Mediaboss Marketing

In the Summer of 2020, you would have thought that criminal justice and police reform were the most important issues in America. There was even a bipartisan effort in the US Senate to try to find common legislative ground. Oh what a difference a year makes.

Today everything else is more important From Facebook to Kyrsten Sinemas wardrobe choices, from Squid Game to infrastructure. Perhaps this is a clue as to why crime control has historically trumped the rights of defendants, and why it has been so hard to legally and legislatively limit the power of law enforcement.

The dean of UC Berkeleys School of Law, Erwin Chemerinsky author of Presumed Guilty: How the Supreme Court Empowered the Police and Subverted Civil Rights joins us on this weeks WhoWhatWhy podcast to talk about the legal framework behind criminal justice and police reform, and in addition, to remind us why presidents cannot be above the law.

Chemerinsky details the long history of the courts in virtually ignoring the rights of defendants. Often counter to the Fourth Amendment and to the Constitution itself, it is very rare for the courts, either federal or state, to champion defendants rights.

Chemerinsky explains why it was only the Warren Court, in the early- to mid-60s, that ever made any real effort to protect those rights. For most of our history, things like the right to remain silent (the Miranda warning) and the right of a suspect to have a lawyer and to be protected from illegal search, were not the norm.

However, even after the Warren Court, under both Democratic and Republican presidents, he argues, courts and legislatures have still acted on behalf of criminal control and yet none of it has made us more secure.

Chemerinsky reminds us that, even with our longtime emphasis on crime control over criminal rights, we have only 5 percent of the worlds population and 25 percent of the worlds prisoners.

He chastises his own legal community for ignoring the problem for too long and says that it is only through legislation, on both the state and federal level, that some of these issues can be rectified. Relying on the courts, he says, to protect criminal rights or to hold police accountable has been a fools errand.

Read more:
What the Hell Happened to Police and Criminal Justice Reform? - WhoWhatWhy

Congress is debating a massive reconciliation bill of at least $3.5 trillion (thats trillion, with a T), and a vote is expected soon. To offset the unprecedented spending, the Biden administration and its allies in Congress need to generate offsets, and what they propose puts your privacy and that of Texas small businesses in jeopardy.

Overall, the tax hike provisions of this bill are counterproductive to a resilient economy. One provision is particularly disturbing. The administration has been planning to force your bank, credit union or other financial institution to report annually on all individual and business transactions of $600 or more.

They say they want to use this information to catch wealthy tax cheats. But this is a smokescreen, because even if the wealthiest Americans were taxed at 100%, the revenue would fail to cover this economic albatross. What they really want is to empower the IRS to surveil almost all Americans to generate more tax revenue.

How do we know this is their actual intent? Since the spring, the administration has proposed to monitor all inflows and outflows (transactions). At the $600 level, few Americans would escape the dragnet. It would annually capture information on individuals, such as your credit card payments and even transactions with family and friends.

For small business owners, it would gobble up data on partner and vendor relationships to include anyone who pays you or that you may pay over the aggregate threshold amount.

As the public has become more aware of the scheme, its backers in Congress now say they will raise the dollar amount of the reporting threshold. This is a first step of their strategy to ultimately give the Internal Revenue Service power to monitor the financial information of all Americans.

It is also a Washington negotiation ploy to get moderate politicians to accept the language despite a growing outcry from citizens across the political spectrum. Members of the Texas congressional delegation should not take the bait.

Beyond paying for profligate spending, this proposal tramples on the rights of law-abiding citizens regardless of the threshold that may be set. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution exists to protect Americans from precisely this kind of government surveillance:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Such a voluminous IRS data grab without probable cause means that American citizens are to be presumed tax cheats by the IRS until eventually proven otherwise by bureaucrats. Keeping your tax records for seven years? Forget about it. The same IRS that has previously leaked confidential taxpayer information will have this information forever.

So where do you stand? For Republicans, do you trust President Joe Bidens IRS to use this information appropriately? Conversely for Democrats, would you trust Donald Trump or another Republican president with this power? Opposing this measure should unite Democrats, Republicans and independents.

