Private Tech Companies Are Making Law Enforcement's Opacity Problem Even Worse

from the 'for-the-people,'-not-'despite-the-people' dept

The increasing reliance on tech by law enforcement means the increasing reliance on private companies. It's inevitable that tech developments will be adopted by government agencies, but a lot of this adoption has occurred with minimal oversight or public input. That lack of public insight carries forward to criminal trials, where companies have successfully stepped in to prevent defendants from accessing information about evidence, citing concerns about exposed trade secrets or proprietary software. In other cases, prosecutors have dropped cases rather than risk discussing supposedly sensitive tech in open court.

Elizabeth Joh's new article for Science says corporations are making existing transparency and accountability problems in law enforcement even worse.

Private companies are often wary of divulging too much about their products to gain competitive advantage over rivals. As a consequence, companies may decide to protect their intellectual property and market advantages by invoking trade secret privileges, demanding nondisclosure agreements with customers, and imposing other forms of property protections. These forms of commercial secrecy, common enough outside of the criminal justice system, pose challenges to basic police accountability.

This is only one of the problems the adoption of private sector tech creates. There are others. As Joh points out, law enforcement officers often attest to their "training and expertise" when testifying in court or seeking warrants. But actual tech expertise is the exception, not the rule. Private companies market products to law enforcement agencies, but the rollout of purchased tech is rarely accompanied by immersive training. In some cases, any analytic work is offloaded to private contractors, making it even less likely the public will ever be fully apprised of how the tech works or why -- in the case of predictive policing software and facial recognition AI -- it arrives at the conclusions it does.

Saddled by non-disclosure agreements, normal police secrecy, claims of valuable trade secrets, and a lack of technical expertise by law enforcement end users, private company tech can become a black hole where data on citizens goes in, but never comes back out for public scrutiny.

Take, for example, ShotSpotter. Its sensors and microphones pick up percussive noises. These are transferred to ShotSpotter's analysts, who then make a judgment call about the overheard noises. Sometimes the analysts are wrong. Sometimes, more disturbingly, they alter their judgment calls after being contacted by police officers. How accurate is it? More importantly, how can the public access this data without relying on either ShotSpotter's cheery claims about high accuracy or secondhand intuition based on agencies who have dumped the tech after too many false positives?

The real answer may never be known.

[A] community or researcher who wants to know more about ShotSpotter—its accuracy and its flaws—may find a dead end. ShotSpotter’s contractual arrangements with its police customers provide them with results, and results only. The company claims ownership not just of its proprietary software but also of the data its technology generates. This means that conventional tools of disclosure, like state public records requests laws, have no purchase on any acoustic gunfire detection system because such systems remain within private hands.

For better or worse, the solution likely runs through local governments. These entities can forbid law enforcement agencies from purchasing tech from vendors unwilling to allow public scrutiny of their software and hardware. They can demand more transparency on usage and effectiveness from the agencies they oversee. The general public may not be able to take its law enforcement business elsewhere, but their elected reps can help ensure the agencies they're stuck with are more accountable.

The other check against misuse is the nation's courts. Judges can (and should) challenge more broad statements about law enforcement expertise and allow fewer companies whose tech has generated evidence to shirk their proxy obligations to criminal defendants, who have a constitutional right to examine the evidence against them and confront their accusers in court -- even if the accuser is a shot spotting sensor or a proprietary DNA-matching algorithm.

No one's saying cops shouldn't have access to tech advances. But governments need to do more to ensure these business relationships don't supersede law enforcement agencies' obligations to the public. Action needs to be taken now -- both at the local and national level -- to prevent ongoing problems from getting worse and to head off future abuses and injustices before they can occur.

Filed Under: evidence, law enforcement, technology, transparency

When Facebook Turned Off Its News Feed Algorithm, It Made Everyone's Experience Worse... But Made Facebook More Money

from the oh,-look-at-that dept

For reasons I don't fully understand, over the last few months, many critics of "big tech" and Facebook, in particular, have latched onto the idea that "the algorithm" is the problem. It's been almost weird how frequently people insist to me that if only social media got rid of algorithmically recommending stuff, and went back to the old fashioned chronological news feed order, all would be good in the world again. Some of this seems based on the idea that algorithms are primed to lead people down a garden path from one type of video to ever more extreme videos (which certainly has happened, though how often is never made clear). Some of it seems to be a bit of a kneejerk reaction to simply disliking the fact that these companies (which many people don't really trust) are making decisions about what you may and may not like -- and that feels kinda creepy.

