Facebook Is Banning Anyone Charged With Participating In Capitol Hill Insurrection

from the really? dept

Mark Gray spotted an interesting tidbit buried in a Washington Post story about online activism among Trumpist supporters. Most of the story is the usual stuff about how propagandists are finding each other and organizing movements online. There is some of the usual hand-wringing that is standard in these stories about how social media is "enabling" this kind of activity, though it also notes that users very quickly migrated to other welcoming sites (and, also, how they've figured out ways to sneak back onto the bigger platforms):

The mainstream tech companies‘ crackdown on Trump and his followers helped splinter that vast network, researchers have found, without fundamentally weakening it. Influencers kicked off Facebook or Instagram ported followers to the lightly-policed app Telegram or right-wing YouTube rival Rumble, but they’ve also found ways to get back on the mainstream platforms by creating new accounts or using alternate language to avoid detection.

But later, the article claims that Facebook has a policy to shut down any account of anyone charged in the January 6th insurrection:

Alan Hostetter, a former local police chief and yoga teacher as well as a speaker at the June rally attended by The Post, was indicted on a charge of his alleged role in the insurrection June 10. Shortly after, he went back on Facebook Live, YouTube, Spotify, Rumble and several other services, filming himself walking on the beach in San Clemente in a “Free Man" baseball cap. He decried the Jan. 6 riot as a “false flag staged event” and a “fakesurrection” because he believed infiltrators were in the crowd.

[....]

Within hours, his accounts were banned on Facebook and Instagram. Facebook says that it does not allow people charged in the insurrection on the platform and that it may fact-check claims that the riot was staged. Spotify and YouTube removed the videos a week later.

That part I've bolded is news to me -- and quite interesting. We've talked somewhat about how off-platform activities are increasingly coming under scrutiny by platforms in their content moderation/trust and safety efforts, but this is the first I've heard of any platform (let alone Facebook) having a blanket policy of refusing to allow those charged in the January 6th attack from using their platform.

At the very least, this does raise some questions. Since it's just based on charging, and not on conviction, what happens if the charges are dropped or the person is acquitted? That may be unlikely with many (if not all) of the January 6th folks, but it does raise some questions. And is the ban permanent? So far, the initial January 6th cases, against those who didn't seem to do that much once in the Capitol, have involved relatively mild sanctions. Will that also include a lifetime ban from Facebook? Should it?

Obviously, Facebook is free to moderate how it wants, and I think this will be interesting to follow over time. Will there be other situations in which being charged with a crime leads to your removal from Facebook? The Supreme Court weighed in on this issue in the Packingham case, that you can't have a law that requires the loss of internet service in response to a crime, but that only applies to laws. Facebook still has the freedom to refuse service to anyone it chooses.

At the very least, it will be interesting to watch how this kind of policy -- regarding off platform activities -- evolves on Facebook and other social networks.

Filed Under: banning, charges, content moderation, insurrection, january 6th
Companies: facebook

Criminal Charges Finally Dropped Against Security Researchers Who Broke Into An Iowa Courthouse

from the all's-well-that-ends-unceremoniously dept

Security research isn't a criminal activity, no matter how many companies might wish otherwise when their bad security practices are exposed. But a couple of researchers working for Coalfire Security found themselves arrested and charged after performing a physical penetration test of an Iowa courthouse. Testing the physical security boundaries of the courthouse didn't go exactly as planned once the local sheriff showed up.

The two employees, Justin Wynn and Gary De Mecurio, showed Dallas County Sheriff Chad Leonard their credentials and the contract supposedly permitting them to perform a B&E but it didn't matter to Sheriff Leonard.

It did matter to Iowa Court officials, who said the test had been authorized... but perhaps not exactly on those terms. And it mattered to their employer, which wrote an angry letter demanding to know why Coalfire's employees were still locked up even after things had been (mostly) cleared up by courthouse officials.

