Settlement Handed To 11-Year-Old Autistic Student Who Was Locked in A Cop Car For Hours, Hit With $25,000 Bail

Legal Issues

from the loss-handed-to-school's-biggest-bullies dept

The problem with putting cops in schools isn’t necessarily that there are never things that happen in schools that require a law enforcement response. (Unfortunately, a lot of those things are school shootings, which cops aren’t all that capable of responding to.)

The problem is that school administrators tend to think that because they have cops (often referred to as “school resource officers”) on tap, nearly any disciplinary problem should be turned over to them, rather than handled by school personnel and/or the student’s parents.

This reduces school discipline to the sort of math cops understand: binary. If no one asks for a cop, it’s not a crime. If someone does ask for a cop — no matter what infraction has occurred — it’s obviously criminal activity.

This turns students into criminals. And it turns SROs back into cops, who use the same techniques they deploy against suspected adult criminals on children. A little restraint by school cops would go a long way. Unfortunately, most of them would read that previous sentence to be a blessing of physical restraint methods more suited to volatile, violent criminals, rather than minors who minds and bodies are far from fully developed.

But, because schools have decided they must have cops in the building, they end up tacitly blessing things like this, as recounted in an autistic student’s lawsuit [PDF] against their school and the school’s cops in a case brought by the ACLU:

On August 29, 2019, officers in police uniforms entered Sagewood Middle School and aggressively handcuffed A.V., an eleven-year-old child with autism. They dragged the handcuffed child through the hallways of his school, placed him in a patrol car, and left him there for hours, while, still handcuffed, he banged his head repeatedly against the plexiglass of the patrol car and cried in pain.

The alleged crime? Responding to another student writing on him with markers (A.V. is hyper-sensitive to touch due to his autism) by poking the student with a pencil. The school did, at least, contact one A.V.’s parents. But apparently not because the school felt the legal guardian should have any say in this particularly brutal disciplinary process.

A.V.’s stepfather rushed to the school and asked to see A.V., but the officers would not allow him to see A.V. A.V’s stepfather asked the officers to take A.V. to get medical attention, but they refused.

Instead, after A.V. was left handcuffed and banging his head for hours, an officer drove A.V. to a juvenile detention center and placed A.V. in custody on charges of assault, harassment, and resisting arrest. A.V. remained in custody until his parents were able to post a $25,000 bond. The charges against him have since been dropped.

The lawsuit followed, naming both the school district and the SROs employed by the district — one of which continued to demonstrate his willingness to bully young students with disabilities.

The officers involved in this traumatic handcuffing and arrest of A.V. were School Resource Officers (“SROs”). They are Douglas County Sheriff’s deputies who are jointly employed by the Douglas County School District. They had been specifically assigned to middle schools for the first time that year without adequate training on interacting with students with disabilities.

No SRO was disciplined due to the incident, and in fact, one of the SROs, SRO Nicholson, was commended for his handling of the situation. He was deemed to have completed the SRO field training program and recommended to be moved to solo status just a few days after the incident. Only a few months after handcuffing A.V, SRO Nicholson repeated his behavior: he handcuffed a twelve-year-old child with disabilities after that child became escalated. As with A.V., he left that child handcuffed for hours.

The lawsuit was filed in March 2021. Of course, every government entity and employee (including the involved school resource officers) asked for immunity. Immunity was denied to some of them in a February 2022 ruling [PDF], which said the facts needed to be more fully developed before the court would consider the officers’ attempt to exit the lawsuit:

To be sure, the Complaint sets forth allegations suggesting that Plaintiff had committed a battery against another student, which could give rise to probable cause supporting Plaintiff’s arrest. However, assuming the truth of Plaintiff’s well-pleaded factual allegations and viewing them in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s plausible allegations also raise the possibility that Defendants only decided to arrest Plaintiff after misperceiving his subsequent lawful conduct, which was the result of the disability. (See ¶ 40 (“SRO Nicholson responded by instead proposing that he ask [Plaintiff] to come talk to him in the SRO office and said: ‘if he wants to come, that’s fine; if he doesn’t, that’s fine too.’”); ¶ 44 (“Nicholson continued to ask [Plaintiff] if he would come talk in the SRO office. [Plaintiff] stared blankly and occasionally shook his head no in response.”); ¶ 45 (“Then, despite the fact that [Plaintiff] was sitting quietly and that there was no emergency requiring immediate intervention, SRO Nicholson and
Peterson abruptly approached [Plaintiff] in a threatening manner and aggressively handcuffed him.”).)

Accordingly, the Court denies this portion of the DCSO Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Among other things, this will allow the parties additional time to develop the factual record through discovery on the issue of what prompted the SROs to arrest Plaintiff.

The sued officers claimed (repeatedly) that this was wrong. The court was required to grant them deference, rather than (as the court is required to do during motions to dismiss) grant deference to allegations raised by the plaintiff. And that was all they did for weeks on end: claim qualified immunity law required the court to give more credit to their (unsupported at this point) claims any officer in their position would not have known that tossing an autistic 11-year-old into a cop car for hours over a pencil-poking might have violated the student’s rights.

And the officers weren’t entirely wrong! That’s the sad thing. The Supreme Court has constantly told lower courts the first thing to consider is whether or not there’s any way to allow cops to escape taking responsibility for their actions. If this means glossing over apparent rights violations, so be it.

But it’s not the only option courts have. It’s just the one the Supreme Court would prefer they deploy. It didn’t happen here, much to the dismay of the officers. And this refusal to play by the rules this court set dismayed the court, which issued an order reaffirming its desire to hear more facts before considering qualified immunity arguments as well as this irritated (and lengthy!) note on the docket about the officers’ refusal to abide by the court’s orders by insisting any discovery (at this point, just depositions from the officers) until after it had ruled in favor of their qualified immunity requests.