In the past few weeks, there's been a bit of a fever pitch on this topic, partly in response to whistleblower Frances Haugen's leak of documents, in which she argues that Facebook's algorithm is a big part of the problem. And then there's the recent attempt by some Democrats in Congress to take away Section 230 from algorithmically recommended information. As I noted, the bill is so problematic that it's not clear what it's actually solving.

But underlying all of this is a general opinion that "algorithms" and "algorithmic recommendations" are inherently bad and problematic. And, frankly, I'm confused by this. At a personal level, the tools I've used that do algorithmic recommendations (mainly: Google News, Twitter, and YouTube) have been... really, really useful? And also pretty accurate over time in learning what I want, and thus providing me more useful content in a more efficient manner, which has been pretty good for me, personally. I recognize that not everyone has that experience, but at the very least, before we unilaterally declare algorithms and recommendation engines as bad, it might help to understand how often they're recommending stuff that's useful and helpful, as compared to how often they're causing problems.

And, for all the talk about how Haugen's leaking has shown a light on the "dangers" of algorithms, the actual documents that she's leaked might suggest something else entirely. Reporter Alex Kantrowitz has reported on one of the leaked documents, regarding a study Facebook did on what happens when Facebook turns off the algorithmic rankings and... it was not pretty. But, contrary to common belief, Facebook actually made more money without the News Feed algorithm.

In February 2018, a Facebook researcher all but shut off the News Feed ranking algorithm for .05% of Facebook users. “What happens if we delete ranked News Feed?” they asked in an internal report summing up the experiment. Their findings: Without a News Feed algorithm, engagement on Facebook drops significantly, people hide 50% more posts, content from Facebook Groups rises to the top, and — surprisingly — Facebook makes even more money from users scrolling through the News Feed.

Considering how often we've heard, including from Haugen herself, that Facebook's decision-making is almost always driven by what will beneficially impact the bottom line the most, this deserves some consideration. Because the document... suggests something quite different. In fact, what the researchers seemed to find was that people hated it, but it made them spend more time on the site and see more ads because they had to poke around to try to find the interesting stuff they wanted to see, and that drove up ad rates. If Facebook were truly focused on just the bottom line, then, they should consider turning off the news feed algorithm -- or, just supporting the awful JAMA bill in Congress which will create incentives for the same result:

Turning off the News Feed ranking algorithm, the researcher found, led to a worse experience almost across the board. People spent more time scrolling through the News Feed searching for interesting stuff, and saw more advertisements as they went (hence the revenue spike). They hid 50% more posts, indicating they weren’t thrilled with what they were seeing. They saw more Groups content, because Groups is one of the few places on Facebook that remains vibrant. And they saw double the amount of posts from public pages they don’t follow, often because friends commented on those pages. “We reduce the distribution of these posts massively as they seem to be a constant quality compliant,” the researcher said of the public pages.

As always, there are lots of factors that go into this, and one experiment may not be enough to tell us much. Also, it's entirely possible that over time, the long term result would be less revenue because the increasing annoyances of not finding the more interesting stuff causes people to leave the platform entirely. But, at the very least, this leaked research pokes a pretty big hole in the idea that getting rid of algorithmic recommendations does anything particularly useful.

Filed Under: algorithms, chronological, facebook files, facebook papers, frances haugen, jama, leaks, news feed, section 230, user experience
Companies: facebook

Court: Congressional Reps Making Noise About Social Media Moderation Doesn't Make Platforms Extensions Of The Government

from the better-to-be-silent-and-thought-foolish-than-sue-to-remove-all-doubt dept

Another set of plaintiffs insisting social media platforms have it in for "conservative" users have lost in court. The hook for this lawsuit is the (specious) claim that government officials' statements saying social media services should do more to curb the spread of misinformation (COVID, elections, etc.) somehow transformed these private companies into state actors. So, when they did decide to moderate the conspiracy theorists' accounts, it was ACTUAL CENSORSHIP.

Here's Eric Goldman's summary of the case, the plaintiff, and the lawsuit's outcome.

The plaintiffs are “conservative content creators” (i.e., QAnon enthusiasts) who posted videos to YouTube. YouTube suspended their accounts. The plaintiffs sued for First Amendment violations (presumably a 1983 claim). The court previously denied a TRO. YouTube now gets the case dismissed with prejudice. It’s not a close call.

In capable hands, I supposed this would have been handled more like an actual civil rights lawsuit, rather than the collection of novel First Amendment legal arguments it actually is. But, as Goldman points out, the litigants were represented by Cris Armenta, who is best known for representing a couple of actors who appeared in an incredibly bigoted video entitled "The Innocence of Muslims." In an attempt to make their embarrassing involvement in this embarrassing production disappear, the plaintiffs engaged in some ridiculous copyright infringement claims against YouTube. It did not go well for them or their legal rep, even if it took longer for the Ninth Circuit to deliver a solid rejection than it should have.

