vox--2020-06-01--Trump threatens to send the US military to quash protests

President Donald Trump on Monday threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act — a centuries-old law that gives the president the authority to send the US military into US cities and towns to quash domestic unrest — if state governors don ’ t take sufficient action to quell the ongoing protests and unrest happening in cities across the country .
“ If a city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents , then I will deploy United States military and quickly solve the problem for them , ” Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House Rose Garden .
As he spoke , loud booms could be sporadically heard in the background as law enforcement officers fired tear gas and rubber bullets at peaceful protesters who had gathered near the White House .
For the past three days , Trump has flirted with sending troops into cities around the country to put down the protests and unrest sparked by the death of George Floyd , a 46-year-old black man who was killed last week when a Minneapolis police officer used his knee to pin Floyd ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minutes while he was handcuffed .
On Saturday , Trump tweeted , “ Liberal Governors and Mayors must get MUCH tougher or the Federal Government will step in and do what has to be done , and that includes using the unlimited power of our Military and many arrests.
” Two days later , he tweeted that Republican Sen. Tom Cotton was “ 100 % Correct ” for suggesting violent activists would cower before a US Army presence .
As of Monday , 23 states and the District of Columbia had mobilized thousands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers and firefighters with trying to control the demonstrations and unrest .
Trump , however , is unsatisfied with those efforts .
In a private call with governors on Monday , he told them , “ If you don ’ t dominate , you ’ re wasting your time , ” adding that “ we have a wonderful military.
” Hours later , White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said the president would soon send “ federal assets ” around the nation , and mentioned the Insurrection Act as a possibility .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the tools available , whether the president decides to pursue that , that ’ s his prerogative , “ she said .
However , Trump did say US military police , many of whom have spent part of the past two decades in the Middle East , will deploy to Washington , DC .
Importantly , they still don ’ t have the authority to perform law enforcement duties .
But if Trump were to go through with invoking the Insurrection Act , experts say it would be one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , certain to inflame tensions between the demonstrators and their government instead of lower them .
An active-duty US Air Force officer who flew warplanes in Afghanistan told me such a decision isn ’ t wise .
“ These protests aren ’ t combat and shouldn ’ t be viewed through the same prism , ” the officer said , speaking on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly about a sensitive issue .
“ Expecting a military response is myopic on the part of the administration , tone-deaf in light of yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a misuse of the military.
” But Trump hasn ’ t heeded that advice .
Instead , he ’ s leaning away from it .
Trump absolutely can send American troops to any part of the United States to deal with the protests .
He is the commander in chief , after all .
But if he wants them to be able to search , seize assets , and arrest protesters and people who are looting , there are a few legalistic hoops he ’ ll have to jump through first .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” a longstanding law that bars the US military in most cases from being used to enforce domestic law .
However , there is actually a way for federal troops to perform law enforcement functions .
Simply put , they have to get special , statutory authorization to allow them to do those duties .
By far the most important of those authorizations — and the one most likely to come into play in this situation — is the Insurrection Act .
“ This is the legal key that unlocks the door @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quell civil unrest , ” Mark Nevitt , a military law expert at the US Naval Academy , wrote for the Just Security website last Friday .
Nevitt noted two main ways the Insurrection Act could be invoked for the protests .
It ’ s worth going through each in turn .
1 ) Local leaders could ask the president for US military assistance A state ’ s legislature or its governor could directly request US military support .
This actually happened in 1992 : California Gov .
Pete Wilson sought assistance from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Los Angeles protests that erupted after a jury acquitted police officers charged with arresting and beating Rodney King .
In response , Bush put California National Guard members under federal command and sent in soldiers and Marines already based in the state .
It ’ s unclear if any governor would actually make such a request of Trump right now .
Experts told me governors typically shy away from taking this step because of how controversial it is .
Plus , they have National Guard members already under their command who , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Reports , however , indicate that active-duty troops stationed around the country are on high alert to deploy within 24 hours .
“ We have our military ready , willing and able , if they ever want to call our military , ” Trump told reporters on Saturday .
“ And we can have troops on the ground very quickly if they ever want our military.
” 2 ) The president could send in US troops to protect federal property or enforce federal law Trump could invoke the law to send troops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or governor ’ s consent — but there ’ s a catch .
Trump can only deploy troops within the US “ for certain purposes , ” Lindsay Cohn , a US military expert at the Naval War College , told me .
“ Technically and legally , he can send them to protect federal property or enforce federal law.
” Past presidents used this authority to defend civil rights in the 1950s and ’ 60s .
In 1957 , then-Arkansas Gov .
Orval Faubus refused to follow federal integration laws after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Education ruling three years earlier .
As a result , President Dwight Eisenhower sent soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division into Little Rock to escort nine black high school students into the all-white Central High School despite protests against them .
Five years later , President John F. Kennedy sent Army soldiers into Oxford , Mississippi , after the state ’ s governor tried to block a black student from attending the University of Mississippi in Oxford ( often referred to as Ole Miss ) .
This allowed the student , James @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mob tried to stop him .
In both the Eisenhower and Kennedy cases , the president used federal troops to enforce federal laws .
That ’ s important , Cohn told me , because the key is that those and other deployments by presidents were to suppress insurrections against US federal laws — not laws of the individual states .
Reading the provision in full helps drive this vital point home : Importantly , to invoke the act , Trump must first — with the attorney general ’ s help — issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he has to give the people working against federal law a bit of time to stop their actions .
If they don ’ t , the president is free to send in the US military .
If Trump were to do this , it would be guaranteed to anger a lot of people , and many would likely contend that Trump is behaving in an authoritarian manner , using the might of the US military to crack down on protesters .
But while the impulse behind it may seem undemocratic , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be legal .
“ It ’ s not implausible to argue that these statutes could apply now , ” Steve Vladeck , a national security law expert at the University of Texas Austin , tweeted on Saturday .
“ And it ’ s hard to imagine courts second-guessing factual determinations by the President that circumstances warrant use of the military to restore order.
” This makes the future of the protests Trump ’ s responsibility If Trump wants soldiers and Marines to go into American cities and start shooting , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nevitt explained , there are clear and severe restraints on active-duty troops using force while performing policing duties at home , even under the Insurrection Act : To be clear , that could apply in some instances , but obviously not in the majority of them .
Which means that the US military will serve mainly as more manpower .
The move isn ’ t without some risk for Trump , either .
As Vladeck tweeted , is that sending in American troops puts the onus for ending the protests on Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ d own all that follows , ” he wrote on Saturday .
Mayors and governors , then , wouldn ’ t take the credit or the blame for whatever happened next — Trump would .

