Mediaboss Marketing

Online advertisers wield immense power.

With any given ad, they can reach the consumers they have in mind by targeting specific groups of people with exquisite detail. Such personalization has serious consequences for civil rights. Its entirely possible for a property manager to show ads for available apartments only to white men who watched the Super Bowl. That could be a very effective way of keeping everyone else out of its buildings.

This kind of discriminatory targeting is illegal in ads for housing as well as in ads for credit and employment opportunities. We have special protections in these areas to ensure that people are treated fairly because access to good housing, loans, and jobs is crucial to achieving the American dream.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits the recruiting of employees in a way that excludes Black or Latino candidates or women or Muslims for that matter from the applicant pool.The Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to advertise housing in a way that keeps members of these groups from knowing when housing is available. And its similarly illegal to keep people from applying for credit by denying them information under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

Despite these laws, online advertising platforms have given advertisers the power to explicitly target ads by gender, race, or religion, or to exclude members of particular groups from seeing these ads. And not surprisingly, they have also failed to warn advertisers that they may be engaging in illegal targeting in violation of landmark civil rights laws.

Until now, that is.

Today Facebook is taking significant steps forward that we believe place it at the vanguard of the online fight to protect civil rights. Facebook has updated its policies to clearly prohibit using its audience selection tools to wrongfully target or exclude specific groups of people from seeing ads.

Perhaps even more significantly, Facebook has built a system to identify ads for housing, credit, or employment (You can read the details here). For ads in these categories, it will reject any attempt to target by multicultural affinity (formerly called ethnic affinity), and it will require all advertisers to certify compliance both with Facebooks nondiscrimination policies and with laws that prohibit this targeting.

Weve written before about our concern about Facebooks ethnic affinity ad targeting and advocated for Facebook to make changes. Were very pleased to report that Facebook is doing the right thing now. In fact, were urging other players in the online ad ecosystem to take note and build similar systems. Given the applicable civil rights laws, ads for housing, credit, and employment must be treated differently across the internet by all companies.

Facebook is taking the lead, but theres more work to do. All ad platforms should make it impossible to target ads in these categories by any protected class status, including race, gender, and religion. And we need to keep educating platforms and advertisers about the danger of discrimination that targeting presents, even when ads are targeted by zip code or based on what music you listen to.

Facebook, one of the biggest players in online advertising, is acknowledging these civil rights concerns and a deploying its muscle to protect them. The rest of the industry should wake up, take notice and follow suit. Its not only the right thing to do, its the law.

Read the rest here:
Social Networking Powerhouse Facebook Steps Forward to Bar ... - ACLU (blog)

Visit our country and we will spy on you

The US government is promising to spy on the social media accounts of any foreigner who has the misfortune to have to visit Donald (Prince of Orange) Trump's country.

Apparently, the NSA knowing what you ate for lunch and how your kitten is doing is vital for protecting the land of the free from those nasty Muslim terrorists who seem to be a national obsession from a country which tends to grow its own Christian and right-wing based nut-job style terrorism.

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly told Congress that tourists who want to visit the United States could be asked to hand over their social-media passwords to officials as part of enhanced security checks.

"We want to get on their social media, with passwords: What do you do, what do you say? If they don't want to cooperate then you don't come in."

That puts a bit of a damper on those just wanting to visit the US to go to Disneyland or shop.

After telling Congress that was what he was doing, Kelly, a Trump appointee, stressed that asking for people's passwords was just one of "the things that we're thinking about" and that none of the suggestions were concrete.

He said that under existing vetting processes officials "don't have a lot to work with," relying on the applicant's documentation and asking them questions about their background. Basically admitting that they were there to overthrow the US government.

This was even more problematic when dealing with so-called "failed states" such as Syria or Somalia, where infrastructure and record-keeping has been degraded by conflict.

"When someone says, 'I'm from this town and this was my occupation,' [officials] essentially must take the word of the individual. I frankly don't think that's enough, certainly President Trump doesn't think that's enough. So we've got to maybe add some additional layers."

As well as asking people for their passwords, Kelly said he was looking at trying to obtain people's financial records.

"We can follow the money, so to speak. How are you living, who's sending you money? It applies under certain circumstances, to individuals who may be involved in on the payroll of terrorist organisations."

Of course, you can always say that your financial records are being investigated by the tax authorities and cannot be revealed at the moment. Apparently that is the presidential excuse so it should work for everyone else.

Obtaining visitors' passwords was considered by top officials at the Department of Homeland Security under the Obama administration, but the policy was never adopted. This was probably because it was too silly for words.

Read this article:
US will demand foreigners hand over social networking passwords - Fudzilla (blog)

In Connecticut, Governor Malloy is moving to increase the cost of a firearms permit. The New Haven Register reports:

Gun owners will see huge increases in permit fees that would raise millions of dollars to help the state combat its two-year, $3.6 billion deficit.

As part of his budget, Malloy is proposing to increase the state portion of the pistol permit fee from $70 to $300. He also is proposing the cost of the initial 5-year pistol permit fee from $140 to $370.

The increase in fees for gun owners will bring in another $9 million to the state annually, according to the governors budget estimates.

Additionally, Malloy is proposing to increase background check fees from its current $50 to $75.

If he is successful, that will set the cost of a first-time gun permit at $445, and the cost of renewal at $300.

Although I strongly disagree with it, I understand the intellectual case in favor of pistol permits per se especially in states such as Connecticut, where a permit acts as a one-time permission slip to do everything associated with guns (buy, own, carry, etc.). In the view of the gun-control movement, the permitting system serves to weed out those who are disqualified from ownership, as well as to ensure that the police know who is carrying and who is not. Because the system is open to abuse, leads to situations such as Carol Bownes, and seems to have no positive effect in comparison with similar states that dont issue permits (see Vermont and Maine), I strongly oppose it. But I can at least acknowledge the argument. Guns are dangerous weapons. Its not inherently unreasonable to want some regulation, nor, if a permitting system is to exist, to ask users to cover their costs.

