CLIPS: 18 November, 2021
Groups Urge Supreme Court to Review Fourth Amendment Police Surveillance Case, United States v. Tuggle
This week, advocacy organizations urged the Supreme Court to review the lower court decision in United States v. Tuggle, which found that police “didn’t need a warrant to secretly record all activity in front of someone’s home 24 hours a day, for a year and a half.” Groups specifically decried the decision as a violation of Fourth Amendment rights, and an overreach of video surveillance that sets a bad precedent for invasions of privacy (targeting people in their homes).
Last year, Ángel Díaz of the Brennan Center for Justice wrote about smart technologies, sensors, and other “always on” devices being used in court cases, and the dangers this poses to privacy. While mainly focusing on “Internet of Things” technologies, the piece paralleled similar concerns raised in the Tuggle case, relating to surreptitious monitoring and use of surveillance technologies to invade citizens’ privacy: When Police Surveillance Meets the “Internet of Things”.
COVERAGE
Brennan Center, Tuggle v. United States (Amicus Brief)
CATO Institute, Tuggle v. United States
RCPF, Tuggle v. United States
Law360, High Court Urged To Review Feds' Surveillance Outside Home
RESPONSES
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Brennan Center for Justice, Center for Democracy and Technology, Electronic Privacy Information Center, and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed an amicus brief in defense of Tuggle’s petition for certiorari. The groups say that low costs, long-term monitoring, and discriminatory applications of surveillance all violate Fourth Amendment rights against invasions of privacy.
In a statement, EFF said “Our homes are our most private and protected spaces, and police should not film everything that happens at the home without prior court authorization… Because of its capacity to create detailed records of what goes on at people’s homes, long-term, warrantless pole camera surveillance is… unconstitutional.”
EFF went on to tweet, “Police used 3 cameras mounted on utility poles to secretly record someone's life 24/7 for 18 months. A court said cops didn't need a warrant for this highly intrusive act. We're asking SCOTUS to make clear that's a violation of the Fourth Amendment.”
In a statement, CDT noted how “...over time, camera technology has significantly advanced while the costs of camera systems and digital storage have significantly decreased, thereby enabling highly intrusive surveillance that police departments would be unable to conduct through officers on stakeout.”
They went on to tweet, “[We] urge that #SupremeCourt should hear the case b/c (1) there's a split of authority in lower courts & (2) important questions regarding whether 4th Amdt prohibits warrantless long-term video #surveillance of areas surrounding a home, even when those areas are public.”
Co-Director of the Security and Surveillance Project, Sharon Bradford Franklin, tweeted, “Thanks to @EFF for leading amicus brief that @CenDemTech joined urging #SupremeCourt to review Tuggle v. US, challenging warrantless surveillance using hidden cameras attached to utility poles for 18 months.”
The Institute for Justice tweeted in reference to their amicus brief on the case, adding, “As part of our 4th Amendment Project, Friday IJ filed an amicus brief urging #SCOTUS to hear the case United States v Tuggle, which could help redefine the word ‘search’ in #4thAmendment jurisprudence.”
George A. Katz Fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, Laura Hect-Felella, wrote a Twitter thread on the case. In it, she detailed several different points supportive of its review, including that “...constitutional protections shouldn’t depend on if someone has built a fence around their property. (Some courts have found this shows a subjective expectation of privacy.) Such a rule would disproportionately harm people with limited financial means.”
New York City Passes New Regulation For the Use of AI in Hiring
The city of New York passed new legislation targeting bias in employment decisions related to automated tools used in the hiring process. Expert groups worry this specific bill contains harmful flaws, its passage ignited broader conversations about discrimination in algorithms, and spurred calls for greater oversight in combatting racism and sexism in the use of AI. This comes as a new national poll conducted by the Stevens Institute of Technology and Morning Consult reveals Americans are deeply conflicted about the adoption of AI into everyday life, and are wary of its consequences (while still believing that the positives outweigh the negatives).
