ACLU Sues ICE Over Its Deliberately-Broken Immigrant 'Risk Assessment' Software

from the can't-really-call-it-an-'option'-if-there-are-no-alternatives dept

A couple of years ago, a Reuters investigation uncovered another revamp of immigration policies under President Trump. ICE has a Risk Classification Assessment Tool that decides whether or not arrested immigrants can be released on bail or their own recognizance. The algorithm had apparently undergone a radical transformation under the new administration, drastically decreasing the number of detainees who could be granted release. The software now recommends detention in almost every case, no matter what mitigating factors are fed to the assessment tool.

ICE is now being sued for running software that declares nearly 100% of detained immigrants too risky to be released pending hearings. The ACLU's lawsuit [PDF] opens with some disturbing stats that show how ICE has rigged the system to keep as many people detained as possible.

According to data obtained by the New York Civil Liberties Union under the Freedom of Information Act, from 2013 to June 2017, approximately 47% of those deemed to be low risk by the government were granted release. From June 2017 to September 2019, that figure plummeted to 3%. This dramatic drop in the release rate comes at a time when exponentially more people are being arrested in the New York City area and immigration officials have expanded arrests of those not convicted of criminal offenses. The federal government’s sweeping detention dragnet means that people who pose no flight or safety risk are being jailed as a matter of course—in an unlawful trend that is getting worse.

Despite there being plenty of evidence that immigrants commit fewer criminal acts than natural-born citizens, the administration adopted a "No-Release Policy." That led directly to ICE tinkering with its software -- one that was supposed to assess risk factors when making detention determinations. ICE may as well just skip this step in the process since it's only going to give ICE (and the administration) the answer it wants: detention without bond. ICE agents can ask for a second opinion on detention from a supervisor, but the documents obtained by the ACLU show supervisors depart from detention recommendations less than 1% of the time.

The negative effects of this indefinite detention are real. The lawsuit points out zero-risk detainees can see their lives destroyed before they're allowed anything that resembles due process.

Once denied release under the new policy, people remain unnecessarily incarcerated in local jails for weeks or even months before they have a meaningful opportunity to seek release in a hearing before an Immigration Judge. While waiting for those hearings, those detained suffer under harsh conditions of confinement akin to criminal incarceration. While incarcerated, they are separated from families, friends, and communities, and they risk losing their children, their jobs, and their homes. Because of inadequate medical care and conditions in the jails, unmet medical and mental-health needs often lead to serious and at times irreversible consequences.

When they do finally get to see a judge, nearly 40% of them are released on bond. ICE treats nearly 100% of detained immigrants as dangerous. Judges -- judges employed by the DOJ and appointed by the Attorney General -- clearly don't agree with the agency's rigged assessment system.

There will always be those who say, "Well, don't break the law." These aren't criminal proceedings. These are civil proceedings where the detained are tossed into criminal facilities until they're able to see a judge. This steady stripping of options began under the Obama administration but accelerated under Trump and his no-release policy.

ICE began to alter its custody determinations process in 2015, modifying its risk-assessment tool so that it could no longer recommend individuals be given the opportunity for release on bond. In mid-2017, ICE then removed the tool’s ability to recommend release on recognizance. As a result, the assessment tool—on which ICE offices across the country rely— can only make one substantive recommendation: detention without bond.

The ACLU is hoping to have a class action lawsuit certified that would allow it to hold ICE responsible for violating rights en masse, including the Fifth Amendment's due process clause. Since ICE is no longer pretending to be targeting the "worst of the worst," the agency and its deliberately-broken risk assessment tool are locking up immigrants who have lived here for an average of sixteen years -- people who've added to their communities, held down jobs, and raised families. These are the people targeted by ICE and it is ensuring that it is these people who are thrown into prisons and jails until their hearings, tearing apart their lives and families while denying them the rights extended to them by our Constitution.