The court wasn’t interested in engaging in the Catch-22 the school resource officers were attempting to deploy. Either the officers could offer sworn depositions to add to the factual record before raising the immunity defense or they could kindly get the hell out of this courtroom:

ORDER: In their Motions for Protective Orders 158, 159, 160, Defendants express a sense of deja vu at once again briefing the question of whether they are entitled to a stay of discovery. This Court knows the feeling. The Court finds itself, once again, addressing the same flawed arguments regarding qualified immunity. Defendants’ Motions do not bring anything new to the conversation, and they continue to ignore this Court’s repeated invitation to present any particularized argument as to why discovery would be burdensome or inappropriate.

To be sure, in Rome v. Romero, which Defendants seek to distinguish, Judge Krieger was presented with specific requests for production-some of which she found to be properly propounded on the individuals and others she concluded were not. In her evaluation, she noted that in cases where, as here, the parties present differing versions of the underlying events, some discovery on individual defendants is appropriate. She then concluded that other of the proposed requests were more appropriately made on the institutional defendants. With respect to any future discovery, Judge Krieger noted the individual defendants should be protected against any requests seeking information other than that relating to disputed factual issues regarding the actual events giving rise to the qualified immunity defense.

But other than contending they should not have to sit for their depositions, Defendants have not identified any line of questioning that would fall outside of those parameters identified in Rome. Particularly, they have never addressed the glaring issue that they are the primary witnesses in this matter upon whose actions this lawsuit is based, and therefore, would be subject to discovery no matter what the ultimate questions on qualified immunity are determined to be.

Defendants declaration that qualified immunity no longer has any meaning is overwrought; the Court has never held as such. Instead, the Court has only held the mere and basic assertion of qualified immunity without more is insufficient in this case to justify a stay. Because that assertion is all Defendants have ever offered the Court, including at present, the Motions for Protective Orders are DENIED.

I love it. The court says if the officers want to argue no officer in their position would know the sort of behavior being sued over fell on the wrong side of the Constitution, they should at least be willing to present their side of the story in a deposition. But these officers apparently didn’t want to do that. Instead, they presented their GET OUT OF LAWSUIT FREE! cards to the judge and thought that would be sufficient. When the court said it wasn’t, they apparently decided the best course of action was to continue to refuse to defend themselves against these allegations until the court… I don’t know… gave up and decided to give them what they actually wanted: immunity.

With no immunity to be had, a settlement has now arrived. And that’s kind of a shame. The school district was excused from the lawsuit but the county apparently felt allowing these officers to walk away from the lawsuit was the best use of county residents’ tax dollars.

After more than two years in court, the ACLU announced Wednesday that all of the parties named in the suit agreed to a settlement offer.

“Pursuant to the settlement, the defendants have agreed to require advanced training for any SROs assigned to the Douglas County School District, to include training created by the disability rights community that will improve interactions between law enforcement and students with disabilities,” said the ACLU.

“The defendants will also ensure that all SROs review the Behavioral Improvement Plans (a written improvement plan to help students who struggle with behavior issues in class) specific to each student and comply with those plans when interacting with the student.  Important reporting requirements will also ensure that the SROs are complying with de-escalation techniques consistent with students’ plans,” the ACLU stated. 

While it is good to see the SROs will now receive more training on the handling of students with behavioral disabilities, the accompanying statement from the district makes a point to note the involved officers continue to “deny any wrongdoing.” If these officers were so sure they were in the right, they shouldn’t have been so worried about being deposed. Their actions in this lawsuit contradict their insistence on being perceived as innocent. But now it’s not their problem. Their “innocence” has been purchased with tax dollars supplied by people like A.V.’s stepfather, who helps fund a school overseen by a county that figures it’s better to throw money at a plaintiff than subject any government employee to actual accountability.

Filed Under: discipline, douglas county, police, qualified immunity, school police, school resource officers, sros

Main Chinese Social Media Platforms Now Require Top Influencers To Display Their Real Names Online

Free Speech

from the we-know-who-you-are dept

Back in 2015, Techdirt wrote about one of China’s many attempts to control the online world, in this case by requiring everyone to use real names when they register for online services. As that post noted, the fact that the Chinese authorities had announced similar initiatives several times since 2003 suggests that implementing the policy was proving hard. Twenty years after those first attempts to root out anonymity online, China is still trying to tighten its grip. A post on the Rest of the World site reports:

On October 31, Weibo, as well as several other major Chinese social media platforms including WeChat, Douyin, Zhihu, Xiaohongshu, and Kuaishou, announced that they now required popular users’ legal names to be made visible to the public. Weibo stated in a public post that the new rule would first apply to all users with over 1 million followers, then to those with over 500,000.

As that indicates, there’s a new wrinkle in the fight against anonymity: real names are only required for top influencers on the main social media sites. That’s obviously much easier to police than trying to force hundreds of millions of users to comply. Here’s why the Chinese government is concentrating on the smaller group:

Min Jiang, a professor of communication studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, told Rest of World the real-name rule would limit the influence of key opinion leaders, who still wield a lot of power on the Chinese internet. “Outspoken individuals have been conditioned to navigate the red line with ingenuity and creativity, steering public opinions even under heavy censorship,” she said.

