NYC Mayor Picks Fight With Uber That He Cannot Win

from the and-will-lose-big-time dept

NY City Mayor Bill de Blasio has apparently decided to pick a fight with Uber — a move that has already backfired and appears to be getting worse by the day. He’s been pushing a proposal, obviously put together in support of legacy taxicab owners, that would limit the number of such car-hailing drivers allowed in the city. Basically, it would take the ridiculous taxi medallion system and apply it to these new services, limiting supply, keeping prices high and not serving the public very well at all. Uber responded forcefully last week by adding an amusing “de Blasio” feature to its service, showing riders how much longer they’d have to wait for a car if the plan moves forward.

The story is getting more and more attention, and it’s becoming clear that this has become personal for de Blasio, for reasons that are unclear. He can’t win this fight and it’s only making him look worse and worse. Not only that, but he is apparently threatening other “business” groups to “stay out” of the fight, threatening retaliation if they didn’t stay away:

Mayor de Blasio bullied business groups to stay out of the Uber debate in the weeks leading up to the City Council vote this week on controversial bills to curtail new licenses for e-hail cars.

Deputy Mayor Tony Shorris called Partnership for New York City?s Kathy Wylde and the Association for a Better New York?s Bill Rudin to alert them to the bills ? and to threaten them to stay on the sidelines, sources said.

?Their message is, ?This isn?t your fight. Stay out of this and we?re not going to bother you,??? said a political source familiar with the outreach. The implication was that if the groups defied the mayor, City Hall would ?limit your business opportunities,? he said.

Meanwhile, it appears that the out of touch de Blasio and his staff have absolutely no clue how widely Uber is used and how popular it is, insisting that it’s just a small group of tech elites who use the service:

City Hall doesn?t buy the notion that Uber is growing fast enough for a cap to disrupt the service…. And the mayor?s circle also doesn?t believe that Uber is broadly popular, or represents anything most New Yorkers care about.

?It?s a boutique side issue,? said a top City Hall ally. ?There?s a small set of excited tech people who are reading Mashable and might think the mayor isn?t innovative enough.?

How can one be mayor of New York City and not realize that how people get around the city is a major issue to the public, and that Uber is increasingly one of the preferred ways of getting around. Furthermore, it appears that de Blasio’s people are misreading their own data to argue that this cap on drivers makes sense.

And, of course, it’s not just the riders that should concern de Blasio, but the many people now making a living as drivers for these various services.

When running for mayor, de Blasio got strong support from the taxi drivers — and many are seeing this as his repayment of that debt. But, going against what the public wants — especially when it comes to helping get people around more efficiently — seems like a huge miscalculation on the part of de Blasio. Even for people who think that Uber’s practices are problematic (and this move impacts all the other companies in the space as well…), it’s hard to see de Blasio’s move as anything but trying to raise prices and limit options for the public for no good reason at all.

Filed Under: bill de blasio, limits, medallions, nyc, on-demand, transportation
Companies: lyft, uber

NYPD Union Turns On President Pat Lynch For Using Two Officers' Deaths To Fight A Pointless War With The Mayor

from the every-tragedy-is-an-opportunity dept

Pat Lynch, the president of New York City’s Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association (PBA), has always been a cop’s best friend, especially the more questionable ones. In the wake of Eric Garner’s death at the hands of an NYPD officer, Lynch was quick to deflect criticism by pointing fingers at the person who captured the incident on video.

The New York City Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, the largest union representing NYPD officers, said in a statement that it was “criminals like Mr. Orta who carry illegal firearms who stand to benefit the most by demonizing the good work of police officers.”

Lynch also opposed efforts (supported by Police Commissioner Bill Bratton) that might make his officers more accountable, ignoring evidence collected elsewhere because it didn’t agree with his belief that cops shouldn’t be watched. Oh, and the real problem is that the city is too quick to hand over money to victims of police misconduct.

