Minnesota Troopers Decided Being Sued For Excessive Force Was The Perfect Time To Delete Emails And Text Messages

from the mens-rea-me-this,-motherfuckers dept

How do you reform this?

Minnesota State Troopers engaged in a massive "purge" of emails and text messages shortly after the agency was accused of using excessive force during the protests and riots over the death of George Floyd last summer, according to court testimony filed late Friday.

That's according to KSTP reporting by Ryan Raiche, which appears to have broken the news about this defensive effort by the MSP. It's not just defensive. It's illegal. The records purge appears to have been triggered by lawsuits filed against the agency alleging excessive force during policing of the George Floyd protests.

This is some serious misconduct. This is the people entrusted with making sure the rest of us abide by laws abandoning their duty to be law-abiding themselves.

The purge of communication means troopers may have destroyed potential evidence that could be used against the agency in multiple pending lawsuits regarding its use of force on protestors and journalists following Floyd's murder.

When this is done in a civil case, it's sanctionable. When it's done in a criminal case, it's called obstruction. Well, it's called that when civilians do it. When cops do it, it's possibly excusable, especially if it doesn't run afoul of any precedent.

The Minnesota State Patrol certainly seems to believe this conveniently timed purge of communications that might be made public during litigation is acceptable. According to testimony by Minnesota State Patrol official Joseph Dwyer, the agency did nothing wrong. Everything that happened was just the following of procedure. Defending these actions in court, Major Dwyer said the purge was "standard practice."

But how standard? Major Dwyer had no (satisfactory) answer for this question.

[T]he supervisor acknowledged that practice typically varies from trooper to trooper and does not follow any sort of set schedule.

Sometimes, the MSP deletes email and other communications after a set period of time. Other times it deletes communications after being informed it's being sued. We don't know what the normal deletion schedule is, but we do know what this deletion was in response to, thanks (once again) to the Major's testimony.

Kevin Riach, the ACLU attorney, repeatedly questioned the supervisor about the deletion of emails and possible evidence.

"You just decided, shortly after the George Floyd protests, this would be a good time to clean out my inbox?" he asked.

"That is correct," Dwyer testified.

Looks pretty open-and-shut, your honor. Sanctions all around! One can only assume the deletion was an effort to keep incriminating communications from being used by litigants suing the agency. This isn't speculation. This is the only logical reason a law enforcement agency would start deleting stuff after being served with a lawsuit. And by "logical," I mean that it's an action that would eliminate inculpatory communications. I don't mean "logical" as in the equivalent to common sense.

If I'm the judge handling these cases, sanctions are just the beginning. Default judgments in favor of the plaintiffs would really drive the message home. This is heinous bullshit. Hopefully, the judges handling these cases will punish the Minnesota State Patrol just as enthusiastically as its officers punished peaceful protesters.

Filed Under: deleting evidence, excessive force, george floyd, minnesota, minnesota state police, police, protests

CD Projekt Red Issues Trademark Strike For Board Game With A Cyberpunk Theme On Itch.io

from the seeing-red dept

Way back in 2017, years before CD Projekt Red released Cyberpunk 2077 in a poor enough state so as to kickoff lawsuits from investors and a shitstorm of criticism by the public, we discussed how CDPR had acquired the US trademark for "Cyberpunk" in its licensing arrangements and then applied for a mark on the same term in the EU. The problem, of course, is that "cyberpunk" isn't just the name of a series of tabletop and video games, but also the name of a broad genre of fiction. These are trademarks that should never have been granted, as they are akin to getting a trademark on something like "True Crime". Plenty of folks in American and the EU cried foul over this, leading to CDPR putting out a statement that, among other things, noted that the company is not a trademark bully and would not be aggressive in enforcing the mark for unrelated projects in the cyberpunk genre. Pay special attention to the tweet from CDPR below in the section headed "What does it mean that CD Projekt owns the trademark for "Cyberpunk"?

