Showing posts with label privacy rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label privacy rights. Show all posts

Sunday, September 8, 2024

Texas is going for full out Handmaid's Tale

The lawsuit, filed on Wednesday in Federal District Court in Lubbock, targets medical privacy regulations that were issued in 2000, and takes aim at a rule issued in April that specifically bans disclosing medical records for criminal or civil investigations into “the mere act of seeking, obtaining, providing or facilitating reproductive health care.”

Texas bans abortions in almost all circumstances. Women are not subject to criminal prosecution for obtaining abortions, but state law imposes penalties of as much as life in prison for those who aid in obtaining abortions.

The lawsuit claims that the privacy rules ignore federal law that lets states view medical records “for law enforcement purposes.”

  NYT
Time for Texans to get rid of Paxton and Abbott and return to the 21st century.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Saturday, February 25, 2023

Excellent podcast on SCOTUS internet cases

If you've been hearing about the current Supreme Court cases on privacy rights and content moderation (is You Tube/Twitter/Facebook responsible for individuals' content on their site?) and are not absolutely certain you know exactly what they're talking about and what's at stake on the internet, this interview is just what you need. I thought I knew pretty well, but I learned a lot here.



Saturday, July 9, 2022

Kavanaugh crying again?


If pregnant women have no right to privacy, then neither do Supreme Court justices.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Monday, December 13, 2021

Border agencies are out of control

A special Customs and Border Protection unit used sensitive government databases intended to track terrorists to investigate as many as 20 U.S.-based journalists, including a Pulitzer Prize-winning Associated Press reporter, according to a federal watchdog.

Yahoo News, which published an extensive report on the investigation, also found that the unit, the Counter Network Division, queried records of congressional staffers and perhaps members of Congress.

Jeffrey Rambo, an agent who acknowledged running checks on journalists in 2017, told federal investigators the practice is routine. “When a name comes across your desk you run it through every system you have access too, that’s just status quo, that’s what everyone does,” Rambo was quoted by Yahoo News as saying.

  AP
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Sunday, October 24, 2021

Missouri needs to throw the governor out with the garbage

Gov. Mike Parson escalated his war with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Wednesday when his political operation published a video doubling down on his attack against a reporter who informed the state that a state website revealed teacher Social Security numbers.

[...]

The ad comes less than a week after Parson’s widely criticized demand for an investigation and prosecution of the reporter who discovered the security flaw in a state website, along with “all those involved.” Parson read a statement calling the reporter “a hacker” to reporters gathered outside his Missouri Capitol office last Thursday, then left without taking questions.

[...]

In the incident that enraged Parson, a Post-Dispatch reporter found that Social Security numbers for teachers, administrators and counselors was visible in the HTML code of a publicly accessible site operated by the state education department. HTML code is the programming that tells the computer how to display a web page.

The newspaper informed the state of the problem and promised not to publish any story until the issue was fixed.

“We stand by our reporting and our reporter who did everything right,” Post-Dispatch Publisher Ian Caso said in a story in his newspaper. “It’s regrettable the governor has chosen to deflect blame onto the journalists who uncovered the website’s problem and brought it to DESE’s attention.”

  Missouri Independent

What's regrettable is that we have Parson as our governor.
Parson said the Missouri State Highway Patrol would investigate and that Cole County Prosecuting Attorney Locke Thompson had been notified.
The Highway Patrol?
The video continuing the attack on the Post-Dispatch was posted online as Democrats on the House Budget Committee continued to question Parson’s estimate that it will take $50 million to respond “to this one incident alone and divert workers and resources from other state agencies.”

The Public Schools and Education Employees Retirement System responded to a different potential data exposure on Sept. 11 by offering all 350,000 members credit monitoring, identity theft protection and the services of a call center through a contract with Experian, according to Dearld Snider, the agency’s executive director.

