–The Techdirt Team
Data Shows The NYPD Seized 55,000 Phones In 2020; Returned Less Than 35,000 To Their Rightful Owners
from the whole-new-way-of-looking-at-public-funding dept
The Supreme Court said law enforcement needs to get warrants to search phones seized incident to an arrest. But that decision didn't have much to say about other seizures -- some that aren't linked to any arrests at all.
Lots of police departments take phones from people. The NYPD is one of the worst about taking phones. And it's definitely the worst when it comes to returning them. If someone's not willing to engage with the labyrinthine process required to secure their return, the phones remain in the hands of the Department.
. . .As this report notes, nearly 85% of all seizures performed by the NYPD aren't related to any criminal charges against the person whose phone has been taken. One lawyer pointed out the NYPD officers took a shooting victim's phone from them while they recovering at the hospital, claiming they needed it for "evidence."
That's the black hole a bunch of these phones are falling into: evidence. The person they're taken from may just be a victim. But once it's considered evidence, the NYPD can hold onto it until its investigation concludes and any court proceedings are finished. This can take months or years.
Even if prosecutors manage to secure a quick plea deal, that's no guarantee someone can get their phone back. And it took a court order to keep the NYPD from trapping people's phones in a Catch-22 most residents couldn't bypass. ...
This is the NYPD doing something just because it can. It clearly doesn't need most of what it seizes as evidence -- not when almost every criminal case ends with a plea deal. And it certainly doesn't need the spare change selling used phones generates. But when nothing stands between it and doing what it wants, it will do what it wants. No single phone makes much of a difference to the NYPD, but it makes a big difference to those they're taken from -- people who rely on them day in and day out to stay connected, get work done, and access any number of services.
Filed Under: 4th amendment, encryption, nypd, seized phones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forfeiture In Theory: TAKING DOWN DRUG LORDS! Forfeiture In Practice: Taking A Guy's TV And PlayStation During A Drug Raid
from the can't-make-a-drug-war-without-breaking-a-few-home-electronics dept
Asset forfeiture means taking everything that isn't nailed down. Why bother being selective? In most cases, it's pure profit for the law enforcement agency that performs the seizure. And since forfeitures are so rarely successfully challenged, it's pretty much a foolproof way to make a little extra cash. The citizens who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (in their own houses with their own possessions) are acceptable collateral damage.
We're in the middle of a war against drugs. Collateral damage should be expected. That's the viewpoint of drug warriors, even when the "acceptable" collateral damage means nothing more than law enforcement officers taking stuff just because they can.
Here's a rare successful motion for a return of property . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Content Moderation Case Studies: Can Baby Yoda GIFs Defeat The DMCA Force? (2019)
from the copyright-on-the-dark-side dept
Summary: In the fall of 2019, Disney launched its Disney+ streaming service to instant acclaim. While it offered up access to the extensive Disney catalog (including all of its Marvel, Star Wars, and 21st Century Fox archives), the first big new hit for the service was a TV series set in the Star Wars universe called The Mandalorian, which featured a character regularly referred to as “Baby Yoda.”
Baby Yoda was a clear hit online, and people quickly made animated gif images of the character, helping spread more interest in The Mandalorian and the Disney+ service. However, soon after Vulture Magazine put up a story that was all just Baby Yoda GIFs, it was discovered that Giphy, a company that has built a repository of GIFs, had taken all of the Baby Yoda GIFs down. This caused many to complain, blaming Disney, highlighting that such GIFs were clearly fair use.
Many people assumed that Disney was behind the takedown of the Baby Yoda GIFs. This may be a natural assumption since Disney, above and beyond almost any other company, has a decades-long reputation for aggressively enforcing its copyright. The Washington Post even wrote up an entire article scolding Disney for “not understanding fans.”
That article noted that it was possible that Giphy pre-emptively decided to take down the images, but pointed out that this was, in some ways, even worse. This would mean that Disney’s own reputation as an aggressive enforcer of copyrights would lead another company to take action even without an official DMCA takedown notice.
Giphy itself has always lived in something of a gray area regarding copyright, since many of the GIFs are from popular culture, including TVs and movies. While there is a strong argument that these are fair use, the company has claimed that most of its content is licensed, and said that it does not rely on fair use.
Decisions to be made by Giphy:
Should the company rely on fair use to cover certain GIFs that are uploaded, or should it try to license everything?
Regarding uploaded GIFs, how aggressive should the company be in searching for and taking down content? Should it only do so after receiving a takedown notice, or should it proactively remove content?
For popular content, like Baby Yoda images, should Giphy reach out to the copyright holder (in the case Disney) to either get permission or to work out a partnership?
Questions and policy implications to consider:
Popular culture content is frequently used in memes and GIFs. Is copyright law properly calibrated to allow this kind of activity?
Fair use is found in only a few countries (most notably, the US). How do differences in international copyright law impact the ability of a service like Giphy to exist?
Is Disney better off encouraging fans to spread GIFs, such as those of Baby Yoda, than exercising whatever copyright enforcement powers it has?
If Giphy took down the Baby Yoda images preemptively, does that indicate that fear of copyright litigation is holding back cultural sharing?
Resolution: Soon after the story went viral, Giphy issued an apology to Disney, and to Vulture which had posted the original article full of Baby Yoda GIFs. The apology suggested that Giphy had made the decision to remove the GIFs without any takedown notice or other input from Disney.
"Last week, there was some confusion around certain content uploaded to Giphy and we temporarily removed these Gifs while we reviewed the situation," said the image-hosting website in a statement.
"We apologise to both Disney and Vulture for any inconvenience, and we are happy to report that the Gifs are once again live on Giphy."
In multiple articles about this, it is noted that Disney refused to comment on the issue, leaving some reporters to wonder if Disney had played a role but did not wish to discuss it publicly. Either way, there are now many Baby Yoda GIFs on Giphy.
Originally posted on the Trust & Safety Foundation website.
No comments:
Post a Comment