The Insurrection Act, the 1807 law Trump could use to deploy troops to curb protests, explained
Share All sharing options for: The Insurrection Act, the 1807 law Trump could use to deploy troops to curb protests, explained
President Donald Trump on Monday threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act — a centuries-old law that gives the president the authority to send the US military into US cities and towns to quash domestic unrest — if state governors don’t take sufficient action to quell the ongoing protests and unrest happening in cities across the country.
“If a city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy United States military and quickly solve the problem for them,” Trump said in a short speech delivered from the White House Rose Garden.
As he spoke, loud booms could be sporadically heard in the background as law enforcement officers fired tear gas and rubber bullets at peaceful protesters who had gathered near the White House.
For the past three days, Trump has flirted with sending troops into cities around the country to put down the protests and unrest sparked by the death of George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man who was killed last week when a Minneapolis police officer used his knee to pin Floyd’s neck to the ground for several minutes while he was handcuffed.
On Saturday, Trump tweeted, “Liberal Governors and Mayors must get MUCH tougher or the Federal Government will step in and do what has to be done, and that includes using the unlimited power of our Military and many arrests.”
Two days later, he tweeted that Republican Sen. Tom Cotton was “100% Correct” for suggesting violent activists would cower before a US Army presence.
As of Monday, 23 states and the District of Columbia had mobilized thousands of National Guard members to support police officers and firefighters with trying to control the demonstrations and unrest.
Trump, however, is unsatisfied with those efforts. In a private call with governors on Monday, he told them, “If you don’t dominate, you’re wasting your time,” adding that “we have a wonderful military.” Hours later, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said the president would soon send “federal assets” around the nation, and mentioned the Insurrection Act as a possibility.
“The Insurrection Act, it’s one of the tools available, whether the president decides to pursue that, that’s his prerogative,“ she said.
However, Trump did say US military police, many of whom have spent part of the past two decades in the Middle East, will deploy to Washington, DC. Importantly, they still don’t have the authority to perform law enforcement duties.
But if Trump were to go through with invoking the Insurrection Act, experts say it would be one of the most dramatic law enforcement escalations in decades, certain to inflame tensions between the demonstrators and their government instead of lower them.
An active-duty US Air Force officer who flew warplanes in Afghanistan told me such a decision isn’t wise. “These protests aren’t combat and shouldn’t be viewed through the same prism,” the officer said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly about a sensitive issue. “Expecting a military response is myopic on the part of the administration, tone-deaf in light of yet another intolerable and unacceptable killing, and a misuse of the military.”
But Trump hasn’t heeded that advice. Instead, he’s leaning away from it.
The Insurrection Act, briefly explained
Trump absolutely can send American troops to any part of the United States to deal with the protests. He is the commander in chief, after all. But if he wants them to be able to search, seize assets, and arrest protesters and people who are looting, there are a few legalistic hoops he’ll have to jump through first.
You might have heard of “posse comitatus,” a longstanding law that bars the US military in most cases from being used to enforce domestic law. However, there is actually a way for federal troops to perform law enforcement functions. Simply put, they have to get special, statutory authorization to allow them to do those duties.
By far the most important of those authorizations — and the one most likely to come into play in this situation — is the Insurrection Act.
“This is the legal key that unlocks the door to use federal military forces ... to quell civil unrest,” Mark Nevitt, a military law expert at the US Naval Academy, wrote for the Just Security website last Friday.
Nevitt noted two main ways the Insurrection Act could be invoked for the protests. It’s worth going through each in turn.
1) Local leaders could ask the president for US military assistance
A state’s legislature or its governor could directly request US military support. This actually happened in 1992: California Gov. Pete Wilson sought assistance from President George H.W. Bush during the Los Angeles protests that erupted after a jury acquitted police officers charged with arresting and beating Rodney King. In response, Bush put California National Guard members under federal command and sent in soldiers and Marines already based in the state.
It’s unclear if any governor would actually make such a request of Trump right now. Experts told me governors typically shy away from taking this step because of how controversial it is. Plus, they have National Guard members already under their command who, when authorized, can perform law enforcement functions.
Reports, however, indicate that active-duty troops stationed around the country are on high alert to deploy within 24 hours. “We have our military ready, willing and able, if they ever want to call our military,” Trump told reporters on Saturday. “And we can have troops on the ground very quickly if they ever want our military.”
2) The president could send in US troops to protect federal property or enforce federal law
Trump could invoke the law to send troops even without a state legislature’s or governor’s consent — but there’s a catch.
Trump can only deploy troops within the US “for certain purposes,” Lindsay Cohn, a US military expert at the Naval War College, told me. “Technically and legally, he can send them to protect federal property or enforce federal law.”
Past presidents used this authority to defend civil rights in the 1950s and ’60s.
In 1957, then-Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus refused to follow federal integration laws after the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education ruling three years earlier. As a result, President Dwight Eisenhower sent soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division into Little Rock to escort nine black high school students into the all-white Central High School despite protests against them.
Five years later, President John F. Kennedy sent Army soldiers into Oxford, Mississippi, after the state’s governor tried to block a black student from attending the University of Mississippi in Oxford (often referred to as Ole Miss). This allowed the student, James Meredith, to register safely even though a mob tried to stop him.
In both the Eisenhower and Kennedy cases, the president used federal troops to enforce federal laws. That’s important, Cohn told me, because the key is that those and other deployments by presidents were to suppress insurrections against US federal laws — not laws of the individual states.
Reading the provision in full helps drive this vital point home:
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages or rebellion against authority of United States makes it impracticable to enforce the law of the United States in any State or territory by judicial proceedings, the President may call into Federal service the militia of any State and use the Federal military to enforce the laws or suppress the rebellion.
Importantly, to invoke the act, Trump must first — with the attorney general’s help — issue a “proclamation to disperse.” Basically, he has to give the people working against federal law a bit of time to stop their actions. If they don’t, the president is free to send in the US military.
If Trump were to do this, it would be guaranteed to anger a lot of people, and many would likely contend that Trump is behaving in an authoritarian manner, using the might of the US military to crack down on protesters. But while the impulse behind it may seem undemocratic, that doesn’t necessarily mean it wouldn’t be legal.
“It’s not implausible to argue that these statutes could apply now,” Steve Vladeck, a national security law expert at the University of Texas Austin, tweeted on Saturday. “And it’s hard to imagine courts second-guessing factual determinations by the President that circumstances warrant use of the military to restore order.”
This makes the future of the protests Trump’s responsibility
If Trump wants soldiers and Marines to go into American cities and start shooting, he’ll be wildly disappointed.
As Nevitt explained, there are clear and severe restraints on active-duty troops using force while performing policing duties at home, even under the Insurrection Act:
[F]orce is to be used only as a last resort, and the force used should be the minimum necessary. Further, deadly force is to be used only when all lesser means have failed or cannot be reasonably employed. Of course, the rules for the use of force do not limit the inherent right of self-defense of people. It also authorizes force—to include deadly force—to protect three specified assets: (1) assets vital to national security (such as nuclear command and control facilities); (2) inherently dangerous property (such as missiles, rockets, and explosives); and (3) national critical infrastructure (such as designated public utilities).
To be clear, that could apply in some instances, but obviously not in the majority of them. Which means that the US military will serve mainly as more manpower.
The move isn’t without some risk for Trump, either. As Vladeck tweeted, is that sending in American troops puts the onus for ending the protests on Trump.
“If Trump invokes these statutes, he’d own all that follows,” he wrote on Saturday.
Mayors and governors, then, wouldn’t take the credit or the blame for whatever happened next — Trump would.


vox--2020-06-01--Officers fire tear gas on peaceful protesters to clear the way for Trump’s photo op

President Trump gave his first televised statement on the George Floyd protests Monday , emphasizing the need for “ law and order ” and threatening to send in the US military to violently disperse “ mobs ” across the country .
Just before he spoke , federal police violently broke up a peaceful protest just outside the White House , tear-gassing a group of about 1,000 demonstrators and then firing rubber bullets at them so Trump could have an uninterrupted photo op at a nearby church damaged in the weekend ’ s upheaval .
The speech began on a seemingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans were rightly sickened and revolted by the brutal death of George Floyd ” and praising “ the righteous cries of peaceful protesters.
” But after those opening lines , it immediately turned into an authoritarian-sounding denunciation of the protests raging across the country .
Declaring that “ I am your president of law and order , ” Trump warned that “ our nation has been gripped by professional anarchists.
” He ordered mayors and governors to “ dominate ” the street , warning that “ if a city or state refuses to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life and property of their residents , then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.
” Those who crossed Trump on this “ will be detained and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
” It was unclear , during the speech , precisely what any of this meant .
It is illegal for the president to deploy the military in the fashion he ’ s describing unless he invokes a law called the Insurrection Act , passed in 1807 , which he has yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trump ’ s address could be seen near the White House .
On H Street , one of the closest publicly accessible streets to the White House , a crowd had gathered to demonstrate against police violence .
Without warning or provocation , the police shot tear gas into the crowd and fired rubber bullets .
Mounted police rode into the crowd , herding the entirely peaceful and legitimate demonstrators away from their location .
The reason for their move soon became clear .
Trump had planned a visit to St. John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ block as the demonstration .
St. John ’ s had been damaged during last night ’ s upheaval and had become a cause célèbre for conservatives angry about the unrest .
The protest was in the way .
People gathering to demonstrate against police violence were attacked by the police so the president could have a photo op .
Trump ’ s claim to respect “ peaceful protesters , ” and only want to forcefully break up the violent ones , was almost immediately shown to be hollow .
Every day at Vox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 our staff to continue to offer free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