The cost of that response was just under $600,000.
After having done some substitute teaching for a few months a couple of years ago, I received a letter this time about a possible breach, but I don't recall that September letter.
And since there is likely a large amount of overlap between the people who have education credentials registered with the education department and those who are members of the retirement system, [State Rep. Peter] Merideth believes the ultimate cost will come nowhere near Parson’s $50 million figure.
And so what if it does? Is Parson suggesting that the cost of the state's failure excuses it?
“I wouldn’t be surprised if it was less than $100,000 for credit monitoring,” Merideth said.

The biggest cost, he said, will be studying the state’s computer systems and upgrading them to provide better service and security.

“It is not about what the reporter did,” Merideth said, “it is about the vulnerability and the outdated systems we have.”

[...]

The Missouri National Education Association said it is still trying to understand exactly what happened, both with the data that the Post-Dispatch found and the potential data loss at the retirement system, said spokesman Mark Jones.

“It is important we take data security as seriously as physical security,” Jones said.

The union has not joined Parson’s call for prosecution of the journalist.

“There is nothing that indicates to me,” Jones said, “that the reporter did anything but act ethically within the bounds of good journalism.”
Acting ethically is something Governor Parson knows nothing about.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Thursday, September 23, 2021

Thought police coming

A MICHIGAN STATE POLICE CONTRACT, obtained by The Intercept, sheds new light on the growing use of little-known surveillance software that helps law enforcement agencies and corporations watch people’s social media and other website activity.

The software, put out by a Wyoming company called ShadowDragon, allows police to suck in data from social media and other internet sources, including Amazon, dating apps, and the dark web, so they can identify persons of interest and map out their networks during investigations. By providing powerful searches of more than 120 different online platforms and a decade’s worth of archives, the company claims to speed up profiling work from months to minutes. ShadowDragon even claims its software can automatically adjust its monitoring and help predict violence and unrest. Michigan police acquired the software through a contract with another obscure online policing company named Kaseware for an “MSP Enterprise Criminal Intelligence System.”

  The Intercept
Department of pre-crime.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Friday, August 6, 2021

On that slippery slope

Apple will roll out an update later this year that will include technology in iPhones and iPads that allows the tech giant to detect images of child sexual abuse stored in iCloud, the company announced Thursday.

The feature is part of a series of updates Apple unveiled aimed at increasing child safety, but security researchers and advocates are warning the scanning update — along with one that aims to give parents protective tools in children’s messages — could pose data and security risks beyond the intended purpose.

With the new scanning feature, Apple will be able to report detected child sexual abuse material to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) which acts as a comprehensive reporting center and works in collaboration with law enforcement agencies across the country. The company will also disable users accounts if the abusive content is found, Apple said in the update.

Apple said its method to detect the abusive material is “designed with user privacy in mind.” Instead of scanning images in the cloud, the system performs “on-device matching” using a database of known child sexual abuse material image hashes provided by child safety organizations.

  The Hill
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Thursday, May 20, 2021

Now, more than ever, if you're enlisted, Uncle Sam owns you

AS PART OF the Biden administration’s crackdown on domestic extremism, the Pentagon plans to launch a pilot program for screening social media content for extremist material.

[...]

Although in the past the military has balked at surveilling service members for extremist political views due to First Amendment protections, the pilot program will rely on a private surveillance firm in order to circumvent First Amendment restrictions on government monitoring, according to a senior Pentagon official.

  Intercept
That sounds like a loophole that needs to be closed.
Though the firm has not yet been selected, the current front runner is Babel Street, a company that sells powerful surveillance tools including social media monitoring software.

Babel Street has drawn criticism for its practice of buying bulk cellular location data and selling it to federal national security agencies like the Secret Service, who rely on the private company to bypass warrant requirements normally imposed on government bodies seeking to collect data.

[...]

In an email received after this article was originally published, a spokesperson for the House Armed Services Committee provided the following statement:
The Committee understands that the Department of Defense is exploring a means of implementing social media screening in conjunction with background investigations. We anticipate that any social media screening would be intended only as an additional means of vetting cleared individuals or those seeking to obtain a security clearance, not as a tool for ongoing surveillance of all men and women in uniform. That said, Secretary Austin has been clear about his intentions to understand to what extent extremism exists in the force and its effect on good order and discipline. We look forward to hearing the results of the stand down and the Department’s plan to move forward.
[...]

