Mediaboss Marketing

Artificial intelligence (AI) surveillance technology can be used by governments and private businesses to deter crime, but it comes at a cost, according to experts.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority in New York City, for example, recently confirmed that the city has deployed AI surveillance tools in seven subway stations in an effort to track how much money the city is losing to fare evasion rather than to track down people who jump turnstiles.

The MTA uses this tool to quantify the amount of fare evasion without identifying fare evaders, MTA spokesperson Joana Flores told Fox News Digital in a statement.

The public transportation authority released a report in May revealing it lost about $690 million to fare evasion last year. The AI fare evasion detector software will not only help the MTA keep track of how much money its losing, but it will also help the citys government come up with ways to stop fare evaders by tracking exactly how they are getting through without paying.

WHAT IS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)?

For example, if people are jumping turnstiles, replacing them with doors may help reduce fare evasion, the report says.

The report notes that AI technology has the potential to help reduce fare evasion and measure fare evasion to plan effective and equitable interventions.

AI HEART SCAN AIMS TO CATCH BLOCKAGES YEARS BEFORE SYMPTOMS: UNBELIEVABLE BREAKTHROUGH

The MTA has partnered with the Spain-based AI software company called AWAAIT, according to government documents obtained by NBC, which has a tool called DETECTOR that helps detect fare evasion in real-time, according to its website. AWAAIT is currently deployed in three cities, including New York and Barcelona, according to local news reports.

Though the MTA said it is not using this AI technology to identify fare evaders, AWAAITs website describes how its system alerts in real-time, forwarding screenshots of the fare infraction to the app installed on the smartphones of ticket inspectors.

AWAAIT co-founder and CEO Xavier Arrufat declined to comment when asked about the third city and concerns about privacy related to AI surveillance tools.

David Ly, the founder of Iveda, an AI video platform and smart city technology company, told Fox News Digital that AI will make cameras in subway stations more effective.

It could be applied almost anywhere. On construction sites, were making sure that people are wearing their hard hats right. And were making sure that people are wearing safety nets when they walk on the worksite, he said. So whether its to keep people safe, keep people honest and so on technology can be trained to do almost anything when applied correctly.

CONGRESS IS CLEARLY BEHIND ON AI AND NEEDS BIPARTISAN EFFORT TO CREATE REGULATIONS; LAWMAKERS WEIGH IN

However, AI can also create public distrust when used incorrectly.

Albert Fox Cahn, founder and executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (STOP), told Fox News Digital he thinks it is alarming the MTA would contract with a foreigncompany to track riders without their consent.

There are huge questions about how they collect it, how its used and what the long-term benefit is, Cahn said. We dont need to pay for AI to know that people are jumping turnstiles. And its never been clear from the MTAs response what the point of this is.

Used improperly, AI can detect, flag and ultimately fine people for even the most minor crimes.

HOUSE TAKES STEP TOWARD AI REGULATION; GOVERNMENT STUDY ON AI ACCOUNTABILITY DUE IN 18 MONTHS

If you can use it for fare evasion, you can use it for jaywalking. You can use it for almost every other aspect of life, Cahn said. This is not what the creators of the Constitution envisioned when they drafted the Fourth Amendment.

Ly, meanwhile, says that while AI surveillance can be a very effective tool in combating and deterring crime, it only goes as far as the humans who monitor and operate that technology allow it to go. In other words, a camera might be able to identify a criminal suspect, but that suspect wont get caught until a human law enforcement officer takes action.

We tend to give technology more credit in the sense that it can do all this other stuff. It can, but we humans dont have enough time, energy or resources to spend on that, Ly said. Its just irrelevant.

There are already cameras everywhere, he added schools, gas stations, Walmart parking lots, and the like. But without intelligence, cameras just act as paperweights, he said, recording footage that may be useless until a human or AI picks up on something unusual, like a person carrying a weapon or a car crash.

AI, like humans, is able to pick up on normal human behavior and how it compares to abnormalities, which is how it is able to flag potential danger.