We are reserving our decision on body cameras until we see some real evidence of their effectiveness and impact on the officers who carry them. The Public Advocate cites the $152 million that the city spends on lawsuits against police officers but what she fails to say is that the city refuses to fight even the most ridiculous and baseless of the claims. Instead, they settle these ridiculous suits when they should fight everyone of them to conclusion which would effectively put an end to quick buck lawsuits against our officers.

As the situation eroded after the killing of Eric Garner, Lynch continued to support the NYPD’s every action. When two officers were killed in their cars by a gunman, Lynch used this tragedy to widen the divide between the police and the policed. During memorial services for the slain cops, attending officers turned their backs on Mayor De Blasio for his daring to suggest his mixed-race son might have more to fear from the city’s stop-and-friskers than whites.

Lynch further leveraged this tragedy with his explicit support of the NYPD’s “work slowdown.” Unfortunately, this non-enforcement of bullshit charges failed to return the city to its murder-a-minute heyday of the 70s and 80s, instead highlighting the fact that only going after more dangerous criminals was actually a fairly good way to police a city.

But even though Lynch has done his most to be a cop’s best friend, it’s becoming clear that many cops are no longer returning his affections. Union members are finally realizing that Lynch doesn’t really serve his members’ interests. He only serves himself.

Back in January, a union meeting devolved into shoving matches and screaming as members began to express their displeasure with Lynch’s preference for grandstanding, rather than taking care of his officers.

A police union meeting sparked an uproar Tuesday when officers blasted union president Pat Lynch over his demand that Mayor Bill de Blasio apologize to the NYPD, police sources said.

The war of words took place at the end of the two-hour meeting at Antun’s in Queens Village when union delegates from the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association began shouting at Lynch, demanding to know what came out of a recent meeting with the mayor, a law-enforcement source said.

Lynch accused the mayor of having “blood on his hands” after the slaying of two NYPD officers, while refashioning their corpses into his personal pulpit. But his officers don’t care whether or not De Blasio apologizes for his statements on the Garner case. What they actually want is what almost all officers want: safety.

The officers at the union meeting wanted answers from Lynch about getting heavier weapons, better bulletproof vests and new patrol cars, the source said.

Lynch values being very publicly right above almost anything else. His officers just want to feel that what happened to two of their own won’t happen to them. Lynch not only doesn’t care about the rank-and-files’ priorities, he’s not above using their deaths to further his career.

Critics of Patrick Lynch have accused the fiery union leader of campaigning for reelection on the backs of murdered cops — including the use of a somber photo at a memorial for the slain officers…

The latest controversy stems from a new campaign video showing the president of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association in uniform at a makeshift memorial honoring Liu and Ramos.

The 1-minute, 4-second video, which a Lynch spokesman said was not authorized by the campaign, begins with a backdrop of stars and the words: “Team Lynch 2015.”

[…]

In one image, Lynch is delicately laying flowers at the foot of the memorial.

“Thousands of cops went to that memorial and he gets his picture taken and uses it,” the delegate said. “ None of the other cops had their pictures taken. Only the politicians . . . so that makes him worse than the politicians.”

“Authorized” or not, it’s not making Lynch any more friends in the department, something he kind of needs if he’s going to continue to hold this position of power. And as for the authorized aspect of the video, various PBA spokespeople seem to be offering contradictory statements.

The pictures in the video are not meant to elicit the sympathy vote, spokesman Al O’Leary said. “(They are) just the most recent photos available of him in uniform,” he explained.

Why someone from Lynch’s camp would feel compelled to defend images from an unauthorized video, much less make statements about the intent of the photos that supposedly weren’t picked by Lynch’s office, is puzzling. Then there’s the fact that the video first surfaced on PBA treasurer Joseph Alejandro’s Facebook page, which would at least suggest endorsement of the content. (Which has since been removed for — of all reasons — copyright claims by the NY Daily News over images used in the video.)

Whether or not Lynch specifically authorized this video no longer matters. He will suffer the backlash from its publication just the same. He no longer has control of the union and he has really no one else to blame. While the PBA will undoubtedly continue to defend its officers from criticism and accountability, it likely won’t be Lynch heading it up. It’s the union that isn’t, one whose “leadership” cares more about press appearances and political warfare than ensuring its members are better protected and equipped.