That's a pretty clear commitment that CDPR wouldn't prevent others from creating games or content in the cyberpunk genre, right? Well, intentionally or not, it appears that CDPR did not keep to this commitment, as at least one indie tabletop game developer on Itch.io has now had a trademark claim issued against his game, which has nothing to do with Cyberpunk 2077 and is instead just a game in the cyberpunk genre.

In a post published on Twitter recently, user and game developer Ethan H. Reynolds has struck out against CD Projekt Red, the studio behind Cyberpunk 2077, after their own game, Neon Nights, was issued with a trademark strike. The strike claims that Reynolds' game, specifically the artwork, is alleged to be "violating rights" despite the fact that their game is not related in any way to Cyberpunk. Reynolds says in their tweet that this could be down to a corporate bot that simply scans for the word "cyberpunk" despite the fact that, according to the tweet, the word can relate to a genre as well as a specific game name.

That's simply not an excuse that works. Not in general and most certainly not in this case, with CDPR having publicly stated that its mark wouldn't be used in this way. If it really was some bot that saw the description of the game and struck out due to it being in the cyberpunk genre, that really isn't any better. The end result is still the same: CDPR is enforcing its trademark in a way that is impeding the ability of others to create content in the cyberpunk genre.

If I had to guess, I would agree with Reynolds that an automated system is likely the culprit here. But that too is on CDPR for using that system. And Reynolds is rightly pissed.

The indie developer goes on to say that they have tried to support CD Projekt Red in the past, particularly when it comes to their games, but now says "no more" to defending the company. It does seem as though this could be a case of mistaken identity. According to the game's page on Itch.io, Neon Nights is a tabletop role-playing game that just happens to have a "cyberpunk/dystopian" theme, and is not related to CDPR's title.

And who can blame him for being angry? Why should fellow creatives have to navigate trademark claims against their projects just because CDPR insisted on getting a trademark for a generic name of an entire genre of fiction? Why should anyone look kindly on the company that promised this wouldn't happen only to let it happen anyway?

And, since it failed to keep that promise, why shouldn't we start asking once again why this trademark was applied for and approved in the first place?

Filed Under: cyberbunk 2077, cyberpunk, ethan reynold, neon nights, trademark
Companies: cd projekt red, itch.io

China's Game Controllers Ignore Emergent Order

from the emergent-order-is-important dept

Last week, China restricted children under 18 to three weekend hours of video games per week. If you’re a parent of a Minecraft- or Fortnite-obsessed child, you may be wondering why the U.S. doesn’t do something similar. But China’s move against juvenile gaming is just the Chinese government's latest salvo in their barrage of attempts to control internet technology. Their centralized approach is one that we in the U.S. have historically rejected and should continue to reject.

China’s Great Firewall has long cut off the Chinese people’s access to much of the global internet. But recent actions in China focus on its own tech companies. These moves include passing a stringent new privacy law (which offers no protection from government spying) and tough new antitrust restrictions. China also blocked internet finance company Ant’s I.P.O., fined e-commerce company Alibaba 18.2 billion yuan and has heavily regulated online lenders, rapidly reducing their numbers from 5,000 to six as of September 2020. One prominent financial tycoon was abducted in Hong Kong, taken to China, and is apparently under house arrest while Chinese regulators seize and dismantle his companies. The crackdown expands beyond tech companies to users – Chinese police have arrested social media stars for on-camera eating as part of a campaign against food waste. It is, according to commentary circulated by Chinese state media, a “profound revolution” against “the chaos of big capital” and “a return to the Communist Party of China’s initial aspirations, a return to people as the center, and a return to the essence of socialism.”

In short, China’s leaders are grasping to centralize control. And their method is to label individualism as a vice rather than a virtue.

China’s leaders fear that they are losing control of markets and society, especially in the digital age.