The pilot program will use keywords to identify potential extremists, though coming up with a list of terms without running afoul of speech protections has proven to be challenging, the senior Pentagon official said. To this end, the military plans to consult with experts from across the political spectrum to help develop the pilot program. As The Intercept previously reported, the military’s Countering Extremism Working Group drafted a list of potential consultants that included anti-Muslim and Christian conservative groups.

“Using key words to monitor social media isn’t just an unnecessary privacy invasion, it is a flawed strategy that will ensure it is short-lived,” said Mike German, a retired FBI agent who did undercover work in neo-Nazi groups and is now a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program. “It will undoubtedly produce a flood of false positives that will waste security resources and undermine morale, without identifying the real problem, which is the tolerance for those that openly engage in racist behavior and discrimination.”

[...]

“Trying to suss out ‘extremists’ with an algorithm isn’t likely to identify problem employees within the department nearly as effectively as simply making clear that racist misbehavior and discrimination won’t be tolerated, requiring the troops and officers to report this misconduct when they see it, and then protecting them from reprisal when they do,” German said. “But, today, because the Defense Department doesn’t adequately protect whistleblowers, reporting such misconduct is often more risky to a person’s military career than actually engaging in racist misbehavior.”
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Tuesday, May 18, 2021

Brave New World


Ring is effectively building the largest corporate-owned, civilian-installed surveillance network that the US has ever seen.

[...]

In a 2020 letter to management, Max Eliaser, an Amazon software engineer, said Ring is “simply not compatible with a free society”. We should take his claim seriously.

Ring video doorbells, Amazon’s signature home security product, pose a serious threat to a free and democratic society. Not only is Ring’s surveillance network spreading rapidly, it is extending the reach of law enforcement into private property and expanding the surveillance of everyday life. What’s more, once Ring users agree to release video content to law enforcement, there is no way to revoke access and few limitations on how that content can be used, stored, and with whom it can be shared. Amazon is cagey about how many Ring cameras are active at any one point in time, but estimates drawn from Amazon’s sales data place yearly sales in the hundreds of millions. The always-on video surveillance network extends even further when you consider the millions of users on Ring’s affiliated crime reporting app, Neighbors, which allows people to upload content from Ring and non-Ring devices.

[...]

[S]ince Amazon bought Ring in 2018, it has brokered more than 1,800 partnerships with local law enforcement agencies, who can request recorded video content from Ring users without a warrant. That is, in as little as three years, Ring connected around one in 10 police departments across the US with the ability to access recorded content from millions of privately owned home security cameras.

[...]

Ring’s cloud-based infrastructure (supported by Amazon Web Services) makes it convenient for law enforcement agencies to place mass requests for access to recordings without a warrant. Because Ring cameras are owned by civilians, law enforcement are given a backdoor entry into private video recordings of people in residential and public space that would otherwise be protected under the fourth amendment. By partnering with Amazon, law enforcement circumvents these constitutional and statutory protections, as noted by the attorney Yesenia Flores.

[...]

Although Ring doesn’t currently use facial recognition in its cameras, Amazon has sold this technology to police in the past. Following pressure from AI researchers and civil rights groups, Amazon placed a one-year pause on police use of its controversial facial recognition technology, but this moratorium will expire in June.

  Guardian
Jeff Bezos is Big Brother.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Sunday, September 6, 2020

This is not comforting



The app, developed by Apple and Google, launched this week and has been adopted by six states while others are still exploring the platform.

The program uses Bluetooth to keep a 14-day log of other phones within a certain radius with their Exposure Notifications turned on and whether their users have reported positive COVID-19 diagnoses.

[...]

If you have an iPhone, you need to make sure you have the latest software — iOS 13.7 or later — in order to access the application. You can find it under Settings, where you can turn on Exposure Notifications. If you have an Android, you'll have to wait a little longer — Google is working on an app to be released later this month for Android 6.0+ phones.