The new targeted approach seems to be working. Several high-profile influencers who use pseudonyms online have announced that they will give up posting altogether. Others are actively “purging” their fans to get the total below the one million threshold for the new policy:

Tianjin Stock King, who posts finance content, removed over 6 million followers overnight, cutting his following from 7 million to just over 900,000. Ken, another Weibo “Big V,” told Rest of World he used the extension Cyber Zombie Cleaner to remove about 20,000 followers over the past month. The software, developed by software engineer Xiao Gu, enables users to remove inactive followers in large numbers, and has accumulated over 100,000 views on China’s code-sharing forum, CSDN.

Interestingly, the Rest of the World post says that it is not government repression that those with big followings fear under the new rules. Previous policies regulating anonymity already require Weibo users to register with their real name, and to show their IP location next to their user name. But mandating real names online means that influencers will be subject to the scrutiny of other users, who will be able to compare a person’s online activity with their offline identity. Conveniently for the Chinese authorities, that will make it more difficult to express controversial opinions. One group who are likely to be particularly affected by this requirement are influencers working at state-affiliated organizations, who may be accused of disloyalty or lack of patriotism once their identity is known to the wider public.

Follow me @glynmoody on Mastodon.

Filed Under: anonymity, china, influencers, purging, real names, social media
Companies: douyin, kuaishou, tiktok, weibo, xiaohongshu, zhihu

Elon Musk’s Latest Round Of Bigoted Tweets Likely Cost ExTwitter $75 Million Over The Rest Of 2023

Failures

from the that's-a-costly-mouth dept

We keep pointing out just how incredible it is that Elon Musk is personally responsible for the destruction of so much of ExTwitter’s business model. Even if you believe that the company was too bloated, or that it’s business model needed to change, as you look at how the company is flailing, it can be tied back almost entirely to Elon Musk being a stupid, ignorant bigot on the platform that he bought.

The product decisions, the renaming, all of that has some impact, but the reason that advertisers keep bailing is because of Elon Musk’s awfulness. We noted that back in April. Incredibly, the details highlighting that came out in an email thread created by… Linda Yaccarino, now CEO-in-name-only of ExTwitter, who was about to interview Elon Musk at an event for various advertisers. She wanted to know what advertisers were thinking about advertising on the site, and many pointed out that Musk himself was the problem, way more than the platform.

They were frightened that Musk would say something stupid, hateful, or bigoted next to their ads, and they told Yaccarino that — and a month later she decided to go work for Elon.

One of the biggest barriers to spending more, advertisers say, is Musk’s own behavior on Twitter.

And, once again, we’re seeing that play out. While Musk keeps trying to blame more advertisers fleeing on Media Matters, the reality is that it was his own embrace of an antisemitic trope that resulted in more advertisers pulling their ads.

Once again, this was a costly decision. The NY Times got its hands on an internal presentation, showing that ExTwitter sales people believe that Musk’s actions a few weeks ago likely cost the company $75 million in ad revenue over the final month and a half of the year (often the biggest advertising season).

Internal documents viewed by The New York Times this week show that the company is in a more difficult position than previously known and that concerns about Mr. Musk and the platform have spread far beyond companies including IBM, Apple and Disney, which paused their advertising campaigns on X last week. The documents list more than 200 ad units of companies from the likes of Airbnb, Amazon, Coca-Cola and Microsoft, many of which have halted or are considering pausing their ads on the social network.

The documents come from X’s sales team and are meant to track the impact of all the advertising lapses this month, including those by companies that have already paused and others that may be at risk of doing so. They list how much ad revenue X employees fear the company could lose through the end of the year if advertisers do not return.

A few months ago, Yaccarino said that ExTwitter was on a path to profitability by Q1 of next year, and that seems increasingly difficult to believe given the way that her boss keeps driving away millions of dollars in ad revenue.

It’s not entirely clear how much ad revenue ExTwitter still makes, but reports suggest that ad revenue has been consistently down about 60% (and drops lower every time Musk does something stupid and bigoted). In 2021, the last year we have full data, Twitter generated $4.5 billion in ad revenue. Cut that by 60% and we’re talking about $1.8 billion.

So if we do some very, very rough back-of-the-envelope math here, at $1.8 billion, that’s about $150 million per month. So, the final month and half would be in the range of $225 million expected. Perhaps more, given the advertising season. Taking away $75 million of that is… pretty significant.

Again, almost none of this is due to product decisions, but due to Elon Musk’s inability to shut up, and his near total credulity in believing every two bit nonsense peddler and bigot he’s ever come across.

Filed Under: advertising, brand safety, elon musk, linda yaccarino
Companies: twitter, x

NYPD Moves Towards Encrypting Radio Transmissions After Years Of Decrying Encryption Use By The General Public

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the our-security-trumps-your-security dept

New York City residents will, once again, be asked to foot the bill for NYPD efforts that solely benefit the nation’s largest police department. It’s not enough that they’ve been asked to spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year to bail out officers hit with civil rights lawsuits. It’s not enough that they’ve been asked to foot the bill for the NYPD’s repeated refusal to comply with public records laws.

Now, they’re being asked to pay for even more opacity, this time taking the form of full encryption of police/dispatch radio transmissions.

The NYPD is set to fully encrypt its radio broadcasts by the end of next year as part of a nearly $400 million planned system upgrade — setting off alarm among local politicians and press advocates.

[…]

The NYPD’s massive network of radio communications is expected to go dark by the end of 2024 as the department switches from an analog to a digital network, according to Chief of Information Technology Robert Beltran.

This will effectively cut one form of public oversight out of the loop. Journalists and others keeping an eye on police activity will no longer be able to perform this public service. Instead, the NYPD will spend $400 million in public funds to ensure only cops know what cops are up to.

A decade ago, the NYPD was actually encouraging people to keep their smartphones updated to ensure they could avail themselves of device and communication encryption offerings. Not long after that, the tune changed, led by Police Commissioner Bill Bratton and Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance.

