China's Surveillance State Should Scare Everyone; The Atlantic, February 2, 2018

ANNA MITCHELL AND LARRY DIAMOND, 

The Atlantic; China's Surveillance State Should Scare Everyone

[Kip Currier: This Atlantic article brings to mind the Black Mirror Bryce Dallas Howard-helmed episode "Nosedive"--in which social media-dependent social-climbing-Americans are ranked from 1 (not good) to 5 (cream of the crop). The difference: China's real life "good citizen score" surveillance system is way scarier than the one imagined in Nosedive; and is more like the "Under His Eye" dystopia of The Handmaid's Tale Gilead authoritarian state.]

"[China] is racing to become the first to implement a pervasive system of algorithmic surveillance. Harnessing advances in artificial intelligence and data mining and storage to construct detailed profiles on all citizens, China’s communist party-state is developing a “citizen score” to incentivize “good” behavior. A vast accompanying network of surveillance cameras will constantly monitor citizens’ movements, purportedly to reduce crime and terrorism. While the expanding Orwellian eye may improve “public safety,” it poses a chilling new threat to civil liberties in a country that already has one of the most oppressive and controlling governments in the world.

China’s evolving algorithmic surveillance system will rely on the security organs of the communist party-state to filter, collect, and analyze staggering volumes of data flowing across the internet. Justifying controls in the name of national security and social stability, China originally planned to develop what it called a “Golden Shield” surveillance system allowing easy access to local, national, and regional records on each citizen. This ambitious project has so far been mostly confined to a content-filtering Great Firewall, which prohibits foreign internet sites including Google, Facebook, and The New York Times. According to Freedom House, China’s level of internet freedom is already the worst on the planet. Now, the Communist Party of China is finally building the extensive, multilevel data-gathering system it has dreamed of for decades."

Airlines Are Giving Your Face to Homeland Security; Daily Beast, August 9, 2017

Aliya Sternstein, Daily Beast; Airlines Are Giving Your Face to Homeland Security

"The agency admits there are many privacy issues surrounding this “partner process” that need some resolving (PDF). As CBP’s own June privacy impact assessment states, there remains “a risk that commercial air carriers will use the photographs for purposes beyond departure verification” because “commercial air carriers are not collecting photographs on CBP’s behalf or under CBP authorities.”

Delta and JetBlue said they do not store or directly access passenger biometric data...

To Jeramie Scott, national security counsel at the Electronic Privacy Council, her vision of a planet blanketed by interconnected security cameras and computers seemed all too plausible.

“I don’t think that’s a crazy world. It’s just a scary world for us,” Scott said. “The mission creep possibility is a real, real thing.”

ACLU senior policy analyst Jay Stanley said it would be convenient to walk through checkpoints where you have to stop and show papers today, but would you want to take out your passport and show it to authorities every 10 feet?

“If your face is your passport you’re doing the same thing—we end up with a checkpoint society where people are being tracked,” Stanley said."

Privacy vs. Security: Council debates merits of library video surveillance system; Planet Princeton, June 15, 2017

Andrew Goldstein, Planet Princeton; Privacy vs. Security: Council debates merits of library video surveillance system

"Crumiller asked whether library patrons have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Councilwoman Heather Howard said they do not when in public spaces, and that the security cameras have been useful when items are stolen at the library.

Butler wanted to know who has access to the surveillance recordings once they are made. She said the library is known as a place that seeks to protect personal freedom and it keeps private what people view online there.  “They’ve been a staunch supporter of access to all sorts of materials people want to limit on public computers,” she said, adding that she wants more legal research done about the issue.

Councilman Lance Liverman said surveillance in the library has been standard for a long time, and has been for other public  buildings. The money would go to upgrading the cameras already on site, not installing a new system, he said.

“The more I think about it the more I think the opposite (about privacy),” Liverman said. “My kids go to the library all the time. I’m worried about safety. We live in a different country today than years ago. With child abductions and whatever else may be out three I’d rather have the safety of knowing my daughter is there.”"

Flag on Water Stations Changed Due to Copyright Infringement; KRGV.com, May 25, 2017

KRGV.com; Flag on Water Stations Changed Due to Copyright Infringement

"[T]he American Red Cross sent the non-profit group a cease and desist letter warning the group is infringing on copyright laws."

Stanford scholars, researchers discuss key ethical questions self-driving cars present; Stanford News, May 22, 2017

Alex Shashkevich, Stanford News; 

Stanford scholars, researchers discuss key ethical questions self-driving cars present

"Trolley problem debated

A common argument on behalf of autonomous cars is that they will decrease traffic accidents and thereby increase human welfare. Even if true, deep questions remain about how car companies or public policy will engineer for safety.

“Everyone is saying how driverless cars will take the problematic human out of the equation,” said Taylor, a professor of philosophy. “But we think of humans as moral decision-makers. Can artificial intelligence actually replace our capacities as moral agents?”

That question leads to the “trolley problem,” a popular thought experiment ethicists have mulled over for about 50 years, which can be applied to driverless cars and morality.

