Facebook Is NOT The Internet; Stop Regulating As If It Was

from the facebook-ruins-everything dept

For quite some time now we've been trying to remind people that the internet is not just Facebook. Unfortunately, this seems quite difficult for many people -- especially policy makers -- to understand. We've discussed how the various policy regulations (including some that Facebook now supports) will actually do a lot more harm to all of us -- and we urge people to examine how various policy proposals will impact tons of smaller sites and their users.

Indeed, I keep hearing from people in the policy world who are just... basically mad at Facebook for screwing up so much stuff, so badly, that it's going to end up destroying much of the rest of the internet. As we noted a few years ago, Facebook's bad behavior may cause everyone to lose recess.

Konstantinos Komaitis recently had a really excellent piece in Slate highlighting just how bad a problem this is and noting that regulators need to realize that Facebook is not the internet. It starts out by noting some of the history of social media (thankfully, he starts with SixDegree.com, the first social media website I ever used, which many people don't remember at all):

In 1997, SixDegrees.com was the first real attempt at social networking, creating a space where users could upload their information and list their friends. The site peaked at approximately 3.5 million users before it shut down in 1999.

Since then, a series of social networking business models have emerged, each time offering more advanced tools for user interaction. LiveJournal, a site for keeping up with school friends, combined blogging and social networking features inspired by the WELL; Friendster was a social network that allowed for increased interaction and control by users; Myspace had open membership and gave users the freedom to customize their pages. In 2005, it—and its 25 million user base—was sold to News Corp. But within three years, Myspace had been surpassed by Facebook, which launched in 2004 for college students and opened to everyone in 2006.

But, of course, unlike those chaotic early years, nothing has surpassed Facebook over the last decade and a half. And Facebook has grown larger and larger, and certainly for some people it feels like the entire internet. And, in some cases -- such as places where Facebook's sketchy Free Basics program exists, then Facebook effectively is the internet. Thankfully, that's not true of most of the world and most of the internet. But, unfortunately politicians are acting as if it were true and that Facebook has way more power and control than it actually does. That's a real problem.

First, the internet is not a monolith, so treating it as if it is simply will not work. Second, many of the issues regulators are trying to address are not internet problems; they are societal. Terrorism, child abuse, and mis- and disinformation are not an offspring of the internet; they existed before the internet, and they will continue to exist after it as they are ingrained in human societies. Yet, they are treated as if they are exclusively internet problems. Third, and most importantly, regulators should stop thinking of the internet as Facebook and treating it as such. In the internet regulatory landscape, there is a mixed bag of different issues, and Facebook’s involvement in all of them, direct or indirect, adds to the current complexity. Content moderation, privacy, intermediary liability, competition, encryption—these are all broader issues related to the internet, not just Facebook. Yet, the pattern that has emerged is to treat them as Facebook issues. What this means is that, instead of focusing on trying to address them in ways appropriate for the entire internet ecosystem, they are addressed through the Facebook lens. This has been quite accurately characterized as the “Facebook Derangement Syndrome.”

For what it's worth, I used "Facebook Derangement Syndrome" in a different context three years ago, but this one is much better and much more important. People get so focused on societal problems that are seen on Facebook that the "Facebookness" of it expands to swallow everything else -- such as that Facebook is not the entire internet, that many of these problems are societal, and that at least some of the problems aren't actually Facebook problems, but rather Facebook enabling people to see these problems.

Komaitis, though, notes how many regulatory proposals we see for regulating the entire internet seem almost entirely focused on "the problem" of "Facebook" (which again, often is not actually the problems from Facebook).

In the United Kingdom, the Online Safety legislation wants to ban end-to-end encryption because of Facebook’s plan to introduce it as a default setting in its Messenger service. On the other side of the Commonwealth, Australia recently introduced a media bargaining code mainly targeting Facebook. Facebook famously “left” the country before renegotiating a new agreement. Similarly, in what seems to be a coordinated effort, Canada has vowed to work with Australia in an attempt to impose regulatory restrictions on Facebook.

And this trend is not limited to the Commonwealth.

India’s new intermediary guidelines aim at tightening a regulatory grip on Facebook and its partner company WhatsApp while Brazil’s fake news bill, which got approved by the Senate, is focusing on content moderation on Facebook and traceability on WhatsApp. In France, there have been conversations about the introduction of “new rules” for Facebook, while Germany’s Network Enforcement Law—NetzDG—was drafted with the primary focus of taming Facebook. Finally, in the United States, the Trump administration issued an unsuccessful executive order that aimed to regulate Facebook for bias.

