Mediaboss Marketing

People get so upset when they hear Dallas-Fort Worth is using facial recognition technology for flights, yet at the same time, they are Snapchatting their face with reindeer antlers, Tuma said. Its the same technology and were doing it all day on Snapchat, but we freak out when the government does it.

The Fourth Amendment protects Americans right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Part of the publics consternation over law enforcement probing peoples digital lives and the relative ease with which they are allowed to do so is the lack of knowledge surrounding court rulings and the Fourth Amendment, according to one criminal justice expert.

The evolution of law enforcements authority in this area may surprise people, said Christopher Hill, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Oklahoma whose research areas include criminology, criminal justice and juvenile justice.

Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have been dealing with the application of the Fourth Amendment since at least 1914 in a case called Weeks v. U.S., Hill said. From brief stop and frisk encounters, to searches and seizures at public schools, there has been a lot of court activity surrounding police power and the Fourth Amendment.

Hill pointed to three other notable cases that illuminate that activity.

In a 1998 appeal case for an insider securities trading conviction United States v. Smith the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided evidentiary issues involving the illegal interception of voicemail.

The court said in its ruling that the intersection of two laws the 1968 Wiretap Act and the 1986 Stored Communications Act is a complex, often convoluted area of the law. This case turns, at least in part, on issues at the very heart of that intersection.

(Story continued below...)

More here:
If it's in writing, don't think it's a secret - Oklahoman.com

A formerly homeless man is taking the San Francisco Police Department to court over a 2018 incident in which the man was celebrating his new employment at a festive dinner when a police officer allegedly attacked him for no apparent reason, sending him to the hospital with a broken leg and ankle.

Clifford Bonnet, 46, additionally ended up jailed on charges that were later dropped.

Bonnet filed his lawsuit last week in the U.S. District Court of Northern California against the City and County of San Francisco, the SFPD, and SFPD Officer Jordan King for the incident that took place last year at the Westfield Mall.

The lawsuit alleges that, on Oct. 20, 2018, Bonnet went out to dinner at Bazille, a restaurant in Nordstroms at the mall. Bonnet was allegedly celebrating a new job and his journey out of homelessness. He ordered a steak though when he asked for a steak knife, the restaurants management first denied him a knife and then delivered him a large chefs knife that wasnt suitable for eating.

The restaurants management then told Bonnet to leave, the lawsuit charges. Mall security was called, and soon after, SFPD Officer King arrived. King allegedly told Bonnet to stand up, and Bonnet allegedly complied.

Without warning, Defendant Officer King rushed Mr. Bonnet and knocked him to the ground, the lawsuit, filed by attorneys in the Law Offices of John L. Burris, claims. Defendant Officer King proceeded to physically attack Mr. Bonnet, who was unarmed.

King allegedly twisted and contorted the 135-pound Bonnet, breaking his left tibia and ankle. Bonnet allegedly passed out, but was nevertheless forced to stand up by King, who handcuffed Bonnet. Paramedics transported Bonnet to San Francisco General Hospital, where he purportedly waited six hours to be treated. The suit states that doctors there said Bonnet required emergency surgery for his injuries yet was released back into SFPD custody. He did not receive the surgery and, instead, spent three days in county jail.

Bonnet was booked for resisting arrest and battery on a peace officer, said District Attorney spokesman Alex Bastian but the DA did not pursue the charges.

After his release from jail Bonnet received the surgery needed on his leg, according to the lawsuit.

Well review the lawsuit thoroughly when weve been served with it, and respond accordingly in court, said City Attorney spokeswoman Meiling Bedard.

Bonnet alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment rights, as well as negligence, excessive force, and battery on the part of Officer King is suing for general monetary damages, punitive damages against King, wage loss, and other damages.

This incident is only the latest to a collection and trend of excessive force incidents committed by SFPD officers who are not facing any punishment as a result of their dangerous and unjustifiable actions, the lawsuit states.