He added that people tend to get paranoid when they think about the potential of AI surveillance technology impacting personal privacy or flagging very minor crimes to law enforcement.

Citizens that have a lot of time on hand start thinking too much. We overthink things, and we get paranoid, and we start thinking of movies and were like, Oh my God. But if theres no follow-through [by law enforcement], its meaningless, Ly said.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Cahn noted that the MTA spends more money on efforts to combat fare evasion than the amount that fare evasion costs the city each year. He added that New York City is already one of the most surveilled cities in the world and is more on par with Shanghai than it is with Stockholm, with about 42,000 surveillance cameras across the city. The privacy advocate described praise for surveillance to combat crime as Orwellian.

I refuse to accept that the price of safety is a country where no one can walk out the front door without being watched. I dont think that sounds like a democracy, he said.

Link:
AI targets turnstile jumpers to fight fare evasion, but experts warn of ... - 1330 WFIN

Law enforcement will no longer be able to stop a vehicle or person in Maryland solely based on the smell of cannabis, under a bill that will become law without Gov. Wes Moores signature.

The bill was one of the most passionately debated measures in the 2023 General Assembly session and won final passage just minutes before adjournment. Its final fate has been unclear for several weeks, as the governor signed hundreds of other bills into law including the July 1 legalization of adult cannabis use but not the odor bill.

Moore, a Democrat, did not explain his decision in a statement announcing the action on Friday afternoon.

Supporters said the change was necessary, given that adults will soon be able to legally use and possess small amounts of cannabis.

This bill will establish a policy that prevents officers from stopping motorists and searching their vehicles without evidence of intoxication or any other just cause, protecting Marylanders from illegal searches and abating unjust criminalization, the Legislative Black Caucus of Maryland wrote to fellow lawmakers in support of the bill.

The proposal, which goes into effect July 1, came under criticism, however, from police, sheriffs and prosecutors.

Using odor of cannabis alone as grounds to briefly detain a person or to search a vehicle will not violate the Fourth Amendment and would be reasonable, wrote the Maryland Chiefs of Police Association and Maryland Sheriffs Association in testimony to lawmakers.

Republican lawmakers also largely opposed the bill. In the final minutes of the General Assembly session, House of Delegates Speaker Adrienne A. Jones did not allow lawmakers to explain their votes on the cannabis odor bill. Some frustrated Republican delegates headed for the exits, while one held up proceedings and yelled at the speaker. (He later apologized.)

The states highest court has previously offered conflicting guidance on how officers can handle the smell of marijuana, according to a nonpartisan analysis of the bill. In 2020, the court held that the odor alone isnt indicative of an illegal amount of the drug and does not meet the standard of probable cause for a search. Then in 2022, the court held that odor provides a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to conduct a brief investigatory detention.

The bill also states that when a law enforcement officer is investigating a person for suspicion of driving under the influence of cannabis, the officer cannot search areas of the vehicle that arent immediately around the driver or arent likely to contain evidence relevant to the drivers level of impairment.

Any evidence thats improperly obtained wont be admissible in court.

Sign Up for Alerts

Get notified of need-to-knowinfo from The Banner

Ok

The bill was among 10 that will become law without the governors sign-off, Moores office announced Friday afternoon. He also vetoed three bills; two that were duplicative of other measures he signed and another that would have changed the process for the state to contract with companies for commuter bus service.

Moore previously signed hundreds of bills into law, including measures that will let Marylanders decide in 2024 whether to put reproductive rights into the state constitution, raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour on Jan. 1, grant a bigger tax break to retired veterans, set up the framework for the cannabis industry, restrict the use of concealed carry handgun permits, and expand trans health coverage for those with Medicaid insurance.

Read more:
As of July 1, police won't be able to stop people for smell of cannabis - The Baltimore Banner

Thank you to everyone who has read and commented on my posts this week. It's been so much fun! And thanks again to Eugene and his co-conspirators for the opportunity. After this final edition I will go back to assisting my colleague John Ross with his Short Circuit newsletter, which he posts here every Friday.

