vox--2020-06-10--The deep political meaning of a quarantine haircut

Humans traversing great distances to accomplish something is an activity that fascinates other humans , and Americans especially .
People run 26.2 miles in races all around the world because of an ancient Greek legend of a runner who ran from Marathon to Athens .
Many American adults of a certain age get nostalgic for a childhood video game that simulates the 2,100-mile trek from the Midwest to glorious Oregon .
We sing along to a legendary song about a man walking 500 miles and , if need be , 500 more .
And there are countless novels and memoirs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ road or along the wild Pacific Coast Trail — and the world , sometimes in 80 days , sometimes in 50 years , to find places to eat , pray , love .
Now , in 2020 , Americans have once again mythologized traversing a great distance — this time for haircuts .
In Yuba and Sutter counties in California , salons and barbershops have opened ahead of the state ’ s schedule and , according to the Los Angeles Times , some antsy people are traveling up to 600 miles for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away stray follicles are drastic repercussions of salon shutdowns across the country .
Hair has been a roiling topic of conversation since coronavirus lockdowns first went into place across the country .
With access to salons and barbershops cut off , Americans have been forced to face and change their habits : buying clippers , dyeing colors , taking to social media to debate how long it takes roots to grow or show off their failed attempts at a bangs trim .
Even celebrities have confessed their follicular secrets .
And as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become increasingly restless and desperate .
In Michigan , anti-lockdown protesters staged haircut demonstrations outside the Capitol in Lansing , defying the state ’ s stay-at-home orders and toting “ End Tyranny ” signs .
Similar protests from stylists and cosmetologists have happened in Texas and Connecticut .
These moments of haircut valor come despite health officials ’ warnings about a second wave of coronavirus infections and how salons and barbershops are particularly susceptible to virus spread because of the close nature of grooming .
Despite this danger , as states begin to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being included in fairly early phases of reopening , often before hotels or schools .
And so salons and barbers have become the battlefield of a great American culture war .
But while this fight seems like it should be facetious , especially since most people could easily cut their hair at home if it proved to be that irksome , the scuffle over shearing ourselves brings up how important something seemingly superficial is to our lives .
It proves how hair — regardless of our political affiliation — is directly tied to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And how hair has , for some people , always been about power and control .
As superficial as it seems , hair is one of the greatest expressions of our identity There is an $ 87.9 billion global industry centered on what ’ s going on , or not going on , at the top of our heads .
Haircuts , shampoos , conditioners , coloring , texture treatments , hairdryers , pomades , oils , sunscreens , scalp scrubbers , and everything else that allows us to do what we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big business , with deep cultural significance .
It ’ s also intrinsically personal .
The heart of the hair industry , and the beauty industry at large , is wrapped around this core idea of self-expression .
As superficial as it may seem , how we cut , color , treat , and process our hair is how we want to see ourselves and , at the same time , how we want to be seen .
Hair brings us closer to our idea of our ideal selves , whatever that may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a routine that we follow — a routine we ’ ve been following since we were little kids , ” J. Clark Walker , a stylist at Martial Vivot Salon Pour Hommes in New York City , told me .
“ How you feel about your hair 100 percent affects how we see ourselves .
Image takes a lot of upkeep.
” “ If you didn ’ t appreciate your hair , then you definitely do now.
” Davide Marinelli , the owner of the Davide Hair Studio in New York City , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sentiment .
Marinelli said that before the pandemic , he was doing 10 to 20 services per day .
Hair “ makes a huge impact on your everyday life and appearance and self-esteem.
” “ How you feel about your hair 100 percent affects how we see ourselves ” The way we perceive other people ’ s haircuts and styles is a language of its own , too .
Based on our individual experiences , someone with a shock of pink in their hair sets off our own ideas about what that person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and what their interests are .
The same goes for long hair , short hair , a bob , a high and tight , a shaved head , and whatnot .
Hair is an extension of our identity and affords some of us benefits that we may not even be aware of .
I ’ ve never had to think twice about what my hair looks like , other than I want it to look nice .
Nice is completely subjective , of course , and usually involves something I saw on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dreaded Instagram Explore page .
But other people , including women and particularly black men and women , don ’ t have this privilege .
The choices they make directly affect how society perceives them and bring up a fraught history about how certain appearances were acceptable and others were not .
In 1968 , ( largely white ) feminists protested the Miss America pageant , and hair tools were among the items symbolically destroyed .
That protest is often referred to as the one where bras were burned , but in actuality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were just trashed along with curlers and wigs , symbols of the standards placed on women ’ s appearances .
To protesters , not having curled hair and a full face of makeup was a symbol of resistance against the sexism of beauty pageants and the sexist norms of the time .
Black women and men have had to face lifetimes of standards placed upon them by white America about what kind of hair is acceptable and what isn ’ t — a lot more recently than 1968 .
In March , Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — after California , New York , and New Jersey — to ban hair discrimination , which unfairly targets black men and women for wearing natural hairstyles .
That law came after instances of hair discrimination made national news .
Earlier this year , a Texas high school senior made the news because his school wouldn ’ t allow him to walk in graduation unless he cut his dreadlocks .
Similarly , in New Jersey in 2019 , a white referee forced a black high school wrestler to cut his dreadlocks before a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Brittany Noble , a former news anchor at Mississippi ’ s WJTV , said she was discriminated against and eventually fired after she wore her natural hair .
Instances like these make clear that how black men and women choose to wear their hair has direct consequences on the opportunities they have , and that institutions and workplaces have often used hair to control people of color .
For black women , wearing natural hair , as Noble did on air , has been a journey , explained Anthony Dickey , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and salon that are built on the credo of helping women , regardless of ethnicity , find beauty in their natural hair texture .
“ Oftentimes , being natural for a black woman meant that she was being ‘ militant ’ ” “ Oftentimes , being natural for a black woman meant that she was being ‘ militant ’ or she was [ carrying ] the ideas that came out of the first natural hair movement in the ’ 60s and ’ 70s , ” Dickey told me .
Ebony explains this idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and how it embodied the Black Is Beautiful and Black Power coalitions .
As black women advanced in corporate , predominantly white , America , their hairstyles changed too .
“ No woman of color was going to trust a Sunday press to 60 percent chance of rain and go into a white corporate environment ” in the ’ 80s , Dickey said .
As Dickey explained , and as documentaries like Chris Rock ’ s Good Hair explored , black women have dealt with decades of voices telling them what was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few supermodels like Naomi Campbell , they never saw themselves in beauty bibles like Vogue or Harper ’ s Bazaar or Glamour .
This journey is interlaced with its own nuances and conversations about identity , pride , community , and experiences that many of us who aren ’ t black or people of color , and haven ’ t had to deal with these issues , would have trouble fully understanding .
As Dickey points out , events like Virginia ’ s 2020 anti-hair discrimination law passing signal that the journey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re talking about natural hair , yeah , you ’ re talking about the imbalance of beauty and power in an antiquated , archaic beauty industry , ” he tells me .
When people , mainly black men and women , are being discriminated against because of their hair , then how they choose to wear it is revealed to be political .
The politics and power of hair become all the more clear when we see the response that new groups have to losing control over their own .
Why someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hair cut Hair salons and gyms were among the first things to go when states like California and New York began shelter-in-place directives to curb the coronavirus .
The reason was simple : The virus spreads when there ’ s close contact between humans .
Regardless of politics , getting your hair cut is risky because it requires someone ’ s face to be so close to your own .
You ’ re both breathing the same air , and , barring the advent of human bubbles or remote control robotic arms , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your stylist .
Each state has its own reopening structure .
In states like New York and California , barbershops and salons are usually scheduled to open in the second phase alongside smaller retail .
But there is no designated amount of time that directs local governments to move from one phase to another .
For example , depending on infection numbers , New York City may have to wait longer than New York state when moving to phase two of its reopening .
This uncertainty adds to the collective anxiety .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the more a narrative grows — especially in places like Michigan — that freedoms , including haircuts , were being impeded .
That narrative was largely spread by right-wing pundits on Fox News , even though a Pew Research Poll from April 16 found that 66 percent of Americans were concerned about state governments reopening too quickly .
Still , as the New York Times points out , even though Americans were concerned about the spread of the virus , the idea of civil liberties being infringed was something right-wing voters are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t stop anyone from cutting their hair at home .
But , politics aside , there is a special role stylists , barbers , braiders , and other hair professionals play in our society .
At Elle , writer Chloe Hall interviewed black women and explained how difficult and time-consuming it is to do their hair at home instead of going to a salon .
“ No matter who you are , everyone gets themselves looking a certain way every day , and there are a few things [ such as haircuts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ centuries , ” Walker , the stylist from Martial Vivot Salon Pour Hommes , told me .
It ’ s something I ’ m familiar with myself .
Walker has been my barber since I moved back to the city a little over five years ago .
Haircuts with him ( a fade , with a little length on top ) are something I looked forward to because we ’ ve become friends .
Plus , his cuts made me happy and more confident with my appearance — something I haven ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certain people , however , doing their hair at home wouldn ’ t have the same symbolism of breaking the rules of quarantine , traveling a great distance to get your haircut , and then posting it on social media .