They are right. But as I argue in my forthcoming book, Getting Out of Control: Emergent Leadership in a Complex World, control is overrated – and often it is counterproductive. Complex systems like markets are characterized by emergent order, with robust and productive patterns forming from the interactions of many individual participants following relatively simple rules. These patterns cannot be anticipated or centrally designed, because the knowledge they embody is produced by the individuals grappling with the situations in front of them.

Attempts to centrally control such systems eliminate much of the nuance and knowledge contained within them. The result is a simplistic, centralized system that leaves most participants worse off than they were under the emergent order produced by the complex, decentralized system. Unsurprisingly, those who are better off under centralized systems tend to be those at the center – those in control. Their control comes at the expense of everyone else’s welfare.

I don’t expect this argument to persuade China’s leaders to change their path, although for their citizens’ sake I wish they would. But it might help guide our path here in the U.S. The U.S. character – and our Constitution - would never permit the kind of full-bore government centralization that China has undertaken. Yet the technocratic desire to be in control, especially in times of rapid change, is alive and well here. 

Indeed, many of the ideas China has adopted are floating around U.S. academia and even Capitol Hill. Breaking up big tech, regulating new technologies like blockchain and cryptocurrencies, regulating what kind of speech cannot or must be allowed on social media sites, limiting the use of encryption – these are increasingly common sentiments across the U.S. political spectrum. Sen. Josh Hawley’s proposed bill to ban “infinite scroll” on phone apps would fit in seamlessly with the Chinese government's diktats.

It's as if China is taking the most precautionary policies from US academics, advocates, and lawmakers and implementing them via boot, truncheon, and machine gun. In fact, China’s commercial privacy law – created by a government that surveilles its citizens relentlessly – has drawn praise from some U.S. tech policy leaders who seem to wish we in the U.S. could ram through such onerous laws without the inconveniences of the democratic process.

But America’s strengths include our embrace of individualism, couched appropriately within functioning institutions (themselves artifacts of emergent order), and our willingness to participate in complex systems where no one seems to be in control. These strengths have made the U.S. an economic powerhouse, home to many great innovators in technology and businesses, and the source of creative expression that entertains and educates the world.

As tech analyst Ben Thompson has argued, let’s not do a pale imitation of China's attempt to stamp out individualism and centralize control. Instead, let's double down on freeing the individual to create solutions to the problems they and others face.

Even if that means you, not the government, has to tell your kid to put down the game controller.

Neil Chilson is a senior technology and innovation research fellow at Stand Together and former Chief Technologist at the Federal Trade Commission. His new book, "Getting Out of Control: Emergent Leadership in a Complex World," will be released on September 23.

Filed Under: china, emergent order, internet policy, tech policy, top down, video games

DEA Returns $87,000 It Helped Nevada Law Enforcement Steal From An Ex-Marine

from the 'everything-checks-out,'-they-said-while-they-helped-themselves-to-his-m dept

Another bullshit forfeiture has attracted national press attention. This one has some added bonuses, like local cops stating on (body cam) that the easiest way to get their hands on the seized money would be to ask the feds to come in.

It's the usual stuff: a pretextual stop, a bunch of questions unrelated to the alleged violation, and the theft of a person's money based on nothing more than an officer's speculation about its origin. (alternate link)

The Nevada trooper first told Stephen Lara the highway patrol was educating drivers “about violations they may not realize they’re committing,” and that he’d been pulled over for following a tanker truck too closely. Eventually the trooper admitted having an ulterior purpose: stopping the smuggling of illegal drugs, weapons and currency as they crossed the state.

Lara — a former Marine who says he was on his way to visit his daughters in Northern California — insisted he was doing none of those things, though he readily admitted he had “a lot” of cash in his car. As he stood on the side of the road, police searched the vehicle, pulling nearly $87,000 in a zip-top bag from Lara’s trunk and insisting a drug-sniffing dog had detected something on the cash.

The drug-sniffing dog was wrong, apparently. Or even if it was right, it was detecting something present on almost all cash in circulation: drug residue. No actual drugs were found in Lara's car.