The sheriff refused to budge, claiming it was his sacred duty to protect taxpayer-funded courthouses from out-of-town interlopers (or words to that effect). Coalfire's CEO, Tom McAndrew, was less than enthused with the sheriff's self-assessment. He said Sheriff Leonard was actually hurting taxpayers more than helping them by locking up people trying to increase courthouse security and prevent unauthorized access to sensitive records and documents.

Nearly three months later, prosecutors have finally backed down. Apparently, enough pressure can result in the prosecutorial discretion we hear so much about when prosecutors and politicians claim broadly-worded laws won't result in a bunch of collateral damage.

Originally charged with third-degree felonies, the charges were reduced to misdemeanor trespassing after the story began gaining traction outside of Iowa. Those charges have now been dropped as well.

Dallas County Attorney Charles Sinnard and Coalfire officials released a joint statement Thursday in which they said they agreed to drop the charges when it became clear the Coalfire employees and the responding law enforcement had the community's safety in mind.

"Ultimately, the long-term interests of justice and protection of the public are not best served by continued prosecution of the trespass charges," they wrote in a statement provided by Sinnard. "Those interests are best served by all the parties working together to ensure that there is clear communication on the actions to be taken to secure the sensitive information maintained by the judicial branch, without endangering the life or property of the citizens of Iowa, law enforcement or the persons carrying out the testing."

This is great but it seems like something that could have been cleared up three months ago and without putting felony arrests on the researchers' permanent records. The testing could have been handled a bit better by everyone involved but it's pretty tough to stress-test physical security measures without utilizing methods targets won't necessarily expect to be used. Breaking into courthouses is certainly unexpected. But once judicial reps made it clear the court system had engaged the service to test security, the researchers should have been released by the sheriff and all charges dropped. Instead, this got dragged out for another three months, providing more evidence there's nothing all that secure about a career in security research.

Filed Under: breaking and entering, chad leonard, charges, courthouse, dallas county, iowa, security, security research
Companies: coalfire security

Prison Telecom Monopolies Bring Their 'Innovation' To Prison Ebooks

from the ill-communication dept

Over the last few decades, companies like Securus have managed to obtain a pretty cozy, government-supported monopoly over prison phone and teleconferencing services. Like any monopoly, this has pretty traditionally resulted in not only sky high rates upwards of $14 per minute for phone calls, but comically poor service as well. Because these folks are in prison, and as we all know everybody in prison is always guilty, drumming up enough sympathy to convert into political momentum has long proven difficult. Recent efforts to do something about it were scuttled by FCC boss Ajit Pai, whose former clients included Securus.

Apparently we're now taking the predatory idiocy that has been a cornerstone of prison phone service and applying it to... ebooks. Reason recently had a great write up on how the West Virginia Division of Corrections struck a deal in February with GTL (formerly Global Tel*Link), one of several government-pampered prison telecom monopolies. As part of that deal, prisoners would be given access to restricted tablets to access books and some internet content. The results are just as stupid as you might imagine:

"According to the contract, detailed by Appalachian Prison Book Project, using the tablets will cost $0.05 per minute (currently discounted to $0.03) to read books, listen to music, or play games; $0.25 per minute for video visitations; $0.25 per written message; and $0.50 to send a photo with a message. The Prison Policy Initiative estimated in 2017 that wages in West Virginia prisons range between $0.04 and $0.58 an hour.

Alex Wright, of Level and the Inside Books Project, told Gizmodo that at least eight other states, including Colorado, Missouri, New York, South Dakota, Indiana, Delaware, Maine, and South Carolina, are also offering inmates "free" tablets with absurd restrictions. The WDVC informed the outlet that use of the tablets is optional, and some proceeds will go to fund other projects:

"The West Virginia Division of Corrections collects a 5 percent commission on the charges, but a spokesperson clarified to Gizmodo that all proceeds go to a “benefit fund” for “open house visitation, recreational equipment, holiday dinners, and other opportunities that would not otherwise be available.” They further stated that they are still collecting book donations and that using the tablets are optional."

The big question however remains: why are terrible companies with long histories of terrible behavior being given these contracts in the first place?