Things don't go well here either [PDF], which says something about Armenta's legal skills. Or choice of plaintiffs. Or both. The argument is that government people said stuff about moderating certain content. And, because certain content was moderated, YouTube was acting as an extension of the federal government. Hence the ridiculous First Amendment arguments, which the court handily rejects, citing yet another lawsuit represented by Cris Armenta, Daniels v. Alphabet.

The Court finds that the statements by federal lawmakers Plaintiffs point to are insufficient to plead that the government “commanded a particular result in, or otherwise participated in, [Plaintiffs’] specific case.” Heineke, 965 F.3d at 1014; see also Daniels v. Alphabet, No. 20-cv04687-VKD, 2021 WL 1222166, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2021). Plaintiffs point to generalized statements from lawmakers pertaining to “coronavirus-related misinformation,” “disinformation proliferating online,” “QAnon-related speech,” and “conspiracy theories.” None of the statements mention Plaintiffs’ names, their YouTube or Google accounts, their channels, or their videos. Plaintiffs argue that state actors “commanded a particular result” in their case because “Plaintiffs have alleged that Congress demanded that the unpopular speech dubbed ‘misinformation,’ and QAnon-related speech be limited and erased, which is precisely what Plaintiffs allege Defendants did.” The Court disagrees that broad lawmaker proclamations regarding “misinformation” or “QAnon-related speech,” for example, are sufficient to show that the government “commanded” the suspension of Plaintiffs’ accounts. Even if Defendants had complied with these lawmaker statements to the letter, they would still have had the ultimate discretion on what videos or accounts fit into buckets like “misinformation” or “QAnon-related speech.”

The lack of specificity in the government statements cannot be the basis for specific actions targeting the users' accounts. And, as the court goes on to point out, the content being sued about isn't clearly linked to any government official's categorical urgings.

The Court also disagrees with Plaintiffs that they have alleged sufficient facts about the content of their videos to link their removal to the broad categories of online content mentioned in the lawmakers’ statements. For example, Plaintiffs plead no facts to indicate that their videos pertained to COVID-19, so none of the statements from members of Congress relating to COVID-19 misinformation have any relevance to Defendants’ alleged conduct. Further, Plaintiffs plead only vague facts about other subjects that leave open the question as to whether all Plaintiffs posted about these subjects, or only some of them. And none of the lawmaker statements Plaintiffs cite contain clear action items relevant to Plaintiffs’ allegations. (encouraging YouTube to “display messages to any users who have engaged with harmful coronavirus-related misinformation”); (generally discussing “misconduct” related to “the division and the disinformation proliferating online”); (encouraging action on the part of the FBI, intelligence community, and “all Americans”).

Neither does a perhaps poorly worded exchange between YouTube and a member of Congress create a legitimate cause of action.

Plaintiffs assert that there is state action under a joint action theory, pointing to a Twitter exchange between Rep. Schiff and YouTube CEO Susan Wojnicki in which Ms. Wojnicki states, “We appreciate your partnership and will continue to consult with Members of Congress as we address the evolving issues around #COVID19.” Plaintiffs argue that this Twitter exchange shows Defendants and the federal government were in an “admitted partnership.”

First off, says the court, the thing about COVID and your lack of content related to COVID doesn't support your argument. Second, your hot take on a friendly social media exchange isn't actionable.

As a threshold matter, the Schiff-Wojnicki Twitter exchange Plaintiffs point to in support of their joint action claim clearly pertains to misinformation regarding COVID-19. As the Court discussed above, Plaintiffs have failed to allege any facts indicating that their posts pertained to COVID-19. Accordingly, it is unclear how this Twitter exchange supports a joint action theory pertaining to the suspension of Plaintiffs’ channels. Since the Twitter exchange appears to be the fact Plaintiffs primarily rely on to allege joint action, Plaintiffs’ failure to plead the relevance of this fact renders their joint action claim essentially unsupported. Further, it is simply implausible to read a casual Twitter exchange between one member of Congress and YouTube’s CEO as joint action. Plaintiffs’ theory would effectively cause companies to cease communicating with their elected representatives for fear of liability, as Defendants compellingly argue.

In other words, a little social media related grandstanding by politicians is not even remotely close to the government directly interceding in social media moderation or delivering mandates that strip platforms of their own discretion and replace that with the government's.

