.png)
Intro:
✓
LAPD Adopts Some (Weak) Surveillance Tech Reforms That Will Finally Allow Public Input
from the it's-far-better-than-the-nothing-the-LAPD-has-offered-in-the-past dept
The Los Angeles Police Department is one of the largest in the United States. To say it’s resistant to change would be an understatement. It — like the NYPD — is also resistant to oversight, transparency, and accountability.
It may not be as openly antagonistic as the NYPD but it has a multitude of problems that have gone unaddressed for years. That’s what has allowed the LAPD to do things like tell the press and FOIA requesters it has never used facial recognition tech — something followed shortly thereafter by the release of documents showing the PD used the tech 30,000 times in the past decade.
It’s this unwillingness to be accountable that has led to LAPD officers filing false reports to place innocent residents in gang databases. It’s this disinterest in internal accountability that has led to LAPD officials blaming officer misconduct
on predictive policing software, rather than the officers themselves.
And when the LAPD can finally be convinced to give up surveillance tech
that hurts rather than helps, it takes a worldwide pandemic to make it happen. . .
As positive as these developments are, they’re limited by what they are: policy changes. These aren’t codified. And, for the most part, the LAPD will be the only entity that truly knows whether or not they’re being followed. Law enforcement agencies don’t mind instituting new policies as long as no one expects them to enforce them with meaningful discipline. The rules can be bent and broken at will with offenders receiving little more than verbal or written warnings. The reporting mandates only require information about deployments. Information about violations will presumably still be considered information the LAPD isn’t obligated to share with the public.
Better than nothing isn’t a very high bar to reach. That the LAPD has managed to clear it doesn’t mean the LAPD is on the road to recovery.
Filed Under: lapd, surveillance, transparency
MoviePass Returns After Its Disastrous, Comical Implosion
from the if-at-first-you-don't-succeed dept
After imploding in a spectacular fireball several years ago, MoviePass is giving things another try.
The service has announced that it’s preparing to relaunch
on Labor Day, nearly three years after the company was effectively
shamed out of existence in spectacular fashion. While the remnants of
MoviePass were sold to a private equity firm in 2017, original
co-founder Stacy Spikes bought the company back last year and hopes
customers have short memories. . .
Given that degree of fraud and incompetence, it’s fairly incredible that the brand is nontoxic enough to even consider a relaunch. The reconstituted service will cost somewhere between $10 and $30, though users will have to join a waitlist to participate in the new beta.
Filed Under: film, incompetence, mismanagement, movie theaters, movie tickets, subscriptions
Companies: moviepass
Who Would Benefit From California’s Age Appropriate Design Code? Apparently Porn Companies, Privacy Lawyers, And Medical Disinfo Peddlers. But Not Kids
from the who-is-this-actually-helping? dept
This week we’ve been writing about California bill AB 2273, a dangerous bill that has effectively sailed through the California legislature with little pushback, because it’s wrapped up in “protect the children” language and no one wants to be seen as not wanting to “protect the children.” But, like so many bills that frame themselves as “protecting the children,” this one does no such thing, and likely puts everyone’s (not just children, but them too) privacy at much greater risk. Eric Goldman posted a long, detailed breakdown of just how bad the bill is. I highlighted how it’s literally impossible to comply with, using Techdirt as an example. And, then I also covered how the bill came into being, because a UK baroness/Hollywood filmmaker pushed it on California lawmakers who took it and ran with it (she has already gotten a similar law passed in the UK, and is pushing for it elsewhere).
Within all of those articles, we’ve described the many, many, many
problems with the law, how its very premise is based on myth rather than
fact, and why it will be a disaster for the internet. And yet the bill
has very little official opposition, and a massive amount of official
support. So, today, I wanted to look at who is likely to benefit from
this bill becoming law, mostly using the official supporters listed in the Senate Floor Analyses presented during the third reading in the California Senate a few days ago. . .
We already discussed 5Rights, the group out of the UK who “sponsored” the bill. Some of the others seem to just be random “for the kids” charities who do good work and likely signed on because this bill is to “protect the kids” and they don’t have the knowledge or expertise to understand how problematic it is.