Filed Under: algorithms, bail, ice, immigrants, risk assessment, software
Companies: aclu

NYC Prosecutors Accidentally Admit They Use Bail To Deprive Presumably-Innocent People Of Their Freedom

from the gov't-getting-sick-of-whatever-justice-actually-remains-in-the-justice-syste dept

New York City's prosecutors just admitted they use the bail system to punish people for being accused of criminal acts. It's not there to serve its intended purpose: to ensure the return of charged individuals to court, where they're presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The bail system isn't supposed to keep people locked up. But that's the way it's been used for years. Prosecutors often ask for excessive bail amounts. Judges often grant them. The argument made for high bail amounts -- which ensure only the most well-to-do can remain free while awaiting trial -- is that arrested people are flight risks and/or more inherently dangerous than all the people the police haven't gotten around to arresting yet.

The stats don't back up the parade of horribles offered by prosecutors at bail hearings. People have done the math. And this excellent article by the Boston Review compiles the damning numbers.

Statistical studies have continually shown that these concerns are exaggerated; the vast majority of people who are arrested and then make bail do not commit violent crimes while their cases are pending. In fact, according to a study by New York City's Criminal Justice Agency, only 3 percent of “at risk” defendants who make bail are even arrested (let alone convicted) for a violent crime while their initial cases are pending. Similarly, a recent study by the Vera Institute of Justice tracked more than fifty people who were released from court in New York City without having to pay their entire bail—only two were rearrested on a new violent felony charge over the following year.

There goes the "public safety" argument. High bails are supposedly needed because presumptively innocent people are inveterate criminals prone to committing crime after crime until their return to court.

And here comes the "public safety" argument, inadvertently highlighting prosecutors' bail-based bullshit. Grassroot groups, led by RFK Human Rights, are posting bail for hundreds of incarcerated suspects. Money has been raised to post bail for "every woman, sixteen- and seventeen- year-old" currently housed in a NYC jail. The parade of horribles is back and it shows the government isn't interested in allowing the bail system to, you know, work.

[W]hat the reaction to the Mass Bailout shows, in stark contrast, is that the DAs use bail money for very different purposes than it was designed for. They request these bails ostensibly to ensure the accused show up to court; yet now that they are actually being posted, the DAs are crying foul and warning that freeing the accused will endanger “public safety.” They are therefore admitting what so many in affected communities already know to be true: that money bail routinely—and illegally—is set too high for poor defendants to afford, solely for the improper purpose of keeping them in jail before trial.

This isn't just bad optics by the DAs. This is also illegal. The sole purpose of bail, according to New York law, is to ensure the return of the accused to court. It cannot be used to lock accused suspects up for "public safety" reasons. But this reaction by city prosecutors makes it clear they believe they can use the system the way the law says they can't. And this reaction -- as bad and as unlawful as it is -- will probably be replicated anywhere bail relief efforts/bail reforms are deployed.

This just drives the point home that one-half of the justice system gives zero fucks about justice, due process, or any other safeguards erected against government power over the years. All they want is to lock people up and keep them locked up, even if they've never received their day in court.

Filed Under: bail, crime, new york city, nyc, prosecutors

FBI Misconstrued Content Of Doc Leaker Reality Winner's Jailhouse Calls

from the press-'record'-and-be-done-with-it dept

The ongoing prosecution of document leaker Reality Winner has developed some new wrinkles. Despite having a very traceable leaked document in hand, the FBI is pitching in by misleading government lawyers -- and by extension, the presiding court. Maybe it's deliberate. Maybe it isn't. Either way, the administration wants desperately to crack down on leakers, and having a high-profile case result in a multi-year sentence would be a good start.

Right now, the government just wants to keep Winner locked up until her trial. Prosecutors have been arguing against her being released from jail by misconstruing the contents of recorded calls from Winner. (h/t Jeremy Scahill)

In arguing for her to be kept in the Lincoln County Jail in Lincolnton, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Solari told a judge Winner was recorded in a jailhouse phone call discussing some “documents” — plural — raising concerns she might have gathered other top-secret information beyond the NSA report she is accused of leaking. Solari said she was also overheard directing the transfer of $30,000 from her savings account to her mother’s account because the court had taken away her free appointed counsel.