Bill Bratton, following the lead of then-FBI Director James Comey, said device encryption “did a terrible disservice to the public” by making it more difficult for police to obtain data and communications from seized phones. Bratton also claimed the move towards default device encryption (as well as end-to-end encryption for communications) was nothing more than mercenary behavior by device manufacturers that served nothing more than their bottom line.

Cyrus Vance engaged in his own brand of encryption demonization, claiming (without supporting facts) the NYPD was sitting on dozens of uncrackable devices, insinuating that all the phones he tossed on the press conference table were loaded with evidence crucial to ongoing investigations and prosecutions. “Warrant-proof” was the term deployed by DA Vance, a term frequently deployed by consecutive FBI directors as they complained about the public being allowed to secure their devices and communications.

But encryption is apparently ok if it’s the PD using it. That’s the takeaway from this planned deployment, which NYPD officials claim is crucial to ensuring officer safety. That it helps prevent the public from keeping an eye on cops is just an added bonus — one that is deliberately ignored when police officials discuss the encryption rollout. According to the NYPD, the fact that the NYPD communicates anything at all through social media accounts and press releases is far more than the public deserves.

Beltran said the switch was necessary to protect cops and the personal details of crime victims, arguing during the hearing that the police department can be trusted to get important information out to the public in a timely manner.

“The department provides information to reporters many times a day every day. We also have hundreds of digital media officers assigned to precincts that are also updating information on social media in real time,” he said.

Yes, the city’s journalists and citizens should be thrilled to be blessed by fully vetted PR releases, rather than being allowed to draw their own conclusions from radio transmissions and activity witnessed at crime scenes — ones they’re able to locate thanks to previously unencrypted transmissions.

Somewhat ironically, one of the most notable victims of this shift to encryption is the controversial crime-reporting app, Citizen. This app — and its developers — have courted controversy in the past by encouraging users to act as ambulance chasers and rush to crime scenes to provide other users with footage and speculation. The company that courted voyeurs and vigilantes is now a bit nonplussed that this shift to encryption will render its product mostly useless.

“We have spent six years building up this network and saving a tremendous amount of lives and this threatens all of this progress,” said Andrew Frame, CEO of Citizen, adding that many New Yorkers rely on the app to stay safe.

I can believe the “six years building up this network.” The claim that Citizen has “saved” lots of lives is completely ridiculous. The app was never about improving public safety. It was always about filling crime scenes with rubberneckers and encouraging people’s worst impulses.

That’s not to say the NYPD has completely cut the public out of the loop. It claims it might let a few chosen partners (journalists, Citizen) engage in virtual ride-alongs via limited feed access, but it won’t make that decision until long after the heat has died down.

The NYPD hasn’t ruled out allowing the press or companies like Citizen to tune in, said Beltran, while noting that such a plan — which could include granting delayed access to the feeds — is under a departmental review that won’t be completed until after the entire network is encrypted.

In other words, the NYPD will go dark first. Then it will engage in the much longer process of determining who’s allowed to listen in — a process that I imagine will involve months or years of discussion, followed by months or years of inaction NYPD officials will claim is actually “implementation.”

The NYPD is “going dark,” something it claims is necessary to keep it safe and secure. But it’s not willing to extend the same courtesy to the people it serves. And it certainly won’t be bothered by the extra layer of opacity it provides. The taxpayers lose. Again. And they’re expected to pay for this privilege.

Filed Under: encryption, nypd, transparency

Daily Deal: The Complete 2024 CompTIA Certification Training Super Bundle by IDUNOVA

Deals

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

The Complete 2024 CompTIA Certification Training Super Bundle by IDUNOVA has 15 courses to help you prepare for various CompTIA certification exams. Courses cover everything from the fundamentals to cloud essentials to cybersecurity. The bundle is on sale for $80.

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

Meta Joins Google In Turning Its Back On The Open Web, And Embracing Unconstitutional Mandates That Pretend To ‘Protect The Children’

Policy

from the keep-pulling-up-the-ladder dept

A month ago we wrote about Google effectively “pulling up the ladder” on the open internet by embracing age verification mandates as part of a regulatory approach to child safety. As we pointed out at the time, this is bizarre and stupid for a variety of reasons, but also not too surprising.

It’s bizarre because mandates like that have recently been found unconstitutional by multiple courts. It’s stupid because there’s little evidence that age verification does anything useful, and lots of evidence that it’s actually dangerous, because in verifying ages, services need to collect a lot of personal data which is then put at risk.

It’s not surprising because the big tech companies are now facing real competition for the first time in a while, and have learned that regulatory mandates may become their only useful moat against upstart competitors.

As we noted in that original article, while Google had been somewhat better than others, Meta had already shown a willingness to throw the open internet under the bus to appease regulators. It turned the political tide on FOSTA by supporting it wholeheartedly. It has loudly embraced support for reforming Section 230, which would give Meta a huge leg up on competitors who could no longer rely on 230’s protections.

So it should be little surprise that Meta has now come out with a similar statement to Google’s, embracing mandates on parental controls. As with FOSTA, which Sheryl Sandberg wrote about in highly emotional language, Meta’s embrace of these mandates came from the company’s “Global Head of Safety,” Antigone Davis, and again uses emotional appeals.

My daughter was 12 years old when we gave her her first phone. It wasn’t an easy decision, and I agonized over whether it was the right time. As a former teacher, advisor to a state attorney general, and now an executive at Meta — I’ve dedicated my career to protecting children online. You’d think I would be confident of the right rules and guardrails to put in place for my daughter, but I worried all the same.

If you’re focused on child safety, maybe you could start by not using your child as a prop in your political ploy?

