for closing the records besides the one claimed in McCreery's letters. DOC now claims "[t]he requested records are exempt from disclosure under 610.021(14) and 217.075.1(3) RSMo" and as "internal administrative report[s] or document[s] relating to institutional security." DOC also asserts that "[t]he Requested Records are Exempt from Disclosure under 610.021(13)" as "[i]ndividually identifiable personnel records, performance ratings, or records pertaining to employees or applicants for employment." Finally, DOC states that "[t]he requested records are exempt from disclosure under 610.021(10)" because they "relate [l]egal actions, cause of action or litigation involving a public governmental body and any confidential or privileged communication between a public governmental body or its representatives and its attorneys."

The Court wasn't too impressed with the DOC's last-minute goalpost shifting and called it out for its actions, pointing out that allowing this sort of behavior would subvert the intentions of "sunlight" laws and further discourage citizens from requesting public records.

The legislature has mandated that if a custodian denies access to public records, the custodian must, upon request, specify the legal basis for the denial. Permitting Defendant to assert additional reasons for denial after litigation commences, as it attempts here, renders superfluous the statutory requirement of notice of the reasons for denial... It would also discourage citizens from retaining attorneys (or litigating pro se) to challenge the exemptions claimed by a government entity that withholds documents, if, after a lawsuit is filed, the government could cite additional exemptions. This is also contrary to public policy.

The DOC also tried to claim that regulations might permit it an exemption under federal Sunshine Law statutes (rather than Missouri's statutes) but the judge quickly dismantled this argument as well, pointing out that the quoted federal statute had been repealed and is no longer "a valid authority on which the DOC can rely to close the requested records."

All in all, a pretty satisfying takedown of disingenuous acts by a government entity. According to Courthouse News, the DOC is also paying all of the ACLU's legal fees.

The average citizen does not have the resources to challenge Sunshine Law denials, and it was unfair to allow the government to pile on exemptions after a lawsuit is filed," Tony Rothert, Legal Director of the ACLU of Missouri, said in a statement. "The judge's ruling helps level the playing field for the vast majority of citizens who do not have the resources to hit a moving target.

The government spends a lot of time and money keeping records out of the public's hands, doing as little as it can to stay within the letter of the law and avoiding the spirit of the law entirely whenever possible. Unfortunately, successful Freedom of Information requests are more and more frequently being routed through various courthouses before responsive documents are obtained.

Filed Under: department of corrections, foia, missouri

Google's Fight Against Distracted Driving Laws Might Not Be A Bad Thing For The Inevitable, Glorious Transhumanist Future

from the I-was-absolutely-not-watching-porn,-officer dept

We've talked for years about how while distracted driving laws may be well-intentioned, they often present a new variety of problems. Requiring that touch screens are locked while the car is in motion, for example, ignores the fact that other people might be in the passenger seat and interested in using the technology. Banning some behaviors can also cause people to try to hide the fact they're doing them, which has the potential to be more dangerous. While there's absolutely no doubt that distracted driving is a serious, significant problem (especially texting behind the wheel), the regulatory fixes proposed can often bring up a laundry list of unintentional new issues a politician with a fleeting understand of tech (and a limited imagination) might not be sensitive to.

Efforts to ban Google Glass while driving are similarly complicated. Reuters this week reported that Google lobbyists have been busy trying to shut down distracted laws in a handful of states, including Illinois, Delaware, and Missouri. The laws, also being proposed in New York, Maryland and West Virginia (among others), would in many cases ban outright the use of wearable computing devices. While there's no mistaking that Google's lobbying efforts are about protecting revenues first and foremost, there does seem to be a salient point being made in the midst of the discussion:

"While Glass is currently in the hands of a small group of Explorers," the company said, "we find that when people try it for themselves they better understand the underlying principle that it's not meant to distract but rather connect people more with the world around them."

In my mind, Google Glass is effectively just a heads up display. It's an early, clunky plastic version of what's to come, but it's just a HUD. As any military pilot (or hey, the terminator) could probably attest, there could very well be useful functionality embedded in such devices that provides the driver with additional information that could actually make them safer or a better driver. Blind spot monitoring and improved-view HUD cameras, traffic congestion warnings in the corner of your eye, subtle alerts about dangerous upcoming road conditions (think a crowd-sourced Waze or some variant with a HUD) -- are they all bad? They're all to be banned?