But there are some inclusions worth calling out. First up: California Lawyers Association, Privacy Law Section. It seems a bit unseemly for them to be endorsing this bill. As we’ve discussed, realistically, the only thing this bill “protects” is the employment of privacy lawyers. Because under this law, basically every website is going to need to hire privacy lawyers to write a “Data Protection Impact Assessment” (DPIA) for every single feature on their website, and every new feature that they launch. Those DPIAs will need to be reviewed every two years as well. Legal liability attaches to these DPIAs, and so you’re going to need a privacy lawyer to write them.
In other words, this bill is a “full employment for privacy lawyers” kind of law.
I mean, I noted that Techdirt probably will require at least a dozen different DPIAs, and possibly more, and we’re just a tiny blog. I shudder to think how many DPIAs any site with actual features will have to create.
And thus, it seems not just a little self-serving to see the official Privacy Law Section of the California bar endorse it. I mean, in general, it seems kind of unseemly for the California bar to be officially endorsing any laws, considering that members will likely have to be on both sides of disputes. I was kind of curious about what sort of advocacy the California Lawyers Association deems acceptable, and the organization indicates that its advocacy is just about “promoting excellence, diversity and inclusion in the legal profession and fairness in the administration of justice and the rule of law.”
I do not see how this law that will just make a ton of legal busy work achieves any of that. Those with economic interest in passing this bill are on the list as
well. There is a large and growing business of companies who are pumping
up the (unproven) claims of “social media addiction” in an effort to
sell stuff to overly concerned parents (note to parents: there are
plenty of free tools that help you do this without having to pay these
companies, and also there’s value in teaching your kids how to be good
digital citizens and when to recognize they’re in an unsafe digital
space). . .
So good work, California, you’ve got medical disinfo peddlers supporting your bill.
There’s another supporter of this bill that I want to call out separately, because it’s a bit hidden. At the end there, it lists “two individuals.” But one of those individuals is revealed later in the document to be Tim Kendall. The California legislature seems taken with Tim, and his resume suggests why: he was “the first Director of Monetization at Facebook” and was also the President of Pinterest.
That resume has made him a popular name on the “prodigal tech bro” circuit of former techbros who got rich and then claimed they “saw the light” and are now working against tech. As Maria Farrell (who coined “the prodigal tech bro” term) notes, these stories are always a little too perfect.
Indeed, Kendall basically gets the second most screen time in the documentary The Social Dilemma (after the proto-prodigal tech bro, Tristan Harris). You remember The Social Dilemma, don’t you? That was the documentary on Netflix (the company that originally perfected algorithmic recommendations to keep you coming back — though the documentary conveniently leaves out Netflix’s role in all that) that manipulates you with misinformation to convince you that others are manipulating you with misinformation.
Anyway, I find it interesting that neither in The Social Dilemma, nor in the “endorsement” for AB 2273, does anyone mention that Kendall founded and runs Moment, an app that was pitched as a tool for weaning you off of your supposed screen addiction.
In other words, his startup is helped out quite a bit by continuing the narrative that the internet is bad and dangerous and addictive for kids.
It seems like maybe some of that should have been disclosed?
Anyway, since we’re talking about the Social Dilemma (again, a movie that is deeply manipulative and full of disinformation), I should note that the makers of that movie are also listed as supporters of the bill, as is the Center for Humane Technology, the organization founded by Tristan Harris, the only person to get more screen time than Kendall in the documentary.
It’s almost as if there’s an entire industry built off the claims that tech is inherently bad and we need to be protected from it — and they have every incentive to continue to promote that narrative, even as the data frequently contradicts the claim. As you scroll through the list, you can see other examples of such organizations as well.
And, yes, it’s reasonable to be concerned about children. But so much of the problem with “for the children” legislation is that it’s not good legislation and won’t fix any actual problem. And no one feels willing to speak up about it, because then they’ll get attacked as not wanting to protect the children.