You can see the previous four posts in this series here, here, here, and here, all of which summarize my new book from the University of Michigan Press, Baby Ninth Amendments: How Americans Embraced Unenumerated Rights and Why It Matters (available for free here).

Today I'm going to give an example of how a Baby Ninth should work in practice, briefly address a potpourri of issues I haven't had space for, and close with some big picture thoughts about what Baby Ninths mean for how we look at American constitutionalism more generally.

In the book I talk about some food truck cases we've done at IJ, where cities block food trucks from operating for protectionist reasons that aren't plausibly related to public health and safety. Let's suppose you're one of them. You want to park your truck in the lot of an office building. The building's owners also want you to park therethey like that their tenants can buy lunch from your truck. But there's a city ordinance that prohibits you from parking within 500 feet of a restaurant, even if you're on private property. And there are other restaurants on the building's street within that distance.

Now let's say you live in a state with a Baby Ninth. Does this law violate one of your rights "retained by the people"? Well, it certainly seems to get in the way of your right to contract with the building's owners and your right to earn a living by selling from there. But, as I said yesterday, that in itself doesn't mean the city has violated the state constitution. These rights aren't absolute. The city could defeat a claim you might bring if, based on real facts, it can show it's needed to further a legitimate public purpose. That would allow the city to demonstrate that in this case, your asserted rightto the degree that it's implicatedis not actually "retained" but has been given up to the government in the social contract bargain.

In this case you should prevail. It's unlikely the city can show the truck causes any public problems just because it's within 500 feet of a restaurant. For other regulations you might have to abide by, such as fire restrictions, litter control, or food safety rules, the story could be very different. But suppressing competition isn't enough. "We're living in a society!" doesn't mean we delegate to the government the power to simply pick winners and losers.

Notice this is stronger than "rational basis review," as it's currently practiced in federal and in (most) state constitutional law, but it's not necessarily strict scrutiny. It's not even necessarily a presumption against the government. Perhaps my indifference on these shades comes from my years of litigating under the rational basis test, but I've found for most questionable laws you don't need strict scrutiny to be able to constitutionally defeat them; you just need the kabuki theatre of the rational basis test to go away. Then judges can actually take your facts and arguments seriously. This is hardly radical stuff.

And now, as Larry King used to do, some news and views on a few other issues.

The Ninth Amendment itself. When I discuss my book, I've noticed people here and elsewhere often want to talk about the Ninth Amendment itself, or how they can use it do to X legal thing, ignoring the state constitutional side of things. This is an unsurprising result of the focus so many of us have on the U.S. Constitution. But it's a bad habit. Again, unless you're up against the federal government itself, your state constitution is potentially just as useful in fighting the government as the U.S. version. Looking at Baby Ninths isn't just a way to think about the U.S. Constitutionalthough it can be, as I conclude below. Primarily, it's a way to actually do something real concerning state and local government. State constitutional law is neglected in law school and even more so in legal media, but that doesn't mean you should too. Go read your state constitution. If you're a lawyer and interested in bringing a civil rights caseespecially if it's pro bonothink about using the state constitution, including a state's Baby Ninth.

Variations. Most Baby Ninths are almost identical to the Ninth itself, with "impair" often used and "construed" sometimes dropped. I don't think this makes a material difference, but I talk about it a bit in the book. There are a handful with more differences. Minnesota and Mississippi have "retained by, and inherent in, the people." I also don't think that's material. Then there's Georgia and Virginia. Georgia's is super interesting. Read my book (pp. 131-32) to find out why! And other than Georgia's, Virginia's is the only one without "retained."

More direct language. Professor Mitchell Gordon at St. Thomas (MN) has a wonderful article about the oddness of the Ninth Amendment. I'll admit, the language can be a little mystifying. So why did state delegates use it to protect unenumerated rights? They could have just said "there are other rights retained by the people and they are also protected by this Constitution just as much as the foregoing." I think they used the Ninth instead because it was "off the shelf," so to speak. This happens a lot in state constitutional law, with states borrowing from what the feds and others have done instead of drafting anew. Could Baby Ninths have been written differently? Sure. But that doesn't mean they don't protect Lockean rights.

