Mediaboss Marketing

Google is fighting back against a Brazilian court order to turn over data on all users who searched for specific terms, including the name of a well-known elected official and a busy downtown thoroughfare. (Brief in Portuguese / English*) While we applaud Google for challenging this digital dragnet search in Brazil, it must also stand up for the rights of its users against similar searches in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Keyword search warrants like the one in Brazil are far broader than traditional search warrants described in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment requires police to establish probable cause to search a particular place or seize a particular person or thing before the court authorizes the warrant. But keyword search warrants dont start with a suspect person or device. Instead, they require Google to comb through the search histories of all of its users, including users who are not logged into a Google account when they search.

Keyword warrants allow the police to learn anyone and everyone who may have searched for particular terms on the off-chance one of those people could have been involved with the crime. Like better-known geofence warrants, keyword warrants allow police to conduct a fishing expedition and sweep up data on innocent people, turning them into criminal suspects. Police are using both types of expansive, suspicionless searches with increasing frequency.

The Brazilian case arises out of the assassination of Rio de Janeiro City Councilor Marielle Franco. Franco was murdered, along with her driver, Anderson Gomes, near Rio de Janeiro in 2018. It was a terrible crime that stirred up public outcry.

As part of the investigation into the assassination, police ordered Google to trawl through its users search histories, scanning for searches of certain termsincluding the name of a heavily trafficked street in Rio de Janeiro (Rua dos Invlidos), Francos name, and the name of a nonprofit cultural space intended to support Black women (Casa das Pretas), where Franco had participated in an event earlier on the day she was killed. The order required Google to turn over identifying data about all users who searched for these and other related terms over the course of four days.

Google has challenged this order, eventually appealing it all the way to Brazils Supreme Federal Court, arguing that this kind of indiscriminate search violates the Brazilian constitution. (Googles brief in Portuguese / English*) As Google rightly explains, the warrant is wildly overbroad. The search terms would all have been popular and common queries, and many people are likely to have used themincluding citizens and journalists interested in the activities of a city councilor, or people interested in collaborating with or receiving support from the nonprofit cultural center Casa das Pretas.

This particular keyword search warrant is particularly egregious, given the sheer number of people likely caught in its dragnet, but even a more narrow warrant should trigger human rights concerns. These types of warrants inevitably sweep in users whom police have no reason to believe were involved in the crime, and they give police unbridled discretion to determine which of these people to target for further investigation. In the Fourth Amendment framework, the unbridled discretion inherent in keyword search warrants, like geofence warrants, makes them an unconstitutional general warrant.

As Google emphasized in its brief, this case in Brazil has far-reaching implications. This method of investigating transforms a platform intended to provide access to information into a tool for the government to collect highly revealing private data from innocent people. And Google receives thousands of law enforcement orders to provide user data in Brazil each year, affecting tens of thousands of users. If Brazils Supreme Court signs off on dragnet keyword searches, the number of impacted users could skyrocket.

Keyword search orders are becoming increasingly common in the U.S.but Google seemingly hasnt fought nearly as hard to protect the privacy of its U.S. users. We arent aware of any cases in which Google has pushed back against keyword search warrants in the U.S. In fact, we have no idea how many keyword warrants Google receives or how it responds to them at all, because Google has kept that information entirely secret. That secrecy surrounding keyword warrants contrasts with Googles recent reporting on geofence warrants; Google has now shared the number of geofence warrants it receives and the three-step process it uses to respond to them.

It's remarkable that Google has taken a strong stand in favor of user privacy in Brazil. But this problem isnt limited to one country, and Google could do much more to protect its users. Google can and should take proactive steps to address the highly revealing capacity of its databases and adopt robust data minimization measures on how user data is processed and for long it is stored. And it should take a stand in the courts to protect users in the U.S. and other countries from dragnet keyword searches, just like its doing in Brazil.

* The official copy of the brief that Google submitted to the Brazilian court is only available in Portuguese. We used an online tool to translate the brief into English so there may be some inaccuracies in translation.

Go here to read the rest:
Google Fights Dragnet Warrant for Users' Search Histories Overseas While Continuing to Give Data to Police in the U.S. - EFF

Loveland Attorney Troy Krenning is firing back against the city of Loveland along with current and former city officials with a lawsuit in response to a former chargesfiled against him and a local business owner.

