New Bill Claims To Ban 'Surveillance Advertising,' But Doesn't Actually Do It

from the half-measures dept

This week Representatives Anna Eshoo and Jan Schakowsky, and Senator Cory Booker introduced the Banning Surveillance Advertising Act, which the trio proclaim will dismantle the snoopvertising industry and make everybody immeasurably safer:

"Surveillance advertising is a predatory and invasive practice. The hoarding of people’s personal data not only abuses privacy, but also drives the spread of misinformation, domestic extremism, racial division, and violence,” said Senator Booker. “With the introduction of the Ban Surveillance Advertising Act, advertisers will be forced to stop exploiting individuals’ online behavior for profits and our communities will be safer as a result."

Except it's not really clear the bill actually does that.

This bill does claim to prohibit digital advertisers from flinging targeted ads at users based on protected class information like race and sexual orientation. But "broad" location-based targeting would still be allowed as would "contextual advertising," or ads linked to specific online content being viewed. It also continues to allow a lot of behavior just as long as ad market participants pinky swear they're doing the right thing:

"Paragraph (1) does not apply to the targeting of the dissemination of an advertisement based on information described in clauses (i) through (iv) of subparagraph (B) of such paragraph that is provided to an advertising facilitator by an advertiser or by a third party on behalf of an adver6 tiser, if the advertising facilitator is provided a written attestation that the advertiser is not in violation of subsection (b) with respect to such information.

So basically, if companies proclaim they're doing the right thing (which they often won't be, and over-extended regulators likely won't be able to consistently confirm), they'll get a bit of a pass:

That's the real problem here. The entire digital advertising space is such an intentionally complicated mess, even reporters who cover it for a living are often utterly dumbfounded as to what's actually happening. Some of this is just because internet technology can be complicated, something that's a challenge for Luddite lawmakers. Some of it is because making it intentionally complicated makes it extremely difficult for even competent regulators to effectively regulate. The idea that a single bill can fix vast problems across an ocean of global industries seems a bit simplistic at this point.

All policed by U.S. regulators that are so underfunded, understaffed, under-resourced, or just plain corrupt that they can't even tackle the majority of obvious fraud occurring everyday, much less the elaborate data monetization systems driving the global economy. Which is why we keep seeing a rotating parade of ad and privacy related scandals that take years for policymakers to even identify, much less address. More often than not, these scandals end with adorable wrist slaps long after the fact (see: the tale of Verizon's "zombie cookie," or the wireless industry's recent location data scandals) and fines that are paltry in comparison to the money made off of the offense.

Much like the recent bill to force companies to shorten overlong terms of service, this bill feels like a feel-good venture to fix a very complicated problem with language that doesn't actually do what it promises to do. There are so many reasons we don't really effectively police the entire massive data collection realm (from telecom networks and app stores to data brokers), but a major reason is we don't actually enable and fund our regulators to actually do a job of this (or any real) scope. And the regulators we do have tend to be of the revolving door variety -- utterly disinterested in any solution that might topple the money trough for their previous or future employees.

A core underlying component of U.S. dysfunction is corruption. And our regulators are so dysfunctional, under-resourced, and corrupt they can't even tackle very basic, obvious examples of fraud and monopolization (see the telecom, banking, pharmaceutical, and energy sectors). This idea that they're going to fix the entire data collection ecosystem (which again includes telecom, data brokers, app makers, the entirety of modern tech, and even the prison industry) without first fixing those problems -- much less with a bill filled with loopholes -- feels a tad performative and naïve.

Filed Under: advertising, anna eshoo, cory booker, jan schakowsky, privacy, targeted advertising

Senators Pitch Temporary Facial Recognition Ban, Leave Door Wide Open For Abuse By Federal Agencies

from the take-another-pass-or-three-before-sending-this-out-for-a-vote-pls dept

Here's a promising development on the facial recognition front -- one that won't make facial recognition tech developers very happy. Bans have been popping up around the nation but this legislative pitch would (sort of) prevent the federal government from deploying the tech.

