Daily Archives: September 15, 2023

From staff reports

Armed with new security camera images, area police are continuing to ask for the publics help in tracking down a suspect in multiple break-ins the most recent on Tuesday evening in Bland County.

According to the Bland County Sheriffs Office, a man carrying a rifle and backpack broke in to a North Scenic Highway residence near South Gap while the property owners were gone.

On Sunday morning, a woman in Bland said a man, who was also armed with a rifle, had a garden pick near her back door before retreating into the woods.

The Sheriffs Office said this week that the man in Tuesdays break-in appears to be the same suspect sought in Wythe and Pulaski counties for similar crimes.

Anyone with information about the man is asked to call 911.

Bland County man convicted of Wythe truck theft

A Bland County man got jail time on Sept. 6 after pleading to four felonies in Wythe County Circuit Court.

Christopher Jennings Sizemore, 44, of Bastian, was convicted of Feb. 17 charges of automobile larceny, grand larceny, conspiracy to commit automobile larceny and conspiracy to commit grand larceny.

According to court records, Sizemore took a bucket truck and tools belonging to D.H. Elliot Co.

As part of a plea agreement, Sizemore was sentenced to serve one year and three months in jail with credit for time served while awaiting trial.

After his release, hell be on supervised probation for three years, during which time hell waive his Fourth Amendment protections. He was also ordered to pay D.H. Elliot Co. $12,350 in restitution and must stay away from the companys property and employees.

Get local news delivered to your inbox!

Continued here:
Police get new images of area break-in suspect - Southwest Virginia Today

In a year, if a friend asks you if the CIA is in your underwear, youd probably not take the question seriously. Youd be wrong. The CIA is spending millions in tax dollars to get into your underwear next year.

Eleven years ago, when this column asked if the CIA was in your kitchen, folks who read only the title of the column mocked it. Yet, then-CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus gave a talk to CIA analysts that he fully expected to be kept secret. In the talk he revealed that CIA vendors had discovered a means to log on to the computer chips in kitchen microwave ovens and dishwashers. From there, they could listen in real time to the conversations in a kitchen if those chatting were nearby the appliances.

Unfortunately for Petraeus, but fortunately for the Constitution, one of his analysts was so critical of the CIAs disdain for constitutional norms that the analyst recorded a major portion of Petraeuss talk and leaked it to the media. Is the CIA in your kitchen? Yes, not physically, but virtually.

The CIA, notwithstanding a clause in its charter that prohibits it from engaging in surveillance in the United States or from engaging in any law enforcement activities, has a long history of domestic spying without search warrants.

That last phrase without search warrants when used in conjunction with CIA spying is redundant. The CIA does not deal with search warrants. It behaves as if the Fourth Amendment and the First (protecting the freedom of speech and of the press) and Fifth (protecting life, liberty and property), for that matter do not exist or somehow do not pertain to its agents.

Not long ago, I was challenged to a public debate at the Conservative Political Action Conference by the general who was then the head of the National Security Agency, the CIAs domestic surveillance cousin. The topic of the debate was whether domestic warrantless spying is constitutional. I accepted the challenge and aggressively pressed the general on the notorious lack of fidelity that the 17 federal spying agencies have for the Constitution in general, and specifically the Fourth Amendment.

The general gave me two answers, both of which would have flunked a bar examination. First, he argued that the Fourth Amendment only protects against unreasonable surveillance, and his 60,000 domestic spies were behaving reasonably. After the laughter died down, I pointed out that the Supreme Court has held that all searches and seizures all surveillance conducted without search warrants are as a matter of law unreasonable, and thus violative of the amendment.

Then he retreated to a post-9/11 argument crafted by the Department of Justice in the George W. Bush administration. That argument offers that the Fourth Amendment only restrains law enforcement; it does not restrain the intelligence community. I pointed out that this view is defied by both language and history.

The plain language of the amendment has no exceptions to it. Rather, it protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.

I then reminded him we were friends, mind you; but I could not let him get away with publicly trashing the document he and I had both sworn to preserve, protect and defend that the Fourth Amendment was written in the aftermath of British intelligence agents breaking down the doors of colonists homes ostensibly looking for compliance with the Stamp Act of 1765 but really looking for subversive materials by folks whom today we call the Founding Fathers.

I present this brief background so as to offer a flavor for the mindset of the feds who spy on us and to address the latest craze among senior level intelligence folks in the Biden administration.

Last week, the Director of National Intelligence she is the nominal head of all 17 federal surveillance agencies revealed to Congress that she had spent $22 million in order to develop cotton fibers that she called smart clothing. The fibers will enable the CIA and other federal spies to record audio, video and geolocation data from your shirt, pants, socks and even your underwear. She billed this as the largest single investment ever made to develop Smart ePants.

