FamilyTreeDNA Deputizes Itself, Starts Pitching DNA Matching Services To Law Enforcement

Privacy

from the FamilyIndictmentDNA dept

One DNA-matching company has decided it’s going to corner an under-served market: US law enforcement. FamilyTreeDNA — last seen here opening up its database to the FBI without informing its users first — is actively pitching its services to law enforcement.

The television spot, to air in San Diego first, asks anyone who has had a direct-to-consumer DNA test from another company, like 23andMe or Ancestry.com, to upload a copy so that law enforcement can spot any connections to DNA found at crime scenes.

The advertisement features Ed Smart, father of Elizabeth Smart, a Salt Lake City teen who was abducted in 2002 but later found alive. “If you are one of the millions of people who have taken a DNA test, your help can provide the missing link,” he says in the spot.

Welcome to FamilyTreeDNA’s cooperating witness program — one it profits from by selling information customers give it to law enforcement. The tug at the heartstrings is a nice touch. FamilyTreeDNA is finally being upfront with users about its intentions for their DNA samples. This is due to its founder deciding — without consulting his customers — that they’re all as willing as he is to convert your DNA samples into public goods.

Bennett Greenspan, the firm’s founder, said he had decided he had a moral obligation to help solve old murders and rapes. Now he thinks that customers will agree and make their DNA available specifically to help out.

FamilyTreeDNA sounds like it’s finally going to seek consent from its customers, but only after having abused their trust once and under the assumption they’re all going to play ball. While some DNA companies like 23andMe are insisting on at least a subpoena before handing over access to DNA database search results, other companies are staying quiet about law enforcement access or specifically targeting law enforcement agencies with ads promising to help them work through their cold case files.

Consent is great, but it’s never going to be complete consent, no matter how FamilyTreeDNA shapes the argument. As Elizabeth Joh points out at Slate, there’s a whole lot of people involved who will never be asked for their consent once a customer agrees to allow DNA-matching sites to hand over their samples to law enforcement.

[W]hen you volunteer your DNA sample, you’re volunteering your genetic family tree, without having asked your parents, siblings, cousins, and distant cousins if they agree. That upends the usual way we think about providing information to law enforcement. You can’t give the police lawful consent to search your third cousin’s house, even if your third cousin (who you may never have met) is suspected of having been involved in a serious crime. Why are we allowing a distant relative to grant police permission to your DNA?

There’s no informed consent happening here. Customers are being treated as data points law enforcement can peruse at its leisure. A customer who agrees to be a good citizen (by clicking OK on a submission box on a private company’s website) may learn later their sample was used to lock up a close relative. Some people will be fine with this outcome. Others may regret being the critical piece of evidence used to incarcerate one of their relatives.

Whatever the case is, very few companies are being upfront about the effects of opening up database access to law enforcement. FamilyTreeDNA is using a crime victim’s parent and the founder’s Team Blue sympathies to hustle its customers towards compliance. Users who don’t like this turn of events will likely find it far more difficult to remove their DNA from FamilyTreeDNA’s database than simply hold their nose and become an willing part of this partnership.

Filed Under: dna, law enforcement, privacy
Companies: familytreedna

Facial Recognition Tech Now Capable Of Getting You Kicked Out Of The Mall

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the remember-malls,-bart? dept

Facial recognition tech continues it kudzu-like growth. It’s not just government contractors providing tech for law enforcement and security agencies. It’s also making inroads in the private sector — a place where there’s even less oversight of its use.

Cameras everywhere have long been part of retailers’ operations. But retailers are now adding third party facial recognition software to the mix, further increasing the chance innocent people will be punished for software screw-ups.

[W]ith facial recognition, getting caught in one store could mean a digital record of your face is shared across the country. Stores are already using the technology for security purposes and can share that data — meaning that if one store considers you a threat, every business in that network could come to the same conclusion.

One mistake could mean never being able to shop again.

