Tag: posts

“We’ve reached kind of an inflection point in the privacy debate,” says Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). With Americans spending more time online than ever before during the COVID-19 pandemic, he worries that government surveillance of the internet matters more than over before.

Before the Senate’s May 14th vote to reauthorize the USA Freedom Act, formerly known as the Patriot Act, Wyden fought a losing battle to rein in the broad authority that it gives U.S. intelligence agencies to spy on the web activities of American citizens.

“Americans shouldn’t have their most intimate information…snooped over by the federal government without a warrant,” says Wyden. “That [information] is private and personal. It might be your dating history. It might be religious beliefs. It might be your fears…It’s like data mining of somebody’s thoughts.”

The Democrat Wyden, along with his Republican colleague Steve Daines (Mont.), tried attaching an amendment to the bill that would’ve explicitly banned government agents from collecting Americans’ web search histories without a warrant from a non-FISA court. It was defeated by a single vote.

Now an anti-surveillance activist group called Fight for the Future is trying to convince Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and congressional Democrats to add the same amendment to the House version of the bill.

But in a political world where Democrats regularly call the president a power-abusing authoritarian in the making, and Republicans bemoan a Deep State plot to take down Trump, there’s still only weak support for concrete measures to rein in the post-9/11 surveillance state.

“Nancy Pelosi has spent the last several years saying that this administration is dangerous. She impeached the president for abuse of power,” says Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future. “If she doesn’t take this opportunity to get this amendment in place that at least puts some limit on this administration’s surveillance authority, it’s hard not to feel like the entire ‘resistance’ rhetoric has been a bit of a scam.”

Greer says Wyden’s introduction of the amendment could be a way of alerting the public that intelligence agencies have already been collecting U.S. citizens’ web search data. Wyden can’t say that explicitly because that information would be classified.

“Senator Wyden has often been sort of a bit of a canary in the coal mine on things like this,” says Greer. “He’ll ask very specific questions of intelligence officials when they come to the Hill that sort of get at some of these things.”

One example was Wyden’s questioning of former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in 2013 about the bulk collection of Americans’ phone records. When Wyden directly asked Clapper “does the [National Security Agency] collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans,” Clapper answered, “No, sir…not wittingly.” Less than three months later, former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden provided journalists documents showing that the FBI and NSA collected millions of cell phone records.

When Reason asked Wyden if he could provide evidence that the government has engaged in warrantless surveillance of Americans’ web searches, he said that he could not discuss classified intelligence information but that he has put in requests for public disclosure of any practices of this sort.

“I believe there’s a [records] reporting requirement,” says Wyden.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) opposed Wyden in the Senate, claiming that additional limitations to the nation’s surveillance laws would “jeopardize important tools that keep America safe.”

Wyden says McConnell’s claim is “flatly inaccurate” and that his amendment addresses McConnell’s national security concerns because, during a crisis, law enforcement agencies would still be allowed to gather intelligence before obtaining a warrant.

A more modest Senate amendment requiring FISA courts to hear analysis from opposing parties, such as the ACLU, was included in the version of the bill that passed. But Rand Paul’s more radical effort to eliminate the surveillance of American citizens altogether without a warrant from a non-FISA court was defeated 11-85. Even Wyden voted against it.

“I think that Senator Paul started an important conversation…with respect to whether the whole framework needs to be reconsidered,” says Wyden. “I’ve told him that right now, I think I’ve got my hands full trying to make the many reforms that are needed in FISA immediately.”

Greer encourages anyone concerned about government surveillance of what citizens are searching for on the web to call Nancy Pelosi’s office and pressure her to put a version of the Wyden-Daines Amendment, one of which is currently being drafted by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), back in the bill.

“It’s really important that we remind lawmakers that the public does care about our right to be free from overly broad and intrusive surveillance,” says Greer. 

Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Opening graphics by Lex Villena. 

Music credits: “Europa” by Yehezkel Raz licensed from Artlist; “Ganymede” by Yehezkel Raz licensed from Artlist; “Hang Drum Traveler” by Max H. licensed from Artlist; “The End” by Max H. licensed from Artlist. 