President Trump gave his first televised speech on the George Floyd protests Monday, emphasizing the need for “law and order” and threatening to send in the US military to violently disperse “mobs” across the country.
Just before he spoke, federal police violently broke up a peaceful protest just outside the White House, tear-gassing a group of about 1,000 demonstrators and then firing rubber bullets at them so Trump could have an uninterrupted photo op at a nearby church damaged in the weekend’s upheaval.
The speech began on a seemingly sympathetic note, declaring that “all Americans were rightly sickened and revolted by the brutal death of George Floyd” and praising “the righteous cries of peaceful protesters.” But after those opening lines, it immediately turned into an authoritarian-sounding denunciation of the protests raging across the country.
Declaring that “I am your president of law and order,” Trump warned that “our nation has been gripped by professional anarchists.” He ordered mayors and governors to “dominate” the street, warning that “if a city or state refuses to take the actions necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.” Those who crossed Trump on this “will be detained and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
It was unclear, during the speech, precisely what any of this meant. It is illegal for the president to deploy the military in the fashion he’s describing unless he invokes a law called the Insurrection Act, passed in 1807, which he has yet to do.
But the true message of Trump’s address could be seen near the White House. On H Street, one of the closest publicly accessible streets to the White House, a crowd had gathered to demonstrate against police violence. Without warning or provocation, the police shot tear gas into the crowd and fired rubber bullets. Mounted police rode into the crowd, herding the entirely peaceful and legitimate demonstrators away from their location.
The reason for their move soon became clear. Trump had planned a visit to St. John’s Church, on the same block as the demonstration. St. John’s had been damaged during last night’s upheaval and had become a cause célèbre for conservatives angry about the unrest. The protest was in the way.
People gathering to demonstrate against police violence were attacked by the police so the president could have a photo op. Trump’s claim to respect “peaceful protesters,” and only want to forcefully break up the violent ones, was almost immediately shown to be hollow.
UPDATE: This piece originally referred to Trump’s Monday address as Trump’s first televised “statement” on the George Floyd protests. It was Trump’s first full televised speech dedicated to the topic, but on Saturday he did touch on the protests during an address otherwise focused on the SpaceX launch. We have changed the language to reflect that.


vox--2020-06-01--Minnesota law enforcement isn’t “contact tracing” protesters, despite an official’s comment

“ Contact tracing ” has become the term du jour in the coronavirus era , as it ’ s largely seen as one of our best , time-tested tools to contain the spread of the virus and safely reopen the country .
But it ’ s also controversial , especially with the rollout of digital contact tracing tools , some of which were created by data-greedy tech companies .
Privacy advocates have feared that the public health crisis could give rise to surveillance methods that are applied to other areas long after the pandemic has passed .
Some are stoking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Public Safety raised alarm bells last weekend when Commissioner John Harrington said in a press conference that law enforcement was using “ contact tracing ” on arrested protesters .
“ As we ’ ve begun making arrests , we have begun analyzing the data of who we have arrested and begun actually doing what we think is almost pretty similar to our Covid , ” Harrington said .
“ It ’ s contact tracing.
” Not quite .
According to Minnesota public health authorities , Harrington was referring to the normal process of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean that the police were using data from Covid-19 contact tracing efforts or tools to assist in those investigations , as some have interpreted his remarks to mean .
“ He used the term ‘ contract tracing ’ as a metaphor , ” Julie Bartkey , a spokesperson for the Minnesota Department of Health , told Recode .
“ Just as we at MDH have used the term ‘ disease investigators ’ to describe our epi [ demiology ] processes , they used a public health term .
But their process does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is talking about typical criminal investigative work , not a new technology or strategy , ” Bruce Gordon , director of communications for the Minnesota Department of Public Safety , told Recode .
“ He borrowed a term from the Covid-19 world.
” Contact tracing is the process of finding out who an infected person has had recent contact with , and then informing those people that they ’ ve been exposed to the illness in order to avoid further spread of the disease .
In the absence of a national effort to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousands of people to do this work .
Somewhat ironically , Minnesota does not appear to be one of them .
The state has had trouble expanding its contact tracing efforts due to Republican concerns about the cost .
Some states and countries have introduced digital contract tracing tools as well , though their effectiveness has yet to be proven .
But Harrington ’ s appropriation of a Covid-fighting term could make a public that ’ s already suspicious of law enforcement refuse to participate in public health efforts to find and help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would then render those efforts less effective .
Considering that the mass congregations of protesters could become hotbeds for the spread of the virus , it ’ s especially concerning that the very people who would benefit most from contact tracing now have that much more reason not to trust it .
And they might not be wrong — at least , not entirely .
Bartkey also said that the MDH doesn ’ t have a policy or law specifically forbidding law enforcement from accessing or using any information collected by coronavirus contact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too new to have legislation attached to it , ” Bartkey said .
That ’ s a problem , and not just for Minnesota .
The Electronic Frontier Foundation ( EFF ) has written extensively about the need for laws and controls over the data collected for the purposes of combating the coronavirus .
“ We need new laws to guarantee such data minimization , not just for contact tracing , but for all Covid-19 responses that gather personal information , ” Adam Schwartz , senior staff attorney for the EFF , recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a bill that would put limits on digital contact tracing tools and the data they collect will soon be introduced to the Senate .
It has bipartisan support , including from Maria Cantwell , the highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate Commerce Committee .
In mid-May , House and Senate Democrats introduced another bill that would similarly protect health data collected during a public health crisis .
So that needed legislation may be coming , but it ’ s not here yet .
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 downturn .
Your financial contribution will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

“Contact tracing” has become the term du jour in the coronavirus era, as it’s largely seen as one of our best, time-tested tools to contain the spread of the virus and safely reopen the country. But it’s also controversial, especially with the rollout of digital contact tracing tools, some of which were created by data-greedy tech companies. Privacy advocates have feared that the public health crisis could give rise to surveillance methods that are applied to other areas long after the pandemic has passed. Some are stoking those fears.
The Minnesota Department of Public Safety raised alarm bells last weekend when Commissioner John Harrington said in a press conference that law enforcement was using “contact tracing” on arrested protesters.
Minnesota Public Safety Commissioner John Harrington says they've begun contact tracing arrestees.
"Who are they associated with? What platforms are they advocating for? ... Is this organized crime? ... We are in the process right now of building that information network." pic.twitter.com/U0KNIVHnf6 — NBC News (@NBCNews) May 30, 2020
“As we’ve begun making arrests, we have begun analyzing the data of who we have arrested and begun actually doing what we think is almost pretty similar to our Covid,” Harrington said. “It’s contact tracing.”
Not quite. According to Minnesota public health authorities, Harrington was referring to the normal process of law enforcement investigations. He did not mean that the police were using data from Covid-19 contact tracing efforts or tools to assist in those investigations, as some have interpreted his remarks to mean.
“He used the term ‘contract tracing’ as a metaphor,” Julie Bartkey, a spokesperson for the Minnesota Department of Health, told Recode. “Just as we at MDH have used the term ‘disease investigators’ to describe our epi[demiology] processes, they used a public health term. But their process does not involve public health authorities.”
A spokesperson for Harrington agreed.
“He is talking about typical criminal investigative work, not a new technology or strategy,” Bruce Gordon, director of communications for the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, told Recode. “He borrowed a term from the Covid-19 world.”
Contact tracing is the process of finding out who an infected person has had recent contact with, and then informing those people that they’ve been exposed to the illness in order to avoid further spread of the disease. In the absence of a national effort to contain the virus, states have hired thousands of people to do this work. Somewhat ironically, Minnesota does not appear to be one of them. The state has had trouble expanding its contact tracing efforts due to Republican concerns about the cost. Some states and countries have introduced digital contract tracing tools as well, though their effectiveness has yet to be proven.
But Harrington’s appropriation of a Covid-fighting term could make a public that’s already suspicious of law enforcement refuse to participate in public health efforts to find and help people exposed to the coronavirus, which would then render those efforts less effective. Considering that the mass congregations of protesters could become hotbeds for the spread of the virus, it’s especially concerning that the very people who would benefit most from contact tracing now have that much more reason not to trust it.
And they might not be wrong — at least, not entirely. Bartkey also said that the MDH doesn’t have a policy or law specifically forbidding law enforcement from accessing or using any information collected by coronavirus contact tracers or tools.
“Covid is too new to have legislation attached to it,” Bartkey said.
That’s a problem, and not just for Minnesota. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has written extensively about the need for laws and controls over the data collected for the purposes of combating the coronavirus.
“We need new laws to guarantee such data minimization, not just for contact tracing, but for all Covid-19 responses that gather personal information,” Adam Schwartz, senior staff attorney for the EFF, recently wrote.
According to the Washington Post, a bill that would put limits on digital contact tracing tools and the data they collect will soon be introduced to the Senate. It has bipartisan support, including from Maria Cantwell, the highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate Commerce Committee. In mid-May, House and Senate Democrats introduced another bill that would similarly protect health data collected during a public health crisis. So that needed legislation may be coming, but it’s not here yet.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-06-01--Target’s history of working with police is not a good look right now

