Lexipol: Facing Scrutiny?
September 1, 2020
Should a private company be writing policies for police departments? Increasingly that is the case and, many say, is a major reason it is so difficult to hold police accountable for using excessive force. Mother Jones invites us to “Meet the Company that Writes the Policies that Protect Cops.” Founded in 2003, Lexipol’s focus is unabashedly on crafting policies that protect officers and departments against lawsuits. Much hinges on definitions of words one would think should be straightforward, like “necessary” and “imminent.” In fact, company co-founder (and former cop) Bruce Praet seems especially proud of the slippery language that gives police “flexibility.”
When pressed, Lexipol insists it bases its policies on federal and state standards, laws, court rulings, and “best practices.” However, reporter Madison Pauly writes:
“Some of the company’s policies … depart in significant ways from recommendations by mainstream policing organizations. The National Consensus Policy on Use of Force, a collaboration between 11 major law enforcement groups, requires cops to try de-escalation techniques before using force if possible. Lexipol discourages police departments from requiring them. Lexipol’s policy allows officers to shoot at moving vehicles in some circumstances, a practice that the Police Executive Research Forum recommends against because it may injure or kill civilians and officers. The ACLU has contested Lexipol’s rules for handling immigration violations, which in some states include a provision allowing cops to consider ‘a lack of English proficiency’ when deciding whether someone may have entered the country illegally. Despite these challenges, the company has marketed its policies as a way to decrease cities’ liability in police misconduct lawsuits. In its communications with potential clients, Lexipol has claimed that agencies that use its policies are sued less frequently and pay out smaller settlements, according to a Texas Law Review analysis of public records. The company’s critics argue that it accomplishes this with vague or permissive rules that meet bare-minimum legal requirements rather than holding officers to a higher standard.”
According to the company, Lexipol has vended its policies, training, customizable handbooks, or other services to more than 8 thousand public safety agencies, including several large cities. These include corrections, fire, and EMS agencies alongside police departments. In California, it is estimated that about 95 percent of law enforcement are using Lexipol policies. See the article for examples where, we’re told, these policies have stood in the way of justice. As with the crafting of state legislation, we suspect many citizens are unaware how much influence these public agencies have handed over to a third party.
Cynthia Murrell, September 1, 2020
Autonomy: One Chapter Closes but the Saga Continues
August 27, 2020
Just a quick pointer to Reuters, the trusted source (that’s what the Thomson Reuters outfit says, believe me) story “Ex-Autonomy CFO’s Conviction for Hewlett-Packard Fraud Is Upheld by U.S. Appeals Court” about an Autonomy executive. The news report states that Autonomy’s CFO is in deeper legal hot water. Sushovan Hussain was convicted in April 2018 on a number of charges, including wire and security fraud. DarkCyber still marvels that Hewlett Packard, the Board of Directors, auditors, and third party advisors applied “warp speed,” to use a popular phrase, to buy the search and content processing company for $11.1 billion. One fact is unchallengeable: This legal process is moving along at turtle speed. Is the HP Autonomy saga well suited for a Quibi video?
Stephen E Arnold, August 27, 2020
Alphabet Spells Out Actions for YouTubers to Take
August 20, 2020
Coercion is interesting because it can take many forms. An online publication called Digital Journal published “Google Rallies YouTubers Against Australian News Payment Plan.” Let’s assume the information in the write up is accurate. The pivot point for the article is:
Google has urged YouTubers around the world to complain to Australian authorities as it ratchets up its campaign against a plan to force digital giants to pay for news content. Alongside pop-ups warning “the way Aussies use Google is at risk”, which began appearing for Australian Google users on Monday, the tech titan also urged YouTube creators worldwide to complain to the nation’s consumer watchdog.
The idea, viewed from a company’s point of view, seems to be that users can voice their concern about an Australian government decision. The company believes that email grousing will alter a government decision. The assumption is that protest equals an increased likelihood of change. Is this coercion? Let’s assume that encouraging consumer push back against a government is.
The action, viewed from a government’s point of view, may be that email supporting a US company’s desire to index content and provide it to whomever, is harming the information sector in a country.
The point of friction is that Alphabet Google is a company which operates as if it were a country. The only major difference is that Alphabet Google does not have its own military force, and it operates in a fascinating dimension in which its actions are important, maybe vital, to some government agencies and, therefore, its corporate actions are endorsed or somehow made more important in other spheres of activity.
DarkCyber is interested in monitoring these issues:
- How will YouTube data consumers and enablers of Google ad revenue react to their corporate-directed coercive role?
- How will the Australian government react to and then accommodate such coercion if it becomes significant?