Kogniz, the company behind one strain of shopper-oriented facial recognition tech, says no retailers are currently sharing data and recordings with other retailers. At this point (if Kogniz is to be believed), retailers are still operating within their own silos. But that could change. And it could change without notice. There’s nothing in place legislation-wise that regulates this market. The government isn’t keeping an eye on these developments, leaving it up to companies to self-regulate. They’ve responded by doing nothing.

Without any legal restrictions, companies can use facial recognition without limits. That means being able to log people’s faces without telling customers their data is being collected.

Two facial recognition providers told CNET that they don’t check on their customers to make sure they’re using the data properly. There are no laws requiring them to.

This means there’s no baseline for accuracy and no limits on sharing or retention. This also means law enforcement can ask to be added to the “sharing” list without running afoul of legal restrictions. False positives could result in bans and/or visits from local law enforcement. One Kogniz client is already sharing its login with local law enforcement, ensuring the government gets pinged every time the system registers a hit.

Even the companies providing this tech directly to government agencies are unconcerned about how it’s used.

Gemalto, a digital security company, has been providing facial recognition to the Department of Homeland Security, which uses it at US exits to log foreign visitors leaving the country.

[…]

“Once the customer has it, they’re going to operate with the standards that they define,” said Neville Pattinson, Gemalto’s senior vice president for government programs. “It’s not our responsibility to have involvement past the point of delivery.”

Fair enough. But the federal government has also decided they need to do almost nothing. Self-regulation isn’t working any better in the public sector. That’s why the EFF and ACLU are pushing for someone — anyone — to start acting like the adults in the room. Fortunately, a handful of local governments are stepping into the legislative void.

In late January, San Francisco supervisor Aaron Peskin proposed legislation to completely ban the city’s government agencies from using facial recognition. State lawmakers across the US have suggested similar legislation, like in Washington and Massachusetts.

This is a good step forward, if extremely geographically-limited. Tech development has always moved faster than the government. But that excuse is pretty hollow when it comes to facial recognition tech. The government has been an aggressive early adopter. The legislators are late to the party, but at least they’re finally starting to arrive.

Filed Under: facial recognition, privacy
Companies: gemalto, kogniz

Court Documents Show Canadian Law Enforcement Operated Stingrays Indiscriminately, Sweeping Up Thousands Of Innocent Phone Owners

Privacy

from the bleeding-edge-meets-zero-fucks-given dept

A wide-ranging criminal investigation involving eleven suspects has resulted in the reluctant disclosure of Stingray data by Canadian law enforcement. The Toronto PD and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police joined forces to deploy a surveillance dragnet that swept up thousands of innocent Canadians, as Kate Allen reports for the Toronto Star.

Toronto police and RCMP officers deploying controversial “Stingray” surveillance technology over a two-month period swept up identifying cellphone data on more than 20,000 bystanders at malls, public parks and even a children’s toy store.

As police sought cellphone data for 11 suspects in a 2014 investigation, they deployed a Stingray — also known as an IMSI catcher — at three dozen locations, including the middle of Yorkville, at the Dufferin Mall, at Vaughan Mills Mall, near Trinity Bellwoods Park, near Kensington Market, and at a Toys ‘R’ Us store in Richmond Hill.

These sweeps occurred years before either law enforcement agency admitted to possessing and deploying Stingray devices. In prior years, Canadian prosecutors dropped charges rather than discuss the devices in open court. This case must have been too big to let go. It involved 50 raids, 112 arrests, and a plethora of charges ranging from gun possession to murder.

Multiple defendants are now challenging the evidence derived from the multiple Stingray deployments, arguing that it was gathered unlawfully. The courts may decide to see it the defendants’ way, but it’s unlikely these deployments broke the agencies’ own policies. Pretty much every law enforcement agency anywhere that has acquired a Stingray has deployed first and developed policies after their Stingray use could no longer be kept secret. The agencies involved here are no exception:

An RCMP spokesperson said that policy regarding deployment and resting time is “still being developed,” and that interim guidelines state that the devices will generally operate for three minutes, though may be operated for longer periods under certain circumstances and if permitted by a judge.

From what’s contained in the tracking logs submitted as evidence in these cases, there appears to have been very little done to limit the tracking of non-suspects.