  The Hill
I'll pass, thank you.
. Right now, Maryland, Nevada, Virginia and Washington, D.C., have opted in, while Alabama, Arizona, North Dakota, Wyoming, Nevada and Virginia have launched their own versions using this technology. And even then, it's up to users to enable it and to let the app know if they've tested positive for COVID-19. You can't just put in a positive diagnosis if you haven't been tested either — you need a verification code from a public health authority.
Nobody's going to do it. Are they?
As of April, Americans were split down the middle on whether or not they would use such an app, according to a poll by the Washington Post and the University of Maryland. Only 43 percent of smartphone users polled expressed "a great deal" or "a good amount" of trust in Google and Apple.
Not to mention the fucking government, which will no doubt have access.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Saturday, April 4, 2020

The fallout just keeps rolling on

Thousands of recordings of private meetings and calls held over video conferencing service Zoom have been exposed online, The Washington Post reported Friday.

The meetings were recorded through Zoom’s software and saved to different applications without passwords, enabling anyone to download and watch them.

The Washington Post found videos of therapy sessions, elementary school classes, small business meetings and recordings involving nudity.

Zoom told the newspaper that it “provides a safe and secure way for hosts to store recordings” and provides guides for how users can enhance their call security.

[...]

A new phenomenon of “Zoom bombings,” in which hackers or others disrupt meetings to yell obscene comments, was so widespread that the FBI issued a warning and tips on how to boost cybersecurity protocols.

  The Hill
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Thursday, January 23, 2020

Big Brother is already here

We all know about the exten of domestic surveillance via metadata collection since Edward Snowden elightened us.  Now comes a complementary story.
Clearview AI, a facial recognition company that says it’s amassed a database of billions of photos, has a fantastic selling point it offers up to police departments nationwide: It cracked a case of alleged terrorism in a New York City subway station last August in a matter of seconds.

[...]

It’s a compelling pitch that has helped rocket Clearview to partnerships with police departments across the country. But there’s just one problem: The New York Police Department said that Clearview played no role in the case.

As revealed to the world in a startling story in the New York Times this weekend, Clearview AI has crossed a boundary that no other tech company seemed willing to breach: building a database of what it claims to be more than 3 billion photos that can be used to identify a person in almost any situation. It’s raised fears that a much-hyped moment, when universal facial recognition could be deployed at a mass scale, is finally at hand.

[...]

“In under a second it can find a match in our database of millions of photos,” read a now-deleted blurb about the company for a retail tech event. “It can be integrated in security cameras, iPhone/iPad apps, and with an API. Unlike other facial recognition companies, Clearview AI provides a curated database of millions (and soon billion) of faces from the open-web.”

[...]

But the company, founded by CEO Hoan Ton-That, has drawn a veil over itself and its operations, misrepresenting its work to police departments across the nation, hiding several key facts about its origins, and downplaying its founders' previous connections to white nationalists and the far right.

  Buzzfeed
Any number of police departments also have connections to white nationalists and the far right.
“The NYPD did not use Clearview technology to identify the suspect in the August 16th rice cooker incident,” a department spokesperson told BuzzFeed News. “The NYPD identified the suspect using the Department’s facial recognition practice where a still image from a surveillance video was compared to a pool of lawfully possessed arrest photos.”
Of course, the NYPD could be lying.
While Clearview has claimed associations with the country’s largest police department in at least two other cases, the spokesperson said “there is no institutional relationship” with the company. In response, Ton-That said the NYPD has been using Clearview on a demo basis for a number of months. He declined to provide any further details.

[...]

Clearview is attempting to convince law enforcement that its facial recognition tool, which has been trained on photos scraped from Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and other websites, is more accurate than any other on the market. However, emails, presentations, and flyers obtained by BuzzFeed News reveal that its claims to law enforcement agencies are impossible to verify — or flat-out wrong.

[...]