Krenning has filed a civil rights lawsuit against City Attorney Moses Garcia, two former Loveland officials and the city itself in regard to the case brought against him and Natalie Petersen of Bloomstruck LLC. in 2020 in connection to an anti-John Fogle mailer sent out during the 2019 municipal election.

Krenning also sent an intent to sue Moses Garcia for defamation for an email sent to city councilors following the filing of the suit.

Krenning, who is representing Petersen, filed the case in the United States District Court of Colorado in Denver on March 31.

The suit alleges three main charges against Garcia, former Deputy City Attorney Alicia Caldern, former Loveland City Clerk Patti Garcia, all in their individual capacities, and the city of Loveland: a First Amendment violation by retaliation, a Fourth Amendment violation by malicious prosecution and a 14th Amendment violation by due process deprivation.

The suit calls for many forms of financial award for Petersen based on losses as well as punitive damages.

The lawsuit stems from a series of discussions and hearings regarding a postcard mailer sent out during the Loveland 2019 elections regarding Fogle, who was running for reelection to his council seat at the time.

The mailerdepicted councilor John Fogle as a giant cartoon octopus and was sent out as Fogle was seeking reelection. In February 2020, the group responsible, Reality Check Colorado, reported to the Colorado Secretary of Statethat Krennings law office was its sole donor.The office contributed $2,000 on Oct. 9, two days after the group was established.

Following back and forth discussions on City Charter rules related to political campaigns listed in Article 17, Petersen and The Law Office of Troy D. Krenning were charged by the city with violating Loveland City Charter sections 17-4, 17-6 and 17-9 to be tried in municipal court. According to the charter, any person who knowingly violates or fails to comply with any the provisions of Article 17 commits a misdemeanor and is subject to a fine or imprisonment.

Krenning was found not guilty on the three alleged City Charter violation charges in March of 2021. During that hearing, Krenning vowed to sue Moses Garcia and employees of the City Attorneys Office in federal court for misconduct.

The civil rights lawsuit filed by Krenning on March 31 states that the charges against Petersen were dismissed following Krennings not-guilty verdict, despite an objection by the accusedrequesting a finding of innocence.

In the lawsuit, Krenning dives into the timeline of the mailer being created and sent out, Petersen being in contact with Patti Garcia regarding the financials of Reality Check Colorado, which was filed with the Colorado Secretary of State as an independent expenditure committee, and how the original complaint against her and Krenning came about.

Krenning claims in the lawsuit that the City Charter expressly excludes any existing partnerships like that of Bloomstruck that were previously established for a purpose outside of the scope of Article 17 as members of any political committee.

Krenning goes on to claim that, because of this, Bloomstruck was, and still is, by express definition incapable of being or forming a political committee as defined by the Citys Charter, let alone failing to register or failing to file required reports as one.

Krenning said he filed the lawsuit because city was wrong in filing its original charges against Petersen and his office and continues to lie about the circumstances and pretend as if they didnt do anything wrong.

The fact the city of Loveland and all its attorneys dont understand the basic notion of their own charter is almost unbelievable, he said. For them to run off leash and start charging people criminally for acts that are not against the law should be frightening to most citizens. If they cant even step up to the plate and say they are wrong and say they are sorry, the alternative is to sue their ass.

He added that there will be a companion case soon that will be filed by a different attorney on behalf of his law office in regard to the same case as Petersen.

Caldern, who now serves as the city attorney for the city of Brighton, said she finds no merit in the suit, adding there is a lot of conjecture in how it is written.

Everyone was just performing their duties, she said. To be honest, suing folks in their individual capacities when it is described in the complaint that everyone was acting in their professional capacity feels a bit like harassment.

Patti Garcia declined to provide comment while Moses Garcia deferred to the city for comment.

According to a written comment, the city is confident that it will prevail in the lawsuit and that the Citys laws related to contribution reporting requirements in local elections are valid.

Along with the filing of this lawsuit, Krenning is planning to sue Moses Garcia for defamation in regards to an email that he sent to city councilors following the filing of this civil rights lawsuit.

Krenning sent a notice of intent to sue and demand to Moses Garcia on April 2 following an email Garcia sent to Loveland City Council.

In that email, provided in the notice, Moses Garcia wrote that Krenning was alleging constitutional violations arising from the former case against Bloomstruck LLC and Krenning himself for failing to comply with the Citys reporting requirements for political contributions.

The City is well-positioned to address the plaintiffs claims and defend the citys proper and lawful response to plaintiffs and Mr. Krennings failure to comply with City law, Garcia wrote.