Prof. Xavier Ferrer of King’s College wrote of latent biases in AI in hiring, and (as in the CAP symposium) eloquated practical legislative ideas for oversight and auditing of these systems: Bias and Discrimination in AI: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective, Technology and Society.
COVERAGE
CDT, NY City Council Rams Through Once-Promising but Deeply Flawed Bill on AI Hiring Tools
The Hill, Advocates worry online misogyny will keep women out of office
Center for American Progress, How To Regulate Tech: A Technology Policy Framework for Online Services
RESPONSES
The Center for Democracy and Technology released a statement on the NYC law’s passage, praising its intent but sharing serious hesitations about its wording. Specifically, they worry that the revised version of the bill narrows scope and weakens bias audit requirements to the point that implementation won’t see any meaningful change from employers.
In a Twitter thread, CDT said, “NOT ENOUGH: The @NYCCouncil just passed the first U.S. law regarding fairness of AI-based hiring tools. @CenDemTech commends the Council for focusing on this key issue – but the bill falls far short… It requires companies to audit for discrimination only on the basis of race or gender - ignoring that #AI hiring tools can discriminate on #disability, age, & other features too.”
CEO of CDT Alexandra Reeve Givens, said in a Twitter thread: “We MUST do better as we seek to address the greatest risks of #AI. Needlessly prioritizing some forms of discrimination over others is a toxic choice. Passing laws that enshrine weak standards is worse than the status quo - it's a step backwards.”
Researcher Damien P. Williams, of Virginia Tech, said in a Twitter thread, “@CenDemTech's algorithmic discrimination policy team gave @NYCCouncil a detailed set of recommendations to amend a deeply ableist & otherwise discriminatory bill. Recs which City Council not only ignored but in some cases outright weakened & WORSENED.”
He went on to add, “When I tell you that people with the relevant expertise and lived experience have to be put in positions of real oversight and authority in regards to the design, construction, training, use, and regulation of AI and Algorithmic systems? Shit like this is exactly why.”
The hashtag #NotInMyFeed was heavily utilized by industry organizations this week, attempting to bring attention to the spread of discriminatory disinformation and amplification of misinformation in social media algorithms.
Accountable Tech tweeted, “Fighting disinformation can feel like playing whack-a-mole. Despite the different messages, the strategies that spread it can be the same. If we recognize the pattern, we can unlock our power to stop feeding the harmful narrative and create a more just future. #NotInMyFeed.”
Kairos tweeted the same message.
UltraViolet tweeted, “The truth is, we’re the ones with the power to combat disinformation here. Recognizing the pattern of disinformation is how we fight back, because despite all the different ways disinfo shows up, the strategies and patterns are often the same.”
NARAL Pro-Choice America tweeted, “We have the power to fight disinformation. All the different topics, agenda, and messages, the strategies that spread it are often the same. If we can recognize the pattern, then we can stop feeding the harmful narrative and create a more just future. Join us. #NotInMyFeed.”
DemCast tweeted, “Disinformation is everywhere, and fighting it can feel overwhelming. Recognizing the pattern of disinformation is how we fight back, because despite all the different ways disinfo shows up, the strategies and patterns are often the same. Join us. #NotInMyFeed.”
Women's March tweeted, “One of the ways extremists try to spread disinfo and limit our freedom is by repeating claims that make incidental, normal side effects seem significant when they’re not. Just because it’s loud doesn’t mean it’s important, real, or worth any of our time. #NotInMyFeed.”
The Juggernaut Project tweeted, “Anti-choice leaders pass off bogus info by using studies with fake credentials. They'll purposely pretend a claim is backed by scientific research when science is not on their side. By educating ourselves on these tactics, we can protect the health of our community. #NotInMyFeed.”