In the Times report and in documents obtained by BuzzFeed News, Clearview AI said that its facial recognition software had been used by more than 600 police departments and government groups, including the FBI. But in at least two cases, BuzzFeed News found that the company suggested it was working with a police department simply because it had submitted a lead to a tip line.
Neither of those facts make Clearview any less disturbing.
Originally known as Smartcheckr, Clearview was the result of an unlikely partnership between Ton-That, a small-time hacker turned serial app developer, and Richard Schwartz, a former adviser to then–New York mayor Rudy Giuliani.
What do you want to bet that Rudy - and all of Trump's inner circle - has stock in Clearview?
Clare Garvie, a senior associate at Georgetown Law's Center on Privacy and Technology, told BuzzFeed News it was unclear whether Clearview could do what it says it could.

“We have no idea how good it is,” Garvie said. “The idea that all information, all people's faces online are currently tagged with their own identity — it's a bit laughable.”

Garvie told BuzzFeed News that there’s also no single way to measure the so-called accuracy of facial recognition technology. Accuracy, in facial recognition, is generally measured as a combination of the correct-match rate, reject rate, non-match rate, false-match rate, and the ability to detect the face in the first instance.

“Whenever a company just lists one accuracy metric, that is necessarily an incomplete view of the accuracy of their system,” Garvie said. “Depending on what the system is designed to do, that may have little or no bearing on the actual accuracy of the system and operation.”
I'm not sure law enforcement on either the federal or local level in this country cares all that much about accuracy. Ask anyone with a Middle Eastern surname. Or black man in America, for that matter.
Ironically for a company that seeks to erode privacy, many key figures at Clearview have attempted to lower their public profiles. Some began to do so long before the attention from the press.

Since Ton-That and Schwartz started Clearview, their social media and internet presences have been scrubbed. Ton-That deleted his Twitter and Instagram accounts, while Schwartz's LinkedIn profile vanished and his past with Smartcheckr has been obscured across the web.

When asked about this, Ton-That said in an email, "Regarding myself and others at the company, some choose not to maintain social media accounts because they are time consuming."
Time consuming. Whatever.

But this isn't irony. This is understanding the risks.

Monday, June 24, 2019

Authoritarian tales in the land of the free - part whatever

I SHOULD HAVE kept my mouth shut about the guacamole; that made things worse for me. Otherwise, what I’m about to describe could happen to any American who travels internationally.

[...]

My work as a journalist has taken me to many foreign countries, including frequent trips to Mexico. On May 13, I was returning to the U.S. from Mexico City when, passing through immigration at the Austin airport, I was pulled out of line for “secondary screening,” a quasi-custodial law enforcement process that takes place in the Homeland Security zone of the airport.

[...]

This time, when my turn came to show my passport, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer was more aggressive than usual in his questioning. I told him I’d been in Mexico for seven days for work, that I was a journalist, and that I travel to Mexico often, as he could see from my passport. That wasn’t enough for him, though. He wanted to know the substance of the story I was currently working on, which didn’t sit right with me. I tried to skirt the question, but he came back to it, pointedly.

[...]

I muttered something about not having a legal obligation, under the circumstances, to disclose the contents of my reporting.

The agent, whose name was Moncivias, said we would see about that. He asked me to follow him into the secondary screening area.

[...]

In retrospect, I was naive about the kind of agency CBP has become in the Trump era. Though I’ve reported several magazine stories in Mexico, none have been about immigration. [...] Later, I did remember reading a report in February about CBP targeting journalists, activists, and lawyers for scrutiny at ports of entry south of California, but I had never had a problem before, not in a lifetime of crossing the Texas-Mexico border scores of times on foot, by car, by plane, in a canoe, even swimming. This was the first time CBP had ever pulled me aside.

[...]

A bespectacled supervisor named Lopez made an appearance. In a polite back-and-forth, I learned that I was not under arrest or suspected of any crime, and my citizenship was not in doubt, but if I didn’t answer the question asked by the “incident officer,” I wouldn’t be allowed into the United States.

[...]

“Fine,” I said. “For the last six months, I’ve been doing an investigative journalism project to determine which restaurant has the best guacamole in all of Mexico.”

Moncivias didn’t miss a beat. “And what restaurant is that?”

