Mediaboss Marketing

On March 7, a bipartisan group of 13 senators, including Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), introduced the RESTRICT Act in Congress amid concerns from some lawmakers that the popular social media app TikTok could be used by the Chinese government to spy on Americans. If signed into law, the RESTRICT Act could potentially ban TikTok in the United States.

Since the bill was first introduced, several viral social media posts have claimed that the RESTRICT Act could also give the U.S. government access to Americans personal data from their home devices, such as Ring security cameras, Amazon Echo and Google Nest.

this is way worse than I thought #gaming #savetiktok #tiktokban #restrictact #tech #techeducation

Would the RESTRICT Act give the federal government access to data from your home devices?

No, the RESTRICT Act would not give the federal government access to data from your home devices

Sign up for the VERIFY Fast Facts daily Newsletter!

The RESTRICT Act would not give the federal government access to the personal data found on individual Americans home security or smart devices, according to both the bills sponsor and critics of the legislation. Instead, the act allows the government to investigate potential national security threats by analyzing foreign-owned technology companies, not individual users in the U.S., whose data is protected by the Constitution.

Many of the viral social media posts that have shared this claim focus on Section 5 of the RESTRICT Act. According to the bills text, Section 5 directs the Secretary of Commerce to review wireless networks, various access points, cloud storage and other types of technology that were made by countries that the U.S. considers to be foreign adversaries, such as China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, North Korea or Venezuela, to ensure it is not being used to spy on Americans or steal their data.

If the Secretary of Commerce determines the technology does threaten national security, then the bill says Congress must be publicly notified. Lawmakers could then decide to impose privacy or corporate transparency requirements on the specific product or ban it altogether.

In an email, a spokesperson from Sen. Mark Warners office told VERIFY that the claims in regard to the federal government having access to Americans home devices are false. On March 31, Warner also addressed some of what he calls misconceptions about the RESTRICT Act in a thread on Twitter.

This bill doesnt give the government any power to track what youre searching! In fact, it is aimed at COUNTERING foreign surveillance from authoritarian nations, Warner said. This bill takes on big, systemic threats to our national security not individual users.

Even organizations that oppose the bill, like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), agree that the RESTRICT Act would not give the government access to Americans private data on their home devices.

Is the RESTRICT Act a surveillance bill that would allow the government access to your devices? Not exactly, the EFF wrote in an April 4 report about the bill.

EFF explains that under the RESTRICT Act, the Secretary of Commerce could demand information from a company owned by a foreign adversary if they are under investigation. That company could be required to share some user data with certain government entities. But the EFF says there are some important confidentiality requirements protecting this type of data.

The ACLU also told VERIFY that the Fourth Amendment already protects most Americans personal information from the federal government.

As of April 7, Congress has not taken any action toward passing the RESTRICT Act since it was introduced in March. U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco have endorsed the bill.

The VERIFY team works to separate fact from fiction so that you can understand what is true and false. Please consider subscribing to our daily newsletter, text alerts and our YouTube channel. You can also follow us on Snapchat, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and TikTok. Learn More

Text: 202-410-8808

Read more from the original source:
No, the RESTRICT Act wouldnt give the government access to data from your home devices - WCNC.com

Washinton, DC, has been accused of using unconstitutional and discriminatory tactics to enforce its gun laws.

Last week, a federal judge ruled a class-action suit against city officials over alleged targeting of Black men in poorer sections of the city for unwarranted scrutiny can move forward. The lawsuit claims police would use pre-texts to stop the men without probable cause to believe theyd committed a crime and then search them without permission or a warrant. This was all done in pursuit of getting guns off the street.

Its a familiar story. Infamously, Michael Bloomberg instituted an even more aggressive version of this stop and frisk strategy during his time as New York City mayor. At least until it was ruled unconstitutional for targeting minorities. The scandal surrounding Baltimore, Marylands Gun Trace Taskforce reached new lows using similar methods, combined with outright corruption, in their own pursuit of racking up gun seizures.

But these enforcement schemes all have something in common beyond a blatant disregard for the Fourth Amendment rights of their victims: theyre the result of gun laws that are nearly impossible for many to actually comply with.

And thats no coincidence. Its the intended design of many of the laws in question. But its also the part of the story that often goes unexamined.