The same goes for stylists who opened their shops against health directives .
Getting a haircut when society tells you that you can ’ t is , in its own way , an act of rebellion .
One ’ s forbidden haircuts , then , become a way to affirm one ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also to other people .
An example : Republican Sen. Ted Cruz getting a haircut last month at a salon owned by someone who was briefly jailed for defying the state ’ s stay-at-home orders .
Some hair professionals rallied , too .
In Texas and Connecticut , stylists said they were protesting because the shutdown has hurt their income .
In Connecticut , a decision to push back reopening from May to June 1 rankled salon owners and employees .
“ You take away our opportunity to operate based on a part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Jason Bunce , an owner of a Connecticut barbershop , told WTNH on May 19 .
“ That is not how this country works .
It ’ s never worked that way .
McDonald ’ s doesn ’ t shut down when Burger King runs out of buns.
” Of course , everyone is free to feel however they want about their haircuts .
But there are some tragic , non-political consequences and outcomes that can result from these rushed reopenings and interactions .
Last month , two stylists at a Missouri @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus and were found to have exposed more than 100 customers to the disease .
And on May 15 , CBS reported that a barber who defied stay-at-home orders in Kingston , New York , had , per Gov .
Andrew Cuomo , “ infected over a dozen people.
” There ’ s the other side of the equation too : that while you may be ready to break quarantine , your stylist might not necessarily want to see you just yet .
They have their own safety to worry about and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it ’ s your right to get a haircut whenever you want , and not your privilege , is driving people crazy , ” Walker told me .
“ Speaking for myself , I am lucky , and most of my clients understand the situation and have embraced the idea of the quarantine ‘ flow ’ like a trophy .
Are they dying to get a haircut ?
I ’ m sure , but they also get the situation we are all in.
” The quarantine “ flow ” I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and makes me feel like a time-displaced , renegade aerobic instructor .
It ’ s currently crawling , all uneven , down the back of my neck .
And I can ’ t wait to chop it off and make fun of it with Clark , as soon as New York City makes it to phase two in its reopening .
Sign up for The Goods newsletter .
Twice a week , we ’ ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy , why we buy it , and why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Humans traversing great distances to accomplish something is an activity that fascinates other humans, and Americans especially.
People run 26.2 miles in races all around the world because of an ancient Greek legend of a runner who ran from Marathon to Athens. Many American adults of a certain age get nostalgic for a childhood video game that simulates the 2,100-mile trek from the Midwest to glorious Oregon. We sing along to a legendary song about a man walking 500 miles and, if need be, 500 more. And there are countless novels and memoirs about traversing the country — on the road or along the wild Pacific Coast Trail — and the world, sometimes in 80 days, sometimes in 50 years, to find places to eat, pray, love.
Now, in 2020, Americans have once again mythologized traversing a great distance — this time for haircuts.
In Yuba and Sutter counties in California, salons and barbershops have opened ahead of the state’s schedule and, according to the Los Angeles Times, some antsy people are traveling up to 600 miles for a cut. The day-long journeys to snip away stray follicles are drastic repercussions of salon shutdowns across the country.
Hair has been a roiling topic of conversation since coronavirus lockdowns first went into place across the country. With access to salons and barbershops cut off, Americans have been forced to face and change their habits: buying clippers, dyeing colors, taking to social media to debate how long it takes roots to grow or show off their failed attempts at a bangs trim. Even celebrities have confessed their follicular secrets. And as the shutdowns have gone on, people have become increasingly restless and desperate.
In Michigan, anti-lockdown protesters staged haircut demonstrations outside the Capitol in Lansing, defying the state’s stay-at-home orders and toting “End Tyranny” signs. Similar protests from stylists and cosmetologists have happened in Texas and Connecticut.
These moments of haircut valor come despite health officials’ warnings about a second wave of coronavirus infections and how salons and barbershops are particularly susceptible to virus spread because of the close nature of grooming. Despite this danger, as states begin to open up, salons and barbershops are being included in fairly early phases of reopening, often before hotels or schools.
And so salons and barbers have become the battlefield of a great American culture war.
But while this fight seems like it should be facetious, especially since most people could easily cut their hair at home if it proved to be that irksome, the scuffle over shearing ourselves brings up how important something seemingly superficial is to our lives. It proves how hair — regardless of our political affiliation — is directly tied to our deeper ideas of identity and community. And how hair has, for some people, always been about power and control.
As superficial as it seems, hair is one of the greatest expressions of our identity
There is an $87.9 billion global industry centered on what’s going on, or not going on, at the top of our heads. Haircuts, shampoos, conditioners, coloring, texture treatments, hairdryers, pomades, oils, sunscreens, scalp scrubbers, and everything else that allows us to do what we want to do with our hair is big business, with deep cultural significance. It’s also intrinsically personal.
The heart of the hair industry, and the beauty industry at large, is wrapped around this core idea of self-expression. As superficial as it may seem, how we cut, color, treat, and process our hair is how we want to see ourselves and, at the same time, how we want to be seen. Hair brings us closer to our idea of our ideal selves, whatever that may be.
“It is part of a routine that we follow — a routine we’ve been following since we were little kids,” J. Clark Walker, a stylist at Martial Vivot Salon Pour Hommes in New York City, told me. “How you feel about your hair 100 percent affects how we see ourselves. Image takes a lot of upkeep.”
“If you didn’t appreciate your hair, then you definitely do now.” Davide Marinelli, the owner of the Davide Hair Studio in New York City, told me, echoing Walker’s sentiment. Marinelli said that before the pandemic, he was doing 10 to 20 services per day. Hair “makes a huge impact on your everyday life and appearance and self-esteem.”
“How you feel about your hair 100 percent affects how we see ourselves”
The way we perceive other people’s haircuts and styles is a language of its own, too. Based on our individual experiences, someone with a shock of pink in their hair sets off our own ideas about what that person is like, who they are, and what their interests are. The same goes for long hair, short hair, a bob, a high and tight, a shaved head, and whatnot.
Hair is an extension of our identity and affords some of us benefits that we may not even be aware of.
I’ve never had to think twice about what my hair looks like, other than I want it to look nice. Nice is completely subjective, of course, and usually involves something I saw on a handsome man in an advertisement or my dreaded Instagram Explore page. But other people, including women and particularly black men and women, don’t have this privilege. The choices they make directly affect how society perceives them and bring up a fraught history about how certain appearances were acceptable and others were not.
In 1968, (largely white) feminists protested the Miss America pageant, and hair tools were among the items symbolically destroyed. That protest is often referred to as the one where bras were burned, but in actuality, no bras were incinerated — they were just trashed along with curlers and wigs, symbols of the standards placed on women’s appearances. To protesters, not having curled hair and a full face of makeup was a symbol of resistance against the sexism of beauty pageants and the sexist norms of the time.
Black women and men have had to face lifetimes of standards placed upon them by white America about what kind of hair is acceptable and what isn’t — a lot more recently than 1968.
In March, Virginia became just the fourth state in history — after California, New York, and New Jersey — to ban hair discrimination, which unfairly targets black men and women for wearing natural hairstyles.
That law came after instances of hair discrimination made national news.
Earlier this year, a Texas high school senior made the news because his school wouldn’t allow him to walk in graduation unless he cut his dreadlocks. Similarly, in New Jersey in 2019, a white referee forced a black high school wrestler to cut his dreadlocks before a match or forfeit. Also in 2019, Brittany Noble, a former news anchor at Mississippi’s WJTV, said she was discriminated against and eventually fired after she wore her natural hair.
Instances like these make clear that how black men and women choose to wear their hair has direct consequences on the opportunities they have, and that institutions and workplaces have often used hair to control people of color.
For black women, wearing natural hair, as Noble did on air, has been a journey, explained Anthony Dickey, the founder of Hair Rules, a business and salon that are built on the credo of helping women, regardless of ethnicity, find beauty in their natural hair texture.
“Oftentimes, being natural for a black woman meant that she was being ‘militant’”
“Oftentimes, being natural for a black woman meant that she was being ‘militant’ or she was [carrying] the ideas that came out of the first natural hair movement in the ’60s and ’70s,” Dickey told me. Ebony explains this idea of militancy primarily revolves around the Afro, and how it embodied the Black Is Beautiful and Black Power coalitions. As black women advanced in corporate, predominantly white, America, their hairstyles changed too.
“No woman of color was going to trust a Sunday press to 60 percent chance of rain and go into a white corporate environment” in the ’80s, Dickey said.
As Dickey explained, and as documentaries like Chris Rock’s Good Hair explored, black women have dealt with decades of voices telling them what was acceptable and desirable hair. Save for a few supermodels like Naomi Campbell, they never saw themselves in beauty bibles like Vogue or Harper’s Bazaar or Glamour. This journey is interlaced with its own nuances and conversations about identity, pride, community, and experiences that many of us who aren’t black or people of color, and haven’t had to deal with these issues, would have trouble fully understanding. As Dickey points out, events like Virginia’s 2020 anti-hair discrimination law passing signal that the journey is still happening. “If we’re talking about natural hair, yeah, you’re talking about the imbalance of beauty and power in an antiquated, archaic beauty industry,” he tells me.