The complaint noted the case of Brandon Simpson, whom the city awarded $50,000 in a settlement, for an incident where four officers beat him on the street in the Tenderloin in December 2015. It also mentions the case of Sean Moore, a mentally disabled man whom police officers shot on his front porch in January 2017, severely injuring him. That trial is set for April.

Follow this link:
SFPD officer sued for alleged excessive force incident at the Westfield Mall - Mission Local

Last week, the Democratic leadership put an extension of the Patriot Act into a continuing resolution that averted a government shutdown. More than 95 percent of the Democrats in the House went along with it by voting for the resolution. Both co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Reps. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and Mark Pocan, D-Wis., voted yes. So did all 11 of the CPCs vice chairs.

It didnt have to be that way. House progressives could have thrown a monkey wrench into the Orwellian machinery. Instead, the cave-in was another bow to normalizing the U.S. governments mass surveillance powers.

Theres no other way to spin this, a progressive staffer on Capitol HilltoldThe New Republic. This was a major capitulation. The Progressive Caucus has touted itself as an organization that can wield power and leverage the votes of its 90 members. And they didnt lift a finger. Democratic leadership rammed this down their throats.

A gag reflex was needed from progressive lawmakers, who should have put up a fight rather than swallow rationales for going along with Speaker Nancy Pelosis maneuver. With the Fourth Amendment on life support, basic civil liberties wereat stake.

There were opportunities to push back if CPC leaders had moved to throw down a gauntlet.

"You could go through and name any strategy for me, and I would tell you why it would fail, Jayapal said. But if you don't put up a fight, you're sure to fail. And showing some strength on a matter of principle can build momentum while marshaling grassroots support in the process.

With a show of resolve, just a few dozen Democrats could have blocked the resolution. Instead, it passed the House on Nov. 19 by a231-192 margin, thus extending the Patriot Act for three months instead of letting it expire.

No votes came from all four members of "the Squad" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib.

The list of yes votes from House members with progressive reputations was stunningly long. Here are just a dozen: Karen Bass, Ral Grijalva, Ro Khanna, Barbara Lee, Zoe Lofgren, Jim McGovern, Jerrold Nadler, Chellie Pingree, Jamie Raskin, Jan Schakowsky, Maxine Waters and Peter Welch.

One factor: Even the best progressives in the House spend a lot more time with congressional colleagues and leaders than they do with constituents. Call it an occupational hazard. Peer pressure and conformity tend to be cumulative. The power of the Democratic leadership is quite tangible and often stern, whereas the power of constituents is routinely diffuse and unrealized.

To the extent that progressives at the grassroots dont effectively pressure members of Congress, party authorities like Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer maintain a tremendous advantage. To the extent that avoiding conflict with the Democratic leadership is more important than standing up for principles, even the best progressive incumbents succumb to the Capitol bubble. Given the strength of that bubble, it can only be burst with methodical intervention from the grassroots.

Pocan was on target when hecommenteda year ago: People in D.C. think were the center of the universe, but were not the people who elect us are the center of the universe. Its when you have that kind of activism in the districts, youre really going to be impactful.

In the case of the Patriot Act-laden continuing resolution, which President Trump signed into law shortly after passage, the contrasts between avowed commitments and conformist acquiescence were striking among many progressive luminaries in the House. A few examples:

Its telling that Khanna, Lee, Lofgren and Jayapal and so many other self-identified progressives in the House chose to take the path of least resistance last week when faced with a choice of whether to buck their partys leadership or facilitate the extension of the Patriot Act that they have long opposed. Heightening the sad irony is the fact that the newly reauthorized provisions have enabled far more aggressive surveillance than was envisioned when the Patriot Act first passed at which time Lee, McGovern, Nadler, Schakowsky, Waters and others who just voted for the reauthorization felt compelled to oppose it.