Photo credits: “Rand Paul in Congress,” Win McNamee/CNP/AdMedia/SIPA; “Rand Paul Listening,” Toni L. Sandys/CNP/AdMedi/SIPA; “Mitch McConnell Leaving Senate Chamber,” Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom; “James Clapper Testifying,” Zhan Jun Xinhua News Agency/Newscom; “Ron Wyden with Colleagues in Capitol,” SIPA/Newscom; “Bill Barr Looks at Camera,” Sipa USA/Newscom; “Mitch McConnell in Halls of Capitol,” SIPA/Newscom; “Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff at Podium,” Aurora Samperio/ZUMA Press/Newscom; “J. Edgar Hoover Building,” Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA/Newscom; “Nancy Pelosi at Press Conferece,”Stefani Reynolds/picture alliance/Consolidated/Newscom; “Nancy Pelosi Talking to Press,” Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom; “Trump Holds up Fist at White House,” Andrew Harrer/UPI/Newscom; “Web Search in a Dark Room,” Yui Mok/ZUMA Press/Newscom; “Steve Daines Talks with Farmers,” Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom; “Ron Wyden Talks to Reporters,” Caroline Brehman/CQ Roll Call/Newscom; “Zoe Lofgren in Congress,” US Senate Television via CNP/MEGA/Newscom 

 

 

 

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2TBeNE4
via IFTTT

A federal judge ruled Sunday that Florida can’t block former felony offenders from voting because they can’t afford to pay court fines and fees.

In a 125-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle struck down parts of a law passed by Florida Republicans requiring those with felony records to pay off all fines and fees before they can regain the right to vote.

“This order holds that the State can condition voting on payment of fines and restitution that a person is able to pay but cannot condition voting on payment of amounts a person is unable to pay,” Hinkle wrote.

Hinkle ruled that denying voting rights on the basis of one’s ability to pay fines discriminates on the basis of wealth and violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. He also ruled that making voting eligibility rest on paying court fees—often tacked onto sentences to fund various judicial and law enforcement coffers—violates the 24th Amendment’s ban on poll taxes because the fees are “a tax by any other name.”

Hinkle also ruled that Florida can’t disqualify felony offenders who had a court-appointed attorney or had their fines converted into civil liens, a move that could restore voting rights to a potentially massive amount of people.

The ruling is a significant victory for civil liberties groups and local activists who campaigned for Amendment 4, a constitutional amendment passed by Florida voters in 2018. That amendment was ostensibly supposed to restore voting rights to an estimated 1.4 million Florida residents with felony records—the largest single expansion of the franchise in recent history, and in a critical battleground state, no less.

“The Constitution is clear—you cannot make voting contingent on wealth,” ACLU of Florida legal director Daniel Tilley said in a press release. “It should alarm Floridians that there are people occupying the highest echelons of political power in our state who fought to keep Florida tied to its racist past and bar people from voting.”

Disagreement about how Amendment 4 should be implemented began immediately after it was passed. The language of Amendment 4 said that voting rights would be restored “upon completion of all terms of sentence including parole or probation,” but it did not say whether “all terms” included financial obligations imposed by courts. 

Florida Republicans, including Gov. Ron DeSantis, argued that it did, and they passed a bill into law making voting eligibility contingent on paying off court fines and fees first. A panoply of civil rights groups filed lawsuits last year challenging the new law at both the state and federal levels.

In January, the majority-conservative Florida Supreme Court released an advisory opinion upholding the law, but lawyers for the state found a less friendly reception in federal court. 

Hinkle issued a preliminary injunction last October temporarily blocking the law and ordered state officials to come up with a clear and prompt process for determining whether a former offender has the ability to pay their fines and fees.

But at trial this April, the state’s own expert witnesses had trouble parsing the complex system Florida created to solve this problem. State officials repeatedly admitted they couldn’t easily track how much someone owed in criminal fines and fees; the documents were often scattered across multiple county agencies. In a withering opinion, Hinkle noted that “even with a team of attorneys and unlimited time, the State has been unable to show how much each plaintiff must pay to vote under the State’s view of the law.”

The Fines & Fees Justice Center has found that Florida courts, which are funded almost entirely through fines and fees, had “115 different types of fees and surcharges, the second highest number in the country.” As a result, WLRN reported, Florida felony offenders would have to pay back hundreds of millions of dollars to restore their voting rights.