Smarty pants how appropriate is that name for federal intrusion? Smarty pants is the jerk who cant stop talking and wont change the subject.

The CIA does not directly develop its ability to connect to your kitchen microwave and dishwasher or your socks and underwear. Rather, it hires outside groups to do so. In the case of smarty pants, 28 American tech firms and laboratories have helped to develop this monstrosity. Most are not household names, but some are like the University of Virginia (which is owned by the state of Virginia), Penn State (which is owned by the state of Pennsylvania) and DuPont (which owns most of the state of Delaware).

You cant make this stuff up. The federal governments appetite for surveillance is quite literally insatiable. And its respect for the individual natural right to be left alone is nonexistent. It traffics in evading and avoiding the Constitution, using absurd and puerile arguments that have never been accepted by the courts, even though every single federal employee has sworn an oath of fidelity to the Constitution as it is generally understood and interpreted.

When the DNI told Congress about this while Congress was on its summer break not a peep was heard from anyone in Congress or from the sleepy White House for whom the DNI works.

Does the government work for us, or do we work for the government? What employee gets to spy on his bosses by putting trick textiles into the bosses underwear and then gets away with it? When will Congress protect our liberties? When will enough of this warrantless spying be enough?

To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit https://JudgeNap.com.

Join thousands already receiving our daily newsletter.

Go here to read the rest:
Napolitano: Is the CIA in your underwear? | News, Sports, Jobs - Standard-Examiner

Top Story

After a summer punctuated by high-profile shootings and other crimes involving young people, officials in Maryland are weighing whether the states juvenile justice system should be reformed. Some argue that the system, which has moved away from carceral punishment in recent years, should be overhauled and better hold young people accountable.

But Department of Juvenile Services head Vincent N. Schiraldi says perceptions of a youth crime wave are overblown, pointing to a new report showing that overall youth violence has been declining for more than a decade. [The Baltimore Banner/The Washington Post]

New Mexicos temporary gun carry ban has, justifiably, gotten a lot of attention since Governor Michelle Lujan Grishams administration ordered it last week. The ban which is applicable only on public and state property in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County is largely unprecedented, and it received immediate pushback from gun rights and gun reform proponents alike.

While there is some limited evidence that such an approach could curtail gun violence, New Mexicos gun carry ban isnt a long-term solution. And the order raises some more pressing questions: Is the ban enforceable? Is it constitutional? And what does the order actually do? The Traces Jennifer Mascia and Chip Brownlee explain.

Read more from The Trace

Public libraries have always sought to build stronger, more resilient communities. These days, theyre playing an important role in gun violence prevention: The library system in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, for example, offers free gun locks at all of its branches. Thats in addition to an array of programs that foster community well-being, like GED classes and computers on loan initiatives that aim to alleviate social conditions associated with gun violence.

Libraries across the country offer services like these, Chip Brownlee reports in the latest edition of The Trajectory. And theres research showing that, even as they face political and financial challenges, libraries are uniquely equipped to help improve public safety.

Read more from The Trace

A federal judge tossed out the National Shooting Sports Foundations challenge to Delawares public nuisance law, which enables the states attorney general or a private citizen to sue gun companies for failing to follow laws governing the industrys sales and marketing practices. The judge said it was too soon to rule on the law because it had not yet been used in litigation when NSSF filed its challenge. [Reuters]

Floridas extreme risk protection order law allows police to confiscate weapons from people deemed a threat, but its not an automatic process. Could it have saved 24-year-old Dayana Hurtado, whose boyfriend allegedly shot and killed her two weeks after she told law enforcement her life might be in danger? [Miami New Times]

As the manhunt for Danelo Cavalcante a convicted murderer who escaped from a Pennsylvania prison on August 31 and was recaptured this morning entered its 11th day, private citizen Ryan Davis sat in a Wawa parking lot in Chester County, carrying a firearm and operating a drone that scanned the surrounding area looking for movement. He was one of a handful of amateur sleuths, many of them armed, who took the search for Cavalcante into their own hands much to the displeasure of police. [The Philadelphia Inquirer]

Crime data can be difficult to parse, not in small part because of poor reporting practices and inexact definitions of what constitutes a crime. A recent story about gun violence in Canada that conflated shootings with the crime of discharging firearm with intent provides a cautionary tale. [Jeff Asher]

Federal judges rarely throw out evidence based on Fourth Amendment challenges. But in Memphis, where police waged an intense campaign to get guns and drugs off the streets in recent years, the number of successful Fourth Amendment challenges appears significantly higher than in the rest of the country an indication that the department has a problem with overzealous policing. [The Marshall Project]

The University of Chicagos Community Violence Intervention Leadership Academy officially kicked off this week, welcoming a cohort of community leaders into a six-month program designed to enhance violence interruption initiatives by providing guidance on program management, staff retention, evaluation, and more. [Chicago Sun-Times]

Violence Interruption Programs Are Receiving Millions. This Initiative Wants to Make Sure Theyre Prepared: Chico Tillmon, the director of the University of Chicago Crime Labs new leadership academy, discusses the challenges facing community-based organizations and the tools they need to succeed. (June 2023)

See original here:
Bulletin: Maryland Juvenile Services Head Says Violence Among ... - The Trace

A man on horseback sufficiently alleged excessive force claims against a Lynchburg police officer who tased a him when he fled the attempted service of a permitted warrant, the Western District of Virginia found.