According to the logs, police deployed the device at three dozen locations between March 18 and May 23, 2014. In all, the device logged approximately 25,000 captures. The same cellphones may have been captured more than once in that time, since police used the device multiple times at some locations; with those repeat locations excluded, a minimum of 20,000 bystanders in Toronto and the GTA saw their cellphone data swept up.

At one location — a condo where a target was suspected to live — law enforcement operated the device for nearly ten minutes, sweeping up 1,400 cellphones.

Many of the logs show violations of the limitations law enforcement set for itself when applying for a warrant. The officer obtaining the affidavit failed to mention the device’s ability to act as a tracking device. The officer also stated the device would only be operated for three minutes at a time, followed by two minutes of “rest” — a minor concession meant to limit the impact on phone operation in the area. Instead of doing either of these things, officers switched frequencies every three minutes, running the device pretty much uninterrupted during each deployment.

This whole thing started out with the RCMP farming out the warrant request to a novice — one who probably swore to his own “training and expertise” while combining boilerplate cribbed from other warrants with his subject matter inexperience.

According to court documents, the Toronto police sergeant who obtained the warrant testified he had never used an IMSI catcher before, and that he copied and pasted a set of “standard” wording used in a warrant for a previous case. The RCMP’s program manager for deployment of the technology testified that the standard wording was written “by people that are not operators of the equipment so they didn’t fully understand the capabilities and how it operated.”

To reiterate: the Stingrays were (and are) being deployed in an operational policy vacuum. According to a statement given to the Star, the policies the RCMP said it would draw up after it publicly admitted it owned and used Stingrays still aren’t in place. An interim policy, instituted in 2017, is the only internal legal framework guiding Stingray use. In practice, this means the RCMP isn’t controlling deployments. In this case, it also meant sending an amateur to do a professional’s job when it came to securing a warrant. Put it all together and you have the mess both law enforcement agencies created by simply assuming no one would ever find out they’d been using these devices.

Filed Under: canada, law enforcement, privacy, stingray, surveillance

Another California City Allowed Police To Destroy Misconduct Records Ahead Of New Transparency Law

Failures

from the thanks-for-the-help,-assholes dept

California law enforcement agencies knew the reckoning was coming. A new law took effect at the beginning of this year, opening up records of police misconduct and use of force to the public for the first time. Some decided to engage in preemptive legal challenges. Some quietly complied. Some decided to ignore the law’s author and pretend it didn’t apply to any record created before 2019.

A couple of law enforcement agencies got really proactive and just started destroying records before the public could get its hands on them. The Inglewood PD got the green light from the city government to destroy hundreds of records subject to the new transparency law. The city and the PD claimed this was just regular, periodic housecleaning. But the timing seemed ultra-suspicious, given that it happened only days before the law took effect. Not that it matters. The records are gone and all the bad press in the world isn’t going to bring them back.

KQED brings us some more bad press targeting a police department. And, again, it’s not going to unshred the destroyed records. But it is important to call out the hugely disingenuous actions of the Fremont Police Department, which chose to greet the impending transparency with a final blast of opacity.

Last year, while state lawmakers were considering a landmark bill to open up previously confidential police misconduct records to the public, the city of Fremont quietly destroyed a large archive of papers, cassettes and computer files documenting over four decades of internal affairs investigations and citizen complaints. It is not known if the destroyed records covered officer-involved shootings.

Last fall, Fremont’s City Council also changed the Police Department’s records retention policy, reducing the amount of time that investigative files of officer-involved shootings must be saved from 25 years to 10.

Proving this resistance to transparency is not just a Fremont PD thing, the city has refused to comment on its approval of this bullshit move. The purge began almost as soon as the law was passed. The bill headed for the governor’s desk last August. Governor Jerry Brown signed it into law in September. As soon as it became clear the bill had a good chance of becoming law, the Fremont PD began destroying years of misconduct records it apparently felt were worth retaining right up until the point the public had a chance to obtain them.

Between June and December 2018, Fremont destroyed six batches of records covering investigations of police misconduct, citizen complaints and disciplinary files spanning 1971 to 2016.