At the end of the day, cops (rightly or wrongly) just want to make it home alive. And while Lynch is certainly quick to deploy the unofficial First Rule of Policing in defense of his officers’ misconduct, he has no interest in actually backing up his stated concern for officer safety with any practical actions. Lynch’s eventual exit will be welcomed, even if his replacement may be the same sort of self-centered political animal. Lynch managed to turn two tragedies into nothing more than a pointless, public shouting match with the Mayor’s office that did nothing at all to serve the officers whose wages he receives a cut of.

Filed Under: bill bratton, bill de blasio, nyc, nypd, pat lynch, pba, union

New York City Dept. Of Education Suspends Special Needs Instructor For Helping Student With A Kickstarter Project

from the system-broken-all-the-way-UP-as-well dept

A New York city schoolteacher sent sexually explicit emails to a student — emails he admitted to sending. It took six years to get him fired, during which he was paid $350,000.

Another instructor was given a 60-day suspension for continually making offensive remarks to his students, like, “These Chinese students need to go back to their own country. They don’t belong here.”

A NYC school swim coach repeatedly touched and kissed his female students. Told one to shave the hair around her bikini. Commented on another’s tan lines. He paid a $7,000 fine and was instructed to take a sexual harassment class.

Hundreds of New York city teachers bounced around the city’s so-called “Rubber Rooms” for years, drawing full pay while playing cards and reading magazines as they killed time waiting for their case to come up. Some were “merely” incompetent. Others were facing misconduct charges, ranging from altering grades to physically or verbally abusing students. Very few of these teachers were ever fired. Firing a NYC teacher is generally a costly labyrinth that few with the power to eliminate bad teachers are willing to navigate. (PDF link to a 2-page flowchart showing all the steps needed to remove a lousy teacher from NYC schools.)

These are just some that actually were punished as the result of an investigation. Few teachers actually find themselves being punished for their actions. Between tenure and the city’s powerful unions, the Dept. of Education has very little power to reprimand those it’s charged with overseeing. But if the system wants to expeditiously punish a teacher, it can. But those it acts quickly against generally aren’t the problem.

Case in point: Therapist Deb Fisher received a 30-day suspension for misconduct. Her misconduct?

She raised money on Kickstarter for a program that she and the student, Aaron Philip, 13, created called This Ability Not Disability. An investigator with the Education Department’s Office of Special Investigations, Wei Liu, found that Ms. Fisher sent emails about the project during her workday at Public School 333, the Manhattan School for Children, and was thus guilty of “theft of services.”

Unmentioned in the official report leading to this suspension were any of the following details.

• The entire school, including the principal, was involved with the Kickstarter project and routinely utilized school email accounts to send update blasts.
• Ms. Fisher developed an arts program for disabled students aimed at developing tools and supplies they could use. She received a mayoral commendation for this effort.
• She spearheaded a drive to ensure permanent, accessible housing for Aaron Phillip and his family after unemployment led to a stay at a homeless shelter.
• The Kickstarter project — a graphic novel and movie about being the only person with legs in a world filled with wheelchair users — hit its goal and was celebrated during a town hall meeting.

All of this was ignored in order to punish Ms. Fisher for a small infraction of the rules. The investigation itself stemmed from something even more small-minded and petty than the Dept. of Education’s final decision.

[A] co-worker with whom Ms. Fisher had had continuing disagreements made a series of charges against her. Ms. Fisher had complained that the co-worker was physically bullying and taunting her.

Even the best people have their flaws. It’s not altogether inconceivable that this one-woman storm of good deeds wasn’t above treating someone horribly. Except the accusations were lies.

The special investigators found that none of the serious allegations against Ms. Fisher were true, but said she was guilty of fund-raising for “her own charity.”

Except that this isn’t true either. The money went to the student. Not that the Department ultimately cared to sort out the facts.

