Court Slaps Down Ajit Pai's Lazy FCC Ruling On 5G Safety, Likely Fueling Conspiracy Theorists
from the not-helping dept
In December of 2019 the Ajit Pai FCC announced it would not be updating its radiofrequency (RF) emission guidelines, which determine "safe" levels of exposure. The decision, Pai said, was based on a comprehensive six year review of the available evidence.
Yeah, about that.
Several groups that lean toward the... conspiratorial... had challenged the FCC's decision, forcing a court review. And when the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit actually reviewed the FCC's decision making process, they found that the FCC didn't really do its due diligence in reviewing the evidence. The court stated in its order (pdf) that while there very well might be good evidence to not change the standards, the FCC under Ajit Pai didn't actually provide it:
......................................................................Granted this whole "making a decision without looking at the actual evidence" thing was a bit of a pattern for the Ajit Pai FCC, whether it was its attempts to kill broadband subsidies for tribal lands, its attacks on media consolidation rules, its rulings on cell tower placements that largely favored industry, or its attempt to ban states from protecting broadband consumers. In every example Pai's decisions were shot down by the courts after they found they weren't based on much in the way of legally-supportable fact. Pai's disregard for factual reality was also well represented during the net neutrality repeal. . .
It's true that the FCC is historically a captured agency (especially under Trump). It's also true that some of the Pai FCC's laziness could be attributed to not wanting to upset the cellular industry. But that doesn't automatically mean that 5G harms human health. That still needs to be proven by actual evidence. But because Pai didn't do his job properly, that's going to all get lost in translation.
Filed Under: 5g, ajit pai, arbitrary, capricious, evidence, fcc, robert f. kennedy jr., safety
Researchers Who Built Similar System Explain Why Apple's CSAM Scanning System Is Dangerous
from the it's-not-good dept
Mayer and Kulshretha note that while Apple is saying that people worried about their system are misunderstanding it, they are not. They know what they're talking about -- and they still say the system is dangerous . . .The potential dangers that Mayer and Kulshretha are exactly what many had warned about when Apple announced its plans: ...........................................................
. . .As we noted in our earlier posts (and as Mayer and Kulshretha noted in their research), the risk of false positives is extremely high. And late last week, the hypothetical became a lot more real. Someone reverse engineered the NeuralHash algorithm that Apple is using and put it on Github.
. . .This is part of the reason that we highlighted earlier that security researchers are so up in arms about this. Apple seemingly ignored so much of the research and conversations that were happening about these approaches, and just barged right in announcing that it had a solution without exploring the tradeoffs and difficulties associated with it -- leaving that for security experts to point out afterwards.
Apple is trying to downplay these findings, saying that it expected the collisions at least, and that it's system would also do a separate server side hashing comparison which would stop the false collisions. Though, as Bruce Schneier points out, if this was "expected," then why wasn't it discussed in the initial details that were released? Similarly, I have yet to see a response to the flip side issue of changing the images in a way that fool NeuralHash while still looking the same.
I know Apple keeps wanting to insist that it's thought through all of this, but it doesn't seem to have thought through any of how the security community would see all of this, and it's after-the-fact scrambling is not exactly reassuring.
Filed Under: backdoors, client side scanning, csam, encryption, hash clash, jonathan mayer, surveillance
Companies: apple
Investigation Of ShotSpotter's Practices Is Raising Questions The Company's Angry Statement Really Doesn't Answer
from the bleeding-from-self-inflicted-wounds-always-sucks dept
This appears to have happened again. A man, apparently falsely arrested for a murder he didn't commit, was put in jail for eleven months based almost solely on ShotSpotter reports. The problem with the ShotSpotter report is that it kept changing. And again, the alterations made the report align with the presuppositions of law enforcement. The original detection didn't classify the "percussive noise" as a gunshot. This non-determination was manually overridden by a ShotSpotter "analyst" to be classified as a gunshot.
Months later, ShotSpotter relocated the detected noise from where it was originally "heard" to the intersection where the wrongfully-arrested man's car was captured by a nearby surveillance camera, allowing prosecutors to tie together their theory that the person they had already pinned the crime on had actually committed the crime. But, as soon as the wrongfully-arrested man challenged this evidence, prosecutors dropped the case, citing a lack of evidence.