Target will temporarily close or limit hours at about 200 stores as protests over the death of George Floyd continue to sweep the nation .
Other major retailers like Apple , CVS , and Walmart are doing the same .
But Target , which is headquartered in Minneapolis and has a history of working with police there , seems to be getting a lot of attention .
At least a few people have started spreading a refrain on social media : “ Loot every Target.
” Looting Target specifically dates back to the first days of the protests in Minneapolis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ store — which is about 3 miles from where George Floyd , an unarmed black man , died after a police officer pressed a knee against Floyd ’ s neck for nearly nine minutes — was looted and partially burned last week .
It ’ s not clear if the Lake Street store was deliberately targeted , but it is across the street from the Minneapolis Third Police Precinct , which was burned to the ground amid anti-police brutality demonstrations .
And again , many other retailers , including Walmart , were looted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peaceful protests as well as some demonstrations that became violent after police got involved .
At the same time , the destruction of this particular Target location is sparking discussions about police partnerships and surveillance programs facilitated by the company , both at the Lake Street store and at Target stores nationwide .
“ Target HQ is in Minneapolis .
Lake St. Target , which got looted tonight , is literally Target ’ s experimental site for loss prevention & surveillance policies geared toward poor people .
Very few people in the neighborhood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ian Coldwater explained in a tweet .
“ It ’ s also why Lake Street Target is so consistently awful in different ways to all the other ones , it ’ s engineered to be that way.
” Others have dug into Target ’ s past to highlight the company ’ s work with the Minneapolis Police Department .
The company offered the city “ financial and intellectual support ” for the city ’ s SafeZone program , which set up a network of closed-circuit television ( CCTV ) cameras all around downtown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for sharing issues in real time .
That support included a $ 300,000 donation , and the whole program was inspired by a similar one in Northampton , England , which had used the technology to fight a crime wave and attacks from the Irish Republican Army ( IRA ) .
The SafeZone program was part of the larger Safe City program and has since become a nonprofit independent from Target .
Recode reached out to the SafeZone program in Minneapolis but did not hear back in time for publication .
Over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with police nationwide .
A 2010 report by the Police Executive Research Forum , a law enforcement membership organization , says that “ Target and local partners have started Safe City projects in more than 20 other cities across the United States.
” That ’ s not all .
Target critics are also pointing to a 2011 article from Minnesota Public Radio ( MPR ) describing how the company created the Target Forensic Services Laboratory focused on investigating a range of crimes including shoplifting .
The featured lab was located at Target ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and , according to MPR , it stayed busy “ lending its high-end technology and professionals to law enforcement agencies free of charge.
” The article points out that the Target lab carries the same certification used by any crime lab at a police department .
“ We ask for nothing in return .
There ’ s no quid pro quo — we ’ ve never asked for video forensics services or anything else we ’ ve done for anything , ” Target VP Brad Brekke said at the time .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to them and the community.
” On its corporate website , Target explains that , starting in 2003 , the company has been running the lab in Minneapolis and a second lab in Las Vegas .
The program “ offers assistance to domestic law enforcement agencies free-of-charge ” and “ is reserved for violent felonies or special circumstance cases.
” Target adds that its forensics labs can provide fingerprint , video , and audio analysis .
The company also says it has “ created a secure site that allows Target and law enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provides grants for public safety agencies .
Target ’ s pursuit of high-tech security tools has continued over the years .
In 2016 , Bloomberg reported : The Seattle Times reported that those particular technologies , as well as “ testing facial recognition software to prevent fraud and theft in a small number of stores , ” were discontinued in 2018 .
Target CEO Brian Cornell addressed the situation at the Lake Street store in a statement on Saturday , though he didn ’ t specifically reference the looting .
He pledged to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but he did not mention Target policies about working with police departments or its approaches to store security .
Target did not answer Recode ’ s questions about its current use of facial recognition or surveillance technology , or whether it had any plans to change how it works with police .
As the George Floyd protests enter their second week , it seems evident that the unrest will continue , and we don ’ t know if looters will descend on Targets or Walmarts or Apple Stores or anywhere .
Over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several protesters blocked a Target entrance from would-be looters .
Even if looting continues , experts say Target probably has a good insurance policy to cover the damage .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Target will temporarily close or limit hours at about 200 stores as protests over the death of George Floyd continue to sweep the nation. Other major retailers like Apple, CVS, and Walmart are doing the same. But Target, which is headquartered in Minneapolis and has a history of working with police there, seems to be getting a lot of attention. At least a few people have started spreading a refrain on social media: “Loot every Target.”
Looting Target specifically dates back to the first days of the protests in Minneapolis. The company’s Lake Street store — which is about 3 miles from where George Floyd, an unarmed black man, died after a police officer pressed a knee against Floyd’s neck for nearly nine minutes — was looted and partially burned last week. It’s not clear if the Lake Street store was deliberately targeted, but it is across the street from the Minneapolis Third Police Precinct, which was burned to the ground amid anti-police brutality demonstrations. And again, many other retailers, including Walmart, were looted over a weekend that was filled with peaceful protests as well as some demonstrations that became violent after police got involved.
At the same time, the destruction of this particular Target location is sparking discussions about police partnerships and surveillance programs facilitated by the company, both at the Lake Street store and at Target stores nationwide.
“Target HQ is in Minneapolis. Lake St. Target, which got looted tonight, is literally Target’s experimental site for loss prevention & surveillance policies geared toward poor people. Very few people in the neighborhood like that Target,” security engineer Ian Coldwater explained in a tweet. “It’s also why Lake Street Target is so consistently awful in different ways to all the other ones, it’s engineered to be that way.”
Target denies this.
“Target’s Lake St. store is not, nor has it ever been an experimental site for loss prevention and surveillance,” Target spokesperson Jessica Carlson told Recode. “We use the same technology and tools in this location as we do across our stores. It’s a combination of technology, including cameras, as well as team members with extensive training to support guest and team members safety and store security.”
Carlson added that the company has “never used any type of facial recognition in this location.”
Others have dug into Target’s past to highlight the company’s work with the Minneapolis Police Department. The company offered the city “financial and intellectual support” for the city’s SafeZone program, which set up a network of closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras all around downtown Minneapolis and gave radios to business owners for sharing issues in real time. That support included a $300,000 donation, and the whole program was inspired by a similar one in Northampton, England, which had used the technology to fight a crime wave and attacks from the Irish Republican Army (IRA). The SafeZone program was part of the larger Safe City program and has since become a nonprofit independent from Target. Recode reached out to the SafeZone program in Minneapolis but did not hear back in time for publication.
Over the years, Target has expanded its work with police nationwide. A 2010 report by the Police Executive Research Forum, a law enforcement membership organization, says that “Target and local partners have started Safe City projects in more than 20 other cities across the United States.”
That’s not all. Target critics are also pointing to a 2011 article from Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) describing how the company created the Target Forensic Services Laboratory focused on investigating a range of crimes including shoplifting. The featured lab was located at Target’s Brooklyn Park campus in Minneapolis, and, according to MPR, it stayed busy “lending its high-end technology and professionals to law enforcement agencies free of charge.” The article points out that the Target lab carries the same certification used by any crime lab at a police department.
“We ask for nothing in return. There’s no quid pro quo — we’ve never asked for video forensics services or anything else we’ve done for anything,” Target VP Brad Brekke said at the time. “We just offer it up as a commitment to them and the community.”
On its corporate website, Target explains that, starting in 2003, the company has been running the lab in Minneapolis and a second lab in Las Vegas. The program “offers assistance to domestic law enforcement agencies free-of-charge” and “is reserved for violent felonies or special circumstance cases.” Target adds that its forensics labs can provide fingerprint, video, and audio analysis. The company also says it has “created a secure site that allows Target and law enforcement agencies to collaborate” and that it provides grants for public safety agencies.
Target’s pursuit of high-tech security tools has continued over the years. In 2016, Bloomberg reported:
Like Walmart, Target relies heavily on video surveillance, but it employs sophisticated software that can alert the store security office when shoppers spend too much time in front of merchandise or linger for long periods outside after closing time. The biggest difference, police say, is simply that Targets have more staff visible in stores.
The Seattle Times reported that those particular technologies, as well as “testing facial recognition software to prevent fraud and theft in a small number of stores,” were discontinued in 2018. Target confirmed this to Recode.
“In 2018, we concluded a very short, small test of facial recognition software to understand its ability to help prevent fraud and theft,” Carlson, the Target spokesperson, said. “We no longer use this technology in any of our stores.”
Target CEO Brian Cornell addressed the situation at the Lake Street store in a statement on Saturday, though he didn’t specifically reference the looting. He pledged to rebuild the devastated store later this year, but he did not mention Target policies about working with police departments or its approaches to store security.
As the George Floyd protests enter their second week, it seems evident that the unrest will continue, and we don’t know if looters will descend on Targets or Walmarts or Apple Stores or anywhere. Over the weekend in Brooklyn, however, several protesters blocked a Target entrance from would-be looters. Even if looting continues, experts say Target probably has a good insurance policy to cover the damage.
Update, June 5 9:35 am: This story has been updated to include comments from a Target spokesperson. The company also provided this statement:


vox--2020-06-01--Professor Ibram X. Kendi on why it’s not enough to admit when you’re being racist: “Challenge those

Professor Ibram X. Kendi on why it’s not enough to admit when you’re being racist: “Challenge those racist ideas”

Do you remember President Trump ’ s inaugural address ?
He talked about crime , gang violence , drugs .
He called it “ American carnage.
” The speech left a lot of people scratching their heads .
Violent crime in the country had been trending downward for decades .
George W. Bush , who was actually seated a few feet away from the new president apparently turned to his neighbors when the speech was over and said , “ That was some weird shit.
” But now , in the fourth year of the Trump presidency , “ American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such a head-scratcher .
The US has reached a grim milestone : 100,000 coronavirus deaths .
At least 40 million Americans unemployed .
Horrifying videos of black men being killed by police and racist police wannabes .
And now , protests in the streets across the country .
Most are peaceful .
Some are violent .
Both versions are being met with police brutality .
The whole world is watching the American carnage .
Professor and the director of the Antiracist Research and Policy Center at American University Ibram X. Kendi has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reached him for this episode , and he said he ’ s got a different name for it : the “ American nightmare.
” Below is a lightly edited transcript of the conversation .
Subscribe to Today , Explained wherever you get your podcasts , including Apple Podcasts , Google Podcasts , and Spotify .
First and foremost , it ’ s critical for every American to stop saying terms like , “ I ’ m not racist.
” And I think it ’ s critically important for Americans to admit the racist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to believe .
It ’ s critically important for Americans to admit the racist policies they ’ ve supported that have led to inequality and injustice and death .
And it ’ s critically important for them to admit the times in which they were being racist because there ’ s no way they can change themselves if they ’ re still in that denial .
So to be anti-racist is to admit when we ’ re being racist .
And then not only that admission , but then we challenge those racist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say the problem is power and policy when there is inequity , not people .
And then we spend our time , we spend our funds , we spend our energy challenging racist policy and power .
It just feels so insurmountable .
Especially right now .
I mean , without question , even in How to Be an Antiracist , I write about racism as like a metastatic disease that literally has spread to every part of the body politic .
And we can see those , sort of , tumor cells @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Breonna Taylors who are dying through all of the injustices and the inequities .
And so it ’ s everywhere and it ’ s always been widespread in the United States .
And so the question is , will we just believe that it ’ s always going to be here and then guarantee our death ?
Or will we basically acknowledge our diagnosis that we had this metastatic racism that we have to treat , that the treatment is going to be painful ?
And simultaneously believe that we can live .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of someone who was diagnosed with metastatic colon cancer , who was basically told that only 12 percent of people survive this disease .
And I had two choices—either I just give up or fight and try to sort of live against all odds .
The United States has just been fighting this for so long .
It ’ s this congenital disease , right ?
And that makes us different from just about every country on earth .
It ’ s just so much more complex here and so much more intertwined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re correct when you say it takes — you know , understanding race and racism is extremely difficult , and it is extremely complex .
But something can be extremely complex while at the same time extremely simple .
And the simplicity of it is that you have racial disparities in the United States , in Canada , in other countries .
And there ’ s only two causes of , you know , racial disparities .
Either certain groups are better or worse than others and that ’ s why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Those are the only two options , and antiracists believe that the racial groups are equal , and so they ’ re trying to change policy .
And racists believe that certain groups are better or worse than others .
So they are either trying to get rid of people , or segregate people , or civilize people .
Indeed , there ’ s two American racial histories .
There ’ s the history of racist progress , wherein you ’ ve had those forces that are constantly seeking to maintain racial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become more sophisticated over time .
But you ’ ve also had a history of antiracist progress .
Obviously the reasons why racist policies and ideas have had to become more sophisticated over time is because they ’ ve been constantly challenged .
And antiracist activists have constantly , at times , won battles only for them to potentially lose the next battle .
And so , you know , that ’ s how you can have , in the same country , a manifestation of racial progress , as for many people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a manifestation of racist progress , who for many people is Donald Trump .
You mention Barack Obama .
I think a lot of people hoped Barack Obama meant a new day for this American nightmare you write about .
But here we are .
You had the rapper Killer Mike come out in Atlanta this weekend and say don ’ t burn the city down .
Vote .
The mayor of Atlanta echoed that sentiment .
But a lot of people don ’ t think that ’ ll do the trick .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t think voting in a black leader , a progressive leader , is enough ?
That the whole system needs to crumble before we can fix this ?
It ’ s one thing to say that one of the ways in which you should channel your anger is through seeking to vote into power antiracist elected officials .
And it ’ s yet another thing to say that in reaction to people who are protesting or demonstrating against police violence in Atlanta .
And instead of Atlanta ’ s officials immediately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reduce police violence against people , instead , those Atlanta officials make immediate policy changes to stem violence against property and police and then simultaneously say to those very people , “ Well , you need to channel your energy into electing people like me.
” But those very people who are elected officials actually have the power in that moment to make changes .
And they ’ re not doing it .
So you can ’ t simultaneously not use your power to make change and then tell people , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and then change will come.
” All the attention right now is on the people who are out in the streets demanding change — and the people who are angry , the people who are breaking windows , the people who are policing those people .
But there are a lot of people out there who are concerned , who see injustice and violence and want to do something but don ’ t know what to do .
If you scroll down Twitter , if you ’ re on Instagram , you see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time you speak up .
And a lot of people probably don ’ t know what to say or what to do .
And I wonder what you would tell those people .
Every individual lives in a neighborhood .
And chances are that neighborhood has racial disparities .
Every individual operates in an institution , whether that ’ s their job , whether that ’ s their church , whether that ’ s a club .
Chances are their job , their institution has racial disparities or is doing nothing in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so I think every individual can look around their own neighborhood , their own institution , and ask the question , ‘ Well , who here is challenging the policy that is leading to these racial disparities ?
’ And they can join with those people , they can join that organization .
And if there isn ’ t an organization , and I suspect there probably is or , you know , an informal group of people , then you create one .
Then you become that organizer .
Every single individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Do you remember President Trump’s inaugural address? He talked about crime, gang violence, drugs. He called it “American carnage.”
The speech left a lot of people scratching their heads. Violent crime in the country had been trending downward for decades. George W. Bush, who was actually seated a few feet away from the new president apparently turned to his neighbors when the speech was over and said, “That was some weird shit.”
But now, in the fourth year of the Trump presidency, “American carnage” doesn’t feel like such a head-scratcher. The US has reached a grim milestone: 100,000 coronavirus deaths. At least 40 million Americans unemployed. Horrifying videos of black men being killed by police and racist police wannabes. And now, protests in the streets across the country. Most are peaceful. Some are violent. Both versions are being met with police brutality. The whole world is watching the American carnage.
Professor and the director of the Antiracist Research and Policy Center at American University Ibram X. Kendi has been watching, too. Today, Explained reached him for this episode, and he said he’s got a different name for it: the “American nightmare.” Below is a lightly edited transcript of the conversation.
Subscribe to Today, Explained wherever you get your podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Spotify.
Ibram X. Kendi
First and foremost, it’s critical for every American to stop saying terms like, “I’m not racist.” And I think it’s critically important for Americans to admit the racist ideas that they have likely been raised to believe. It’s critically important for Americans to admit the racist policies they’ve supported that have led to inequality and injustice and death. And it’s critically important for them to admit the times in which they were being racist because there’s no way they can change themselves if they’re still in that denial.
So to be anti-racist is to admit when we’re being racist. And then not only that admission, but then we challenge those racist ideas. We adopt antiracist ideas that say the problem is power and policy when there is inequity, not people. And then we spend our time, we spend our funds, we spend our energy challenging racist policy and power.
Sean Rameswaram
It just feels so insurmountable. Especially right now.
Ibram X. Kendi
I mean, without question, even in How to Be an Antiracist, I write about racism as like a metastatic disease that literally has spread to every part of the body politic. And we can see those, sort of, tumor cells through all of the George Floyds and Breonna Taylors who are dying through all of the injustices and the inequities. And so it’s everywhere and it’s always been widespread in the United States.
And so the question is, will we just believe that it’s always going to be here and then guarantee our death? Or will we basically acknowledge our diagnosis that we had this metastatic racism that we have to treat, that the treatment is going to be painful? And simultaneously believe that we can live. And I say this from the standpoint of someone who was diagnosed with metastatic colon cancer, who was basically told that only 12 percent of people survive this disease. And I had two choices—either I just give up or fight and try to sort of live against all odds.
Sean Rameswaram
The United States has just been fighting this for so long. It’s this congenital disease, right? And that makes us different from just about every country on earth. It’s just so much more complex here and so much more intertwined with who we are.
Ibram X. Kendi
I think you’re correct when you say it takes — you know, understanding race and racism is extremely difficult, and it is extremely complex. But something can be extremely complex while at the same time extremely simple. And the simplicity of it is that you have racial disparities in the United States, in Canada, in other countries. And there’s only two causes of, you know, racial disparities. Either certain groups are better or worse than others and that’s why they have more, or racist policy. Those are the only two options, and antiracists believe that the racial groups are equal, and so they’re trying to change policy. And racists believe that certain groups are better or worse than others. So they are either trying to get rid of people, or segregate people, or civilize people. Indeed, there’s two American racial histories.
There’s the history of racist progress, wherein you’ve had those forces that are constantly seeking to maintain racial inequity in their policies and ideas have become more sophisticated over time. But you’ve also had a history of antiracist progress. Obviously the reasons why racist policies and ideas have had to become more sophisticated over time is because they’ve been constantly challenged. And antiracist activists have constantly, at times, won battles only for them to potentially lose the next battle. And so, you know, that’s how you can have, in the same country, a manifestation of racial progress, as for many people, President Barack Obama was. And a manifestation of racist progress, who for many people is Donald Trump.
Sean Rameswaram
You mention Barack Obama. I think a lot of people hoped Barack Obama meant a new day for this American nightmare you write about. But here we are. You had the rapper Killer Mike come out in Atlanta this weekend and say don’t burn the city down. Vote. The mayor of Atlanta echoed that sentiment.
But a lot of people don’t think that’ll do the trick. What do you say to people who don’t think voting in a black leader, a progressive leader, is enough? That the whole system needs to crumble before we can fix this?
Ibram X. Kendi
It’s one thing to say that one of the ways in which you should channel your anger is through seeking to vote into power antiracist elected officials. And it’s yet another thing to say that in reaction to people who are protesting or demonstrating against police violence in Atlanta. And instead of Atlanta’s officials immediately making policy changes that have the capacity to reduce police violence against people, instead, those Atlanta officials make immediate policy changes to stem violence against property and police and then simultaneously say to those very people, “Well, you need to channel your energy into electing people like me.” But those very people who are elected officials actually have the power in that moment to make changes. And they’re not doing it. So you can’t simultaneously not use your power to make change and then tell people, “You should be electing people like me and then change will come.”
Sean Rameswaram
All the attention right now is on the people who are out in the streets demanding change — and the people who are angry, the people who are breaking windows, the people who are policing those people. But there are a lot of people out there who are concerned, who see injustice and violence and want to do something but don’t know what to do. If you scroll down Twitter, if you’re on Instagram, you see a lot of people saying now is the time you speak up. And a lot of people probably don’t know what to say or what to do. And I wonder what you would tell those people.
Ibram X. Kendi
Every individual lives in a neighborhood. And chances are that neighborhood has racial disparities. Every individual operates in an institution, whether that’s their job, whether that’s their church, whether that’s a club. Chances are their job, their institution has racial disparities or is doing nothing in the face of racial disparities. And so I think every individual can look around their own neighborhood, their own institution, and ask the question, ‘Well, who here is challenging the policy that is leading to these racial disparities?’ And they can join with those people, they can join that organization. And if there isn’t an organization, and I suspect there probably is or, you know, an informal group of people, then you create one. Then you become that organizer. Every single individual has the power to do that.


vox--2020-06-01--Police brutality is a public health crisis

America ’ s crises are boiling over , one into another .
Amid the coronavirus pandemic , masses of people are taking to the streets to protest police brutality after the death of George Floyd in Minnesota and other victims of racial violence .
These two stories are linked .
They are both public health stories .
The link is systemic racism .
“ The same broad-sweeping structural racism that enables police brutality against black Americans is also responsible for higher mortality among black Americans with Covid-19 , ” Maimuna Majumder , a Harvard epidemiologist working on the Covid-19 response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every 1,000 black men and boys can expect to be killed by police in this country , ” she says .
“ To me , this clearly illustrates why police brutality is a public health problem ; anything that causes mortality at such a scale is a public health problem.
” As the Covid-19 crisis continues , it ’ s also become clear that black communities , and other communities of color , have suffered a disproportionate burden .
Law professors Ruqaiijah Yearby and Seema Mohapatra recently explained this in detail in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans make up just 12 % of the population in Washtenaw County , Michigan but have suffered a staggering 46 % of COVID-19 infections .
In Chicago , Illinois , African Americans account for 29 % of population , but have suffered 70 % of COVID-19 related deaths of those whose ethnicity is known .
In Washington , Latinos represent 13 % of the population , but account for 31 % of the COVID-19 cases , while in Iowa Latinos comprise are 6 % of the population but 20 % of COVID-19 infections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are higher than their percentage of the population in racially segregated cities and states including Milwaukee , Wisconsin ( 66 % of deaths , 41 % of population ) , Illinois ( 43 % of deaths , 28 % of infections , 15 % of population ) , and Louisiana ( 46 % of deaths , 36 % of population ) .
These racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 infections and deaths are a result of historical and current practices of racism that cause disparities in exposure , susceptibility and treatment .
Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mohapatra write , have been classified as “ essential workers , ” and are unable to work from home , leave their job , or access paid sick leave .
They live in denser housing and more often polluted communities than whites — a result of years of racist housing policy that puts them at greater risk during a pandemic .
And when they do get sick , their access to health care is often limited ( as is their ability to pay for it ) .
Can the mass protests alleviate the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immediately .
And there is a real risk of making it worse .
“ The ongoing protests will increase risk of transmission , ” Majumder says .
But even so , she and many other health experts argue the protests are necessary .
( There are ways to reduce the risk of spreading Covid-19 at a protest .
Read about them here . )
“ We can ’ t compare these two tragedies directly — but they both are public health crises that are operating at immense scales , ” she says .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans , they ’ re interrelated , too .
To me , these protests are about structural racism.
” And that racism allows police brutality to persist , as it allows disease to spread .
Many other epidemiologists , doctors , and infectious disease researchers have also defended the current protests , highlighting the inextricable link between the heavy toll of Covid-19 on black communities and the history of racism : “ What is the greater harm to society ?
Current and intergenerational trauma , which stems from police violence , or risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota , says .
“ The fact that people are out there protesting , despite the risks of Covid-19 , tells you that the fear of police brutality , racism , is much more terrifying.
” That said , Slaughter-Acey does worry about Covid-19 spreading at protests , and that it “ would disproportionately affect the black community again.
” The forces that put many minority communities at risk during a pandemic have also put them at risk of police violence .
Years of diminished economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racism , have led to both .
“ In almost any way you measure it , the American criminal justice system is prejudiced against black Americans , and black people are much more likely to be subjected to state-sanctioned violence in the US compared to white Americans , ” Vox ’ s Dylan Scott writes .
Similarly , by almost every measure , black Americans face much larger risks when it comes to public health .
They suffer heart disease , diabetes , asthma , and obesity in disproportionate numbers , too .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Covid-19 pandemic worse , too , because it creates mistrust in public institutions .
ProPublica recently investigated the first 100 Covid-19 deaths in Chicago .
Seventy of the deaths were African Americans , and ProPublica spoke to the families of 20 of them .
“ Even though many of these victims had medical conditions that made them particularly susceptible to the virus , they didn ’ t always get clear or appropriate guidance about seeking treatment , ” ProPublica writes in summary .
“ They lived near hospitals that they didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t adequately prepared to treat COVID-19 cases.
” These people did not go to their community hospitals “ because they did not feel that they were going to be treated , ” Slaughter-Acey says .
“ And that is the same thing with police violence .
Black Americans are less likely to call the police , even in a situation where police may be needed , because of fear that they might experience discrimination or be perceived as a perpetrator.
” Right now , the news is filled with images of mass gatherings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still be exercised .
And more Covid-19 infections may come out of it .
This is rightfully concerning .
But that concern can exist alongside the concern of violence and death that black communities face , pandemic or not .
Confronting the racism that puts black Americans at higher risk of dying at the hands of police means confronting the racism that puts black Americans at higher risk of dying from Covid-19 .
There are policies and ideas that can be implemented to help reduce police violence .
There are also policies and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on black and minority communities ( Yearby and Mohapatra discuss more in their paper , which you can read here ) .
But , at least for now , the goal of the protests is the same goal as the response to the pandemic : saving lives .
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 .