Ohio Attorney General Sues Facebook, Alleges Violations of Securities Law
In the latest fallout from the Facebook Files, the Ohio Attorney General is suing Meta alleging Facebook violated federal securities laws by misleading investors, allegations that are nearly identical to Haugen’s complaints shared with the SEC. In coverage of the situation, bipartisan reprimand of Meta continued, both sides lambasting a lack of regulation driving negative trends in both privacy and safety online. Advocacy organizations likewise criticized Facebook’s lack of transparency, saying it contributed to a toxic environment that amplifies online extremism and misinformation.
EFF published a new blog post advocating for greater oversight and interoperability to combat platform abuses: After Facebook Leaks, Here Is What Should Come Next.
COVERAGE
KQED, Accountability Groups Stage 4-Day Facebook 'Logout' Over Network's Content-Moderation Practices
Protocol, Facebook told employees to avoid the words 'discrimination' and 'bias'
Washington Post, Ohio attorney general sues Meta over Facebook Papers revelations
The Verge, Ohio suing Facebook, says it misled the public about the effect its products have on children
RESPONSES
Accountable Tech tweeted, “Facebook keeps boasting about the safety of Meta without disclosing any details about how they're actually going to protect users' privacy. As always, it's just another PR stunt.”
EFF this week released a barrage of tweets and new reports on the subject of Facebook, praising new drives to regulate the tech giant while advocating interoperability as a key mechanism for combatting platform abuses. They also released an op-ed on the Justice Against Malicious Act, praising the regulatory intent but saying its current iteration would only harm Internet users.
EFF went on to tweet, “The Facebook leaks should be the starting point, not the end, of a sincere policy debate over concrete approaches that will make the internet—not just Facebook—better for everyone.”
Drawing attention to a Vox article, the American Economic Liberties Project said in a tweet: “How do we ‘fix’ @Facebook? 1 - Break it up to reduce its power over information commons. 2 - Restore the rule of law & investigate execs for criminal behavior. 3 - Ban surveillance advertising.”
Following announcement of the Ohio lawsuit, they went on to add, “Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook executives have a pattern of repeatedly lying to investors and the general public.”
CEO of the AELP, Sarah Miller, announced via Twitter a new campaign to demand criminal investigation of Mark Zuckerberg, Sharyl Sandberg, and Facebook. She tweeted, “Facebook’s longstanding track record of unethical and potentially illegal behavior deserves criminal sanction. That's why @econliberties is demanding @TheJusticeDept, @FTC, and @SECGov open a criminal investigation into Facebook execs. Join us!”
Public Knowledge advocated for Facebook to increase the visibility of fact-checks on the platform, saying it would help increase accountability online. They went on to reference their Superfund for the Internet Proposal Summary: a plan to utilize public policy tools to increase scale and transparency of fact-checking and content moderation on the platform.
More than 30 tech accountability groups participated in the Facebook Logout from Nov. 10-13. Among these groups were Accountable Tech, Free Press, Kairos, Media Justice, and more. More than 51,000 pledged to log out, "amplifying our demands for Facebook to curb disinformation, increase transparency on content moderation decisions and halt surveillance advertising.”
In a statement, Kairos said, “Facebook spends more energy trying to mend their broken public image than fixing what’s happening on their platform and at the company.”
Jason Kint tweeted a quote from AG Yost, which read: “Facebook said it was looking out for our children and weeding out online trolls. But in reality was creating misery and divisiveness for profit. We are not people to Mark Zuckerburg. We are the product and we are being used against each other out of greed.”
Morgan Harper, former CFPB advisor running for U.S. Senate, tweeted, “Facebook’s lies gamble with the financial security of middle class seniors across Ohio. As I said in my testimony before Congress last year, and as I will do in the U.S. Senate…BREAK THEM UP.”
