The legal fight over Baltimore's aerial surveillance system continues. Airplanes armed with powerful cameras fly constantly over the city, allowing law enforcement to view the movements of people and vehicles over a 32-square mile area. The resolution may be high (192 million megapixels) but the area covered reduces people to (nearly) unidentifiable dots on a screen. However, these recordings can be accessed to trace movements of pixels/people as they move to and from suspected crime scenes.

The city isn't paying a dime for these cameras and airplanes. The equipment -- provided by Persistent Surveillance Systems -- is paid for by a private donor. This perhaps explains why the city chose to roll it out with zero public notice back in 2016. After a brief shutdown, it has resumed, with a bit more public involvement. It may be audacious, but it hasn't been all that successful. Reports show the program logged 700 flights but only one arrest.

The ACLU sued, claiming this persistent surveillance of nearly everyone in the city violated the Fourth Amendment. The federal court disagreed, even taking into consideration the ability of the program to engage in persistent tracking of individuals when combined with the PD's cameras on the ground. Despite the word "persistent" being used by the company itself, the program is far from persistent, with darkness preventing recording and inclement weather occasionally grounding spy planes.

There's an appeal underway, but as Louis Krass reports for Baltimore Brew, the ACLU doesn't appear to have found much more sympathy one level up. The ACLU argued the untargeted surveillance system is an unreasonable search. In other words, Baltimore residents would not consider it reasonable to have their public movements surveilled for up to 12 hours a day for six months straight.

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson disagrees.

“Whose constitutional rights is this violating?” Wilkinson, a Reagan appointee, asked.

“These are simple observations of public movements, and it’s not inside someone’s dwelling, it’s public streets, where someone’s expectancy of privacy is minimal,” he said. “We’re not talking about excessive police force, so is it the right of the pixel whose rights are being violated?”

The judge is right that the expectation of privacy is lower in public areas. But this is too reductive. A pixel isn't just a pixel -- incapable of having its rights violated. It's a person, even if that person can't be clearly identified using these recordings alone. The entire purpose of the aerial surveillance system is to help police identify criminal suspects. And police do this by cross-referencing this footage with surveillance equipment on the ground, which is completely capable of turning a "pixel" into a person.

But Wilkinson isn't the only judge being asked to rule on this. Judge Roger Gregory is far more critical of the government's arguments. The government said there were no Constitutional concerns in tracking the movements of millions of Baltimore "pixels" since the PD was only interested in the "pixels" who may have been near a crime scene. Most of the recordings collected are never used by the Baltimore PD's analysts.

That doesn't make it okay, says Judge Gregory.

Gregory, a Clinton appointee, countered that it is unconstitutional to gather such information in the first place.

“That would turn the Fourth Amendment on its head,” he said. “That’s like invading someone’s home with a camera and taking a photograph of you, then say, ‘It’s no problem because we never developed the film.’”

It seems unlikely the Appeals Court will be any more impressed with the ACLU's arguments. As long as people are still rendered as pixels -- and planes incapable of capturing footage 24 hours a day -- there appears to be very little violation of privacy. If there's no sympathy for the mosaic theory of the Fourth Amendment -- where multiple Constitutional surveillance techniques combine to form an unconstitutional invasion of privacy -- Baltimore residents will still be watched by multiple eyes in the sky.

Portland, Oregon has now joined parts of Massachusetts and all of California in protecting its residents from the sketchy surveillance method known as "facial recognition." For something that's supposed to recognize faces, it's usually pretty bad at it and gets worse when it has to deal with minorities. Of course, the same can be said about the law enforcement agencies deploying it, which might explain their love of tech that gives them more people to arrest but rarely the probable cause to do so.

Portland's ban is more restrictive than others already in place. It doesn't just affect the local government.

In addition to halting city use of the surveillance technology, the new rule prevents "private entities in places of public accommodation" in Portland from using it, too, referring to businesses that serve the general public — a grocery store or a pizza place, for instance. It does not prevent individuals from setting up facial-recognition technology at home, such as a Google Nest camera that can spot familiar faces, or gadgets that use facial-recognition software for authenticating users, like Apple's Face ID feature for unlocking an iPhone.