Of course, this will be appealed. And, on appeal, it will be rejected for exactly these reasons. And another attempt to bypass Section 230 immunity fails for reasons unrelated to this statute "conservatives" continue to believe violates their First Amendment rights.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, congress, conspiracy theories, content moderation, section 230, state action
Companies: youtube

Daily Deal: Trio 3-in-1 Aluminum Desktop Charging Stand

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

Who wants to work on a messy desk? Focus on your productivity and not on tangled wires with this Trio 3-in-1 Aluminum Desktop Charging Stand. This stand holds your phone vertically or horizontally for the perfect angle to read messages, watch videos, listen to music and play games. It also has two other slots for your smartwatch and wireless earphones. With built-in cable management, this stand helps organize your cables to avoid knotting. Each slot has enlarged anti-scratch rubber cushions to prevent your devices from slipping and scratching. It comes in 4 different colors and is on sale for $20.

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

Judge Says Devin Nunes' Family Has To Tell The Judge Who Is Funding Their Lawsuit Against Esquire & Ryan Lizza

from the wide-open-eyes-emoji dept

A big open question regarding Rep. Devin Nunes' never ending series of lawsuits against the media has been who is funding those lawsuits. As a watchdog group highlighted last year, House rules require certain steps be followed if a Member is receiving free legal services, and it did not appear that Nunes had followed those steps, and if Nunes were actually paying for those legal services, House rules required that he not be receiving a discount for them, which the watchdog group noted was worth investigating.

The funding of these lawsuits has now become an issue in a case that... was not directly filed by Rep. Nunes. As you'll recall, Nunes sued reporter Ryan Lizza and Esquire publisher Hearst over an article regarding Nunes' family, and the farm they own in Iowa. A few months after Rep. Nunes' lawsuit, Nunes' family filed a separate lawsuit over the same article, against the same defendants, using the same lawyer as Nunes, Steven Biss.

A year ago, a district court judge dismissed Rep. Nunes' lawsuit, though the appeals court recently revived that lawsuit in a truly bizarre decision. The family's case against Lizza and Hearst was on shaky ground, but was allowed to proceed on a very narrow claim.

Over the last few months we've talked about how the proceedings in that case have gone completely off the rails in ways that I've honestly never seen before in years of following some pretty intense cases.

But one of the issues at play in the case is... who is funding the family's lawsuit. That became an issue, because if Rep. Nunes himself is funding the case and is the real party of interest in the lawsuit, that impacts the standard under which defamation must be shown (notably, whether or not the actual malice standard applies). And, Nunes's family has admitted that it (1) isn't paying, and (2) has little involvement in the lawsuit, despite being the plaintiffs. From some recently unredacted filings:

In addition, Plaintiffs’ apparent lack of investment in prosecuting their own lawsuit was buttressed by their deposition testimony admitting they have not incurred out-of-pocket payments to counsel, with the exception paying $500 to former local counsel Joe Feller, and their document production of financial records indicating the same lack of payments to counsel for costs or fees, save the payment to Feller. Consider further that Plaintiff Anthony Nunes III, testifying as the 30(b)(6) corporate representative of NuStar, answered the question “[W]ho is funding the lawyers for this lawsuit?” with “I have no idea.” NuStar 30(b)(6) Anthony Nunes III Dep. 400:8-10.

And while the judge had initially suggested some level of skepticism regarding the relevance of finding out who was funding the family's legal fees, a new ruling says that Biss and the family need to cough up that info and give it to the judge, who will review it in private (meaning it still may never become public). Judge Mark Roberts notes that Hearst and Lizza make a compelling enough case that this information is relevant to their arguments in the case. First, he notes, this isn't just random speculation and fishing on the part of Hearst/Lizza. There's at least some smoke here.

In the case at bar, I find there is more than speculation or mere theory regarding the relevance of third-party funding. First, Plaintiffs have not denied that the litigation is being funded by others. Second, Plaintiffs have only incurred $500 in charges during this protracted litigation. Third, Anthony Nunes III, an individual Plaintiff and the corporate representative has “no idea” who is paying the lawyers representing Plaintiffs. These circumstances may not ultimately turn out to be “untoward,” but they are certainly unusual. Moreover, these circumstances lift the basis for Defendants’ inquiry above the level of mere speculation and raise legitimate subjects for inquiry not present in a more run-of-the-mill personal injury case or commercial dispute. The instant case is distinguishable from a case like Benitez where the defendant seeking litigation funding information could not point out how it might affect the plaintiff’s credibility or be used for impeachment

And, because the real party of interest matters to the actual malice standard, which could be key to this case, there's a more compelling interest in making sure this information is available:

As Defendants point out, a crucial and often determinative issue in a defamation case is whether a plaintiff needs to prove actual malice. This Court has expressed doubt about the viability of a theory of defense based on the Plaintiffs’ status as involuntary public figures. Nevertheless, the unusual facts presented here make Defendants’ inquiry into litigation funding a legitimate subject for discovery to enable them to make the argument on a full record.

