www.techdirt.com Open in urlscan Pro
2606:4700:20::ac43:4362  Public Scan

Form analysis
3 forms found in the DOM

GET https://www.techdirt.com/search/

<form method="get" id="searchform" action="https://www.techdirt.com/search/">
  <input class="searchq" type="search" size="16" name="q" placeholder="Search Techdirt">
  <button type="submit" class="search-submit icon" value="Search">
    <svg class="search-icon">
      <use href="https://www.techdirt.com/wp-content/themes/techdirt/assets/images/magnifying-glass.svg#search"></use>
    </svg>
  </button>
</form>

POST https://news.techdirt.com/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi

<form action="https://news.techdirt.com/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi" method="post">
  <input name="f" value="subscribe" type="hidden">
  <input name="list" value="tddaily" type="hidden">
  <input name="email" id="sub_email" size="25" maxlength="1024" placeholder="Enter Your Email Address" type="email">
  <input id="td_subscribe" name="td_subscribe" value="Subscribe" type="submit">
</form>

POST

<form method="post">
  <input type="submit" value="Got it" class="accept">
</form>

Text Content

 * Sign In
 * Register
 * Preferences

Techdirt
 * TechDirt
 * GreenHouse
 * Free Speech
 * Error 402
 * Ctrl-Alt-Speech
 * Deals
 * Jobs
 * Support Techdirt

Stories filed under: "nyc"
Expand All Posts Collapse All Posts



NYC OFFICIALS ARE MAD BECAUSE JOURNALISTS POINTED OUT THE CITY’S NEW ‘AI’
CHATBOT TELLS PEOPLE TO BREAK THE LAW

(Mis)Uses of Technology


FROM THE I'M-SORRY-I-CAN'T-DO-THAT,-DAVE DEPT

Fri, Apr 5th 2024 05:29am - Karl Bode

Countless sectors are rushing to implement “AI” (undercooked language learning
models) without understanding how they work — or making sure they work. The
result has been an ugly comedy of errors stretching from journalism to mental
health care thanks to greed, laziness, computer-generated errors, plagiarism,
and fabulism.

NYC’s government is apparently no exception. The city recently unveiled a new
“AI” powered chatbot to help answer questions about city governance. But an
investigation by The Markup found that the automated assistant not only doled
out incorrect information, it routinely advises city residents to break the law
across a wide variety of subjects, from landlord agreements to labor issues:

> “The bot said it was fine to take workers’ tips (wrong, although they
> sometimes can count tips toward minimum wage requirements) and that there were
> no regulations on informing staff about scheduling changes (also wrong). It
> didn’t do better with more specific industries, suggesting it was OK to
> conceal funeral service prices, for example, which the Federal Trade
> Commission has outlawed. Similar errors appeared when the questions were asked
> in other languages, The Markup found.”

Folks over on Bluesky had a lot of fun testing the bot out, and finding that it
routinely provided bizarre, false, and sometimes illegal results:



> 





There’s really no reality where this sloppily-implemented bullshit machine
should remain operational, either ethically or legally. But when pressed about
it, NYC Mayor Eric Adams stated the system will remain online, albeit with a
warning that the system “may occasionally produce incorrect, harmful or biased
content.”

But one administration official complained about the fact that journalists
pointed out the whole error prone mess in the first place, insisting they should
have worked privately with the administration to fix the problems cause by the
city:



If you can’t see that, it’s reporter Joshua Friedman reporting:

> At NYC mayor Eric Adams’s press conference, top mayoral advisor Ingrid
> Lewis-Martin criticizes the media for publishing stories about the city’s new
> Al-powered chatbot that recommends illegal behavior. She says reporters could
> have approached the mayor’s office quietly and worked with them to fix it

That’s not how journalism works. That’s now how anything works. Everybody’s so
bedazzled by new tech (or keen on making money from the initial hype cycle)
they’re just rushing toward the trough without thinking. As a result, uncooked
and dangerous automation is being layered on top of systems that weren’t working
very well in the first place (see: journalism, health care, government).

The city is rushing to implement “AI” elsewhere in the city as well, such as
with a new weapon scanning system tests have found have an 85 percent false
positive rate. All of this is before you even touch on the fact that most early
adopters of these systems see them are a wonderful way to cut corners and
undermine already mistreated and underpaid labor (again see: journalism, health
care).

There are lessons here you’d think would have been learned in the wake of
previous tech hype and innovation cycles (cryptocurrency, NFTs, “full self
driving,” etc.). Namely, innovation is great and all, but a rush to embrace
innovation for innovation’s sake due to greed or incurious bedazzlement
generally doesn’t work out well for anybody (except maybe early VC hype wave
speculators).

Filed Under: automation, eric adams, hype, ingrid lewis-martin, innovation,
language learning models, nyc, tech



14 Comments
Expand Collapse Read More


IN THE MIDST OF MULTIPLE CONTROVERSIES OF HIS OWN MAKING, NYC MAYOR ADAMS
DECIDES THE REAL PROBLEM… IS SOCIAL MEDIA

Overhype


FROM THE STUPID-MORAL-PANICS DEPT

Thu, Jan 25th 2024 12:09pm - Mike Masnick

It seems that if anything has gone wrong in the world, ignorant and foolish
politicians have a readymade scapegoat: it’s all social media’s fault.

NYC Mayor Eric Adams is facing a pretty big list of crises, some of his own
making. He’s facing what appears to be a pretty serious corruption
investigation. He’s cutting a ton of budget from schools and libraries — but not
from his former police colleagues. Speaking of the police, he vetoed a widely
supported bill that would have added more transparency to police interactions
with the public. And, frankly, it feels like a large percentage of New Yorkers
are embarrassed to even talk about their mayor.

But have no fear. In his state of the city address this week, Adams zeroed in on
what he says is the real problem in New York City: social media.