The officer moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. But U.S. District Court Judge Norman K. Moon said the mans allegations were plausible and rejected the officers qualified immunity defense for now.

Taking all the allegations as true Plaintiff sufficiently alleges a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, the judge held. However, Defendant [] may raise qualified immunity again at a later stage in the proceedings.

In March 2021, the Lynchburg Police Department notified all units that a permitted warrant for an alleged protective order violation was outstanding for Steve Rucker Jr. A warrant is permitted if an officer is required to serve an individual and release them with a summons.

The notice to officers said Rucker was entering the city on horseback. Upon finding Rucker, an LPD officer activated his unmarked cruisers lights and siren. Rucker refused the officers request to stop. A chase ensued through downtown Lynchburg.

The chase lasted about seven minutes, and Rucker turned down about a dozen streets. A pursuing officer told Rucker that they just had paperwork for him. Another officer tried to tase Rucker. He missed and caused the horse to speed up to about 25 mph.

A few minutes later, LPD Officer Zachary Miller tased Rucker. The horse again sped up, and Rucker fell off after two blocks. While Rucker lay in the street, LPD Officer Michael Johnson Jr. jumped out of a nearby cruiser, but it began drifting toward a retaining wall.

Johnson hopped back into his cruiser, turned it hard right, and stepped on the accelerator. The cruiser rolled over Rucker, causing him multiple injuries that required hospitalization.

Rucker sued Miller and Johnson in the Western District of Virginia for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. 1983, as well as state law claims for gross negligence, willful and wanton misconduct, and battery.

Arguing that Rucker failed to state a claim and that qualified immunity shielded him from liability, Miller moved to dismiss.

Excessive force

All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendments objective reasonableness standard, Moon explained.

The court must consider the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses a threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether the suspect is resisting arrest or attempting to flee arrest.

A court must also consider that officers must make split second judgements in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation, the judge added.

Moon said the first factor weighed heavily in Ruckers favor because he was not wanted for any crime when the pursuit began.

The circumstances of the alleged protective order violation were not detailed; nothing established that Rucker committed or was suspected of committing any violent or other serious crime.

The second factor also favored Rucker. Moon noted that the allegations did not indicate Rucker was armed, violent or a threat to officers or the public, nor was there a suggestion that Rucker was riding in a violent or reckless manner.

The officer claimed that riding a horse at night through traffic posed a danger. Moon was not swayed but acknowledged that further facts may support a different conclusion.

The third factor also tipped in Ruckers favor, Moon said.

Plaintiff does not suggest he was resisting arrest, but merely avoiding service of a summons, the judge noted. Plaintiff argues that he was also not fleeing arrest because there was no arrest to begin with. Again, considering the allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the factors demonstrate a plausible claim of excessive force against Defendant Miller.

Moon then pointed out that, according to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, using a taser is a serious use of force that should only be deployed in dangerous situations.

The Fourth Circuit further held that [t]asers may only be deployed when a police officer is confronted with an exigency that creates an immediate safety risk and that is reasonably likely to be cured by using the taser, the judge wrote.

Based on its analysis, Moon found that Rucker did not pose a safety risk to the officer or the public to warrant use of a taser.

Qualified immunity

Rucker claimed he sufficiently alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. As such, Miller was not entitled to qualified immunity. Rucker also contended that the court should wait to decide on qualified immunity until the record was more developed.

Moon acknowledged that excessive force by police is a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment and that use of a taser except in exceptional circumstances is excessive force.

Thus, as Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged an excessive force violation and Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage in litigation, Defendant Millers motion to dismiss will be denied as to the excessive force claim, Moon wrote, adding that the officer may raise qualified immunity at a later stage in the proceedings.

Richmond litigator Mark Dix, who represents Rucker, said his client was hospitalized for almost a month and incurred more than $288,000 in medical bills from his injuries.

We are very confident that qualified immunity would not provide any kind of obstacle to us getting to the jury, he told Virginia Lawyers Weekly. The 4th Circuit has been clear as day since 2016 in Armstrong v. Village of Pinehurst that you do not use a taser to enforce compliance.