Securus and other such companies are part of a dangerously cozy and captive market, where prisons get paid upwards of $460 million annually in "concession fees" (read: kickbacks) to score exclusive, lucrative prison contracts. In this comically absurd environment, the service pricing and quality are just about what you'd expect. Government oversight of these businesses have been virtually non-existent, despite accusations that these companies have allowed some law enforcement to monitor what should be privileged attorney client communications and embroiled in location data scandals.

Filed Under: charges, ebooks, fees, prisons

Maine Government Agency Tries To Charge Public Records Requester $750 For Opening A PDF

from the gov't-agencies-and-their-'get-rich-quick'-schemes dept

We've seen lots of ridiculous amounts tossed around by government agencies in response to public records requests. Most of the ridiculous amounts we've covered give the appearance that the agency making the demand feels requesters are also spending other people's money. Like a Texas agency demanding $1 million for prison sexual assault records or the FBI wanting $270,000 to hand over files on defense contractor Booz Allen.

Other demands are smaller, but no less of a deterrent to government transparency. In one infamous example, the Massachusetts State Police erected a $180 paywall around documents related to the agency's marijuana enforcement efforts. Once the agency had the money in hand, it turned around and asked the state supervisor of public records to declare the requested records exempt from release. That was back in July. The MSP still has yet to release the records the requester paid for.

Up in Maine, something just as devious is taking place. MuckRock member Adanya Lustig asked the Maine Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority (located in Brunswick, ME) for a copy of the proposal it sent to Amazon in hopes of talking it into opening a second headquarters there.

Lustig did receive a copy of the proposal… and a very dubious email/clickwrap "agreement" in response:

Good afternoon Adanya,

Per your FOAA request of November 3, 2017, I am submitting a digital copy of our proposal to Amazon. The proposal was prepared by our in-house staff, within our current marketing budget. There were no third-party entities involved in its preparation. We do not agree to waive any fees. By accepting and opening this document, you agree to reimburse the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority $750.00 for associated administrative and legal fees. Please remit check to:

Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority

15 Terminal Road, Suite 200
Brunswick, ME 04011

Sincerely,

Steve

Steven H. Levesque
Executive Director

Lustig won't be paying this fee. As it noted in the MuckRock post, Maine law prohibits the collection of more than $30 in public records fees without advance notification. There was no notification here -- only the idiotic assertion that opening a PDF would result in Lustig agreeing to pay $750 to the Brunswick agency. The agency has yet to respond to Lustig's refusal, which seems to suggest other people not named Steven Levesque realized it was a stupid, unenforceable, and possibly illegal demand.

If you want to know what a $750 PDF looks like, it's embedded below.

Filed Under: charges, demands, fees, foia, maine, maine midcoast regional redevelopment authority
Companies: amazon

FCC: Comcast Routinely Charges Customers For Hardware, Services Never Ordered

from the earning-your-awful-reputation dept

When you're among the worst ranked companies for customer service in America, you consistently need to find new ways to ramp up your game if you want to take malicious incompetence to the next level. Enter Comcast, which despite constant promises that it's getting better, routinely keeps finding itself in the headlines for immeasurably shady business practices. Earlier this year, for example, the company was sued by Washington's Attorney General for charging users a $5 per month "Service Protection Plan," then routinely and intentionally charging users for repairs that should have been covered under it.

This week, America's least-liked companies is finding itself in the headlines for another misleading practice: errantly and routinely billing customers for hardware or services they never ordered. According to a new FCC announcement, Comcast will be paying the agency $2.3 million to settle an investigation into the behavior. According to the FCC, Comcast apparently likes to charge customers for premium cable channels, hardware, or other services the customer never ordered and may have expressly refused:

"The Commission received numerous complaints from consumers alleging that Comcast added charges to their bills for unordered services or products, such as premium channels, set-top boxes, or digital video recorders (DVRs). In some complaints, subscribers claimed that they were billed despite specifically declining service or equipment upgrades offered by Comcast. In others, customers claimed that they had no knowledge of the unauthorized charges until they received unordered equipment in the mail, obtained notifications of unrequested account changes by email, or conducted a review of their monthly bills."