Mayor Adams’ version of “look, squirrel!” is to make a big part of his speech
being the evidence free declaration that social media is “toxic.” Incredibly,
right before claiming that social media is toxic, he talks about how an internet
tool that the city set up to help kids was useful, not realizing that this is a
form of social media itself:

> We know academic preparation is essential to our children’s future, but so is
> mental health. We are proud of all we have done to promote mental health, in
> and out of the classroom. Last year, we launched Teenspace to help young
> people connect with a licensed therapist over phone, video, or text. So far,
> over 1,500 children have used this free service, and we will continue to get
> our students the help they need in a way that works for them.

And then immediately turns around and makes bizarre, unsubstantiated, and
unsupported claims about the “harms” of social media.

> We also need to protect our students from harm online, including the growing
> dangers presented by social media. Companies like TikTok, YouTube,
> and Facebook are fueling a mental health crisis by designing their platforms
> with addictive and dangerous features. We cannot stand by and let Big Tech
> monetize our children’s privacy and jeopardize their mental health.
> 
> That’s why today, Dr. Ashwin Vasan is issuing a Health Commissioner’s
> Advisory, officially designating social media as a public health hazard in New
> York City. We are the first major American city to take this step and call out
> the danger of social media like this. Just as the surgeon general did with
> tobacco and guns, we are treating social media like other public health
> hazards and ensuring that tech companies take responsibility for their
> products. You’ll be hearing more about this soon.

This is ridiculous on multiple levels. First off, last year we had a big post
detailing why any comparison between social media and “toxins” like lead paint
or tobacco is inherently stupid. Those are things that are known to cause real
harm.

With social media, that’s just not true. We’ve gone through this over and over
and over again, but the actual science simply does not support the claim that
social media is inherently harmful to kids.

What it finds is that, for many kids, social media is quite helpful. It’s a way
for them to communicate with friends, to educate themselves, to explore new
ideas, and more. In some cases, it can be life-saving. For a very large group,
social media is neither good nor bad. It’s just a tool.

For a very small percent, however, there does appear to be some level of danger.
And that’s nothing to ignore. But, even there, the relationship is complicated.
Some of the evidence suggests that the causal part is in the opposite direction
(i.e., those kids who are already dealing with mental health issues for other
reasons retreat to social media, which can then be dangerous for them).

The right way to deal with this, according to tons of experts, is to look for
ways to help that small percentage of kids who are at risk, where social media
exacerbates problems.

But declaring social media, universally, to be a “public health hazard” like
it’s toxic waste or second-hand smoke is, not just wrong and ignorant, but
literally counterproductive. Given that some of the recent research suggests
that the real cause of the teen mental health crisis is the lack of spaces for
teens to be teens without parents hovering over them, declaring all of social
media as a “public health hazard” will only lead to shutting down the spaces
that many, many teens use to connect with their friends (most of whom can do so
healthily).

Again, social media seems like a convenient scapegoat — especially for a mayor
dealing with cascading controversies (some of which may lead to criminal
penalties) — but declaring it a public health hazard like tobacco is not only
stupid, but directly counterproductive.

Indeed, the incredible part is that for all the headline grabbing of social
media now being a “public health crisis,” and Dr. Vasan publicly announcing that
he’s declared social media to be a “toxin,” the actual report he released
doesn’t support any of that, and instead suggests some common sense approaches
to using social media in a healthy manner.



If it were truly a “toxin” you don’t issue a report that is mostly focused on
how to use it smartly. We don’t have public health officials talking about how
kids can have a healthy relationship with tobacco, or lead paint, or alcohol.
With actual toxins, you protect the community from them.

Instead, the actual advisory is mostly focused on being aware of the risks and
using social media appropriately. Which is perfectly good advice, but is
entirely different than calling it a “public health crisis” and a toxin.

Indeed, the advisory notes the benefits many kids get from social media (imagine
a similar advisor for lead paint or cigarettes?).

> Adults who interact with children and youth, including caregivers, health care
> providers,
> educators and school staff, community-based organizations, and youth
> development staff,
> should take opportunities to promote use of social media in a manner that is
> protective of
> youth mental health. This includes:
> a. Implementing tech-free times and places in relevant settings that encourage
> in-person connection;
> b. Discussing social media use in an open-minded way with children and youth,
> and providing support when they identify concerns; and
> c. Modeling healthy social media use, including sharing use practices and how
> to
> be thoughtful with use

And, uh, yeah. Like that’s just generally good advice. It’s also common sense.
But it’s difficult to square common sense language like that with “toxin!” or
“public health crisis!” Most of the recommendations in the document are along
those lines. Be thoughtful about social media use. Parents should talk to their
kids about it. Teachers should teach good use of social media based on approved
curricula.

I mean, all of those are perfectly reasonable, good suggestions. There is a
silly nod towards the end about state and federal laws (many of which are being
passed, though all are getting thrown out as unconstitutional), but what’s so
stupidly striking about this is that the language Adams and Vasan are using is
fear mongering moral panic nonsense. Whereas, the actual “advice” they’re giving
is… not at all consistent with their hyperbolic language.

But, of course, being calm and reasonable doesn’t get headlines. And Adams and
Vasan want headlines. The headlines they get, though, will mislead the public
and create real harm. Because most parents, teachers, and school administrators
aren’t going to read the details. They’re going to hear “toxic” and try to ban
the usage outright, even as that’s been shown to create very real harms in kids.

In other words, it’s yet another move by Adams that gets headlines but creates a
real mess for actual NYC residents.

Elect better people.

Filed Under: ashwin vasan, eric adams, nyc, public health hazard, social media



Read More 15 Comments
Expand Collapse Read More


A VOLUNTEER ARMY IS DEPLOYING DIRT CHEAP BROADBAND IN NYC

Wireless


FROM THE DO-IT-YOURSELF DEPT

Mon, Oct 2nd 2023 05:29am - Karl Bode

A few years ago during one of our Greenhouse forums, activist Terique Boyce
wrote about how an all-volunteer army had been spending their days deploying
free broadband to NYC residents. It’s the latest example of frustrated
communities building their own infrastructure after decades of being ripped off
and underserved by powerful, local broadband monopolies.

NYC Mesh is a sort of guerilla activist project that installs wireless mesh
networking antennas and routers on the top of buildings to deliver affordable
(sometimes free) broadband.”

CNET has done a good profile piece on the project, which charges users a $50 fee
for the installation and a pay-what-you-can monthly donation to keep the network
operating. DIY’ers can install the service for free. Subscribers are encouraged
to share their connections with other locals. The organization says it never
disconnects users for non-payment.

These aren’t the kind of next-gen fiber connections you want to run a business
off of, but they do provide essential access to marginalized neighborhoods that
can’t afford broadband from their regional monopoly (in NYC that’s usually
Charter/Spectrum or Verizon):

> “NYC Mesh is not an internet service provider, but a grassroots, volunteer-run
> community network. Its aim is to create an affordable, open and reliable
> network that’s accessible to all New Yorkers for both daily and emergency
> internet use. Santana says the group’s members want to help people determine
> their own digital future and “bring back the internet to what it used to be.”

Around a thousand U.S. communities have built some flavor of community-owned and
operated broadband network, whether it’s something like NYC Mesh, fiber deployed
by the city-owned utility, a local cooperative, or a direct municipal broadband
build. As always, these communities wouldn’t be deploying their own networks if
not for market failure at the hands of regional monopolies.

> “ISPs are always trying to maximize profits. We are just trying to connect our
> members for the lowest cost possible,” says Brian Hall, one of the lead
> volunteers and founders of NYC Mesh. 

Federal policymakers talk a lot about the “digital divide,” yet routinely fail
to address the core reason for it: we turned broadband into a luxury good
dominated by a handful of extremely political powerful regional monopolies,
hellbent on nickel-and-diming customers trapped by a lack of competition. We
didn’t block mergers, we didn’t hold them accountable, and we somehow act
surprised at the result.

Instead of directly tackling monopoly power (in fact the folks at the FCC under
both parties routinely can’t even admit there’s a problem in public facing
statements), we enjoy throwing billions in taxpayer subsidies at said monopolies
in the hopes that this time, our “bad luck” will finally change.

Meanwhile, a growing list of communities countrywide have grown tired of waiting
for competent federal broadband policy, and continue to take matters into their
own hands. Often with zero messaging or policy support from federal regulators
purportedly dedicated to “bridging the digital divide.”

Filed Under: broadband, high speed internet, mesh networking, nyc, nycmesh,
wireless



15 Comments
Expand Collapse Read More


MTA WEBSITE DOLES OUT RIDER HISTORY DATA WITH JUST A CREDIT CARD NUMBER

Privacy


FROM THE WATCHING-YOU,-WATCHING-ME DEPT

Fri, Sep 1st 2023 05:29am - Karl Bode

We’ve noted for years how there’s no limit of companies and organizations that
over-collect data on your daily movement patterns, then fail to adequately
secure that data. Whether it’s your mobile phone carrier, your smartphone maker,
your favorite app, or a rotating crop of dodgy data brokers, our corrupt failure
to pass even a baseline privacy law for the Internet era is the gift that keeps
on giving.

A lack of regulatory oversight of data collection has normalized lazy data
practices everywhere you look. Case in point: Joseph Cox at 404 Media discovered
that in NYC, the MTA’s OMNY contactless payment system easily spews out a
rider’s detailed subway ridership history if you plug in a user’s credit card
number, which can often be obtained via the dark web:

> “Obviously this is a great fit for abusers who live with their victims or have
> physical access, however brief, to their wallets,” Eva Galperin, the director
> of cybersecurity at activist organization the Electronic Frontier Foundation
> (EFF) and who has extensively researched how abusive partners use technology,
> told 404 Media. “ Credit card info is not a goddamn unique identifier.”

This could have easily been avoided with a simple PIN or password. While OMNY
users can sign up for a password protected account, the system defaults to the
no password, no authentication option. 404 Media points to a 2019 study by the
Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (STOP) that expressed concerns that
the payment system could be easily abused:

> “Given how often government agencies, including the New York Police Department
> (‘NYPD’), have abused surveillance data to target ethnic and religious
> minorities and how for- profit corporations face overwhelming pressure to
> monetize user data, OMNY has the potential to expose millions of transit users
> to troubling repercussions”

New York City is also taking heat for its longstanding Wi-Fi kiosk program
LinkNYC, which still non transparently over-collects the data of users and
passersby alike despite years of complaints by privacy activists.

There are two major reasons we don’t have even a basic privacy law for the
internet era that holds governments, organizations, and corporations accountable
for lazy security practices. One, the data collection is immensely profitable to
just an ocean of companies and industries which lobby against reform in unison.
Two, it routinely allows the government to avoid having to get pesky warrants.

It’s not clear how many privacy scandals we need to bear witness to before real
reform actually occurs, but it’s abundantly clear we’re going to be waiting a
long while.

Filed Under: location data, mta, nyc, privacy, security, subway
Companies: mta


11 Comments
Expand Collapse Read More


ACLU SAYS NYC’S HALF-BAKED WIFI KIOSKS STILL A PRIVACY MESS

Privacy


FROM THE MORE-OF-THE-SAME DEPT

Mon, Aug 7th 2023 03:43pm - Karl Bode

In 2014, NYC officials decided to replace the city’s dated pay phones with
“information kiosks” providing free public Wi-Fi, phone calls, device charging,
and a tablet for access to city services, maps and directions. The kiosks were
to be funded by “context-aware” ads based on a variety of data collected from
kiosk users and NYC residents just passing by.

It… didn’t go well.

Within a few years, reports emerged that the company hired to deploy the kiosks
(CityBridge) had only deployed 1,900 of an originally promised 7,000 kiosks. And
the kiosks they had deployed were being used to watch porn. The program has also
been long criticized for over-collecting user data and being completely
non-transparent about what data was being collected or who access was sold to.

By 2020 CityBridge still owed the city $75 million. In 2021, an audit by New
York State’s Comptroller found LinkNYC failed completely to meet its deployment
goals, failed to adequately maintain existing kiosks, failed to turn on many
already deployed kiosks, and had fallen well short of projected ad revenues.