When people, mainly black men and women, are being discriminated against because of their hair, then how they choose to wear it is revealed to be political. The politics and power of hair become all the more clear when we see the response that new groups have to losing control over their own.
Why someone takes a 700-mile journey to get their hair cut
Hair salons and gyms were among the first things to go when states like California and New York began shelter-in-place directives to curb the coronavirus. The reason was simple: The virus spreads when there’s close contact between humans.
Regardless of politics, getting your hair cut is risky because it requires someone’s face to be so close to your own. You’re both breathing the same air, and, barring the advent of human bubbles or remote control robotic arms, you can’t socially distance from your stylist. Each state has its own reopening structure. In states like New York and California, barbershops and salons are usually scheduled to open in the second phase alongside smaller retail. But there is no designated amount of time that directs local governments to move from one phase to another. For example, depending on infection numbers, New York City may have to wait longer than New York state when moving to phase two of its reopening.
This uncertainty adds to the collective anxiety. The longer these shelter-in-place orders were in effect, the more a narrative grows — especially in places like Michigan — that freedoms, including haircuts, were being impeded. That narrative was largely spread by right-wing pundits on Fox News, even though a Pew Research Poll from April 16 found that 66 percent of Americans were concerned about state governments reopening too quickly.
Still, as the New York Times points out, even though Americans were concerned about the spread of the virus, the idea of civil liberties being infringed was something right-wing voters are sympathetic to.
These health directives didn’t stop anyone from cutting their hair at home. But, politics aside, there is a special role stylists, barbers, braiders, and other hair professionals play in our society. At Elle, writer Chloe Hall interviewed black women and explained how difficult and time-consuming it is to do their hair at home instead of going to a salon.
“No matter who you are, everyone gets themselves looking a certain way every day, and there are a few things[such as haircuts] that we have been outsourcing for centuries,” Walker, the stylist from Martial Vivot Salon Pour Hommes, told me. It’s something I’m familiar with myself.
Walker has been my barber since I moved back to the city a little over five years ago. Haircuts with him (a fade, with a little length on top) are something I looked forward to because we’ve become friends. Plus, his cuts made me happy and more confident with my appearance — something I haven’t felt in a long time.
For certain people, however, doing their hair at home wouldn’t have the same symbolism of breaking the rules of quarantine, traveling a great distance to get your haircut, and then posting it on social media. The same goes for stylists who opened their shops against health directives. Getting a haircut when society tells you that you can’t is, in its own way, an act of rebellion.
One’s forbidden haircuts, then, become a way to affirm one’s identity not just to oneself but also to other people. An example: Republican Sen. Ted Cruz getting a haircut last month at a salon owned by someone who was briefly jailed for defying the state’s stay-at-home orders.
Some hair professionals rallied, too. In Texas and Connecticut, stylists said they were protesting because the shutdown has hurt their income. In Connecticut, a decision to push back reopening from May to June 1 rankled salon owners and employees.
“You take away our opportunity to operate based on a part of the industry not being ready,” Jason Bunce, an owner of a Connecticut barbershop, told WTNH on May 19. “That is not how this country works. It’s never worked that way. McDonald’s doesn’t shut down when Burger King runs out of buns.”
Of course, everyone is free to feel however they want about their haircuts. But there are some tragic, non-political consequences and outcomes that can result from these rushed reopenings and interactions.
Last month, two stylists at a Missouri branch of Great Clips tested positive for the coronavirus and were found to have exposed more than 100 customers to the disease. And on May 15, CBS reported that a barber who defied stay-at-home orders in Kingston, New York, had, per Gov. Andrew Cuomo, “infected over a dozen people.”
There’s the other side of the equation too: that while you may be ready to break quarantine, your stylist might not necessarily want to see you just yet. They have their own safety to worry about and precautions to take.
“The feeling that it’s your right to get a haircut whenever you want, and not your privilege, is driving people crazy,” Walker told me. “Speaking for myself, I am lucky, and most of my clients understand the situation and have embraced the idea of the quarantine ‘flow’ like a trophy. Are they dying to get a haircut? I’m sure, but they also get the situation we are all in.”
The quarantine “flow” I’m currently sporting is closer to a mullet and makes me feel like a time-displaced, renegade aerobic instructor. It’s currently crawling, all uneven, down the back of my neck. And I can’t wait to chop it off and make fun of it with Clark, as soon as New York City makes it to phase two in its reopening.
Sign up for The Goods newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.


vox--2020-06-10--Amazon suspends police access to its facial recognition technology. But only for one year.

In a statement released on Wednesday , Amazon announced that the company would institute a one-year moratorium on police use of Rekognition , the company ’ s facial recognition software .
The move follows IBM ’ s announcement earlier this week that IBM would no longer offer facial recognition products , citing the technology ’ s potential for abuse or misuse .
As scrutiny of law enforcement ramps up , it looks as though there could be a referendum on the surveillance tools police can access .
This is certainly a sign that the needle of public acceptance of facial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rekognition technology specifically has been called out by critics , like AI researchers Joy Buolamwini and Deborah Raji , who have shown how it can be rife with racial and gender bias .
Despite its initial pushback from the company on their work , Amazon is now reconsidering its plan for Rekognition .
“ We ’ re implementing a one-year moratorium on police use of Amazon ’ s facial recognition technology , ” the company now says .
“ We ’ ve advocated that governments should put in place stronger regulations to govern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and in recent days , Congress appears ready to take on this challenge .
We hope this one-year moratorium might give Congress enough time to implement appropriate rules , and we stand ready to help if requested.
” Notably , Amazon carved out exceptions to the moratorium .
The company said it will continue to allow organizations that fight human trafficking and find missing children to use the technology .
Launched in 2016 , Amazon ’ s Rekognition software is part of the company ’ s cloud computing division , Amazon Web @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , research from the ACLU found that Amazon ’ s Rekognition incorrectly matched the faces of 28 lawmakers with other people who had been arrested .
Activists have also warned repeatedly that wide-scale use of facial recognition can violate privacy rights and exacerbate surveillance .
Yet the exact details of how Rekognition is being used by law enforcement remains unclear .
While we know of a few examples of police departments that have tested the technology , AWS chief executive Andy Jassy told the press earlier this year that the company doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have used Rekognition or how they ’ re using it .
The call for regulation shouldn ’ t be surprising .
There is currently no comprehensive federal law governing facial recognition , and localities have taken up the task themselves of regulating the technology .
Amazon has previously floated its own recommendations for how it believes facial recognition ought to be regulated , and like many other facial recognition providers , the company also wants to avoid patchwork regulation that means different laws exist in different states .
Meanwhile , critics of facial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for regulation should be met with skepticism , as companies can push laws that are weak and ultimately defend their interests .
Still , that two major companies have announced the scaling back of this technology is notable and could be a sign that norms surrounding facial recognition are changing .
Eyes will now likely turn to other companies that sell the tech , as well as to federal lawmakers , who have now been given an informal deadline by one of the world ’ s largest companies .
Open Sourced is made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Microsoft president Brad Smith announced on Thursday that his company did not sell facial recognition to the police, and would not until the government passes federal legislation regulating the technology. His statement follows a Wednesday announcement from Amazon explaining that the company would institute a one-year moratorium on police use of Rekognition, the company’s facial recognition software.
That change also comes after IBM’s announcement earlier this week that the company would no longer offer facial recognition products, citing the technology’s potential for abuse or misuse. As scrutiny of law enforcement ramps up, it looks as though there could be a referendum on the surveillance tools police can access, though it’s notoriously difficult to determine what surveillance systems police departments actually have. Law enforcement agencies and tech companies are typically secretive about these products, which are by no means limited to just facial recognition.
Still, this is certainly a sign that the needle of public acceptance of facial recognition is moving. For years, advocacy groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the digital rights group Fight for the Future have sounded the alarm that facial recognition raises significant privacy and surveillance concerns. And researchers like Joy Buolamwini, Timnit Gebru, and Deborah Raji have demonstrated that these technologies can come with concerning built-in racial and gender biases.
The timing of these facial recognition announcements is important. The recent scrutiny of the technology comes amid ongoing anti-police brutality demonstrations, which have drawn increased attention to the surveillance tools large technology companies can and do sell to law enforcement. The news also comes as lawmakers have zeroed in on law enforcement’s access to surveillance tools and their potential use on protests, which was the subject of a letter sent by members of Congress to leaders of several federal agencies earlier this week. Now, amid several big companies making announcements about facial recognition, it’s possible lawmakers will be more anxious to regulate than before.
Amazon’s Rekognition has faced criticism and opposition for years
Launched in 2016, Amazon’s Rekognition software is part of the company’s cloud computing division, Amazon Web Services (AWS). On its company’s website, Amazon claims that its facial recognition “provides highly accurate facial analysis and facial search capabilities that you can use to detect, analyze, and compare faces for a wide variety of user verification, people counting, and public safety use cases.” Since its debut, the company has tried to push the technology to a whole host of law enforcement entities; it has been tested by police departments in Oregon and Orlando, Florida.