America’s crises are boiling over, one into another. Amid the coronavirus pandemic, masses of people are taking to the streets to protest police brutality after the death of George Floyd in Minnesota and other victims of racial violence.
These two stories are linked. They are both public health stories. The link is systemic racism.
“The same broad-sweeping structural racism that enables police brutality against black Americans is also responsible for higher mortality among black Americans with Covid-19,” Maimuna Majumder, a Harvard epidemiologist working on the Covid-19 response, tells Vox.
“One in every 1,000 black men and boys can expect to be killed by police in this country,” she says. “To me, this clearly illustrates why police brutality is a public health problem; anything that causes mortality at such a scale is a public health problem.”
As the Covid-19 crisis continues, it’s also become clear that black communities, and other communities of color, have suffered a disproportionate burden. Law professors Ruqaiijah Yearby and Seema Mohapatra recently explained this in detail in the Journal of Law and Bioscience:
African Americans make up just 12% of the population in Washtenaw County, Michigan but have suffered a staggering 46% of COVID-19 infections. In Chicago, Illinois, African Americans account for 29% of population, but have suffered 70% of COVID-19 related deaths of those whose ethnicity is known. In Washington, Latinos represent 13% of the population, but account for 31% of the COVID-19 cases, while in Iowa Latinos comprise are 6% of the population but 20% of COVID-19 infections. The African American COVID-19 death rates are higher than their percentage of the population in racially segregated cities and states including Milwaukee, Wisconsin (66% of deaths, 41% of population), Illinois (43% of deaths, 28% of infections, 15% of population), and Louisiana (46% of deaths, 36% of population). These racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 infections and deaths are a result of historical and current practices of racism that cause disparities in exposure, susceptibility and treatment.
Many racial and ethnic minorities, Yearby and Mohapatra write, have been classified as “essential workers,” and are unable to work from home, leave their job, or access paid sick leave. They live in denser housing and more often polluted communities than whites — a result of years of racist housing policy that puts them at greater risk during a pandemic. And when they do get sick, their access to health care is often limited (as is their ability to pay for it).
Can the mass protests alleviate the Covid-19 burden on these communities? Not immediately. And there is a real risk of making it worse. “The ongoing protests will increase risk of transmission,” Majumder says. But even so, she and many other health experts argue the protests are necessary. (There are ways to reduce the risk of spreading Covid-19 at a protest. Read about them here.)
“We can’t compare these two tragedies directly — but they both are public health crises that are operating at immense scales,” she says. “And in the case of black Americans, they’re interrelated, too. To me, these protests are about structural racism.” And that racism allows police brutality to persist, as it allows disease to spread.
Many other epidemiologists, doctors, and infectious disease researchers have also defended the current protests, highlighting the inextricable link between the heavy toll of Covid-19 on black communities and the history of racism:
1/ Those who earned big platforms from #covid19- your silence on racism will be deafening.
For those who see #covid19 & the #protests2020 as separate— they are not.
They are deeply interlinked
Until the deepest inequities are addressed— #racism being at the center of those... — Abraar Karan (@AbraarKaran) May 31, 2020
Angry commenters are trying to “gotcha” me on this tweet so let me be clear:
Yes, I condemned the anti-lockdown protests. Yes, I support the #BlackLivesMatter protests. No, those aren’t contradictory views. COVID is a public health emergency. So is racism. We need to fight both. https://t.co/ilZHpcS5Te — Ellie Murray (@EpiEllie) May 31, 2020
For the record, my personal opinion is that some injustices are too great to remain silent, where risks become acceptable because the damage they cause outweigh the benefits of not taking them. Epidemic racism meets that threshold. #BlackLivesMatter — Dr. Angela Rasmussen (@angie_rasmussen) June 1, 2020
“What is the greater harm to society? Current and intergenerational trauma, which stems from police violence, or risk related to Covid-19?” Jaime Slaughter-Acey, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota, says. “The fact that people are out there protesting, despite the risks of Covid-19, tells you that the fear of police brutality, racism, is much more terrifying.” That said, Slaughter-Acey does worry about Covid-19 spreading at protests, and that it “would disproportionately affect the black community again.”
The forces that put many minority communities at risk during a pandemic have also put them at risk of police violence. Years of diminished economic opportunity, of marginalization, of structural racism, have led to both.
“In almost any way you measure it, the American criminal justice system is prejudiced against black Americans, and black people are much more likely to be subjected to state-sanctioned violence in the US compared to white Americans,” Vox’s Dylan Scott writes. Similarly, by almost every measure, black Americans face much larger risks when it comes to public health. They suffer heart disease, diabetes, asthma, and obesity in disproportionate numbers, too.
Related How to more safely protest in a pandemic
Systemic racism has also made the outcomes of the Covid-19 pandemic worse, too, because it creates mistrust in public institutions. ProPublica recently investigated the first 100 Covid-19 deaths in Chicago. Seventy of the deaths were African Americans, and ProPublica spoke to the families of 20 of them.
“Even though many of these victims had medical conditions that made them particularly susceptible to the virus, they didn’t always get clear or appropriate guidance about seeking treatment,” ProPublica writes in summary. “They lived near hospitals that they didn’t trust and that weren’t adequately prepared to treat COVID-19 cases.”
These people did not go to their community hospitals “because they did not feel that they were going to be treated,” Slaughter-Acey says. “And that is the same thing with police violence. Black Americans are less likely to call the police, even in a situation where police may be needed, because of fear that they might experience discrimination or be perceived as a perpetrator.”
Right now, the news is filled with images of mass gatherings at a time when social distancing should still be exercised. And more Covid-19 infections may come out of it. This is rightfully concerning. But that concern can exist alongside the concern of violence and death that black communities face, pandemic or not.
Confronting the racism that puts black Americans at higher risk of dying at the hands of police means confronting the racism that puts black Americans at higher risk of dying from Covid-19. There are policies and ideas that can be implemented to help reduce police violence. There are also policies and ideas that can ease the coronavirus burden on black and minority communities (Yearby and Mohapatra discuss more in their paper, which you can read here).
But, at least for now, the goal of the protests is the same goal as the response to the pandemic: saving lives.


vox--2020-06-01--Many Facebook employees think the company needs to stand up to Trump now more than ever