On Wednesday, Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced legislation to place a moratorium on the use of facial recognition by the federal government or with federal funds—unless Congress passed regulations for the technology.

The Ethical Use of Facial Recognition Act aims to create a 13 member congressional commission representing interested parties—including law enforcement, communities subjected to surveillance, and privacy experts.

It's a temporary ban but it's better than doing nothing about the federal government's enthusiasm for unproven tech. The DHS has been pushing for this tech to be deployed everywhere travelers might board conveyances or cross borders. Federal law enforcement agencies are just as interested in using this tech despite its horrible track record, amassing large collections of facial pictures and granting access to just about any local agency expressing an interest in rolling the dice on biased software. Then there's Clearview, which is its own monstrosity -- one that implicates far more variables than government access.

Unfortunately, there's a big exception carved out for law enforcement agencies, which would include DHS components assigned to borders and airports. The only thing keeping this bill from being completely useless is that the exception is tied to a warrant requirement, which means no more biometric scanning at international airports.

Or maybe it doesn't. The bill [PDF] doesn't specifically address the Constitutional no-man's land that are our border crossings and international airports. So, it may be possible for law enforcement agencies working in these areas to abide by the partial ban while still ignoring the warrant requirement because the normal rules just don't apply within 100 miles of any border crossing.

That's not to say it's a terrible bill. It just could have been a much better bill. It will prevent inland use of facial recognition tech without a warrant and, importantly, would force the federal government to develop and implement standards governing its use and (hopefully) set some baselines contractors would need to meet before selling their tech to government agencies.

At this point, the only thing Congress has done in response to the rapid deployment of facial recognition tech is express its concern and suggest some hearings might be in order. What it hasn't done is prevent the sketchy tech from being deployed as rapidly as government agencies can nail down contracts. Hitting the pause button for a few years is a far better idea than allowing things to continue to run towards the direction of amok, especially when it has been made clear most companies' offerings are biased and inaccurate.

Filed Under: ban, cory booker, facial recognition, jeff merkley

Senators Introduce Legislation Calling For Mandatory Data Collection On Police-Involved Shootings

from the because-'if-you-feel-like-it'-just-isn't-working dept

If you're looking for the number of citizens killed by police officers, don't ask the government. It just doesn't know. The DOJ is nominally in charge of compiling this information, but it has not made anything resembling an honest effort to do so.

To begin with, it has mostly ignored the federal law ordering the compilation of stats on excessive force by law enforcement officers. And it has ignored this for the last 20 years. To make things worse, it has turned over the duty of collecting data on police-involved shootings to the FBI, which has even less interest in ensuring the comprehensiveness of its "collection."

"Collection" has smart quotes nailed to it because the FBI made this a purely voluntary collection. Law enforcement agencies are invited to send in in-custody death data -- which is then verified by no one. The only thing agencies have to gain from self-reporting deaths at the hands of its officers are transparency, accountability and potentially better relationships with the people they serve. Those "gains" rarely align with law enforcement interests.

Available data is limited even further by only including citizens who were shot during the commission of a felony. Slimming it down even more is its limitation to "justifiable homicides." Everything else is simply ignored.

So, it's left to the public sector to compile this data. One of the most comprehensive databases of police-involved killings is being compiled by The Guardian with the assistance of forerunners in the (unofficial) field like Fatal Encounters and Killed By Police. Other databases are being crowd-sourced or compiled by hand by truly devoted individuals. But the government has shown no interest in compiling this information as a public service.

To that end, two senators (Cory Booker and Barbara Boxer) have introduced legislation calling for the creation and maintenance of a mandatory police-related killings database.

Senators Barbara Boxer of California and Cory Booker of New Jersey proposed legislation that would demand all states submit reports to the US Department of Justice that they said would bring “transparency and accountability to law enforcement agencies nationwide”.

“Too many members of the public and police officers are being killed, and we don’t have reliable statistics to track these tragic incidents,” Boxer said in a statement. “This bill will ensure that we know the full extent of the problem so we can save lives on all sides.”