And, he notes, many of these regulators and politicians (and, frankly, the media) are asking the wrong questions about all of this:

In this context, the question we should be asking is not whether regulation is appropriate, but what are the real implications of regulating in such a manner? There is already an argument that focusing on a few, big players has an impact on the health of innovation and the ability of newcomers to compete. And, then, there is the internet. The internet’s global reach is one of its main strengths. It is a feature, not a bug. Among other things, it allows the maintenance of supply chains all over the world; it allows people to communicate; it lowers costs; and it makes information sharing easier, all the while helping to address societal issues like poverty or climate change.

To this end, the attempt to regulate based on one—or a handful—of companies can jeopardize this very important goal of the internet. It can create fragmentation, in the sense of not allowing data to flow across borders or networks to interconnect, and this can be very real and have a very big impact. It can impose limits on the way information and data gets to be shared and the way networks may interoperate. These are significant trade-offs, and they must be part of any regulation’s process.

The article goes on to suggest better, more thoughtful approaches -- ones that recognize these kinds of regulations can have a widespread impact, and consequences way beyond what regulators (claim to) intend. Being more humble and recognizing that throwing massive changes at the entire internet because lots of people on Facebook are terrible and Facebook has failed to manage its own platform well, is not a reasonable solution. It's a "solution" that could choke off much of what is good and important about the internet.

Filed Under: facebook derangement syndrome, internet, open internet, punishment, regulations
Companies: facebook

Michigan Supreme Court: Selling A $24,000 House (And Keeping The Proceeds) Over An $8.41 Debt Is Unlawful

from the please-stop-defending-the-indefensible,-government-legal-reps dept

This seems like the sort of thing a court shouldn't need to sort out, but here we are. More specifically, here are two plaintiffs suing over Oakland County, Michigan's forfeiture policy. This isn't civil asset forfeiture -- where property is treated as guilty until proven innocent. This isn't even criminal asset forfeiture -- the seizure of property by the government following a conviction.

But this form of forfeiture can be just as abusive as regular civil asset forfeiture. There's no criminal act involved -- real or conjectured. It's the result of a civil violation: the nonpayment of property taxes. And Oakland County, the plaintiffs argue, is performing unconstitutional takings to unjustly enrich itself.

It's not that these sorts of things are uncommon. Tax liens are often put on property when tax payments are delinquent. It's that one of these seizures -- and subsequent auction -- was triggered by a delinquent amount that would have required the county to make change from a $10 bill. (via Volokh Conspiracy)

This is from the opening of the state Supreme Court's decision [PDF], which shows just how much the county government can profit from these forfeitures.

Plaintiff Rafaeli, LLC, owed $8.41 in unpaid property taxes from 2011, which grew to $285.81 after interest, penalties, and fees. Oakland County and its treasurer, Andrew Meisner (collectively, defendants), foreclosed on Rafaeli’s property for the delinquency, sold the property at public auction for $24,500, and retained all the sale proceeds in excess of the taxes, interest, penalties, and fees.

That's right. It only took $8.41 to initiate these proceedings. Even after accounting for the additional fees, the county turned less than $300 in delinquencies into a $24,200 profit.

Rafaeli, LLC isn't the only plaintiff. Another property owner, Andre Ohanessian, saw $6000 in taxes, fines, and fees turn into a $76,000 net gain for the county when it auctioned his property for $82,000 and kept everything above what it was owed.

The lower court said there was nothing wrong with the government keeping thousands of dollars property owners didn't owe it.

The circuit court granted summary disposition to defendants, finding that defendants did not “take” plaintiffs’ properties because plaintiffs forfeited all interests they held in their properties when they failed to pay the taxes due on the properties. The court determined that property properly forfeited under the GPTA [General Property Tax Act] and in accordance with due process is not a “taking” barred by either the United States or Michigan Constitution. Because the GPTA properly divested plaintiffs of all interests they had in their properties, the court concluded that plaintiffs did not have a property interest in the surplus proceeds generated from the tax-foreclosure sale of their properties.

The appeals court felt the same way about the issue, resulting in this final appeal to the state's top court. The Michigan Supreme Court says this isn't proper, going all the way back to English common law that had been adopted by the new nation more than two hundred years ago.

At the same time that it was common for any surplus proceeds to be returned to the former property owner, it was also generally understood that the government could only collect those taxes actually owed and nothing more.

[...]

This Court recognized a similar principle in 1867, stating that “[n]o law of the land authorizes the sale of property for any amount in excess of the tax it is legally called upon to bear.” Indeed, any sale of property for unpaid taxes that was in excess of the taxes owed was often rendered voidable at the option of the landowner. Rather than selling all of a person’s land and risk the sale being voided, officers charged with selling land for unpaid taxes often only sold that portion of the land that was needed to satisfy the tax debt. That is, early in Michigan’s statehood, it was commonly understood that the government could not collect more in taxes than what was owed, nor could it sell more land than necessary to collect unpaid taxes.