Amazon’s Rekognition technology specifically has been called out by critics who have shown how it can be rife with racial and gender bias. Despite the company’s initial pushback on the work of Buolamwini and Raji, Amazon is now reconsidering its plan for Rekognition.
“We’re implementing a one-year moratorium on police use of Amazon’s facial recognition technology,” the company now says. “We’ve advocated that governments should put in place stronger regulations to govern the ethical use of facial recognition technology, and in recent days, Congress appears ready to take on this challenge. We hope this one-year moratorium might give Congress enough time to implement appropriate rules, and we stand ready to help if requested.”
Notably, Amazon carved out exceptions to the moratorium. The company said it will continue to allow organizations that fight human trafficking and find missing children to use the technology. Amazon declined to comment further on the reasoning behind the moratorium, any plans to end its police partnerships with Ring, or non-police law enforcement access to its technology.
Today, the exact details of how Rekognition is being used by law enforcement remain unclear. AWS chief executive Andy Jassy told the press earlier this year that the company doesn’t know the number of departments that have used Rekognition or how they’re using it.
The technology and its use by law enforcement have received significant pushback from civil liberties advocates and researchers. That concern has roots in research published in 2018 by Buolamwini and Gebru, highlighting the extent to which facial recognition systems could have racial and gender biases, which was based on earlier work by Buolamwini. That research provided a foundation for research conducted by the ACLU, which found that Amazon’s Rekognition incorrectly matched the faces of 28 lawmakers with the faces of people who had been arrested. The organization called on Congress to put a moratorium on the sale of the technology to law enforcement.
Then, in a follow-up report, Buolamwini and Raji studied bias in Rekognition and found that Amazon’s system also had significant racial and gender bias and that it performed worst on women with darker skin. Amazon published two company blog posts pushing back against their results, which prompted a response from nearly 80 researchers, who rallied to defend Buolamwini and Raji’s research and called on Amazon to stop selling the technology to law enforcement.
Other civil liberties and rights organizations have also protested the company’s sales to law enforcement. Last year, activists from Fight for the Future traveled to Capitol Hill to conduct live facial recognition on government representatives, demonstrating how invasive the Rekognition technology could be. Amazon employees also spoke out against the company’s sale of facial recognition to law enforcement — along with its sale of AWS to Palantir, which works with Immigration and Customs Enforcement — in 2018, though the company did not accede to their request to stop selling Rekognition to police. It’s not yet clear what role, if any, these Amazon employees played in this most recent decision.
Not everyone is happy with how Amazon is addressing issues with Rekognition. Evan Greer, the deputy director of Fight for the Future, called Amazon’s announcement “a public relations stunt.” The Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, a New York-based anti-surveillance legal organization, called the company’s move “too little, too late.” Its director, Albert Fox Cahn, added in an emailed statement, “Amazon shouldn’t just end this practice for one year or one decade; it should end it forever.”
Now eyes are on Congress — and on facial recognition companies you’ve never heard of
The call for regulation shouldn’t be surprising. There is currently no comprehensive federal law governing facial recognition, and some localities have taken up the task themselves of regulating the technology. Amazon has previously floated its own recommendations for how it believes facial recognition ought to be regulated, and like many other facial recognition providers, the company also wants to avoid patchwork regulation that means different laws exist in different states. Meanwhile, critics of facial recognition technology have warned that corporate calls for regulation should be met with skepticism, as companies can push laws that are weak and ultimately defend their interests. Remember that these companies are known to have extensive budgets for lobbying.
There’s also concern that as large technology companies like IBM, Amazon, and Microsoft turn away from providing the technology temporarily, smaller providers of facial recognition will step in to take their place. Two providers of this technology, Vigilant Solutions and NEC, but did not hear back by the time of publication. Following publication, NEC America told Recode in a statement that it supported public safety agencies’ use of facial recognition.
In a statement shared with Recode, Hoan Ton-That, the founder and chief executive of Clearview AI, said that his company’s technology “is not intended to be used as a surveillance tool relating to protests or under any other circumstances” and that he looks forward “to working with government and policymakers to help develop appropriate protocols for the proper use of facial recognition.”
As Recode has previously reported, however, Clearview has repeatedly misrepresented various aspects of its work, including how well the technology works and who its clients are.
Still, that three companies as large as Amazon, IBM, and Microsoft are pressing pause on the use of this technology, however temporarily, is notable and could be a sign that norms surrounding facial recognition are changing. Eyes will now likely turn to other companies that sell the tech, as well as to federal lawmakers, who have now been given an informal deadline by one of the world’s largest companies.
“Their products have the alarming potential to infringe on Americans’ privacy rights in ways that we would have thought unimaginable not long ago,” Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA) said after Amazon’s announcement. “Pressing pause on the use of this technology by law enforcement is a positive step, but what Amazon should really do is a complete about-face and get out of the business of dangerous surveillance altogether.”
That differs from other ideas from legislators about what the future of federal facial recognition legislation should be. For instance, earlier this year, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) told Recode that the technology should be usable when law enforcement is able to obtain a warrant and seemed to draw a distinction between facial recognition that could be used for constant surveillance and facial recognition that would be used during an investigation. Some federal lawmakers have also previously proposed limiting facial recognition in federally assisted housing.
What that regulation will ultimately look like remains unclear. The fact that Amazon, at least, is only pausing its facial recognition business — Microsoft seems to be just waiting until legislation is in place before moving forward — seems to imply that some companies assume a ban on the technology’s use by police is not on the table. With or without regulation, many organizers still warn that facial recognition might simply be too dangerous to use in the first place.
Update, June 11, 4 pm ET: This piece has been updated to include more context and the news that Microsoft would not offer facial recognition to police until the passage of federal legislation regulating facial recognition.
Update, June 12, 10 am ET: This piece has been updated to note a statement from NEC America.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-06-10--Republicans tried to “both sides” police violence after testimony from George Floyd’s brother

Wednesday ’ s House Judiciary Committee hearing was Congress ’ s first big forum for discussing the killing of George Floyd , the nationwide protests it sparked , and the country ’ s problems with police brutality and racism .
It was also apparently , in some Republicans ’ view , a chance to try to redirect the conversation to some both sides-isms .
About midway through the question-and-answer period of the hearing — which was about a Democratic bill proposing several key policing reforms , including a ban on using chokeholds and creating a national database of officers who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roby ( R-AL ) asked George Floyd ’ s brother Philonise Floyd a question .
She asked him to speak about the pain he ’ s felt over the past two weeks since his brother was killed after a Minneapolis , Minnesota , officer pinned him by the neck with his knee for several minutes , and what he hoped to see from Congress .
In his response , Floyd made a very simple , moving statement : that black lives matter because “ all life is precious.
” But some Republicans on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunity to “ both sides ” the issue .
Immediately after Floyd ’ s heartfelt message , another committee member called on Republican witness Angela Underwood Jacobs , whose brother was a member of the Federal Protective Service and was killed while guarding a courthouse in Oakland , California , during recent unrest over Floyd ’ s death .
“ The heartbreak and the grief is hard to articulate when your entire world has been turned upside down , ” said Jacobs .
“ I do want to know , though , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , my brother wore a uniform and he wore that uniform proudly — I ’ m wondering where is the outrage for a fallen officer that also happens to be African American ?
” The moment seemed designed to create a “ both sides ” situation , redirecting the conversation away from those harmed by police .
Jacobs did go on to implore the Congress members there to find a solution to this issue , but the seeds were sown in that moment for some Republican lawmakers .
Some Republicans seemed more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police brutality Amid discussion of specific policy proposals and their various merits and shortcomings , several Republican lawmakers instead took stands against concepts like “ abolish the police ” or “ defund the police.
” ( The bill that prompted the hearing included neither . )
Other GOP members of the committee seemed committed to equating black lives and police lives .
Shortly after the moment with Floyd ’ s brother and Jacobs ’ s story , ranking member Rep. Jim Jordan ( R-OH ) seized on the “ both sides ” narrative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fox News contributor Dan Bongino during his round of questioning .
Asking Bongino if he felt he was protecting life when he put on his NYPD uniform or was protecting presidents in the Secret Service , Jordan deftly flipped the narrative .
“ When you protected that life , you actually risked your life , is that accurate ?
” Jordan asked ; Bongino responded affirmatively .
“ And officers do that every day , don ’ t they ?
” replied Jordan .
From there , Jordan said that the idea of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the statement “ all life is precious , ” even though the bill in question wasn ’ t proposing either of those things .
Jordan continued his back-and-forth with Bongino , hitting on this theme more clearly .
“ I think in your testimony earlier , you said if police forces are abolished , if police forces are defunded ... we ’ re talking about human beings , we ’ re talking about officers who put on their uniforms and protect our communities , ” he said .
“ It will put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t it ?