This means no one gets to use it but private citizens surveilling their own doorways. Sure, that's going to capture people moving up and down the street, but unlike law enforcement agencies, private citizens can't deprive someone of their freedom just because the tech thought it recognized someone.

The hit to businesses doesn't take effect until 2021. The rest of it starts immediately. Portland is still in the throes of civil unrest -- something that started in late May and shows no sign of letting up, no matter how many federal officers the Administration throws at the "problem." There's the obvious concern facial recognition is being used to identify people engaged in First Amendment activity for reasons unknown to anyone but those deploying the tech. The local cops will be blocked from doing this going forward (if they were ever doing it at all) but it will have no effect on facial recognition deployment by federal officers.

It seems inevitable some business owners will challenge the law. This tech allows internal security to keep an eye out for banned individuals and suspected shoplifters. But private tools don't appear to be any better at identifying people than the tech being sold to government agencies. Allowing private companies to use the tech puts law enforcement only a phone call away. And it can lead to the same results (false positives, bogus arrests) despite being owned and operated by non-government entities. It's a bold move by the city of Portland. But it's probably also a necessary one if you're serious about protecting residents from unproven tech that has the latent ability to destroy lives.

More bans are sure to come, especially now that everything law enforcement-related is under the microscope. Portland has set the ban bar pretty high. Other cities that believe they're serious about keeping their residents safe from surveillance creep now have something to shoot for.

Copyright ruins freaking everything. Five years ago, today, Demi Adejuyigbe gifted the world with an incredible video of him dancing to Earth, Wind & Fire's classic song September. If you somehow have not seen it, I'm jealous of you for getting to watch it for the first time.

It's a reminder of the kind of gleeful content creation that only the internet enables. And it went pretty viral. So much so that Demi decided to do it again the following year. And then each year after that, with each video getting bigger and more ambitious (in somewhat incredible ways). He'd put them all threaded as replies to the original 2016 video. And I'd embed the tweets here, except for the fact that copyright ruins everything and Sony apparently decided to take down the 2017 and 2019 videos from Twitter:

This is even more ridiculous because Demi turned his September 21st videos into a successful fund raising tool for tons of good and important charities. And Sony made them disappear from Twitter. All for copyright. To be fair, the videos are still available on YouTube, but it's crazy that they're missing from Twitter.

Anyway, Demi has released the latest such video and it's very much what I needed today. I'll embed the YouTube version since apparently that has a better chance of not being stomped into the ground by a Sony copyright claim. Please watch the whole thing, and consider donating at Sept21st.com:

While much of the news this weekend with regards to the President's plans to block Chinese messaging apps focused on the fake "deal" to avert a TikTok ban, things didn't go the President's way on his other planned ban. As you may recall, along with TikTok, Trump issued an executive order to ban WeChat, the very popular Chinese social network/messaging/everything app. Last week, we noted that a bunch of WeChat users in the US were trying to get an injunction to block the ban, as the Commerce Department's details about the ban proved that its stated goal of protecting Americans was nonsense.

The court held a hearing over the weekend (after also holding hearings on Thursday and Friday) and quickly issued a preliminary injunction, blocking the Commerce Department from putting the WeChat ban in place. As the judge rightly notes, there are significant 1st Amendment concerns with the ban. Basically, the court says that the WeChat users have rightly shown that banning the app likely violates the 1st Amendment and creates prior restraint:

On this record, the plaintiffs have shown serious questions going to the merits of their First Amendment claim that the Secretary’s prohibited transactions effectively eliminate the plaintiffs’ key platform for communication, slow or eliminate discourse, and are the equivalent of censorship of speech or a prior restraint on it.... The government — while recognizing that foreclosing “‘an entire medium of public expression’” is constitutionally problematic — makes the pragmatic argument that other substitute social-media apps permit communication. But the plaintiffs establish through declarations that there are no viable substitute platforms or apps for the Chinese-speaking and Chinese-American community. The government counters that shutting down WeChat does not foreclose communications for the plaintiffs, pointing to several declarations showing the plaintiffs’ efforts to switch to new platforms or apps. But the plaintiffs’ evidence reflects that WeChat is effectively the only means of communication for many in the community, not only because China bans other apps, but also because Chinese speakers with limited English proficiency have no options other than WeChat.