What was found was $87,000 in cash, but $87,000 supported by a stack of receipts from ATMs, showing Lara had pulled this cash from his own accounts. That lined up with Lara's story, which the Highway Patrol didn't even find unbelievable. It also lines up with comments from someone unlikely to burnish the reputation of someone who is (allegedly) $18,000 behind on child support payments. Matt Zapotosky of the Washington Post tracked down Lara's ex-wife, Kimberly Olson, who confirmed his predilection for having lots of cash on hand.

Olsen said she thought Lara might have kept his money out of the bank in part so he would not have to turn it over in child support. But she noted that even when they were married years ago, Lara “just liked to have his cash” and made frequent withdrawals.

She said Lara did not seem to spend an inordinately high amount but liked to “show off” the cash itself, and spend it on his kids. She said she did not think he was a drug trafficker.

Of course, the trooper who pulled Lara over had none of this information. But he did have a stack of ATM receipts that appeared to indicate the source of the funds. Ultimately, none of that mattered. The Highway Patrol wanted the money, so they found a way to get it. Despite one trooper stating he thought Lara was legit, the law enforcement agency sought outside help to make it easier to retain at least a portion of the $87,000.

Video of the stop, recorded on multiple body cameras, shows a trooper and Lara having a genial conversation, with Lara agreeing to be searched. The troopers pull the cash from his trunk and remark that the bills seem to be new. Lara points them to the receipts, which he says prove the money is his.

“As odd as it is, everything lines up,” a trooper says at one point.

In the video, Lara tells the troopers he does not trust banks. At one point, a sergeant on the scene calls someone — apparently a DEA agent — to confirm the forfeiture process.

“It’s too easy to do an adoption,” the sergeant says.

It is too easy. That's one thing that's been obvious for years. States have belatedly realized a lot of forfeiture amounts to little more than state-ordained armed robbery. But restrictions deployed at state level can almost always be bypassed by asking the feds to step in. And forfeiture adoption policies require the federal government to kick back a certain percentage of the take to the locals who initiated the seizure.

So, that's how things went for Lara. Nevada troopers took his cash, called in the DEA, and the DEA initiated the forfeiture. That happened back in February of this year. Lara challenged the seizure. Then he went public with his accusations. And that appears to be what has triggered a belated change of heart by the DEA, six months after it took control of Lara's money.

It was only after Lara got a lawyer, sued and talked with The Washington Post about his ordeal that the government said it would return his money.

But that's not the end of it for the law enforcement agencies involved in this. Lara may be getting his money back but he's not abandoning his litigation. He's trying to secure a ruling blocking the Nevada Highway Patrol from utilizing the federal adoption option to get a cut of cash it might have trouble securing on its own.

Some of the damage has been undone. But let's not forget the government kept Lara's money for six months for no other reason than it was "too easy to do." That's unacceptable.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, cash, civil asset forfeiture, legalized theft, nevada, nevada highway patrol, police, pretextual stop, stephen lara

Federal Court Blocks Enforcement Of Florida's New Anti-Riot Law

from the looks-like-some-old-school-racism-from-here dept

Earlier this year, the Florida state legislature passed a law that turned protesting into a crime by expanding the definition of "riot" to make peaceful protesters culpable for the actions of those actually engaged in rioting. It refused bail to those arrested at protests and the term "aggravated rioting" was expanded enough to cover any gathering of more than nine people that blocked any road.

As soon as the law went into effect, it was deployed against protesters. But only certain protesters. Those involved in Black Lives Matter/anti-police brutality protests were targeted, but Cuban solidarity protesters were not only allowed to block traffic without being arrested, they were actually allowed onto freeway access ramps by police officers.

The law was immediately challenged by a number of groups when it went into effect. The Florida NAACP, Black Lives Matter Alliance Broward, and Dream Defenders sued to have the law blocked and declared unconstitutional. Thanks to a Florida federal court, they have obtained the injunction they were seeking.