That all changed with the General Property Tax Act. The current version of the GPTA unilaterally declares all ownership rights "extinguished" the moment the government begins proceedings against the property, well before the foreclosure sale occurs.

This law -- as exercised in these forfeitures and auctions -- is unlawful, the Supreme Court says.

We conclude that our state’s common law recognizes a former property owner’s property right to collect the surplus proceeds that are realized from the tax-foreclosure sale of property. Having originated as far back as the Magna Carta, having ingratiated itself into English common law, and having been recognized both early in our state’s jurisprudence and as late as our decision in Dean in 1976, a property owner’s right to collect the surplus proceeds from the tax-foreclosure sale of his or her property has deep roots in Michigan common law. We also recognize this right to be “vested” such that the right is to remain free from unlawful governmental interference.

The government argued that without being able to take everything (even when less is owed), it does not have a stick of sufficient size to wield against delinquent taxpayers. Nonsense, says the state's top court. The state can still collect what is owed. What it can't do is take more than that.

We recognize that municipalities rely heavily on their citizens to timely pay real-property taxes so that local governments have a source of revenue for their operating costs. Nothing in this opinion impedes defendants’ right to hold citizens accountable for failing to pay property taxes by taking citizens’ properties in satisfaction of their tax debts. What defendants may not do under the guise of tax collection is seize property valued far in excess of the amount owed in unpaid taxes, penalties, interest, and fees and convert that surplus into a public benefit. The purpose of taxation is to assess and collect taxes owed, not appropriate property in excess of what is owed.

If the county wants its eight dollars, it can take its eight dollars. Everything above that still belongs to the original property owner. This should seem obvious, but it isn't. It took the state's top court 49 pages to arrive at this conclusion. What seems obvious to citizens is far too often deliberately unclear to government agencies. Legislation is rarely written in plain language. And it's crafted by people who have a vested interest in ensuring their employer's financial stability. The end result -- years down the road -- is the government turning a $285 foreclosure into a $24,000 surplus. The final insult is taxpayers paid for county officials to argue against the taxpayers' best interests. But, from now on, the government will have to share its takings with the people it's taking property from.

Filed Under: civil asset forfeiture, debt, michigan, oakland county, punishment, takings

Skin Care Company, Sunday Riley, Somehow Gets No Consequences In Fake Reviews FTC Settlement

from the none-off-their-back dept

We've long discussed the problem that is astroturfing and companies that abuse website reviews sections by inputting fake positive reviews for their own products. These fake reviews break the ecosystem of sites like Yelp and many others, where a big part of the draw to the sites are the communities that provide helpful, honest reviews. It's also been the case, however, that such fake review campaigns have occasionally come with fines or lawsuits with limited clarity on precisely what laws were being broken.

Still, the FTC is a thing and it would seem to be in that organization's purview to mete out some kind of punishment for the truly bad actors out there. In the case of skincare company Sunday Riley, however, it seems that FTC settlements for truly egregious fake review campaigns are entirely without teeth.

Let's start with the scheme itself. According to the FTC, for two years, spearheaded by founder Sunday Riley herself, employees and interns were tasked with both voting down real negative reviews on Sephora.com, as well as setting up fake accounts for Sephora and inputting fake positive reviews. This, again, was directly communicated by Riley herself.

The FTC shared snippets of multiple emails sent by the CEO. In these emails, Riley urged her employees to always use a "virtual private network", or VPN, before writing fake reviews so they aren't traced back to the company.

"If you see a negative review -- DISLIKE it," Riley said in one of her emails to employees. "After enough dislikes, it is removed. This directly translates to sales!!"

Most recently in April 2018, interns of the company were also asked to make fake Sephora accounts and write reviews of Sunday Riley skincare products.

So, yeah, really blatant, really fake, and really shady. This was a coordinated attempt to falsely manipulate the review system of Sephora for the purposes of fooling the public into buying more product. That certainly feels like about as blatant a case requiring FTC involvement as the fake review subject is going to get.

And the FTC did get involved. It pushed Sunday Riley into settling with the agency. And boy, what a settlement it was.

As part of the settlement, Sunday Riley agreed not to write fake reviews. The company did not admit wrongdoing or receive any form of punishment.  FTC commissioners Chopra and Slaughter disagreed with the settlement, arguing that the company should have paid a higher price.

"Going forward, the FTC should seek monetary consequences for fake review fraud, even if the exact level of ill-gotten gains is difficult to measure," Chopra and Slaughter said in their letter.

"Today's proposed settlement includes no redress, no disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, no notice to consumers, and no admission of wrongdoing. Sunday Riley and its CEO have clearly broken the law, and the Commission has ordered that they not break the law again."

Yeah, that's basically right. The FTC settled with Sunday Riley by simply asking that they please not break the law and act so shitty again. Meanwhile, the company has admitted no wrong doing, paid no fine, or suffered any other consequence. Honestly, what the point of this FTC settlement is, is beyond me. Are we to reach settlements with thieves that consist of a request that they not steal any longer?