And, look, if Meta wants to use age verification or set up parental controls, it should go for it. After all, the latest less-redacted version of the lawsuit dozens of states filed against Meta shows that the company “routinely documented” how those under 13 were using Instagram, despite being banned under the company’s terms. So, it’s a bit rich for Meta to now say that there needs to be government mandates for such technology. Why not just implement it themselves?

Again, the reality here is that Meta seems focused on pulling up that open internet ladder, and you can see it in the details of this new announcement. First of all, the demand for a mandate would mean that other, much smaller competitors would also have to implement the expensive and ineffective technology that Meta never did, limiting their ability to grow.

But even more nefarious is that Meta’s embrace of these mandates also seeks to make sure that the major part of the burden doesn’t fall on Meta, but on Apple and Google. Because it suggests the age verification and parental controls should take place in the app stores.

Parents should approve their teen’s app downloads, and we support federal legislation that requires app stores to get parents’ approval whenever their teens under 16 download apps. With this solution, when a teen wants to download an app, app stores would be required to notify their parents, much like when parents are notified if their teen attempts to make a purchase. Parents can decide if they want to approve the download. They can also verify the age of their teen when setting up their phone, negating the need for everyone to verify their age multiple times across multiple apps. 

Of course, as we keep pointing out, for many kids, parents are the problem. How would this kind of system work when there is an LGBTQ child searching for information or communities where they can express themselves or learn, and they have parents who are not open minded about such things?

This is a proposal that would harm many kids. Over and over again the research shows that one of the most important parts of the internet in kids’ lives is that they can use it to find their communities and better explore their own identities.

Yes, there’s a role for parents, teaching kids how to be safe, and when to know to ask for help. But that should never mean that parents (especially of teenagers) spy on every little thing that a kid does.

Yet that’s what Meta’s proposal is suggesting.

Teaching kids to be good digital citizens means teaching them about the dangers online, how to recognize them and keep themselves safe. Meta’s proposal is inserting Google and Apple as gatekeepers and taking agency away from kids, making them less prepared for the adult world that they’ll have to deal with eventually.

It’s fundamentally an approach that undermines helping kids grow into adults, all while pretending to “protect” the kids. Protect them from real life? Protect them by making sure their parents spy on every app they use? It’s a horrible plan, and a cynical one from a company that has embraced a cynical, political approach to everything.

Yes, Meta is getting hit from all sides about child safety claims, much of it driven by moral panics. So I get the decision to come out with some sort of plan to claim to politicians that “we’re doing something, and we’re not against regulations.” But this plan is bad, it’s dangerous, it’s cynical, and it appears designed to be anti-competitive at the same time.

Filed Under: age verification, antigone davis, app stores, parental controls, protect the children
Companies: meta

FCC Moves Slowly To Update Definition Of Broadband To Something Still Pathetic

Broadband

from the keeping-the-bar-at-ankle-height dept

For decades, the FCC has maintained an arguably pathetic definition of “broadband,” allowing the telecom industry to under-deliver substandard access. And despite some new rhetoric from the agency under Biden, that doesn’t appear to be changing anytime soon.

Broadband was originally defined as any 200 kbps connection. In 2010, that pathetic definition was changed to a slightly less pathetic definition: 4 Mbps downstream, 1 Mbps upstream. In 2015, it was changed again to a slightly more reasonable but still pathetic 25 Mbps downstream, 3 Mbps upstream, where it resides today.

For eight years straight everybody from consumer groups to the GAO told the FCC that the sluggish 25/3 definition didn’t reflect modern standards, and let the telecom industry get away with providing substandard service. The Trump FCC’s response: to propose lowering the definition even further.

Recently the Biden FCC proposed finally updating the definition of broadband to something more modern. A recent Notice of Inquiry (NOI) issued by the agency indicates they’re looking at 100 Mbps downstream, and 20 Mbps upstream as the new standard:

“we seek comment on the appropriate standards for evaluating the physical deployment of fixed and mobile broadband service, including proposing to increase our benchmark for fixed broadband download speed to 100 megabits per second (Mbps) and the upload speed to 20 Mbps.”

They’re just pushing the idea and seeking public comment. An actual update of the definition of broadband is still some distance away.

Originally, Senators had prodded the FCC to impose a cleaner, symmetrical 100 Mbps (upstream and downstream) standard definition of broadband. But after lobbying from cable and wireless companies that can’t consistently deliver 100 Mbps upstream, the definition was weakened to help companies pretend their services are more cutting edge than they actually are.

The FCC’s NOI asks if the agency should maybe consider imposing a speed standard of 1 Gbps downstream, 500 Mbps upstream, but industry watchers like Doug Dawson correctly note that it’s hard to take the agency seriously on that front:

“Setting a future theoretical speed goal is a feel-good exercise to make it sound like FCC policy will somehow influence the forward march of technology upgrades. This is exactly the sort of thing that talking-head policy folks do when they create 5-year and 10-year broadband plans.”

Big ISPs have of course fought any effort to improve U.S. broadband speed metrics every step of the way. Keeping the definition of broadband set at ankle height helps obfuscate the industry’s ongoing failure to deliver next-generation broadband in a timely basis despite billions in subsidies, tax breaks, and regulatory favors that were all supposed to help deliver uniform broadband access.

It works in concert with the FCC’s historically shitty broadband maps to obfuscate market failure, limited competition, and the perils of concentrated monopoly power. Better data and higher standards would highlight widespread market failure prompting calls to hold concentrated telecom power accountable, and we certainly wouldn’t want that.

When it comes to telecom policy, the GOP operates in absolute synchronized lockstep with widely disliked companies like AT&T and Comcast. The lion’s share of Democrats, in contrast, like to put on a good show that they care about the consumers in this equation, but the vast majority of proposals they push still wind up being long overdue and largely decorative.