But this bill doesn’t protect the children, as we’ve explained at great length. Its drafted so poorly and so broadly that it will create all sorts of problems. Lumping everyone under 18 into a single category of “children” is ridiculous and disconnected from reality. Having it apply to websites “likely to be accessed by a child” rather than those actually targeting children (and again, without distinguishing what kinds of children) is a problem. Requiring sites to know the ages of visitors (i.e. age verification provided by the largest porn company in the world) is a problem. Requiring every website to file useless paperwork regarding every feature and allowing the Attorney General to demand those papers be handed over with just a couple days of notice is a problem.
The bill doesn’t help the children. It seems to help the world’s largest porn company, a bunch of privacy lawyers, and the burgeoning industry of folks who are now building their careers around getting everyone (especially parents) to fear technology (including one guy who advocated infecting people with COVID).
It’s not exactly a good look.
And yet, everyone tells me Gavin Newsom is likely to sign the bill.
Filed Under: ab 2273, age verification, california, data, for the children, porn, privacy, the social dilemma
Companies: mindgeek
UK Privacy Group Says Police Are Abusing Stop And Search Powers To Hassle Protesters
from the but-of-course-they-are dept
Most protest activity targets government entities. So, it’s really no surprise that government entities prefer to target protesters. While most “free” nations won’t go so far as to introduce life sentences for protesting and/or fire a majority of local officials and replace them with handpicked loyalists, the general understanding is that protests targeting government entities are part of the natural state of things and, as such, should largely be tolerated if not actually protected.
But that’s almost never the case. The protests in the United States that erupted following the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis cop — land of free and home of the First Amendment — were greeted with violence, possibly illegal surveillance, and assaults of journalists and legal observers by the targets of the protests: US law enforcement.
The UK is no exception to the rule. Data obtained by Big Brother Watch shows UK police appear to be routinely abusing stop and search powers during protests. . .
If this passes, the United Kingdom should just rename itself Her Majesty’s Police State and eliminate the unbelievable pretense that it gives a solitary fuck about the rights of its citizens. Protests against governments are an essential part of healthy free societies. Taking this option away gives governments all the power, leaving the governed subject to the whims and largesse of officials who are supposed to represent their constituents and argue for their best interests, rather than work tirelessly to undermine the rights of the people they serve.
Filed Under: london metro police, protests, stop and search, surveillance, uk
Delaware Chancery Court Keeps Pushing Back On Elon Musk’s Legal Arguments As He (Mostly) Loses His Discovery Battles
from the no-one-in-their-right-mind... dept
As was to be expected, the Twitter / Elon Musk showdown has been zooming ahead. With a trial set for mid-October (after the Chancellor overseeing the case mostly sided with Twitter on the preferred timeline), we’re deep in the discovery process, and there have been some disputes over how that’s going. On Wednesday, there was a hearing to try to resolve both sides pushing back on the discovery demands of the other. If you want a blow-by-blow of the hearing, I recommend checking out The Chancery Daily’s twitter thread of the hearing (and if you’re following the case in general, I highly recommend following that account).. .
Once again, this is not a total win for Twitter, even as it’s a pretty clear loss for Musk. The court tells Musk he needs to hand over the analysis his team did — but does provide a potential out on documents related to the analysis. The ruling says they can still go through and create a privilege log of any material about the analysis that they believe is privileged.
Summing it up, to the extent that Defendants have lodged a blanket objection to producing all of the Data Scientists’ documents as non-testimony expert materials or work product, that objection is overruled. At a minimum, Defendants must produce the Analyses.
That leaves documents and communications and drafts concerning the Analyses. Rule 26(b)(4)(B) does not apply to those materials. To the extent Defendants claim that any document contains work product, Defendants must identify that document on a privilege log. At that point, Plaintiff can seek production of specific documents
Basically, if you’re not going to provide that material, you need to come up with specific reasons for why with all of the material, rather than a blanket “we’re not handing that over ’cause it’s all secrety.” However, the court also makes clear in a footnote, that basically saying “everything here is privileged” is not something she will look favorably upon:
As a word of caution, Defendants are reminded that a large volume of logged entries can raise a red flag for the court.