Filed Under: fake reviews, ftc, punishment
Companies: sunday riley

The FTC And Facebook: Why The $5 Billion Fine Is Both Too Little And Too Much

from the pointless-gestures dept

By now, you've certainly heard the news that was very likely leaked by Facebook late on Friday that the FTC, by a narrow 3 to 2 party line vote, had approved a $5 billion fine for Facebook for violating its earlier consent decree in the way it allowed an app to suck up lots of data that eventually ended up in Cambridge Analytica's hands. Most of the reaction to this fine (by far, the largest in the FTC's history) is anger.

Many people focused on one key point to argue that the fine wasn't enough: Facebook's stock jumped upwards after the news broke, to the point that Facebook's valuation probably went up more than the amount of the fine itself (never mind the difference between the value of equity and actual cashflow...). However, I wouldn't read too much into the stock jump. After all, Facebook had already said back in April that it was expecting a $5 billion fine, meaning that Wall Street had already priced in exactly that. If the $5 billion fine had come out of the blue it might have been a different story. The bump, then, could be explained by investors reacting to the end of any uncertainty and the fear that the fine might have been larger.

That said, there are good arguments for why this is a really significant fine. And for that, I'll turn to the former acting-CTO of the FTC, Neil Chilson, who knows a thing or two about how the FTC works, and points out that this sort of thing is extremely aggressive (and this part is important): given the FTC's mandates and powers. As he notes:

The FTC is using an extremely general law intended to stop or redress practices that harm consumers. It is reportedly getting a settlement that is 225x larger than the prev. record. And it got this for practices where AFAIK no consumer lost a penny. Laws have meaning. There is only so far an agency can push the commands of Congress before a court will slap them back (as has happened to the FTC a few times recently.) This settlement is, I think, probably at the bleeding edge of the FTC's litigation risk. If you're angry about this settlement, calling the FTC a "co-conspirator" is ridiculous. The FTC has been an aggressive privacy enforcer using a statute that isn't specifically intended to protect privacy. That's on Congress. If you don't like it, talk to your lawmaker.

In short, given the FTC's powers and the details of what happened with Cambridge Analytica, where the "harms" are not directly quantifiable (you can argue harms against democracy, but that would require a bit more actual evidence and is not the FTC's mandate...), a $5 billion fine is quite a lot. So, frankly, attacking it as "an embarrassing joke" or "a tap on the wrist" or even "a victory for Facebook" seems to be missing the point.

That said, what I think all this anger is getting at -- and which I mostly agree on -- is that we still have not figured out a way to adequately deal with privacy in a digital age. And people are (partly reasonably, partly irrationally) very mad at Facebook for that. Part of the problem here, however, is expecting that a single FTC action is somehow magically going to fix all of that. It can't. No amount would have done that, and it's quite unlikely that any restrictions the FTC puts forth as part of this agreement are going to fix that either. So, I can totally understand the anger and annoyance at this particular settlement -- but it's not as if anything the FTC would have done here would have satisfied most people.

And, of course, this one FTC action is hardly the end of the line. The EU and other countries are still likely to come down hard on Facebook, and the company is still facing antitrust questions as well. And, then there's Congress. At some point, Congress will put forth various privacy bills (and various states may follow California's dubious lead in doing so as well).

In short: this is a significant fine, given the FTC's mandate and the issue at hand. And if you think it's "not enough" because it won't hobble Facebook, well, then you're correct. But the FTC's mandate isn't to randomly hobble companies because people are angry at them.

Facebook is going to be facing a long line of angry regulator and legislators, and that seems unlikely to change as a result of this fine (indeed, it appears to have inspired many to increase their efforts to "do something").

Filed Under: consumer harms, data, fines, ftc, privacy, punishment
Companies: facebook

There Are Lots Of Ways To Punish Big Tech Companies, But Only A Few Will Actually Help Improve The Internet

from the this-is-important dept

There are many reasonable complaints making the rounds these days about the big internet companies, and many questions about what should be done. Unfortunately, too much of the thinking around this can be summarized as "these companies are bad, we should punish them, any punishment therefore is good." This is dangerous thinking. I tend to agree with Benedict Evans who noted that there's a similarity between calls to break up big tech companies and Brexit in the UK:

I've pointed out a few times now that most calls to break up or regulate these companies fail to explain how these plansactually solve the problems people highlight. Companies are callous about our privacy? Will regulating them or breaking them up actually stop that? The GDPR has proven otherwise already. The companies algorithms recommend bad things? How will breaking them up stop that?

Too much of the thinking seems to just be focused on "company bad, must punish" and don't get much beyond that.