The injunction order [PDF], written by Judge Mark Walker, opens with a brief recounting of how riot laws have historically been deployed to assist the government in enforcing segregation and other racists policies.

On May 27, 1956, Wilhelmina Jakes and Carrie Patterson, two Black students from Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University in Tallahassee, boarded a local city bus. They sat in the only available seats, which were in the “whites-only” section. The two women refused to move when ordered to do so, and the bus driver called in the police. Three police cars arrived at the scene and Ms. Jakes and Ms. Patterson were arrested. Their charge—“inciting a riot.” The rest is history.

Five years after the FAMU students’ arrests, nine clergymen arrived at the Tallahassee Airport to test the state’s Jim Crow laws as part of the Freedom Rides of 1961. The clergymen were Black and White men of various faiths, including two rabbis and ordained ministers from several Protestant denominations. Over the course of about 24 hours, they repeatedly rescheduled their outbound flights in an apparent attempt to see if the Tallahassee Airport’s restaurant would serve them as a group. The clergymen had previously been “given protection against violence or other disorder from groups or individuals who resented [their] activities,” but after a day of rescheduled flights, the City had enough of their efforts “to goad the municipality and its restaurant lessee to open the restaurant,” and serve the Black and White men together. Accordingly, the city attorney approached the clergymen at the airport and proclaimed that their assembly “at the municipal Airport of Tallahassee will tend to create a disturbance or incite a riot or disorderly conduct within the City of Tallahassee at its Municipal Airport over which the city had jurisdiction.” The city attorney ordered the clergymen to disperse, but after about ninety seconds and their failure to do so, the city attorney directed the chief of police to arrest them.

While Governor Ron DeSantis and his allies in the state legislature will never admit it, this law was passed to quell protests that largely concern black people and their interests -- one of which is the understandable desire to not be disproportionately targeted by police violence. The law was written as George Floyd-related protests occurred all over the nation. The fact that the new law was not deployed to arrest Cuban solidarity protesters whose actions met the new definition of "aggravated rioting," confirmed the law would only be used to target protesters DeSantis doesn't like.

The court says the plaintiffs have standing to sue. The order spends several pages detailing how these activist groups have curtailed their protest activity by cancelling planned events. The groups have also seen a noticeable drop in participation during the few protests they have engaged in since the law took effect, with many members of these groups stating the fear of being arrested for peaceful protesting has deterred them from attending events.

The only party to respond to the injunction request was the Governor himself. The court notes his submissions of evidence that speech isn't being chilled (which largely consists of printouts of social media posts about upcoming protests) isn't particularly persuasive. And one submission in particular by DeSantis all but confirms this statute was written to target black residents and protesters.

Specifically, Governor DeSantis points to a screenshot of Plaintiff Chainless Change, Inc.’s Facebook post showing a flyer for a “Juneteenth Black Joy Celebration” at Coleman Community Park in West Palm Beach on June 19, 2021. The post notes that “There will be . . . Music, Food, Games, Rental Assistance, Performers, Giveaways, Community Resources, and More,” and includes a photograph of several joyful Black children…

[...]

This Court is perplexed by the Governor’s decision to include this specific Facebook post as evidence that Plaintiffs’ speech is not actually chilled in the manner they assert in their motion. To start, this year marked the first official recognition of Juneteenth National Independence Day as a federal holiday. 5 U.S.C. § 6103(a) (2021). This Court—along with other courts across the country—was closed for the occasion. The Facebook post advertises a community celebration on a federal holiday commemorating the end of slavery in America...\

[...]

Here, the Governor has conflated a community celebration of a federal holiday commemorating the end of slavery with a protest. He does so to argue that Plaintiff Chainless Change’s claimed injury of chilled speech and self-censorship is not to be believed. It should go without saying that a public gathering of Black people celebrating “Black joy” and release from bondage does not automatically equate to a protest—or something that the Governor apparently implies should be chilled by the new riot law if Plaintiff Chainless Change’s claimed injury is to be believed.