It’s now 2023, and the ACLU of New York says that the lion’s share of the dodgy,
privacy-violating tracking undertaken by the kiosk system still hasn’t been
meaningfully addressed. And the city and its partners still refuse to provide
full transparency on what’s being collected from passing city residents, whether
they use the kiosks or not:

> Beyond issues with the privacy policy, there is still a lot we don’t know
> about what information LinkNYC kiosks are sucking up. We also don’t know who
> has access to that information, how CityBridge is utilizing other third-party
> data to target people, and what’s being done with that treasure trove of
> personal data.

I wrote about this for Vice’s Motherboard last fall and absolutely nothing has
really changed. The ACLU suggests that one alternative to this privacy-invading
stopgap effort is for the city to actually deliver affordable fiber broadband to
all city residents so they don’t need to huddle in the street in the first
place:

> “We need a publicly funded and controlled municipal broadband program that
> ensures every New Yorker, regardless of who they are or how much money they
> have, can enjoy high-speed, reliable Internet access. This program must put
> our privacy rights front-and-center so they aren’t traded away to the highest
> bidder.”

If you recall, NYC Mayor Eric Adams dismantled the city’s already underway plan
to build a city-wide open access fiber network. That network would have boosted
city broadband competition and driven down broadband access costs for all city
residents, but it was unceremoniously dismantled, much to the surprise of folks
that had been working on it for years.

The Adams administration insisted that the privacy-invasive undercooked kiosk
system was good enough, likely because a city-owned municipal network would
understandably upset regional mono/duopolies Verizon and regional cable giant
Charter Communications (Spectrum).

As a substitute, the Adams administration also embraced a program dubbed Big
Apple Connect. Under Big Apple Connect, the city decided to pay Charter $30
million a year for three years to give free broadband to around 400,000 folks
living in public housing around the city.

Here’s the thing: this program will cost the city $90 million to temporarily fix
a problem caused by the company it’s partnering with. That money will be thrown
at a local monopoly directly responsible for high prices through its attacks on
competition to temporarily lower costs. And the program only runs three years,
after which those limited participants are out of luck and prices revert to
their normal high.

In contrast, New York City’s original master plan called for spending $156
million to build an open access fiber network that all local ISPs could compete
for business over. The resulting competition would have lowered broadband access
costs for everyone in range. That $90 million being thrown at Charter could have
gone a long way toward getting that network off the ground and inspiring other
cities.

There’s a reason cities everywhere are building their own broadband networks,
whether they’re municipal, cooperatives, or via the city-owned utility. It’s
because data routinely show that treating broadband as an essential utility not
only results in better, faster, and cheaper broadband, but also locally-owned
networks are more easily to hold accountable for privacy and other competitive
shenanigans.

This data-backed argument that broadband should probably be a publicly-owned
utility understandably doesn’t make regional predatory telecom monopolies (or
the endless federal, state, or local politicians that coddle them) particularly
happy.

Filed Under: broadband, eric adams, high speed internet, kiosks, linknyc, new
york city, nyc, telecom, wifi, wireless
Companies: aclu, citybridge


4 Comments
Expand Collapse Read More


NO, SOCIAL MEDIA IS NOT THE SAME THING AS LEAD PAINT

Overhype


FROM THE FOR-FUCK’S-SAKE-STOP-IT DEPT

Wed, Jun 28th 2023 09:29am - Mike Masnick

A few months back I attended a workshop regarding keeping children on the
internet safe, and at some point a debate broke out over whether social media
was “more like” cigarettes or chocolate (i.e., obviously addictive and harmful
or just a little unhealthy in large doses), and a long term trust & safety
executive who was in the room told me it was driving them crazy, because it’s
just not an analogy that works. Chocolate and cigarettes are things you
literally consume in your body, and they have a clear, and pretty well
understood, impact on your body.

Social media… is speech.

Speech can have an impact on people: it can motivate them, inspire them, scare
them, etc. And sometimes those impacts can be negative. But speech alone is not
something you metabolize. It does not change your body. It does not poison you.

It is not a toxin.

And that’s why it’s so frustrating that this analogy keeps popping up. The
latest is from Ashwin Vasan, the Commission of the New York City Department of
Health. He could be dealing with all sorts of actual health problems facing New
Yorkers, but instead decided to pen a nonsense opinion piece falsely declaring
social media the equivalent of known toxins.

The title gives away the game:

> “We must treat social media like the toxin that it is”

He then uses his own children as the example of how social media is bad (which
makes me wonder how his kids feel about being props here).

> As a parent of three young children, I see every day how young people have
> been conditioned to reach for their for phones and devices. The fault lines of
> this tectonic shift are in my home, and homes like it throughout our nation.

Yes, parents having some control over their kids use of devices and online
services is a challenge, but that’s way different than calling it a “toxin.”
And, having spent plenty of time around adults, many of them seem to feel
“conditioned to reach for their phones and devices” as well, and yet that’s
somehow considered just fine, but with kids it’s somehow a problem?

Vasan then admits that social media might actually be good for some kids (while
tons of studies actually show it’s good for way more kids than it’s bad for),
but then immediately insists that social media is “uniquely harmful” to kids
(which is not, actually, what any study has shown).

> Real communities can form online, and virtual kinship can help young people
> explore the world and their own identities. It is clear that social media is
> now a part of our lives, and so all-out bans or prohibition is neither
> realistic nor advised. But the evidence is clear that unregulated, unfettered
> access to all kinds of social media and its content is uniquely harmful to
> children. Much as toys have package safety inserts for children and parents,
> we need information and protections for social media.

The link there to “uniquely harmful to children” is not any study that actually
supports that claim. It’s to an NPR radio program in which some parents driven
by a moral panic have pushed senators to pass legislation to “protect the
children online.”

Except, again, all of the evidence suggests that this is wrong. The evidence
says that social media is not super dangerous for most kids. It says that there
are some kids who have trouble dealing with it, and attention should be paid to
those kids. As the American Psychological Association just explained, the
evidence simply does not support the narrative that social media is inherently
or uniquely problematic. Instead, they recommend better media literacy and
digital citizenship efforts in schools, to help those who do run into trouble
how to avoid getting sucked in.

But Vasan buys into the narrative, and evidence be damned.

