Olives @olives@qoto.org

Did you know that Dominic Raab wanted to replace the British Human Rights Act with a fake rights bill which made it far harder for someone to challenge a violation of their rights and which also deletes the freedom of expression and makes it about literal speech instead?

And then, when he polled people, around 90% of the population was against it, and it was quietly scrapped?

The argument against prohibition right now is stronger now than it ever was (and it's only going to get stronger, judging by what I've seen).

It's pretty much come out of nowhere after being settled for quite some time. I don't really want to open the can of worms right now though.

https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-urges-pennsylvania-supreme-court-find-keyword-search-warrant-unconstitutional

"Keyword warrants that let police indiscriminately sift through search engine databases are unconstitutional dragnets that target free speech, lack particularity and probable cause, and violate the privacy of countless innocent people, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and other organizations argued in a brief filed today to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Everyone deserves to search online without police looking over their shoulder, yet millions of innocent Americans’ privacy rights are at risk in Commonwealth v. Kurtz—only the second case of its kind to reach a state’s highest court. The brief filed by EFF, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), and the Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (PACDL) challenges the constitutionality of a keyword search warrant issued by the police to Google. The case involves a massive invasion of Google users’ privacy, and unless the lower court’s ruling is overturned, it could be applied to any user using any search engine.

“Keyword search warrants are totally incompatible with constitutional protections for privacy and freedom of speech and expression,” said EFF Surveillance Litigation Director Andrew Crocker. “All keyword warrants—which target our speech when we seek information on a search engine—have the potential to implicate innocent people who just happen to be searching for something an officer believes is somehow linked to a crime. Dragnet warrants that target speech simply have no place in a democracy.”"

#privacy

I see people comparing ideas for "AI assistants" to Clippy, lol.

https://qoto.org/@olives/111621216456534863 I covered it a few weeks ago here. #vppa

Like ISPs who wanted to be able to sell (and share) user data, #Patreon is arguing their "free speech rights" are being violated by not being able to share user data with Facebook, due to a federal video privacy law.

It didn't go well for those ISPs in ACA Connects v Frey, so I don't see how it will go well for Patreon. #privacy

I see more people criticizing Patreon for not respecting user privacy (i.e. over them apparently handing user data to Facebook in violation of federal video privacy law).

I see someone saying a Missouri Republican is complaining about sex robots...? No, dolls. Right, dolls. No, not those tiny little things. Those mannequin like things. Because it might vaguely look like a minor. Vague fuzzy language. Anyway... Please. Let me rest. I don't have time for this. You know damn well it's a bad idea, and it violates the 1st and 14th Amendment... By now... Don't you...? All it would do is create a shitshow. A shitshow that just so happens to also be unconstitutional.

https://qoto.org/@olives/111016310514191221 My resources are very limited, and I simply don't have the time to come up with something very processed and fresh. There, you go.

I'm fairly sure this is mentioned in there, but I suppose I should repeat it, curiously, I've seen a legal association make the following argument (in this sort of case) before. If someone is up to evil, then there are other laws which someone can use against them...

https://web.archive.org/web/20240105055451/https://rm.coe.int/0900001680adaf31 Australia wants "observer" status for CoE AI Committee.

https://web.archive.org/web/20240105044108/https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/encryption-in-the-age-of-surveillance

This one is from quite a few months ago, but it flew under the radar, and might be of interest. Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović, comments on end-to-end encryption and voices human rights concerns about #chatcontrol. #privacy

Reminder that passing a bill to "punish TikTok" would not only be a violation of the First Amendment, it would also be an unconstitutional bill of attainder. A bill of attainder is a bill where the legislature declares someone (or some group) guilty of some crime, and they pass a bill to punish them for that without a trial. Article 1 Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states "No Bill of attainder or Ex post facto law shall be passed."

https://reclaimthenet.org/the-digital-id-rollout-is-becoming-a-hackers-dream

"Governments and corporations around the world are showing great enthusiasm in either already implementing, or planning to implement some form of digital IDs.