This reporting on ShotSpotter's apparent alteration of reports to better fit law enforcement claims and theories angered ShotSpotter. The company issued an angry statement claiming Motherboard's article on its latest evidentiary… oddities… was bogus and possibly capable of "confusing" readers. . .
The Associated Press has taken a long, detailed look at this case and uncovered plenty of information that casts doubt on the company's assertions about its practices and the value of its sole product: sensors that detect gunshots and provide their locations to law enforcement. In the middle of it all is 65-year-old Michael Williams who spent 11 months in jail, arrested for a homicide he didn't commit. In fact, Williams drove the gunshot victim to the ER after he was shot by someone in an adjacent car.
The AP report says everything Motherboard said (and more) -- the same things ShotSpotter publicly denied in its angry statement. . .As for the claim the company never alters reports, especially at the request of law enforcement, the AP found that claim is complete bullshit.
. . .The company remains unrepentant, even in the face of mounting evidence the tech is faulty and its detections can be set to manual override at the whim of "analysts" or law enforcement officers. . .
ShotSpotter can keep being angry about how it's portrayed in the press. But it can't blame anyone else for its own missteps and failures. Not only does the company seem to overstate the reliability of its sensors, but admissions made in court make it clear the evidentiary value of its reports is, at best, extremely questionable.
Filed Under: evidence, police, shotspotter
Companies: shotspotter
NY Times And Washington Post Criticize Facebook Because The Chicago Tribune Had A Terrible Headline
from the wait,-whose-fault-is-it-now? dept
And, along those lines, there are two parts to this story, and while much of it is going to point some fingers at the NY Times and Washington Post in how they presented a story that suggested blaming Facebook for something that isn't actually a Facebook issue, that shouldn't be seen as letting Facebook off the hook, because it doesn't come out of this story looking very good either. Basically, this is a story that shows how much more complex and complicated our information ecosystem is when it comes to misinformation, and simple blame games aren't necessarily that effective. . .
But, first, some background: for a long time, NY Times reporter Kevin Roose has used Facebook's own CrowdTangle tool to highlight what content on Facebook was getting the most engagement. It is a consistently useful tool in showing how claims that Facebook has an "anti-conservative bias" is bullshit. It constantly shows top "conservative" personalities like Ben Shapiro, Don Bongino, and others as having the most engagement on the site.
For reasons I don't fully understand, Facebook has always hated this, and has spent so much wasted effort repeatedly insisting that Roose's tracking of the numbers is not telling an accurate picture of what's happening on the site (even though he's using Facebook's own tool). Last week, Facebook launched a new offering which it seemed to hope would change the narrative on this. It's called the "Widely Viewed Content Report" (catchy!). And, obviously, it is true that "engagement" (what CrowdTangle shows) is not the be-all, end-all of what's happening on the site, but it is kinda weird how annoyed Facebook gets about the lists.................................................................................................................................................
And, to be fair, there is a bunch of interesting stuff in this report. It shows that, despite all the focus on Facebook links to outside sources, apparently 87% of content viewed in Facebook's News Feed doesn't even link to an outside source. And much of the rest of the report really leans hard on the fact that for most people, politics and news (and disinformation) are not a huge part of their Facebook experience. That's certainly very interesting, though it would be nicer if Facebook exposed the raw data, rather than doing this as quarterly reports. . .Anyway, a couple days after Facebook released all this, the NY Times came out with what is a legitimate scoop: Facebook had actually planned to release a version of this report earlier this year, but (according to the article) shelved it when the most-viewed link didn't look very good for Facebook. From the article:
.........................................................................................................................................................
Now, the fact that Facebook would shelve the report because of the possible optics is bad. Flat out. No question about it at all. It also demonstrates why having to sit around and rely on Facebook to release this report every quarter rather than just sharing the data is always going to be questionable and not engender much trust.
But... (and this is important), the NY Times piece kinda buries something rather important here
................................................To be honest, the NY Times article and framing is more defensible. It focuses on Facebook's (highly questionable) decision to shelve the report until there was a better link in the top slot. The reporters on the Times piece -- Davey Alba and Ryan Mac, both of whom, I should note, I think are generally top notch reporters on the tech beat -- have taken issue with people calling out this aspect of their reporting. . .Mac pointed out that the real issue wasn't so much the problems of the original Tribune/Sentinel story (which the NY Times also had a version of), but rather the users on Facebook sensationalizing the story to imply something about the vaccine. Alba, similarly, points out that the real news is the fact that the reason this article was so popular was that it was shared widely by anti-vax groups.