The plaintiffs also have shown serious questions going to the merits of the First Amendment claim even if — as the government contends — the Secretary’s identification of prohibited transactions (1) is a content-neutral regulation, (2) does not reflect the government’s preference or aversion to the speech, and (3) is subject to intermediate scrutiny. A content-neutral, time-placeor- manner restriction survives intermediate scrutiny if it (1) is narrowly tailored, (2) serves a significant governmental interest unrelated to the content of the speech, and (3) leaves open adequate channels for communication.... To be narrowly tailored, the restriction must not “burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests.”... Unlike a content-based restriction of speech, it “need not be the least restrictive or least intrusive means of serving the governments interests. But the government still may not regulate expression in such a manner that a substantial portion of the burden on speech does not advance its goals.”...

As for the supposed "national security" interests of the US government? The court says "yes, if only the DOJ shared any details."

Certainly the government’s overarching national-security interest is significant. But on this record — while the government has established that China’s activities raise significant nationalsecurity concerns — it has put in scant little evidence that its effective ban of WeChat for all U.S. users addresses those concerns. And, as the plaintiffs point out, there are obvious alternatives to a complete ban, such as barring WeChat from government devices, as Australia has done, or taking other steps to address data security.

The court did not go into the various other claims by the plaintiffs, though if the case continues they'll come up later. However, in closing out the ruling, the judge uses the President's own words in the executive order against him. After the DOJ told the court that the WeChat ban was important for human rights because China heavily censors communications on WeChat... the judge more or less says "um, isn't that what you're now trying to do?" and points to the President's own words about free speech in this very executive order:

Finally, at the hearing, the government cited a Washington Post article contending that a ban of WeChat is a net positive for human rights: “WeChat it is a closed system that keeps its 1.2 billion users in a parallel universe where they can communicate as long as they don’t cross the lines, and banning it might eventually strengthen the voices of the Chinese diaspora.” This is another important point: the federal government — based on its foreign-policy and national security interests —may not want to countenance (or reward) the Chinese government’s banning apps outside of the Chinese government’s control and, more generally, censoring or punishing free speech in China or abroad. But as the President said recently in Executive Order 13925,

Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.

...

The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans [including the plaintiffs and others in the U.S. WeChat community] follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.

End result: the court puts a nationwide injunction saying that the Commerce Department cannot implement the WeChat ban it described last week.

Anyone still hoping for an orderly election and, if need be, a peaceful transition of power hasn't been paying attention to much that's happened over the past few months. As the presidential election approaches, everything is still in a disturbing state of flux. Multiple states have failed to flatten the COVID-19 curve, necessitating some walking back of earlier "everything's fine" pronouncements.

The safest way to vote may be from the comfort of your own home. But that option doesn't appeal to President Trump, his campaign, or the Republican National Committee. All have engaged in a lot of unhelpful -- if not actually deadly -- rhetoric against both at-home voting and the general use of any protective measures to prevent the spread of the virus.

It's not like "distance voting" is a novelty. Absentee voting happens all the time. Just because there will be more quasi-absentee votes to count during this election is no reason to believe voters at home will engage in widespread voter fraud. Voter fraud is almost nonexistent. Enough checks are in place to prevent most of it and there's very little evidence anyone has ever engaged in a massive conspiracy to rig a presidential election.

Since the Trump Campaign (and the president himself) don't have facts on their side, they've decided to lawyer up. Voter suppression has always been a thing, but these entities want it blessed by courts, if not actually codified.

President Donald Trump’s campaign and the Republican Party are devoting millions of dollars to wage a state-by-state legal battle against mail-in voting during the coronavirus pandemic, not only suing state officials but also intervening in cases where they aren’t a party to limit how Americans can vote from home.

BuzzFeed News identified at least 11 cases where the Trump campaign has asked judges for permission to intervene to defend state and local policies that voting rights advocates argue will make it harder for people to safely vote during the pandemic. That’s in addition to more than half a dozen lawsuits the campaign has filed with the Republican National Committee contesting efforts by Democratic governors and other state and local officials to expand mail-in voting.

