Wednesday, August 03, 2022

Better read up!

https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/02/cjeu-sensitive-data-case/

Sensitive data ruling by Europe’s top court could force broad privacy reboot

A ruling put out yesterday by the European Union’s top court could have major implications for online platforms that use background tracking and profiling to target users with behavioral ads or to feed recommender engines that are designed to surface so-called ‘personalized’ content.

The impacts could be even broader — with privacy law experts suggesting the judgement could dial up legal risk for a variety of other forms of online processing, from dating apps to location tracking and more. Although they suggest fresh legal referrals are also likely as operators seek to unpack what could be complex practical difficulties arising from the judgement.





Good summary, worth a quick read.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/08/02/opinion/your-camera-police-you/

Your camera, the police, and you

For decades, people around the globe have been sold on the enticing lie that if we simply install more cameras, we can buy more safety, using surveillance to wall ourselves off from crime. It was never true, of course. Since the earliest days of CCTV, researchers raised the alarm that the technology was great at capturing grisly images for the evening news and morning paper, but it was terrible at actually  doing what it was advertised to do. Cameras record crimes; they don’t often prevent them. But in the age of Internet-enabled cameras, when home surveillance systems are cheaper than ever, the cost to your privacy is getting higher as police increasingly use cameras against their owners.

You may draw comfort from the images of your child playing in the living room or seeing every person who walks by, but the truth is that there is no one photographed and tracked more by a home security system than the person who lives there. You’re the one being watched, and it’s a lot simpler than you think for the police to look.

While you may think this sort of government access is a bug, for companies like Amazon, it’s a feature. Since acquiring the surveillance startup Ring, Amazon has heavily invested in building out partnerships with more than 2,000 police departments, giving officers easy ways not just to contact camera owners but to request footage from Amazon directly. Typically, this takes the form of a warrant or subpoena to Amazon — not a warrant or subpoena to the camera owner but to Amazon itself. You may buy the camera; you may install it; you may think of it as your own. But when your most intimate moments live on Amazon’s servers, the company’s employees are the ones who can hand them over to police.





(Related)

https://www.pogowasright.org/survey-reveals-extent-that-cops-surveil-students-online-in-school-and-at-home/

Survey Reveals Extent that Cops Surveil Students Online — in School and at Home

Mark Keierleber writes:

When Baltimore students sign into their school-issued laptops, the police log on, too.
Since the pandemic began, Baltimore City Public Schools officials have tracked students’ online lives with GoGuardian, a digital surveillance tool that promises to identify youth at risk of harming themselves or others. When GoGuardian flags students, their online activities are shared automatically with school police, giving cops a conduit into kids’ private lives — including on nights and weekends.

Read more at The74.





Will this be an exception or will we be able to see what categorizations or attributes are associated with each face by the software or the police.

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-nypd-ordered-to-disclose-black-lives-matter-documents-20220801-6pohl3v5ebebrl2ac5fpuddr3m-story.html

NYPD ordered to disclose thousands of docs related to facial recognition surveillance during Black Lives Matter protests





Not just in the CJ world?

https://www.bespacific.com/understanding-criminal-justice-innovations-2/

Understanding Criminal Justice Innovations

Ryan, Meghan J., Understanding Criminal Justice Innovations (June 14, 2022). Journal of Law & Innovation (2022 Forthcoming), SMU Dedman School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 562, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4136813 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4136813

Burgeoning science and technology have provided the criminal justice system with the opportunity to address some of its shortcomings. And the criminal justice system has significant shortcomings. Among other issues, we have a mass incarceration problem; clearance rates are surprisingly low; there are serious concerns about wrongful convictions; and the system is layered with racial, religious, and other biases. Innovations that are widely used across industries, as well as those directed specifically at the criminal justice system, have the potential to improve upon such problems. But it is important to recognize that these innovations also have downsides, and criminal justice actors must proceed with caution and understand not only the potential of these interventions but also their limitations. Relevant to this calculation of caution is whether the innovation is broadly used across industry sectors or, rather, whether it has been specifically developed for use within the criminal justice system. These latter innovations have a record of not being sufficiently vetted for accuracy and reliability. Accordingly, criminal justice actors must be sufficiently well versed in basic science and technology so that they have the ability and the confidence to critically assess the usefulness of the various criminal justice innovations in light of their limitations. Considering lawyers’ general lack of competency in these areas, [I did not say that! Bob] scientific and technological training is necessary to mold them into modern competent criminal justice actors. This training must be more than superficial subject-specific training, though; it must dig deeper, delving into critical thinking skills that include evaluating the accuracy and reliability of the innovation at issue, as well as assessing broader concerns such as the need for development transparency, possible intrusions on individual privacy, and incentives to curtail individual liberties given the innovation at hand.”





Adding nets to prison walls?

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/drone-contraband-deliveries-prisons-united-states

Drone Contraband Deliveries Are Rampant at US Prisons

Drones are dropping drugs and cell phones in prison yards. They’re brazenly dangling contraband from fishing lines in front of smashed prison windows or crashing into recreational areas, sometimes midday. They’ve dropped wire cutters used in bold prison escapes involving body doubles and leading to manhunts. They’ve sparked prison riots, crash landed on an elementary school roof, and supplied weapons like ceramic knives, scissors, and guns (perhaps even to the Italian Mafia that put inmates and correctional officers at heightened risk.

France’s justice minister speculates they were used before the helicopter escape of murder convict Redoine Faid to run reconnaissance on the grounds of Reau Prison, in the south of Paris. And in one of the more astounding examples, UK law enforcement prosecuted a drone gang for a two-year plot coordinated across at least five prisons and involving 49 illegal drone flights and contraband worth up to $1.34 million—a plot that only came to light because field cameras set up to record wildlife tipped off police, the BBC reported.

Arguably, one of the biggest threats posed by drones is the cell phones they’re delivering, devices that can be worth several thousand dollars inside prisons, where they allow inmates to maintain vast criminal enterprises on the internet, says Cain Smith, a city attorney for Statesboro, Georgia, who represented Nicolas Lo in the case.



No comments: