Oversight Board Finds NYPD Officers Still Violating Citizens' Right To Film Police

from the NYPD:-any-and-all-cameras-should-be-aimed-at-'civilians' dept

The New York Civilian Complaint Review Board has just released a report [PDF] indicating NYPD officers are slow learners when it comes to recognizing citizens' right to record police officers. It's not that these officers have never been told. They have. The NYPD's "Finest Order" was handed down in 2014, telling officers citizens had a First Amendment right to film police. It's a response to a 2012 order by the Washington DC PD and a First Amendment lawsuit filed that year. It followed this up with internal policy changes two years later. And yet, problems persist.

In the three-year period from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016, the CCRB closed 257 complaints in which civilians reported that officers had interfered with their ability to record police activity. This police interference included, but was not limited to, officers instructing civilians to stop recording, searching civilians‘ phones for recordings of activity, deleting such footage, and damaging recording devices.

In fact, those with the most time on the job seem to have the greatest difficulty following instructions and policy changes.

Eighty-four percent of the officers named in interference-related allegations (180 subject officers) had more than two years on the force at the time the alleged incidents occurred. Of those, 53 percent (113 subject officers) had between three and 10 years on the force when they were alleged to have interfered with civilian recordings and the remaining 31 percent (67 subject officers) had more than 10 years on the force.

The NYPD "Finest Message" on recording distinctly notes what officers aren't supposed to do when encountering a citizen photographer:

Recognizing the affirmative right to record police action, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should a Member of the Service:

Threaten, intimidate, or otherwise discourage an observer from recording the police officer’s activities, assuming the observer is at a safe distance;

Intentionally block or obstruct cameras or other recording devices when there is no legitimate law enforcement reason to do so; or

Delete any pictures or videos from the observer’s camera, or order observer to delete such pictures or recordings.

But these orders were violated repeatedly. The most common excuse for violations was the officer didn't remember doing it or denied the violation had occurred.

NYPD officers who violate citizens' First Amendment rights do this in several ways. Intimidation is one tactic used to shut down recordings:

The CCRB also received multiple complaints of police officers pointing flashlights at civilians‘ recording devices to impede their ability to record. In one such case, the CCRB substantiated an interference allegation by a civilian and his wife who were walking down the street when they observed a police officer making an arrest. The civilian began taking photos of the arrest on his iPad and was instructed by the officer to stop taking photographs and to step back. The civilian stepped back but maintained that he had a First Amendment right to photograph the arrest. The officer then shone a flashlight at the iPad. The CCRB substantiated an interference allegation against the officer based on photographic evidence and the consistent testimony of the civilian witnesses.

In a similar 2015 case, an officer stopped a group of individuals suspected of fighting and gun possession. When a third party civilian began to record the stop, an officer turned and pointed a flashlight towards the civilian‘s camera for nearly three and a half minutes. In that case, the interfering officer never issued any commands toward the recording civilian and the Board substantiated the interference allegation.

[...]

Other forms of intimidation were more severe. In a 2015 case, a civilian called 911 after he was assaulted at a bar. Officers responded and the civilian became angry when officers could not find the assailant. After a heated verbal exchange, the responding officers told the civilian that he would be arrested if he did not leave the location. The officers then went back to their marked police vehicle to prepare their complaint paperwork, at which time the civilian stood in front of the vehicle and attempted to take a photograph of the officers‘ license plate. At that point, the officer in the driver‘s seat drove the vehicle toward the civilian and stopped within inches of his body before driving away. Finding that the video evidence proved that the officer intentionally drove the police vehicle towards the civilian in a threatening manner and with the intention of preventing him from taking a photo of the license plate, the CCRB substantiated allegations against the officer for interfering with the civilian‘s recording, and for threatening him with the use of physical force.

NYPD officers also illegally seized and searched cellphones while being filmed by citizens. Multiple confirmed allegations show officers took phones with the intent of accessing, if not deleting, recorded footage. The CCRB notes it's very difficult to substantiate claims of deleted footage thanks to the inherent nature of the violation. It's tough to prove a recording existed prior to an alleged deletion when recordings that survive officers' deletion attempts usually absolves them of attempted deletion allegations.

But searches/seizures with the intent of deleting recordings is actually the more subtle of the NYPD's anti-photography tactics.

Substantiated instances of damage or destruction of recording devices can be proven by video evidence from sources other than the recording civilian. In one incident, surveillance cameras captured officers physically grabbing a civilian‘s body as he began recording their stop and questioning of a woman on a sidewalk. After officers arrested the civilian, placed him in their patrol car, and began driving away, surveillance video captured one officer throwing his cell phone out of the car window. The phone landed on the sidewalk. The civilian was charged with Obstructing Governmental Administration, Disorderly Conduct and Resisting Arrest, but these charges were all eventually dismissed.

Some cops do this repeatedly:

In a 2014 incident, the officer‘s interference and destruction of a cell phone occurred simultaneously. The complainant sat in his car with two friends when officers approached him, told him the car smelled like marijuana, and asked him if he had been smoking it. When the complainant said no, officers removed the occupants from the car, frisked and searched them all, and then allowed them to return to the car. When an officer walked to the vehicle to return the complainant‘s identification, the complainant alleged that the officer saw his phone resting on his arm, assumed he was recording, grabbed his phone from his hand, and threw the phone to the ground, stomping on it. The officer then forcefully arrested the complainant. The CCRB found that the officer lacked credibility given three prior complaints of the same officer destroying civilian cell phones, and substantiated misconduct.

But the worse thing some NYPD officers do is shut down recordings with bullshit arrests, because it's always best to follow up a First Amendment violation with a severe curtailment of literal freedom:

In a 2014 incident, for example, a civilian began audio-recording an officer‘s stop of the civilian‘s friends. The officer grabbed the audio-recorder from the civilian‘s shirt pocket, then issued him a summons for possession of a box cutter under a section of the New York City Administrative Code that prohibits minors from possessing box cutters. The complainant was over 50 years old and clearly could not be mistaken for a minor and the CCRB substantiated the improper issuance of a summons.

The CCRB recommends more training, which is really all it can do. Officers have had close to three years to adjust to the constraints of the 2014 Finest Message, but it appears several officers still make up their own rules during encounters with citizen photographers. It's unrealistic to expect the number of violations to hit zero, but some disciplinary changes need to be made if these policies are going to have much effect on officer behavior. Otherwise, the same officers will keep deploying the same tactics and hoping citizens don't complain or the CCRB doesn't have enough to work with to substantiate the allegations.

Filed Under: filming police, freedom of expression, new york, nypd

Trump Hopes To Use AT&T Time Warner Merger As 'Leverage' Over CNN

from the the-peanut-butter-and-jelly-of-bullshit dept

On the campaign trail, you might recall that Donald Trump threatened to block AT&T's $89 billion acquisition of Time Warner, insisting that the deal was "an example of the power structure" he was fighting, because it would deliver "too much concentration of power in the hands of too few." Granted he subsequently appointed an FCC chairman in Ajit Pai who's little more than a rubber stamp for companies like AT&T, and nominated an antitrust boss already on record stating he has no real problems with the merger, leading most analysts to believe the deal will be approved anyway.

There are of course a number of legitimate reasons to block the deal, including concerns that AT&T will make licensing access to necessary programming more difficult than ever for streaming video competitors. Or the fact that AT&T's using its dominance in wireless to give Time Warner content an unfair advantage over competitors via usage caps and overage fees (aka "zero rating"). It would be foolish to think a company with such a rich history of anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior wouldn't use this greater size and leverage anti-competitively.

But these are complicated nuances it's not-terribly-likely the current President actually understands. Instead, his focus in recent months has been the fact that he doesn't like Time Warner-owned CNN's critical coverage of his administration, and, according to the New York Times, hopes to use the deal as "leverage" to force CNN to soften its critcism of the President as part of his broader assault on the media:

"White House advisers have discussed a potential point of leverage over their adversary, a senior administration official said: a pending merger between CNN’s parent company, Time Warner, and AT&T. Mr. Trump’s Justice Department will decide whether to approve the merger, and while analysts say there is little to stop the deal from moving forward, the president’s animus toward CNN remains a wild card."

Other news outlets noted that the Trump administration is also contemplating demanding the ouster of current CNN boss Jeff Zucker in exchange for approving the deal. The news was quick to result in letters to the DOJ from several Senators who claimed Trump was "interfering" in an approval process that should be left up to regulators and the DOJ to decide:

"Any political interference in antitrust enforcement is unacceptable," Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar wrote in a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions. "Even more concerning, in this instance, is that it appears that some advisers to the President may believe that it is appropriate for the government to use its law enforcement authority to alter or censor the press. Such an action would violate the First Amendment."

If you're at all familiar with the ethical behavior over at AT&T (like the times it ripped off a program for the hearing impaired or made bills harder to understand to help criminals scam its own customers), it would certainly be in character for AT&T to agree to trample the editorial firewall between itself and CNN to get the deal done -- it just wouldn't be stupid enough to put any such agreement in writing. As the net neutrality fight makes clear, telecom giants aren't particularly concerned about the whole free speech thing (check out Verizon's first foray into tech content, for example).

AT&T's also a world-class expert at making utterly bogus claims when it comes to its latest megamergers, consistently claiming such deals will lower prices, expand broadband coverage and create oceans of new jobs (telecom megamerger history makes it abundantly clear the exact opposite almost always occurs). Given some similar expertise over at the Trump camp, there's an incredible opportunity for some amazing bullshit here; an opportunity Trump likely won't want to waste by continuing what's become an arguably unhealthy fixation on CNN.

The likely outcome is that we'll get to have our rotten cake and eat it too: a torrent of bogus job and broadband expansion promises the likes of which we've never seen before -- and a CNN left bridled by a meddling new corporate parent focused exclusively on currying favor in the Trump administration to anti-competitive benefit. Just think of the incredible potential for synergies...and bullshit.

Filed Under: acquisitions, bullying, donald trump, first amendment, free press, freedom of expression, leverage, mergers
Companies: at&t, cnn, time warner

Russia Threatens To Block Access To Facebook, Google And Twitter Unless They Obey New Bloggers Law

from the getting-serious dept

Last year, Techdirt wrote about yet another of Russia's new laws aimed at taming the troublesome internet world. Its most striking feature was that bloggers with more than 3,000 visitors a day were required to register on a special list, and to abide by general mass media restrictions. We noted then that blogs located overseas were not covered by the new law. But according to this report in The Guardian, based on a story in Izvestia, it seems that the law is now being applied to foreign service providers too: Facebook, Google and Twitter are all being threatened with fines or even bans for non-compliance:

The [Russian communications agency's] deputy director, Maksim Ksenzov, had issued a warning to the three companies on 6 May, telling them they were in violation of the bloggers law because they had not provided requested data on the number of daily visitors to several users' pages, as well as information allowing the authorities to identify the owners of accounts with more than 3,000 daily visitors.

The companies are threatened with fines, but these are relatively modest: up to 300,000 roubles ($6,000) for the first offense. Subsequent infringements lead to bigger fines or a ban on the website for up to 30 days. As The Guardian points out:

If the companies did not take steps to delete from their sites "information containing calls to participate in mass rioting, extremist activities" or unsanctioned public events, the watchdog would "limit access to the information resource where that information is posted", Ksenzov warned.

The problem is that regional Internet service providers might not be able to provide much granularity when limiting access to these pages, leading to services from the companies concerned being blocked completely in those areas. As the Izvestia article explains, although the Russian authorities are very keen for the US companies to obey Russian law, and point out that they are simply following in the footsteps of the the European Commission, it's not clear how they could force compliance or collect any fines they imposed.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: blocks, blogger's law, filters, freedom of expression, intimidation, russia
Companies: facebook, google, twitter

Fair Use At Risk When Private Companies Get To Make The Decision For Us

from the fair-use-in-the-age-of-the-cloud dept

We talk a lot about how fair use is under attack these days, and I've discussed in the past my concerns about freedom of expression when we always have a company (or a few companies) standing in the middle of our decisions on whether or not we can speak. NiemanLabs has a great example of where this becomes problematic in a story about how SoundCloud will not even consider fair use in making decisions about whether or not to take down content, and how that's harming journalism:

Here’s a wakeup call to audio creators everywhere: SoundCloud does not recognize your fair use rights under U.S. copyright law. If your content contains any copyrighted material to which you haven’t secured the rights — even if you have a valid fair use claim — SoundCloud may take it down at any time.

That’s exactly what happened to a former student of mine, and his experience should serve as a warning to the growing number of news organizations (including several that I work with) that use SoundCloud to host podcasts and other audio content.

Journalism as we know it could not exist without fair use, so it’s possible SoundCloud may not be a viable tool for the field. Imagine trying to do a story about the “Blurred Lines” lawsuit without playing copyrighted clips from the songs involved.

The article goes on to discuss an interesting journalism project that used a very brief clip of copyrighted music in a way that almost certainly was fair use. SoundCloud took it down. When pressed on this, the company eventually admitted that it refuses to take fair use into account, in part because fair use is only in the US:

We understand that US copyright law includes a doctrine of fair use. However, these rules are limited, difficult to apply outside of a court of law, and in any event do not necessarily apply outside of the United States. As SoundCloud is a global platform, we expect all of our creators to respect copyright law, and the rights of copyright owners, on a global basis.

As the writer of the article, Adam Ragusea, points out, this should be a major concern for any journalists using Soundcloud. And that includes us at Techdirt -- as we use SoundCloud to host our podcast. But the fact that the company might not even allow us to make use of our fair use rights -- the same rights that the Supreme Court has said are essential for protecting the First Amendment -- is a major concern, and one that has me thinking we should be looking for other platforms.

But, even then, we would most likely face the exact same situation. Any other platform will be under pressure from any sort of DMCA notice system as well. And while they could stand up for their users, many don't want to take on the liability risk. And thus, we run a serious risk of losing a key component of free expression.

And, honestly, the problem is only partially the companies like SoundCloud. The entire legal system is designed to make this sort of response the only real choice they have. With fair use being only truly available in a few countries, it's difficult to operate a global platform. This is why if we're going to put copyright into international trade agreements fair use needs to be included, otherwise we risk losing it back here in the US as well. But when you combine that situation with copyright law in which statutory damages are insane, and where the DMCA requires you to shoot first and ask questions later, it is way too easy for companies like SoundCloud to just throw up their hands and say this isn't worth dealing with.

Even companies that do try to take fair use into account -- like YouTube -- all too frequently fail to do a good job of considering fair use, leading to perfectly legitimate content disappearing, with no real recourse for the creators. This is why, beyond fair use, it seems like we need much stronger safe harbors for intermediaries like SoundCloud. It works with Section 230 of the CDA, in which the rule is pretty ironclad: the service provider should never be seen as legally liable for the content its users create. For fair use to thrive, copyright law requires a similarly ironclad safe harbor. This doesn't -- as some will inevitably claim -- mean that there is no recourse over infringement. There absolutely is. The copyright holder still has every right to target the actual end user, and that person can then stand up for their own fair use rights, which is only proper.

But under the current system, end users don't even have the chance to stand up for their own fair use/free speech rights, because third-party platforms like SoundCloud get to make the final decision for them -- and with all of the liability incentives stacked against them, free speech doesn't have a chance.

Filed Under: copyright, fair use, freedom of expression, journalism, private companies, safe harbors, third parties
Companies: soundcloud, youtube

Trade Agreements Should Protect An Open Internet, Not Kill It

from the fighting-for-the-future,-or-the-past? dept

For a few years now, we've been writing about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, and how we're quite concerned by many aspects of it. In particular, we're quite concerned about the intellectual property provisions -- which leaks have shown are tremendously problematic -- as well as the corporate sovereignty provisions, which negotiators like to call "investor state dispute settlement" (ISDS) because it sounds so boring. Of course, the biggest concern of all is that these deals are negotiated in total secrecy, with the various negotiators refusing to reveal the agreed upon text until it's a done deal and the public is unable to comment on it or suggest changes and fixes.

In the fight over the TPP (and the other big trade agreement, with Europe, called the TTIP or TAFTA), an important side issue is over so-called "fast track" authority, or (more officially) "trade promotion authority." This is where Congress basically tells the USTR that it will only take a single "yes/no" vote on whatever the USTR comes back with, rather than delving into the details of the trade agreement and challenging specific aspects of it. In fact, there's an argument that, without fast track authority, the USTR can't really commit the US to anything. What's really odd is that, in a Republican-controlled Congress that seems to want to fight President Obama on just about anything that even has a whiff of the executive branch having more power, it's those Republicans in Congress who are pushing strongly for fast track authority -- effectively giving up their (Constitutionally-mandated) power to regulate international trade.

Either way, it is strongly expected that Congress will introduce some sort of Trade Promotion Authority bill in the coming days, even as the key Democrat involved in this issue, Senator Ron Wyden, has pushed back on hearings planned by Senator Orrin Hatch for later this week.

To try to justify giving up Congress's own power to the executive branch, defenders of trade promotion authority, such as Paul Ryan, claim that it's actually Congress "asserting its authority in the early stages of a trade negotiation." That's clearly bullshit, since TPP is in its final stages, after being negotiated for many years. The other claim is that because of the way trade promotion authority works, it involves a bill that tells the USTR what needs to be included in any agreement. Again, while that is used to make it look like it's Congress presenting its desires to the USTR, which has to follow it, that would only make sense if TPA was offered at the beginning -- not the end -- of the negotiations.

Even Paul Krugman, who was initially a supporter of the TPP eventually changed his tune. Most recently, in response to President Obama's latest call for trade promotion authority, Krugman referred to it as suspicious nonsense. He supports trade deals, but "strongly suspects" there's "bad stuff hidden in the fine print." Of course, that wouldn't be such a concern if the USTR actually released the drafts it's pitching, but that apparently will never happen.

And that brings us (finally) to the question of what will be in the eventual push for fast track authority, that is expected to come out any day now. Daniel Sepulveda, who is sort of the US's "ambassador to the internet," just gave a speech talking about how fast track can help protect the open internet. He notes, rightly, that it's important to "[preserve] the free flow of information, to protect the internet's potential as the world's engine for future growth." He further points out that "the increase in Internet use creates significant economic potential." But, oddly, he claims that fast track can somehow guarantee this -- when previous attempts at fast track have shown no such thing. Here's Sepulveda:

The Obama Administration is working to unlock the promise of e-commerce, keep the Internet free and open, promote competitive access for telecommunications suppliers, and set digital trade rules-of-the-road by negotiating new trade agreements. Trade Promotion Authority legislation and the pending trade agreements we expect Congress to consider over the coming months and years will provide that kind of protection. These agreements aim to ensure that the free flow of information and data are the default setting for nations. This will preserve the architecture that has empowered the Internet and global communications to fuel economic growth at home and abroad. It is in our interest, across parties and ideology, to ensure we move forward and approve TPA and the pending agreements for many reasons, but promoting the preservation and growth of global communications and the open Internet is one of the strongest.

I agree that preserving an open internet is important -- and I wish that our trade deals did exactly that, but they don't. In particular, the intellectual property sections of various trade agreements have not been focused on preserving an open internet, but on shutting it down. We've been asking for nearly a decade how protectionist policies aimed at propping up a legacy industry's obsolete business models is "promoting free trade." It seems like the opposite.

And, in fact, if you look at the version of the "fast track" legislation that was introduced in the last Congress, you'll notice that the section it has on intellectual property is almost entirely focused on ratcheting up enforcement and protection. It only talks about intellectual property enforcement, including "meeting enforcement obligations," and "providing strong protection for new and emerging technologies and new methods of transmitting and distributing products embodying intellectual property." It includes sections that are all about protectionism and enforcement, rather than "free trade."

Providing strong protection for new and emerging technologies and new methods of transmitting and distributing products embodying intellectual property, including in a manner that facilitates legitimate digital trade;

Preventing or eliminating discrimination with respect to matters affecting the availability, acquisition, scope, maintenance, use, and enforcement of intellectual property rights;

Ensuring that standards of protection and enforcement keep pace with technological developments, and in particular ensuring that rightholders have the legal and technological means to control the use of their works through the Internet and other global communication media, and to prevent the unauthorized use of their works;

Providing strong enforcement of intellectual property rights, including through accessible, expeditious, and effective civil, administrative, and criminal enforcement mechanisms.

In fact, if you look, these clauses are almost verbatim from the last time Congress granted trade promotion authority, back in 2002, with the 2002 Trade Act. Check out the section in that law about intellectual property and you may notice a rather striking similarity to what was in the last Congress's attempt, put together by Senator Orrin Hatch, who's leading the charge this time around as well:

Providing strong protection for new and emerging technologies and new methods of transmitting and distributing products embodying intellectual property;

Preventing or eliminating discrimination with respect to matters affecting the availability, acquisition, scope, maintenance, use, and enforcement of intellectual property rights;

Ensuring that standards of protection and enforcement keep pace with technological developments, and in particular ensuring that rightholders have the legal and technological means to control the use of their works through the Internet and other global communication media, and to prevent the unauthorized use of their works; and

Providing strong enforcement of intellectual property rights, including through accessible, expeditious, and effective civil, administrative, and criminal enforcement mechanisms;

Look familiar? Other than the inclusion of the phrase "including in a manner that facilitates legitimate digital trade," they are identical. And yet, think about just how much the world has changed since 2002 -- and how important we know the internet is, and how much we've learned about how intellectual property law can be widely abused to harm or break the open internet.

Since then, we've seen the DMCA used repeatedly to stifle free expression. We've seen Russia using copyright law to stifle political dissent. We've seen how plans to use copyright law to block access to certain sites enable an architecture of censorship. We've seen news publications seized and popular digital storage lockers shut down completely via copyright claims.

Given all that, it's difficult to see how the US can actually be serious about protecting an open and free internet, if it's going to continue to use trade agreements like the TPP -- to push for greater tools like those described above, that simply put the ability to censor the internet, and to take down innovative services, into trade agreements. If, when the eventual trade promotion authority bill comes out, it includes this same language all over again, you can be sure that the TPP is not about protecting an open internet, but rather about protecting a few legacy businesses, and enabling government to shut down and stop the open internet.

I'm a believer in free trade and open borders. I know that some are protesting agreements like the TPP because they don't like free trade itself, and think it's problematic. That's not my concern. My concern is that what's being done in the name of free trade, and in the name of an open internet, is anything but that. It's about protecting the past, not investing in and enabling the future. We all have our concerns about what's in the various sections of the TPP (which could be solved today if the USTR just released the damn documents), but our first hint of what's really going on here will be evident by how the "intellectual property" section of the expected TPA bill is written. If it's just repeating the same misleading lines from 2002, you can be sure that the TPP is just as big a problem as expected.

Filed Under: corporate sovereignty, daniel sepulveda, fast track, fast track authority, freedom of expression, intellectual property, open internet, orrin hatch, ron wyden, tpp, trade promotion authority

Where Are The European Regulators In Charge Of Protecting Freedom Of Expression?

from the good-question dept

Michael Scott points us to a blog post by Peter Fleischer, the Global Privacy Counsel for Google -- perhaps better known as one of the three Google execs to be convicted on criminal charges due to a video some kids uploaded to Google Video, which the Italian courts believe Google did not take down fast enough. In the blog post, Fleischer discusses the balance between the right to privacy and the right to free expression, noting that posting a photo online is part of free expression, but if that photo shows anyone else, European privacy laws suggest you may be guilty of violating someone's privacy (which is what Fleischer and the Google executives were convicted of doing). In discussing this balance, Fleischer notes that while there are plenty of regulators in charge of protecting privacy in Europe, there don't seem to be the equivalent regulators in charge of protecting freedom of expression:

Both freedom of expression and privacy are fundamental human rights. But those rights are not both equally enforced, protected or policed. There are literally thousands of data protection bureaucrats in Europe whose job is to enforce European data protection regulations. As far as I can tell, there is not a single government official in all of Europe whose sole job is to do the same for freedom of expression. Curious, no?

As I go to privacy-centric conferences where people invariably talk about the problems and risks of social networking sites, I'm often the odd guy out who seems to think that they're also precious platforms for freedom of expression. Lots of guys in power lecture about how lives or careers or futures are jeopardized by a single embarrassing photo posted to a platform....

A privacy regulator in Europe told me the other day that he thought it was a data protection violation for anyone to post a photo online if it captured someone's face or property without their consent. I asked him whether he thought this restricted the right to freedom of expression. He didn't seem to understand the question.

The right to privacy and the right to free expression are both important rights -- and they're certainly ones that can, conceivably, conflict. This is one case where figuring out where the line is drawn is important, and the lack of anyone fighting for freedom of expression in Europe suggests that only one side of the debate is being heard there.

Filed Under: europe, freedom of expression, peter fleischer, privacy
Companies: google