I mean, sure he has statistics, but they don’t say what he wants them to say:

> Inaction has helped lead us into a youth mental health crisis. In 2021, 38
> percent of NYC high schoolers reported feeling so sad or hopeless during the
> past 12 months that they stopped doing their usual activities — a rate that
> was significantly higher for Latino/a and Black students than their white
> peers.

A survey in 2021, you say? Gee… I wonder why might have happened in the
preceding 12 months that might have had an impact on their mental health. What
might have caused kids to feel sad and hopeless leading them to stop doing their
usual activities? Vasan writes this and assumes you’ll all agree with him that
it must be social media, when, for fuck’s sake, it was the damn pandemic. In the
preceding 12 months, kids watched a global pandemic take over the world, taking
them out of schools, getting people sick, killing loved ones, leading many to
have parents who may have lost jobs, while mostly keeping them locked up in
their homes to avoid contracting a deadly viral infection.

Indeed, social media was kind of a savior for many of those kids, in that it
allowed them to actually continue to have something resembling a social life
during the lockdown periods of the pandemic when NYC’s schools were shut down or
totally remote.

But, no, to Vasan, it’s obvious that the problem was social media all along:

> We must lay out strategies for how we’ll protect young people from the harms
> of social media. We must rework regulations and, where appropriate, hold
> companies accountable for the damage they continue to inflict.

Again, Pew and the American Psychological Association both released reports in
the last year detailing how social media was actually more helpful to most kids,
and noted that there was just a very small percentage who seemed to find social
media problematic.

And, yes, sure, let’s work towards fixing those situations and helping those
students. But to insist, flat out, that social media is harmful to kids, and
that companies need to be “held accountable” because some kids use the internet
for problematic purposes, is ridiculous.

And then Vasan closes out with the most ridiculous bit of them all, claiming
that social media is no different than lead paint. Really.

> Social media may be digital, but its effects can be just as damaging as
> tobacco, lead paint, or air pollution. One of the primary roles of public
> health has been to reduce exposure to these toxins through education and harm
> reduction, and sometimes through litigation, regulation and enforcement,
> thereby preventing disease, staving off suffering, and mitigating societal
> costs.
> 
> There is no reason to treat social media any differently.

No. Social media’s effects literally cannot be “just as damaging” as tobacco,
lead paint, or air pollution. All three of those lead to actual poisons breaking
down your body.

Words do not do that.

Again, throughout this I’ve been clear that some kids cannot handle social
media, and we should look to help them, but anyone who insists that social media
is the equivalent of lead paint does not know what the fuck they’re talking
about, and should not be anywhere near a health department, let alone running
one for the largest city in the US.

If you want to deal with the downsides of social media, you need rational people
in charge. Not foolish people driven by evidence-free moral panics.
Unfortunately, New York City has the latter.

Filed Under: aswin vasan, kids and social media, lead paint, moral panic, nyc,
protect the children, social media, toxins



30 Comments
Expand Collapse Read More


NEW YORK CITY BUSINESS OWNERS AREN’T HAPPY ABOUT FACIAL RECOGNITION BAN PROMPTED
BY NEW YORK CITY BUSINESS OWNER

Legal Issues


FROM THE MAYBE-TAKE-IT-UP-WITH-MSG-ENTERTAINMENT DEPT

Fri, Jun 23rd 2023 10:52am - Tim Cushing

Things are getting heated in the city that never sleeps stops bitching. Private
business owners don’t much care for the city telling them how to run their
business, even when said business involves perhaps careless use of problematic
tech.

> Grocery store owners in New York City oppose a bill that would limit use of
> facial recognition software, saying the algorithms reduce shoplifting. The
> measure, introduced to the city council early last month, calls for businesses
> to inform customers and get their written consent before using biometric
> recognition on them or face a $5,000 fine.

That’s the dry, straight-to-the-point recap provided by Larisa Redins for
Biometric Update. Here’s the Fox News version, which uses the phrase “Grocers
Furious” in its headline:

> New York City grocers are expressing outrage over a push by city council
> members to ban facial recognition technology stores rely on to deter
> shoplifting due to concerns of racial discrimination. 
> 
> Ferreira Foodtown CEO Jason Ferreira joined “Fox & Friends” Tuesday to call
> out the suggestion as thefts continue to rock businesses in the Big Apple.
> 
> Ferreira, who has been in business for over 45 years, said the shoplifting has
> never been worse.
> 
> “It’s spreading,” he said. “It’s not only people that are doing it
> professionally. We have people that are doing it just because they can get
> away with it. And the gamut runs from children to people that are older.”

Given this spin, it would appear it’s just the city placing a boot heel on the
smallest of its businesses — businesses that are now being robbed non-stop by
people who are children and/or are older than children.

I don’t doubt that shoplifting poses a problem for retailers and is felt far
more acutely by small business owners. I also have my own concerns about the
government telling businesses what tech they may or may not deploy to protect
their bottom lines.

But this anger is displaced. A definitely not-small-at-all New York City
business owner is directly responsible for this legislation, thanks to his
willingness to discriminate against perceived enemies of his business with the
aid of facial recognition tech.

Let’s revisit some earlier articles written by [checks byline] Tim Cushing at
this very site:

> Even if you have the leeway to ban people from your premises, the question
> remains whether you should do so, especially when the bans appear to be
> vindictive. Earlier this month, some New York City lawyers reported they were
> being blocked from entering venues operated by MSG Entertainment, the company
> that owns Madison Square Garden and other city entertainment venues. These
> bans — enforced by MSG’s use of facial recognition tech — prevented a mother
> from joining her daughter and her Girl Scout troop during a visit to Radio
> City Music Hall. Another lawyer was booted from a Knicks game at the Garden
> after being flagged by MSG’s tech.
> 
> This entirely new problem could be traced back to MSG’s chief executive, James
> L. Dolan. Last summer, he instituted a ban affecting lawyers working for firms
> engaged in litigation against MSG Entertainment. The ban was supposed to
> prevent adversarial lawyers from engaging in freelance discovery while
> attending events. The problem was the ban targeted all lawyers at these firms,
> rather than just those actually engaging in litigation.