But none of this is true. And it's not as though it's a matter of interpretation. Recordings exist.

But in an email to Winner’s attorneys on June 29, Solari said Winner could be heard in the recording telling her mom she “leaked a document,” singular. And in another recorded phone call, Solari said, Winner asked her mom to transfer her money because of fears authorities “might freeze it.” Winner’s attorneys said she was afraid she would not be able to pay her bills if her account were frozen.

So, where did this bogus info come from? The FBI, of course, which can't be bothered to let a recording literally speak for itself. US Attorney Solari stated in her email her comments on plural documents and the reasons for the requested funds transfer came from "verbal summaries" of the calls provided by the feds.

If there's anything the FBI has shown a systemic dislike for, it's recordings. Despite several decades of recording tech advancements, the FBI prefers pen-and-paper for "recording" interviews with suspects, indictees, and witnesses. In this case, the FBI could have given the prosecutor the recordings directly. Instead, it chose to provide an inaccurate summary. With the FBI, it's never your word against theirs. It's the FBI's words. Period.

Winner's attorneys have asked for her release pending trial, pointing to former military personnel who were allowed to roam free before having their day in court -- people like Gen. Petraeus, who was allowed to retain his position as CIA director up until he plead guilty to mishandling classified documents. But, as her attorneys are surely aware, a multi-tiered justice system doesn't allow for the release of NSA contractors who don't have Forever War Hero listed on their resumes.

Beneath all of this is one incredible fact: the FBI chose to present a verbal recap rather than hand over recordings. If the prosecutor hadn't bothered to listen to the tapes, the judge would be relying on misstatements made by the FBI when making a decision affecting someone's freedom. And if it had gone further than this, those verbal recaps might have been entered as evidence showing Winner was seeking to cut-and-run and possibly leak more documents -- both of which would have had an extremely adverse effect on her sentencing.

Filed Under: bail, doj, espionage act, fbi, high court, leaking, low court, misleading, reality winner

Anonymous 'Good Samaritan' Pays Justin Carter's $500k Bail After 4 Months In Jail For Online Trashtalk

from the that's-quite-a-good-samaritan dept

We've written a few times about Justin Carter, the teenager in Texas who has been held in jail (at times, in solitary confinement) since March because of an obviously sarcastic trash-talking joke he made on Facebook, which a woman in another country saw and reported to the police as a "terroristic threat." As of today, it appears that Carter is finally out of jail, thanks to someone anonymously donating the money for his $500,000 bail:

Justin Carter's attorney has confirmed that Carter is out on bail as of Thursday, July 11. An "anonymous good Samaritan" donated $500,000 to the Carter family so they could make bail for Justin, said defense attorney Don Flanary.

First of all, that's an impressive "good Samaritan." Second, this whole thing is a travesty. He clearly never should have been arrested, never should have been held in jail for months, and should have been released and had everything dropped the second anyone with more than half a dozen brain cells looked at what he actually said and the context of it. The fact that he's been in jail all of this time, and that bail was set at an outrageous $500k -- and, of course, the fact that he's still facing charges of making a "terroristic threat" -- are complete travesties, showing a justice system that is out of control.

Filed Under: bail, good samaritan, justin carter, sarcasm, terroristic threats

Judge Deems Facebook-Posting Rapper Cameron D'Ambrosio A 'Threat,' Denies Bail

from the if-you-can't-do-the-time,-don't-do-the-rhyme? dept

Cameron D'Ambrosio, the Massachusetts teen arrested and charged with "communicating terroristic threats" (or "bomb threats," depending on who's doing the reporting) via a Facebook post (in the form of rap lyrics -- CammyDee has aspirations), has been denied bail by the state's Superior Court.

The judge's decision was based on the "dangerousness" hearing held May 9th in Lawerence County Judge Lynn Rooney's courtroom, in which she decided D'Ambrosio was a threat to others based on his previous run-ins with the law.

“I believe the behavior here has been escalating,” Judge Lynn Rooney said after reviewing a half dozen records of police and probation reports prosecutors submitted at the hearing. “And it’s very troubling.”