Yeah… that looks pretty bad. So does this, which follows a discussion of the plaintiffs' assertions that they have already been targeted by police violence and intimidation during protests prior to the passage of the law.

Not one of the Defendant Sheriffs filed any evidence to dispute Plaintiffs’ version of the facts.

Governor DeSantis argued the court was getting ahead of itself by not allowing state courts to make the first call on the constitutionality of the law and/or its overbreadth. The federal court says this argument is nonsense when crucial civil rights and liberties are on the line.

Here, the chilling effect is particularly pronounced given that the law not only creates a risk of prosecution, but also subjects the person to mandatory time in custody until first appearance. § 870.01(6), Fla. Stat. Given that a vague law does not give a would-be protestor any notice about what the law criminalizes, and that the person may be punished for constitutionally protected activity given the law’s potentially overbroad scope, a reasonable person, as the declarations in this case make clear, would censor his own speech rather than risk arrest and time in jail.

As for the definition of "riot," the court says it's way too vague to be constitutional. It's not that rioting can't be clearly defined. It's that this law has the potential to make peaceful protesters culpable for the actions of rioters in the immediate area. The court starts with this…

This Court… acknowledges the obvious up front; some conduct clearly falls within the definition’s scope. Tossing Molotov cocktails at the police station with 10 of your best friends is clearly rioting. But the Supreme Court has squarely rejected the argument that “a vague provision is constitutional merely because there is some conduct that clearly falls within the provision’s grasp.”

Before heading on to tell the state of Florida why this law doesn't work.

This is where things fall apart. Although both Governor DeSantis and Sheriff Williams argue that the phrase “willfully participate” is commonly understood, neither party offers an actual definition. Is it enough to stand passively near violence? What if you continue protesting when violence erupts? What if that protest merely involves standing with a sign while others fight around you? Does it depend on whether your sign expresses a message that is pro- or anti-law enforcement? What about filming the violence? What if you are in the process of leaving the disturbance and give a rioter a bottle of water to wash tear gas from their eyes?

Other phrases in the law only add to the confusion:

A “violent public disturbance” raises similar questions. Is a violent public disturbance a peaceful protest that later turns violent? Is it a protest that creates an imminent risk of violence? Do the violent actions of three people render an otherwise peaceful protest of 300 people a violent public disturbance? Does a rowdy group of Proud Boys or anarchists have veto power over peaceful protests under this definition?

A long semantic discussion follows, interrupted by some truly amazing sentence diagrams and the court drily noting the statute appears to be impervious "to any reasonable reading," before the court brings the hammer down.

The problem for Defendants is that, although they repeatedly claim that their preferred reading is crystal clear, they never truly explain why. Simply put, Defendants argue that one can tell that the statute embraces their reading because of the way it is. And it should come as no surprise that Defendants refuse to engage meaningfully with the statute’s text. As demonstrated above, the moment one does, Defendants’ interpretation crumbles.

Defendants’ proposed interpretation strains the rules of construction, grammar, and logic beyond their breaking points, and requires this Court to ignore the plain text of the statute and blithely proclaim that “everyone knows what a riot means,” notwithstanding this new definition that the Florida Legislature enacted.

[...]

In short, Defendants’ preferred construction is neither reasonable nor readily apparent given the plain language of the statute. Instead, it reduces much of the verbiage to surplusage and invites this Court to fill in the blanks that the Florida Legislature left behind.

This part of the law is unconstitutionally vague, the court says. Therefore, the law cannot be enforced, at least under this unreasonable quasi-definition of the term "riot." That being said, the court points out law enforcement can still arrest and prosecute rioters, listing 19 applicable criminal statutes and noting that this list of possible enforcement options does not encompass the entirety of applicable laws.

The state is appealing the injunction, of course. But the injunction remains in place while the appeals process plays out. Governor DeSantis appears to believe the vague, overly-broad law will be enforceable again when this is all over.