And that's a pretty big problem, because many of the ideas being passed around could ultimately end up harming the wider internet much more than they end up damaging the few big companies anyway. We've already seen that with the GDPR, which has served to further entrench the giants. The same will almost certainly be true when the EU Copyright Directive goes into effect, since the entire plan is designed to entrench the giants so that the big entertainment companies can negotiate new licensing deals with them.

In a new piece for the Economist, Cory Doctorow warns that many of these attempts to "harm" the big internet companies through regulation will actually do much more harm to the wider internet, while making the biggest companies stronger.

The past 12 months have seen a blizzard of new internet regulations that, ironically, have done more to enshrine Big Tech’s dominance than the decades of lax antitrust enforcement that preceded them. This will have grave consequences for privacy, free expression and safety.

He talks about the GDPR, FOSTA, the EU Copyright Directive and various "terrorist" and "online harms" regulatory proposals -- all of which end up making the big internet companies more powerful in the name of "regulating/punishing" them. It's worth reading Cory's take on all those laws, but he summarizes the key point here:

Creating state-like duties for the big tech platforms imposes short-term pain on their shareholders in exchange for long-term gain. Shaving a few hundred million dollars off a company's quarterly earnings to pay for compliance is a bargain in exchange for a world in which they need not fear a rival growing large enough to compete with them. Google can stop looking over its shoulder for the next company that will do to it what it did to Yahoo, and Facebook can stop watching for someone ready to cast it in the role of MySpace, in the next social media upheaval.

These duties can only be performed by the biggest companies, which all-but forecloses on the possibility of breaking up Big Tech. Once it has been knighted to serve as an arm of the state, Big Tech cannot be cut down to size if it is to perform those duties.

Cory is much more engaged in the idea of breaking up the big tech companies than I am (we recently debated the topic on the Techdirt podcast), but his point here is valid. So much of the "punish big tech" movement is at odds with other parts of the "punish big tech" movement. That's because there is no coherent strategy here -- it's just "punish big tech."

Cory's article suggests that any move towards antitrust should include mandating interoperability in an effort to build up competition:

One exciting possibility is to create an absolute legal defence for companies that make "interoperable" products that plug into the dominant companies' offerings, from third-party printer ink to unauthorised Facebook readers that slurp up all the messages waiting for you there and filter them to your specifications, not Mark Zuckerberg's. This interoperability defence would have to shield digital toolsmiths from all manner of claims: tortious interference, bypassing copyright locks, patent infringement and, of course, violating terms of service.

Interoperability is a competitive lever that is crying to be used, hard. After all, the problem with YouTube isn't that it makes a lot of interesting videos available—it is that it uses search and suggestion filters that lead viewers into hateful, extreme bubbles. The problem with Facebook isn't that they have made a place where all your friends can be found—it is that it tries to "maximise engagement" by poisoning your interactions with inflammatory or hoax material.

This actually reminds me of another similar piece, written last month by Josh Constine at TechCrunch, arguing that the FTC should force Facebook to mandate "friend portability" for Facebook:

I don’t expect the FTC to launch its own “Fedbook” social network. But what it can do is pave an escape route from Facebook so worthy alternatives become viable options. That’s why the FTC must require Facebook to offer truly interoperable data portability for the social graph.

In other words, the government should pass regulations forcing Facebook to let you export your friend list to other social networks in a privacy-safe way. This would allow you to connect with or follow those people elsewhere so you could leave Facebook without losing touch with your friends. The increased threat of people ditching Facebook for competitors would create a much stronger incentive to protect users and society.

Both Cory and Josh are making an important point: part of the reason why these platforms have become so big and so powerful is because there is real friction in leaving -- not because it's hard to just start using another platform, but because if all the other users are still on that other platform, it's meaningless if just you switch. Of course, history shows us that over time, many people will migrate over to new platforms. And you know this if you've been on the internet for the past two decades. Remember the 2000s when you used AIM to communicate with your friends while chatting with folks on MySpace? Over time, folks moved.

But making platforms more open -- forcing "interoperability" -- is certainly one way forward. I'd actually argue it does not go far enough. I've argued an even better solution is not just about forced interoperability, but moving to a world of protocols instead of platforms. In such a world, interoperability would be standard, but would also be just one piece of the puzzle for making the world more dynamic and competitive. If we relied on more open platforms, then third parties could build all sorts of new services, from better front ends, to better features and tools, and users could choose which implementation(s) they wanted to use, making switching from any particular service provider much easier -- especially if that provider did anything to hurt user trust. Interoperability would be one step in that direction, but only one step.

It's quite reasonable that people are concerned about big tech these days, but if we're going to have a reasonable solution that doesn't create wider negative consequences for the internet, we should be thinking much more carefully about the various proposals on the table. A simple "punish big tech because big tech is bad" may get people riled up, but the chances for negative consequences are too great to ignore.