He pointed out that his brief cites scholarship about qualified immunity being based on factual fiction.

It turns out that this doctrine of qualified immunity was based upon somebody altering the United States Code in the late 1800s or early 1900s, but the 4th Circuit found it was bound to apply stare decisis, Dix explained. At some point, courts are going to have to grapple with the sordid history of how 1983 was altered.

He noted that there are cases about the validity of qualified immunity making their way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Dix said he has not received a settlement offer from the city. The case now proceeds to discovery.

The rest is here:
Tased horseman's excessive force claims clear bar Rhode Island ... - Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly

A couple of years ago, I shared a post on Facebook that mocked misinformation. The photo allegedly showed a 206-year-old Tibetan monk who had just been discovered alive in a mountain cave. The caption said he had been in a meditative state called takatet for years. It continued, Among his things, they found an old scroll that read, Stop believing all the crap you read on Facebook.

Recently, the post popped up as a memory on my Facebook page and I shared it again. This time, though, independent fact-checkers blocked it, writing, Independent fact-checkers say this information has no basis in fact. Well, duh!

Last Friday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Biden administrations suppression of information on social media platforms, including Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, regarding posts related to COVID-19 and allegations of election fraud. The ruling specifically applied to the White House, surgeon general, CDC and FBI.

Before the 5th Circuits hearing, a lower-court judge had ruled that U.S. officials illegally coerced social media platforms into censoring those posts. The 5th Circuit agreed, writing that such coercion violated the First Amendments free speech protections. The panel wrote, The government is not permitted to advance these interests to the extent that it engages in viewpoint suppression.

Initiated in July 2016, Crossfire Hurricane was likely the most egregious example of information-suppression and manipulation. The FBI operation occurred at the end of the Obama administration to smear Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign for president and inaugurate Hillary Clinton as president.

After four years of continual media and Democrat charges of Russian collusion, Special Counsel John Durham was appointed in October 2020 to investigate the origins of Crossfire Hurricane. Durhams final report was released May 15, 2023. It documented the roles played by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, James Comey and a host of other top administration officials to smear Trump with a Russian Hoax from the summer of 2016 to the end of his term in 2021.

President Biden didnt miss a beat on Jan. 21, 2021, when he began tearing down all that Trump had accomplished during his four years in office. Of course, as we have seen, Biden and his administration worked hand-in-glove with a complicit media to suppress all information that contradicted the establishments mantra about COVID-19, election interference and, the party favorite, climate change.

What can we expect between now and November 2024? Well see national emergencies that will serve as pretense for suspending First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and 10th amendment rights. As weve seen, the courts have ruled the Biden administration has violated Americans right to freedom of speech. The right to bear arms has been under continual attack. New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham just decreed a temporary gun ban in parts of her state commenting that the Second Amendment is not absolute.

And what about our protection from illegal government search and seizure (Fourth Amendment)? Or, our Fifth Amendment right to due process? Ask Jan. 6 prisoners about their rights to a speedy trial as well as excess bail or fines and cruel and unusual punishment (Eighth Amendment).

The Bill of Rights protects Americans only as long as the government respects and abides by its constitutional limitations. Its absurd to give fact-checkers positions of adjudication.

Daniel L. Gardner is a columnist who lives in Starkville. Cntact him at PJandMe2@gmail.com.

More:
The absurdity of fact-checkers | Columnists | leader-call.com - leader-call.com

Technological advancements such as location tracking and DNA testing over the past 20 years have contributed to law enforcements ability to close a criminal investigation. But their use of facial recognition software in recent years has resulted in the wrongful arrests of seven Black people foreshadowing another potential form of racial discrimination in the criminal justice system, critics say.

Facial recognition is one of those things that we jumped on too quickly and it kind of just took over before we even knew it, said Thaddeus Johnson, an assistant professor of criminology and criminal justice at Georgia State University who, along with his colleague Natasha Johnson, published the only empirical research on facial recognition last October.

Like any form of technology, facial recognition a form of artificial intelligence likely will improve as it updates and evolves. Law enforcements use of it without thorough empirical research, however, may continue to be a threat against Black people and those with darker skin tones because the technology is unable to accurately distinguish facial features of different races.

Johnson and Safiya Noble, director of the Center on Race and Digital Justice and author of Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism, help us understand why they are sounding the alarm about law enforcements use of facial recognition.

Sign up for our newsletter and get more news and analysis from our reporters weekly.

The first facial recognition technology was developed in the 1960s by Woodrow Wilson Bledsoe, Helen Chan Wolf, and Charles Bisson, who had an idea to have computers programmed to recognize faces. Bledsoe, a mathematician, received funding from the CIA to create the system, Observer reported. They programmed 10 photographs of different people, most likely white, into a database and trained the computer to learn how to divide a face into features, then compare the distances between those features to determine a specific face.