These actions, which were exposed by the lawyers targeted by Dolan and MSG
Entertainment, led directly to the proposed legislation these presumable
mom-and-pop stores are now complaining about to Fox News commentators.

Sure, these proprietors are correct that it’s the city government pursuing this
legislation. But the only reason it exists is because a billionaire businessman
decided the best use of facial recognition tech was to deny certain
ticketholders access to events they paid to attend solely because they worked
for law firms currently involved in litigation against his company.

And yet, these “furious grocers” aren’t calling out a billionaire for wielding
questionable tech for completely vindictive purposes. Instead, they’re
complaining that the city doesn’t care how often they get ripped off by
shoplifters.

I do understand the anger. They have every right to protect their profitability.
If they believe facial recognition tech will aid in that, then they probably
should be able to use it. But if they continue to ignore the fact that someone
else in the private sector abused the tech so often and so blatantly it moved
the city government to propose a ban, they’re ignoring the very real possibility
that one of their “furious” own will do the same thing. It’s inevitable.

This tech can be useful. But this tech is also inevitably abused because it’s
able to do what security people can’t: lock people out of goods or services in
microseconds. And that’s just the private sector side. In the hands of the
government, it can lock people out of life and liberty. Even when it’s wrong,
those deploying the tech assume it to be right. People who support this tech
believe it is smarter and more accurate than they could ever be. Doubting its
determinations — even when there’s tons of evidence showing this tech still
underperforms when dealing with minorities — is never a consideration.

If grocers want to be angry, maybe they should direct their focus to the
billionaire asshole who made this legislation a presumptive necessity. I want
small businesses to succeed. But succeeding means recognizing the source of your
problems, rather than seeking out the most convenient target for your anger.

Filed Under: facial recognition, james dolan, nyc, retailers



41 Comments
Expand Collapse Read More


US-LOCATED CHINESE COP SHOPS ALLEGEDLY TARGETED PEOPLE FOR COMPARING PRESIDENT
XI TO WINNIE THE POOH

Too Much Free Time


FROM THE WINNIE-THE-PARTY-MEMBER DEPT

Mon, Apr 24th 2023 01:47pm - Tim Cushing

Perhaps you may have heard the DOJ recently arrested Chinese nationals and
shuttered “Chinese police stations” located in New York following an
investigation into the sort of foreign national work our government tends to
find repulsive, even as it does the same thing elsewhere in the world.

It made all the papers, including the British ones.

> Lu Jianwang, 61, and Chen Jinping, 59, both New York City residents, face
> charges of conspiring to act as agents for China and obstruction of justice.
> 
> They are expected to appear in a federal court in Brooklyn on Monday.
> 
> China has previously denied operating the stations, calling them “service
> centres” for nationals overseas.
> 
> Mr Lu of the Bronx and Mr Chen of Manhattan worked together to establish the
> first overseas police station in the United States on behalf of China’s
> Ministry of Public Security, the US Department of Justice alleged on Monday.
> 
> The outpost was closed in autumn of 2022, the department said, after those
> involved became aware of an FBI investigation into the station.

That China would seek to control residents who have strayed beyond its borders
is unsurprising. The Chinese government has a firm grasp on pretty much fucking
everything. However, those who are no longer subject to China’s pervasive
surveillance network are more of a concern to a nation that has plenty of power
but the thinnest of skin.

The thinnest skin belongs to President Xi Jinping, who has blown plenty of
government resources preventing the spread of Winnie the Pooh images. This isn’t
a newfound respect for intellectual property rights (tenuously) held by massive
US corporations. This is just the state silencing the harmless residents who’ve
noted the General Secretary’s resemblance to the pantsless bear a young British
boy befriended following their encounter in a specifically sized forest.

Hidden within the indictments is a phrase the New York Post — the Fox News of
New York City — has chosen to believe is at least part of the reason the Chinese
government deployed nationals to police other nationals far beyond its borders.
And that reason is… Winnie the goddamn Pooh:

> China’s US police stations target anyone comparing Xi Jinping to Winnie the
> Pooh

That’s the headline the so-called journalists at the Post have chosen to run
with. The direct quote from the indictment doesn’t suggest this is actually the
case. Instead, the quote simply recounts the sorts of things the Chinese
government finds objectionable while stating its basis for the arrest of people
who decided to handcraft their own episodes of “Law and Order: Special Pooh Bear
Meme Victims Unit” on foreign ground.

> “The CCP’s ‘unapproved’ topics include discussions about the overthrow of the
> CCP’s control of the PRC government and the statuses of the Hong Kong Special
> Administrative Region and the Republic of China—commonly referred to as
> Taiwan—to remarks on CCP General Secretary Xi Jinping’s apparent resemblance
> to the fictional cartoon character Winnie the Pooh,” says one of the
> indictments, charging ten suspects who allegedly used fake social media
> accounts to intimidate dissidents.

Well, duh. I mean, everyone has been talking about China and its censorship of
Pooh memes for years now. That this was what these suspects were interested in
is speculation that is wholly unsupported by the DOJ’s “this is what China does”
boilerplate.

That being said, I will never pass up a chance to clutter up President Xi’s
vanity searches with Pooh-related mockery. And there is no better example of
that in recent news than the patches allegedly created by military surplus store
owner to commemorate Taiwan’s extended middle finger to the autocratic
interloper who refuses to acknowledge Taiwan is its own country, rather than
just a Chinese subsidiary:

> Demand has skyrocketed for a shoulder patch that shows Winnie-the-Pooh being
> punched in the face after a Taiwanese fighter pilot wore the design—an
> apparent dig at Chinese leader Xi Jinping—during China’s recent military
> drills around the island.
> 
> The uniform accessory caught the eye of Taiwan‘s public and observers abroad
> after Taipei’s Military News Agency published the photograph on April 9, on
> day two of the Chinese exercises. The picture showed a pilot performing
> preflight inspections of his IDF fighter aircraft at an undisclosed air base.