Understandably, a lot has been made about the uneven nature of enforcement in these situations. However, there is little discussion of how the strict gun laws being enforced create incentives for unfair enforcement, often against people who arent actually dangerous.

Take the gun-carry laws of Baltimore and New York when stop and frisk and the Gun Trace Taskforce were at their height. Both had particularly onerous may-issue permitting laws. That meant it was nearly impossible for anyone who wasnt wealthy or connected enough to obtain a permit to legally carry a gun since officials could, and almost always did, reject applicants for any reason they saw fit.

So, most normal people couldnt legally carry a gun on them.

At the same time, officials and police want to reduce gun crime. So, they focus resources on low-income neighborhoods where gun crimes happen most.

Naturally, residents of those areas are often highly-motivated to carry a gun for their protection. But, since its impossible to do so legally, many choose to do so illegally.

Inevitably, these competing incentives result in the arrests of many people who may not be dangerous. When combined with a view from officials that anyone with a gun was a potential threat to the community, which was often the case, the ends for getting any and all firearms off the streets are viewed as justifying the means by which thats accomplished.

This all remains true even in DC, where the courts have forced them to adopt a shall issue permitting regime. Because even though officials cant reject applicants for any reason they want anymore, the city has adopted an application process that costs hundreds of dollars and takes upwards of six months to complete. And it combined that with a mountain of restrictions on where you can carry, including a prohibition on all public transit.

The result is a process that is possible to complete but highly impractical for those same residents who live in low-income, high-crime sections of the city.

Of course, due to factors stretching back generations, those areas are generally minority neighborhoods. Thus, even though officials and officersmany of whom are themselves minoritiesarent trying to enforce laws in a racially discriminatory way, thats the result regardless. And, as New York public defenders argued in Bruen, it means that many urban minorities routinely have their Second Amendment rights violated.

In fact, DCs current permitting system may make enforcement even more inequitable. At least before it was nearly impossible for anyone to get a permit. Now, the onerous but completable process makes it more likely that affluent applicants will have the time, money, and mobility to get approved. Their less-affluent neighbors are less likely to do so.

That means areas of the city where people are illegally carrying a gun, whether to further a criminal act or just to protect themselves without first obtaining a permit, will skew even more toward poor, minority neighborhoods. Ensuring police prioritize protecting the Fourth Amendment rights of all city residents will go a long way to offsetting that outcome. But it probably wont solve the problem in the long term.

The reality is that making it extremely difficult for law-abiding residents of any income level to legally defend themselves will always result in some people who arent a danger to the community.

View original post here:
Analysis: How Strict Enforcement of Strict Gun Laws Begets ... - The Reload

April 6, 2023

By Larry Keane

Rights Still Matter, Even in New York

A New York court affirmed that Due Process rights must be taken into consideration when enforcing so-called red flag laws and vacated New Yorks Gov. Kathy Hochuls executive order for enforcing Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) or red flag orders. That is consistent with what NSSF has said from the beginning about ERPOs. If an individual is going to be deprived of fundamental constitutional rights, they must be afforded the opportunity to examine and challenge evidence brought against them they must be afforded due process of law.

In New Yorks case, the court requires that any red flag order must be accompanied by a determination from a physician or psychiatrist. Thats already part of New Yorks laws. The court noted that New Yorks Mental Hygiene law that states, a persons liberty rights cannot be curtailed unless a physician opines that a person is suffering from a condition likely to result in serious harm. Further, in order to extend any such curtailment of liberty beyond 48 hours, a second doctors opinion must be obtained and such an opinion must be consistent with the first doctors opinion.

This is a critical distinction to how Gov. Hochul wanted New Yorks red flag law to be administered. Her Executive Order allowed for a police officer, district attorney, family or household member, school administrator or a school administrators designee which includes guidance counselors or school social workers to petition for red flag orders. There was no requirement that a licensed medical professional to opine on the mental state of the individual in question. Her Executive Order required state police to file red flag orders on individuals when there is probable cause to believe the respondent is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to himself, herself, or others

That left courts in the position of determining someones mental health state, without medical evidence to make that determination.

The Courts ruling now requires that the supporting documentation must include a doctors determination. Whats more, is the Court recognized that Second Amendment rights are foundational individual liberties and the state must clear a high bar when taking action to deprive someone of those rights.