This being Comcast, the FCC notes that impacted customers had to spend "significant time and energy" removing the charges from their bills. After all, this is the company that routinely refuses to correct its own mistakes unless the practice in question gets significant media attention.

While not specifically mentioned in the FCC's announcement, Comcast also has a long, proud history of charging customers who own their own modem a $10 rental fee anyway. This has been a problem customers have faced for years, yet seems to never stop occurring no matter how many complaints or regulatory wrist slaps the cable giant receives. In this case, the FCC states the obvious:

"It is basic that a cable bill should include charges only for services and equipment ordered by the customer—nothing more and nothing less," said Travis LeBlanc, Chief of the Enforcement Bureau. "We expect all cable and phone companies to take responsibility for the accuracy of their bills and to ensure their customers have authorized any charges."

The problem of course is that Comcast likely made significantly more than $2.3 million on this scheme. And the FCC may also want to hold off on the celebration; while the FCC did give Comcast a wrist slap in this instance, there's also a long-standing practice of Comcast and other ISPs and cable companies using misleading below-the-line fees to jack up the advertised rate of both TV and broadband services. And then there's the ongoing issue of Comcast's expanding and anti-competitive usage caps and overage fees, which nobody at the FCC seems all too concerned about.

So while it's good the FCC is cracking down on this kind of fraud, it's just tap dancing around the opening of a very deep, dark rabbit hole of dysfunction, one that has long-since passed from minor inconvenience into legend.

Filed Under: charges, fcc, fraud, scams
Companies: comcast

AT&T Stops Charging Broadband Users Extra For Privacy

from the privacy-is-a-luxury-option dept

A few years ago, AT&T came up with an "ingenious" idea: charge broadband consumers more money if they want to protect their privacy. Under this plan, users ordering AT&T's U-Verse broadband service could get broadband for, say, $70 a month. But if you want to opt out of AT&T's Internet Preferences program (which uses deep packet inspection to study your movement around the Internet down to the second) you'll pay $30 to $50 more, per month. AT&T also made opting out as cumbersome as possible, knowing full well that few people would dare take the option.

With its decision, AT&T effectively made user privacy a luxury option.

After years of this behavior, AT&T suprisingly proclaimed last week that it would be eliminating the privacy surcharge and its Internet Preferences behavioral advertising service completely this month:

"To simplify our offering for our customers, we plan to end the optional Internet Preferences advertising program related to our fastest Internet speed tiers," an AT&T spokesperson confirmed to Ars today. "As a result, all customers on these tiers will receive the best rate we have available for their speed tier in their area. We’ll begin communicating this update to customers early next week."

Why the sudden AT&T about-face? While AT&T claims it's just concerned about "simplicity," the real reason is because the FCC is considering some basic privacy protections for broadband users, who often can't vote against bad behavior with their wallet thanks to the lack of competition in the broadband space. AT&T's decision to issue a surcharge for privacy was one of the primary reasons the FCC began the privacy rulemaking proceeding. AT&T's lobbyists and lawyers clearly hope that if they eliminate this controversial program, they'll be more easily able to argue that broadband privacy rules aren't necessary.

Broadband ISPs have consistently tried to argue that consumer broadband privacy protections aren't necessary because carriers are fantastic at self-regulating on this front. Yet time and time again they've proven that's simply not the case. Verizon, for example, proclaimed in 2008 that broadband privacy protections weren't necessary because "public shame" would keep the company on its best behavior. Fast forward to 2014 and Verizon was caught covertly modifying user wireless data packets to track customer behavior around the internet -- without notifying consumers or offering working opt-out tools.

It took security researchers two years before they even discovered what Verizon was doing. It took another six months before Verizon was even willing to provide customers with working opt-out tools. That's fairly consistently what "self regulation" on the broadband privacy front looks like.