That's not to say Glass and future variations of the concept won't be abused; people who aren't bright will certainly try to watch YouTube videos while driving eighty miles an hour on the Long Island Expressway. But people are either dumb, or they aren't. Your fellow highway dwellers are either entirely awful at operating motor vehicles -- or they aren't. If they're simply bad at it, a bevy of new regulations or rules won't protect them (or you) from them being distracted by pretty much everything -- including chickens, a dropped cigarette, signs, loud noises, other people, farts, or their own thoughts.

Enforcement also seems like a tricky proposition here. As Glass naturally evolves and other companies jump on board, it's going to move from an obvious piece of wearable plastic computing, to contacts, eyeglasses or implants that aren't really distinguishable from normal human features. How does a police officer prove you were using this technology for distracting purposes, versus using it to help drive? They don't: as with current texting rules they just doltishly ban you from doing everything on a phone, even if you're just updating GPS settings. How would law enforcement confirm what you're doing on your retina's HUD without violating your privacy? I'd imagine they won't.

Not to make a habit of siding with lobbyists too often, but it seems like outright bans on what is effectively heads up displays is a bridge too far. I'm not sure tech-challenged DC can effectively and intelligently navigate the transhumanist concerns of tomorrow when they're not even capable of understanding the simple technology issues of today. That said, I'm all for other, more ingenious ways of getting nitwits off the road if anybody has some.

Filed Under: delaware, distracted driving, google glass, illinois, missouri
Companies: google

How Not To Email Constituents: The Brian Nieves Story

from the doing-it-wrong dept

The intersection of technology and politicians is often wrought with speed bumps of silliness. But to truly see a great example of how to do technology wrong, you need only look to Missouri State Senator Brian Nieves. The story begins with an email mailing list for Nieves, which Bart Cohn of Wildwood, MO somehow found himself on. Cohn's political views are described to be about as much at odds with Nieves' as is humanly possible. Upon seeing the email, Cohn responded by asking to be removed from the mailing list and throwing the word "freak" in for good measure. Nieves, who apparently has little else to do, then began a wonderfully aggressive email exchange, beginning with:

Who are you? Is there something wrong with you? Are you incapable of communicating in a way that common, decent people do? Tell me this, how did you ever even get on MY Distribution list?

Cohn responded by again asking to be removed. The exchange went on from there. You really should click the link to get the whole thing, but the best of the lot is the last of the exchange, in which Nieves takes the opportunity to affirm his heterosexuality (um...) and insulting Cohn's intelligence.

Wow. Your communications are so thought provoking, well written, and intelligent. Perhaps you secretly want to be on my distribution list because every time you send me a message, your email is recaptured and put on my distribution list. I'm tiring of taking you off every time you email me AGAIN so unless you are in love with me or have some other sort of sick obsession with me (sorry, I'm straight as an arrow) you should probably stop emailing me so that you don't keep getting put back on the list. Should I type these instructions slower? Are you having a hard time understanding? BTW - I archive ALL questionable emails like yours in case there's ever any doubt about who got ugly first. Go back to the grade school playground where people you can successfully bully and out smart are playing cuz junior... You are way out of your league with me.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is an elected official in public office talking to one of his constituents. And thanks to the internet, those words he chose to email will live on in perpetuity. So be careful who you elect to office, because they might just be a jerk.

Filed Under: brian nieves, missouri

Missouri Senate Backs Down, Says Its Okay For Teachers To Friend Students On Facebook

from the after-the-court-knocked-them-down dept

Well, it took some effort, but it appears that state politicians in Missouri may have finally gotten the message. After a widespread outcry and a lawsuit concerning a law that made it illegal for teachers to "friend" current and former students on social networking sites, as well as a lawsuit and an injunction by a court which found the law to be a "staggering" violation of the First Amendment, Missouri's Senate has amended the law in question to let teachers and students be virtual friends once again. The bill still needs to be approved by the House, but it cleans up the controversial part of the bill. Schools would still be required to have "a policy" on student-teacher communication, but won't have to completely limit such activities.

Filed Under: first amendment, free speech, friending, missouri, teachers