“This court decision adds another remarkable chapter in our fight as returning citizens to participate in our democracy,” said Desmond Meade, Executive Director of the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, following Hinkle’s ruling on Sunday. “We will remain vigilant in our commitment to place people over politics, and ensure that all returning citizens, no matter how they may vote, have an opportunity to possess what we believe to be the most endearing sign of citizenship, the right to vote.”

DeSantis’ office did not immediately return a request for comment.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2ZGoqoV
via IFTTT

Harris County, Texas, District Attorney Kim Ogg plans to support the reversal of “at least 91” more convictions in cases involving Gerald Goines, the former Houston narcotics officer whose fraudulent search warrant affidavit led to the January 2019 drug raid that killed Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas. Ogg’s office had already backed the dismissal of 73 cases initiated by Goines, who faces state murder charges and federal civil rights charges in connection with the deadly invasion of the middle-aged couple’s house on Harding Street.

“We will continue to work to clear people convicted solely on the word of a police officer who we can no longer trust,” Ogg said in a press release last Thursday. “We are committed to making sure the criminal justice [system] is fair and just for everyone.”

The latest batch of questionable cases all involved search warrants obtained by Goines. The previous batch involved cases in which Goines was the only purported witness to drug transactions he claimed to have observed.

Prosecutors are filing motions asking that lawyers be appointed for each of the 91 defendants. If those lawyers decide that Goines’ sworn statements were material in convicting their clients and seek new trials on that basis (both of which seem likely), prosecutors “anticipate that they will agree to relief and eventual dismissal,” Ogg said.

“We’ve come to the conclusion that every conviction in which Goines was the major player, for the past 11 years, needs to be flipped,” said Josh Reiss, chief of the Post-Conviction Writs Division at Ogg’s office. “The number of cases may grow.”

Goines, who served the Houston Police Department (HPD) for 34 years, has admitted that he invented a fictional heroin purchase by a nonexistent confidential informant to justify the no-knock Harding Street raid. Four officers were wounded by gunshots during the exchange of fire that killed Tuttle and Nicholas, which began when the cops broke into the house and immediately used a shotgun to kill the couple’s dog. Lawyers for Nicholas’ family say she and Tuttle were napping at the time of the raid. Police found no evidence that the the couple was selling heroin, as Goines had claimed.

One of the men framed by Goines, Otis Mallet, was sentenced to eight years in state prison because the officer claimed he was involved in a 2008 crack cocaine sale. Mallet, who served two years of that sentence, has always denied Goines’ account. He was declared “actually innocent” in February, along with his brother, Steven Mallet, who served 10 months after Goines implicated in the same purported transaction.

“If the magistrate who Goines asked to sign a warrant to permit the raid on Harding Street had known of his history of lies and deception, he would not have signed it, and Rhogena and Dennis would likely still be alive today,” Ogg said. While Tuttle and Nicholas were white, all of the defendants in the 164 cases identified by Ogg’s office so far are members of minority groups, and the vast majority are black (as is Goines).

Although Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo has denied that the problems revealed by the disastrous operation reflect a “systemic” failure within the HPD’s Narcotics Division, at least 164 suspect convictions over 11 years involving a single officer suggest otherwise. Another Houston narcotics officer, Steven Bryant, faces state and federal charges because he backed up Goines’ phony story about a “controlled buy” that never happened. It is hard to believe that no one else was complicit in Goines’ shady practices spanning more than a decade, either by actively assisting him, by looking the other way, or by failing to adequately supervise his activities. Ogg said her office is investigating “other officers” in Goines’ squad.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2LZlH1w
via IFTTT

A few weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal reported on a study suggesting that the average person who dies of Covid-19 loses tens years of life. I looked up the study, and left the following comment on the study’s site (which, to the author’s credit, they have up to get instant peer review), after noticing that the author’s seem to assume that the victims were previously as healthy as their demographic average:

Two people who are coded with the same disease could be in vastly different circumstances. We know the virus has taken a huge toll on nursing homes.  An 82 year old with heart disease who lives in a nursing home is not similarly-situated, life expectancy-wise, to an 82 year old who is otherwise doing well and is self-sufficient. The former would assumedly be much more likely to succumb to Covid-19 than the latter. Similarly, “otherwise-healthy” people who succumb to Covid-19 can be expected to, on average, be more likely to have an undiagnosed health issue than those who don’t. Is that taken into account? If neither of these are taken into account, the effect on life expectancy must be reduced.