Over the next 60 years, facial recognition became more sophisticated in identifying skin textures and using 3D images. Now, the software has the ability to comb through more than 15 million profiles in the FBIs National DNA Index System, as well as databases created by facial recognition companies that scrub the internet and social media for the faces of billions of people.

Those software upgrades also contributed to todays biometric screenings or fingerprint access to cellphone applications and ATM machines. Home security systems, closed-circuit surveillance, computers any equipment with a built-in camera can have facial recognition software installed.

But when it comes to accurately detecting darker skin tones, the technology hasnt made significant improvements.

The kinds of people who are often making software, making products coming out of tech corridors around the world, have limited worldviews and lack exposure to lots of different kinds of people and we see that in every industry, Noble said.

Johnson said that facial recognition softwares algorithms are more than likely unconsciously biased to recognize features familiar to their programmer, who is most likely a white man. When the program is put to work in real life, it is most likely comparing images to databases that contain more Black and brown faces than the white ones its trained to recognize.

Without cultural education or exposure to different races and ethnicities, Noble said, software programmers will continue to create flawed facial recognition technology that in the long run will do more harm than good.

Facial recognition wasnt tested in the real world until 2001, when federal and local law enforcement in Floridas Tampa Bay area used it during that years Super Bowl. Its unclear why they decided to experiment at this event rather than other largely attended events such as New Years Eve in Times Square.

As the crowd of 71,921 fans entered the stadium, people stood still for their picture to be taken. Without their knowledge, the photographs were entered into a database seeking matches for criminal suspects. During the event, the system detected 19 people with outstanding warrants, but police were not prepared to make those arrests, a detective told The New York Times at the time.

That same year, the city of Tampa accepted a free, one-year trial of the facial recognition software used during the Super Bowl. City officials set up face scanners in their downtown entertainment district but did not find them to be effective because the program didnt have a database to compare images to, and the software couldnt keep up with trying to scan moving images on a public street, Vice reported.

The flaws in facial recognition technologies havent stopped law enforcement and customer-service based industries from continuing to use it.

Airports, businesses, social media, marketing, and cellphone companies use facial recognition technology for a variety of reasons that can be as insignificant as allowing users of an app to apply filters on photographs.

This year, the Transportation Security Administration announced that it will expand its facial recognition program to more than 400 airports across the country in the coming years. The pilot program, which is currently in 25 airports, has a 97% effective facial matching algorithm across demographics, including dark skin tones, a TSA press secretary told Fast Company in June.

Clearview AI is a facial recognition company that provides software to law enforcement and government agencies. Its collection of images amounts to a mega police lineup, critics told Business Insider in April. Clearview AI says it has collected 30 billion images from the internet, Facebook, and other social media without permission from the social media companies. Cease-and-desist letters were sent by Facebook and other social media companies to Clearview AI for violating users privacy.

Critics are also concerned with threats of cybersecurity hackers maliciously breaking into facial recognition databases to steal personal information.

But Noble said whether we like it or not, everybodys face is in facial recognition databases with or without their consent if they are on social media. If they have any photos of themselves up anywhere online, including photos they did not post of themselves but that others posted, those are all available to a variety of different kinds of agencies.

Johnson said that facial recognition is a very good tool for getting a lead into solving a crime, and its law enforcement use should be restricted to case detectives and investigators. But the problem is we are so blindly trusting AI that generally the police just use it. Thats why there needs to be regulations, he said.

We are not sure if theyre calibrating their equipment correctly. Were not sure of the training of the people who are using these technologies. What about officers who have body-worn cameras on thats doing this real-time recording but are also equipped with this mobile facial recognition? [The officers are] basically a walking and talking constitutional violation of sorts, Johnson said.

The most well-known case where facial recognition was a leading contributor to accurately identifying suspects was following the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection upon the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. Federal law enforcement officials were able to identify well over 1,000 mostly white people accused of breaching the U.S. Capitol and assaulting several law enforcement officers, The Washington Post reported. Investigators used facial recognition technology to match the suspects images from that day to photographs and videos found of them on social media. In some cases, a states Department of Motor Vehicles database of drivers license photos were used to match suspects.

There are no reports of any of the Jan. 6 suspects filing a wrongful arrest lawsuit due to the use of facial recognition.

Legal experts saw the Super Bowl debut of facial recognition technology as a violation of privacy. Those Fourth Amendment concerns persist more than 20 years later, especially since there havent been any proposed federal regulations on how to use the technology without violating individuals civil rights.

The White Houses Office of Science and Technology Policy released in October 2022 a nonbinding Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights that provides five principles on the design, use and deployment of automated systems to protect the American public in the age of artificial intelligence.