The reports included D’Ambrosio’s arrest in June after a fight over $20 with his older sister, who called police after locking herself in her room. During the argument, D’Ambrosio pushed her and, after she locked herself in her bedroom, threatened to stab her, according to the arrest report from June 21.

Police said D’Ambrosio admitted he said that, but said he was just upset. The case was continued on Oct. 17, and dismissed on April 17, exactly two weeks before he was arrested for the Facebook post.

Rooney said she also was troubled by a police report from November 2011, which said D’Ambrosio threatened to shoot two eighth-grade students. Police said he admitted to making that statement, but was only kidding.

D'Ambrosio's past is far from squeaky clean and he seems to have acquired a reputation for threatening others. (He also seems to let his better judgement take a backseat to mouth/keyboard -- the officer who arrested Cameron after his Facebook post knew him from a previous incident, one in which D'Ambrosio was hospitalized after being beaten so severely by another student that his spleen ruptured. This beating was apparently prompted by some Facebook comments D'Ambrosio directed towards the other student's girlfriend.)

So, D'Ambrosio clearly knows how to make specific threats directed towards specific individuals. But it took a vague "threat," delivered in the form of a horrible/horrific "rap" to finally get him locked up, threatened with a 20-year sentence and denied bail. Even Sheriff Joe Solomon, who went to great lengths to read between the lines of D'Ambrosio's Facebook post and attribute him with things he didn't actually say, admitted the post contained no specific threats.

I do want to make clear he did not make a specific threat against the school or any particular individuals but he did threaten to kill a bunch of people and specifically mentioned the Boston Marathon and the White House.

The first part of Solomon's sentence is true -- D'Ambrosio made no specific threats. The second part? Not so much. For clarification, here's the entire Facebook post currently being declared a "terroristic threat" by the state. This includes some additional verbiage (in bold) that wasn't contained in previous reporting.

All you haters keep my fuckin' name outcha mouths, got it? what the fuck I gotta do to get some props and shit huh? Ya'll wanme to fucking kill somebody? What the fuck do these fucking demons want from me? Fucking bastards I ain't no longer a person, I’m not in reality. So when u see me fucking go insane and make the news, the paper, and the fuckin federal house of horror known as the white house, Don’t fucking cry or be worried because all YOU people fucking caused this shit. Fuck a boston bominb wait till u see the shit I do, I’ma be famous rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me!

Rapper addresses haters, makes grandiose claims, plays up street cred with criminal references. Positively unremarkable, except that multiple students reported this status update to school administration. This doesn't necessarily mean these students felt threatened. It's equally believable that D'Ambrosio's mouth, attitude and behavior made him less than well-liked at his school.

Sheriff Solomon then took what little was offered and ran with it, leading us up to this point. But you have to wonder where state prosecutors will go with this as it heads through the judicial system. D'Ambrosio's lawyer points out there's not much here for the state to work with.

DuBosque argued in court that D’Ambrosio was not a danger because he was not threatening specific violence, and police found no explosives, weapons or other writing about violence when they searched his home. The post started out as lyrics, he said.

Because D’Ambrosio did not threaten to use a weapon in a specific place or against a specific person, the post did not meet the state statute’s requirements, DuBosque said.

The statute D'Ambrosio is charged with violating will need to be stretched to cover a "threat" that fails to meet most of the specifications. But once the word "terrorist" is introduced into the mix, specificities tend to suddenly become vague "guidelines" as the law is bent, beaten and painted to match.

On the plus side, D'Ambrosio has more than a few citizens working towards preventing both the First Amendment and the tactless rapper from going down the drain. A petition created by the Center for Rights and Fight For The Future asking for D'Ambrosio's release has gathered over 70,000 signatures. The local Center for Rights has also criticized the judge's decision to deny bail (as well as the charge itself), pointing out that D'Ambrosio is facing a stiffer sentence than if he had actually assaulted someone.