” The unsaid assumption underlying some Republicans ’ arguments during the hearing was that police are the only thing standing up to a perceived menace — one presented by the black communities and other communities of color whose suffering at the hands of law enforcement other witnesses pointed out .
Still , little moments seemed to expose this assumption .
In his opening statement , Bongino had called on Congress to “ commit to police accountability , without shredding the thin wall between civilization and chaos.
” Eventually , Rep. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police violence isn ’ t an “ us versus them ” issue .
“ This moment is about what ’ s right , and this moment is about what ’ s wrong , ” she said referring to Floyd ’ s death .
“ This is not a black issue or a white issue .
It ’ s not a Democratic issue , a Republican issue .
This is an American issue that has turned into yet another American tragedy.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Wednesday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing was Congress’s first big forum for discussing the killing of George Floyd, the nationwide protests it sparked, and the country’s problems with police brutality and racism. It was also apparently, in some Republicans’ view, a chance to try to redirect the conversation to some both sides-isms.
About midway through the question-and-answer period of the hearing — which was about a Democratic bill proposing several key policing reforms, including a ban on using chokeholds and creating a national database of officers who are fired for misconduct — Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL) deferred her time to George Floyd’s brother Philonise Floyd. He spoke about the pain he’s felt over the past two weeks since his brother was killed after a Minneapolis, Minnesota, officer pinned him by the neck with his knee for several minutes, and what he hoped to see from Congress.
In his response, Floyd made a very simple, moving statement: that black lives matter because “all life is precious.” But some Republicans on the committee took that phrase as an opportunity to “both sides” the issue.
Immediately after Floyd’s heartfelt message, another committee member called on Republican witness Angela Underwood Jacobs, whose brother was a member of the Federal Protective Service and was killed while guarding a courthouse in Oakland, California, during recent unrest over Floyd’s death.
“The heartbreak and the grief is hard to articulate when your entire world has been turned upside down,” said Jacobs. “I do want to know, though, when I think about all of this is that, my brother wore a uniform and he wore that uniform proudly — I’m wondering where is the outrage for a fallen officer that also happens to be African American?”
The moment seemed designed to create a “both sides” situation, redirecting the conversation away from those harmed by police. Jacobs did go on to implore the Congress members there to find a solution to this issue, but the seeds were sown in that moment for some Republican lawmakers.
Some Republicans seemed more worried about protecting law enforcement than addressing police brutality
Amid discussion of specific policy proposals and their various merits and shortcomings, several Republican lawmakers instead took stands against concepts like “abolish the police” or “defund the police.” (The bill that prompted the hearing included neither.)
Other GOP members of the committee seemed committed to equating black lives and police lives.
Shortly after the moment with Floyd’s brother and Jacobs’s story, ranking member Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) seized on the “both sides” narrative in an exchange with Republican witness and Fox News contributor Dan Bongino during his round of questioning.
Asking Bongino if he felt he was protecting life when he put on his NYPD uniform or was protecting presidents in the Secret Service, Jordan deftly flipped the narrative. “When you protected that life, you actually risked your life, is that accurate?” Jordan asked; Bongino responded affirmatively. “And officers do that every day, don’t they?” replied Jordan.
From there, Jordan said that the idea of abolishing or defunding the police is inconsistent with the statement “all life is precious,” even though the bill in question wasn’t proposing either of those things.
Jordan continued his back-and-forth with Bongino, hitting on this theme more clearly. “I think in your testimony earlier, you said if police forces are abolished, if police forces are defunded ... we’re talking about human beings, we’re talking about officers who put on their uniforms and protect our communities,” he said. “It will put their lives at risk, won’t it?”
The unsaid assumption underlying some Republicans’ arguments during the hearing was that police are the only thing standing up to a perceived menace — one presented by the black communities and other communities of color whose suffering at the hands of law enforcement other witnesses pointed out. Still, little moments seemed to expose this assumption. In his opening statement, Bongino had called on Congress to “commit to police accountability, without shredding the thin wall between civilization and chaos.”
Eventually, Rep. Val Demings (D-FL) said that police violence isn’t an “us versus them” issue.
“This moment is about what’s right, and this moment is about what’s wrong,” she said referring to Floyd’s death. “This is not a black issue or a white issue. It’s not a Democratic issue, a Republican issue. This is an American issue that has turned into yet another American tragedy.”


vox--2020-06-10--Members of Congress want to know more about law enforcement’s surveillance of protesters

Members of Congress want more information on the deployment of surveillance resources and technologies amid ongoing anti-police brutality demonstrations across the country .
In a Tuesday letter sent to leaders at several federal agencies , including Customs and Border Protection ( CBP ) and the FBI , officials demanded that those agencies “ cease any and all surveilling of Americans engaged in peaceful protests.
” They pointed to several instances in which the press has documented federal agencies using concerning surveillance tactics in major American cities , pointing to aircraft that flew over Washington , DC , and temporarily expanded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( DEA ) to conduct surveillance over protesters .
They also pointed to an instance when , during the first week of protests , a Predator surveillance drone operated by CBP diverted from its normal route along the Canadian border in order to circle the skies above Minneapolis .
Before the drone flight , a third night of protests had escalated as thousands demonstrated following the death of George Floyd , a black man who died after a police officer pinned Floyd by the neck with his knee for several minutes .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charged with second-degree murder ) And while federal authorities said the unarmed drone was there “ to provide situational awareness , ” the presence of a military-grade aircraft watching protesters in Minnesota added to an already anxious day in America .
A couple of hours before reports about the Predator drone over Minneapolis , President Trump had tweeted , “ When the looting starts , the shooting starts.
” Though his use of this charged phrase with racist origins suggests a threat against the protesters , Trump later tried to walk back his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter for glorifying violence — and it seems unlikely that his rhetoric had anything to do with the drone flight .
Still , to know that a drone was circling the protesters as the president was making these charged remarks is unsettling .
Since news of that drone ’ s flight of Minneapolis broke , Motherboard also uncovered that the drone , in particular , had been sent to fly over Minneapolis before .
And earlier this month , members of Congress , including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , sent a letter to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the use of CBP aircraft and personnel to surveil protests .
The agency said at the time that Predator drone that flew over Minneapolis was there to help the police .
“ Earlier today a US Customs and Border Protection , Air and Marine Operations unmanned aircraft system was preparing to provide live video to aid in situational awareness at the request of our federal law enforcement partners in Minneapolis , ” a spokesperson for CBP told Recode in an email .
“ The unmanned aircraft system provides live video feed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ awareness , maximizing public safety , while minimizing the threat to personnel and assets.
” The spokesperson said that “ arriving in Minneapolis airspace , the requesting agency determined that the aircraft was no longer needed for operational awareness and departed back to Grand Forks.
” The CPB spokesperson also added that the agency “ routinely conducts operations with other federal , state , and local law enforcement entities to assist law enforcement and humanitarian relief efforts.
” The specific law enforcement agency that requested the drone was not named .
Here ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flight .
The drone CPB 104 , which is an unarmed version of a Predator drone , departed from Grand Forks , North Dakota , around 9 am CT , according to data collected from the flight-tracking tool ADS-B Exchange .
Flying at around 20,000 feet , it made a loose hexagon-shaped route around Minneapolis and then began to fly away from the city .
The drone flight might have gone unnoticed if it hadn ’ t been spotted by Jason Paladino , an investigative reporter with the Project on Government Oversight , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Motherboard followed up with a fuller report .
“ No government agency should be facilitating the over-policing of the Black community , period .
And CBP has no role in what ’ s happening in Minneapolis at all , ” said Neema Singh Guliani , senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union , in a statement .
“ This rogue agency ’ s use of military technology to surveil protesters inside US borders is deeply disturbing , especially given CBP ’ s lack of clear and strong policies to protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggests , the drone ’ s deployment is part of a larger trend in which government agencies , including police , are using increasingly powerful surveillance tools for monitoring activists .
The use of the military-grade drone technology also raises concerns about the federal government deploying sophisticated drone technology typically only used in war zones and along the border — an already highly alarming practice — to conduct surveillance operations inside the US .
“ This is what happens when leaders sign blank check after blank check to militarize police , CBP , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” tweeted Ocasio-Cortez in response to news of the drone flight on that day .
“ We need answers .
And we need to defund.
” Surveillance tech deployed at the border is coming into the US The technology used to monitor the US border has become increasingly high tech , and members of both parties have become interested in the idea of a “ smart wall ” along the border .
While Trump has called for a physical border wall , officials have come to look at , and sometimes use , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , artificial intelligence-powered cameras , facial recognition , and cellphone data monitoring to regulate people near or crossing the border .
Human rights advocates and civil liberties advocates have strongly opposed the use of such technologies , pointing out that they can exacerbate racial inequities and privacy violations .
But drones have been used at the border for more than a decade .
As Recode ’ s Shirin Ghaffary reported , CBP has been using Predator B aircraft at the border since 2006 .
The CBP 104 drone has been in use since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a March 2007 report from Government Technology magazine that described how the new unmanned aerial system had been used to find people suspected of crossing the US border without authorization .