I cannot, however, understand the argument in favor of high fees for pistol permits.If the case for permits is to distinguish between the law-abiding and the criminal, the case for high fees is to distinguish between the rich and the poor. In and of itself, that is disgusting. But applied to a constitutionally enumerated right that has been routinely recognized as such by the Supreme Court? Thats pitchfork time. And to come from the Democratic party, which views itself as being on the side of the poor, and which is institutionally opposed to voter identification laws on the grounds that one should not have to pay or be inconvenienced in order to vote? Thats just too much. (Why isnt this a poll tax or Jim Crow? And you cant answer, because I choose not to accept that the Second Amendment exists.)I understand that Governor Malloy doesnt like guns. But I also dont care. The law is the law. He doesnt get to edit the Bill of Rights.

The best case that can be made is that Malloy is trying to balance the budget on the backs of those whose behavior he dislikes. In a vacuum, this would be unpleasant. But when the behavior in question is legally protected, it is an outrage. Make no mistake: This isnt about covering user costs;its not about safety; and its not about Newtown. Its about astate government being willing to restrict a core individual rightbecause it happens to dislike its scope. I can only hope that the state Senate now split evenly between Democrats and Republicans puts the kibosh on the idea post haste.

Read the original:
Connecticut Moves to Restrict the Second Amendment to Rich People - National Review

DENVER A host of bills aiming to expand Second Amendment rights were heard Wednesday by the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs committee.

Included were House bills 1036, which would remove the prohibition on carrying a concealed firearm on school campuses; 1037, which would allow business owners and employees to use deadly force on intruders; and 1097, which would repeal the limitations on magazine capacity in Colorado.

The hearing for H.B. 1036 lasted more than four hours before Democrats killed the bill on a party-line vote, 6-3.

Senate Minority Leader Patrick Neville, R-Franktown, argued the bill would have sent a clear message to criminals that schools are not gun-free zones that could be targeted.

The purpose is to say were going to do more than put up flashy signs, Neville said.

Rep. Jovan Melton, D-Aurora, said the bill would have allowed individuals who were not held to the same level of training as law enforcement to carry firearms on school grounds, and would have disrupted schools being a safe place for students.

If you come from a neighborhood like I came from, often the classroom is the only safe place for a student to get away from a gun because when theyre out on the street, theyre constantly facing threats that just happen within their neighborhoods, Melton said.

The death of H.B. 1036 by the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee likely was a preview of what will happen when other Second Amendment bills passed by the Senate make it to the Democrat-majority House.

In other House action on Wednesday, 23 bills were heard in committees, including:

Senate Joint Memorial 1, which would ask Congress to re-evaluate how wildfire suppression is funded through public land managers, was passed by the House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee, 13-0.The memorial is being put forward because of the practice of fire transfers that often take funds from mitigation efforts to pay for firefighting. As a memorial, the bill has no power but represents an effort to keep the issue on the minds of congressional representatives.

Senate Bill 27, which would raise the penalty for texting while driving, was passed 4-1 in the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs committee and referred to the Finance Committee. The bill would make the initial penalty $300 and 5 points against a drivers record, and $750 and 6 points on subsequent offenses.Lperkins@durangoherald.com

More here:
Legislative Roundup: Second Amendment bills heard in committee - The Durango Herald

Florida state law 790.33 articulates, in short, that only the Florida State Legislature can and will regulate statewide laws encompassing anything firearms and ammunition related. This law is in place to ensure the state of Florida in its entirety remains consistent withgoverning gun laws. This safeguardslaw-abiding citizens from beingprosecuted for crossing a county or municipality line and accidentally violatinga local firearm law. Add to that the fact that misinformation or accidental ignorance can become an issue, when these laws can become extraneous and too numerous for the well-intended citizen to keep track of.

While Florida state law renders alllocal firearms laws moot, unfortunately, somelocal laws are still alive in certain municipalities and have remained in place because of an effort to exert some level of local autonomy. These municipalities are aware that these ordinances are illegal in the big picture, but refuse to erase them from their books.

The Florida state legislature further regulatespenalties on anyone who chooses to obstruct the state laws by imposing their illegal ordinances.

Tallahassee Mayor, Andrew Gillum, found himself named as a defendant in a lawsuit brought against him by Florida Carry and the Second Amendment Foundation with support of the NRA. The Mayor defends his position, and refuses to remove a law still on the books. This law states that no guns shall be fired in parks located within the city limits of Tallahassee.

The judge in this case recently ruled in favor of the Mayor and all city officials named, finding there has been no wrong-doing on their part. The ruling is currently under appeal, based upon the constitutionality of this law.

Gillum feels he is within his right, as an elected official to enforce and uphold laws that are in his constituents best interests. He feels the state oversight is in direct opposition to what he was elected to do.The flip side to that is that picking and choosing what to uphold is counter-intuitive, andone of the fundamental elements tothis appeal.

What the Mayor is seemingly overlooking with State Law 790.33 is the bigger picture and how it affects all law-abiding gun owners and concealed carriers who reside within his governance and are some of the individuals who elected him into office.

With the appeal of the decision of the district court, its going to be up to Court of Appeals to consider the final outcome.

All law-abiding gun ownersof Florida should pay close attention the outcome of this case could have huge implications for them moving forward.

Author's Bio: Pamela Jablonski

Continue reading here:
Inconsistent Florida Firearm Laws Pose Potential New Threat to ... - Bearing Arms