The name. I've seen a couple people object to the nickname. As I'm more than upfront about in the book, I didn't invent it. John Yoo and Akhil Amar did (one in print, one in lectures). But I like it! As John Yoo wrote, it follows from the nickname "Baby FTC Acts" which many states have for consumer protection laws. It's not that states are babies, it's just that all Baby Ninths chronologically came after the Ninth itself. The same isn't true of other provisions, such as the Fourth Amendment.

In the end, what's going on with Baby Ninths? Yes, they're "etcetera clauses," but is there a complementary way to think about why we have them? Via some mild speculation, in the book's afterword, I theorize that what might be going on is a bit of a compromise. As a commentator said, Americans like unenumerated rights, but often don't like specific examples of unenumerated rights. Going into a constitutional convention many delegates will have rights they like and rights they don't care about. In adopting an unenumerated rights clause (whether a Baby Ninth, a Lockean Guarantee, or something else), they know that it could be interpreted to protect all of those rights. And yet they've included these provisions over and over again anyway. Why? Perhaps because they're erring on the side of liberty. Yes, the provisions might be interpreted in the future to protect a right the delegate isn't a fan of, but it also might protect rights she cares deeply about. So she and her various other delegates will err for more freedom instead of not having unenumerated rights at all and giving the statedare I say Leviathanmore power.

It's also telling that no state has adopted a provision that says something like "there are no unenumerated rights." Or even "courts must enforce unenumerated rights very sparingly." Dog/bark?

Finally, what does the story of Baby Ninths tell us about the U.S. Constitution? It doesn't help us directly interpret the Constitution's text. But it does demonstrate that far from unenumerated rights being something that Americans shun, they're something that's normal. Popular, even! And those same Americans who adopted a Baby Ninth sixty-six different times in U.S. history also wrote and amended the Constitution itself. When we're reading the U.S. Constitution, we should be thinking: "Unenumerated rights provisions are common for Americans when they write constitutions. It wouldn't be surprising if there was one in this document as well."

I'll leave you with my book's epigraph. Thank you for reading.

Anna: Oh, yes, I'm sure we could see many things . . . such as iron bars, guards at the doors, et cetera, et cetera.

The King: What is this "et cetera"?

Anna: Well, it means "and all the rest and so forth," Your Majesty.

The King & I

See the original post:
Baby Ninth Amendments Part V: Real Life, Potpourri, and the Big ... - Reason

IL file photo

The Court of Appeals of Indiana upheld a mans possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon conviction Friday, affirming a trial court decision that a police stop and search of the man was lawful and did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights.

In 2021, Tony Lawrence Richey was stopped by Shelby County Sheriffs Deputy Justin Parker as he was responding to a call that there was a suspicious person walking on Flat Rock River bridge.

Parker found Richey under the bridge, camping.

Richey told Parker he had not been walking on the bridge, but he packed up his camp and called a relative to pick him up.

Parker then went home and during his drive, he saw Richey walking on the road, where the two waved at each other.

After going home to change clothes, Parker left for an appointment in Greenwood.

He saw Richey again and stopped to ask him where he was going. Richey said he was trying to get to Indianapolis. Parker thought it was strange given that Richey was not walking in the direction of Indianapolis.

After almost four hours since his interaction with Richey, Parker saw him again walking around in the rain without any rain gear.

Parker knew there werent any gas stations or restaurants nearby, so he called Deputy Kenneth Thompson to check on Richey. Parker saw Richey enter the woods.

Parker called off-duty Shelbyville Police Officer John Searle about Richey.

Searle later saw Richey when he was driving to a gas station in his patrol vehicle. He noticed that Richey was walking with the flow of traffic, so he activated his red and blue lights and stopped him.

Richey said he would like a courtesy ride, so they called Thompson to give him the ride.

Thompson asked Richey if he had any guns on him because he always makes sure people are unarmed when giving them a courtesy ride.

The deputy discovered a handgun and ammunition. He arrested Richey on suspicion of carrying a handgun without a license.