Here’s the photo released by Taiwan military press reps:



Zooming in:



Better quality images exist elsewhere on the net, but you get the gist: it’s a
swift punch to Pooh’s (Xi’s) face, accompanied by the phrase “we are open 24/7.”
Another variant contains the slogan “fight for freedom.” Either way, the message
is clear. Taiwan’s military has no more respect for President Xi than many of
his constituents. Not only is Xi the Pooh in this depiction, he’s getting his
ass handed to him by a much more physically imposing bear.

Whether or not the stateside policing of foreign nationals by foreign nationals
had anything to do with disrespectful memes is still open for debate. But either
way, President Xi is not only Pooh, he’s a punchline. And he should never be
allowed to forget it.

Filed Under: china, chinese police, chinese police stations, doj, nyc, winnie
the pooh, xi jinping, xi jinping looks like winnie the pooh



10 Comments
Expand Collapse Read More


ADAMS ADMINISTRATION FINALLY GETS AROUND TO ADMITTING THEY KILLED NYC’S
AMBITIOUS BROADBAND PLAN

Broadband


FROM THE DO-NOT-PASS-GO,-DO-NOT-COLLECT-$200 DEPT

Tue, Dec 6th 2022 05:26am - Karl Bode

Back in 2020, New York City officials unveiled an aggressive plan to
revolutionize broadband in the city. The centerpiece of this Internet Master
Plan involved building a $156 million open access fiber network that competitors
could easily join at low cost, driving some much needed competition — and lower
rates, faster speeds, and better coverage — to New York City residents.

It wasn’t meant to be.

Earlier this year, Mayor Eric Adams announced that the city would be “pausing”
the initiative. In reality, folks who’d been working on the project for years
told me repeatedly that the most ambitious portion of the plan — actively
challenging the city’s telecom monopolies with an open access fiber network —
was killed off without any consultation with the experts who crafted it.

This week the Adams administration finally got around to admitting it had killed
NYC’s ambitious broadband plan:

> After Gothamist received a tip the project had been canceled, officials from
> the city’s Office of Technology and Innovation (OTI) confirmed the decision on
> Nov. 29 — about a year after the de Blasio administration announced it had
> chosen a dozen businesses — including a handful owned or led by women or
> people of color — to spearhead the effort. The cancellation has not been
> publicly announced, but city officials said those businesses were informed
> sometime in November.

Several consultants and regional ISPs told me they were very late in the
planning and implementation portion of the program, which had greatly upset
regional NYC monopolies.

What did the city do instead of spending $156 million on an open access fiber
network? Well, for one, it embraced a partnership with Charter (Spectrum, a
company that almost got kicked out of New York State for lies and substandard
service) that involves paying the monopoly $90 million over three years to
temporarily deliver cheaper broadband to around 400,000 low income housing
project users.

As opposed to $156 million on an open access fiber network that would have
driven numerous, local ISPs to compete in layers, driving down costs for those
in range… permanently.

Folks in positions of power from both U.S. parties really love doing this thing
where they throw subsidies at the same regional monopolies responsible for
crushing competition and driving up prices, then act confused when this
convoluted, temporary relief doesn’t fix the actual, full problem.

Our recent Techdirt/Copia report on America’s broadband problem discussed at
great length how the solution to the digital divide involves standing up to
telecom monopolies and backing the creation of open access fiber networks by a
growing coalition of cooperatives, municipalities, utilities, and public/private
partnerships.

But doing this requires standing up to telecom monopolies that are not only
politically powerful, but bone-grafted to our intelligence gathering and first
responder networks. So what captured policymakers from both parties tend to do
instead is something best described as… theater. Talk a lot about the importance
of bridging the digital divide, but never stand up to the monopolies responsible
for it.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, digital divide, eric adams, high speed
internet, low income, nyc



10 Comments
Expand Collapse Read More


NYC’S ONCE BOLD BROADBAND PLAN NOW A JUMBLED MESS OF HALF-MEASURES

Broadband


FROM THE MORE-OF-THE-SAME DEPT

Wed, Nov 16th 2022 05:33am - Karl Bode

Back in 2020, New York City officials unveiled an aggressive plan to
revolutionize broadband in the city. The centerpiece of this Internet Master
Plan involved building a $156 million open access fiber network that competitors
could easily join at low cost, driving some much needed competition — and lower
rates, faster speeds, and better coverage — to New York City residents.

It wasn’t meant to be.

Earlier this year, new incoming Mayor Eric Adams announced that the city would
be “pausing” the initiative. In reality, folks who’d been working on the project
for years told me that the most ambitious portion of the plan — actively
challenging the city’s telecom monopolies with an open access fiber network —
was killed off without any consultation with the experts who crafted it.

Instead, the city embraced a number of “digital divide” programs partnering with
the very companies that have caused competitive problems in the city for
decades. Again, without consulting any of the folks who worked for years on the
original plan to disrupt the uncompetitive logjam:

> While Next City’s reporting underscores that the new administration did not
> consult with the original Internet Master Plan team, it also points to a
> larger issue. The community-based providers that the city had tapped to help
> build “neutral host” infrastructure have been left high and dry — in favor of
> a partnership with two major companies the master plan would have challenged.

(The full breakdown of what went wrong in New York City is worth a read).

Instead, the city embraced a program dubbed Big Apple Connect. Under Big Apple
Connect, the city partnered with regional cable giant Charter Communications to
give free broadband temporarily to around 400,000 folks living in public housing
around the city. The program will cost about $30 million a year and run for at
least three years, after which those users are likely out of luck.

The problem: like so many “digital divide” initiatives, Big Apple Connect
doesn’t directly challenge the monopoly power responsible for high prices in the
first place. Charter’s service has been so abysmal, the company was almost
kicked out of New York State in 2018. The city also sued Verizon in 2017 for
failing to live up to citywide fiber deployment promises.

The broadband problem in New York City, as it is in most cities, is a story of
unchecked monopolization. Big Apple Connect does help people, temporarily. But
it does so by glossing over the real cause of the problem in partnership with
the same, select, giant companies that helped create it. It’s political theater
designed to look like the city is fixing the problem… without actually fixing
the problem.