This is a court being quite fair, but also seeing through the bullshit on the Musk side. Once again, it’s not a total victory for Twitter… but it’s all pretty clearly a loss for Musk.
Filed Under: delaware chancery court, discovery, elon musk, mdau, spam
Companies: twitter
Daily Deal: Microsoft Office Pro for Windows 2021 + HP EliteBook + Office Courses Bundle
from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept
The Microsoft Office Pro for Windows 2021 + HP EliteBook + Office Courses Bundle is pretty self-explanatory. You get one license for Microsoft Office Professional 2021 for Windows and 8 courses to help you learn how to get the most out of Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, Teams, OneNote, Publisher, and Access. You also get a refurbished HP EliteBook 840. The bundle is on sale for $670.
Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.
Filed Under: daily deal
HANG IN THERE and STAY WITH IT There's ! more? Yes there is
Huge News: Biden Administration Announces All Publicly Funded Research Should Be Available For Free To The Public
from the now-do-patents dept
Here’s some amazingly good news amidst all of the nonsense of late. On Thursday, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) at the White House announced that they were updating policy guidance to mandate that all taxpayer-supported research should be immediately available to the public at no cost. According to the actual policy guidelines, US departments and agencies have until the end of 2025 to make this change (though, it’s not clear that there’s any remedy if they don’t). This is really huge — and it seems to have come out of nowhere.
Long term Techdirt readers know this is an issue that we’ve talked about for ages. All the way back in 2008, we wrote about how research journals were locking up publicly funded research. And, that’s kind of crazy, because if the public funded it, then the public should have access to it.
. . .
But, with this move today, the government is going fully open. And — this part is incredibly refreshing — they talk up how this should actually lead to much greater innovation:
This policy will likely yield significant benefits on a number of key priorities for the American people, from environmental justice to cancer breakthroughs, and from game-changing clean energy technologies to protecting civil liberties in an automated world.
This is a nice rebuke for all the people who insist that locking up ideas and research is necessary for innovation. It’s great to see this White House recognize otherwise.
“When research is widely available to other researchers and the public, it can save lives, provide policymakers with the tools to make critical decisions, and drive more equitable outcomes across every sector of society,” said Dr. Alondra Nelson, head of OSTP. “The American people fund tens of billions of dollars of cutting-edge research annually. There should be no delay or barrier between the American public and the returns on their investments in research.”
This is really big. And really good. And should help innovation tremendously, and provide more access to useful ideas and data that the American public has been funding.
In the actual guidance document, OSTP notes that part of the reason for this is what was learned during the early part of the COVID pandemic, when open and free access to research proved tremendous helpful:
Americans were offered a window into the great benefits of immediate public access to federally funded research at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the wake of the public health crisis, government, industry, and scientists voluntarily worked together to adopt an immediate public access policy, which yielded powerful results: research and data flowed effectively, new accessible insights super-charged the rate of discovery, and translation of science soared. The shift in practice during COVID-19 demonstrated how delivering immediate public access to federally funded research publications and data can provide near real-time returns on American taxpayer investments in science and technology. Immediate public access to COVID-19 research is a powerful case study on the benefits of delivering research results and data rapidly to the people. The insights of new and cutting-edge research stemming from the support of federal agencies should be immediately available—not 3 just in moments of crisis, but in every moment. Not only to fight a pandemic, but to advance all areas of study, including urgent issues such as cancer, clean energy, economic disparities, and climate change. American investment in such research is essential to the health, economic prosperity, and well-being of the Nation. There should be no delay between taxpayers and the returns on their investments in research.
This is both unexpected and… wonderful?
Next up: hey OSTP, can we do the same for federally funded patents too?
Of course, it also wouldn’t surprise me if Congress comes back with bills to lock up such research again — or a future administration flip flops on this. But… for now… good news!
Filed Under: federally funded research, open access, ostp, research
✓
No comments:
Post a Comment