Filed Under: broadband, digital divide, gigabit, high speed internet, telecom

Fifth Circuit Says Siccing A Police Dog On A Suicidal Person Is Excessive Force, Still Grants Immunity To Officer

Legal Issues

from the harming-someone-to-protect-them-from-self-harm dept

I don’t know what it is about US law enforcement culture, but it far too often seems to be that officers deployed to help people choose to hurt people instead. When people are suffering mental distress, cops become first responders. Unlike other first responders, like EMTs or firefighters, the desire to harm tends to surpass any desire to help.

This is why so many suicidal people are helped to death by officers who seemingly view any resistance or hesitation as a threat to their safety, rather than just the normal responses of a person already dealing with a great deal of mental duress. And that’s why some cities are taking these interactions out of cops’ hands by choosing to respond to mental health calls with people better trained to handle these situations, like actual mental health professionals.

But, because cops are still the most common first response to distress calls, things like this continue to happen. People who are suicidal or threatening to engage in self-harm are being killed or harmed by responding officers, rather than being handled responsibly and diverted from their plans to hurt themselves.

Just because cops aren’t trained to handle these kinds of calls doesn’t let them off the hook for deploying excessive force when they just as easily could have deployed almost no force at all. This decision [PDF], handed down by the most cop-friendly appellate district in the nation, says it’s unconstitutional to brutalize someone clearly in need of care and compassion. That it was their dog that did all the damage doesn’t change the constitutional equation. (h/t Short Circuit)

It starts with a call for help.

At 1:39 a.m. on July 5, 2018, Plaintiff-Appellant Olivia Sligh’s partner called 911 to report that Sligh was suicidal, had hurt herself, and had left her house on foot. Sligh’s partner requested an ambulance, and he indicated that Sligh was unarmed and not a violent person.

Somehow, this is how the so-called first responders first responded to this 911 call:

The Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office notified the City of Conroe of the emergency medical call and requested a canine officer if available.

The hell? How does someone field a mental distress call and decide this is the sort of thing that requires the use of a police dog? That goes unexplained in this decision, which only notes the facts, as well as those that are still disputed. Tyson Sutton of the Conroe City PD brought the attack dog. He was joined by Alexis Montes, a deputy employed by the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office.

Here’s what happened after the officers and their shared dog located the suicidal, already injured woman:

The complaint alleges that when the officers located Sligh, Sutton shined a flashlight in Sligh’s face as Thor barked and lunged at her. Montes grabbed Sligh, who pulled away. Sutton then sicced Thor on Sligh, and Thor initially bit Sligh in the upper thigh. Sligh sat down, and Sutton continued to direct Thor to bite Sligh on the rear of her upper leg and her ankle. Sligh alleges that “Sutton used the dog to purposively attack and bite” her; that “Montes did not intervene in the multiple dog bites by words or actions even though the attack lasted one minute and some seconds”; and that she never resisted seizure, tried to escape, or assaulted Montes.

The court notes the incident was captured by Officer Sutton’s body camera. That footage supports most of Sligh’s allegations. However, it’s not exactly true Sligh “never resisted seizure.” The recording shows Sligh slapping away Deputy Montes’ arms as the deputy tried to subdue her. Following a short struggle (11 seconds according to the recording), Officer Tyson instructed Thor to attack Sligh.

Sutton then releases Thor with a bite command, and Thor bites Sligh as Sutton commands her to get on the ground. Sligh falls to a seated position on the ground and cries out in pain. Beginning eight seconds after the bite command, Sutton repeatedly commands Thor to release Sligh, but Thor does not immediately comply. Sligh begins lying on her side. 36 seconds after giving the first bite command, Sutton grabs and pulls Thor’s collar. Thor releases Sligh around 64 seconds following the first bite command. While Thor was biting Sligh, Montes reaches to control Sligh’s hands and commands her to put her hands behindher back. Montes handcuffs Sligh after Thor’s release.

Cops love to talk about their own “training and expertise.” They also consider their dogs to be “officers.” They also tend to talk up how well-trained their four-legged “officers” are. And then things like this happen: a cop orders his cop dog to release and it does not comply for nearly an entire minute and not until Officer Sutton placed his hand on the dog’s collar. Nearly a minute of non-compliance — if performed by an arrestee — would be considered a criminal act (resisting arrest) in and of itself, even without adding in the injuries inflicting by the unresponsive police dog (assault). But when a cop dog does it, it’s just good police work. When a citizen does it, it’s multiple criminal acts.

What law enforcement officers refuse to believe is that this is a violation of rights. But it definitely is exactly that, which only makes the ultimate conclusion by this court even more inexplicable.

Using long-standing Supreme Court precedent (most specifically, 1989’s Graham v. Connor decision), the Fifth Circuit says law enforcement is wrong on two of three factors. Contrary to the assertions of non-party Michael Lee Aday, two out of three is actually pretty bad.

The first Graham factor is the severity of the suspected crime. These officers had been sent to help a person suspected of [checks lawsuit] being suicidal and already injured. So, that’s a complete loss for the responding officers, since there’s no crime, which means there’s no justification for nearly any use of force whatsoever.

The second factor doesn’t help the officers, either. The officers seemed to realize this, which is why their defense lies somewhere between incoherent and insane.