Second Amendment rights are no less fundamental than Fourth Amendment rights (the right to liberty), and must be provided the same level of due process and equal protection, wrote Judge Craig Steven Brown.

Thats not just the U.S. Constitution that protects that right but also existing New Yorks Mental Hygiene Law. The court went further. It concluded that anyone subjected to a red flag order for more than 48 hours must have a second and concurring determination from another doctor.

NSSF has never opposed so-called red flag laws, so long as they provide procedural and substantive due process. Of the 19 states and the District of Columbia that have these laws on the books, none include sufficient or adequate due process protections. A New York Supreme Court has now held that they must be included.

The firearm industry wants to keep firearms out of the hands of those who cannot be trusted to responsibly possess them. That includes prohibited individuals, those suffering through a mental health crisis or suffering suicidal ideations and unsupervised children. Red flag laws have utility in protecting the public but must be carefully administered so these orders arent abused to disarm lawful gun owners.

The bar must be higher than mere accusations that someone is likely to harm themselves or others. ERPOs that would deprive a citizen of their constitutional rights must provide meaningful due process protections including allowing an individual to examine and rebut any evidence presented to a court for consideration. For that reason, NSSF has significant concerns with ex parte orders, which are issued without notice to the individual who is the subject of the order. And, on the truly rare occasion when there are exigent circumstances to justify an ex parte order, due process requires a very prompt post-deprivation hearing.

The New York judge got it right with this decision. We should be providing all the tools necessary for law enforcement to protect the public against criminals and mentally-deranged individuals that have no respect for life or law. Those protections, though, should never come at the cost to our foundational freedoms including Due Process and Second Amendment rights.

Categories: BP Item, Featured, Government Relations, Top Stories

Visit link:
New York Court Rules Due Process Must be Considered for 'Red ... - National Shooting Sports Foundation

I must confess that when I hear someone say that a legal case was decided on a technicality, my blood pressure goes up. I understand that it often appears at first glance that a nitpicking rule, or procedure, should not affect the outcome when a decision on the merits of the matter seems preferable and more just.

But a quick look at history indeed, a quick look at the history of the present moment around the world reveals that procedural justice is not a nuisance invented by lawyers and ivory tower academics. The truth is that procedural justice is at the very heart of the rule of law and thus is essential to freedom, fairness, and democracy.

No system of justice can operate properly if the rules of the game are not fair and do not apply equally to everyone, regardless of their political orientation or views of myriad subjects.

The bad guys deserve precisely the same level of protection as the good guys. The whole point of the rule of law is that everyone is operating pursuant to the same rules, rules which are fair, logical, and known to all participants. The unbiased application of legal norms and rulesrules of procedure, rules of evidence, rules relating to the suppression of illegally seized evidence, and many othersis essential to ensure fair outcomes. Our country has always prided itself on the principal that all who enter the legal system will begin at the same starting line.

Let me take a common hypothetical example of how the importance of legal technicalities can be misunderstood.

Police arrest an individual, lets call him Mr. Drugdealer, and charge him with a crime. The principal evidence of guilt is a bag of cocaine seized from the defendants residence. The defense files a motion seeking to prevent the use of the drugs at trial on the grounds that they were illegally seized in violation of the United States Constitution.

Following a hearing, a judge agrees with the defendants argument, suppresses the use of the cocaine by the state, and the state, lacking evidence, dismisses the case. The local newspaper predictably editorializes that it is travesty that Mr. Drugdealer walked away unscathed in the face of obvious guilt due to a legal technicality, and that the judge should be removed from the bench. After all, isnt it 100 percent clear that the defendant is guilty?

In this case, the legal technicality was the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

Rather than lament the outcome, I believe it should be celebrated as a sign that the restrictions placed on the state by the Constitution are being honored and fairly applied.

What the newspaper failed to appreciate in this case is that while prosecuting criminals is a very important goal of society, it is not the only very important value at stake. The opposing value, expressed in the United States Constitution and state constitutions as well, is ensuring the privacy of people and the sanctity of their residence, and place limits on the police authorities. I remember a former law professor of mine who once stated that what some people called legal technicalities should really be viewed as tiny constitutions, designed to protect the rights of everyone, no matter their status in society.