Last week, they followed leadership that was determined to merge the odious act with the continuing resolution.An amendment, offered by independent Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, would have separated the Patriot Act extension from the resolution -- but the House Rules Committee (chaired by McGovern), in step with Pelosis marching orders, killed that amendment.

If even 20 more House progressives had signaled a willingness to vote against the continuing resolution unless it was separated from Patriot Act reauthorization, they would have been in a strong position to demand standalone votes on each measure. That would have underscored serious opposition to the Acts surveillance programs enhancing progressive leverage in the House andincreasing the chances of reform when the issue of further Patriot Act extension comes back to Congress in a few months.

Instead, leading progressive lawmakers chose to sidestep a historic opportunity to do the right thing by registering clear opposition to the Patriot Act. Such retreats end up eroding rather than building the power of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Rolling back key aspects of the military-industrial-surveillance complex cannot be accomplished without putting up a huge fight. Postponing confrontations with party leaders might seem prudent, but such caution has negative consequences. Sooner or later, grassroots activists become exasperated when Democrats in Congress dont match progressive statements with actions. Just being a member of the Progressive Caucus is not enough.

Read more here:
Progressives in Congress just capitulated on the Patriot Act it's time to push back - Salon

A photograph shows two young women sitting on the steps of an ornate building, columns and marble steps peek out behind them. One is braiding the hair of the other. Go off sis! the picture says.

Each element of the photo holds meaning: the hair-braiding is a nod to black women and how they build relationships with each other. Having the girls sit on the stairs of the Cleveland Museum of Art, one of the biggest art institutions in the country, as if it is their stoop at home plays with the idea of who is welcomed at such prestigious art institutions.

In a second photograph, a young black man shrouded in blue and red light looks into a mirror. The words The fourth amendment run across the photograph, reminding people of their constitutional rights against searches of their homes without a warrant. A third image shows two girls in a park where redlining historically segregated communities.

The images are being displayed to thousands of people around Cleveland this month on several billboards in the city created by For Freedoms, a national art-as-activism platform supporting artists that sparks civic engagement, in partnership with Guardian US and Guardian Cities.

The public art has been created as part of a new Guardian series, City Champions, which launched on Monday this week, and which seeks to highlight 25 inspirational people and organizations in the city who are all tackling various social justice issues at a grassroots level, seeking to make Cleveland a better place to live.

We always want the billboards to be a question mark, to ask questions, to encourage people to think critically about what kind of information is being put out to the public, said Eric Gottesman, co-founder of For Freedoms.

For Freedoms is no stranger to this kind of messaging in US cities.

In 2018, ahead of the 2018 midterms, the organization launched its 50 State Initiative, a campaign to bring 52 unique billboards to 50 states, Washington DC and Puerto Rico to encourage non-partisan civic engagement and discourse about equality through art.

All the photographs in the project were taken by Cleveland-based artist Amanda D King in collaboration with other local artists based in Cleveland, including Noelle Richard and Matt Chasney. King is one of the Guardians City Champion honorees for her not-for-profit, Shooting Without Bullets, a production company that promotes young black and brown artists, like Bonner and Jordan.

While King says that she hopes Clevelanders will look at the billboard and feel proud of their city and the champions fighting for its issues, she hopes that it will encourage people to see the possibility Cleveland has to be a model city for others in the US.

If we can address issues in Cleveland, then we can find a pathway for equity, specifically racial equity, across the country, King said. If we pay more attention to Cleveland Clevelands government, Clevelands population we might be able to become a better country.

Follow Guardian Cities on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to join the discussion using #citychampions, catch up on our best stories or sign up for our weekly newsletter

Here is the original post:
The billboards trying to make you think not buy a product - The Guardian

from the prime-video dept

Even more alarming news has surfaced about Amazon's Ring doorbell/camera and the company's ultra-cozy relationship with police departments.

Since its introduction, Ring has been steadily increasing its market share -- both with homeowners and their public servants. At the beginning of August, this partnership included 200 law enforcement agencies. Three months later, that number has increased to 630.