The report made no mention that the entire building had been involved with the effort, nor did it try to determine whether Ms. Fisher would profit from it in any way. She was suspended on Sept. 15 until the end of October.

Because rules are rules and using the school’s email system to raise money for a personal project (albeit one that completely benefited a different person) isn’t allowed… even if the rest of the school — including the principal — did the same thing. Fisher’s 30-day suspension for helping an overachieving student pursue his dreams is the same amount handed out to librarian Devin Black, who helped a 13-year-old student fulfill Black’s dreams by telling her she “looked sexy,” while touching her — something that wasn’t an isolated incident.

Justice — true justice — may be blind, but what passes for “justice” in bureaucratic systems is spineless, officious and brutally incompetent. The same can be said for those who apply the “rules” in this fashion, ensuring no good deed goes unpunished while ignoring the rot and corruption inherent in the system. Whoever oversees the New York Dept. of Education needs to tell everyone involved in this decision that they’re clearly too stupid to be entrusted with this — or any — power.

Filed Under: aaron philip, bureaucracy, deb fisher, new york city, nyc, suspension, teachers

As New York Officials Unite Behind Police Body Camera Plans, Union Head Just Wants To Talk About 'Baseless' Lawsuits

from the always-the-public's-fault dept

It seems inevitable that NYPD officers will be wearing body cameras in the near future. As part of the remedies ordered by Judge Scheindlin in her stop-and-frisk decision, a trial program for body cameras is due to roll out, along with additional oversight.

I am ordering the NYPD to institute a pilot project in which bodyworn cameras will be worn for a one-year period by officers on patrol in one precinct per borough — specifically the precinct with the highest number of stops during 2012.

The two former defenders of the cop status quo — Mike Bloomberg and Ray Kelly — both hated the idea. Bloomberg derided it in a press conference after Scheindlin’s decision, saying the public would contest any body cam footage that didn’t live up to preconceived notions.

A camera on the lapel or hat of a police officer… He didn’t turn the right way. My god, he DELIBERATELY did it. It’s a solution that’s not a solution…

The city’s lawyers, appealing Scheindlin’s decision, made the disingenuous argument that the public’s privacy would be damaged by police body cameras.

[I]mplementing a body camera pilot project itself poses significant harm in terms of time, resources and possible impingement on privacy rights of the public.

Somehow, the thousands of surveillance cameras deployed by the NYPD pose no threat to privacy. Only those worn (under protest) by officers do.

But Bloomberg and Kelly are no longer co-helming the NYPD. In a press conference following Eric Garner’s death at the hands of NYPD officers, Mayor Bill de Blasio stated he felt body cameras are, for the most part, a “productive” idea.

The body cameras are part of the agreement we reached with the federal judge, but they are complicated[…] I think the basic reality is that it is a technology that we agreed to as part of that settlement, but it’s not something that has been perfected yet, and it’s something that has to be worked on quite a bit to be used on the kind of scale we’re talking about here. But I certainly think it’s a productive idea, and it will, I think, ultimately improve the relationship between police and community.

Police Commissioner Bill Bratton is also in favor of police-worn cameras.

In an appearance on MSNBC Wednesday morning, NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton predicted officers around the country will eventually be wearing video cameras on their bodies to record interactions with the public.

“That’s the direction where American policing is going. That’s where we’re going in the NYPD. We’re working very closely with the LAPD, who’s about a year ahead of us in putting cameras in place,” he said.

What evidence exists as to body cameras and their impact on both police misconduct and baseless complaints is very limited at this point. But what has been gathered so far is largely positive — both for police departments and citizens. Rialto, CA’s police department ran a body camera test program and was pleasantly surprised by the results.

The Rialto study began in February 2012 and will run until this July. The results from the first 12 months are striking. Even with only half of the 54 uniformed patrol officers wearing cameras at any given time, the department over all had an 88 percent decline in the number of complaints filed against officers, compared with the 12 months before the study, to 3 from 24.