- How will other countries — for example, France, Germany, and the UK — learn from the YouTube coercion initiative?
- How will Alphabet Google mutate its coercive tactics to make them more effective?
Of course, the Google letter referenced in the Digital Journal may be a hoax or a bit of adolescent humor. Who pays attention to a super bright person’s high school antics? These can be explained away or deflected with “Gee, I am sorry.”
The real issue is a collision of corporatism and government. The coercion angle, if the write up is accurate, draws attention to a gap between what’s good for the company and what’s good for a country.
The issue may be the responsibility of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, but the implications reach to other Australian government entities and to other countries as well. The US regulatory entities have allowed a handful of companies to dominate the digital environment. Coercion may the an upgrade to these monopolies’ toolkits.
But the whole matter may be high school humor, easily dismissed with “it’s a joke” and “we’re sorry. Really, really sorry.”
Stephen E Arnold, August 20, 2020
Apple and Russia
August 19, 2020
We have learned that Apple is being accused of unfair practices in yet another country from AppleInsider’s write-up, “Russian Watchdog Says Apple’s App Store Rules and Behaviors Are Anticompetitive.” According to Reuters, the Federal Antimonopoly Service of Russia declares that the way Apple runs its online app store gives it unfair advantage. We note the agency’s leader once allegedly worked for the KGB; we suggest it is unwise to irritate such an individual. Writer Mike Peterson gives details of the allegations:
“The FAS’s ruling cites the need for users to download iOS apps from the official App Store, and claimed that Apple has ‘unlawfully reserved rights’ to block any third-party app from the marketplace. The watchdog also signaled that it would issue an order demanding that Apple resolve it alleged regulatory abuses. The FAS launched its investigation following a formal complaint by cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Lab. The company issued the complaint after Apple blocked its ‘Safe Kids’ parental control app from the App Store, citing child privacy and security concerns. At the time, Apple’s removal of those parental control apps prompted concerns that the company was quashing competition of its Screen Time feature. Apple responded, stating that the use of mobile device management (MDM) and other tools in the apps presented a security risk.”
Peterson reminds us Apple is also facing antitrust investigations in the US and Europe. The EU probe, we’re told, was launched in response to charges by Apple Music competitor Spotify.
Russia’s government options may include some strategists at Apple may under weight. Telegram, for example, found cooperation a more pragmatic way to deal with Russian authorities. Why? Perhaps it was first hand knowledge of certain bureaucratic features of the Russian government’s mechanisms?
Some companies want to function as if they were countries. Some countries find that approach untenable.
Cynthia Murrell, August 19, 2020
Apple: An Intellectual Property Misunderstanding Resolved
August 18, 2020
DarkCyber is aware of the legal dust up between an electronic game company and Apple computer. However, another facet of Apple’s corporate mindset surfaces in “Apple Ordered to Pay PanOptis $506.2 Million for Infringing LTE Patents.”
The write up reports:
In [the] decision, the jury decided that Apple failed to prove that any of PanOptis’ patent claims were invalid. According to Law360, it also said that Apple willfully infringed on the patents. Notably, the in-person patent jury trial was the country’s first since coronavirus lockdowns began. The $506 million is a royalty of past sales of infringing devices, with the jury finding five of the seven patents in suit were violated.
With interest in next generation wireless technology moving more quickly than the US legal system, will Apple obtain its technology via licenses, good old R&D, or some of the more interesting methods available to the company? There’s nothing like American know how, is there?
Stephen E Arnold, August 18, 2020
Apples and Pears: Definitely Tasty Fruit
August 10, 2020
Here is a test from an outfit called PreKinders.com. Circle the object that does not belong:
I circled the watermelon. What did you circle? Do you think the sun does not belong? Is the sun a fruit? Can you eat the sun? Does the fruit emit radiation which allows life?
According to my understanding of “Apple Takes Legal Action Against This Small Company’s Pear Logo,” the pear does not belong. I learned:
Prepear is a meal planner and grocery list app that helps people discover recipes and more. It’s a spin off from the founders of Super Healthy Kids and right now they saying its logo is under legal attack from Apple.
Are you confused by the similarity of these two logos?
Do you know what this is?
This is alcohol. Is it possible Apple has been imbibing Massenez Poire-Williams Pear Brandy? Confusing fruit may be a signal for impaired reasoning. But monopolies like the App Store are never confused in our modern, zip zip, lawyer infused world. Take another look at the picture from Pre Kinder. Do you want to change your answer? Maybe the apple does not belong?