Meanwhile , CBP documents from 2012 identify the CBP 104 as a Predator drone equipped with radar and satellite communication links , not to mention radio communications with law enforcement .
As the Washington Post reported in 2014 , flight logs show how CBP has historically allowed its drones to be used by other federal agencies , such as the Coast Guard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Recode ’ s request for comment , the CBP spokesperson also said that its air and marine operations aircraft is used throughout the country , not just at the border , and that it regularly works with federal , state , and local law enforcement .
The spokesperson claimed that the drone has been used in humanitarian relief efforts as well as to help agencies like FEMA .
But the letter sent from Congress to DHS in June seeks more context , and lawmakers have requested a complete list of jurisdictions where DHS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protests , information about what DHS plans to do with the data collects about protesters , and details about whether any local police departments are working with facial recognition .
The US has a long history of surveilling protesters The fact that the government uses a range of technology to surveil protesters , including black activists , is by no means new .
Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were both surveilled by the FBI .
But the technology that police departments and federal authorities now have access to is much more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1960s .
Some of these tools , like Predator drones , would not be out of place on foreign espionage missions , and now they ’ re increasingly deployed to monitor activists and protesters inside US borders .
Examples from recent years are especially alarming .
Following the 2014 protests in Ferguson , Missouri , the Department of Homeland Security kept tabs on the Black Lives Matter movement through organizers ’ social media accounts , according to an Intercept investigation .
Just a year later , the ACLU released a report detailing how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provided social media data for a surveillance product that was marketed to law enforcement agencies as a way to track activists and protesters .
The New York Police Department , specifically , has deployed a variety of tools over the years to surveil activists , including those involved in the Black Lives Matter Movement and Occupy Wall Street .
Aerial surveillance is also not a new tactic being used by cops , either .
During the 2015 Baltimore protests following the death of Freddie Gray , the FBI used a spy plane to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gatherings , according to the ACLU .
Since then , the Baltimore police have fought for — and won — the ability to regularly use surveillance planes that are armed with cameras , despite the objections of activists and civil liberties advocates .
The Minneapolis Police Department is not different in its affinity toward surveillance technology .
BuzzFeed reviewed the many types of surveillance the department likely has at its disposal .
They include Clearview AI ’ s facial recognition software , automatic license plate readers , audio-based gunshot detection tools , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as last month ’ s Predator drone flight suggests , it can be incredibly difficult to understand just how much technology law enforcement actually has access to at any point in time .
Many of these tools are often hidden from public view , leading journalists and advocates to turn to require public records requests and lawsuits to learn more about how they ’ re used .
While CBP says the drone was directed away from Minneapolis , it is possible to track where the drone is now ; its flight path is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hours after lawmakers requested more information about how technology was being used to surveil Americans , the drone appeared to still be in flight , traveling a hexagon-shaped route close to the Canadian border .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Members of Congress want more information on the deployment of surveillance resources and technologies amid ongoing anti-police brutality demonstrations across the country.
In a Tuesday letter sent to leaders at several federal agencies, including Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the FBI, officials demanded that those agencies “cease any and all surveilling of Americans engaged in peaceful protests.” They pointed to several instances in which the press has documented federal agencies using concerning surveillance tactics in major American cities, pointing to aircraft that flew over Washington, DC, and temporarily expanded authority granted to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to conduct surveillance over protesters.
They also pointed to an instance when, during the first week of protests, a Predator surveillance drone operated by CBP diverted from its normal route along the Canadian border in order to circle the skies above Minneapolis. Before the drone flight, a third night of protests had escalated as thousands demonstrated following the death of George Floyd, a black man who died after a police officer pinned Floyd by the neck with his knee for several minutes. (The officer has since been fired and charged with second-degree murder ) And while federal authorities said the unarmed drone was there “to provide situational awareness,” the presence of a military-grade aircraft watching protesters in Minnesota added to an already anxious day in America.
A couple of hours before reports about the Predator drone over Minneapolis, President Trump had tweeted, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Though his use of this charged phrase with racist origins suggests a threat against the protesters, Trump later tried to walk back his statement — which was also hidden by Twitter for glorifying violence — and it seems unlikely that his rhetoric had anything to do with the drone flight. Still, to know that a drone was circling the protesters as the president was making these charged remarks is unsettling.
Since news of that drone’s flight of Minneapolis broke, Motherboard also uncovered that the drone, in particular, had been sent to fly over Minneapolis before. And earlier this month, members of Congress, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security demanding more information about the use of CBP aircraft and personnel to surveil protests. The agency said at the time that Predator drone that flew over Minneapolis was there to help the police.
“Earlier today a US Customs and Border Protection, Air and Marine Operations unmanned aircraft system was preparing to provide live video to aid in situational awareness at the request of our federal law enforcement partners in Minneapolis,” a spokesperson for CBP told Recode in an email. “The unmanned aircraft system provides live video feed to ground law enforcement, giving them situational awareness, maximizing public safety, while minimizing the threat to personnel and assets.”
The spokesperson said that “arriving in Minneapolis airspace, the requesting agency determined that the aircraft was no longer needed for operational awareness and departed back to Grand Forks.” The CPB spokesperson also added that the agency “routinely conducts operations with other federal, state, and local law enforcement entities to assist law enforcement and humanitarian relief efforts.” The specific law enforcement agency that requested the drone was not named.
Here’s what else we learned about the flight. The drone CPB 104, which is an unarmed version of a Predator drone, departed from Grand Forks, North Dakota, around 9 am CT, according to data collected from the flight-tracking tool ADS-B Exchange. Flying at around 20,000 feet, it made a loose hexagon-shaped route around Minneapolis and then began to fly away from the city. The drone flight might have gone unnoticed if it hadn’t been spotted by Jason Paladino, an investigative reporter with the Project on Government Oversight, who shared the news in a tweet. Motherboard followed up with a fuller report.
“No government agency should be facilitating the over-policing of the Black community, period. And CBP has no role in what’s happening in Minneapolis at all,” said Neema Singh Guliani, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, in a statement. “This rogue agency’s use of military technology to surveil protesters inside US borders is deeply disturbing, especially given CBP’s lack of clear and strong policies to protect privacy and constitutional rights.”
As Guliani suggests, the drone’s deployment is part of a larger trend in which government agencies, including police, are using increasingly powerful surveillance tools for monitoring activists. The use of the military-grade drone technology also raises concerns about the federal government deploying sophisticated drone technology typically only used in war zones and along the border — an already highly alarming practice — to conduct surveillance operations inside the US.
“This is what happens when leaders sign blank check after blank check to militarize police, CBP, etc while letting violence go unchecked,” tweeted Ocasio-Cortez in response to news of the drone flight on that day. “We need answers. And we need to defund.”
Surveillance tech deployed at the border is coming into the US
The technology used to monitor the US border has become increasingly high tech, and members of both parties have become interested in the idea of a “smart wall” along the border. While Trump has called for a physical border wall, officials have come to look at, and sometimes use, all sorts of technology, including lidar, artificial intelligence-powered cameras, facial recognition, and cellphone data monitoring to regulate people near or crossing the border.
Human rights advocates and civil liberties advocates have strongly opposed the use of such technologies, pointing out that they can exacerbate racial inequities and privacy violations.
But drones have been used at the border for more than a decade. As Recode’s Shirin Ghaffary reported, CBP has been using Predator B aircraft at the border since 2006. The CBP 104 drone has been in use since October of that year, according to a March 2007 report from Government Technology magazine that described how the new unmanned aerial system had been used to find people suspected of crossing the US border without authorization.
Meanwhile, CBP documents from 2012 identify the CBP 104 as a Predator drone equipped with radar and satellite communication links, not to mention radio communications with law enforcement. As the Washington Post reported in 2014, flight logs show how CBP has historically allowed its drones to be used by other federal agencies, such as the Coast Guard and the DEA.
In response to Recode’s request for comment, the CBP spokesperson also said that its air and marine operations aircraft is used throughout the country, not just at the border, and that it regularly works with federal, state, and local law enforcement. The spokesperson claimed that the drone has been used in humanitarian relief efforts as well as to help agencies like FEMA.
But the letter sent from Congress to DHS in June seeks more context, and lawmakers have requested a complete list of jurisdictions where DHS conducted or helped in the surveillance of protests, information about what DHS plans to do with the data collects about protesters, and details about whether any local police departments are working with facial recognition.
The US has a long history of surveilling protesters
The fact that the government uses a range of technology to surveil protesters, including black activists, is by no means new. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were both surveilled by the FBI. But the technology that police departments and federal authorities now have access to is much more powerful than what was around in the 1960s. Some of these tools, like Predator drones, would not be out of place on foreign espionage missions, and now they’re increasingly deployed to monitor activists and protesters inside US borders.
Examples from recent years are especially alarming. Following the 2014 protests in Ferguson, Missouri, the Department of Homeland Security kept tabs on the Black Lives Matter movement through organizers’ social media accounts, according to an Intercept investigation. Just a year later, the ACLU released a report detailing how companies, including Facebook and Twitter, provided social media data for a surveillance product that was marketed to law enforcement agencies as a way to track activists and protesters. The New York Police Department, specifically, has deployed a variety of tools over the years to surveil activists, including those involved in the Black Lives Matter Movement and Occupy Wall Street.