“El Parnita, on Avenida Yucatán in Mexico City,” I told him, truthfully.

[...]

The flippancy would cost me. From then on out, the officers made it clear that I was in for a long delay. When I saw how mad they were, I lost interest in the principle of the thing.

[...]

Cooperation didn’t earn me any leniency. Next up was a thorough search of my suitcase, down to unscrewing the tops of my toiletries. That much I expected. But then a third officer, whose name was Villarreal, carefully read every page of my 2019 journal, including copious notes to self on work, relationships, friends, family, and all sorts of private reflections I had happened to write down.

[...]

That was just the beginning. The real abuse of power was a warrantless search of my phone and laptop. This is the part that affects everyone, not just reporters and people who keep journals.

[...]

In the absence of a controlling legal authority, CBP goes by its own rules, namely CBP Directive No. 3340-049A, pursuant to which CBP can search any person’s device, at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all. If you refuse to give up your password, CBP’s policy is to seize the device. The agency may use “external equipment” to crack the passcode, “not merely to gain access to the device, but to review, copy, and/or analyze its contents,” according to the directive. CBP can look for any kind of evidence, any kind of information, and can share what it finds with any other federal agency, so long as doing so is “consistent with applicable law and policy.”

[...]

I told the officers I had nothing to hide, but I felt I had a professional obligation to call an attorney for further advice. Pomeroy said I could not because I wasn’t under arrest; I just wasn’t allowed to enter the United States. I wasn’t allowed to leave the Homeland Security zone, either. I know because I tried to sort of wander out a couple of times and got yelled at. When I actually tried to call a lawyer friend of mine in Austin, Pomeroy stopped me. They held onto my phone from then out.

[...]

Sophia Cope, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has sued CBP over its warrantless device searches, told me that the agency “has for sure said no” as to whether there is a right to counsel during secondary screening.

[...]

CBP has been doing warrantless device searches since the advent of the modern smartphone, Cope said, but the practice has increased by some 300 percent since Trump took office. In late 2017, EFF teamed up with the American Civil Liberties Union and filed a case alleging the unconstitutionality of the administration’s blitz of warrantless searches. Anecdotally, CBP appears to be targeting typical Trumpian scapegoats, including Muslims, Latinos, and journalists, but anyone reentering the United States can be subject to these searches. The 11 plaintiffs in the EFF and ACLU case are a computer programmer, a filmmaker, a graduate student, a nursing student, a limousine driver, a businessman, an engineer, a professor, an artist, and two journalists. All are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents who had experiences similar to mine.

[...]

“Regardless of whether you have embarrassing information on your device,” Cope said, “it’s about personal autonomy and living in a free society and not a police state.”

[...]

After I gave him the password to my iPhone, Moncivias spent three hours reviewing hundreds of photos and videos and emails and calls and texts, including encrypted messages on WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram. [...] He read my communications with friends, family, and loved ones. He went through my correspondence with colleagues, editors, and sources. He asked about the identities of people who have worked with me in war zones. He also went through my personal photos, which I resented.


[...]

Pomeroy, meanwhile, searched my laptop. He browsed my emails and my internet history. He looked through financial spreadsheets and property records and business correspondence. He was able to see all the same photos and videos as Moncivias and then some, including photos I thought I had deleted.

[...]

I was being physically submissive, keeping my hands visible at all times, not making any sudden moves, but Pomeroy would not let me see the laptop screen. I told him I at least had the right to know what files he was reviewing. “All of them,” he said, giving me a hard stare. “I’m going to look at all of them.”

“Please don’t look at the one called ‘Secret ISIS Confession,’” I said.

There was a South Asian couple detained along with me, a husband and wife with their luggage. Neither of them would have been able to get away with a crack like that. In my case, Pomeroy just determined to proceed even more painfully slowly.

[...]