Richey was charged with Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a SVF.

The jury trial began in March 2022. Richey objected to the handgun and ammunition as evidence, but it was overruled.

The state also introduced court records from the Owen Circuit Court showing Richey was convicted in 1995 for eight felony counts: three counts of Class B felony burglary, three counts of Class C felony burglary, one count of Class C felony arson and one count of Class D felony automobile theft for crimes committed in 1994.

They matched Richeys date of birth and tattoos with Owen Circuit Court records to confirm it was him. The state also used a recorded call Richey made from the Shelby County Jail, where he said, I own up to what I did wrong, and mentioned a case that I had in Owen County.

The jury found Richey guilty and the trial court sentenced him to seven years, ordering the first six to be served in the Indiana Department of Correction and his final year on probation.

Richey appealed and presented the court with three issues. The first issue Richey brought to the appellate court was whether officers unconstitutionally seized him, violating the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution prior to discovering a firearm.

The appellate court disagreed with Richey, finding the search did not violate the U.S. Constitution or the state constitution.

Richey asserts Officer Searle lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate a Terry stop of him. However, police officers may initiate a stop when they observe even a minor traffic violation, State v. Quirk, 842 N.E.2d 334, 340 (Ind. 2006), and Officer Searle observed Richey walking on the wrong side of the road, which is a Class C infraction, Judge Melissa May wrote. Because Officer Searles Terry stop of Richey turned into a consensual encounter before the discovery of the firearm and Deputy Thompsons search of Richey after Richey disclosed he had a handgun was reasonable, the officers did not violate Richeys rights under Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.

The second issue he brought to the court was whether the state presented sufficient evidence that he had committed an SVF-qualifying offense.

Richey argued that tattoos can be added, removed or modified over time, and that his reference to an Owen County case could mean a case other than the 1994 burglaries.

However, these arguments are simply invitations for us to reweigh the evidence, which our standard of review precludes, May wrote. A reasonable finder of fact could weigh the matching name, date of birth, and physical characteristics described in the Owen County Court records, the tattoos, and Richeys statement during the jail call to mean Richey was the offender convicted of Class B felony burglary in the Owen County case.

Lastly, Richey asked whether the trial court committed fundamental error when it admitted evidence of more than one of his prior convictions.

Rejecting that argument, May wrote, (T)he fact that the jury learned Tony Lawrence Richey was convicted of multiple other felonies in 1995 does not constitute fundamental error.

The case is Tony Lawrence Richey v. State of Indiana, 22A-CR-1107.

Link:
COA affirms SVF firearm conviction, finds stop and search by police ... - Indiana Lawyer

Item 1.01. Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

The information contained in Item 2.03 of this Current Report on Form 8-K isincorporated by reference in this Item 1.01.

Item 2.03. Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an

On May 9, 2023, Barings BDC, Inc. ("BBDC") entered into an amendment (the"Fourth Amendment") to the Senior Secured Revolving Credit Agreement, dated asof February 3, 2019 (as amended by the first amendment thereto, dated as ofDecember 3, 2019, as further amended by the second amendment thereto, dated asof December 29, 2021, as further amended by the third amendment thereto, datedas of February 25, 2022, and as further amended by the Fourth Amendment, the"ING Credit Facility"), among BBDC, as borrower, Energy Hardware Holdings, Inc.,Barings BDC Finance I, LLC and Barings BDC Senior Funding I, LLC, as subsidiaryguarantors, the lenders party thereto and ING Capital LLC ("ING"), asadministrative agent.

Under the Fourth Amendment, among other changes, the maturity date of the INGCredit Facility was extended to February 21, 2026.

The above summary is not complete and is qualified in its entirety to the fulltext of the Fourth Amendment and related documents, which is attached hereto asExhibit 10.1 and is incorporated herein by reference.

Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.

* Schedules to this Exhibit have been omitted in accordance with Item 601 ofRegulation S-K. The registrant agrees to furnish supplementally a copy of allomitted schedules to the SEC upon its request.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

The rest is here:
BARINGS BDC, INC. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance Sheet...