Filed Under: antitrust, big tech, competition, copyright, gdpr, interoperability, punishment, regulations
Companies: facebook, google

Report Shows ICE Almost Never Punishes Contractors Housing Detainees No Matter How Many Violations They Rack Up

from the failing-to-meet-the-super-low-expectations-we-have-for-ICE dept

ICE continues to make its own case for abolishment. The agency busies itself with neglecting detainees when not acting as the extension of major corporations to shut down infringing panties/websites. ICE is too big and it's getting bigger at a rate it can't sustain. To achieve the ends the President has set down for it, it's wearing itself thin trying to find the dangerous immigrants Trump keeps talking about or the bound-and-gagged women he insists are being brought across the border by the truckload.

It seemingly doesn't have the manpower to even capture just dangerous foreigners. Instead of using its resources more carefully, it's doing things like setting up fake colleges to capture dangerous criminals immigrants seeking educational opportunities. And it's continuing to outsource its responsibilities while taking an apparent hands-off approach to third party detention.

ICE's Inspector General released a report last summer stating the agency was failing to inspect detention facilities often enough or well enough. It found contractors performing government work were doing the job poorly. Detainees weren't being interviewed properly or given translators to overcome speech barriers. In some cases, detention personnel were not giving detainees access to services like phone calls to the ICE officers handling their cases. In some facilities, dangerous detainees were intermingled with non-criminals. In almost every case, ICE issued a waiver for deficiencies it actually observed. As far as the OIG could tell, dozens of deficiencies went unnoticed thanks to ICE's inability (or unwillingness) to perform mandatory inspections.

There's more bad news coming from the OIG's office about ICE's use of contractors to handle detainees. The latest report [PDF] delves into ICE's apparent unwillingness to hold anyone accountable. ICE can't be trusted to police itself, so it obviously can't be trusted to police its contractors.

This is the Inspector General's ultra-dry summary of the problems it discovered:

ICE does not adequately hold detention facility contractors accountable for not meeting performance standards. ICE fails to consistently include its quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) in facility contracts. The QASP provides tools for ensuring facilities meet performance standards. Only 28 out of 106 contracts we reviewed contained the QASP.

That's only the beginning of it. From this missing paperwork, ICE moves even further away from anything resembling accountability. As was detailed in the last report, the IG points out ICE's "solution" to the few deficiencies it does decide to do anything about is the issuance of waivers, which magically make deficiencies acceptable protocol. ICE calls this a "multilayered" approach. The IG calls it nonexistent.

Between October 1, 2015, and June 30, 2018, ICE imposed financial penalties on only two occasions, despite documenting thousands of instances of the facilities’ failures to comply with detention standards. Instead of holding facilities accountable through financial penalties, ICE issued waivers to facilities with deficient conditions, seeking to exempt them from having to comply with certain detention standards. However, ICE has no formal policies and procedures about the waiver process and has allowed officials without clear authority to grant waivers. ICE also does not ensure key stakeholders have access to approved waivers.

To be more precise, ICE only imposed financial penalties twice, despite observing a jaw-dropping 14,003 deficiencies over the course of three years. ICE is blowing taxpayer money and expecting nothing in return. What's detailed in this report -- along with the IG release from last year -- is an agency repeatedly abusing the public's trust.

Our review of the corresponding payment data identified about $3.9 million in deductions, representing only 0.13 percent of the more than $3 billion in total payments to contractors during the same timeframe. ICE did not impose any withholdings during this timeframe.

When the agency whitewashes bad behavior by contractors, there's no paper trail. There's no follow up. And everyone involved seems to have no idea what's going on other than no one's going to be held responsible for their actions.

We analyzed the 68 waiver requests submitted between September 2016 and July 2018. Custody Management approved 96 percent of these requests, including waivers of safety and security standards.

Despite this high approval rate, ICE could not provide us with any guidance on the waiver process. Key officials admitted there are no policies, procedures, guidance documents, or instructions to explain how to review waiver requests. The only pertinent documents that ICE provided were examples of memoranda that Field Office Directors could use to request waivers of the detention standards’ provisions on strip searches. However, the memoranda did not acknowledge the important constitutional and policy interests implicated by a facility’s use of strip searches. ICE officials did not explain how Custody Management should handle such waiver requests when a contrary contractual provision requires compliance with a strip search standard.

ICE is handing out waivers for private companies to violate Constitutional protections afforded to detainees. These waivers are almost always indefinite. Each waiver is supposed to be followed up on to ensure the "deficiency" has been eliminated by the contractor. ICE has performed zero reviews or reassessments of these waivers.

The waivers have approved unconstitutional strip searches, as detailed above. They've also approved the commingling of violent criminals in general population, and the use of a chemical ten times more toxic than pepper spray to subdue detainees. As the report notes, detainees are being seriously harmed by the lax standards deployed by contractors, and ICE's response has been to shrug and issue waivers.