KQED discovered this mass memory-holing by filing a public records request for the list of documents considered responsive to requests under the new law. The long list of destroyed files includes records of two-year investigation that resulted in eleven orders to impose discipline on a single officer and 32 years of Internal Affairs files. It also includes 12 years of files related to officer-involved shootings.

And it did this all with the city’s help. Last year, the council granted the police department’s request to change its retention guidelines, ensuring that fewer documents will be retained and, eventually, handed over to the public.

It’s one thing when a police department acts in its own self-interest by purging records that make it look less than stellar. It’s quite another when a city government helps the PD fuck the public out of what now rightfully belongs to them.

Filed Under: california, transparency

7th Circuit Punts On Border Smartphone Searches; Says Riley Decision Doesn't Affect Anything

Privacy

from the thanks-for-all-the-help,-judicial-system dept

The “border search” exception again trumps the Constitution. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has determined [PDF] that the Supreme Court’s Riley decision that implemented a warrant requirement for phone searches does not apply at our hypersensitive border areas. In this case, the border area affected is [squints at ruling] Chicago’s O’Hare Airport.

Anyway, CBP and DHS investigators had their eyes on a man returning from a suspicious trip to the Philippines. Suspecting the man was engaged in sex tourism, he was stopped by CBP officers upon his return. Lots of things didn’t add up so the CBP asked for permission to search his phone. The officers made it clear this request was simply them being polite. They were going to search his devices anyway.

After completing this check of [Donald] Wanjiku’s bags, [Officer] Toler turned his attention to the cell phone. The phone was password-protected, and Toler began by asking Wanjiku to unlock the phone. Wanjiku initially resisted but relented when Toler told him that everything was searchable at the border and that the phone would be seized, unlocked by a “lab,” and examined whether or not Wanjiku unlocked it.

A cursory examination uncovered a couple of photos that may or may not have been child porn. (The officer said he couldn’t determine the subject’s age and the district court found this testimony credible.) A hard drive the suspect had in his bag was subjected to a “forensic preview” that only scanned allocated space for files, rather than mirror the drive in its entirety. A similar preview was performed on the man’s Samsung phone. In both cases, child pornography was discovered by agents. Further searches were performed the next day.

The defendant challenged the evidence, pointing out that the Supreme Court’s Riley decision requires the use of warrants for phone searches. The government argued that it needed nothing at all to perform invasive searches of travelers’ devices. The court says neither of these polar opposites are correct. It also says it really doesn’t care who’s right, who’s wrong, or where the line should be drawn in relation to border searches and the Riley decision.

The primary positions staked out by the parties could not be more starkly contrasted. The defendant argues that nothing less than a warrant authorizes a search of electronic devices at the border. The government asserts that it may conduct these searches without any particularized suspicion at all. In the end, though, we need not adopt either of these positions, and indeed may avoid entirely the thorny issue of the appropriate level of suspicion required. Instead, we affirm the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress because these agents acted in good faith when they searched the devices with reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime was being committed, at a time when no court had ever required more than reasonable suspicion for any search at the border.

Love to watch courts avoid thorny issues affecting the privacy of millions of travelers.

The appeals court says the Supreme Court only requires reasonable suspicion for border searches. This apparently still stands despite the extra protections extended to electronic devices by the Riley decision. The appeals court cites a 1985 Supreme Court decision in defense of its unwillingness to examine the issues raised in the year of our lord two-thousand nineteen. As the Seventh Circuit sees it, the government’s interest in securing the borders will always be able to undermine Fourth Amendment protections — even when this interest encompasses things that don’t actually threaten the nation’s security.

The final position the court takes — at least in this case — is that nothing more than reasonable suspicion is needed to perform any search at the border. And that’s even if the “border” is an international airport, rather than a point of entry actually located on a border. It relies on the inaction of several other appeals courts to come to this conclusion, ensuring the zero-privacy status quo will live on for at least a few more years, falling well behind the advance of portable technology.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, border search, cbp, dhs, privacy

Police Misconduct Records Show California Police Officer Busting Sober Drivers For DUI

Legal Issues

from the delayed-transparency dept

Not every law enforcement agency is refusing to comply with California’s new transparency law. Effective January 1st, the law makes police misconduct and use of force records accessible to the public for the first time in the state’s history.