While they've been portrayed by ISPs as mammoth overreach, the FCC's proposed broadband privacy rules are relatively basic, simply requiring that ISPs are completely transparent about what they're collecting and selling, while requiring ISPs also provide working opt-out tools. ISPs, eagerly hoping to compete with Google and Facebook on the advertising front (see Verizon's acquisitions of AOL and Yahoo), don't want any regulations that put them at a competitive disadvantage, arguing the playing field should be level as they eye billions in new advertising revenues.

The problem with that argument is that while internet users can choose not to use Facebook and Google, they all-too-often have no such luxury when it comes to broadband. So while regulations aren't entirely ideal, there's an argument that (like net neutrality rules) they're necessary until we can get something vaguely resembling competition established in the broadband space. Until that happens, and without meaningful privacy protections, there's absolutely nothing preventing AT&T's next "great idea" from being aggressively worse.

Filed Under: broadband, charges, deep packet inspection, fcc, privacy, surcharge
Companies: at&t

Comcast Tells The FCC It Should Be Able To Charge Broadband Users A Premium For Privacy

from the stop-trying-to-help dept

A few years back, we noted how AT&T had begun charging broadband users a significant premium if they wanted to opt out of the company's Internet Essentials advertising program. Under that program, AT&T uses deep packet inspection to track consumer browsing behavior around the Internet -- down to the second. By default, AT&T users are opted in to the program. If they want to opt out of this data collection, consumers need to not only navigate a confusing array of options, but they also need to pay $44 to $62 more per month. AT&T, in typical fashion, has actually claimed this is a "discount."

With the FCC's Title II and net neutrality rules upheld, the agency is now considering new basic broadband privacy protections primarily focused on two things: ensuring ISPs properly disclose what's being collected and sold, and ensuring that ISPs provide customers with clear, working opt-out tools. But the agency is also considering banning ISPs from turning your privacy into an expensive luxury option.

Needless to say, Comcast isn't too pleased with this decision. In a new filing with the FCC (pdf) documenting a meeting at the agency, everybody's least liked cable company argues that stopping them from charging more for privacy would, amusingly, hurt consumers by making services more expensive:

"We also urged that the Commission allow business models offering discounts or other value to consumers in exchange for allowing ISPs to use their data. As Comcast and others have argued, the FCC has no authority to prohibit or limit these types of programs. Moreover, such a prohibition would harm consumers by, among other things, depriving them of lower-priced offerings, and as FTC Commissioner Ohlhausen points out, “such a ban may prohibit ad supported broadband services and thereby eliminate a way to increase broadband adoption."

Yes, that's Comcast actually trying to argue that charging customers more money for privacy is a good thing because it will lower rates and improve broadband adoption. Except as we all know, it's the lack of competition in the broadband space that sets broadband pricing and adoption. And there's yet to be an ISP that has seriously embraced the idea of offering a lower-priced service if consumers agree to have their behavior monetized. All AT&T is doing is taking an already expensive broadband service and tacking a very steep privacy surcharge on top of it.

In addition to trying to argue that the FCC doesn't have the authority to police such behavior (not true, it's simply updating existing Title II privacy rules governing phone network CPNI and applying them to broadband), Comcast said that making privacy a luxury option is simply a "bargained-for exchange of information for service":

"A bargained-for exchange of information for service is a perfectly acceptable and widely used model throughout the U.S. economy, including the Internet ecosystem, and is consistent with decades of legal precedent and policy goals related to consumer protection and privacy."

Again though, the implementation of this idea at AT&T is unique because in the broadband market, users can't switch providers if they don't like their privacy practices. Meanwhile, AT&T not only makes opting out expensive, it makes it incredibly cumbersome and confusing -- ensuring that the least number of users actually take the option. These ISPs consistently argue that they should be treated just like Google and Facebook when it comes to privacy regulations, intentionally ignoring the lack of competition in last mile broadband.

As they push harder into content and ads, Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon have all repeatedly tried to argue that there should be absolutely no privacy rules governing broadband because they can self-regulate in the absence of meaningful competition. But as we saw when Verizon was busted for covertly modifying wireless packets to track consumers (one of the things that drove the FCC to take this route to begin with), it's abundantly clear that's simply not the case.