Note the bone being thrown to law enforcement agencies, who are only too happy to compile statistics that show how "dangerous" their work is. Yes, a bill prompted by a Washington Post article on police-involved killings is preemptively calming the nerves of those who may potentially be forced to hand over information on deaths at the hands of their officers.

All well and good, but we've already put two agencies in charge of collecting this data and neither have made more than a minimal effort to do so. Making it mandatory is a huge leap forward, but pushing resistant agencies into coughing up unflattering data will take more than a well-intentioned piece of legislation. It needs to stop obliging those who have withheld this data over the years and instead provide for serious consequences if law enforcement agencies fail to meet the requirements of the law.

If previous efforts along these same lines are any indication, simply demanding agencies comply doesn't seem to have resulted in increased compliance.

In December, Congress reauthorized an act requiring that states report to the Justice Department instances where civilians are killed by police.

“Non-fatal shooting or use of force data is not captured” under the existing legislation, the release said.

So, six months after that "reauthorization" and there's been no appreciable change in reporting. At this point, anyone but the government is doing a better job capturing this data. Leading the charge from within may eventually force needed change, but a couple of decades of minimal reporting says otherwise.

Filed Under: barbara boxer, cory booker, data, doj, fbi, police shootings

Senators On Jihad 2.0: We'll Take Down ISIS With 'Fancy Memes'

from the retweet-if-you-think-terrorism-should-be-stopped dept

Al-Qaida has been replaced by ISIS at the focal point of counterterrorism efforts. When legislators talk about fighting terrorism, they talk about taking on ISIS. ISIS, like any other organization out there, has used social media platforms to spread its message. Whether or not its efforts have been more successful than previous like-minded organizations hasn't really been quantified, but for sheer shock value, it has every other terrorist outfit beat.

Because images and recordings of its atrocities have spread through the internet with amazing speed and ease, it's tempting to view ISIS as a group of digital natives -- people whose entire life has been filled with some sort of internet outlet for sociable sharing. The group seems to contain much sought after viral power, but that's likely due to its audience spending an increasing amount of time viewing the world through a browser, rather than through nightly news reports and morning papers.

The perception is the truth and a few US senators are seeking to counteract ISIS's viral power by utilizing the same playing fields. This may be a good idea, but it's also providing for some inadvertent hilarity as legislators put two and two together and get Voice of America: Buzzfeed edition.

“There’s an obvious piece of legislation that we need to start working on,” Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., said during a Homeland Security Committee hearing on “Jihad 2.0“.

“Let’s face it: We invented the Internet. We invented the social network sites. We’ve got Hollywood. We’ve got the capabilities… to blow these guys out of the water from the standpoint of communications.”

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., backed his colleague’s appeal. “Look at their fancy memes compared to what we’re not doing,” Booker said, displaying examples of jihadist online postings.

This doesn't bode well. The average member of America's governing bodies may generally find the use of the adjective "fancy" to still be perfectly normal, but the internet battlefield they're wishing to enter has never combined the words "fancy" and "meme" before. Booker's youth puts him in shouting distance of digital natives, but his clumsy phrasing could not have separated him further from the hearts and minds he's wishing to conquer.

Booker does raise valid points, though. There is some value in deploying counterpropaganda using the same communications channels. He later lamented the "millions" being spent on tools of dubious effectiveness, like Voice of America.

There are ways to deter potential ISIS sympathizers and recruits, but the US is engaged in roughly none of them. A constant military presence that alternated between surges and drone strikes isn't likely to result in fence-sitters opting for the American way. What's worse is the FBI's ongoing Grow Your Own Terrorist!™ program, which has succeeded in saving the world from a collection of "terrorists" whose only criminal act was playing along with undercover agents' suggestions in exchange for the occasional self-esteem boost. As a result of these so-called sting operations, those who could actually use help in dissuading friends or family members from being swayed by ISIS's message are instead keeping their concerns to themselves.

[National security expert Peter Bergen] noted that Muslim families who see a son or daughter radicalizing online are deterred from reporting the matter to the FBI out of fear that he or she will be thrown in jail for more than a decade.