MONCIVIAS, POMEROY, AND VILLARREAL questioned me for hours on all aspects of my work. They asked about conversations with editors and colleagues. They asked about my political opinions. Moncivias wanted to know how I felt about Trump trying to pull troops from Syria. He asked if I’d had contact with the Taliban there, and I had to explain that the Taliban don’t operate in Syria. It was clear that they weren’t after anything in particular; their questions were completely scattershot. This wasn’t a continuous interrogation, either. They were wandering in and out of the room, leaving me alone for long periods of time. Interestingly, they didn’t ask me anything about CBP itself.

[...]

I did see them copy my laptop’s serial number and write down three or four numbers and alphanumeric sequences found deep in my phone’s settings. The only specifier I halfway understood was the phone’s IMEI number, which can be used to track its physical location. Even if I get rid of the phone, I could be on some accursed watchlist, or somehow electronically tagged, for the rest of my life. [...] They frequently took my devices out of the room for long periods of time. When I asked if they had backed up the devices or copied files, they denied it, which I found hard to believe.


[...]

Around the three-hour mark, I became completely passive. Confinement in a blank room is a soft form of torture, especially if you suffer from a crippling caffeine addiction, as I do. They were “fresh out” when I demeaned myself by meekly requesting coffee. For a long time, I sat slumped in the chair with a mounting headache while Moncivias finished typing up his report on me. He would pause, carefully consult something on my phone, and then go back to typing. This went on for another hour.

It was around 4 p.m. when Moncivias finally finished up and informed me, anticlimactically, that I was free to go. I couldn’t wait to get outside because the detention area was freezing. No wonder Spanish-speaking migrants call CBP detention la hielera — the icebox. [...] As I was walking out, I said to Moncivias and Villarreal, “It’s funny, of all the countries I’ve been to, the border guards have never treated me worse than here, in the one country I’m a citizen of, in the town where I was born.”

“Welcome back to the USA,” Moncivias said.

  Seth Harp @ The Intercept
No shit. 

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

Because Claire McCaskill wasn't bad enough

Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) is introducing legislation to clamp down on free expression online, under the pretense of fighting tech-company "bias" against Republicans.

  Reason
To hear GOPers tell it, everybody in the universe has a bias against Republicans. And now that I think of it, they should. Republicans have earned it.
Hawley's solution is to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a measure that prevents individual users of internet platforms and the companies that run them from being treated as legally indistinguishable from one another. Without it, digital companies and the users of their products (i.e., all of us) could be sued in civil court or subject to state criminal prosecution over content and messages created and published by others.

[...]

As attorney general of Missouri, Hawley joined in the tradition of Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris when she was attorney general of California, and the top cops from many other states, in begging Congress to amend Section 230. The first time around, back in 2013, the excuse attorneys general used was "child sex trafficking," falsely insisting that Section 230 stopped knowing perpetrators of this horrific crime from being brought to justice.* (In fact, nothing in Section 230 has ever prevented the Department of Justice from enforcing federal criminal laws, including laws against forced or underage prostitution.)

When that proved a successful ruse—resulting in the 2018 passage of FOSTA, which both amended Section 230 and made facilitating prostitution a federal crime—politicians were emboldened in their power grab for online speech. Now, national and state leaders are insisting that Section 230 must be destroyed in order to fight "foreign influence" in our elections.

[...]

[T]his has led to the truly Orwellian tack of trying to convince conservative internet users that taking away protection for online speech will somehow allow them to speak more freely. That's the nonsensical proposition at the heart of Hawley's new legislation, misleadingly called the "Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act."
They learned a long time ago to give their shitty legislation misleading names. Witness: The Right to Work Act.
The measure would give the government control over online speech by denying Section 230 protections to platforms that don't hand over an array of private intellectual property and satisfactorily prove to a bunch of partisan political appointees that they are operating in a "politically neutral" manner.

[...]

Under Hawley's bill, companies would be required to reapply with the Federal Trade Commission every two years for this political favor—a situation that would mean companies having "to constantly curry favor with the administration," as Mapbox policy head Tom Lee noted on Twitter. Hawley's proposal would also require tech companies to discipline or fire any employee who made a content moderation decision that bureaucrats deem to be in violation of online-speech neutrality principles.















...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Friday, February 8, 2019