DeSantis said during an appearance in New Port Richey that the state will take its case to the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The governor called the ruling by Walker a “foreordained conclusion” and has said he frequently prevails when appealing Tallahassee judges’ orders.

“I guarantee you we’ll win that on appeal,” DeSantis said.

I'd like to put some money on that. This decision cited plenty of Eleventh Circuit precedent while handing DeSantis a loss, none of which appears to favor the state government and its attempt to revive the state's long tradition of punishing black people for pushing back against racist policies.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, anti-riot laws, black lives matter, florida, free speech, protests, riots, ron desantis

Daily Deal: The 2021 CompTIA Security Infrastructure Expert Bundle

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

The 2021 CompTIA Security Infrastructure Expert Bundle has 4 courses to help you learn how to mitigate attacks and vulnerabilities. The courses will help prepare you to sit for exams on CompTIA CASP, PenTest, CySA, and Security. It's on sale for $30.

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.

Filed Under: daily deal

AT&T Hopes You'll Ignore It Routinely Finances Terrible Politicians Doing Terrible Things

from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

After the idiotic and dangerous events of January 6, you might recall how corporations like AT&T and Comcast proclaimed they'd paused donations to any politicians behind the clumsy, violent attempt to, you know, dismantle functioning democracy. But, of course, this was mostly a show; the companies continued to donate money to those same politicians via their lobbying and policy umbrella orgs. Then, once the public was adequately distracted by the next big scandal du jour, quickly got back to work funding those same politicians again with zero meaningful penalty.

Now AT&T's making headlines once again, this time for funding the politicians behind Texas' terrible anti-abortion law. In addition to the way the law will harm women (particularly low income women and women of color), we've noted the law is an inherent mess that encourages vigilantism, likely opening the door to all kinds of additional problems in numerous other policy sectors. That's before you get to the problems with the Supreme Court's chickenshit middle of the night ruling that appears to ignore the very foundations of the law itself.

AT&T being AT&T, the company has been busy pushing all kinds of marketing missives about its breathless support for women, while simultaneously throwing giant wads of cash at politicians for whom that hasn't been much of a priority. The press hasn't been too bothered by this, leaving it to independent newsletter writers like Judd Legum to call AT&T out:

Whenever this sort of thing happens, AT&T attempts to turtle its way through it, usually by refusing to comment and hoping the scandal passes overhead. But to his credit, HBO's John Oliver this week wasn't having it, and managed to squeeze at least a comment out of his parent company (technically his soon to be ex-parent company thanks to the looming Discovery spinoff). After being prodded by Oliver, this is what AT&T came up with after weeks of total radio silence:

"AT&T has never taken a stance on abortion. Employee PAC contributions to Texas legislators went to both supporters and opponents of the Texas legislation."

As Oliver was quick to point out, not taking a stance on this immeasurably shitty law is taking a stance (oh hey Elon didn't see you standing there), especially if you're still happily funding the politicians behind it:

"Not taking a stance on this issue right now is taking a stance,” Oliver said. “And both-siding abortion isn’t really the PR slam dunk that that they seem to think it is. Although it is certainly on brand for them. AT&T clearly likes their public statements the same way that they like their cell signal — hilariously f-cking weak."

You can find the full segment here:

On one hand it's a great thing that an independent newsletter and a satirist are holding a corporation to account for funding terrible people pushing terrible, harmful legislation. On the flip side it's a testament to the timidity of the mainstream press that this sort of stuff routinely has to fall to independent newsletters and a satirist in the first place. Corporations routinely get to talk out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to supporting terrible politicians and terrible policies, and the fact AT&T was able to remain totally quiet for a month without much media scrutiny makes it abundantly clear why.