Some former city leaders also suggest Big Apple Connect is a redundant waste of
money. As part of the federal infrastructure bill, the government embraced the
Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). ACP already doles out a $30 discount to
all low-income residents for broadband. Only 500,000 of the estimated 2 million
New Yorkers who qualify for the program have actually signed up for it.

So the city could have worked on boosting awareness and access to the ACP
program for (mostly) free. That freed $90 million would have gone a long way in
building at least part of the original open access network plan, which would
have driven prices down for everybody in range… permanently… through physical,
real world competition among truly local providers and groups.

We’ve talked a lot about how U.S. telecom policy could easily challenge monopoly
power through cooperative, utility, and municipal open access fiber networks (we
just published a big report on this very subject). We don’t want to do that with
any consistency, because telecom monopolies are not only politically powerful,
they’re routinely tied to our intelligence gathering and first responder
networks.

Instead, we tend to embrace a lot of half-hearted feel good measures that
usually involve throwing even greater subsidies at the regional monopolies
responsible for killing off competition in the first place, then standing around
with our hands on our hips wondering why things don’t really improve.

The potential was there to create an open access network in New York City that
streamlined access to essential city real estate and numerous, discordant
agencies, creating an inspirational model for other major cities facing the same
problem. Instead, Adams did what many politicians do when it comes to broadband
and the digital divide: embraced a bunch of safe, half-cooked, half measures.



Filed Under: Affordable Connectivity Program, big apple connect, broadband,
competition, digital divide, eric adams, fcc, fiber, high speed internet,
natural monopolies, nyc, open access, telecom
Companies: charter communications


26 Comments
Expand Collapse Read More

Older Stories >>

Follow Techdirt


TECHDIRT DAILY NEWSLETTER


Essential Reading

THE TECHDIRT GREENHOUSE

Read the latest posts:

 * Winding Down Our Latest Greenhouse Panel: The Lessons Learned From SOPA/PIPA
 * From The Revolt Against SOPA To The EU's Upload Filters
 * Did We Miss Our Best Chance At Regulating The Internet?

Read All »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRENDING POSTS

 *   Let Me Rewrite That For You: NY Times Misinforms Readers About RFK & Biden
 *   Photo Of Streisand Home Becomes An Internet Hit
 *   Republicans Keep Taking Credit For Local Broadband Projects Funded By
   Federal Bills They Voted Against

Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...



Become an Insider!

Older Stuff


WEDNESDAY

13:30 Techdirt Podcast Episode 385: How Important Will The Murthy Case Be? (3)
11:58 Supreme Court Does Not Go Far Enough In Determining When Government
Officials Are Barred From Censoring Critics On Social Media (8) 10:48 California
HOAs Are Buying Up Flock License Plate Readers; Giving Cops Open Access To Them
(23) 10:45 Daily Deal: MagStack Foldable 3-in-1 Wireless Charging Station with
Phone Stand & 20W Adapter (0) 09:30 Elon Lost The Spam Wars To ‘Pussy In Bio’
Spam (94) 05:30 Republicans Keep Taking Credit For Local Broadband Projects
Funded By Federal Bills They Voted Against (37)


TUESDAY

20:06 Riot Games, Moonton Settle Copyright Dispute After 7 Years Of Drama (4)
15:38 Forgotten Books And How To Save Them (37) 12:44 Hillary Clinton Joins The
Chorus Of Ignorant Pundits Insisting Section 230 Must Go (120) 11:06
Indianapolis PD Test Drives Three Gunshot Detection Systems, Decides None Are
Worth Paying For (13) 11:01 Daily Deal: The Complete 2024 CompTIA Certification
Training Super Bundle by IDUNOVA (0) 09:28 Cleveland Plain Dealer Editor Shows
How To Cover Trump: Tell The Truth (113) 05:24 Charter Lobbyists Sneak Language
Into NY State Budget Bill To Hamstring Community Broadband (9)


MONDAY

20:07 Bandai Namco Copyright Strikes YouTubers Showing Off Game Mods (17) 15:31
Twenty Years Ago, Google Did The Only Good Tech April Fools Joke: It Launched
Gmail For Real (14) 13:33 Because Facial Recognition Tech Just Isn't Sketchy
Enough, Cops Are Now Running Searches Using AI-Generated Faces (22) 12:01 Texas
Court Famous For Judicial Shopping Decides It Can Ignore Judicial Conference’s
New Policy Against Judicial Shopping (35) 10:44 Studies Show Flock's ALPRs
Reduce Crime... So Long As Flock Controls The Inputs And The Methodology (13)
10:39 Daily Deal: Microsoft Windows 11 Pro (1) 09:25 Why Are So Many ‘Free
Speech’ Elon Musk Lawsuits About Suppressing Speech? (60) 05:26 AT&T's Being
Weirdly Cagey About A Major Data Breach Impacting 73 Million AT&T Users (18)


SUNDAY

12:00 Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt (9)


SATURDAY

12:00 Game Jam Winner Spotlight: Millions Of Cats (4)


FRIDAY

19:39 Bungie, YouTuber Settle Lawsuit Over Fraudulent DMCA Takedowns For YouTube
Videos (15) 15:30 Ctrl-Alt-Speech: The Most Moderated Word On Meta (1) 13:34 Of
True Fans And Superfans: The Rise Of An Alternative Business Model To Copyright
(22) 12:15 India Banned TikTok, It Didn’t Go Well (15) 10:55 Unsealed Documents
Provide More Details On Federal Investigators' YouTube Dragnet (27) 10:51 Daily
Deal: Headway Premium (0) 09:28 Even The Most Well-Meaning Internet Regulations
Can Cause Real Harm (89)

MORE

 
×


EMAIL THIS STORY






This feature is only available to registered users.
You can register here or sign in to use it.


TOOLS & SERVICES

 * Twitter
 * Facebook
 * RSS
 * Podcast
 * Research & Reports


COMPANY

 * About Us
 * Advertising Policies
 * Privacy


CONTACT

 * Help & Feedback
 * Media Kit
 * Sponsor / Advertise


MORE

 * Copia Institute
 * Insider Shop
 * Support Techdirt


Brought to you by Floor64
Proudly powered by WordPress. Hosted by Pressable.

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information,
see our privacy policy