What do police departments get in exchange for agreeing to be Ring lapdogs? Well, they get a portal that allows them to seek footage from Ring owners, hopefully without a warrant. They also get a built-in PR network that promotes law enforcement wins aided by Ring footage, provided the agencies are willing to let Ring write their press releases for them.

They also get instructions on how to bypass warrant requirements to obtain camera footage from private citizens. Some of this is just a nudge -- an unstated quid pro quo attached to the free cameras cops hand out to homeowners. Some of this is actual instructions on how to word requests so recipients are less likely to wonder about their Fourth Amendment rights. And some of this is Ring itself, which stores footage uploaded by users for law enforcement perusal.

If it seems like a warrant might slow things down -- or law enforcement lacks probable cause to demand footage -- Ring is more than happy to help out. Footage remains a subpoena away at Ring HQ. And, more disturbingly, anything turned over to police departments comes with no strings attached.

Statements given to Sen. Edward Markey by Amazon indicate footage turned over to cops is a gift that keeps on giving.

Police officers who download videos captured by homeowners Ring doorbell cameras can keep them forever and share them with whomever theyd like without providing evidence of a crime, the Amazon-owned firm told a lawmaker this month.

Brian Huseman, Amazon's VP of Public Policy, indicates the public is kind of an afterthought when it comes to Ring and its super-lax policies.

Police in those communities can use Ring software to request up to 12 hours of video from anyone within half a square mile of a suspected crime scene, covering a 45-day time span, Huseman wrote. Police are required to include a case number for the crime they are investigating, but not any other details or evidence related to the crime or their request.

Ring itself maintains that it's still very much into protecting users and their safety. Maybe not so much their privacy, though. The company says it takes the "responsibility" of "protecting homes and communities" very seriously. But when it comes to footage, well that footage apparently belongs to whoever it ends up with.

Ring "does not own or otherwise control users videos, and we intentionally designed the Neighbors Portal to ensure that users get to decide whether to voluntarily provide their videos to the police.

It's obvious Ring does not "control" recordings. Otherwise, it would place a few more restrictions on the zero-guardrail "partnerships" with law enforcement agencies. But pretending Ring owners are OK with cops sharing their recordings with whoever just because they agreed to share the recording with one agency is disingenuous.

Ring's answers to Markey's pointed questions are simply inadequate. As the Washington Post article notes, Ring claims it makes users agree to install cameras so they won't record public areas like roads or sidewalks, but does nothing to police uploaded footage to ensure this rule is followed. It also claims its does not collect "personal information online from children under the age of 13," but still proudly let everyone know how many trick-or-treaters came to Ring users' doors on Halloween. And, again, it does not vet users' footage to ensure they're not harvesting recordings of children under the age of 13.

The company also hinted it's still looking at adding facial recognition capabilities to its cameras. Amazon's response pointed to competitors' products utilizing this tech and said it would "innovate" based on "customer demand."

While Ring's speedy expansion would have caused some concern, most of that would have been limited to its competitors. That it chose to use law enforcement agencies to boost its signal is vastly more concerning. It's no longer just a home security product. It's a surveillance tool law enforcement agencies can tap into seemingly at will.

Many users would be more than happy to welcome the services of law enforcement if their doorbell cameras captured footage of criminal act that affected them, but Ring's network of law enforcement partners makes camera owners almost extraneous. If cops want footage, Ring will give it to them. And then the cops can do whatever they want with it, even if it doesn't contribute to ongoing investigations.

These answers didn't make Sen. Markey happy. Hopefully, other legislators will find these responses unsatisfactory and start demanding more -- both from law enforcement agencies and Ring itself.

Filed Under: doorbell, ed markey, police, privacy, ring, videosCompanies: amazon, ring

Read more:
Amazon: Cops Can Get Recordings From Ring, Keep Them Forever, And Share Them With Whoever They Want - Techdirt