Krenning claims in his notice that accusing him of committing a crime in Colorado is defamation, pointing out that the email infers that both he and Bloomstruck LLC committed a crime even though Krennings office was found not guilty and the charges against Bloomstruck were dismissed.

In this defamation case, Krenning is demanding $10,000, adding if he proceeds to litigation he will seek the $10,000 plus special damages for no less than $30,000, plus the costs of litigation and attorneys fees.

You cant have someone found not guilty, and you cant dismiss a case against someone and then continue to run your mouth that they have broken the law, he said.

Krenning did offer Moses Garcia an alternative demand in his notice saying he would accept only $5,000 if Moses were to provide a written and public apology at the beginning of Tuesdays City Council meeting. However, Moses did not issue such an apology.

It was a bargain opportunity he should have taken advantage of, Krenning said. It will not be re-extended.

The city, in its written response sent to the Reporter-Herald Thursday, said Krennings claims have no merit and any use of a privileged communication to City Council to advance the claim would appear to be improper.

Continued here:
Troy Krenning files civil rights lawsuit against Moses Garcia, former Loveland employees related to 2019 anti-Fogle mailer case - Loveland...

The Constitution was signed on Sep. 17, 1787, and the Ninth Amendment was ratified in 1791at which time it became the supreme law of the land, like the rest of the Constitution. State judges are bound by itanything in their states constitutions or laws to the contrary notwithstanding.

Thats the law of the land. While the states may exercise legislative authority over the performance of abortions of pre-viable fetuses, they may not disparagei.e. reduce to little worththe personal right to abort a pre-viable fetus (or, for that matter, any other personal right not expressly mentioned in the Constitution). Otherwise, the states statutory authority would be superior to the Constitutionsomething the Constitution absolutely prohibits.

Both textualists and originalists on the Supreme Court bench ought to know this. But are they willing to apply the law of the land, as it is, or ignore it, and place their values above it?

Justice Clarence Thomas prides himself on being an unwavering originalist.Originalists believe that all statements in the Constitution must be interpreted according to their original understanding at the time they were adopted.

On Dec. 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Mississippi case of Dobbsv. Jackson Womens Health. At issue in this case is whether Americans have a constitutional right to abort pre-viable fetuses, or whether states may prohibit such abortions or arbitrarily diminish them.

In his oral argument, Thomas asked Elizabeth B. Prelogar, the solicitor general of the United States: General, would you specifically tell mespecifically state what the right is? Is it specifically abortion? Is it liberty? Is it autonomy? Is it privacy?

Prelogar replied, The right is grounded in the liberty component of the 14th Amendment, Justice Thomas, but I think that it promotes interest in autonomy, bodily integrity, liberty and equality. And I do think that it is specifically the right to abortion here, the right of a woman to be able to control, without the state forcing her to continue a pregnancy, whether to carry that baby to term.

Thomas blithely responded, I understand were talking about abortion here, but what is confusing is that weif we were talking about the Second Amendment, I know exactly what were talking about. If were talking about the Fourth Amendment, I know what were talking about because its written. Its there.

Arbitrarily diminishing the exercise of a womans personal right to abort an unwanted pregnancy by the states disparages this personal right in contravention of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution may not be interpreted in a manner that disparages our personal though unenumerated rights. The Ninth Amendment says so: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

As Z. Acevedo states in her well-researched article,Abortion in Early America, published in the National Library of Medicine:From 1776 until the mid-1800s abortion was viewed as socially unacceptable; however, abortions were not illegal in most states.

In the British colonies, abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening, Acevedo continued.In the 18th century, quickening meant what it means today: when a pregnant woman could feel the fetus move, at approximately the fourth month of pregnancy,

Accordingly, abortion of a pre-viable fetus was considered to be a womans personal or natural rightnota government-granted right,at the time of the signing of the Constitutionin most of the states in early America.

During his Dobbs exchange, Thomas essentially claimed that the U.S. Constitution cannot be interpreted as granting to women a right to an abortion, because no such right is specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

This thinking thoughruns afoul of the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution which protects our personal (though unenumerated) rights from being denied or disparaged by both the federal government and state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.Thomass exchange with the solicitor general implies that justices of the Supreme Court may ignore this interpretative, constitutional edict and limit our personal rights protected by the Constitution to those rights, and only those rights, expressly mentioned in the Constitution.