The Founding Fathers, veterans of the Revolutionary War, understood what it meant to live in a society in which state power is unrestrained. They had lived under British rule, enduring taxation without representation, being forced to quarter troops in their homes, and various other indignities. The Constitution they drafted is largely premised on the proposition that a healthy dose of distrust of government power is a good and necessary thing.

So it is no accident that one of the first things totalitarian leaders do is change the technical rules to their own advantage, or abolish laws and procedures that stand in their way. The new rules they create may give an outward appearance of fairness, but they are a fraud. They are designed to strip the opposition of its rights and to ensure that enemies of the state are crushed.

The next time you hear someone complain about a legal technicality, please hesitate before you assume that the system has malfunctioned. Consider the possibility that the legal technicality should not be viewed as a nuisance, but as an essential ingredient in ensuring fair play, equal justice, and protection of the rule of law.

Without legal technicalities, democracy cannot exist. Without legal technicalities, and people who understand the essential role they play, our glorious experiment in freedom will be in mortal danger.

Link:
Opinion: Democracy can't exist without "legal technicalities" - The Connecticut Mirror

California Highway Patrol vehicle at the State Capitol June, 2021.(Photo by Robert J Hansen)

By Robert J. Hansen

California is moving a bill through the legislature that would prohibit police from initiating low-level traffic stops unless there is a separate, independent reason.

A policy that I began suggesting two years ago.

Traffic stops are the most common interaction between police and civilians and are a primary source of racial and economic injustice according to Jordan Blair Woods, a law professor at the University of Arkansas.

Traffic enforcement is thus a common gateway for funneling over-policed and marginalized communities into the criminal justice system, Woods said in 2021.

SB 50 would limit law enforcements ability to use minor, non-safety-related traffic infractions to conduct what are often racially-biased, pretextual stops. It will also provide technical clarification to ensure that cities and counties in California have sufficient flexibility to explore non-law enforcement approaches to traffic safety.

About 3 percent of traffic stops result in an arrest according to a 2021 Center for Policing Equity (CPE) study.

A safety-first approach to traffic enforcement would also remediate racial disparities and reduce interactions between civilians and law enforcement.

Research shows that pretext stops do not significantly benefit public safety, yet use valuable resources that could be directed to more effective public safety approaches.

A 2022 study by Catalyst California and ACLU SoCal found that instead of addressing community concerns about serious crime, sheriffs deputies in Los Angeles and Riverside counties spent nearly 9 out of every 10 hours on stops initiated by officers rather than responding to calls for help.

Not surprisingly, the only opposition to the policy is from almost every law enforcement agency, union and district attorney in California. If SB 50 does not become law, it will be because the law enforcement community refuses to adopt the reforms lawmakers are creating.

Most importantly, this bills prohibition on detaining drivers for low-level infractions deprives peace officers of a very effective investigative tool that is often used by law enforcement to gather information needed in an ongoing criminal investigation, apprehend a suspect who is wanted for having committed an unrelated criminal violation or to investigate an unrelated offense, according to the California District Attorneys Association (CDAA).

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides in part that, in When v. United States (1996), the Supreme Court held that the temporary detention of a motorist upon probable cause to believe that he has violated the traffic laws does not violate the Fourth Amendments protection from unreasonable seizures.

The When decision led to the widespread use of pretext stops, a traffic stop made as a pretext to stop a vehicle to investigate other possible crimes.

Many argue that pretext stops are a driver of racial bias in law enforcement, with others asserting that they subvert the spirit of the Fourth Amendment by giving officers carte blanche to stop a vehicle.

The CDAA wants to continue violating Californians constitutional rights to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

We have seen far too many times how traffic stops can rapidly escalate and turn deadly, Senator Steven Bradford said. In this day and age, theres no reason why Californians should be stopped and potentially subjected to brutality or dehumanizing because of an expired license plate.

This legislation will reduce the potential for more harm to innocent members of the public, according to Bradford.

SB 50 will especially help to protect Californians of color from unnecessary harm and ensure that law enforcement has more time to focus on community safety by preventing and solving serious crimes, said Bradford. The data backs up the need for this legislation. Black Californians are far more likely to be targeted by police.

This legislation will also help to reduce the risk of harm to law enforcement officers by limiting the need for one of the most dangerous elements of their job, according to the bill.