Filed Under: charges, fcc, fees, privacy
Companies: comcast

Massive Sexting Case Shockingly Results In No Criminal Charges

from the common-sense:-1,-insane,-reactionary-bullshit:-a-billion dept

A sexting scandal made a Colorado high school a national headline. The numbers were shocking: 106 students involved with 351 images being circulated. But the most shocking number of all is this one: zero arrests. (h/t Techdirt reader withersteen)

More than 100 students involved in a sexting scandal at a southern Colorado high school will not face criminal charges, a prosecutor announced Wednesday in a case that illustrated the digitally saturated reality of sexting cases across the country.

Fremont County District Attorney Thom LeDoux said the investigation into the scandal at Canon City High School failed to show any adults were involved. None of the 351 images were posted to the Internet, and there was no evidence of coercion or bullying, LeDoux said.

Given what we've seen in other (and much smaller) sexting cases -- where sex offender laws have been twisted to cover consensual interactions between adolescents -- the district attorney's decision to put control of the situation back in parents' hands is a surprise. It will no doubt be the exception that proves the rule.

The instinctual reaction to bring law enforcement into the equation is understandable and, admittedly, there are aspects of sexting that may require this sort of scrutiny. The problem is that prosecutors often feel compelled to find something to charge sexting participants with, if only to justify the expenditure of law enforcement resources. This leads to preposterous (and potentially life-damaging) outcomes like teens being charged with exploiting themselves by taking photos of their own bodies and sharing them with others.

Fortunately, this case is being viewed as a learning opportunity by the school district.

LeDoux said the decision not to prosecute doesn’t condone what the students did and that his office is sending warning letters to all 106 students involved. A total of about 1,000 students attend Canon City High.

He also said the Fremont County School District would offer education about sexting to both students and their parents.

The other possible positive outcome of this situation is that, because of the national attention it received, prosecutors, school administrators and other authority figures may alter their tactics when dealing with similar incidents. Rather than default to the instinctive urge to punish someone, they may decide to handle this with more restraint and common sense.

Filed Under: canon city high school, charges, colorado, sexting, students, thom ledoux

Kim Davis's Approach To Email More Outdated Than Her Views On Marriage

from the literally-does-not-compute dept

Kim Davis -- yes, THAT Kim Davis -- is proving to be as willfully obtuse in her other duties as a Kentucky county clerk as she has been in refusing to recognize the Supreme Court's decision on same-sex marriage. Her brief stint in the local jail for contempt charges hasn't dampened her indomitable spirit, much to the chagrin of her critics, fellow employees (except her son, who works in her office as a deputy clerk) and anyone still attempting to make their way past her refusal to separate church and state.

Shawn Musgrave has requested all of Kim Davis's emails (sent or received) from August 1st through September 16th. It would appear Davis's current status as a pariah/hero (mileage varies greatly) has resulted in an outpouring of support/hate. According to her estimate, there are 6,000 emails responsive to Musgrave's request. So, of course, she has decided to handle her office's response in the least efficient way possible.

Hello,

I have received your request and need to confirm, I can furnish you with all that you have requested. There are well over 6000 or so emails received/sent during the time period you have ask for. With that being said, there will be considerable time and paper consumed in the processing of your request. I am estimating approximately 40 hours of labor at $12.50 per hour to retrieve and print all emails, along with a copy fee of $.10 per copy and the open records $3.00 fee plus postage for mail (estimated $100.00) for the request. This would make the approximate amount due $1,203.00. Once that amount is received, ($1,203.00 will be considered a deposit until all the records have been processed, if it is less, I will refund you the difference, and if more is due, I will contact you with the additional amount due prior to releasing said records), your request can begin to be processed.