In the experiment, one imagines a runaway trolley speeding down a track which has five people tied to it. You can pull a lever to switch the trolley to another track, which has only one person tied to it. Would you sacrifice the one person to save the other five, or would you do nothing and let the trolley kill the five people?

Engineers of autonomous cars will now have to tackle this question and other, more complicated scenarios, said Taylor and Rob Reich, the director of Stanford’s McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society."

Cop Who Tried To Keep Driver From Filming Reignites Debate Over Police Privacy; Huffington Post, March 11, 2017

Andy Campbell, Huffington Post; 

Cop Who Tried To Keep Driver From Filming Reignites Debate Over Police Privacy

"Critics are wary of any legislation that blocks access to public documents. But those laws are often grounded in legitimate concerns for officers, Burke said. He noted that officers sometimes face threats of violence and property damage after a video is released, before and regardless of whether any wrongdoing is established.

The laws are a mess. But the silver lining, as Burke and ACLU officials note and as has been said before, is that there’s a national discourse in the first place and real attempts to make legislation that works for everyone.

“There are always going to be unanswered issues, and nothing should be cut in cement,” Burke said. “But we need to have something in place, and we need to revisit it ... we hold ― and should hold ― police officers to a higher standard, but they’re in the job to enforce the laws, not to be abused.”

Just to reiterate: You can record your interactions with police. While there are no uniform federal rules on recording police specifically and federal appeals courts in some areas of the country haven’t ruled on the matter, you do have the right to film in a public space. In general, that includes filming police, unless you’re actively hindering an investigation."

‘We’re going to put a bullet in your head’: #PizzaGate threats terrorize D.C. shop owners; Washington Post, 12/6/16

John Woodrow Cox, Washington Post; ‘We’re going to put a bullet in your head’: #PizzaGate threats terrorize D.C. shop owners:

"Ousmaal first reported the harassment of her restaurant to D.C. police two weeks ago, but in emails she shared with The Post, an officer told her they couldn’t do anything to prevent free speech. He suggested she file a lawsuit.

She understands freedom of speech, Ousmaal replied in an email, but “derogatory libelous and hateful blogs and emails should not and cannot qualify.”"

Whose life should your car save?; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 11/20/16

Azim Shariff, Iyad Rahwan and Jean-Francois Bonnefon, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; Whose life should your car save?; Whose life should your car save? :

"The widespread use of self-driving cars promises to bring substantial benefits to transportation efficiency, public safety and personal well-being. Car manufacturers are working to overcome the remaining technical challenges that stand in the way of this future. Our research, however, shows that there is also an important ethical dilemma that must be solved before people will be comfortable trusting their lives to these cars.

As the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has noted, autonomous cars may find themselves in circumstances in which the car must choose between risks to its passengers and risks to a potentially greater number of pedestrians. Imagine a situation in which the car must either run off the road or plow through a large crowd of people: Whose risk should the car’s algorithm aim to minimize?

This dilemma was explored in studies that we recently published in the journal Science...

This is why, despite its mixed messages, Mercedes-Benz should be applauded for speaking out on the subject. The company acknowledges that to “clarify these issues of law and ethics in the long term will require broad international discourse.”"

Amazon nets patent for mini police drones; SeattlePI.com, 10/28/16

Daniel Demay, SeattlePI.com; Amazon nets patent for mini police drones:

"Amazon Technologies, Inc. was granted a patent Oct. 18 for a device it called an “unmanned aerial vehicle assistant,” aimed at use by police for everything from monitoring situations to finding lost children at the fair...

The devices, if put into wide use, would no doubt raise new questions about police use of technology, said Shankar Narayan, technology and liberty project director for the America Civil Liberties Union in Seattle. Because the drones would be so small, they might be able to operate in discreet ways, collecting information without the subjects ever being aware, he noted.

In a traffic stop, for example, such a drone could fly around the vehicle conducting a search of the inside of the car without an officer ever establishing the required probable cause for such a search, Narayan said.

"That's just one of the ways you could try to make an end-run around the constitutional protections," he said.

Civil rights advocates would look to regulate such devices before they ever went into use.

"We want to make sure the use of this technology doesn't turn into an open fishing expedition" just because newer technology allows it, Narayan said."

Commemorating the Lanham Act’s 70th; Politico, 9/14/16

Li Zhou, Politico; Commemorating the Lanham Act’s 70th:

[Kip Currier: I attended this reception recognizing the 70th year since the signing of the 1946 Lanham Act (the U.S. federal trademark statute). In highlighting the benefits of the trademark system, the speakers raised some powerful points about the impacts of counterfeit goods--such as Sen. Chuck Grassley's example of implantable medical devices--on public health and safety. Earlier in the day, at the "American Bar Association's Intellectual Property Law 4th Annual Trademark Day: Behind the Scenes at the USPTO", a speaker raised the similarly chilling example of counterfeit ball bearings in commercial airplanes. Compelling cases for ensuring product quality and brand authenticity and identification.]

"The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Center will present framed copies of the 70-year-old federal trademark law to the co-chairs of the Congressional Trademark Caucus: Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Chris Coons (D-Del.), and Reps. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.) and Randy Forbes (R-Va.)."