By opposing the bill, the law enforcement community is effectively saying that it has no interest in focusing on more dangerous crimes or reducing the harm it causes minorities and disadvantaged communities. It even wants to keep a policy that makes the job more dangerous.

Berkeley policy analyst Darrell Owens thinks police dedicating their time to traffic enforcement is a waste of time and resources.

Owens spearheaded a proposal that would allow Berkeley to have unarmed officers enforce violations.

I agree with decriminalizing low-level traffic violations, Owens said.

Police departments try to avoid looking like they are racial profiling by making non-suspicious, low-level traffic stops according to Owens.

Then make a suspicious vehicle stop, Owens said. Just be honest about it. If you think that person is running guns in the community then thats what you stop them for. We dont need you [law enforcement] to muddle up traffic safety with policing.

It also doesnt work according to Owens.

People genuinely think that police are there to keep the roads safer with traffic violations. No, theyre not. Theyre there to do warrantless policing.

Recent Reforms

Oakland instituted a policy in 2018 of no longer initiating low-level traffic stops.

The number of traffic stops involving Black individuals decreased by over eight thousand, representing a 43% drop, according to the bill.

Berkeley proposed creating a Berkeley Department of Transportation which would take over responsibility for traffic enforcement from the police department.

In March 2022, the Los Angeles Police Department implemented a policy to limit the use, duration and scope of pretext stops conducted by its officers. The policy allows officers to make stops for minor equipment violations or other infractions only when the officer believes that such a violation significantly interferes with public safety but requires officers to state the public safety reason for such stops on their body-worn cameras.

Philadelphia became the first major city in the U.S. to ban low-level traffic stops in 2021.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey announced last August that the city attorneys office will no longer pursue tickets against motorists except for egregious driving behavior or criminal activity.

Former Rochester police officer and author of Police Brutality Matters, Joseph Ested thinks traffic stops should only be made for reasons related to dangerous driving but its a lack of accountability that allows traffic stops to be misused.

Routine traffic stops based on minor violations, pretextual stops and stops made for reasonable suspicion should be prohibited, Ested said in 2021.

A narrowly defined set of violations, violent felony warrants and crime in progress should be permitted, according to Ested.

Unimpeded Mobility Increases Americas Economic Upward Mobility

American mobility has been impeded and restricted since the Supreme Courts ruling in Carroll v. United States (1925), which essentially stripped Americans of their Fourth Amendment rights.

The right to drive and the car gave Black Americans the ability to leave the south, women a chance to leave their homes and husbands and immigrants to find work anywhere throughout this county.

Carroll v. United States established and set a precedent for the subsequent rulings despite repealing Prohibition in 1933 and fueled mass incarceration in the United States.

Its not a coincidence that women, Black people, immigrants and poor people are the same groups still fighting for equal treatment.

Americas labor force is roughly 63 percent of its total population which is about 160 million people, according to Census data. Almost 120 million drive alone to work every day, with another 14 million carpooling.

Public transportation will not provide the utility to double that five percent, let alone offer transportation for half the country anytime soon.

If there were any way to be more efficient than private vehicles, American ingenuity would have figured it out. It has not, thus far.

The American highway system was the successor to the transcontinental railroad and the countrys primary mode of personal travel. It has provided personal mobility to every citizen and is responsible for creating the most productive economy in the world for over 120 years.

Now what happens when you cant afford to pay a low-level traffic ticket? Most places in the U.S. will pile on additional fees and interest charges, suspend your drivers license or even issue a bench warrant for your arrest, over a traffic stop.

Fees are a hidden, regressive tax that harshly punish hard-working families living paycheck to paycheck, according to the ACLU.

This is just one of the ways that fees in the justice system trap far too many people in a vicious cycle of debt and punishment.

Fines are devastating to families and entire communities and are disproportionately assessed against minorities and disadvantaged communities.

This system of traffic fines takes money directly out of the pockets of families who are least able to afford them, locking many individuals in a cycle of economic instability.

Improving American economic stability, reducing racial tensions and disparities, saving the lives of drivers and police officers and honoring constitutional protections are all being opposed by Californias law enforcement officials and district attorneys as long as they oppose SB 50 becoming law.

Continued here:
Commentary: Police and District Attorneys Dont Want to Give Up ... - The Peoples Vanguard of Davis