And... I can see that. But, somewhat ironically, all weekend on Twitter, I kept seeing Facebook haters sharing those NY Times and Washington Post articles in the exact same way that Alba and Mac are complaining about -- by misrepresenting the key newsworthy points, and instead using it to reinforce their prior beliefs (that Facebook was somehow bad).
Very, very, very few people were noting that this is all a lot more complex. It reminds me, yet again, of the research from Yochai Benkler that showed that disinformation really only goes viral on social media after more mainstream media presents a story. . .The fact is the ecosystem is a lot more complex, and the ways to deal with it are a lot more nuanced than many people seem to want to discuss or admit. . .
We're not going to solve the problems associated with a bunch of people believing in nonsense if we ignore the underlying parties responsible for the content itself, and focus just on the intermediaries. That doesn't mean to ignore Facebook, but it's a reminder to view the overall ecosystem.
Filed Under: blame, disinformation, engagement, journalism, reporting, vaccines
Companies: facebook, ny times, washington post
Ninth Circuit Affirms MSNBC's Anti-SLAPP Motion Against OAN Network's Bullshit Defamation Lawsuit
from the opinion,-facts-still-protected-speech-because-duh dept
This report by Maddow came with the usual Maddow commentary, which included (protected!) opinions and the statement that Rouz was "literally paid Russian propaganda." This referred to Rouz's Sputnik work and cast serious shade on OAN's decision to bring the reporter on board with its network. A defamation lawsuit followed. And OAN lost.
The district court said the assertions were based on fact and everything else was protected opinion. The court signed off on MSNBC's anti-SLAPP motion, handing it a win. And with a the anti-SLAPP win came some fee-shifting, which led to OAN being ordered to pay more than $250,000 in legal fees.
OAN appealed. And it has lost again. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals says the lower court was right about everything. . ...................................................................................Undisputed.
And yet, OAN wants to dispute. Too bad, says the Ninth Circuit. . ............................................And that ends this case unless OAN thinks the Supreme Court is going to be more receptive to its arguments. Those arguments are, basically, opinion OAN doesn't like shouldn't be protected speech, and people shouldn't be allowed to report on undisputed facts that make OAN look bad. Hardly the sort of thing that's likely to upset Supreme Court precedent and long-held First Amendment protections for both opinions and factual statements.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, anti-slapp, california, defamation, free speech, kristian rouz, opinion, rachel maddow
Companies: msnbc, oan, sputnik
Understanding The California Ruling That Said Prop 22, The Gig Worker Ballot Initiative, Was Unconstitutional
from the laborious-constitutional-interpretation dept
Whether it actually is a victory for labor is debatable but also somewhat besides the point. The relative merits of any of these things (Uber, Prop. 22, AB 5) is not what's at issue. Instead, the question is whether the decision correctly interprets the California Constitution.
The California Constitution is, let's face it, kind of weird. Many state constitutions mirror the US Constitution with the way they are articulated. Not so the California Constitution, which reads much more like a laundry list of specific policies. As a result, it is more changeable than other constitutions, although given all the specific policies that can get baked into it, perhaps not always changeable enough.
Ultimately the court found two aspects of Prop. 22 (but only two aspects, despite the challengers' arguments) to be unconstitutional given the current incarnation of the California Constitution: the language in Section 7451 about Workman's Compensation, and the language in Section 7465(c)(4) about amending the law put on the books by the proposition. Each had a different constitutional problem. . .
To the court, the problem was that propositions were limited to being only about a single "subject":.......................................................................................................And to the court, the collective bargaining had nothing to do with the subject of the proposition.................................. For better or for worse, the ballot initiative process exists for cases like these where the legislature gets policy wrong and then doesn't fix it (although, to be fair, it did mitigate a few of the problems with AB 5, but not all). Overturning a legislative decision via direct democracy is exactly the political process the California Constitution envisions and invites with the ballot initiative process. Whether, however, it's a process the California Constitution should invite may be something worth reconsidering, particularly in its current, overly-permanent form. But not on the backs of a single initiative on a single issue of political contention. Because even if you hate the policy that resulted from it, it's the result of the system working as designed.
To change that result you have to first change the system.
Filed Under: ab5, california, california constitution, constitution, gig workers, prop 22
No comments:
Post a Comment