But in a December 2022 conversation hosted by the Brookings Center for Technology Innovation, legal experts criticized the White Houses initiative for leaving out guidance for law enforcement agencies use of artificial intelligence, specifically facial recognition.

Excluding law enforcement may continue the oversurveillance of certain populations, communities, and individuals under the guise of public safety and national security and will not necessarily reduce the history and manifestation of rampant discrimination against people of color and immigrants. If law enforcement were included in the Blueprint provisions and guidance, it could have offered new guardrails and agency for individuals left with little recourse when misidentified and/or scrutinized by existing and emerging AI technologies, according to commentary of the Brookings Center for Technology Innovations online event.

The Jan. 6 investigation could imply that facial recognition works well, but if it continues to misidentify Black people or individuals with darker skin tones, it does not, critics say. The 2018 Gender Shades study showed that off-the-shelf facial recognition software systems that companies and law enforcement use have low efficacy when it comes to detecting Black womens faces, and Black people in general, but are more reliable for white mens faces.

There are already practices and policies that are inequitable and result in inequitable outcomes. Why the hell do we think that facial recognition technology will make that better? No, it only exacerbates those things, said Johnson, who was previously an acting police captain in Memphis, Tennessee.

Though there arent any reported cases of a wrongful conviction connected to the use of facial recognition, since 2018 there have been six Black men and a Black woman who have been subjected to days in jail after a facial recognition match falsely connected them to felony-level crimes. In the years to follow, police departments within predominantly Black cities in Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan and New Jersey have been accused of and sued for false arrests due to the use of facial recognition technology.

The number of people who are ensnared relative to the millions of people for whom theres no problem means that the seven people who are falsely accused or imprisoned are just kind of like collateral damage to these companies, Noble said. And Im sure they do their calculus on it and say, Well, if we have to settle some lawsuits, its cheaper than redesigning the product. So we become our communities become the collateral damage.

Apple Inc. was one of the first business entities slapped with a wrongful arrest lawsuit that stemmed from the use of facial recognition to identify a possible suspect in a string of store robberies throughout the Northeast. Ousmane Bah, an 18-year-old college student in New York, sued the tech company for $1 billion after he said he was falsely arrested in 2018. The New York Police Department made the arrest based on a photograph of the possible suspect Apple turned over to police. The police allegedly agreed that the person in the picture did not look like Bah, Business Insider reported. The lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice against the defendant(s) Apple Inc. in 2021, according to online federal court records.

One of three cases out of the Detroit Police Department was that of Porcha Woodruff, who at the time of her arrest was eight months pregnant and questioned for 11 hours about robbery and carjacking accusations she knew nothing about. Woodruff, Robert Williams, and Michael Oliver had similar experiences with Detroit police and are each suing.

I think we should have a moratorium on facial recognition technologies until it can be determined that they are safe and used in ways that are safe. There are many people who think that facial recognition technologies, myself included, should be made illegal because theyre too consequential in the current ways that theyre used. Bans on facial recognition is actually a public safety imperative, Noble said.

In March, Democratic Reps. Pramila Jayapal of Washington state and Edward Markey of Massachusetts reintroduced the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act to the House. The bill would place a moratorium on law enforcement use of facial recognition until policymakers create regulations and standards that protect constitutional rights and public safety. This is the third time the bill has been presented.

In the interim, several cities across California and Massachusetts, including San Francisco and Boston, have passed laws that ban or restrict law enforcement from using facial recognition technology.

Virginia and New Orleans reversed their short-lived facial recognition bans. In Virginia, lawmakers used the eight-month ban to evaluate the technology and create policies that include having corroborating evidence with a facial recognition match before pursuing the match as a lead.

Johnson said he is currently working on research that explores the possibility of facial recognition being used to further assist in solving crimes and perhaps put an end to the no-snitching culture. Violent crimes such as murder, sexual assault, and hate crimes tend to go unreported and unsolved in Black and brown communities because of historic distrust of the criminal justice system and fear of retaliation.

Theoretically, Johnson said, facial recognition technology can help identify witnesses and victims of crime and amplify the work of police departments across the country, if used correctly.

It [facial recognition] should be helpful, but we just dont have enough research, and Ive cautioned against wildly deploying these things and doing so without even having an inkling of an idea if it has any public safety value, scientifically, Johnson said.

Capital B is a nonprofit news organization dedicated to uncovering important stories like this one about how Black people experience America today. As more and more important information disappears behind paywalls, its crucial that we keep our journalismaccessibleandfree for all. But we cant publish pieces like this without your help. If you support our mission, please consider becoming a member by making a tax-deductible donation.Thank you!