Here are a few of the things Trump's campaign and the RNC are suing about. In one case, his campaign is trying to limit the number of ballot drop boxes available to voters. In another, they're trying to prevent the automatic mailing of ballots or ballot request forms to voters. And these entities aren't limiting themselves to trying to intercede in election-related lawsuits where they aren't a party. They're also suing states directly to prevent expansions of absentee or mail-in voting.

Whatever the reasons Trump's lawyers state in their court filings, the real reason behind this flurry of litigation is the Trump campaign believes more votes means more votes for Joe Biden.

Early data compiled by the United States Elections Project at the University of Florida show that in Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Colorado, absentee ballot requests are up compared to previous election cycles, with registered Democrats outnumbering registered Republicans.

So, when Trump says something like this…

“My biggest risk is that we don’t win lawsuits,” Trump said at the time. “We have many lawsuits going all over. And if we don’t win those lawsuits, I think— I think it puts the election at risk.”

… he doesn't mean the election is at risk. He means his continued federal employment is at risk.

No one wants a fraudulent election. But that's the least likely outcome of expanded at-home voting. It does no good to argue we shouldn't do it this way because it's never been done this way before. A global pandemic has changed the definition of social interactions, possibly for years to come. Fighting in court to force people to choose between their health and their vote doesn't make election results more authentic. It just makes sure a large number of people won't have their voices heard.

The Electrical And Circuits Engineering Bundle has 13 courses designed to help you better understand electrical circuits, machines, power generation, and electronics. You'll start by learning basic concepts such as current, voltage, power, and energy regarding the electric circuits, as well as the basic laws of electric circuits as resistance, conductance, the combination of resistance and conductance, KVL, KCL, Ohm's law, star-delta transformations and more. You'll move on to more advanced topics like capcitors, amplifiers, induction generators, power electronics, and more. It's on sale for $60.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

A week ago, we explained that the announced "deal" between Oracle and TikTok was a complete joke and what appeared to be a grift to let Trump claim he had done something, while really just handing a big contract to one of his biggest supporters. That was based on the preliminary details. As more details came out, it became even clearer that the whole thing was a joke. TikTok's investors actively recruited Oracle because they knew they needed to find a company that "Trump liked."

Over the weekend, Trump officially gave the "okay" on the Oracle deal (which now also involves Walmart). And before we get into the details of the deal and why it's a total grift, I'd like to just step back and highlight:

It is positively insane, Banana Republic, kleptocratic nonsense that any business deal should hinge on whether the President himself gives it a thumbs up or a thumbs down. Do not let all the insanity of this current administration hide this fact. If this had happened during the Obama administration, how crazy do you think Hannity/Carlson/Breitbart/etc. would be going right now about "big government" and claiming that the President is corrupt beyond belief? We should never, ever be in a situation where any President is giving the personal thumbs up or thumbs down to a business deal (and that's leaving out the fact that he forced this business deal in the first place with a blatantly unconstitutional executive order.

Okay, now back to the actual deal. Oracle and Walmart will team up to create a "new" (very much in quotes) company called TikTok Global that will be headquartered in the US. Of course, this is a joke. TikTok already has US operations. Oracle and Walmart will end up with a small equity stake in this "new" company (combined about 20%), but the Chinese company ByteDance will still own the majority of the company and will still control the TikTok algorithm. While there is some chatter about how the data will be hosted in the US, for the most part that was already true. Oracle says that it will review things to make sure that the data is secure, but remember, this is the same Oracle that collects a shit ton of data on internet users via Blue Kai, and then leaked it all. It's also the same Oracle that works closely with US spy agencies and isn't exactly known as being particularly good at security.

As the NY Times notes, this deal appears to accomplish literally nothing. As we said before, it was all performative, letting Trump claim he had "done something," when the rationale for the deal ("national security") was always bogus, and this is proved by the fact that nothing in the new setup changes whatever national security questions there were about the app before. So, rather than force ByteDance to "sell" the company to protect "US national security" as the NY Times rightly notes all that came out of this was:

A cloud computing contract for the Silicon Valley business software company Oracle, a merchandising deal for Walmart and a claim of victory for President Trump.