It doesn’t just encourage police officers to behave better and with more restraint, it also heads off bogus misconduct complaints. If both parties know they’re being recorded, both parties behave better and are less likely to misconstrue events.

New York’s Public Advocate’s office has just released a report supporting the use of body cameras by the NYPD. It notes that the investment required to outfit the entire NYPD is only a small fraction of the millions of dollars paid out every year to settle police misconduct cases.

The public advocate’s office estimates that equipping 15 percent of the city’s police force would cost under $5 million, with each camera costing $450 to $900. Outfitting the entire department would run about $32 million…

The city paid roughly $152 million as a result of claims of police misconduct, the report states.

The cost for the entire NYPD is only one-fifth of one year’s settlements. If the cameras are only half as effective as they were in Rialto in terms of reducing complaints, the corresponding savings in settlements should be enough to buy every cop in the city a new body cam every year. If a reduction in complaints tracks almost directly with the number of lawsuits settled, this would result in a minimum of a $50-60 million drop in settlements. And that’s at half the 88% drop in complaints reported by Rialto’s PD.

Guess who doesn’t want to see police officers outfitted with body cams? Unlike last year, both the mayor and the police commissioner are on board with the idea. The holdout here is the walking embarrassment that is Pat Lynch, the president of the Police Benevolent Association (the largest union within the NYPD), whom we last heard decrying the cellphone-wielding citizens trying to “demonize” cops with their recordings of police brutality. Here’s Pat on the issue of body cameras.

“We are reserving our decision on body cameras until we see some real evidence of their effectiveness and impact on the officers who carry them. The Public Advocate cites the $152 million that the city spends on lawsuits against police officers but what she fails to say is that the city refuses to fight even the most ridiculous and baseless of the claims. Instead, they settle these ridiculous suits when they should fight everyone of them to conclusion which would effectively put an end to quick buck lawsuits against our officers.”

Hey, Pat: you know what else “effectively puts an end to quick buck lawsuits against officers?” Body cameras. When parties know the situation is being recorded, the quick bucksters are less likely to file complaints they know can easily be contradicted. Putting body cameras on officers actually helps shield them from bogus complaints.

And if your problem is that the city rolls over for “ridiculous and baseless claims,” why not give your officers a weapon to help battle those? In this day and age, “your word against mine” just isn’t enough, even with prosecutors and judges still more than willing to assume a police officer always tells the truth.

The “downside,” of course, is that is that body cameras also record bad behavior by police officers. For Pat Lynch, this potential outcome is unacceptable. It’s much, much harder to defend officers whose misconduct is caught on tape. (But not impossible…) And police union leaders are known for their willingness to defend the worst of the worst, even in the face of public outcry or, even worse, when police departments are trying to rid themselves of bad cops they can no longer afford to indulge.

If Lynch is tired of his officers being “demonized” by camera-wielding citizens, he should jump at this chance to give his officers a chance to fight back with recordings of their own. Instead, he just spins the Public Advocate’s settlement numbers as an indicator of a city too willing to indulge baseless lawsuits. His cops can do no wrong and are oppressed by the tyranny of the public. But rather than give his men the technology to prove his theories, he argues against it, claiming this particular jury is still out.

Filed Under: cameras, lawsuits, new york, nyc, nypd, police

NY Port Authority Claims To Own The NYC Skyline: Tells Store To Destroy Skyline-Themed Plates

from the your-bullying-is-of-great-concern dept

What is it with insane NY-related bureaucrats and their attempts to “own” things? In the past, we’ve covered how New York State is a pretty big trademark bully over the “I ♥ NY” phrase, and did you know that the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) claims ownership over the phrase “If you see something, say something”? And, now, we find out that the controversy-ridden Port Authority of NY and NJ appears to be claiming ownership of the NYC skyline. No joke. It apparently sent a cease-and-desist letter to Fishs Eddy, a housewares store in Manhattan that is selling some city themed dishes.

According to the Port Authority, Fishs Eddy can’t do that, because, dammit, only the Port Authority owns some of those buildings and bridges.