Aerial surveillance is also not a new tactic being used by cops, either. During the 2015 Baltimore protests following the death of Freddie Gray, the FBI used a spy plane to record the protests as well as smaller gatherings, according to the ACLU. Since then, the Baltimore police have fought for — and won — the ability to regularly use surveillance planes that are armed with cameras, despite the objections of activists and civil liberties advocates.
The Minneapolis Police Department is not different in its affinity toward surveillance technology. BuzzFeed reviewed the many types of surveillance the department likely has at its disposal. They include Clearview AI’s facial recognition software, automatic license plate readers, audio-based gunshot detection tools, and other data aggregation tools.
Still, as last month’s Predator drone flight suggests, it can be incredibly difficult to understand just how much technology law enforcement actually has access to at any point in time. Many of these tools are often hidden from public view, leading journalists and advocates to turn to require public records requests and lawsuits to learn more about how they’re used.
While CBP says the drone was directed away from Minneapolis, it is possible to track where the drone is now; its flight path is documented on this website. In the hours after lawmakers requested more information about how technology was being used to surveil Americans, the drone appeared to still be in flight, traveling a hexagon-shaped route close to the Canadian border.


vox--2020-06-10--Study: Covid-19 lockdowns hit black-owned small businesses the hardest

Before the coronavirus ’ s financial onslaught , economists and experts feared a recession would precipitously hurt black entrepreneurs .
New data validates the concern .
A report published this week by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “ the number of African-American business owners plummeted from 1.1 million in February 2020 to 640,000 in April.
” “ The loss of 440,000 black business owners representing 41 percent of the previous level is disconcerting , ” writes University of California Santa Cruz economist Robert W. Fairlie .
This loss , he argues , means an increase in unaddressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunities for “ job creation , economic advancement , and longer-term wealth ” disappearing .
The report , which was based on census data , found that , like the coronavirus itself , the shutdown disproportionately affected black Americans — overall , the United States lost 22 percent of its business owners over the same period .
In April , experts established that black businesses stood on precarious footing heading into sweeping coronavirus-related shutdowns .
According to a study from the Federal Reserve , most black-owned companies — 58 percent — were already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last year .
The Federal Reserve found these companies had low profits , low credit scores , or weak earnings — all issues that left their post-shutdown health in doubt .
That underlying issue metastasized during the sluggish rollout of the Paycheck Protection Program , which initially failed to reach black entrepreneurs .
During April , as historic numbers of black-owned businesses shuttered , the Center for Responsible Lending estimated that up to 95 percent of black firms remained ineligible to receive PPP funding because they did not have employees .
Neglected by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the extreme drop in consumer demand created by the lockdown alone , all while navigating Depression-era unemployment , which was more acute in black neighborhoods .
In April , national black unemployment sat at 16.7 percent versus white unemployment , which hit 14.2 percent .
In May , the disparity grew , with the black unemployment rate at 16.8 percent versus a 12.4 percent white unemployment rate .
This inequity is particularly significant to black entrepreneurs due to residential segregation .
Black neighborhoods , with their higher unemployment rates , contain far less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recession .
For black-owned businesses , the federal government ’ s insufficient support combined with the recession ’ s disproportionate impact on black consumers has made the economic consequences of the pandemic doubly painful .
The longstanding , banal discrimination black entrepreneurs face means it isn ’ t just small , one-person black businesses that have had to shutter due to the coronavirus .
The Brookings Institution ’ s Andre Perry notes that even successful , larger black businesses regularly receive less revenue than similarly situated white firms due to segregation and bias @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with his colleagues Jonathan Rothwell and David Harshbarger finds “ locating in a Black-majority neighborhood eliminates the advantage of being a highly rated business , ” on review sites like Yelp , an issue that leads to “ highly-rated businesses in Black-majority neighborhoods ” suffering from “ annual losses in business revenue as high as $ 3.9 billion.
” Other researchers have sussed out this type of neighborhood bias as well .
For example , NYU sociologist Jacob Faber also found adverse neighborhood effects for sellers of secondhand goods living in black neighborhoods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poor community of color negatively affected sellers ’ ability to attract buyers in a classified marketplace.
” Also leading to a difficult business environment for black entrepreneurs were protests that harmed some black-owned storefronts in the early days of the uprising protesting racism and police brutality following the death of George Floyd .
Perhaps the only silver lining for many businesses is the message of these recent protests , and the new spotlight they placed on inequities black people in the country face .
Following the rallies , presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decried how “ African American entrepreneurs are rejected for loans at a rate nearly 20 % higher than white entrepreneurs ” and called on the Small Business Administration to expand “ programs that are most effective at helping launch black-owned businesses.
” The proposals stand as pillars of Biden ’ s Lift Every Voice plan , his policy platform for black Americans .
Biden ’ s platform is reminiscent of others released earlier in the Democratic primary , like former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg ’ s “ Douglass Plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bolstering black entrepreneurship .
Of course , Democrats ’ ideas to support and reinvigorate black business are still just hypothetical proposals at the moment .
In the meantime , black businesses remain under extreme economic pressure , with little sign of any new federal aid or relief .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Before the coronavirus’s financial onslaught, economists and experts feared a recession would precipitously hurt black entrepreneurs. New data validates the concern. A report published this week by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “the number of African-American business owners plummeted from 1.1 million in February 2020 to 640,000 in April.”
“The loss of 440,000 black business owners representing 41 percent of the previous level is disconcerting,” writes University of California Santa Cruz economist Robert W. Fairlie. This loss, he argues, means an increase in unaddressed “racial inequality,” with countless opportunities for “job creation, economic advancement, and longer-term wealth” disappearing. The report, which was based on census data, found that, like the coronavirus itself, the shutdown disproportionately affected black Americans — overall, the United States lost 22 percent of its business owners over the same period.
In April, experts established that black businesses stood on precarious footing heading into sweeping coronavirus-related shutdowns. According to a study from the Federal Reserve, most black-owned companies — 58 percent — were already suffering financial distress at the end of last year. The Federal Reserve found these companies had low profits, low credit scores, or weak earnings — all issues that left their post-shutdown health in doubt.
That underlying issue metastasized during the sluggish rollout of the Paycheck Protection Program, which initially failed to reach black entrepreneurs. During April, as historic numbers of black-owned businesses shuttered, the Center for Responsible Lending estimated that up to 95 percent of black firms remained ineligible to receive PPP funding because they did not have employees. Neglected by government assistance, these one-person firms endured the extreme drop in consumer demand created by the lockdown alone, all while navigating Depression-era unemployment, which was more acute in black neighborhoods.
In April, national black unemployment sat at 16.7 percent versus white unemployment, which hit 14.2 percent. In May, the disparity grew, with the black unemployment rate at 16.8 percent versus a 12.4 percent white unemployment rate. This inequity is particularly significant to black entrepreneurs due to residential segregation. Black neighborhoods, with their higher unemployment rates, contain far less spending power than white neighborhoods during this recession. For black-owned businesses, the federal government’s insufficient support combined with the recession’s disproportionate impact on black consumers has made the economic consequences of the pandemic doubly painful.
Segregation and violent protests also drain black entrepreneurs
The longstanding, banal discrimination black entrepreneurs face means it isn’t just small, one-person black businesses that have had to shutter due to the coronavirus. The Brookings Institution’s Andre Perry notes that even successful, larger black businesses regularly receive less revenue than similarly situated white firms due to segregation and bias.
A February 2020 report he wrote with his colleagues Jonathan Rothwell and David Harshbarger finds “locating in a Black-majority neighborhood eliminates the advantage of being a highly rated business,” on review sites like Yelp, an issue that leads to “highly-rated businesses in Black-majority neighborhoods” suffering from “annual losses in business revenue as high as $3.9 billion.”
Other researchers have sussed out this type of neighborhood bias as well. For example, NYU sociologist Jacob Faber also found adverse neighborhood effects for sellers of secondhand goods living in black neighborhoods, reporting that “residence in a poor community of color negatively affected sellers’ ability to attract buyers in a classified marketplace.”
Also leading to a difficult business environment for black entrepreneurs were protests that harmed some black-owned storefronts in the early days of the uprising protesting racism and police brutality following the death of George Floyd. Perhaps the only silver lining for many businesses is the message of these recent protests, and the new spotlight they placed on inequities black people in the country face.
Following the rallies, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden published an op-ed in which he decried how “African American entrepreneurs are rejected for loans at a rate nearly 20% higher than white entrepreneurs” and called on the Small Business Administration to expand “programs that are most effective at helping launch black-owned businesses.”
The proposals stand as pillars of Biden’s Lift Every Voice plan, his policy platform for black Americans. Biden’s platform is reminiscent of others released earlier in the Democratic primary, like former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s “Douglass Plan,” which had similar goals of bolstering black entrepreneurship. Of course, Democrats’ ideas to support and reinvigorate black business are still just hypothetical proposals at the moment. In the meantime, black businesses remain under extreme economic pressure, with little sign of any new federal aid or relief.