As I stated previously, I don't have a problem with something like this being investigated. But the end result should have been little more than "loudmouth teen says stupid shit," and perhaps some court-ordered counseling or supervised probation, considering his past behavior. Instead, we have a high school student facing a 20-year sentence for saying the wrong thing ("Boston bombinb" [sic]) at the wrong time (too soon).

Filed Under: arrests, bail, cam d'ambrosio, cameron d'ambrosio, cammydee, lyrics, social networks, terror

Megaupload Defendants Get Internet Access Back; Kim Dotcom Allowed To Record An Album

from the conditions-of-bail dept

When Kim Dotcom was granted bail, we noted that it was rather silly that the conditions of bail included a ban on internet access. It appears that pretty much everyone involved in the case has actually agreed, and the terms of bail have been adjusted to allow all of the Megaupload defendants to have internet access. The US didn't even object to this request (which surprises me, actually).

What the US did object to, however, was Dotcom's request to be able to go to a nearby recording studio to complete an album he is supposedly working on. The US seems to question whether this album really exists as well as its likelihood of commercial success. However, the judge notes:

This Court cannot speculate on the success or otherwise of Mr Dotcom’s venture. The numerous varieties of modern musical genres suggest that there are probably unimagined audiences available, and modern legitimate digital distribution systems are changing the face of the music market. I could venture to suggest that notoriety alone could well be a marketing angle for Mr Dotcom’s venture.

In the end, he does allow Dotcom to go to the studio, but with specific requirements, including having to notify officials when he's going there, and only staying for four hours at a time. He has to alert officials when he arrives, at the 2 hour mark, and 5 minutes before he leaves -- and he's supposed to do so with a photo of himself on a smartphone (if he has a smartphone).

The US also objected to allowing the four defendants to meet in person, saying that by allowing them internet access, they could just Skype each other. However, the court agreed with the defendants that Skyping is not the same as actually meeting in person and is allowing that as well (again, in a limited fashion). The court notes that the "flight risk" that the US keeps worrying about appears to be exaggerated, though it's still keeping pretty strict limits on Dotcom and the others, and may revisit the rules in the future.

Of course, I'm still wondering why internet access was banned in the first place. It seems like such an overaggressive ban on something that's so central to the ways in which everyone communicates these days.

Filed Under: bail, internet access, kim dotcom
Companies: megaupload

Kim Dotcom Gives TV Interview Where He Insists The Charges Against Him Are A Joke

from the making-his-case dept

While Kim Dotcom is out on bail in New Zealand, he gave an interview to a New Zealand TV station. You can watch it below or read the transcript at the previous link: Generally speaking, if you're facing criminal charges, it's probably not a wise idea to give public interviews to the press, and I don't see how doing this helps him in any way. He more or less lays out his expected argument concerning the copyright infringement claims, which are pretty much what you'd expect: that they followed the DMCA, took stuff down on request, and even gave copyright holders special access by which they could take links down themselves. Dotcom is clearly very well versed in the legal issues here, and he's choosing his words extremely carefully, but it still seems a bit silly to reveal such arguments outside of court, and it could come back to haunt him later (you can bet US prosecutors are pouring over every word to figure out what they can hang him on.

Also, while the interview focuses on the copyright issues, it avoids the key part of the charges, which is the criminal conspiracy issue. Obviously, those are built off of the copyright claims, but just fighting the copyright claims and ignoring the conspiracy charges is unlikely to be a winning strategy.

One key point he raises in the interview is the fact that, despite being in business for seven years, no MPAA studio ever took any legal action against them other than sending DMCA takedown notices which he claims they obeyed (the indictment suggests that Megaupload didn't necessarily have the greatest record on following takedowns):

JC: CNET, in an article that looked pretty well researched to me and well sourced said, and I quote, “among the copyright owners who’ve accused Megaupload of piracy, including software and video game companies none of them presented the FBI with more, quote, significant evidence, end quote, about Megaupload than the MPAA. Did any members of the MPAA come to you and say “we have concerns, Kim, about what’s going on in Megaupload”.