In a letter to Fishs Eddy dated July 24, Veronica Rodriguez, a lawyer for the authority, asked the store to stop selling anything with these ?assets? on them, and to ?destroy all materials, documents and other items bearing the assets.?

?Your use of the Port Authority?s assets on dinnerware and other items is of great concern to the Port Authority,? she wrote.

Yes, and your use of stupid bullying tactics over people celebrating your city is of great concern to pretty much everyone else. What sort of life must you lead to spend your work life looking for people to bully for daring to sell merchandise that celebrates the city you technically work for?

Filed Under: intellectual property, new york city, nyc, ownership, port authority, skyline
Companies: fishs eddy

Lyft Announces NYC Launch, Taxi Commission Declares It Illegal Hours Later

from the don't-mess-with-our-taxi-medallions dept

While Uber gets much of the attention in the ride-sharing space, many people I know in San Francisco swear by Lyft instead. Lyft has the reputation of being the more laid back, friendlier version of Uber. Rather than Uber’s infamous “surge pricing,” Lyft has happy hour discounts. Rather than the sleek corporate feel of Uber, Lyft is famous for drivers putting giant pink mustaches on their cars, encouraging passengers to sit up front… and to give drivers a good old fashioned fist bump. While Uber has been available in New York City for some time, Lyft took its time, finally announcing plans to open up in NYC on Friday (well, Brooklyn and Queens, initially, staying away from taxi central Manhattan).

Not surprisingly, the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission was not pleased with this. While Lyft says it’s tried to work with the TLC, the TLC disagrees, noting that Lyft agreed to a single meeting that just happened this week.

So, of course, it’s not surprising that, within a day, the TLC officially declared Lyft an “unauthorized service” in NYC, meaning that it may start cracking down — something NYC did last year to the other top competitor in the space, Sidecar. Lyft says it’s still planning to launch, insisting that it doesn’t believe the rules the TLC are citing apply to it. Basically “come at us, TLC!”

The TLC insists that it wants Lyft to be able to operate in New York City, even saying that it’s willing to change some of its rules, but bureaucracies — especially those with close ties to highly regulated industries that have a history of keeping out competition — don’t tend to move very fast. As we’ve noted before, cities that quickly ban these kinds of services are basically advertising themselves as places not friendly to innovation and/or run by corrupt officials.

For all the arguments about how these services don’t meet the “stringent” requirements for existing taxi regulations, almost everyone I know prefers using services like Lyft and Uber over traditional cab services. They’re much more convenient and personally I’ve found the service to be significantly better overall. Part of the problem is that the regulations were built for a different time, when there was significant information asymmetry between a rider and a driver, allowing drivers to take advantage of riders. But, these kinds of services actually flip that equation: they provide much greater information to the rider, and even give them a big say in passing on similar information to others, in the form of ratings. Thus, there are natural incentives to provide a better overall service, making many of the purposes of existing regulations stale and obsolete.

But, of course, as often happens in highly regulated industries, those who already made it through the hurdles like those regulations because they limit competition, and allow prices to be higher due to scarcity. It also gives them less incentive to provide better services. Thus, you get into a world of regulatory capture, where things are worse for everyone. While, yes, the “intentions” of these regulations may be good, the reality is that the information exchange enabled by technology makes many of the regulations obsolete. A slow-moving bureaucracy (especially one dealing with regulatory capture) isn’t going to move very fast, but that’s harmful for overall innovation in the space and setting up the best conditions for citizens of NYC, who probably prefer a better overall experience in getting around.

Filed Under: new york, nyc, ride sharing, tlc
Companies: lyft, uber

Airbnb Under Pressure, Agrees To Hand Over Data To NY's Attorney General

from the makes-ny-less-interesting-to-visit dept

As we’ve discussed a few times, NY’s Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, has been trying to go on a fishing expedition through Airbnb’s records, looking for what he calls “illegal hotels.” Of course, he’s more or less admitted that he’s doing this to protect big NYC hotels from being disrupted. Last week, Airbnb actually won in court, quashing Schneiderman’s subpoena, though Schniederman just turned around and issued a new subpoena to deal with the deficiencies of the first one.

Recognizing that it was going to run into issues eventually, Airbnb has worked out a “settlement” with Schneiderman, in which it will provide anonymous data, but if Schneiderman finds information that he thinks indicates an “illegal hotel” he can go back to the company to get identifying information. Airbnb says it hopes that Schneiderman is really just focused on true large-scale abusers, many of which it has already removed from the system itself:

The Attorney General’s Office will have one year to review the anonymized data and receive information from us about individual hosts who may be subject to further investigation. We believe the Attorney General’s Office is focused on large corporate property managers and hosts who take apartments off the market and disrupt communities. We have already removed more than 2,000 listings in New York and believe that many of the hosts the Attorney General is concerned about are no longer a part of Airbnb.

As I’ve mentioned in the past, I’ve used Airbnb to find places to stay in NYC a few times now, and it’s been an absolutely wonderful experience, significantly better and more convenient than staying in Manhattan hotels. The accommodations, location and service were all significantly better. At least two of the hosts whose places I’ve stayed at own multiple apartments and rent them out via Airbnb, and it seems ridiculous that they might be shut down because of this. Yes, there are specific “hotel” regulations in NYC, but it seems silly to apply most of them to these kinds of small businesses, where the platform and competition do a great job of keeping them honest. The hosts always seemed to go out of their way to make sure that staying at their apartments was a great experience worth coming back again in the future. Yes, it’s possible that some people are somehow abusing the system, but it seems likely that plenty of small time entrepreneurs are going to get swept up in this effort to protect big hotels from disruption.

Filed Under: anonymous data, apartment rentals, disruption, eric schneiderman, illegal hotels, ny, nyc
Companies: airbnb

NY Attorney General Admits He's Targeting AirBnB To Protect The Big NY Hotels That Are Being Disrupted

from the protectionism-against-disruption dept

Over and over again in talking about innovative disruption, we talk about how incumbents turn to regulators and politicians to kill off that disruption. Usually, they don’t admit it directly — preferring to couch their language in talk about “safety” and protecting consumers — even though many of these disruptive systems actually appear to be better for consumers. However, sometimes politicians are willing to just flat out admit that they’re trying to protect incumbents from innovative upstarts. And that’s what’s now happened with NY’s Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman.

Last fall, we wrote about how Schneiderman was demanding information on 15,000 AirBnB users in NY, claiming that he was hunting down “long-term illegal rentals.” In a NY Times article highlighting how AirBnB users (from both sides of the market) are pushing back against Schneiderman’s crusade against AirBnB, Schneiderman finally admits what everyone has known all along. He’s doing this to protect the big NY hotels from getting disrupted. And yes, he sandwiches the claim between claims of “just enforcing the law” and “protecting” people, but the message is pretty clear. This is about protecting the incumbent hotels:

First he said that “we have a well-regulated and extraordinarily successful hotel sector” that is “one of our finest industries and contributes a lot to the economy.” Then, a bit later, he added, “We’re just looking in New York to enforce New York law, and also, frankly, to protect our hospitality industry that goes through a lot of trouble to have great hotels, to protect tourists, to provide services, and to protect the people in our residential housing.”

It is true that NY law prevents short-term apartment rentals (basically anything less than 30 days). But to pretend this is about protecting the public is just ridiculous. I’ve stayed at many hotels in NY and a few AirBnB places — including some that likely fit Schneiderman’s definition of an “illegal hotel.” And, without question, the AirBnB experience every single time has been vastly superior to the hotel experience. It’s not even close. Assuming Schneiderman allows it to exist, I’ll continue to make use of AirBnB, and it’s not just because it’s usually cheaper (though it often is), but the overall experience is phenomenal. I get to stay in unique and interesting places in unique and interesting neighborhoods — usually much more convenient for my travel needs. One AirBnB host I met owns three apartments, living in one (renting out the spare bedroom), but mostly focusing on full time renting out the other two. The service was great — and much more personalized than any hotel I’ve ever stayed in.