Respectfully,

Kim Davis
Rowan County Clerk

Yes, as you probably would have guessed even without seeing it in [print] pixels, Kim Davis is one of THOSE people. The kind of person who still thinks email is a passing fad/tool of the devil and views trips to the post office as social events. And if she isn't one of THOSE people, she's one of those OTHER people -- the kind of public servant who thinks the government's job is to be as much of a standoffish dick as possible to the "little people" who pay their salaries. (Think every DMV you've ever set foot in...)

Davis's response was probably meant to dissuade Musgrave from pursuing this further. She picked the wrong FOIA warrior to tangle with.

Musgrave's immediate followup was to ask why in the name of all that is considered holy by certain people/not-so-holy by others would someone print out 6,000 emails and hand them off to the next Pony Express rider?

Is it possible to avoid copying time and fees by sending electronic copies of the emails?

Best,
Shawn

Davis's tone then shifts from deliberately unhelpful to "I'm in charge here" dismissiveness.

Dear Sir,

I have responded to and conveyed what all was needed to be able to process your request. I do not have the means to transfer electronic and the email dated 9-16-2015 is still my response. Once you have sent the fees as I had indicated in the email dated 9-16-2015, your request will be processed as timely as possible.

I think what Davis is trying to say is she doesn't have the "technical capability" needed to "transfer electronic." And I'm going to assume she's above asking for help. If not, then she's just trying to make Musgrave pay for inconveniencing her with an open records request.

Musgrave asks for clarification on the inability to "transfer electronic" and receives nothing more than Davis impatiently tapping her finger on the printout of her original response to his request.

Musgrave then tries to get some assistance on appealing her decision to ramp up fees by felling a forest. Davis basically tells him he's screwed.

Dear Mr. Musgrave,

Your consideration regarding my response contrary to the spirit and letter of the KRS in estimating cost to your KORA request is not substantiated. The Attorney General Opinion from 2012 states 'the agency may, but is not required to, provide the requested format. The agency may then recover staff costs as well as any actual costs it incurs.'

I was trying to be fair in this request, while I do retain the right, through the Kentucky Open Records Law, to refuse your request all together, as it is an 'overly burdensome request'. Again, I will refer to the email dated 09-16-2015 for the cost of this request and upon receipt, your request will be processed in as timely manner as possible.

Nah. There's nothing "fair" about her response. It's now clear she's taken this open records request up as Yet Another Personal Crusade in which Davis abuses her elected position to withhold for as long as legally possible something the law requires her to hand over.

Musgrave then tells Davis he will be filing a complaint with the District Attorney over the excessive fees, as is provided for in Kentucky's open records laws. No dice.

Mr. Musgrave,

I have tried to be obliging to you and your request, however, if you feel I have not, you may do as you have stated in your email.

With that being said, if you feel reviewing and printing or transmitting well over 6000 emails is not a burdensome task, I am sorry. I have said many times prior and will say again in this email, I will be happy to complete your request, for the fees as discussed in the email dated 09-16-2015…

Musgrave says, "Let me help you lower the cost."

Ms. Davis -

That is a substantial number of emails, admittedly. I am attempting to lower your manhour requirement (as well as the cost) by requesting that emails be sent in electronic format, rather than printed. As printing comprises approximately half of your fee estimate, eliminating the print requirement would cut down the cost considerably.)

And with that, Davis is done discussing this with Musgrave. After two more attempts to have the unresolved issue (the unnecessary printing of electronic mail) cleared up -- and receiving no response from Kim Davis -- Musgrave utilizes a communication Davis might be more familiar with.

Ms. Davis -

As you've stopped replying to emails regarding my two open requests — both of which you initially acknowledged by email — I am reaching out by fax.

Apparently Davis still answers faxes. But her answer is the same obstinate recital of her first estimate and a brief reminder that nothing will be returned to him until payment is made. A little more back-and-forth confirms Davis believes she's entirely in the right and that Musgrave's threatened appeal will go nowhere.

Because it appears nothing will move forward without payment and/or the District Attorney weighing in on the massive tree cull Davis has planned, Musgrave is crowdfunding the release of these emails over at MuckRock. The final total appears to be nearly $1,400. For 6000 emails that could easily fit on a single $10 USB stick/$1 blank DVD.