KD: Never. And I gotta tell you this – if you are a company that is hurt so much by what we are doing, billions of dollars of damage, you don’t wait and sit and do nothing. You call your lawyers and you try and sue us and try to stop us from what we are doing.

JC: So a cease and desist of some form or other. Did you ever receive any letters from members of the MPAA saying “the latest James Bond film is being exchanged, ad infinitum, through Megaupload, you must stop it”? Did you ever receive…

KD: Absolutely not. No legal document has ever reached us from any of these studios. The only thing that we get is Takedown Notices and them using the direct delete access on our website. So, isn’t it surprising to you that when I’m the pirate king and I’m causing all this damage that none of them has ever even attempted to sue us, to sue us for damages, you know? If you would run a business that loses billions of dollars because of me, you wouldn’t just sit there and do nothing. I mean, this investigation was ongoing for over two years, you know, the company was live for over seven years, the MPAA has always thrown names at us and called us all kinds of things but they’ve never actually done anything to you know, take us to court and for the very simple reason that there is a law in the US that protects us which is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that protects online service providers from actions of their users and this is the same law that allowed Google to still exist, that allowed YouTube to still exist. You know that Viacom sued YouTube and YouTube claimed that they were protected by the DMCA and they won. And if you look at the YouTube case files, the emails that were exchanged internally we are a lamb compared to what was going on at YouTube at the time but these guys got away. They won their lawsuit and I’m sitting in jail, my house is being raided, all my assets are frozen without a trial, without a hearing. This is completely insane, is what it is.

Elsewhere he notes that he's an easy target because of his "flamboyant" past, but that, alone isn't illegal. But he also responds to the basic questions pretty clearly, noting that they can't proactively monitor the service, because (1) that's not required by law (2) it's technically impossible and (3) it could raise privacy questions under US law (that part might be a stretch, since the uploads weren't private, but public).

I still think there are serious problems with the lawsuit, but the case against him is a bit bigger than what he portrays in the interview, and he's going to need a much stronger defense if he's going to actually win the case.

Filed Under: bail, copyright, dmca, kim dotcom, kim schmitz, new zealand, privacy
Companies: megaupload

Megaupload Boss Kim Dotcom Granted Bail After US Fails To Prove He's Got Cash Stashed Away To Make An Escape

from the nice-try dept

Whatever you might think of Kim Dotcom (originally Schmitz), the founder of Megaupload, he at least deserves a fair trial. US officials had worked hard to keep him locked up without bail, but a New Zealand court has finally granted him bail after no one could show him having access to vast funds elsewhere that he could use to make a run for it. Apparently, US officials insisted that he must have those funds, but couldn't produce any evidence, and the court realized that's not a particularly good reason to keep him locked up:

In the North Shore District Court this morning, Justice Nevin Dawson said that after a long time where officials could investigate the Dotcom's potential access to funds - none of significance had been found. Justice Dawson said it was "highly unlikely" that he had other financial resources available to him that had not already been seized.

Prosecution acting for the United States Government had said that because Dotcom was "very wealthy" it was probably he had more bank accounts.

However, Justice Dawson said that put Dotcom in the position of having to "prove a negative" and that assertion was not enough to imply his flight risk.

Four new bank accounts were discovered in the Philippines, but they were empty, he said.

"The suspicion that Mr. Dotcom is very wealthy is not evidence of further assets and cannot be used against him."

I've certainly noticed attempts by many to try Dotcom based on his outward appearance or the fact that he clearly was a show off who flung money around. And I can understand that desire. But, any trial should be based on the actual facts against him, not the fact that he was apparently tacky and a showoff when he spent money. If that, alone, was a crime, then tons of famous musicians, movie stars and athletes deserve the same treatment.

That said, the conditions of bail include no internet usage, which (as we've noted in the past) is pretty ridiculous, since nearly everything touches the internet these days, including popular phone systems. It seems perfectly reasonable to say that he can't have anything to do with cyberlockers or Megaupload or such, but a complete internet ban seems extreme.

Filed Under: bail, kim dotcom, kim schmitz, new zealand
Companies: megaupload