The last thing I want is for NY’s Attorney General to “protect me” from that.

Filed Under: disruption, eric schneiderman, hospitality, innovation, new york, nyc, protection
Companies: airbnb

Former FBI Agent: NYPD's Muslim-Spying Demographics Unit Was Almost Completely Useless

from the holds-several-'most-rights-violated'-trophies,-however dept

Certain demographics are desirable. 18-34? Taste-makers and early adopters. 35-49? Money. Muslim and New York City resident? Being a member of this group meant (until recently) having First Amendment-protected activities being closely scrutinized by the NYPD’s now-defunct “Demographics Unit.”

This special unit was recently disbanded, roughly a decade after it should have been, thanks to a new mayor and a new police commissioner. The unit was put together by a former CIA officer who used the post-9/11 attack climate to push for expansive surveillance of the city’s Muslim population, including designating entire mosques as terrorist-related entities. Despite all the extra attention being paid to Muslims, not a single useful investigation resulted from this unit’s work.

The surveillance being done by this unit so pervasively subverted civil liberties protections that not even the CIA could access the NYPD’s files without breaking its internal rules. The same goes for the FBI, which has long partnered with the NYPD in its counter-terrorism efforts. Don Borelli, a former FBI agent, has written a piece for the New York Daily News, detailing why police commissioner Bill Bratton was right to disband the Demographics Unit.

Together, we were able to stop many threats — and save many lives — including a serious plot against the subways from Najibullah Zazi, an ethnic Afghan who grew up in Queens and went on to become an Al Qaeda operative.

Interestingly enough, the NYPD demographics unit had detailed files on Zazi’s neighborhood in Flushing during the period in which he was becoming radicalized. It kept files on businesses and visited coffee shops believed to be hangouts for potential terrorists. The unit even visited the travel agency where Zazi bought his ticket to travel to Afghanistan for terrorism training.

So why wasn’t Zazi identified until he was driving to New York from Denver to blow up the subway? Because the program was ineffective. The mission of the demographics unit was to spot the terrorists in the haystack, but again and again it failed to do so.

All haystack, no needle, like so many other surveillance programs. The unit overwhelmed itself in useless data, keeping it from finding what it needed when it mattered most. These data swamps built by investigative agencies have proven to be more dangerous than old-fashioned police work.

During my time with the Joint Terrorism Task Force, I read many reports derived from investigations conducted by the NYPD Intelligence Division, which may well have relied on the demographics unit’s work. I was presented with many interesting facts about where people were attending Friday prayers and who belonged to various Muslim student associations.

But rarely did I learn anything I didn’t already know through traditional investigations, much less anything that would have led me to open a terrorism investigation.

Adding to the mess here is the NYPD’s twisted relationship with the FBI. While it clearly enjoys access to G-men and their tools, former police chief Ray Kelly often made it clear that his officers did superior work and that the FBI’s production of information was too slow to be useful. Of course, FBI agents have said the same thing about the NYPD, particularly in the information department, where the sharing was usually a one-way street that flowed out of the FBI and into the NYPD’s hands.

Beyond the antagonistic relationship is the Demographic Unit itself — its own worst enemy. The former CIA officer who had a local judge rewrite guidelines to give the NYPD unprecedented permission for pervasive surveillance also managed to ensure that most info flowing back upstream to the FBI ended up being routed directly into the trash can.

Moreover, I wound up shredding some of these reports because they had no investigative value and, in my opinion, did not belong in any FBI file because they solely reported on what was First Amendment-protected activity.

Much like other failures to stop terrorist activity, the problems here were communication (too little) and information (too much). As Borelli notes, in his experience, it’s been more useful to build trust than to endlessly spy, something the NYPD really hasn’t made much effort to foster over the years. But its failure to do so means it has buried itself in data and alienated those who could bring an inside perspective. A decade’s worth of spying resulted in nothing but violated rights.

Filed Under: demographics unit, fbi, muslims, new york city, nyc, nypd