Also, the court is well aware that Nunes has been suing many media organizations, reporters, and critics -- which he does not condemn, but merely notes is relevant to this inquiry.

Similarly, the Plaintiffs’ relationship to Congressman Nunes is an important factor in permitting the discovery. Congressman Nunes has engaged in considerable defamation litigation with the assistance of the same attorney employed by Plaintiffs in the instant action. I offer no criticism of any party’s use of the courts to vigorously protect their interests. Nevertheless, Congressman Nunes is clearly a public figure who would be required to prove actual malice. The requirement of actual malice was adopted by the United States Supreme Court because “[i]t would give public servants an unjustified preference over the public they serve, if critics of official conduct did not have a fair equivalent of the immunity granted to the officials themselves.” New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 282-83 (1964.) It may turn out that there has been no coordination between the Congressman and his family, as Plaintiffs assert. However, Defendants inquiry into third-party funding serves the legitimate purpose of determining whether such coordination exists. In light of the important constitutional protections that proof of actual malice provides, it is not a significant imposition to require Plaintiffs to provide discovery that would prove or dispel the notion that a third party is using the instant case to avoid a significant hurdle to a defamation claim. Given the close family relationship, the other defamation litigation Congressman Nunes has pursued in his own name with the help of the same attorney, and the Plaintiffs’ lack of knowledge of who is paying their lawyers, the inquiry is not founded on mere speculation.

The judge also notes that in the financial interest disclosure statement that was required as part of the case, the family said that "there are no associations, firms, partnerships, corporations, and other artificial entities" that "have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the Plaintiffs’ outcome in the case" but the fact that family members admit they haven't been paying raises questions about whether or not that statement is accurate.

I will not engage in speculation about what arrangements Plaintiffs may have made to finance their lawsuit, if any. However, Anthony Nunes III professed lack of knowledge about who is paying Plaintiffs’ lawyers at least raises the possibility that an undisclosed entity related to NuStar has a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case that would be pertinent to the Court’s assessment of conflicts.

There's also the issue of whether or not this is a sort of shell lawsuit, and the family is not "the real party of interest." The judge wants to find out.

I cannot say, based on the record before me, that NuStar is not a real party in interest. However, I also cannot rule out the possibility. Anthony Nunes III’s lack of knowledge about who is paying the attorneys prosecuting this action raises legitimate concern about not only who may be in charge of the lawsuit, but also whether Plaintiffs are the still the real parties in interest. Defendants call the Court’s attention to Conlon v. Rosa, which raised the concern of secret funding by stating, “He who pays the piper may not always call the tune, but he’ll likely have an influence on the playlist.”...

Again, I will refrain from speculating about the terms of any agreement between Plaintiffs and a third-party who may be funding this litigation. Nevertheless, it is more than mere speculation and far from a “fishing expedition” to make inquiries that would determine if Plaintiffs assigned all or some of their interest in their claims. Plaintiffs claim compensatory damages of $20,000,000.... It is not unreasonable to inquire whether Plaintiffs’ arrangement with whomever may be funding the case includes an assignment or an agreement that the funder otherwise stands to benefit from the litigation’s outcome. If Plaintiffs have made such an assignment, they may no longer be the real parties in interest. Defendants have a legitimate interest in ensuring the judgment will have a preclusive effect.

If Rep. Nunes himself is somehow the real party of interest, there's a separate issue in that he is also considered a witness in the case. And that creates some questions that the judge wants answered.

I gather from comments at the hearing that Defendants’ concern is that Congressman Nunes may be a source of, or helped arrange, the funding. While this concern has yet to be proven, the basis for it goes beyond mere conjecture. Congressman Nunes and Mr. Biss have related litigation in this Court arising from the same allegedly defamatory article at issue here. Congressman Nunes alleges significant damages arising from the article, as do Plaintiffs. While these family members may be separately financing their respective suits, it is not merely a fishing expedition to inquire about the Congressman’s involvement in the financing of the instant lawsuit and his stake, if any, in the outcome. It may be that he has no more than a desire for his family to succeed in their lawsuit. However, he is also a witness in this case and Defendants are entitled to inquire about his interests in the lawsuit that may illuminate a possible bias.

The judge also highlights that Hearst believes the funding is important to refute a potential "David v. Goliath" argument made by the Nunes family at trial (arguing that big bad NY media is trying to harm lowly poor Midwest farmers), and notes that's another reason to allow discovery on funding.