The second Graham factor, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others, also weighs in Sligh’s favor. Slighmay have posed a safety threat to herself, as she had cut herself and was potentially suicidal, but the officers received no indication that Sligh was violent, armed, or otherwise posed a threat to others. Defendants-Appellees’ contention that the employment of a dog bite was justified due to Sligh’s immediate safety threat to herself is unpersuasive in this case. Sligh did not appear to be engaging in self-harm during her interactions with the officers, which undermines Defendants-Appellees’ argument that Sligh posed an “immediate” safety threat to herself that warranted such a dangerous use of force. It is also difficult to see how Sligh’s self-harm justifies the employment of a dog bite, which will inevitably lead to more punctures or lacerations.

As if claiming that injuring someone to “protect” them from injuring themselves wasn’t ridiculous enough, the officers also leaned hard on “officer safety,” just as ridiculously claiming Sligh might have been armed and dangerous (to them in addition to herself). The court says this argument isn’t any better than the one dismantled above.

Defendants-Appellees contend that Sutton could not determine whether Sligh had a weapon in her clothing, which weighs in favor of employing the dog bite. But it is difficult to imagine that Sutton would have believed that Sligh, who was wearing a tank top and women’s athletic shorts, was armed when no weapon was produced during the physical struggle between Sligh and Montes. Furthermore, because the officers did not suspect that Sligh was violent or had committed a crime, the fact that she was unsearched is not enough to permit a reasonable officer to assume that she posed an immediate threat.

The third Graham factor — whether or not the suspect resisted arrest or was otherwise non-compliant — weighs in favor of the cops… but just barely. Sure, Sligh “slapped away” Deputy Montes’ initial attempt to subdue her and engaged in an 11-second “struggle.” But that mild resistance — especially from someone suspected of nothing more than being in the midst of mental health crisis — isn’t enough to justify a minute-long attack by a police dog.

Without any further attempts to subdue Sligh without the use of a dog bite, and without providing Sligh any warning that she may be subjected to a dog bite if she did not comply, Sutton sicced a dog on a woman who (1) was not suspected of any crime; (2) did not pose an immediate safety threat to officers or others; and (3) was in need of emergency medical intervention due to self-harm. Furthermore, Sligh—surrounded by a fence and thick foliage— was not attempting to flee the officers. Employing a dog bite under these circumstances arguably constituted an unreasonable seizure in violation of Sligh’s Fourth Amendment rights.

“Arguably” is the key here. It doesn’t necessarily mean Sligh will be able to convince a jury her rights were violated by this dog attack. But, just as importantly, it means Officer Sutton may be similarly unlikely to convince a jury this dog deployment wasn’t excessive force. That’s why we have juries. And that’s why cops shouldn’t be allowed to exit lawsuits just because it isn’t initially clear who will be considered more credible by a jury of their peers.

But that’s now how the law works in federal courts, thanks in large part to the Supreme Court continually rewriting the immunity ground rules in favor of accused cops. So, even though the Fifth Circuit says this is a clear violation of rights, it’s not so clear a cop could see it.

Because the present case involves an application of unintentionally prolonged force against an actively resisting plaintiff, we do not find that Sutton’s violation of Sligh’s constitutional right was clearly established. Sutton is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

And that’s how it stands: sending poorly trained dogs to attack people not suspected of criminal activity is still acceptable in the Fifth Circuit. It wasn’t “clearly established” before and this unpublished opinion guarantees the court won’t be creating any new bright line for excessive force determinations. Sligh will lose. The cops will win. And no one in power will learn anything from this experience.

Filed Under: alexis montes, dogs, excessive force, olivia sligh, police, police dogs, qualified immunity, tyson sutton

Dear Marin County Board of Supervisors: Reject The Sheriff’s Proposal To Install License Plate Cameras In The County

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the bay-area-big-brother dept

With almost zero public notice, the Board of Supervisors of Marin County, California (just to the north of San Francisco over the Golden Gate Bridge) is on the verge of approving tomorrow a demand by the county sheriff’s department to install license plate cameras throughout the county. As a county resident, I object. My comment submitted to the board is below.

Dear Marin County Supervisors:

In the last 30 days I have entered the Gateway Shopping Center in Marin City on at least 11/6, 11/21, and 11/24 to get groceries, dine, and purchase other household goods.

None of this information is your business, and it is certainly not the business of the Marin County Sheriff’s Department. But if you authorize their proposal to allow automatic license plate reader cameras to be installed throughout Marin County this location information is exactly the sort they will be able to know about each and every person driving in Marin County, be they residents or their guests.

I have also gone to Strawberry on at least 10/31, 11/7, 11/8, 11/10, 11/15, 11/16, and 11/21, to go grocery shopping, dine, and seek medical care.

As a resident in unincorporated Marin, these places are in my neighborhood and where I need to go to shop, dine, and do the business life requires. It is also the activity businesses in Marin depend on people doing. But if you let the Marin County Sheriff Department hang these cameras, it will be impossible to go to any of these places without them knowing.

I have also regularly driven on Highway 1 to enter Mill Valley. I do not have complete records of these travels, but if you let the Sheriff’s Department hang the cameras where they propose, they will.

And it is not just residents of unincorporated Marin who will have the details of their personal life documented by the police; it will be every single person with any reason to be here in the county, including every lawful one. The proposal preys on fear, such as with the included “crime heat map.” But it is a “heat map” that happens to directly correlate to where people live and conduct business in the county and thus happens to reflect where most activity occurs, including lawful activity, which would all be caught by this camera dragnet too.

The sheriff further proposes to hang cameras on Sir Francis Drake, a major artery through Marin County, providing access to much of central Marin, including countless medical establishments in Greenbrae itself. Do you wish to also know about when I’ve visited doctors there? Soon the sheriff will be able to tell you.