vox--2020-06-10--The Army was finally considering renaming bases that honor Confederates. Trump quashed it.

President Donald Trump just said his administration “ will not even consider the renaming ” of 10 US Army facilities named after Confederate leaders , even though top Pentagon leaders said earlier this week that they were open to discussing such a change .
On Monday , Army spokesperson Col. Sunset Belinsky told Politico that “ The secretary of defense and secretary of the Army are open to a bipartisan discussion on the topic.
” That opened the door for the Army to potentially reverse its long-held position on keeping the names honoring Confederate officers .
The Army defended that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a spokesperson telling Task & Purpose , “ The Army has a tradition of naming installations and streets after historical figures of military significance , including former Union and Confederate general officers.
” But the Army has come under renewed pressure in recent months to change its position .
In February , the Marines signaled that Confederate-related items — including the Confederate battle flag — would no longer be permitted on its bases and officially followed through last week .
More recently , the protests sparked by the police killing of George Floyd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to announce plans to remove Confederate statues .
Now , some of the Army ’ s most revered retired generals and former top civilian leaders have come out in support of the Pentagon ’ s seemingly more open stance .
But despite the growing movement recognizing the explicitly racist history behind the naming of Army installations after Confederate officers , the president remains intransigent .
“ The United States of America trained and deployed our HEROES on these Hallowed Grounds , and won two World Wars , ” he wrote in short Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Administration will not even consider the renaming of these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations.
” Trump ’ s stance here is consistent with past comments he ’ s made on similar issues .
After a 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville , Virginia , Trump said the removal of Confederate statutes was “ so foolish.
” It ’ s consistent with his history of racist comments and actions .
And it ’ s consistent with his 2016 campaign strategy of using racist and xenophobic rhetoric to capitalize on deep-seated white racial resentment in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still alive and well in America , and Trump clearly seems to see it as a winning strategy for the 2020 election , too .
But recent polling suggests attitudes toward issues of systemic racism and police violence have changed dramatically in recent weeks following George Floyd ’ s death at the hands of Minneapolis police last month , including among white voters — a trend that a number of Congressional Republicans seem to recognize as well .
The New York Times reports that congressional Republicans were “ caught flat-footed by an election-year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in America to address systemic racism ” in recent weeks and “ are struggling to coalesce around a legislative response.
” Trump ’ s decision to publicly stake a hardline position on the base-renaming issue right in the middle of this could possibly hurt such efforts .
Why the Army named bases after Confederates in the first place Naming Army installations after Confederate officers is deeply intertwined with America ’ s long history of racism .
All 10 facilities named after Confederate men are in the South : three in Virginia , two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and one each in Alabama , North Carolina , and Texas .
As the nation mobilized for both world wars , political leaders amended Jim Crow-era laws to allow more minority troops into the military ’ s ranks .
Perhaps the most consequential amendments were made to the Selective Service Act of 1940 , which required men between 21 and 45 years of age to register for the draft .
Two amendments to the law , one by Sen. Robert Wagner ( D-NY ) and another by US Rep. Hamilton Fish ( R-NY @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minorities to volunteer for war or be drafted .
The final text of the statute read “ there shall be no discrimination against any person on account of race or color ” in selecting or training men in the military services .
The Pentagon ’ s official history of racial integration in the armed forces concluded that , with varying degrees of success , such changes “ actually spread federally sponsored segregation into areas where it had never before existed with the force of law.
” Most of those areas were in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Army colonel who commanded troops in Iraq and Afghanistan , told me on Tuesday the region had lots of cheap land , which is why the Army in the early 1900s built bases and other facilities there .
As a way to appease racist white political leaders and locals who didn ’ t want a more integrated military nearby , the Army named bases after Confederate “ heroes ” who were popular among these leaders and locals .
Take Fort Gordon in Georgia , first established as Camp Gordon in 1916 , smack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s named after Lt. Gen. John Brown Gordon , one of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee ’ s most trusted officers .
Gordon was elected to the US Senate in 1872 , but he was also widely known as the head of Georgia ’ s chapter of the Ku Klux Klan ( a charge he , as leaders of the organization often do , denied ) .
By the time of his death in 1904 , according to the New Georgia Encyclopedia , he was for many “ the living embodiment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of history Trump wants to preserve .
That he ’ s openly defending this practice — at a time when the country is reeling from racial inequality — shows what the president truly values .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

President Donald Trump just said his administration “will not even consider the renaming” of 10 US Army facilities named after Confederate leaders, even though top Pentagon leaders said earlier this week that they were open to discussing such a change.
On Monday, Army spokesperson Col. Sunset Belinsky told Politico that “The secretary of defense and secretary of the Army are open to a bipartisan discussion on the topic.”
That opened the door for the Army to potentially reverse its long-held position on keeping the names honoring Confederate officers. The Army defended that stance as recently as February, with a spokesperson telling Task & Purpose, “The Army has a tradition of naming installations and streets after historical figures of military significance, including former Union and Confederate general officers.”
But the Army has come under renewed pressure in recent months to change its position. In February, the Marines signaled that Confederate-related items — including the Confederate battle flag — would no longer be permitted on its bases and officially followed through last week.
More recently, the protests sparked by the police killing of George Floyd have prompted states like Virginia and Florida to announce plans to remove Confederate statues. Now, some of the Army’s most revered retired generals and former top civilian leaders have come out in support of the Pentagon’s seemingly more open stance.
But despite the growing movement recognizing the explicitly racist history behind the naming of Army installations after Confederate officers, the president remains intransigent.
“The United States of America trained and deployed our HEROES on these Hallowed Grounds, and won two World Wars,” he wrote in short Twitter thread Wednesday. “Therefore, my Administration will not even consider the renaming of these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations.”
...history of Winning, Victory, and Freedom. The United States of America trained and deployed our HEROES on these Hallowed Grounds, and won two World Wars. Therefore, my Administration will not even consider the renaming of these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 10, 2020
...Our history as the Greatest Nation in the World will not be tampered with. Respect our Military! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 10, 2020
Trump’s stance here is consistent with past comments he’s made on similar issues. After a 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, Trump said the removal of Confederate statutes was “so foolish.” It’s consistent with his history of racist comments and actions. And it’s consistent with his 2016 campaign strategy of using racist and xenophobic rhetoric to capitalize on deep-seated white racial resentment in America.
That white racial resentment is still alive and well in America, and Trump clearly seems to see it as a winning strategy for the 2020 election, too.
But recent polling suggests attitudes toward issues of systemic racism and police violence have changed dramatically in recent weeks following George Floyd’s death at the hands of Minneapolis police last month, including among white voters — a trend that a number of Congressional Republicans seem to recognize as well.
The New York Times reports that congressional Republicans were “caught flat-footed by an election-year groundswell of public support for overhauling policing in America to address systemic racism” in recent weeks and “are struggling to coalesce around a legislative response.”
Trump’s decision to publicly stake a hardline position on the base-renaming issue right in the middle of this could possibly hurt such efforts.
Why the Army named bases after Confederates in the first place
Naming Army installations after Confederate officers is deeply intertwined with America’s long history of racism.
All 10 facilities named after Confederate men are in the South: three in Virginia, two in Louisiana, two in Georgia, and one each in Alabama, North Carolina, and Texas.
As the nation mobilized for both world wars, political leaders amended Jim Crow-era laws to allow more minority troops into the military’s ranks. Perhaps the most consequential amendments were made to the Selective Service Act of 1940, which required men between 21 and 45 years of age to register for the draft.
Two amendments to the law, one by Sen. Robert Wagner (D-NY) and another by US Rep. Hamilton Fish (R-NY), allowed black Americans and other minorities to volunteer for war or be drafted. The final text of the statute read “there shall be no discrimination against any person on account of race or color” in selecting or training men in the military services.
The Pentagon’s official history of racial integration in the armed forces concluded that, with varying degrees of success, such changes “actually spread federally sponsored segregation into areas where it had never before existed with the force of law.”
Most of those areas were in the South. Mike Jason, a retired Army colonel who commanded troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, told me on Tuesday the region had lots of cheap land, which is why the Army in the early 1900s built bases and other facilities there.
As a way to appease racist white political leaders and locals who didn’t want a more integrated military nearby, the Army named bases after Confederate “heroes” who were popular among these leaders and locals.
Take Fort Gordon in Georgia, first established as Camp Gordon in 1916, smack in the middle of World War I. It’s named after Lt. Gen. John Brown Gordon, one of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee’s most trusted officers. Gordon was elected to the US Senate in 1872, but he was also widely known as the head of Georgia’s chapter of the Ku Klux Klan (a charge he, as leaders of the organization often do, denied).
By the time of his death in 1904, according to the New Georgia Encyclopedia, he was for many “the living embodiment of the Confederacy.”
This is the kind of history Trump wants to preserve. That he’s openly defending this practice — at a time when the country is reeling from racial inequality — shows what the president truly values.