Biden Increases Funding For Broadband Access with Infrastructure Bill, Looks to Inject $500 Million Into the FTC
On November 15, President Biden signed the $1 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act into law. The package allocates $65 billion for broadband access and another $65 billion for modernizing the electric grid. Progressive groups celebrate the bipartisan measure as “the strongest action to close the digital divide that Congress has ever taken.” Additionally, the Build Back Better Act has outlined a striking increase in funding for the FTC, giving half a billion dollars to the agency through 2029, an act consumer groups have called “critical” for addressing data abuse.
Earlier this month, Brookings published a report on the IIJA, anticipating “generation-defining building” and calling for continued long term investments to ensure America remains competitive.
COVERAGE
Reuters, Biden signs $1 trillion infrastructure bill into law
The New York Times, Biden Signs $1 Trillion Infrastructure Bill Into Law
The Wall Street Journal, Biden Signs $1 Trillion Infrastructure Bill Into Law
The Verge, Biden signs $1 trillion infrastructure package into law
The Washington Post, Analysis | What’s at stake for Silicon Valley in Democrats’ social spending showdown
CNN, Biden signs infrastructure bill into law at rare bipartisan gathering
American Progress, President Biden’s Economic Agenda Will Help Make Life More Affordable Without Adding To Inflation
RESPONSES
The Open Tech Institute said in a statement, “This is a big deal. Today’s law is the strongest action to close the digital divide that Congress has ever taken. Importantly, the law embraces a comprehensive understanding of the digital divide by investing in broadband access, affordability, and adoption.”
The Progressive Policy Institute said in a statement, “[We are grateful] for the opportunity to have contributed to the deliberations around the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. This landmark bill at last ends a generation of chronic underinvestment in the public goods that make the great American jobs and innovative machine run.”
PPI went on to tweet, “The bipartisan infrastructure bill makes a transformative investment in the foundation of our economy and the future of American infrastructure — and does so in a way that gives taxpayers a good bang for their buck.”
The Bipartisan Policy Center said in a statement, “By targeting the innovation and demonstration of new technologies, along with modernized permitting processes and significant upgrades to our electricity and transportation infrastructure… [t]he IIJA positions the U.S. as a global leader in innovation while growing the American economy and jobs.”
Sasha Mackler, of BPC’s Energy Project, tweeted, “Congratulations to @POTUS & Congress for coming together to pass and SIGN the bipartisan infrastructure bill. This is a massive step toward investing in a decarbonized America.”
Jason Grumet, President of the BPC, tweeted, “Eager to join @POTUS & bipartisan Members of Congress today for the Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act signing. We've worked on bipartisan infrastructure legislation for 10+ years, & today’s signing is a testament to those who made this once-in-a-generation investment possible.”
The Service Employees International Union tweeted, “Pres. Biden is signing the bipartisan infrastructure bill into law today. Now, Congress must pass the #BuildBackBetter plan for all working families.”
The Electronic Privacy Information Center tweeted, “@EPICprivacy ... and consumer protection organizations joined a letter urging Congress to pass key provisions of the #BuildBackBetter that will strengthen the @FTC's power to halt discriminatory and abusive #data practices. #privacy.”
Color of Change tweeted, “To effectively serve Black communities, racial justice must be baked into the @FTC’s policymaking and oversight. The #FTC must ensure funds from the #BuildBackBetter proposal will go to hiring staff with civil rights and racial justice expertise.”
Demos tweeted, “The fight over #BuildBackBetter continues as corporations and the ultrarich spend millions of dollars lobbying to preserve their billions. Meanwhile, these fortunes have been extorted from exploited workers and prevent us from protecting our communities.”
Rep. Pramila Jayapal tweeted, “Now that the historic infrastructure bill is law, it’s time to vote on the Build Back Better Act and pass the rest of the President’s agenda. Let’s get this done and deliver for working families, single mothers, seniors, and communities across this country!”
