Wednesday, March 26, 2014
LAPD says every car in Los Angeles is part of an ongoing criminal investigation
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is trying to figure out what the LAPD is doing with the mountains (and mountains) of license-plate data that they’re harvesting in the city’s streets without a warrant or judicial oversight. As part of the process, they’ve asked the LAPD for a week’s worth of the data they’re collecting, and in their reply brief, the LAPD argues that it can’t turn over any license-plate data because all the license-plates they collect are part of an “ongoing investigation,” because every car in Los Angeles is part of an ongoing criminal investigation, because some day, someone driving that car may commit a crime.
As EFF’s Jennifer Lynch says, “This argument is completely counter to our criminal justice system, in which we assume law enforcement will not conduct an investigation unless there are some indicia of criminal activity.”
This reminds me of the NSA’s argument that they’re collecting “pieces of a puzzle” and Will Potter’s rebuttal: “The reality is that the NSA isn’t working with a mosaic or a puzzle. What the NSA is really advocating is the collection of millions of pieces from different, undefined puzzles in the hopes that sometime, someday, the government will be working on a puzzle and one of those pieces will fit.” The same thing could be said of the LAPD.
Open the floodgates? Indiana becomes first state to scrap Common Core
Indiana has become the first of 45 states to opt out of the national education standard known as Common Core, and critics of the controversial K-12 program say the move could “open the floodgates” for others to follow.
Growing criticism over costs imposed by the program, as well as fears that by setting a national education standard, the program has already begun dictating curriculum, has made Common Core an increasingly polarizing issue. Although the program has both Republican and Democrat supporters, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence predicted his state will be the first of many to rethink participation.
“I believe when we reach the end of this process there are going to be many other states around the country that will take a hard look at the way Indiana has taken a step back, designed our own standards and done it in a way where we drew on educators, we drew on citizens, we drew on parents and developed standards that meet the needs of our people,” Pence said.
The Common Core State Standards Initiative, originally drafted by state education superintendents working with the National Governors Association, and since embraced by the Obama administration, seeks to impose a national standard for achievement among K-12 students. Some states began implementation this year, with the majority slated to begin in the fall.
But several states are seeing a backlash against participation, which was typically approved as long as five years ago. Jim Stergios, executive director of the nonpartisan, Boston-based think tank Pioneer Institute, said the Hoosier State’s move could “open the floodgates.”
“Indiana, under [Republican Gov.] Mitch Daniels, was one of the early proponents of Common Core, even the poster child,” Stergios told FoxNews.com. “By pulling out, it sends a strong signal to other states, particularly red states, that, ‘Hey, if they can do this, then why can’t we?’”
Despite Attempts, Government Regulation Won’t Stifle Über Without A Fight
There isn’t much a smartphone can’t do these days. Now, it can even hail you a cab, using the app Über. But regulators and the government bureaucrats are trying to stifle the service.
For those unfamiliar, Über is an app that basically lets you hire a taxi or limousine with an in-app reservation service. Users can see reviews of the drivers. Über uses independent contractors to provide the rides, and riders can pay on the app and follow the driver via GPS, as well.
Existing cab companies could all provide what Über does, but they don’t. They would rather use the government to eliminate competition through regulations.
According to Forbes, cabbies aren’t taking kindly to the competition:
“Instead of responding to a new kind of virtual competitor with better products and services, however, the highly-regulated taxi and limousine companies in every city Über has entered have instead gone the route of trying to ban Uber’s existence.”
In Miami, Über can’t operate due to existing laws that were clearly drafted to protect taxis from competition, even from a licensed competitor. Limos can’t provide service in less than an hour after receiving the reservation. The minimum fare for a limo by law is $80. Lastly, limo licenses are limited to 150.
According to CEO Travis Kalanick, the young company has spent a lot of time fighting off these regulations in court.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
NYT reporter: Obama administration ‘the greatest enemy of press freedom’ in a generation
New York Times reporter James Risen called the Obama administration “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation” on Friday, explaining that the White House seeks to control the flow of information and those who refuse to play along “will be punished.”
Poynter reports that Risen made the remarks while speaking at Sources and Secrets conference — a meeting of journalism , communication and government professionals held in New York City. The foreign policy reporter, who is currently fighting a fierce court battle with the federal government over his protection of a confidential source, warned that press freedom is under serious attack in today’s America.
In a speech kicking off the conference, Risen claimed that the Obama administration wants to “narrow the field of national security reporting” and “create a path for accepted reporting.” Those who stray from that path, he cautioned, “will be punished.”
The result is a “de facto Official Secrets Act,” Risen explained, making the current White House “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation.” And the media has been “too timid” in pushing back against the onslaught.
Some of that timidity was on display at the conference. Jeffrey Toobin, a writer for The New Yorker, denied that any constitutional protections for his profession even existed. “It won’t take me long to alienate everyone in the room,” he declared. “For better or worse, it has been clear there is no journalistic privilege under the First Amendment.”
Robert Litt, the administration’s top lawyer for the national intelligence community, agreed with that statement.
The federal ‘structuring’ laws are smurfin’ ridiculous
It seems appropriate that the crime of structuring is also sometimes called smurfing. Generally speaking, structuring is the act of breaking up financial transactions to get around the federal reporting requirements that kick in for transactions over a specific amount of money. The alternate term smurfing is a reference to the children’s cartoon in which a large entity (the Smurf Village) is made up of several smaller ones (the Smurfs themselves).
But if you grew up on the cartoon in the 1980s, or were unfortunate enough to have seen the 2011 movie, you’ll also know that the word smurf itself is rather ambiguous. It can mean whatever the person using the word wants it to mean. And that’s a pretty decent metaphor for how structuring laws function in the hands of federal officials.
First, a little background: Most structuring cases stem from a 1970 law called the Bank Secrecy Act, which requires banks to report any deposits, withdrawals, or transfers of more than $10,000. The law has since been revised several times, but generally it’s intended to make it easier for the government to track tax cheats, money launderers, illegal gambling operations and other criminal enterprises.
But the Bank Secrecy Act also requires banks to report to the federal government any activity from customers that might be construed as structuring deposits to avoid the reporting requirement. So if you have $100,000 to deposit in your bank account, and you deliberately choose to deposit that money in increments of $9,999 so your bank won’t automatically notify the federal government, you’re guilty of structuring. It’s a felony punishable by a fine and/or up to five years in prison.
Your bank is also required to report any suspicious activity by its customers. Moreover, your bank is prohibited from letting you know that it has reported you to the government. Banks that fail to sufficiently police their customers or banks that notify customers that they’ve been reported for suspicious deposits risk financial sanctions. Bank personnel found to have neglected their duties to report suspicious customer behavior can also be criminally charged and sent to prison. So there’s quite a bit of incentive for your bank to give you up, and to cast a wide net around what constitutes “suspicious activity.” There’s lots of risk in under-policing for structuring, and virtually no risk of losing customers due to a policy of over-reporting them to the government. Most customers will never know.