As former FCC chair Tom Wheeler tells the NY Times:

Vetting deals “is normally a process that involves multiple thoughtful people coming to the issue from multiple different concerns,” said Tom Wheeler, a former Democratic chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. “This appears as though what passes for process is what pleases one man: Donald J. Trump.”

Again, Banana Republic kleptocracy.

The NY Times also noted that Walmart either seemed to rush out its press release over the deal, or whoever wrote it had a heart attack in the process of composing it:

“This unique technology eliminates the risk of foreign governments spying on American users or trying to influence them with disinformation,” the company said. “Ekejechb ecehggedkrrnikldebgtkjkddhfdenbhbkuk.”

And that's not even getting into the whole issue of the mysterious $5 billion education fund. With the announcement, Oracle and Walmart said the new company would "pay $5 billion in new taxes to the Treasury," and then separately that it would "develop an educational curriculum driven by artificial intelligence to teach children basic reading, history and other subjects." Those two points got conflated to suggest that it was putting $5 billion into that project -- which sounded suspiciously like the finder's fee Trump demanded when first talking about forcing TikTok to be sold.

This got even more insane when Trump declared that he wanted the $5 billion to be used for his new 1776 history project, which is his new fascistic indoctrination education program, which Trump and his idiot followers insist is necessary because they falsely believe that kids are being indoctrinated to hate America (they're not -- they're just finally being taught, at least a little bit, that slavery is a key part of American history).

And the story got even more crazy when, after Trump talked about all of this, ByteDance came out with a giant shrug, saying it was totally unaware of any $5 billion education fund and appeared to have no interest in actually doing that.

It seems that most of the confusion was -- as per usual -- on the part of our not very intelligent President, who couldn't comprehend that the small education fund was different than the $5 billion, which is merely just estimate future tax revenues to the Treasury that, given the tax breaks this same President has helped set up, will probably never actually materialize.

It's like a clusterfuck of stupidity, corruption and kleptocracy. It's America in 2020.

Like so many authoritarians, Belarus "President" Alexander Lukashenko has taken to violence, intimidation, and censorship in a ham-fisted bid to stifle those critical of his dubious election win. On the technology side, that has involved hiring U.S. network gear maker Sandvine to help the country block citizens' access to the broader internet. During August's contested election, citizens found their access to social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook prohibited thanks to Sandvine and the Belarusian government, which originally tried to claim that the blockade was the result of a cyberattack. News outlets like CNN and the BBC, and search engines like Google, were also blocked.

Aside from being harmful, there's increasing evidence that this kind of censorship simply doesn't work. A recent study in the International Journal of Communications took a closer look at what happened to protest movements in African countries when governments attempted massive censorship of the internet, and it found that while there wasn't evidence that such shutdowns drove greater unrest, there also was no evidence such behavior thwarted protests:

"For example, a social media blackout in Ethiopia in December 2017 “completely failed” to suppress protests caused by ethnic tensions in part of the country, the authors wrote. There was actually a surge in clashes during the shutdown itself. The study used data on the locations of protests and whether they were considered violent or not, but the researchers didn’t have access to detailed information on the number of demonstrators present or what form their online activity had taken prior to the internet shutdown or social media blackout.

Experts have been quick to note such censorship doesn't magically thwart the underlying grievances driving the protests, and creative protesters are likely to develop tools to bypass internet lockdowns anyway. In Belarus and countless other areas users most frequently simply migrate to VPNs to dodge the watchful eye of governments and their private sector allies like Sandvine (which, you'll recall, played a starring role in the early days of the net neutrality fights here in the States).

At the end of the day, experts are clear that internet crackdowns are the last resort of cowardly authoritarians, whose last option is to try and drive further unrest in the hopes it somehow plays into their hands:

"It’s often as a “last resort tactic” says Joss Wright, senior research fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute. But the strategy is also a crude one, he adds, noting that it can result in the spread of rumours and misinformation through other channels—with unpredictable consequences. Rydzak agrees: “It’s about creating an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty.” As a blunt demonstration of power, he adds, shutdowns may heighten the overall sense of chaos in a country or locality, creating a fluid situation that authorities may hope ultimately plays into their hands."

Except, again, there's no indication that's actually a successful tactic.