Nominations: Kanter Confirmed to DOJ Antitrust Position - Bedoya, Sohn, Rosenworcel, and Franklin Are Next
A bipartisan vote on Tuesday confirmed Jonathan Kanter, an antitrust lawyer with a Big Tech opposition track-record to lead the Department of Justice antitrust division. Public interest groups continue to urge the Senate to confirm Jessica Rosenworcel and Gigi Sohn to the FCC, and Alvaro Bedoya to the FTC -- while Republicans attempt to stall progress. Former CDT and OTI policy director Sharon Bradford Franklin has received an outpour of support from progressive groups as Biden’s pick to lead the independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.
In July, Tech and antitrust litigation experts from law firm Duane Morris analyzed Kanter’s nomination as an indication of the Biden Administration's aggressive antitrust and anti monopoly enforcement.
Relatedly, the Center for American Progress held an event this week on the “Future of Tech Regulation,” featuring Sen. Amy Klobuchar, and highlighting “[n]ew thinking on technology regulation... [leading] toward stronger antitrust enforcement and competition in digital markets, as well reimagin[ing] democratic oversight of technology and online services.”
COVERAGE
Ars Technica, Sen. Lindsey Graham: “I will do everything in my power” to block Biden FCC pick
Electronic Frontier Foundation, Federal Agencies Need to Be Staffed to Advance Broadband and Tech Competition
Fortune, Net neutrality may be restored under Biden FCC pick Jessica Rosenworcel
Vice, Restore Net Neutrality, Or Facebook Will Dominate The Internet Forever
RESPONSES
Electronic Frontiers Foundation tweeted, “The Senate has nominations that will impact broadband access, competition, and privacy that need votes before year's end. Doing nothing will stall progress on all 3 fronts.”
Fight for the Future tweeted, “Biden has appointed two #NetNeutrality champions to the FCC, but time is running out. If the Senate doesn't confirm them by the end of the year, we risk not being able to win back net neutrality in 2022. Contact your Senators today.”
Center for Democracy & Technology tweeted, “Incredibly proud of @POTUS’ intention to nominate @CenDemTech’s @sharonbradfrank to chair the @PCLOB_GOV. She’s a longstanding advocate of #privacy, civil liberties, + civil rights, & previously served as PCLOB's executive director from 2013 - 2017.”
CEO of the CDT, Alexandra Reeve Givens tweeted, “@sharonbradfrank is the real deal: a dedicated public servant deeply committed to privacy, civil liberties and civil rights. She would be a phenomenal Chair of the Privacy & Civil Liberties Oversight Board @PCLOB_GOV. Here’s to a swift confirmation!”
President and Co-CEO of Free-Press, Craig Aaron tweeted, “Rumors & reports flying around that @SenatorCantwell wants to hold separate hearings on the president's (excellent) @FCC nominees, Jessica Rosenworcel and Gigi Sohn. Don't do this! We need the FCC at work as fast as possible. And that means having all 5 commissioners in place.”
Public Knowledge tweeted, “Disappointing that @SenateCommerce and @commercedems aren't putting forward nominees for FCC and NTIA as a group. These agencies are key to success of broadband infrastructure funding in the infrastructure package. Moving them together before the end of the year is critical.”
Color of Change tweeted, “Congratulations to Jonathan Kanter on his confirmation as Assistant Attorney General for the @TheJusticeDept. Kanter will lead the @JusticeATR and continue the fight to hold #BigTech monopolies accountable & enforce #antitrust laws. #BreakUpBigTech.”
Charlotte Slaiman tweeted, “Next week @commercedems will hear from @alvarombedoya on what he'll bring to @FTC as Commissioner. As a law professor & former Senate staffer, he fought for privacy & civil rights on a bipartisan basis for over a decade. Clearly has the expertise + experience for this tough job.”