As it turns out ironically, these efforts are presented to citizens as not only making their lives easier through convenience, but also making sure their personal data contained within these digital IDs is safer in a world teeming with malicious actors.

Opponents have been warning about serious privacy implications, but also argue against the claim that data security actually gets improved."

"In numbers, a staggering 50 million records containing personally identifiable information have surfaced on the dark web. The reason so many stolen datasets have made it to the black digital market all at once appear to be “technicalities” related to the time window during which most of it will be “sellable”.

Breaking down that 50 million number, Resecurity said that 22 million records were stolen from a telecommunications company in Peru, which include what’s known there as DNIs – national IDs."

#privacy

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/01/victory-police-drone-footage-not-categorically-exempt-californias-public-records

"Video footage captured by police drones sent in response to 911 calls cannot be kept entirely secret from the public, a California appellate court ruled last week.

The decision by the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District came after a journalist sought access to videos created by Chula Vista Police Department’s “Drones as First Responders” (DFR) program. The police department is the first law enforcement agency in the country to use drones to respond to emergency calls, and several other agencies across the U.S. have since adopted similar models.

After the journalist, Arturo Castañares of La Prensa, sued, the trial court ruled that Chula Vista police could withhold all footage because the videos were exempt from disclosure as law enforcement investigatory records under the California Public Records Act. Castañares appealed."

"The appellate court agreed that drone footage is not categorically exempt from public disclosure. In reversing the trial court’s decision, the California Court of Appeal ruled that although some 911 calls are likely part of law enforcement investigation or at least are used to determine whether a crime occurred, not all 911 calls involve crimes.

“For example, a 911 call about a mountain lion roaming a neighborhood, a water leak, or a stranded motorist on the freeway could warrant the use of a drone but do not suggest a crime might have been committed or is in the process of being committed,” the court wrote."

https://reason.com/2024/01/03/maines-bad-prostitution-law-could-be-coming-soon-to-your-state/

"Advocates of asymmetrical criminalization say it's beneficial for people selling sex, but a wealth of evidence suggests otherwise. Because no matter what you call it, this model keeps prostitution a black market—which means most of the things that make prostitution dangerous remain intact.

Under "partial decriminalization" like Maine's, it's still illegal for sex workers to work together, to work in safe locations, or to employ people to help keep them safe. Their work is still policed, only now it's deemed for their own good. They still can't advertise openly. They still face reluctance from clients—perhaps more than ever—to submit to screening procedures. And because some segment of law-abiding or risk-averse people are going to be turned off by a criminalized system in a way they might not be under decriminalization, the pool of prostitution customers is tilted toward people who might be riskier in a number of ways."

"One study published in 2023 found that liberalizing prostitution laws led to lower rape rates overall, while passing stricter prohibitions led to increases in rape rates. Implementation of the Nordic Model was associated with the biggest increase.

Research on the Nordic Model in various European countries has found it failed to decrease the prevalence of prostitution"

https://reason.com/2024/01/02/devolving-standards-of-decency/

"A federal circuit judge wants the Supreme Court to scrap a longstanding test for determining what is cruel and unusual punishment. In an October speech to the Federalist Society, Reuters reported, Judge Thomas Hardiman, appointed by President George W. Bush to the Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, advocated a "return to the text and original meaning of the Eighth Amendment" and an end to the "evolving standards of decency" test created by the Supreme Court in the 1950s.

In 1958, the Supreme Court ruled that stripping someone's citizenship for committing a crime violated the Eighth Amendment. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that, to determine what constitutes cruel or unusual, the Court "must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." That test has since been used by liberal Supreme Court majorities to strike down death penalty protocols, ban capital sentences for crimes that did not result in death, and outlaw death sentences for offenses committed as a minor."

https://qoto.org/@olives/111243613449618948
https://qoto.org/@olives/111553944783670893
https://qoto.org/@olives/111691547688391998

It's worth noting that while these cases seem spotty and sporadic, these are probably the cases we know about, and it doesn't account for any potential chilling effect.

As always, I would strongly encourage contacting reps at territory, state, and federal levels to oppose any and all censorship.

#anime #auspol