Now, I see you’ve responded [to another commenter[ that this should NOT have a major effect on life expectancy. I don’t see how you can be so confident. A *huge* percentage of deaths, wildly disproportionate, have been in nursing (“care”) homes… You simply can’t compare an otherwise healthy 82 year old with heart disease to someone whose heart disease so enfeebles him or her that they need to be in a nursing home.

A day later, another commenter wrote:

I’m perplexed by this study. How can it be assumed that the Covid victims would have lived the average life expectancy unless there’s no or minimal standard deviation around that average? Wouldn’t it be more compelling to compare to the minimum life expectancy of each cohort? Otherwise, you are implicitly assuming that the people who are dying are more or less representative of the average, which seems like a major assumption that, if untrue, would render your conclusions pretty useless. I hope I’m missing something here because it would seem far more intuitive to assume that people who are dying are the most vulnerable of their respective cohorts.

A few days later, lead author David McAllister responded:

In response to Jason Bloomberg and David Bernstein.

Our work was a response to the assertion has been that “because those dying are older and have lots of comorbidity, they probably don’t have to live”. I think JB and DB may be making a different statement that “notwithstanding the fact that the average life expectancy is still quite long among older people with comorbidity, those dying from COVID-19 are likely atypical compared to the average among older people with comorbidity”.

I think we are talking here about residual confounding, i.e., after you take into account the known/measured variables, are there remaining differences between patients on which we estimated life expectancy (the general community in Wales) and those dying of COVID-19 in the Italian data.

I think one has two options with residual confounding. Either to state this as an assumption/limitation and/or try and model it in some kind of sensitivity analysis.

Professor Andy Briggs effectively does the latter (https://avalonecon.com/estimating-qaly-losses-associated-with-deaths-in-hospital-covid-19/) looking at the effect of quite large multipliers on life expectancy, implemented via an excel tool. This would allow the commentators or others to explore the impact of different mortality rate ratios based on different assumptions as to the degree of residual confounding.

We have taken the former approach. As we are not aware of any empirical evidence to provide us with an estimate for the magnitude of the residual confounding due to unmeasured characteristics (e.g. frailty, functional limitation).

This is because, in order to make the assertion that those dying from COVID19 are atypical of their fellows who are similar in terms of age, sex and comorbidity we would argue that empirical evidence to support that claim is needed. Not least because, although we cannot know how strong they are, there may be selection pressures in the opposite direction. For example, someone with relatively mild COPD might go food shopping themselves, whereas someone with more severe disease might have someone else shop for them, thereby reducing their infection risk. Since the risk of death is the product of the risk of infection and the case fatality, this mechanism would tend to select for less severe COPD among those dying from COVID-19.

We argue that additional data, ideally on functional limitations (e.g. able to walk to shops, able to walk up stairs) and frailty measures (e.g. grip strength, lung capacity, six-minute walking distance) should be obtained to allow us to estimate the YLL more accurately using more empirical evidence.

Nonetheless, we think that this reasoning should not be applied to care home residents. Our results came out before the large numbers who were dying in care homes became apparent and this was not the focus of our work. Instead we agree that we should estimate mortality (and YLL) in care homes separately. Importantly, care home residents are a well-defined population so the task of estimating life expectancy in this group should be achievable in most settings.

Some readers may be wondering what a law professor is doing commenting on scientific papers, but I’ve been researching and writing about the reliability of scientific evidence for over thirty years, so I’m not a complete noob. And of course it goes without saying that all lives are valuable, even if scientists and policy-makers have good reasons for wanting to know how Covid-19 is affecting victims’ life spans.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3ekYm6P
via IFTTT

From People Magazine, April 17, 1979:

Leon, who earns $27,857 a year monitoring noise control for the Montgomery County (Md.) Environmental Protection Department, used the name change to apply for the county’s affirmative action program—and the pledge of promotions ahead of equally qualified white males….

I didn’t see that one coming.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/36vhf4k
via IFTTT