The state’s attorney general isn’t happy. Neither are many of the state’s law enforcement agencies. And the state’s law enforcement unions are definitely opposed to the new transparency, not to mention the law’s apparently retroactive reach. But while the unions are busy trying to keep the law from exposing historical misconduct records, some law enforcement agencies are quietly complying with both the letter and the intent of the law.

The Modesto Bee is one of the first beneficiaries of the new law. It has obtained misconduct records dating back to 2003 from the Modesto Police Department. The details contained in these are exactly the reason law enforcement unions are fighting so hard to keep these records out of the public’s hands.

The Modesto Police Department since 2013 has fired five police officers who it claimed were dishonest, including one who allegedly made false reports in DUI arrests to another who allegedly defrauded the federal government out of nearly $10,000.

[…]

Modesto police also released records related to 52 instances dating to 2003 in which officers discharged firearms at someone or their use of force resulted in death or great bodily injury.

Oddly, the use of force records the Modesto PD had on hand have been retained long past the five-year destruction period — something that suggests the PD sees some value in keeping these files intact. (This is bound to piss off the union representing MPD officers, though. Expect some sort of public condemnation, if not an actual lawsuit, from the union in the near future.)

The documents detail the sort of thing we’ve become accustomed to seeing in police departments: mainly, a lot of dishonesty. There are reports of an officer lying about a rape investigation, an officer covering up damage he caused to his squad car by failing to put it in park before exiting his vehicle, and another officer taking home nearly $10,000 in housing stipends by falsely claiming he lived in a more expensive neighborhood.

But probably the most egregious misconduct uncovered was engaged in by an officer who had received commendations and public praise by Mothers Against Drunk Driving for his DUI enforcement efforts. But the numbers he was racking up were too good to be true.

[The] problems included the officer’s body camera footage not supporting what he wrote in his reports, including writing that he observed signs of intoxication when none was present on the footage, and relying on an “odor of alcohol” for conducting field sobriety tests, but the suspects’ blood alcohol levels turned out to 0.00 percent. Internal affairs concluded the officer’s conduct was “often rude, belittling, abrupt and arrogant.”

The officer “stopped drivers without reasonable suspicion, based on nothing more than the fact they were leaving the parking lot of a bar. He mocked the drivers he pulled over, … recorded evidence of impairment that did not objectively exist, and arrested them without probable cause.

Unfortunately, the report chalks all this up to the officer’s “zeal” and refers to his repeated violations of drivers’ rights as “a lack of fairness.” Yeah, that’s pretty much just exonerating with faint damnation. In reality, this was an abuse of the officer’s power — power granted to him by the citizens he’s not supposed to be ringing up on bogus DUI charges.

This is just the tip of California law enforcement’s ugly iceberg. What’s seen here isn’t some sort of anomaly. Every department has plenty of dirty laundry. They just can’t keep it buried in the back of the closet anymore.

Filed Under: california, dui, foia, police misconduct, records

LAPD Watchdog Says Department's Data-Based Policing Is Producing Nothing But Wasted Time And Rights Violations

Legal Issues

from the only-looks-like-you're-working-smarter dept

The Los Angeles Police Department has just received some bad news from its oversight. It’s probably good news for the policed — many of whom are being disproportionately targeted thanks to biased input data — but the LAPD can’t be pleased that its reliance on expensive, mostly-automated tools hasn’t produced worthwhile results.

The department relies on a handful of tech tools to aid in its policing, but it doesn’t appear to be helping. It has CompStat — a holdover from the early 2000’s when Bill Bratton still ran the department. To that framework, it has added LASER — a nifty acronym that stands for “Los Angeles’ Strategic Extraction and Restoration.” The program with the reverse engineered nickname actually relies on input from human analysts to determine where officers should be deployed. But this reliance on data-driven policing isn’t making the city any safer, despite LASER’s focus on violent crime.

Here’s what the LAPD’s human analysts put together for the department’s patrol officers.