Stephen E Arnold, August 10, 2020
Tick Tock Becomes Tit for Tat: The Apple and Xiao-i Issue
August 5, 2020
Okay, let’s get the company names out of the way:
- Shanghai Zhizhen Network Technology Company is known as Zhizhen
- Zhizhen is also known as Xiao-i
- Apple is the outfit with the virtual assistant Siri.
Zhizhen owns a patent for a virtual assistant. In 2013, Apple was sued for violating a Chinese patent. Apple let loose a flock of legal eagles to demonstrate that its patents were in force and that a Chinese voice recognition patent was invalid. The Chinese court denied Apple’s argument.
Tick tock tick tock went the clock. Then the alarm sounded. Xiao-i owns the Chinese patent, and that entity is suing Apple.
“Apple Faces $1.4B Suit from Chinese AI Company” reports:
Shanghai Zhizhen Network Technology Co. said in a statement on Monday it was suing Apple for an estimated 10 billion yuan ($1.43 billion) in damages in a Shanghai court, alleging the iPhone and iPad maker’s products violated a patent the Chinese company owns for a virtual assistant whose technical architecture is similar to Siri. Siri, a voice-activated function in Apple’s smartphones and laptops, allows users to dictate text messages or set alarms on their devices.
But more than the money, the Xiao-i outfit “asked Apple to stop sales, production, and the use of products fluting such a patent.”
Coincidence? Maybe. The US wants to curtail TikTok, and now Xiao-i wants to put a crimp in Apple’s China revenues.
Several observations:
- More trade related issues are likely
- Intellectual property disputes will become more frequent. China will use its patents to inhibit American business. This is a glimpse of a future in which the loss of American knowledge value will add friction to the US activities
- Downstream consequences are likely to ripple through non-Chinese suppliers of components and services to Apple. China is using Apple to make a point about the value of Chinese intellectual property and the influence of today’s China.
Just as China has asserted is cyber capabilities, the Apple patent dispute — regardless of its outcome — is another example of China’s understanding of American tactics, modifying them, and using them to try to gain increased economic, technical, and financial advantage.
Stephen E Arnold, August 3, 2020
Fordham University Professor Makes Startling Assertion about FAANG
August 5, 2020
In an online publication called Chron.com, a startling assertion was made. “The Legal Fight Against Big Tech Is Like the Fight Against Organized Crime” states:
There are more than a few similarities between the organized crime and these four companies. Like the Mafia, the threats that Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google pose to American democracy flow from the power they have over key services (from email to social media to music and film), the way they use dominance in one area to achieve dominance in others and their ability to use fear to stop challenges to their control.
The author points out:
Like the Mafia, they are a resilient, surveillance-based shadow government. So citizens are dual subjects – of the country, and of the flawed online markets created by these companies. Like the mob, big tech has friends in very high places. Likewise, big tech is an oligarchy with several bosses, who compete in some territories but generally divide power among themselves, without consulting elected officials. Obviously, I am not saying Facebook and Google murder and kneecap their opponents, or burn down businesses that refuse to play by their rules; I am not equating tech companies with the mob.
DarkCyber is not sure if this lawyerly statement will assuage the Big Four. Who will step forward and suggest that these firms are the Gang of Four reincarnated in bro cloths in Silicon Valley type endeavors?
Interesting: Mob, threats, surveillance, and money. Sounds like a tasty mob polenta.
Stephen E Arnold, August 5, 2020
Amusing Moments: Facebook Pushes Back at a Mere Government
July 29, 2020
The trusted outfit — Thomson Reuters — published “Facebook Sues EU Antitrust Regulator for Excessive Data Requests.” The report is probably typical of every day behavior. The US Congressional hearing looms. Rumors that Facebook will say it defends America against — gasp — China is floating around.
Reuters notes that Facebook does not want the European Union’s regulators asking for documents. The regulators apparently want information suggesting that Facebook took action to further its interests, not those of the EU and its citizens.
But Facebook is defending America. If the Reuters’ story is accurate (which is different from trusted), Facebook believes the best defense is taking the regulators to court.
Defense and defending have some nuances of meaning some in Europe may have overlooked.
Stephen E Arnold, July 29, 2020
Google, the EU, and a Tap on the Nose
July 15, 2020
One of the DarkCyber research team spotted this article: “Google Fined $684,000 over Right to Be Forgotten Failure.” The idea is that an individual in the EU can ask Google to remove links. The write up reports that the Google was not playing “Right to Be Forgotten” by the rules. The failure to ignore the EU citizen’s request was allegedly “particularly negligent.” The Google will have an “obfuscation” of legal eagles (too bad crows have the “murder” collective noun and the stupid lark has “exaltation”).
Not surprisingly, according to the write up, the Google has been working hard. Good to know.
Stephen E Arnold, July 15, 2020
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