When the purchase of plane tickets to certain nations is construed as "providing material support" for terrorism, there's something wrong with the system.

This isn't meant to be a total and preemptive condemnation of potential US efforts to engage ISIS on the digital battlefield. The problem is that the government is the entity least likely to do this effectively, seeing as it's largely unused to deploying anything with subtlety or agility. That it's calling on Hollywood to help it with its counterterrorism efforts is also a bit concerning, considering it conjures up images of Uncle Sam running a propaganda mill out of a studio backlot. Not only will this do little to sway potential ISIS sympathizers, but it's also apt to turn more citizens against their government, even if they agree that ISIS is a worthwhile target.

Filed Under: cory booker, counterterrorism, isis, memes, propaganda, ron johnson, social media, terrorism

How Newark Mayor Cory Booker Made All Politics Super Local With Twitter Following The Blizzard

from the one-to-one dept

I recognize that there are many people out there who simply don't understand the appeal of Twitter. Every time we mention the service, we get comments from people saying things like "why would I want to know what some random person had for lunch." Of course, the answer to that is that if all you're getting out of Twitter is what people you don't care about are having for lunch, you're not following the right people. Twitter really is what you make of it, and for many people, it's a really useful communication tool. I use it in a variety of ways, including to keep up with news, but also as a way to stay in contact with friends and family. It's also -- somewhat surprisingly -- enabled new friendships and even business opportunities, by allowing me to build stronger relationships with people I'd probably not communicate with otherwise.

However, there are certain moments when you realize just how powerful Twitter can be as a communication platform, and those tend to be cases when previously impenetrable walls are broken down. I've told the story in the past about how the first time I realized Twitter was powerful was during the Iowa Presidential caucuses in early 2008, when I started following a user who was aggregating tweets directly from within caucus rooms about what was happening in those rooms. What became fascinating to me was that the information that was coming out got me detailed (and extraordinarily accurate) information well before (as in hours) mainstream media had the results. In fact, in comparing the Twitter results with CNN's reporting, what became clear was that if you were watching Twitter you would have a much better understanding of what was happening in Iowa.

I'm getting a similar feeling after reading about Newark Mayor Cory Booker's use of Twitter in response to the big blizzard that hit the northeast this past weekend. He's been tweeting up a storm, as he travels around Newark helping to plow streets and dig out cars and help people in trouble. As you look down the thread, he's specifically responding to different people calling out for help -- either sending people to help or showing up himself, such as the case of the woman who was stuck in her home and needed diapers, which the mayor brought himself.

In another, somewhat epic, stream of tweets, one guy complained that he was stuck. Mayor Booker responded, asking for the guy's phone number, and shortly thereafter tweeted that he was there to help. At the same time, though, the original tweeter was complaining on Twitter with curses, and wondering if the mayor would really show up. In response, Mayor Booker called him out:

Wow u shud b ashamed of yourself. U tweet vulgarities & then I come out here to help & its ur mom & sis digging. Where r u?

Eventually, the guy came out and apparently they talked and worked it out, with the mayor thanking him and the guy apologizing.

Now, I'm sure that there are cynical people out there who will mock all of this as just a publicity stunt. And, to some extent, it is a publicity stunt, but it's an incredibly effective one. Paying attention to his account, you realize that even if he knows he's getting attention for all of this, he really is using Twitter to find out where there are problems and responding quickly. Some will, of course, point out that all of this provides cover for the fact that the city didn't seem to do a good job plowing in the first place -- but the storm was not an ordinary storm. Also, a key characteristic of what makes a leader is how they respond when things go wrong, and this reaction is quite interesting.

But what's more telling to me, is how this is yet another case of barriers being broken down. Traditionally, folks who were stuck in certain areas of Newark might -- at best -- call some government agency where they'd probably get a run around. The likelihood of them actually being able to contact the mayor directly and have him respond and do something was nil.

The famous saying, of course, is that all politics is local, but this story shows how Mayor Booker took that to another level, and really opened a channel for direct communication in a time when it really mattered.

Filed Under: blizzard, cory booker, local, politics, twitter