In perhaps the most contentious strategy, each of the department’s 21 geographic areas used data to compile lists or “bulletins” of people calculated to be among the top 12 “chronic offenders.”

The program assigns people points based on prior criminal histories, such as arrest records, gang affiliation, probation and parole status and recent police contacts.

This strategy received some public blow-back, resulting in the department abandoning it last August. Nothing of value was lost.

[Inspector General Mark] Smith examined data collected prior to the suspension.

He found 44 percent of chronic offenders had either zero or one arrest for violent crimes. About half had no arrest for gun-related crimes.

So much for curbing violent crime. All it did was create a loop where cops targeted nonviolent offenders, resulting in another arrest/detention that added more points to the person’s LASER record, resulting in even more targeting and, inevitably, more interactions with police officers. It’s a feedback loop no one can escape.

To make things worse, officers had the power to place people into this damaging loop by “nominating” them for targeting with LASER. The point-based system that was supposed to limit this targeting to just the worst of worst street criminals could be bypassed. Nominated citizens would find themselves rising up the ranks on the LASER lists, racking up points simply by officers performing stops based on faulty inputs.

And while the tech is supposedly improving, the quality of policing isn’t. CompStat has had nearly a 20-year run in LA, but its results are negligible. Predictive policing — which has its own bias issues — isn’t doing any better.

Like the other program, Smith found discrepancies with the data collection and could not draw conclusions to “meaningfully evaluate” the program’s overall effectiveness to reduce crime, the report said.

Unfortunately, the report recommends the LAPD stay the course. The LAPD is supposed to spend more time “reviewing” the data that isn’t producing results and tailor its outputs with an eye on Constitutional rights. As it stands now, the LAPD is allowing databases to conjure up reasonable suspicion for stops. That can’t keep happening. But the way forward can’t be more of the same, only at a slightly slower pace.

Filed Under: civil rights, compustat, data-based policing, lapd, laser, los angeles, mark smith

Utah Senate Passes Bill That Would Lock The Government Out Of Warrantless Access To Third Party Records

Privacy

from the enjoy-your-new-home-turf,-NSA dept

Perhaps no state has unrolled and rolled up a welcome mat set out for a federal guest faster than Utah. What was once a shiny new installation with 5-10,000 jobs attached swiftly became a PR black eye after Ed Snowden exited the NSA and sprung a leak.

Suddenly, the sweetheart deal on water given to the NSA seemed like an attempt to curry favor with domestic spies, placing local politicians on the receiving end of reflected wrath from the general public. Utah’s government reversed course, setting itself up as a champion of the people. An attempt was made to shut down the spy center’s water supply. It never made its way into law, but the anti-panopticon tone was set. But the state is still moving forward with efforts taking on the federal government, engaged in the always-awkward grappling of the The Man sticking it to The Man.

Bills forbidding state agencies from participating in domestic surveillance have been introduced elsewhere in the country. Few of these have moved forward. But the Utah legislature — burned by its close ties with the spy agency non grata — has proven more tenacious than most. As Molly Davis reports for Wired, the Utah government is one step away from locking the government out of access to third party records.

On March 12, Utah legislators voted unanimously to pass landmark legislation in support of a new privacy law that will protect private electronic data stored with third parties like Google or Facebook from free-range government access. The bill stipulates that law enforcement will be required to obtain a warrant before accessing “certain electronic information or data.”

The shift towards greater privacy protections may have been prompted by the NSA data sinkhole currently hoovering up water outside of Bluffdale, but this law would affect every other state and federal agency that has made use of the Third Party Doctrine ever since its unwelcome appearance over 40 years ago.

This is very good news for Utah residents, considering the number of third parties collecting data has expanded exponentially over the past two decades. The same court that handed the government the Third Party Doctrine recently gave a little something back to the people, ruling that cell site location info has an expectation of privacy. This alters the contours of third party/government interactions, with every record grabbed without a warrant could result in a legal challenge that restores a bit more of the Fourth Amendment.

Until then, states are free to limit government access to these records on their own. Voluntarily turning over info to private third parties should not be interpreted as citizens turning over this information to everyone and their government-deputized dog.