ICE is an active partner in the dehumanizing of immigrants, allowing private contractors to treat the human beings they're supposed to be taking care of like pieces of meat to be exchanged for cash. It's no better than ICE treats detainees itself, but a federal agency should be ensuring its very existence isn't a cancerous growth on the soul of this nation.

Filed Under: contractors, ice, punishment, violations

Saudi Government Looking To Jail More Citizens For 'Harming Public Order' With Their Religious Tweets

from the perpetual-crackdown-mode dept

The internet may be an amazing communication tool, but it's also a handy way for governments to keep an eye on their citizens. Saudi Arabia uses the internet for multiple things -- mainly monitoring dissent and controlling communication.

An expansive cybercrime law, coupled with longstanding statutes outlawing criticism of the official religion, have made it easy for the Saudi government to jail critics and cut off communications platforms. Bloggers have been imprisoned and encrypted services asked for technical details presumably in hopes of inserting the government into private conversations.

The prosecution of speech the government doesn't like continues, as Reuters reports:

A group of Twitter users will be indicted in Saudi Arabia on charges of harming public order for threatening the "safety and moderate ideology of society" through extremism, according to a statement on state news agency SPA.

The country's chief prosecutor summoned the Twitter users on Sunday, the statement said, without naming them or specifying how many were accused.

The substance of the offending tweets can only be speculated about. Presumably, they violated the kingdom's self-image and/or that of the prevailing religion. More statements were made by officials, but none of them offered clarity on the tweets' content. Instead, they were contradictory statements using the Saudi version of "We're big supporters of free speech, but.."

In a separate statement, Public Prosecutor Sheikh Saud bin Abdullah al-Muajab said he respected freedom of opinion but asserted his office's power to pursue cases against those who promote hatred or sectarianism, or mislead public opinion.

"Misleading public opinion" becomes a much vaguer complaint when the government defines what the public's opinion should be and enforces it with dissent-crushing laws. There's no church/state separation at play either, so religious leaders are pretty much political leaders, and "misleading public opinion" could be nothing more than a disagreement over interpretations of a religious text. In most countries, the worst that might happen is a ruined Thanksgiving dinner. Over there, it's jail time and a possible beating.

In an absurd twist, Saudi Arabia will host 2020's G20 summit -- an annual gathering of world leaders, most of which hail from a freer world. Because of this, some leaders will be hesitant to condemn the Saudi kingdom for its continued oppression of speech. If things don't change tremendously over the next few years, participating in the G20 summit will amount to tacit approval of the Saudi government's abuses and will legitimize ongoing censorship.

Filed Under: censorship, free speech, punishment, saudi arabia, social media
Companies: twitter

Congress 'Fixes' Child Porn 'Loophole' With 15-Year Prison Sentences For Teen Sexting

from the if-it's-already-broken,-why-not-make-it-worse? dept

Congress agrees (with who, I don't know): to save our nation's children from the scourge of sexting, we much incarcerate our nation's children. As Elizabeth Nolan Brown reports for Reason, the way to salvation sext-free kids runs through our nation's prison pipelines, where they'll be rehabilitated through the power of life-crippling criminal sentences and accelerated to adulthood via actual sexual assault at the hands of prisoners/guards.

Teens who text each other explicit images could be subject to 15 years in federal prison under a new bill that just passed the House of Representatives. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), ranking member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, has called the measure "deadly and counterproductive."

[...]

Introduced by Rep. Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) in March, the "Protecting Against Child Exploitation Act of 2017" passed the House by an overwhelming majority last week. Only two Republicans—Reps. Justin Amash of Michigan and Thomas Massie of Kentucky—voted against the bill, along with 53 Democrats.

Yes, you read that right. The bill would add mandatory minimums to child pornography production -- even if both participants are minors. Mandatory minimums would also apply to thoughtcrime. Rep. Bobby Scott -- one of the few opponents of the bill -- was the first to point out that this draconian child porn law would criminalize consensual behavior between teenagers. He also pointed out that the bill seeks to punish "solicitation," which takes this past actual production of forbidden images into the realm of the hypothetical.

What's more, "the law explicitly states that the mandatory minimums will apply equally to an attempt or a conspiracy," Scott noted:

That means if a teenager attempts to obtain a photo of sexually explicit conduct by requesting it from his teenage girlfriend, the judge must sentence that teenager to prison for at least 15 years for making such an attempt. If a teenager goads a friend to ask a teenager to take a sexually explicit image of herself, just by asking, he could be guilty of conspiracy or attempt, and the judge must sentence that teenager to at least 15 years in prison.