All that said... this does not mean that the public is going to learn this information. Instead, the judge is saying that the information must first be presented "in camera" (basically: judge's eye's only). Notably, the judge points out that it was the defendants, Hearst and Lizza, who had raised the idea of in camera review, while the Nunes family just flat out resisted having to hand over the documents "but make no reference to the need for in camera inspection." Still, in an abundance of caution, the judge says that he will review the information in private first, and then if he sees no reason to change his mind, he will order the Nunes family to hand that information over to the defendants:

I conclude it is prudent to review the records prior to requiring production to Defendants. If, after my in camera review, no reason appears to reconsider my decision, I anticipate entering a supplemental order requiring their production to Defendants consistent with the protective order in place.

For what it's worth, that means that even assuming the judge does agree, after reviewing whatever information, that the documents need to be handed over to the defense, that information might still not become public. There is a protective order regarding the content shared in discovery which keeps most of it secret (this is for a good reason), and should this case ever get to trial, then some of it may become public. But... there's a good chance (1) this never goes to trial, and (2) this information does not become public (at least not via this case). Still, it's notable that the judge has agreed the information is relevant and must be revealed to him.

Filed Under: actual malice, defamation, devin nunes, esquire, litigation funding, ryan lizza, slapp suits, steven biss
Companies: hearst, nustar farms

Telecom, Broadcasters Convince FCC To Explore New Taxes On 'Big Tech'

from the this-probably-won't-go-well dept

Earlier this year, we noted how FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr had launched a bad faith effort suggesting that "big tech" gets a "free ride" on the internet, and should be forced to fund broadband expansion. Carr's argument, that companies like Google and Netflix somehow get a free ride (they don't) and should "pay their fair share," is a fifteen year old AT&T lobbyist talking point. AT&T's goal has always been to "double dip"; as in not only get paid for bandwidth by consumers and businesses, but to get an additional troll toll simply for, well, existing.

AT&T has long tried to offload its (often neglected or half-completed) network build and maintenance costs to somebody else to make investors happy. That somebody else is usually taxpayers, who've thrown billions in pointless tax breaks and dubious regulatory favors at the company in exchange for fiber networks that are always (so mysteriously!) left half completed and jobs that never arrive. Now AT&T (and their broadcaster allies) want tech giants to pay as well.

Over at the right wing Washington Examiner, you can see how this effort is framed in order to sell it to the public and regulators:

"The Federal Communications Commission is looking to hit Big Tech companies with new regulatory fees related to their high use of broadband facilitated by the agency — a sign of Washington's growing skepticism of Silicon Valley wealth and power."

You're given no indication that this is a telecom (AT&T) or broadcasting (the National Association of Broadcasters) bad faith political play. Carr (read: AT&T's policy folks) had originally suggested in a carefully seeded editorial that tech companies should be forced to pay into the Universal Service Fund, which helps fund broadband expansion to schools and low-income communities. Now, Carr's argument has also been piggybacked onto by broadcasters, who want tech companies to pay a tax simply to use unlicensed spectrum (like Wi-Fi hardware). Fortunately, the Examiner at least includes experts who point out the idea is stupid:

"Unlicensed spectrum was first established by the commission in 1985, and allows the general public to freely use, without a license, services such as Wi-Fi networks, Bluetooth waves, garage door openers, and other wireless technologies.

“The FCC is asking the public if we think fees on unlicensed spectrum is a good idea or not,” said Harold Feld, a telecom policy expert and lawyer at the consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge. “And I’m here to say it’s a bad idea. In the spirit of Halloween, I plan to take a chainsaw to it."

So I think the FCC is considering this route because it's true the USF needs more money if we're going to help make sure low-income kids and schools have decent connectivity. The problem is that the FCC's proposal is written in such a way that it sounds like you could potentially be seeing annoying new taxes on Wi-Fi networks, Bluetooth devices, garage door openers, and more. The other problem is the core motivation here is by telecom and broadcast companies who simply want to offload their costs to somebody else. If they're the ones writing the proposal (and it sounds like they are), the end product isn't going to be particularly balanced or productive.

But to me the bigger problem is that if we're genuinely interested in shoring up broadband funding and expanding access, we should first be targeting the billions upon billions in tax breaks, regulator favors, merger approvals, and other perks we give to telecom and broadcast giants (in Comcast and AT&T's case one in the same) in exchange for jack shit. The idea that we waste billions by throwing it mindlessly at regional monopolies seems like a good place to start if you're serious about reform. But please take a moment to notice that this idea never gets mentioned by folks like Carr. That's fairly telling.

Nothing gets fixed in U.S. broadband (especially affordability and access issues) without addressing regional monopolization and the state and federal corruption that protects it. But not only do we not do that, if you watch regulators and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, they can barely even candidly acknowledge it's even a problem. As a baseline (and it has been the baseline for 30 straight years) that's not a great recipe for success.