TheNinth Amendment says the exact opposite, as it always has, since it was ratified. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote in the seminal case ofMarbury v. Madison, It is emphatically the province andthe dutyof the Judicial Department to say what the law is.

The Constitution is clear: Justices of the Supreme Court may not uphold state prohibitions against elective pre-viable abortions simply because the Constitution does not expressly grant to women the right to an abortion.

If Thomas, or other Supreme Court justices hold otherwise, they are not saying what the law is. Instead, they are saying what they want the law to be. Their thinking may be original, but its a far cry from originalism.

Sign and share Ms.s relaunched We Have Had Abortions petitionwhether you yourself have had an abortion, or simply stand in solidarity with those who haveto let the Supreme Court, Congress and the White House know: We will not give up the right to safe, legal, accessible abortion.

Up next:

View original post here:
The Right To Abort a Pre-Viable Fetus Can't Be Disparaged by the States. Can Someone Tell Clarence Thomas? - Ms. Magazine

A Colorado Springs police officer is the lone remaining defendant in a civil lawsuit alleging excessive force against the son of a current congressional candidate after a federal judge dismissed the city and three other law enforcement officers from the litigation.

Carl Andersen Jr. may proceed to trial with his claim against Officer Vito DelCore, stemming from an April 2019 encounter in the hospital room of Andersen's daughter. Police were trying to retrieve a cell phone from Andersen for fear that evidence would be deleted, but Andersen resisted. Eventually, DelCore tased Andersen, after which the multiple officers present in the room forced Andersen into handcuffs.

Last week, U.S. District Court Senior Judge R. Brooke Jackson deemed the officers' actions reasonable under the circumstances, with the exception of DelCore's decision to deploy his taser.

"Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, it seems that Officer DelCore encircled plaintiff, taser drawn, in order to initiate a physical altercation," Jackson wrote in a March 29 order. "The totality of the circumstances would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that Officer DelCores actions violated plaintiffs Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force."

David Lane, the attorney for Andersen, said he is "glad that the most culpable defendant who tased Mr. Andersen is still in the case, but disappointed that the aiders and abettors were dismissed."

Andersen is the son of Republican Carl Andersen Sr., who is running to represent the 7th Congressional District. Andersen, who was present during his son's encounter with police, told Colorado Politics in an email that the public should watch the body-worn camera footage and read the court documents to "get a feel for the case as it continues to play out in the legalsystem."

As outlined in the lawsuit, Carl Andersen Jr.'s fianceaccidentally hit Andersen's 19-month-old daughter while backing out of the driveway. The family immediately drove to the hospital in Woodland Park, but the girl needed transport to UCHealth Memorial Central Hospital in Colorado Springs.

While there, Andersen and hisfiance reportedly blocked forensic nurses from examining the child or taking photographs of her injuries. One nurse said in her experience, it raised "major red flags" when families were unwilling to provide information about a child's injuries.

"The overall situation was was very hostile. And the fact that they told me I better leave because tensions are rising tells me if I dont walk out of that room right now, that they are going to physically force me out of that room," the nurse said in her deposition.

The nurses called Colorado Springs police, who in turn requested personnelfrom Teller County, where the accident occurred. Detective Anthony Matarazzo arrived from the Teller County Sheriff's Office and informed the Colorado Springs officers that Andersen's fiance was allegedly sending text messages to others describing the automobile accident.

Matarazzo felt the cell phone contained evidence needed for the investigation, but he reportedly was unable to get the family to cooperate.

Out of concern that someone would delete the text messages if the phone were left in the family's hands, the Colorado Springs officers entered the hospital room. In addition to Matarazzo and DelCore, Officer Todd Eckert and Sgt. Carlos Sandoval were also present.

It was DelCore who spotted the cell phone in Andersen's pocket and attempted to grab it.

"Excuse me, you do not grab anything from my pockets," Andersen responded. DelCore said Andersen was "gonna hit the ground real hard."

Eckert stepped in to talk with Andersen, but at one point DelCore pulled out his taser. Andersen asked, "You're gonna tase me because I'm not gonna give you my (fiance's) cell phone?"

After more discussion, Andersen claimed that his father was talking with the Teller County sheriff. Carl Andersen Sr. was standing nearby and there was a brief period of silence while he spoke on the phone.

When the officers again pushed Carl Andersen Jr. to cooperate, DelCore moved to the back of Andersen and said, "Im going to go behind you because I dont want anybody behind you getting hurt."