Financial data contains some of the most personal information about our lives and livelihoods. This is why criminals try to steal it for their own financial benefit. Now our federal government which is supposed to protect our rights wants in on the action, too.

Texas banks value the privacy of our customers, and we are strongly opposed to this proposal. Community banks should not be forced to become de facto IRS reporting agents.

If we dont convince Congress to reject this provision immediately, the IRS will certainly be watching your family and business.

Chris Furlow is chief executive of the Texas Bankers Association. He wrote this column for The Dallas Morning News.

Find the full opinion section here. Got an opinion about this issue? Send a letter to the editor and you just might get published.

Read the rest here:
Will Congress enable the IRS to spy on you? - The Dallas Morning News

from the searching-the-searchers dept

Not only is the government using "reverse warrants" to rummage around in your Google stuff, it's also using "keyword warrants" to cast about blindly for potential suspects.

Reverse warrants (a.k.a. geofence warrants) allow the government (when allowed by courts) to work its way backwards from a bulk collection of data to potential suspects by gathering info on all phone users in the area of a suspected crime. The only probable cause supporting these searches is the pretty damn good probability Google (and others but mostly Google) have gathered location data that can be tied to phones. Once a plausible needle is pulled from the haystack, the cops go back to Google, demanding identifying data linked to the phone.

This search method mirrors another method that's probably used far more often than it's been exposed. As Thomas Brewster reports for Forbes, an accidentally unsealed warrant shows investigators are seeking bulk info on Google users using nothing more than search terms they think might be related to criminal acts.

In 2019, federal investigators in Wisconsin were hunting men they believed had participated in the trafficking and sexual abuse of a minor. She had gone missing that year but had emerged claiming to have been kidnapped and sexually assaulted, according to a search warrant reviewed by Forbes. In an attempt to chase down the perpetrators, investigators turned to Google, asking the tech giant to provide information on anyone who had searched for the victims name, two spellings of her mothers name and her address over 16 days across the year. After being asked to provide all relevant Google accounts and IP addresses of those who made the searches, Google responded with data in mid-2020, though the court documents do not reveal how many users had their data sent to the government.

This isn't the first time this form of warrant has been used to acquire data that might lead police to suspects. In 2017, public records enthusiast Tony Webster reported that police in Minnesota had used the same technique to attempt to work their way backwards to a fraud suspect. In that case, investigators served Google with a subpoena for data on everyone who had searched for the identity fraud victim's name. When Google refused to grant this request, the police approached a judge for permission to ask Yahoo and Bing the same question. This request was granted.

The same method was reported on again in 2020, when investigators used a keyword warrant to look for people who had searched the address of an arson victim. In this case, Google complied, returning only a single result relevant to the time, place, and search terms -- one that led police to a suspect with some pretty suspicious location data.

But these are not the only examples. And the broad search attempted here isn't even the broadest keyword search seen in court documents. Shortly after publication, the EFF arrived with an update:

After publication, Jennifer Lynch, surveillance litigation director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), highlighted three other Google keyword warrants that were used in the investigation into serial Austin bombings in 2018, which resulted in the deaths of two people.

Not widely discussed at the time, the orders appear even broader than the one above, asking for IP addresses and Google account information of individuals who searched for various addresses and some terms associated with bomb making, such as low explosives and pipe bomb. Similar orders were served on Microsoft and Yahoo for their respective search engines.

As is the case in any warrant that has the word "reverse" appended to it (even colloquially), there are Fourth Amendment concerns. Casting a wide net to catch all possibilities before working backwards to a suspect may sound like canvassing a neighborhood after a crime, but the comparison is pretty weak. The wider the net, the higher the chance of arresting the wrong person. Unlike talking to people near a crime scene, reverse warrants dispense with alibis, investigators' intuition, and other efforts that reduce the chance of bagging the wrong suspect. And the demand for data makes everyone a suspect -- something analogous to hauling everyone in the area back to the police station for questioning. The data heads to the police who then try to make sense of the bulk collection.

Probable cause doesn't work that way. Just because it's a safe assumption Google has gathered data relevant to the investigation does not justify demanding all relevant information, regardless of its actual link to the crime being investigated. The sealing of warrants like these isn't just to protect the integrity of the investigation or to prevent suspects from being alerted. It's safe to say law enforcement is aware the public (and their often-unaware oversight) will take a dim view of these fishing expeditions. And the more often they're exposed, the more often suspects tracked down using these searches will challenge them.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyones attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise and every little bit helps. Thank you.

The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 4th amendment, keyword warrants, reverse warrants, search resultsCompanies: google

More here:
Accidentally Unsealed Document Shows Feds Are Using Reverse Warrants To Demand Info On Google Searches - Techdirt

Two Black Democratic state legislators from Virginia have accused the state'sRepublican Party of using racist tropes after it sentout flyersdepicting them as puppets hoisted in the air by handheld strings, The Associated Press reported.

The state GOP mailed out flyers targeting eight Democrats currently running for state House seats, five of whom are white and three of whom are Black, according to the AP. All of the candidates are depicted as puppets being held by strings under the phrase "D.C. liberals are pulling the strings in Richmond," while Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiSanders declined to sign statement condemning protests against Sinema: report Pelosi's office denies claims on Trump meeting from Grisham's book Legislative limbo how low can they go? MORE (D-Calif.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezMarkey endorses Michelle Wu in race for Boston mayor Manchin's 'red line' on abortion splits Democrats Far-left bullies resort to harassing, shaming Kyrsten Sinema it won't work MORE (D-N.Y.) can be seen looking on. But only two of the candidates Black lawmakers Del. Josh Cole (D) and Del. Alex Askew (D) are seen dangling over the ground, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

The third Black lawmaker, Del. Roslyn Tyler (D), doesnt appear suspended above the ground, the Times-Dispatchreported.

Both Askew and Cole criticized their depiction in the mailers, suggesting they evoked Virginia's history of lynching. Cole called the mailers a "dog whistle" and accused the state GOP of "using racist tropes to get their voters to come out," according to the AP.

Thestate GOP denied any racist intent, saying the"mailers were sent against eight candidates of all backgrounds," the AP reported.

The party added in its statement that Democrats think their"only path to victory is trying to trick Virginians into thinking its racist for anyone to hold any candidate accountable."

The Virginia Republican Party did not immediately respond to The Hill's request for comment.

Askew, who represents a swing district in Virginia Beach, tweeted that the state GOP party"is depicting me as bound & hanging by rope." He said the flyers follow "an attack mailer that displayed a darkened, burning photo of my face."

Karen -- last month, you sent an attack mailer that displayed a darkened, burning photo of my face. Now, your party is depicting me as bound & hanging by rope.

YET AGAIN: These images rely on some of the laziest, most blatantly racist tropes about Black people in history. https://t.co/3fCQT2HjuD pic.twitter.com/F32KnpMLBX

Askewadded that "depicting any black person as burning or hanging propagates some of the most dangerous, racist tropes in history."

Cole, who is up for reelection against Republican Tara Durant,said that he heard that the mailers were being used in districts that the Republicans were hoping to flip, according to NBC Washington.

This year's election in Virginia is being closely watched as a potential bellwether for the midterms in 2022,when Republicans hope to regain control of both chambers of Congress.

Early voting in Virginia has already begun, with Election Day set for Nov. 2.

Read the original here:
Black Virginia lawmakers criticize Republicans over flyers depicting them as puppets - The Hill

A new ad released by the Murphy campaign holds Ciattarellis claim this summer that the virus poses no risk to children alongside similar comments made by then-President Donald Trump, who lost New Jersey by more than 15 points last year. The 30-second spot echoes a series of advertisements released by California Democrats in the final weeks of the recall in both style and substance: black and red text, urgent phrasing and the looming presence of an unpopular former president.

On the debate stage last week, Murphy compared Ciattarellis positions granting leeway to parents and individuals when it comes to masks and vaccines as akin to supporting drunk driving it impacts both the person driving drunk and all the rest of us.

The Murphy teams renewed focus on Ciattarellis stances around Covid-19 comes even after a recent Monmouth University poll found a majority of voters assign some blame to the governor for failures that caused nursing home deaths to spiral in the early days of the pandemic. Even with New Jerseys leftward slant, Republican leaders had hoped a reassessment of Murphys pandemic response would steer voters into the GOP column in November.