Filed Under: big tech, brendan carr, broadband, broadcasters, fcc, free ride, net neutrality, subsidies, taxes, telcos, universal service fund
Companies: at&t, facebook, google

License Plate Reader Company Continues Expansion Into Private Neighborhoods With The Help Of Some Useful Cops

from the location-tracking-at-affordable-price-points! dept

The use of automatic license plate readers by law enforcement has steadily increased over the past decade. The theory is a never ending documentation of vehicle movements results in more solved crimes and recovered stolen vehicles. Assertions about law enforcement efficiency have driven other tech acquisitions, ranging from repurposed war gear like Stingray devices to facial recognition software.

But there's another force at work, one driven by private companies and aggressively marketed to private parties. Ring, Amazon's doorbell/camera acquisition, has driven its growth by portraying daily life as inherently unsafe -- a portrayal aided by its partnership with hundreds of law enforcement agencies, who often act as an extension of its marketing department.

Another growth market in the private sector relies on what's normally considered to be law enforcement tech: license plate readers. Flock Safety sells plate readers to gated communities and homeowners associations, promising peace of mind to residents who often have nothing to be worried about. Residents in low crime areas are told crime is headed their way. And people inherently suspicious about anyone they don't immediately recognize were more than happy to inflict surveillance tech on anyone passing through their neighborhoods.

But Flock, like Ring, isn't just for those who've kept up with or surpassed the Joneses. Flock has managed to make inroads into less spectacular neighborhoods, giving residents access to a wealth of plate/location data that is often shared with local law enforcement.

With “safety-as-a-service” packages starting at $2,500 per camera a year, the scanners are part of a growing wave of easy-to-use surveillance systems promoted for their crime-fighting powers in a country where property crime rates are at all-time lows.

Once found mostly in gated communities, the systems have — with help from aggressive marketing efforts — spread to cover practically everywhere anyone chooses to live in the United States. Flock Safety, the industry leader, says its systems have been installed in 1,400 cities across 40 states and now capture data from more than a billion cars and trucks every month.

This is a private company selling products to private individuals with unproven claims about increased safety -- and it all ties into surveillance systems operated by law enforcement.

Piped into a neighborhood’s private Flock database, the photos are made available for the homeowners to search, filter or peruse. Machine-learning software categorizes each vehicle based on two dozen attributes, including its color, make and model; what state its plates came from; and whether it had bumper stickers or a roof rack.

Each “vehicle fingerprint” is pinpointed on a map and tracked by how often it had been spotted in the past month. The plates are also run against law enforcement watch lists for abducted children, stolen cars, missing people and wanted fugitives; if there’s a match, the system alerts the nearest police force with details on how to track it down.

This may sound like a good and responsible use of surveillance tech. But it isn't. The system makes suspects of anyone who passes through a neighborhood while a crime is being committed. And if no one knows exactly when a crime was committed, hours of plate captures expand the list of suspects. When that happens, those running the cameras will be left to their own biases to generate their list of most-likely suspects and that's the information that's going to make its way into the hands of law enforcement.

Flock Safety believes it can solve all kinds of problems, even though decades of policing have yet to generate appreciable progress. Flock's founder, Garrett Langley, says law enforcement isn't capable of solving these problems on its own, pointing to FBI crime stats that show a 17 percent clearance rate for property crimes. He may be right that not enough is being done, but these systems aren't the panacea he claims they are. This statement in particular seems insanely optimistic.

“Are we going to stop homicides? No, but we will drive the clearance rate for homicides to 100 percent so people think twice before they kill someone,” he said. “There are 17,000 cities in America. Until we have them all, we’re not done.”

Good luck. The national clearance rate on homicides hovers around 50 percent. In some cities, it's far lower than the national average. More information is always helpful, but privately owned camera systems only add to the false positive/false negative problem, and private-side bulk collections being turned over to law enforcement is a pretty problematic "solution." Tech like this also tends to nudge people towards vigilantism, something that's been observed with Ring's Neighbors app and Citizen's privately run crime reporting tool.

Then there's the marketing push that now directly involves law enforcement agencies, which tends to put cameras where cops feel they should be put, with the expected results.

When Flock installed 29 cameras in Dayton, Ohio, as part of a months-long trial for the police, residents were surprised and angry to see so many of them recording in the heart of the city’s Latino community — including outside a church where local immigrant families attend Mass and gather with friends.

It's just more of the same, but enabled by private companies that see law enforcement support as an easy way to expand their market base. Flock blamed this incident -- the surveillance of minorities frequently targeted by law enforcement -- on a "gap in communication." The company provided no details on what it told police when it gave them cameras that may have been misinterpreted by law enforcement. The cameras were ultimately removed after the targets of the surveillance complained.