What makes Davis' response even worse is that when the emails finally arrive in paper format, Musgrave will have to spend his own time converting them back to electronic format. It's yet another case where government employees begrudgingly follow the letter of the law while steamrolling right over its spirit.

Filed Under: charges, email, fees, foia, kentucky, kim davis, public records, shawn musgrave

St. Louis County Still Considering Bringing Trespassing Charges Against Journalists Police Arrested In Ferguson

from the that-would-be-a-bad-idea dept

One of the side stories over the Ferguson protests from last summer was the fact that the over-aggressive militarized police went in and arrested journalists who were covering the events in Ferguson. Two of the first journalists arrested were Ryan Reilly of Huffington Post and Wesley Lowery of the Washington Post. At the time, we highlighted how they had tweeted the lead up to their own arrests:

SWAT just invade McDonald's where I'm working/recharging. Asked for ID when I took photo. pic.twitter.com/FOIsMnBwHy

— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) August 13, 2014

Police come into McD where me and @ryanjreilly working. Try to kick everyone out.

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) August 13, 2014

A third reporter, Matt Pearce from the LA Times witnesses some of what happened and called the police chief -- and was told that it was all a mistake and that he had ordered the reporters released. After being released, Lowery and Reilly talked more about the ridiculousness of being arrested for, essentially, not getting out of the McDonalds fast enough:

Officers slammed me into a fountain soda machine because I was confused about which door they were asking me to walk out of

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) August 14, 2014

Detained, booked, given answers to no questions. Then just let out

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) August 14, 2014

Also Ryan Reilly of Huff Po. Assaulted and arrested

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) August 14, 2014

@ryanjreilly and @wesleyLowery have been arrested for "not packing their bags quick enough" at McD's #Ferguson

— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) August 14, 2014

Unfortunately my last Vine featuring the officer who assaulted me was deleted when other my phone died.

— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) August 14, 2014

Given all that, you might think the local police would let the matter drop (though, if I were Lowery or Reilly I'm not sure I would have let them just drop it...). But, no, apparently the St. Louis County police are now debating whether to bring trespassing charges against the two reporters:

St. Louis County prosecutors will soon decide whether to bring trespassing charges against two journalists arrested while covering demonstrations last summer in Ferguson, Missouri.

The Huffington Post’s Ryan Reilly and The Washington Post’s Wesley Lowery recently learned that there are open investigations related to their Aug. 13, 2014, arrests and that the cases have been referred to the county counselor's office, which primarily handles local ordinance violations. The St. Louis County Police Department filed incident reports in late April of this year describing the reporters as trespassing when they were seized at a McDonald's restaurant.

I'm trying to envision a scenario where this whole thing doesn't backfire in a ridiculous way for the St. Louis County police and prosecutors, and I'm struggling to find any possible way for them not to come out of this looking absolutely terrible. Both Lowery and Reilly are quick to point out how ridiculous the whole thing is:

"Ryan and I have maintained from day one that our detention was unwarranted, unnecessary and illegal," Lowery said in an email. "The idea that the prosecutor’s office would consider bringing formal charges in this incident is ludicrous. Officials in St. Louis County should drop this matter, release the relevant documents and allow us all to move on with our lives and onto more important elements of this story."

"Wesley and I did nothing wrong in this scenario, which occurred shortly after officers with the St. Louis County Police Department trained sniper rifles at a crowd of peaceful protesters in broad daylight," Reilly said in an email.

The article linked above notes that both reporters have continued their investigations into their own arrests, and have faced stonewalling at every turn, including police trying to deny their requests to find out the names of the officers who assaulted and arrested them. Moving forward with actual bogus "trespassing" charges would be not just adding insult to injury, but would, once again, call the world's gaze to St. Louis County and whatever the hell it is they call "justice" down there.

Filed Under: charges, ferguson, missouri, police, reporting, ryan reilly, st. louis county, trespassing, wesley lowery
Companies: huffington post, washington post