Shurat HaDin has admitted in the past to taking its marching orders from Israeli intelligence and government officials, lawsuit comes just days after senior minister said Mark Zuckerberg has blood on his hands.
In the suit, filed in U.S. Federal Court, Shurat HaDin alleges that by allowing Hamas to use its social networking and communications platforms, that Facebook provides material support to the Palestinian group in attacks on American citizens in Israel and the West Bank.
In 2012, Jain and several colleagues used a set of mugshots from the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office in Florida to examine the performance of several commercially available face recognition systems, including ones from vendors that supply law enforcement agencies. The algorithms were consistently less accurate on women, African-Americans, and younger people. Apparently they were trained on data that was not representative enough of those groups, says Jain.
To free ourselves from surveillance and other repressive and authoritarian forms of power that this opens up, we must immediately activate the mechanisms of law that allow us to oversee the functions of mass surveillance systems in our cities. And do this collectively, in coordination with other cities affected by the problem. Just as there are Smart Cities networks we should form our own Rebel Cities networks where surveillance is rejected and participatory democracy is affirmed, a democracy framed in respect for human rights and diversity, focused on collective solutions, which is the true path to safer cities. Not cameras.
We can then simultaneously activate collaborative mechanisms to prevent their expansion. Make freedom of information requests for public information detailing their costs. Demand studies on their results. Take serious legal action in face of possible illegal uses of surveillance for discriminatory policies. Demand from authorities protection of personal data where it exists, and where it does not, demand that human rights authorities undertake feasibility studies, weighing the impact on individual guarantees before installing systems. Democracy begins and ends there. In its exercise.
This is why it matters who gets elected to city council.
Unfortunately, while the DUE PROCESS Act contains many of the procedural reforms that The Heritage Foundation and a broad coalition of organizations have called for in our recent Meese Center report, “Arresting Your Property,” it does not tackle two of the most perverse aspects of forfeiture law: the financial incentives that underlie modern civil forfeiture practices and the profit-sharing programs known as “equitable sharing.”
Under federal law, 100 percent of the proceeds of successful forfeitures are retained by the federal law enforcement organization that executed the seizure. This money is available to be spent by these agencies without congressional oversight, meaning they can—and do—self-finance. This profiteering incentive is extended to state and local agencies through programs administered by the Justice and Treasury departments known as “equitable sharing,” which allow property seized at the state and local level to be transferred to federal authorities for forfeiture under federal law. The feds then return up to 80 percent of the resulting revenues to the originating agency.
Thus, federal law provides every law enforcement agency in the country with a direct financial incentive to seize cash and property—sometimes at the expense of investigating, arresting, and prosecuting actual criminals—and simultaneously encourages state and local agencies to circumvent state laws that are more protective of property rights or restrictive as to how forfeiture proceeds may be spent than the federal standard.
The simple fact is that civil forfeiture is already blatantly illegal, as per the plain words in the fifth amendment to the Constitution:
No person . .
.[shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
It is a horrible tragedy that so few people today respect these plain words.
Some in the election administration space haven’t found a lot of other options when it comes to accountable, transparent voting systems — but new options are finally beginning to pop up.
How about paper ballots hand counted in front of witnesses?
Thanks to this call-and-response process, the Stingray knows both what cell phones are in the area and where they are. In other words, it gathers information not only about a specific suspect, but any bystanders in the area as well. While the police may indeed use this technology to pinpoint a suspect’s location, by casting such a wide net there is also the potential for many kinds of constitutional abuses—for instance, sweeping up the identities of every person attending a demonstration or a political meeting. Some Stingrays are capable of collecting not only cell phone ID numbers but also numbers those phones have dialed and even phone conversations. In other words, the Stingray is a technology that potentially opens the door for law enforcement to sweep up information that not so long ago wouldn’t have been available to them.
This is why it matters who wins the mayor and city council races. Localities do not have to accept this technology.
Patents should be sold in Third World counties at prices that local entrepreneurs can afford, and the duration of these patents should be significantly shortened. In return, Third World countries should be required to pass and enforce high minimum wage laws and labor-friendly collective bargaining mandates (aka “co-determination”). This would make almost all production local: Apple phones for Third World countries would be produced in those same countries, and for the U.S. market they would be produced in the U.S. Instead of fighting one another for jobs, workers would be able to unite in fighting for better working conditions everywhere.
.... Low prices for patents would benefit U.S. workers because they would mean that many entrepreneurs would be able to enter each and every industry in the Third World, and all of these entrepreneurs would be competing for employees. The prohibitively high prices for patents that exist today turn corporations into oligopolists in the product market, and powerful employers (monopsonists) in the labor market.