Flock isn't going to give up its expansion plans. And cops really haven't found a camera system they don't like, not even body cameras which have done far more for them than they've done for the public. Like Ring, Flock appears willing to use public servants as PR reps and installation techs. And its expanding user base allows it to become part of a mesh network of surveillance tech that blurs the line between what the government does to us and what we choose to do to each other.

Filed Under: license plate readers, police, private neighborhoods, surveillance
Companies: flock safety

Judge Dumps Felony Manslaughter Charges Brought Against An Arrestee After A Deputy Ran Over Another Deputy

from the county-prosecutors-apparently-fine-with-turning-justice-into-a-farce dept

Felony murder is a truly bizarre artifact of the American justice system. It's simply not enough that there are thousands of laws that can be used to charge people who have allegedly broken them. But felony murder (and its offshoots, which include other crimes like manslaughter) allows prosecutors to charge people for crimes they didn't commit.

It works like this. Two people perform a robbery. One waits in the car. The person inside the business kills someone during the robbery. Prosecutors charge the driver with "felony murder" because they can, arguing that the person's presence at a crime scene makes them as culpable as the person who actually committed the crime.

It's ridiculous. But it's probably never been more ridiculous than this. Idaho resident Jenna Holm was arrested in May of last year following a traffic stop where she waved a machete at deputies and was tased into submission. During this arrest, a deputy arriving at the scene (Sgt. Randy Flagel) struck and killed Deputy Wyatt Maser with his patrol car.

Not content to deal with this unfortunate accident by mourning the officer killed in the line of duty, prosecutors decided to charge the arrestee (who was not driving and did not hit the deputy) with felony involuntary manslaughter, keeping her locked up with a $100,000 bond.

These charges stuck despite an internal investigation by the Bonneville County Sheriff's Office finding that the officers on the scene were almost completely responsible for the accident that killed Deputy Wyatt.

Listed below are the factors contained in the judicial documents. They pertain to actions taken by deputies, Bottcher and Maser in the apprehension of Holm and possibly led to Maser’s death.

• Deputy Bottcher did not activate his emergency red and blues (vehicle lights).

• Deputy Bottcher never deploy(ed) his flashlight.

• Deputy Bottcher gave the wrong location and wrong direction of travel throughout the call.

• Deputy Maser stopped his vehicle in the lane of traffic with only scene lights turned on with no red or blue emergency lights to the rear.

• Deputy Maser only used his weapon-mounted flashlight.

• Deputy Maser, while giving lethal cover to Dep. Bottcher in the Taser deployment, stepped up into the roadway in front of Sgt. Flegel’s vehicle

• (The vehicle of a witness in the case) was positioned to the right side of his lane with bright lights shining into oncoming traffic.

Once this became public (via Holm's criminal trial), the Sheriff's Office finally decided it might spend a little more time training officers on how to handle roadside incidents, especially those that take place after nightfall.

What didn't happen was any dismissal of charges. Prosecutors still maintained Holm's combativeness and possession of a machete were criminal acts serious enough to make her culpable for the ensuing deadly accident in which a law enforcement officer killed another law enforcement officer.

Finally, this stupidity is over. The judge handling Holm's criminal trial has dismissed the felony involuntary manslaughter charge. (h/t Reason)

According to Judge Dane Watkins, the details of this case did not meet the standards for this kind of felony charge. Under state law, there has to be some sort of criminal conspiracy to hit people who didn't commit crimes with criminal charges. In other words, the deputy who killed the other deputy would have had to have been conspiring with Jenna Holm -- the arrestee -- to commit some other crime.

“Because the state has not alleged or adduced any facts indicating Sgt. Flegel acted in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate an unlawful act, as part of a common plan with Holm, probable cause does not exist to believe Holm committed involuntary manslaughter,” District Judge Dane Watkins Jr. wrote in his decision.

Prosecutors maintained Holms was responsible because her actions during her arrest caused the officer to cross the road, which resulted in him being run over. There are no words that can completely encompass the stupidity of this argument, but the judge does a pretty good job summing it up:

”The standard the State seeks to impose would permit convictions of involuntary manslaughter in any number of situations where law enforcement responds to any unlawful act (presumably including minor infractions) and a third party kills (accidentally or otherwise) a responding officer or bystander...”

This is good. Better would be eliminating these laws, which makes conspiracy for one crime a conspiracy for all crimes. At best, these laws allow prosecutors to stack charges, making it more likely defendants will accept a plea deal, saving the state the burden of having to prove its allegations. At worst, it's just a way to inflict misery on people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time while interacting with law enforcement.

Filed Under: felony murder, jenna holm, manslaughter, police, wyatt maser