More states should be like Utah — a phrase that’s probably never been uttered before. Hopefully, more states will follow this lead and get out ahead of the tech curve by providing their residents with these same protections.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, domestic surveillance, third party doctrine, utah, warrants

Stupid Law Making Assaulting Journalists A Federal Crime Revived By Congress

Journalism

from the scoring-cheap-points-to-impress-the-cheapest-seats dept

As an overreaction to President Trump’s mostly-hyperbolic verbal attacks on the journalism profession, a few legislators from the other side of the political fence have revived their stupid idea from last year. Here’s the law’s author in his own words twit:

If you can’t read/see this tweet, consider yourself lucky. Here it is in all its hashtagged glory:

A #freepress is essential to a healthy democracy. We must send a strong, clear message that such violence will not be tolerated – that’s why I introduced the Journalist Protection Act today w/ @SenBlumenthal & @SenatorMenendez.

This dumb law was defended in an inane but noisy statement by Rep. Eric Swalwell.

“From tweeting #FakeNews to proclaiming his contempt for the media during campaign rallies, the president has created a hostile environment for members of the press,” said Swalwell in a statement. “We must protect journalists in every corner of our country if they are attacked physically while doing their job, and send a strong, clear message that such violence will not be tolerated.

Yes. Swalwell’s official statement on his zombie legislation contained a hashtag. Here’s what the “Journalist Protection Act” [PDF] does: turns an existent crime into a slightly worse crime if the victim is someone the federal government considers a journalist. “Bodily injury” or “serious bodily injury” are the flavors of the felony enhancement, adding 3-to-6 years to violators’ sentences respectively.

Fortunately, the definition for journalist is broad enough to keep bloggers and livestreamers in the loop. Unfortunately, this just means more people are going to face enhanced sentences for harming members of our nation’s newest protected group.

Once again: this isn’t a good idea for anyone. It’s never a good idea to give extra protections to people who practice certain careers, whether they’re journalists or cops. Blues Lives Matter laws elevate cops above the people they serve. The Journalist Protection Act makes journalists’ lives worth more than those of the people they cover. One set of laws is “justified” by an imaginary “war on cops.” The other is “justified” by a bunch of boneheaded public statements by the Blowhard in Chief.

In both cases, the only thing happening is legislators scoring easy points preaching to the converted… and hoping the converted remember the stupidity they enacted in their names when reelection time comes around.

No real journalist should want this. Unfortunately, a bunch of journalistic groups are acting like it’s just the thing this nation’s been missing. The Society of Professional Journalists is offering its endorsement. So is the NewsMedia Alliance. Scrolling through the feed of tweets referencing this law reveals a disappointing number of journalist groups buying into this bullshit. This administration does pose a threat to journalism, but it takes the form of a crackdown on whistleblowers and placing journalists under surveillance, if not under indictment. It has very little to do with Trump encouraging physical violence against members of the press.

This isn’t anything any member of these groups should honestly want, unless they’re cool with legislators turning cops, bank CEOs, international arms dealers, bitcoin speculators, or other groups of people a certain percentage of the public finds loathsome into “protected classes.” If it’s cool for your own kind, you can’t bitch too much when it starts elevating exactly the sort of people you don’t like.

Filed Under: bob menendez, eric walwell, extra crimes, journalism, journalism protection act, journalists lives matter, protection, richard blumenthal

Federal Prosecutors Recommend Paul Hansmeier Spend The Next 12 Years In Prison

Legal Issues

from the not-so-clever-Hans-heads-for-the-federal-glue-factory dept

Cue the Ron Paul “It’s Happening!!!!” gif. The wheels of justice have been grinding away for years now, but they’ve finally generated several years for longtime copyright troll/supervillain Paul Hansmeier. After making a career out of extorting settlements from alleged porn-watching infringers, extorting settlements from small businesses with bogus ADA complaints, attempting to hide his wealth from his creditors (some of which were owed money for sanctions imposed in copyright trolling cases), and otherwise putting on a one-man show entitled “Why We Hate Lawyers,” Hansmeier is facing the possibility of spending the next decade in prison.