Apple Modifies Feature That Raised Serious Privacy and Child Safety Concerns
Apple has modified the new Apple Communication Safety feature in its latest iOS 15.2 beta, according to reports confirmed by the company. The opt-in option (which can be enabled by parents) allows the Messages app to detect nudity in images that are sent to or received by children; the child is warned about the content as well as directed to resources that offer help and encourage contacting someone they trust for help. Absent from the Communication Safety feature is the option for parents to receive a notification if the child viewed sexually explicit content. This aspect of the feature received controversy due to concerns about the potential harm it could cause to queer children. The Communication Safety feature is also different from CSAM-detection (child sexual abuse imagery detection) feature that enables Apple to scan iCloud Photos and report users who store Child Sexual Abuse Material in their accounts.
COVERAGE
The Verge, Latest iOS beta blurs nude images for children using Messages app
Forbes, iOS 15.2–Apple's iMessage Safety Update Is A Major Change For iPhone Privacy
CNET, Apple to beta test iMessage feature that warns kids about nude imagery
The New York Times, Apple’s iPhones Will Include New Tools to Flag Child Sexual Abuse
RESPONSES
In a statement, the Center of Democracy and Technology wrote, “CDT has previously advocated for further research on systems like the one Apple is testing, in which on-device, user-controlled machine-learning classifiers could be trained to detect unwanted content on behalf of the user.”
Research Director at the Center of Democracy and Technology, Dhanaraj Thakur tweeted, “Great to see this move by #Apple and the impact of our advocacy+research to promote.”
LGBT Tech tweeted, “Wholeheartedly agree with @CenDemTech that the changes to Apple Safety Features are a win for #privacy and will help protect the privacy of #LGBTQ+ children.
Evan Greer tweeted, “This is good news and a WIN for activists and security experts who pushed back on Apple.I spoke to @publicintegrity a while back about how these features would harm LGBTQ+ youth specifically.”
Research Scholar at the Stanford Internet Observatory, Riana Pfefferkorn tweeted, “Apple has updated its child-safety plan for messaging to no longer notify under-13 kids' parents when it detects they're about to send or view nude imagery. Score one for the screeching minority.”
Aspen Commission On Information Disorder Publishes Final Report
Following a six month investigation, the Aspen Institute’s Commission on Information Disorder released an 80-page final report with recommendations for policymakers and Big Tech. The 16-person Commission included public figures, including Katie Couric and Prince Harry, as well as experts from a variety of fields, such as Safiya Umoja Noble, Jameel Jaffer, former CISA director Chris Krebs, Rashad Robinson, Kate Starbird, among others. The final report recommends that government and industry create a series of initiatives aimed at increasing platform transparency, building trust and bridging divides, and reducing harms caused by mis/disinformation. The Commission also offered specific suggestions for legislative reforms to laws like Section 230.
COVERAGE
CNN, Information disorder 'creates a chain reaction of harm,' according to Aspen Institute report
The Grio, Mainstream royal pundits amplify coordinated hate campaign against Meghan Markle
The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/11/15/white-house-needs-better-plan-curb-misinformation-pronto-commission-argues/
The Nieman Lab, How do you fix an “information disorder”? The Aspen Institute has some ideas.
Columbia Journalism Review, What can we do about society’s ‘information disorder’?
RESPONSES
Color of Change tweeted, “Like the recommendations from the Aspen Commision on Information Disorder, the union wants increased transparency in bargaining sessions. #LetObserversIn.”
In his review of the report, Mike Ingram wrote, “Perhaps the most ambitious, and potentially controversial, of the report’s recommendations comes at the very end: a proposal that Congress create and fund an independent non-profit organization that would be mandated to “invest in systemic misinformation counter-measures.”
He went on to tweet, “The Aspen Institute's star-studded Commission on Information Disorder has released its final report, and it contains some interesting recommendations on how to deal with mis- and disinformation.”
Eli Pariser tweeted a screenshot of the report’s recommendation of the implementation of public interest research and wrote in response, “Interesting idea from the Aspen Information Disorder Commission -- I'm unclear how a law would protect these researchers from the platforms' own countermeasures though (i.e. a lifetime personal ban from Facebook properties, as FB gave the NYU ad researchers).”