Rapidly, DelCore grabbed Andersen's arm and said, "I will tase you" and ordered Andersen out of the room. DelCore then tased him in the back. A struggle ensued and the officers forced Andersen to the ground. DelCore tased him a second time.

Carl Andersen Sr. interjected, saying, "You guys are out of control." DelCore threatened to tase him as well.

Prosecutors eventually dismissed the charges of obstruction and resisting arrest against Carl Andersen Jr.

In August of last year, Jackson dismissed several of the claims Andersen leveledagainst the City of Colorado Springs, includingunlawful search and seizure, excessive force, malicious prosecution and First Amendment retaliation.

Subsequently, the defendants all asked Jackson to enter judgment in their favor in the case. Lawyers for the officers argued that while the Fourth Amendment generally requires a warrant for police to conduct a search, there is an "exigent circumstances exception" if there is a compelling need to avoid the destruction of evidence.

Along with the forensic nurses' account that Andersen and his fiance were refusing to provide information about the child's injuries, "it was reasonable to conclude that the evidence on the cell phone was important evidence and that the family did not want it to be discovered," the officers' motion read.

Jackson granted the officers qualified immunity, which shields government employees from civil liability unless they violate a person's clearly-established legal rights. In principle, qualified immunity seeks to protect officers when they act reasonably. Jackson decided it was reasonable for the defendants to suspect Andersen was obstructing their investigation through his refusal to offer information about the vehicle accident.

The judge further agreed it was reasonable for the officers to suspect someone would delete the text messages before they could obtain a warrant to search it, justifying a seizure under the exigent circumstances exception.

Jackson felt somewhat differently about the officers' use of force against Andersen. For Matarazzo, Eckert and Sandoval, their physical restraint of Andersen came at a time when he "potentially posed a threat to officer safety" and were therefore justified in their response.

But for DelCore, who prompted the physical encounter with Andersen, Jackson did not find that qualified immunity shielded his actions from scrutiny by a jury.

"As the other officers began discussing the situation with plaintiff and requesting cooperation, Officer DelCore threatened to make plaintiff 'hit the ground real hard.' Officer DelCore once again interrupted the civil conversation with a threat of violence by pulling out his taser," Jackson narrated, adding that DelCore also circled behind Andersen just before tasing him.

"Plaintiff barely had time to process, let alone respond to, Officer DelCores ostensible reason for circling behind him when Officer DelCore grabbed and twisted plaintiff's arm, said 'I will tase you right now,' and began shouting at plaintiff to get out of the room," Jackson wrote.

Andersen told Task & Purpose, an outlet oriented to military members and veterans, that the officers appeared to be looking for a fight and had reportedly disregarded his request to obtain a warrant for the cell phone.

"If (Matarazzo) had come in and introduced himself and said: Im a Teller County detective; I need to check your phones; we want to make sure there is no evidence of child abuse; thats a whole different story when you treat someone with respect, Andersen said in April of last year. And that man did not treat anybody, including my fiance, with respect.

A jury trial was initially set to begin on April 25, but Jackson agreed to postpone the proceedings due to DelCore, a staff sergeant in the U.S. Air Force Reserves, being deployed for active duty through the end of April.

The case is Andersen v. City of Colorado Springs et al.

See the rest here:
Judge allows lawsuit to proceed against Colorado Springs officer who tased son of congressional candidate - coloradopolitics.com

Top news and notes from around Northern Virginia and beyond.

5. Masks optional

George Mason University on Tuesday dropped its mask requirement for all campuses and facilities, citing low COVID-19 transmission rates.

4. Rights violated

A federal judge has ruled in favor of a man who claimed Fauquier County Sheriffs deputies violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they arrested and assaulted him.

3. Rain, rain go away

Some showers are likely this morning, then a mostly cloudy day is in store with high temperatures near 66 degrees.Click herefor a detailed forecast by ZIP code.

2. Cats rescued

Firefighters rescued two cats from a burning home in McLean on Monday evening after a fire started when a resident accidentally spilled kerosene while filling a lamp, fire officials said.

1. Centreville tornado

The National Weather Service has confirmed a second tornado touched down,this one in Centreville, during last week's strong storms.

InsideOut

Voting is underway in the 2022 Best of Prince William contest, presented by InsideNoVa.Choose your favorite Prince William County businesses, organizations and people once a day per category through April 30.

See the original post here:
InFive: Masks optional at GMU, deputies violated rights and a cloudy day - Inside NoVA