The sentencing recommendation [PDF] prepared by the prosecutors has nothing good to say about Hansmeier. In fact, the prosecutors make it clear they’d have given him even more than the 12+ years they’ve recommended. (h/t Virgil Abt)

Here are the numbers:

As reflected in the report, the appropriate guidelines range for Paul Hansmeier is 135 to 168 months in prison.

And here’s the reasoning for the lengthy sentence:

Paul Hansmeier was the driving force behind this massive scheme. It was Hansmeier who came up with the idea to construct a copyright settlement mill focused on pornographic films. It was Hansmeier who directed his brother to upload clients’ movies onto file-sharing websites to lure downloaders. It was Hansmeier who drafted nearly all of the legal pleadings used to deceive judges. It was Hansmeier who invented phantom hacking allegations. And it was Hansmeier who lied to judges, dissembled in depositions, and coerced others to conceal the truth.

The government says John Steele was basically the muscle — an intimidating figure who also handled the bookwork for the scheme. But it was Hansmeier who did the dirtiest of the dirty work. And as such, he should be dealt with more harshly. And this is hardly the end of the government’s summary of Hansmeiers’ dirty work. The filing continues in this fashion for several pages — a fitting tribute to Hansmeiers’ scamsmanship.

The headings alone indicate the depth of Hansmeiers’ grift.

Hansmeier repeatedly deceived courts

Hansmeier and Steele owned and controlled the plaintiffs

Hansmeier invented allegations of hacking

Hansmeier protected himself by using proxies

The details interspersed between these headings are devastating in their description of Hansmeier and his long-running fraud.

Hansmeier concealed from the courts that he filmed and produced much of the pornography in this case himself, not for commercial distribution, but for the sole purpose of using the resulting pornographic movies as bait.

[…]

Hansmeier compounded his egregiously disgraceful misuse of Judge Bransford’s subpoena authority by lying directly to her face in open court…

[…]

Hansmeier hid the fact that he and his codefendant, John Steele, were the attorneys responsible for filing every fraudulent copyright infringement lawsuit in this case. Hansmeier and Steele recruited an alcoholic and now-deceased Chicago attorney named Paul Duffy to serve as the putative owner of “Prenda Law,” the firm that represented AF Holdings, Ingenuity 13, and the other sham plaintiffs in the various copyright cases.

[…]

[W]hen courts around the country sought to hold Hansmeier responsible for the fraud and damages he had wrought, Hansmeier resorted to perjury and suborning perjury to escape blame and retain the proceeds of the scheme. Hansmeier and Steele swore out false declarations, gave false testimony in depositions and at court hearings, and caused Lutz to do the same…

[…]

Even after Judge Wright’s widely-read order sanctioning Hansmeier, Hansmeier continued to hide the money he gained through the fraudulent scheme. Hansmeier transferred money into his new law firm, Alpha Law, into accounts controlled by his wife, Padraigin Browne, and a sham trust called “Monyet,” and then filed a fraudulent bankruptcy case concealing the fact that Hansmeier retained control over a substantial amount of the proceeds of his fraud case.

The whole recommendation is a depressing read simply for the fact this scam went unimpeded for so long. The government wraps up this ugly narrative with its recommended sentence, but only after offering this last appraisal of Paul Hansmeier.

In summary, Hansmeier was greedy, arrogant, devious, mendacious, and consistently positioned other people to be damaged by his conduct, even as he enjoyed the proceeds of the scheme he orchestrated. Even now, Hansmeier continues to accept responsibility only in conditional terms, hoping to convince the appeals court that his shocking abuse of his position of trust as a Minnesota attorney, and an officer of its courts, was somehow legal.

The government says its final call is 150 months, but the footnote attached indicates the government would have handed out so much more if it had not already agreed not to.

In the plea agreement, the government agreed not to recommend a sentence above 150 months.

Twelve years is a lot of time. But Hansmeier appears to have earned every day of it.

Filed Under: copyright troll, doj, john steele, paul hansmeier, sentencing
Companies: prenda, prenda law