Proactive Computing | Optimizing IT for usability, performance and reliability since 1997

Category: #Police (Page 1 of 2)

Auto Added by WPeMatico

Fort Lauderdale police mistook Star Trek memorabilia for weapons: lawsuit

ca_policetape_031120getty_1.jpg

A lawsuit against the Fort Lauderdale police department alleges that officers mistook Star Trek memorabilia for weapons as part of the reason they used excessive force in arresting two brothers.T…

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/547062-fort-lauderdale-police-mistook-star-trek-memorabilia-for-weapons-lawsuit
Proactive Computing found this story and shared it with you.
The Article Was Written/Published By: Lexi Lonas

Cops playing copyrighted music to stop video of them being posted online

On several occasions, cops have started playing popular music when they realize they’re being filmed. The odd behavior has a point: they hope that copyright-strike algorithms on YouTube, Instagram and other social media sites will prevent the video being posted and shared. — Read the rest

Source: https://boingboing.net/2021/02/10/cops-playing-copyrighted-music-to-stop-video-of-them-being-posted-online.html
Proactive Computing found this story and shared it with you.
The Article Was Written/Published By: Rob Beschizza

NYPD’s New Robot Police Dog Will Get Special Arm For Opening Doors

The New York Police Department’s new robot dog will receive a special robotic arm for opening doors and moving objects next month, according to a new report from ABC7 in New York. The existence of the NYPD’s robot was first revealed in late October after it assisted in the apprehension of a suspect in Brooklyn. But d…

Read more…

Source: https://gizmodo.com/nypds-new-robot-police-dog-will-get-special-arm-for-ope-1845858406
Proactive Computing found this story and shared it with you.
The Article Was Written/Published By: Matt Novak

Massachusetts lawmakers vote to pass a statewide police ban on facial recognition

surveillance-camera-blue-yellow.jpg?w=71

Massachusetts lawmakers have voted to pass a new police reform bill that will ban police departments and public agencies from using facial recognition technology across the state.

The bill was passed by both the state’s House and Senate on Tuesday, a day after senior lawmakers announced an agreement that ended months of deadlock.

The police reform bill also bans the use of chokeholds and rubber bullets, and limits the use of chemical agents like tear gas, and also allows police officers to intervene to prevent the use of excessive and unreasonable force. But the bill does not remove qualified immunity for police, a controversial measure that shields serving police from legal action for misconduct, following objections from police groups.

Lawmakers brought the bill to the state legislature in the wake of the killing of George Floyd, an unarmed Black man who was killed by a white Minneapolis police officer, since charged with his murder.

Critics have for years complained that facial recognition technology is flawed, biased and disproportionately misidentifies people and communities of color. But the bill grants police an exception to run facial recognition searches against the state’s driver license database with a warrant. In granting that exception, the state will have to publish annual transparency figures on the number of searches made by officers.

The Massachusetts Senate voted 28-12 to pass, and the House voted 92-67. The bill will now be sent to Massachusetts governor Charlie Baker for his signature.

Kade Crockford, who leads the Technology for Liberty program at the ACLU of Massachusetts, praised the bill’s passing.

“No one should have to fear the government tracking and identifying their face wherever they go, or facing wrongful arrest because of biased, error-prone technology,” said Crockford. In the last year, the ACLU of Massachusetts has worked with community organizations and legislators across the state to ban face surveillance in seven municipalities, from Boston to Springfield. We commend the legislature for advancing a bill to protect all Massachusetts residents from unregulated face surveillance technology.”

In the absence of privacy legislation from the federal government, laws curtailing the use of facial recognition are popping up on a state and city level. The patchwork nature of that legislation means that state and city laws have room to experiment, creating an array of blueprints for future laws that can be replicated elsewhere.

Portland, Oregon passed a broad ban on facial recognition tech this September. The ban, one of the most aggressive in the nation, blocks city bureaus from using the technology but will also prohibit private companies from deploying facial recognition systems in public spaces. Months of clashes between protesters and aggressive law enforcement in that city raised the stakes on Portland’s ban.

Earlier bans in Oakland, San Francisco and Boston focused on forbidding their city governments from using the technology but, like Massachusetts, stopped short of limiting its use by private companies. San Francisco’s ban passed in May of last year, making the international tech hub the first major city to ban the use of facial recognition by city agencies and police departments.

At the same time that cities across the U.S. are acting to limit the creep of biometric surveillance, those same systems are spreading at the federal level. In August, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) signed a contract for access to a facial recognition database created by Clearview AI, a deeply controversial company that scrapes facial images from online sources, including social media sites.

While most activism against facial recognition only pertains to local issues, at least one state law has proven powerful enough to make waves on a national scale. In Illinois, the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) has ensnared major tech companies including Amazon, Microsoft and Alphabet for training facial recognition systems on Illinois residents without permission.

Updated with comment from the ACLU of Massachusetts.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source: https://techcrunch.com/2020/12/01/massachusetts-votes-to-pass-statewide-police-ban-on-facial-recognition/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29
Proactive Computing found this story and shared it with you.
The Article Was Written/Published By: Taylor Hatmaker

US authorities seize $1 billion worth of Silk Road Bitcoins

dae4de10-40f8-11e9-be5e-a20a1f8e2eacEven after Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht was arrested and sentenced to life in prison, authorities were unable to find a huge chunk of the commissions — in Bitcoin, of course — the dark web marketplace generated. Earlier this week, authorities have…

Source: https://www.engadget.com/us-authorities-seize-1-billion-road-bitcoins-061320989.html
Proactive Computing found this story and shared it with you.
The Article Was Written/Published By:

Secret Service bought location data pulled from common apps

13c03580-e0a9-11ea-b79e-c03c973e151cThe Secret Service paid a private company for access to location data generated by common smartphone apps, Motherboard reports. Internal documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request show that the agency spent $35,844 for a o…

Source: https://www.engadget.com/secret-service-bought-location-data-locate-x-165531624.html
Proactive Computing found this story and shared it with you.
The Article Was Written/Published By:

NJ Supreme Court rules you don’t have a constitutional right not to unlock your phone

Depositphotos_84601698_s-2019.jpg?fit=70

Even though the United States Constitution gives citizens the right not to incriminate themselves, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that police can force you to unlock your iPhone.

From Ars Technica:

On Monday, the New Jersey Supreme Court rejected that Fifth Amendment claim. The Fifth Amendment only protects defendants against self-incriminating testimony, not the production of incriminating documents. While “testimony” usually refers to speech, that’s not always the case. Sometimes, a defendant can reveal information by his or her actions. For example, if the government doesn’t already know who owns a phone, then forcing a defendant to unlock it amounts to forced testimony that the defendant is the owner.

Source: https://boingboing.net/2020/08/11/nj-supreme-court-rules-you-don.html
Proactive Computing found this story and shared it with you.
The Article Was Written/Published By: Mark Frauenfelder

Can Law Enforcement Really Recover Files You’ve Deleted?

0-disintegrating-hard-drive.jpg
When you delete a file from your computer’s hard drive, it’s never really gone. With enough effort and technical skill, it’s often possible to recover documents and photos previously thought obliterated. These computer forensics are a useful tool for law enforcement, but how do they really work?

Read This Article on How-To Geek ›

Source: https://www.howtogeek.com/675784/can-law-enforcement-really-recover-files-you%E2%80%99ve-deleted/
Proactive Computing found this story and shared it with you.
The Article Was Written/Published By: Matthew Hughes

« Older posts