Read more from the original source:
Facial Recognition Technology and False Arrests: Should Black ... - Capital B

Results of Democrats policies all around us

A writer to the Union (Community, Sept. 8, 2023) is correct that after many years of walking in local Fourth of July parades as a registered Henry County Democrat, I was absent this year. The parades are truly a fun and patriotic celebration of the Fourth.

The writer is wrong to infer there is no Democratic presence on the parade route. Most of those lining the streets have benefited from the policies of Democratic administrations.

Many would not be at the parade if it were not for the hard fight by Democratic Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson to provide Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Before these landmark initiatives many seniors moved in with the kids, died in abject poverty or were shipped off to the county poor farm. These were not Republican ideas and, in fact, Republicans have subverted them for decades as the wealthy don't want them.

Many children on the parade route have benefited from food stamps and Head Start. Thank Roosevelt, Johnson and John F. Kennedy for these vital Quality of Life programs.

Most Iowa communities have subsidized housing for those in need. Initiated by Kennedy and affirmed by Johnson and a Democratic Congress the Department of Housing and Urban Development provides for the housing. Republicans annually attempt to slash the budget.

Nutrition programs and congregate meals are the work of the Democratic Older Americans Act.

Who on the parade route does not know of friends and neighbors who are disabled? Iowa Democratic Senator Tom Harkin championed the ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act.) This was not a Republican idea and many opposed it as hotel and restaurant campaign contributors did not want to foot the bill for doorways, ramps and restrooms.

Roosevelt and Henry Wallace initiated Depression era farm programs heralded today. And, even with the expense of these programs Bill Clinton is the only President in recent memory to actually balance the Federal budget.

Republican and insurance industry kingpins fought Obamacare which provides insurance to many in need.

Locally, the Vision Iowa Program of Governor Tom Vilsack was critical to the Old Threshers carousel and our Salem library. Iowa Republicans axed the program.

Today, President Biden has dramatically lowered the cost of insulin and in a tough fight with Republicans and drug company profiteers is lowering the cost of ten of the most widely used medications.

I have proudly marched in dozens of Henry County parades. I join many in waving the flag for the achievements and policies of our nation's Democratic leaders.

David Hellman

Salem

Dont like direction of Fairfield

What does Fairfield have against the poor and elderly? There have been two articles in recent weeks that have me questioning just what Fairfield has against the poor and elderly.

The first was an article notifying the public of an upcoming vote on the Capital Improvements Levy. The levy is currently at $0.37 per $1,000 dollars of assessed value. The proposal is to raise it to $0.68 per $1,000 dollars of assessed value. I can understand needing some sort of an increase, as these levies are for 25 years, but almost double? And that is coming on top of the new assessment, during a spike in inflation and high gas prices. Even if you are a renter and not an owner, you will be affected. Your rent will go up.

Next up in the why-does- Fairfield- hate-poor & elderly docket is the proposed maintenance ordinance. The City Council is overreaching with this. The Government has no right to take people's homes. Look at the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which guarantees our right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. As long as my activities are not illegal, what happens in my home is no one else's business. And to say that the Government can seize my home because it is in poor repair, not only violates my rights, it places an unfair burden on one sector of the population. It is in effect, telling the poor and elderly, that you have no right to home ownership.

Does the City of Fairfield really believe that if people had the means and opportunity, especially the opportunity, to make repairs that they wouldn't have already done so? The City has put the new fire station off because of high building costs but then turns around and punishes others for the same thing? It is well and good to claim that there are grants available but we all know that is going to apply to a very small number of people. Others, in an effort to keep their homes, will be forced into HELOCs or loans of which they cannot afford the payments.

Then, under the pretext that if the exterior is "bad" the interior needs inspection too, they can force their way into your home like you are a common criminal. Being poor and elderly means you lose your rights.

I grew up in small town Iowa during Governor Ray's reign. We were proud of our ability to "make do, use it up or do without." This has been a large part of the American Way. Now it will no longer be tolerated in Fairfield. Now it is "fall in line or we take your house.

Dianne Brandt

Fairfield

Opinion content represents the viewpoint of the author or The Gazette editorial board. You can join the conversation by submitting a letter to the editor or guest column or by suggesting a topic for an editorial to editorial@thegazette.com

Continued here:
Letter to the editor - Southeast Iowa Union

A petition was created on Change.org on Sept. 12 to oppose the use of Chainalysis forensic services by federal agencies. The petition questioned Chainalysis accuracy and raised legal issues related to the activities of the blockchain data analysis firm.

The petition, started by Stop Chainalysis, stated that Chainalysis software assists crime prevention efforts by linking the real world to crypto payments. It stated:

The petition claimed that Chainalysis findings do not meet the Daubert standard for expert testimony in United States courts established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1933, that its error rate is unknown, that it has not been subject to peer review and that it uses potentially faulty methodology.