None of this information is something the police are entitled to know. The privacy the United States Constitution affords to be secure in our papers and effects restricts this sort of incursion into the public’s private lives without probable cause that a crime has already been committed so that people can be free to go about their lives, unchilled by the prospect of agents of the state knowing their business without any justification. The sheriff’s department alleges in its paperwork that county counsel has reviewed the proposal, but nothing submitted reflects any coherent practical or legal argument that it is constitutionally appropriate or possible for you to allow the sheriff’s department to invade every resident’s privacy as they so propose. In fact, all of the paperwork submitted is entirely self-serving and supplied by the very government agency that seeks to have this additional power over civilian lives. Nothing more neutral or independent has been provided to the board by any other state or county agency, nor any other civil society organization, who could provide you with the information you need to recognize the immense cost of the proposal in forms other than purely financial.

Granted, I may have little to fear from the cameras the sheriff wants to install in the Oak Manor neighborhood, as I’m rarely there. But the people living in the neighborhood surely go out and about, so soon you will have information about their comings and goings.

However, the sheriff also proposes to have these cameras on the streets approaching the Marin County Civic Center, surrounding the heart of local county government with a moat of surveillance, which means that the sheriff will be able to track every single person who approaches the building for any reason, including to attend public hearings (such as this one), to petition their local government for any reason a resident might need to seek assistance from their local government, or to register to vote. Personally I think it has been more than 30 days since my last visit to this famous Frank Lloyd Wright-designed building (which also contains a public library), but when I make my next visit, the sheriff will know.

The sheriff proposal says it is to help it police against property crime. And no one likes crime. But crime is not the only harm the public can experience. The cameras themselves pose their own, and it is incumbent on this board to recognize how damaging the oversight police are demanding to have over our lives itself is. The reason people worry about equity impact is that there is a very real harm done to the public when they cannot live lives free from police scrutiny. But that effect reaches everyone in the public, not just those the police have a known habit of unduly targeting. With these ubiquitous cameras, every single person in Marin County will have the details of their lives available for the police to scrutinize. No pallor can protect anyone from the harm that can follow to have their lives recorded in police-controlled ledgers because it is that recording itself that is a harm now everyone must incur.

It will be incurred by everyone traveling to central and western Marin on Lucas Valley Road. I last was there more than 30 days ago, on October 22, but the next time I try to attend a concert in Nicasio (or go biking, or go buy cheese) you will have record of it.

And for no good reason. The deterrence effect of these cameras the police tout is overstated. License plate cameras do not magically prevent crime. Crime still happens. Sometimes serious crimes. But instead of looking at how ineffective cameras are, the lesson we’ve learned from the local towns that have already inflicted cameras on us is that their inherent inability to prevent crime tends to just lead to calls for more cameras, because the police’s appetite to know the details of people’s lives is insatiable. They won’t stop here, asking for just these cameras. When crime inevitably happens they will want more: more cameras, in more places, and maybe even other tools that will help them know more about the private details of the lives of the people in this county. After all, if one invests in the fallacy that these cameras will help anything, then there is no limiting principle to think that more such tools won’t similarly be warranted, until there is no place anywhere in Marin where people can go about their lives without being watched by the government.

At least I won’t personally have to worry much about the cameras proposed for the Atherton area near Highway 37, because now that I’ve relocated to southern Marin I’m seldom there. But I used to be there often, and if you’d had the cameras hung then, you’d know.

Because there’s no assurance by any of the hand-waving phrases contained within the proposal to convince you that there are no real concerns raised. For instance, it uses words like, “encryption,” which is indeed important, but also not itself a magic solution for every problem, and which is also useless as a defense for the interests of the public when the police still have the key to all the data. The proposal also includes language saying that the sheriff will own the data, as if that provides any sort of assurance for the public when it is their data that the police want to own. Don’t be fooled by the platitudes; instead recognize them as the smoke and mirrors being deployed to distract from the serious issues license plate cameras raise (and the profit motive of the vendor, who has no reason to care as long as they are paid).

We all will feel the effects, even for cameras hung in places where we visit less frequently. We are still a community, and people come to us as much as we go to them. For instance, I still have friends in the Novato area, and I’m sure you’d be interested to know that I visited one in the Indian Valley area where you plan to have cameras on 11/11, as well as 10/28.

This board should stand up for the rights of its constituents and vote to reject the sheriff’s proposal to install cameras anywhere in the county. But at minimum it should delay any action until there can be greater public input with ample notice. This proposal has been treated like a ministerial budgetary item few in the county would care about evaluating. Indeed the fiscal impact may be relatively minor, although if the sheriff’s department really believes it has money to burn on cameras perhaps that money could be reclaimed for the general budget and better spent on, say, a guidance counselor or other public resources that might actually deter criminality.

But its overall impact is enormous, affecting the lives of every single person in the county. Thus requires everyone to be able to carefully scrutinize what this board plans to do to them if it were to approve the proposal. Yet we can’t; this proposal is getting slipped past us without any meaningful effort to call attention to it commensurate with its impact. The “staff report” item in the agenda, which was written not by county staff but by the sheriff’s department, is itself is dated as of tomorrow, which calls into question whether approval could even be compliance with SB 34 requiring the agency to provide adequate notice to the public before installing these cameras, since the report itself does not even legally exist until the day it appears on the agenda and after the deadline for written comments at 3:30pm on November 27.

The county is certainly capable of providing more conspicuous notice, like as it does every time it wants the public to vote on one of its propositions. And for something this serious, similar advertising efforts are warranted. After all, if this board is inclined to allow the police so much oversight of our lives, then it should do everything possible to ensure that the public is able to provide meaningful oversight of its choices so that we can hold those who make them accountable.

I urge you to vote no on the proposal.

Filed Under: alpr, license plate cameras, license plates, marin, marin county, surveillance