Filed Under: abortion, john oliver, lobbying, texas, women
Companies: at&t

The LAPD Is Asking City Residents To Hand Over Social Media Account Info To Feed To Its Unsupervised Monitoring Software

from the badge-sporting-amateur-anglers dept

Documents obtained via public records requests by the Brennan Center reveal the Los Angeles Police Department has made social media part of its everyday business. The LAPD is wholly embracing the 21st century. This doesn't mean its public relations department is making the most of numerous platforms to address citizens' concerns and engage in more transparency.

No, it just means LAPD officers can be just as stalker-ish as disgruntled exes or future employers.

The Los Angeles Police Department authorizes its officers to engage in extensive surveillance of social media without internal monitoring of the nature or effectiveness of the searches, according to the results of a public records request filed by the Brennan Center. (h/t Michael Vario)

And beginning this year, the department is adding a new social media surveillance tool: Media Sonar, which can build detailed profiles on individuals and identify links between them. This acquisition increases opportunities for abuse by expanding officers’ ability to conduct wide-ranging social media surveillance.

The LAPD has been doing this for years, if its "2015 Social Media User Guide" [PDF] is any indication. At that point, the LAPD was already doing plenty of social media monitoring. The guide mentions things like oversight, seeking approval for certain forms of monitoring, and the possibility of First and Fourth Amendment violations.

However, it also mentions the use of fictitious personas to engage in undercover investigations and the use of fictitious personas to engage in fishing expeditions.

The use of a Fictitious Online Persona to engage in investigative activity. Fictitious Online Personas created for the purposes of identifying and examining trends and tactics, developing profiles, or conducting research does not constitute online undercover activity.

That doesn't trouble the LAPD. There are no rules for this. Long-term surveillance of people suspected of nothing utilizing fictitious accounts that might give officers access to non-public posts and messages is something the LAPD performs in an accountability vacuum, constitutional concerns be damned.

That document says no permission is needed and no oversight governs these activities. Other documents obtained by the Brennan Center confirm the LAPD's hands-off approach to long-term social media monitoring -- some which involves officers engaged in subterfuge indistinguishable from the "Online Undercover Activity" more closely governed by rules applying to ongoing investigations.

Despite endowing its officers with broad authority to surveil social media, the LAPD has done little to ensure these powers aren’t abused. According to a letter responding to our records request, it does “not track what (if anything) [its] employees monitor[]” on social media sites and “has not conducted any audits regarding the use of social media.”

Great. So we don't know how much surveillance unrelated to criminal investigations occurs under the LAPD's unwatchful, presumably-closed eye. We also don't know how many times officers have broken what few rules govern their online interactions and passive surveillance. We also don't know whether this always-on monitoring has had any impact on law enforcement activities, like providing new leads or evidence in other criminal cases. And even if it has, the unanswered question remains: why is the LAPD keeping an eye on people it doesn't have any reasonable suspicion are engaged in criminal activity?

Just as worrying is the paperwork filled out by beat cops during "field interviews," which encompass everything from speaking to crime witnesses/victims to whatever city residents the LAPD interacts with during its patrols. Not only are these cards used to keep the LAPD's extremely questionable gang database stocked with alleged gang members, but they encourage officers to ask for information they have no legal reason to demand -- like Social Security Numbers or, as is relevant here, "social media account(s)."

All of this information gets fed into the LAPD's databases and social media monitoring tools, like Media Sonar. It's all called "intelligence," even if it's little more than bait for social media fishing expeditions by cops with the time and the tech to waste on efforts that do little to reduce crime or contribute to ongoing investigations. And this seems to be a uniquely LA thing: the Brennan Center says its review of "field interview" cards (which covers 40 US cities at this point) has yet to uncover any other law enforcement agency seeking to collect information about people's social media accounts.

This doesn't mean no other police departments are trying to collect this information. It just means the LAPD feels this is an acceptable thing to ask people for during field interviews and its reliance on social media monitoring software to do its investigative work for it. The LAPD appears to be doing this simply because no one -- not department officials, internal oversight, external oversight, or judges at any level of the court system -- has told the PD it can't.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, lapd, social media, surviellance