As Brown details in her thorough report on the bill, the proposed law is supposed to close a "loophole" that prevented some child porn prosecutions. At least that's what its supporters are saying. In reality, the loophole isn't a loophole, but rather a bad decision made by prosecutors.

19-year-old Anthony Palomino-Coronado was accused of molesting his 7-year-old neighbor repeatedly over the course of several months. In investigating the case, police discovered one photo of the abuse that had been taken and subsequently deleted from Palomino-Coronado's phone.

Combined with the victim's testimony, the photo should have guaranteed state police little trouble in trying to prosecute Palomino-Coronado for sexual abuse of a child. But federal prosecutors preempted such a prosecution by deciding to instead try Palomino-Coronado in federal court for producing child pornography.

It was a bad call—the case "could have been brought in state court and the defendant would have been subjected to extremely long, lengthy prison time," Rep. Scott noted during floor debate. But federal law against producing child pornography requires a minor to have been recruited "for the purpose of" producing photo or video. In this case, the court concluded, the long-term pattern of abuse, combined with the fact that only one explicit image was ever taken (and subsequently deleted), meant the perpetrator's purpose was not producing child porn but, rather, his own sexual gratification. If the feds had simply let the state handle the case as one of sexual abuse, Palomino-Coronado would probably be behind bars right now; instead, they overreached with the child porn charge, and now he's free.

To try to make amends for this prosecutorial blunder, the DOJ is pushing to have this terrible new law enacted. Not that there's any lack of supporters for the idea of tossing teens in jail. Sponsor Mike Johnson cited noted legal expert, the apostle Paul.

Johnson, a freshman congressman (and vocal Trump supporter), dismissed opponents' concern that the measure would be used in ways he didn't intend it to be used. "In Scripture, Romans 13 refers to the governing authorities as 'God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer,'" he said in response to their floor concerns. "I, for one, believe we have a moral obligation, as any just government should, to defend the defenseless."

My guess is Johnson's definition of "defenseless" doesn't cover sexting teens -- not if he's using Biblical authority to shore up his shaky legal assertions. Other supporters are equally as naive, claiming federal prosecutors won't use the law to prosecute sexting teens, blithely ignoring the fact that child porn laws have routinely been misused to do exactly that.

This is the road to hell legislators love to travel. And why not? It's routinely re-paved with good intentions and has lanes wide enough that even the most obtuse legislator can travel comfortably. When it comes to the nation's youth, nothing's too good for them. Our nation's lawmakers are ready to grant them them longer minimum sentences and more ways to avail themselves of one of our nation's oldest traditions: doing federal time on trumped-up charges. After all, you can't be for the children unless you're willing to damn the children. For their own good, of course.

Filed Under: criminal justice, doj, mandatory minimums, punishment, sexting

Top UK Cop Says Hackers Should Be Punished Not With Prison, But With Jammed WiFi Connections

from the yeah,-that'll-work dept

Here's a story that starts out well. One of the UK's top police officers, Chief Superintendent Gavin Thomas, has said that putting people in prison for offenses like hacking into computers makes no sense. He points out that it costs around $50,000 a year to keep someone in a traditional prison, and that education programs are likely to be a far more cost-effective solution, especially in terms of reducing recidivism. This is absolutely right, and it's great to hear a senior officer admit it. Unfortunately, things go downhill from here. He told the Telegraph:

If you have got a 16-year-old who has hacked into your account and stolen your identity, this is a 21st century crime, so we ought to have a 21st century methodology to address it.

His solution is as follows:

He said convicted criminals could be fitted with electronic jammers around their wrists or ankles which blocked wifi signals and prevented them from going online.

Leaving aside the human rights implications, which to his credit Thomas acknowledges, there is another big problem with the proposal, as Techdirt readers have doubtless already spotted. The people wearing these WiFi jammers would be those who have been found guilty of some computer-related crime. By definition, then, they are likely to be tech-savvy. So they probably have other computers that can use Ethernet connections to access the Internet. In addition, they are unlikely to have any problems using Bluetooth or a USB cable to reverse-tether their mobiles to a system with wired access. The more adventurous might even try to rig up some kind of Faraday shielding to jam the jammer. In other words, this isn't going to work, but would probably cause havoc with everyone else's WiFi connections.

Back in 2015, Thomas was quoted by Computer Business Review on the topic of encryption, and the problems it posed for the police, when he said:

It is utterly essential for detectives and criminal investigators to use data held on smartphones and other devices when they are investigating serious crimes.

Given his belief that jamming bracelets would stop convicted computer criminals from using the Internet, the worry has to be that he shares the mistaken view that tech companies can create a safe system of crypto backdoors or "golden keys" that only the authorities can use. Let's hope he takes some expert advice before offering an opinion on that one.

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

Filed Under: access, gavin thomas, hackers, jail, law enforcement, punishment, uk, wifi