But Covid-19s late summer resurgence scrambled those plans, forcing Ciattarelli a former state lawmaker to defend positions against public health policies that are largely reflective of the CDCs current guidance.

Ciattarelli has been condemned by public health experts, widely, for those types of positions. And we thought it was important to amplify that and that voters know the stakes, Murphy campaign spokesperson Jerrel Harvey said in an interview. We believe that this is a clear and present danger to our state.

The governors allies are also increasingly raising Ciattarellis appearance at an August school board meeting in coastal Toms River, where he encouraged parents to push the board to reject mask requirements at schools.

In the month since schools in Toms River reopened with a mask-optional policy, taking advantage of a loophole Murphys order made for districts to shed face covering requirements during extreme heat, more than 300 cases among students and staff have been reported and hundreds more are in quarantine.

A third grade teacher works with students in a New Jersey classroom. Ciattarellis opposition to school mask mandates complicates some of his more nuanced critiques of Murphys policies. | Seth Wenig/AP Photo

The district has defended its policy it only applied to buildings and classrooms that lacked air conditioning and was only in effect during a period when temperatures in town were at or above 75 degrees arguing many students were infected before the start of the school year.

Given the outbreaks at schools, Ciattarelli, a former member of General Assembly, backtracked on some of the comments regarding childrens risk of contracting Covid-19, telling the debate audience that if I had the chance to say it again, I would say it differently and more perfect.

Even so, Ciattarellis opposition to mask mandates, coupled with his earlier courting of anti-vaccine advocates, complicates some of his more nuanced critiques of Murphys policies.

There are still unresolved questions about how Murphys policies contributed to more than 8,500 Covid-19 deaths across long-term care facilities and state-run veterans homes the latter of which are the subject of state and federal investigations.

As Ciattarelli pointed out during the debate, Murphys vaccine-or-test order for school employees wont take effect until Oct. 18 weeks after the start of the school year. And while the governor has criticized Ciattarelli's positions as offering wiggle room to individuals who have been unwilling to get vaccinated, the Republican counters that Murphy providing unvaccinated workers the option to regularly test serves the same function.

The great fear here in New Jersey, especially since Governor Murphy said he wants to make New Jersey 'the California of the East Coast, is that a Phil Murphy not worried about reelection will only get more aggressive in handing down Trenton mandates that encroach on personal freedom and choice and, ultimately, push us towards another devastating economic lockdown, Ciattarelli spokesperson Stami Williams said in an email. As Governor, Jack will bring the legislature back into the decision-making process and chart a path that saves lives and livelihoods and protects our children.

For now, public polling suggests a majority of New Jerseyans favor Murphys top-down decision making when it comes to the pandemic.

The same Monmouth University poll in which New Jersey voters tagged Murphy on business closures and nursing home deaths found that the governor still has a broad base of support when it comes to Covid-19 prevention strategies, which include requiring students and teachers to mask up. More than half of those surveyed say the states pandemic strategy has been appropriate another 17 percent say it hasnt gone far enough.

Thats in keeping with whats been occurring at the national level. An Axios/Ipsos poll released in late August found that a majority of Americans favored masks in schools and vaccine requirements in the workplace. A Monmouth poll released last month showed national support for vaccine mandates among health care workers, teachers and federal employees and contractors.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a news conference at a school in San Francisco. The state announced this month the nation's first coronavirus vaccine mandate for schoolchildren. | Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

One of Newsoms top advisers told POLITICO in September that the main takeaway from Californias recall results was dont be timid on Covid. That was the turning point in this campaign, when Newsom came out and took bold action on vaccine mandates.

Murphys allies are hoping the same holds true in New Jersey.

The majority of people trust the science, New Jersey state Sen. Joseph Vitale (D-Middlesex) said in an interview. The outcome of the Newsom race illustrated that. Period. The same thing applies here. People don't think any differently about the coronavirus in New Jersey as they do in California."

See the original post here:
Republicans think voters hate Covid restrictions. This Democratic governor disagrees. - POLITICO