Related: Chainalysis exec touts blockchain analysis to Senate homeland security committee

The technical problems with the service lead to potential privacy violations, the petition argued:

The use of unreliable technology constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment requirement of probable cause to issue a warrant for search and seizure and the Bank Secrecy Act, to which exceptions are granted based on the presence of suspicious activity, it said.

The petition listed seven U.S. federal agencies that had used Chainalysis services.

The petition was first publicized by Lola Leetz, a pseudonym stylized as L0la L33tz on X (formerly Twitter), who has been a vocal critic of the company. The X user is not alone in their criticism. In August, CipherTrace director of investigations and intelligence Jonelle Still submitted a report in the case of the United States v. Roman Sterlingov that claimed Chainalysis technology was used incorrectly to link Sterlingov to the Bitcoin Fog cryptocurrency mixer.

Magazine: Tornado Cash 2.0: The race to build safe and legal coin mixers

Visit link:
Petition hopes to stop US government agencies from using ... - Cointelegraph

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons | The repercussions from the aftermath of 9/11 have been passed on to the next generation.

Zach Petroff | Opinions Editor

I am often reminded, usually in jest, that most of my fellow classmates here at Duquesne were not alive on Sept. 11, 2001.

And while a vast majority of Generation Z were born before the events that took place 22 years ago, the aftermath from 9/11 will be their burden.

As if climate change is not enough.

There is little doubt that when a foreign organization committed an act of terrorism on American soil, killing 2,977 people according to the 9/11 Memorial and Museum, it changed this country.

Much has been written since 9/11 about the residual effects it has had on society. These views range from romanticized narratives of selfless heroes and patriotism to the belief that 9/11 was the catalyst of the decline of America.

While these arguments invoke an emotional response, perhaps its time we focus the conversation around the potential consequences Gen Z may have to face.

Instead of speculation, the newest generation of adults need to have a clear picture of the society they are going to inherit and the repercussions that came with how we chose to handle the attacks on Sept. 11.

The choice to invade Iraq has been referred to as one of the worst foreign policies in U.S. history by several public officials, including former United States Foreign Service employee, Peter Van Buren, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The invasion of Iraq along with the global war on terrorism is a direct result of 9/11.

The Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University created the Cost of War Project to conduct and publish research about the ongoing consequences of the U.S. post 9/11. The Cost of War Project estimated, in a report released in 2020, that the total cost of the war on terror was $8 trillion.

The project also calculated that the interest payments to the national debt to fund the war could total over $6.5 trillion by the 2050s.

We put a war on a credit card and now are asking our children and grandchildren to pay for it.

Our foreign policy in the Middle East also led to destabilization in that region. The Cost of War Project estimated in 2021 that there were 3.6 to 3.8 million indirect deaths in post-9/11 war zones including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

It seems plausible that those countries will one day seek retribution for the actions of the U.S.

We also need to remind Gen Z that Guantanamo Bay is still operational.

The U.S. detention facility on the Guantnamo Bay Naval Base in southeastern Cuba was created in 2002 to house Muslim militants and suspected terrorists captured by U.S. forces.

Since the base was built outside the U.S. it was not required to observe the Geneva Conventions regarding the treatment of prisoners of war and civilians during wartime, as the conventions did not apply to unlawful enemy combatants.

According to a United Nations investigation conducted in June there were 30 men who remain detained at Guantanamo, 19 of whom have never been charged with a crime.

The lead investigator for the United Nations, Fionnuala N Aolin, reported that prisoners face ongoing cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

She also recommended that the facility should be shuttered, a task that former President Obama campaigned on, but was ultimately unable to achieve.

Hopefully Gen Z can bring some sanity to the situation.

There should also be a discussion about the PATRIOT Act, another lingering and perhaps the most damaging byproduct of 9/11.

This law, upheld by the Supreme Court, expanded surveillance abilities of law enforcement, including domestic and international phone tappings. It also increased the penalties for terrorism crimes and expanded the list of activities which would qualify for terrorism charges.

The American Civil Liberties Union found that between 2003 and 2006 the FBI issued 192,499 national security letters that allowed them to obtain personal information without the approval of a judge. Of those letters issued, only one led to a terror-related conviction. They also concluded the conviction would have occurred without the use of the Patriot Act.

The ramifications of the PATRIOT Act fundamentally changed the scope of the Fourth Amendment. As technology becomes more commonplace, the ability for unlawful searches conducted by the federal government to greatly expand.

While 9/11 may seem like a distant memory, the rippling effect has spanned multiple generations.

It seems like a natural courtesy to give the upcoming adults an honest assessment of the world we created for them.

See more here:
Passing on the legacy of 9/11 to the next generation The ... - The Duquesne Duke