“Between its use of spying drones, rampant facial recognition technology, and other invasive policing tactics, we’ve seen time and time again that the NYPD cannot police itself,” said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. “As it looks to deploy new apps to officer and civilian phones, the Department needs to be transparent about its plan for these technologies and how they will store and protect New Yorkers’ data — ensuring that this rollout complies with the Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology (POST) Act. To truly uphold New Yorkers’ privacy and safety, any technology adopted by the NYPD must be subject to public scrutiny and review,” she said in a statement.
Patients and doctors expect drug regulators to provide an unbiased, rigorous assessment of investigational medicines before they hit the market. But do they have sufficient independence from the companies they are meant to regulate? Maryanne Demasi investigates
One, the bans are generally designed to agitate a xenophobic base and give the impression the GOP is “doing something about China.” But the party that couldn’t care less about rampant corruption or privacy violations isn’t doing much of anything meaningful to thwart China. In fact, letting adtech, telecom, and app companies run rampant with little oversight runs contrary to any such goal.
Two, the bans distract the public and press from our ongoing failure on consumer privacy and security issues. Banning TikTok, but doing nothing about the accountability optional free for all that is the adtech and data-hoovering space, doesn’t actually fix anything. China can just obtain the same data from a universe of other international companies facing little real oversight on data collection.
Three, the ban is really just about money. Trump gave the game away with his proposal that TikTok be chopped up and sold to Oracle and Walmart. That cronyistic deal fell through, but it’s pretty clear that this moral panic is designed to either help TikTok’s competitors (Facebook lobbyists are very active on this front), or force the sale of the most popular app in modern history to GOP-allies. At which point they’ll engage in all the surveillance and influence efforts they pretend to be mad about.
Few Russians or Ukrainians will likely have heard of ‘The Block’. It’s an Australian reality show in which couples compete against each other to renovate homes and sell them at auction for the highest possible price. This may have provided the perfect cover for Emese Fajk, a participant who fled the land Down Under after she attempted to buy a renovated property at great expense using fake bank slips, to join Kiev’s International Legion as its official spokesperson.
One human rights campaigner said the military’s failure to provide a timely response to Democratic lawmakers’ questions “does not bode well for the U.S. government’s expressed commitment to transparency and accountability.”
So when the Intercept’s Lee Fang kicked off the 8th installment of the Twitter files, I was not expecting much at all. After all, Fang was one of the authors of the very recent garbage Intercept story that totally misunderstood the role of CISA in the government and (falsely) argued that the government demanded Twitter censor the Hunter Biden laptop story. The fact that the evidence from the Twitter files totally disproved his earlier story should at least result in Fang questioning his understanding of these things.
…
LibsOfTikTok was ‘whitelisted’.
Thus, it’s not at all surprising that Twitter clearly has a similar whitelist feature. This was actually somewhat revealed in an earlier Twitter File when Bari Weiss, thinking she was revealing unfair treatment of the @LibsOfTikTok account, actually revealed it was on a similar Xcheck style whitelist that clearly showed a flag on the account saying DO NOT TAKE ACTION ON USER WITHOUT CONSULTING an executive team.
Twitter’s most recent transparency report, published in July, shows that it took action on 4.3 million accounts in the second half of 2021 and removed 5.1 million pieces of content. You could cherry-pick a few of those decisions to fit almost any ideological narrative. Right-wing commentators aren’t the only people complaining about platforms’ actions. Some Black and LGBTQ social-media users have also objected that they’re being unfairly moderated, as automated tools take down posts containing words and phrases deemed offensive. Distrust of Big Tech’s power is universal.
There’s been ample insinuation that these agencies were politically motivated. But all of this was happening at a time when President Donald Trump was in power and his people were running DHS and the FBI. Rather than agencies intent on swaying the 2020 election for Biden, their actions seem like run-of-the-mill paranoia and attempts at control.
This brings us back to the money the FBI gave Twitter for “time spent processing requests.” In the last installment of the Twitter Files, Matt Taibbi reported on some of those requests, many of which were related to potential election misinformation. Twitter looked into the flagged tweets and accounts, sometimes complying with the FBI and sometimes not.
…
Twitter’s “Guidelines for law enforcement” does state under a section titled “Cost reimbursement” that “Twitter may seek reimbursement for costs associated with information produced pursuant to legal process and as permitted by law (e.g., under 18 U.S.C. §2706).” But the fact that this garnered millions from the FBI was not, as far as I can tell, known until now.
But this is a misreading/misunderstanding of how things work. This had nothing to do with any “influence campaign.” The law already says that if the FBI is legally requesting information for an investigation under a number of different legal authorities, the companies receiving those requests can be reimbursed for fulfilling them.
…
I do think it remains a scandal the way that 2703(d) orders work, and the inability of users to push back on them. But that is the law. And it has literally nothing whatsoever to do with “censorship” requests. It is entirely about investigations by the FBI into Twitter users based on evidence of a crime. If you want, you can read the DOJ’s own guidelines regarding what they can request under 2703(d).
Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, law enforcement must obtain a court order under 18 U.S.C. §2703(d) (2703(d) order) to compel a provider to disclose more detailed records about a customer’s or subscriber’s use of services, such as the following
Some banks have instituted policies making it easier for second-chance workers to get hired. JPMorgan Chase years ago removed all questions about criminal backgrounds from job applications and established a policy center to help former criminals find jobs.
It expanded its effort to help ex-offenders return to the workforce last year, partnering with nonprofits to connect people with arrest or conviction histories to in-demand jobs. CEO Jamie Dimon also agreed to co-chair the Second Chance Business Coalition encompassing 29 member companies.
The bank hired 4,300 people with criminal records last year, Nan Gibson, executive director for public policy and corporate responsibility at the JPMorgan Chase Policy Center, told American Banker. That’s more than double the bank’s 2,100 second-chance hires from 2020.
Ms. Cat’s Chronicles 
You must be logged in to post a comment.