In a rare display of public dissent , Facebook employees are criticizing CEO Mark Zuckerberg .
They disagree with his decision to do nothing about President Donald Trump ’ s inflammatory posts about people protesting the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis .
After Trump posted on Friday on both Facebook and Twitter that “ when the looting starts , the shooting starts ” in response to protests in Minneapolis , civil rights leaders from groups such as Color of Change — as well some of Facebook ’ s own employees — called for the social media companies to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them for violent rhetoric .
Twitter left up the controversial post but put a warning label on it , building on a decision it made earlier in the week when it fact-checked the president ’ s tweets that shared misleading information about voting by mail .
But Zuckerberg decided to leave all of the posts up as-is , arguing that while he strongly disagreed with the president ’ s comments about protesters , the post didn ’ t violate company policies about inciting violence .
He had appeared on Fox News earlier in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criticized Twitter for fact-checking Trump ’ s posts on mail-in ballots .
He said he didn ’ t want his company to be an “ arbiter of truth ” on political issues .
Now , Zuckerberg is facing an unprecedented public backlash from Facebook employees .
On Twitter , several senior-level employees have criticized Zuckerberg ’ s decision to leave Trump ’ s comments up .
Dozens of employees are participating in a “ virtual walkout ” protest by taking Monday off and changing their internal avatars to an icon of a raised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first reported .
Recode has learned that employees are continuing to openly challenge company leadership on internal forums and in a regularly scheduled virtual Q & A meeting with Facebook Chief Technology Officer Mike Schroepfer on Monday .
For Facebook , a company with a famously unified culture , which at times some former employees have described as sycophantic , this represents a significant internal shift at the company .
It reflects both the urgency of current events as well as the frustration of employees who have been quietly agitating in private for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s posts but feel the company ignored their voices .
As tensions peaked on Sunday evening , Zuckerberg announced the company will donate $ 10 million toward groups working on racial justice .
But that seemed to incense some employees even more .
“ How do you expect us to work at a company that supports a man who is constantly inciting violence and bigotry in this country ?
” “ Instead of throwing money at this , can we take a real stand and change our policies and products to get at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one employee wrote , according to internal comments on Zuckerberg ’ s post announcing the donation on Facebook ’ s internal Workplace platform for employee communication , which Recode viewed .
“ Why are we standing by and letting our platform be used to threaten and incite violence ?
” This isn ’ t the first time Facebook has been accused of inaction when it comes to enforcing its moderation rules on posts from Trump or other high-profile politicians .
But now employees are voicing concerns , arguing that Facebook has an important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of acceptability for a world leader ’ s discourse .
“ We recognize the pain many of our people are feeling right now , especially our Black community .
We encourage employees to speak openly when they disagree with leadership .
As we face additional difficult decisions around content ahead , we ’ ll continue seeking their honest feedback , ” a Facebook spokesperson said in a statement to Recode , adding that Facebook will support employees who participate in the virtual walkout Monday by not requiring them to use their own paid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expect us to work at a company that supports a man who is constantly inciting violence and bigotry in this country ?
” another employee wrote on Zuckerberg ’ s internal company post announcing the $ 10 million donation .
The post had more than 200 employee comments as of Monday morning , most of them critical , according to a source who spoke on the condition of anonymity .
Some employees , however , seem to line up behind Zuckerberg , with one commenter saying that “ probably the silent majority ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Another employee proposed running a company-wide survey to gauge whether or not that ’ s true .
In a National Research Group poll reported by Axios , a narrow majority of Americans are in favor of moderating Trump ’ s speech online , with 54 percent of respondents saying they support Trump being fact-checked on social media .
In addition to voicing their anger , many Facebook employees proposed solutions to Facebook ’ s issues around moderating Trump , such as reworking its hate speech rules or applying its policies around violent speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as it does to regular people .
“ I think the most important thing is that we use the exact same standard to treat Trump ’ s post as we treat all the other potential violence incitement posts on our platform , ” wrote another Facebook employee in response to Zuckerberg ’ s Sunday internal post .
“ Even though he is a ‘ celebrity , ’ given the sensitivity of the topic and his influence , we don ’ t want to shield him from any protection.
” Another asked when Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oversight board , which is supposed to make decisions on contentious posts .
But the oversight board is reportedly going to take months , at the earliest , to become operational .
And even then , it likely wouldn ’ t address the kinds of incendiary statements Trump posts because it will start by reviewing content that may have been unfairly taken down — and Trump ’ s comments about protesters have been allowed to stay up .
In the meantime , Facebook will continue to face employee pushback , which shows no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure , Zuckerberg is shifting the company ’ s end-of-week all-hands to Tuesday , when he is expected to address concerns about recent decisions in an internal Q & A .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

In a rare display of public dissent, Facebook employees are criticizing CEO Mark Zuckerberg. They disagree with his decision to do nothing about President Donald Trump’s inflammatory posts about people protesting the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
After Trump posted on Friday on both Facebook and Twitter that “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” in response to protests in Minneapolis, civil rights leaders from groups such as Color of Change — as well some of Facebook’s own employees — called for the social media companies to take the posts down or otherwise flag them for violent rhetoric.
Twitter left up the controversial post but put a warning label on it, building on a decision it made earlier in the week when it fact-checked the president’s tweets that shared misleading information about voting by mail. But Zuckerberg decided to leave all of the posts up as-is, arguing that while he strongly disagreed with the president’s comments about protesters, the post didn’t violate company policies about inciting violence. He had appeared on Fox News earlier in the week as well, where he criticized Twitter for fact-checking Trump’s posts on mail-in ballots. He said he didn’t want his company to be an “arbiter of truth” on political issues.
Now, Zuckerberg is facing an unprecedented public backlash from Facebook employees. On Twitter, several senior-level employees have criticized Zuckerberg’s decision to leave Trump’s comments up. Dozens of employees are participating in a “virtual walkout” protest by taking Monday off and changing their internal avatars to an icon of a raised fist, as the New York Times first reported.
Recode has learned that employees are continuing to openly challenge company leadership on internal forums and in a regularly scheduled virtual Q&A meeting with Facebook Chief Technology Officer Mike Schroepfer on Monday. For Facebook, a company with a famously unified culture, which at times some former employees have described as sycophantic, this represents a significant internal shift at the company. It reflects both the urgency of current events as well as the frustration of employees who have been quietly agitating in private for Facebook to take action on Trump’s posts but feel the company ignored their voices.
As tensions peaked on Sunday evening, Zuckerberg announced the company will donate $10 million toward groups working on racial justice. But that seemed to incense some employees even more.
“How do you expect us to work at a company that supports a man who is constantly inciting violence and bigotry in this country?”
“Instead of throwing money at this, can we take a real stand and change our policies and products to get at the root of the problem?” one employee wrote, according to internal comments on Zuckerberg’s post announcing the donation on Facebook’s internal Workplace platform for employee communication, which Recode viewed. “Why are we standing by and letting our platform be used to threaten and incite violence?”
This isn’t the first time Facebook has been accused of inaction when it comes to enforcing its moderation rules on posts from Trump or other high-profile politicians. But now employees are voicing concerns, arguing that Facebook has an important role to play in setting the standards of acceptability for a world leader’s discourse.
“We recognize the pain many of our people are feeling right now, especially our Black community. We encourage employees to speak openly when they disagree with leadership. As we face additional difficult decisions around content ahead, we’ll continue seeking their honest feedback,” a Facebook spokesperson said in a statement to Recode, adding that Facebook will support employees who participate in the virtual walkout Monday by not requiring them to use their own paid time off.
“How do you expect us to work at a company that supports a man who is constantly inciting violence and bigotry in this country?” another employee wrote on Zuckerberg’s internal company post announcing the $10 million donation. The post had more than 200 employee comments as of Monday morning, most of them critical, according to a source who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Some employees, however, seem to line up behind Zuckerberg, with one commenter saying that “probably the silent majority” of Facebook employees support the CEO. Another employee proposed running a company-wide survey to gauge whether or not that’s true. In a National Research Group poll reported by Axios, a narrow majority of Americans are in favor of moderating Trump’s speech online, with 54 percent of respondents saying they support Trump being fact-checked on social media.
Do you work at Amazon and have thoughts on what’s going on? Please email Shirin Ghaffary at shirin.ghaffary@protonmail.com or Jason Del Rey at jasondelrey@protonmail.com to reach them confidentially. Signal numbers available upon request by email.
In addition to voicing their anger, many Facebook employees proposed solutions to Facebook’s issues around moderating Trump, such as reworking its hate speech rules or applying its policies around violent speech and misleading information to politicians as stringently as it does to regular people.
“I think the most important thing is that we use the exact same standard to treat Trump’s post as we treat all the other potential violence incitement posts on our platform,” wrote another Facebook employee in response to Zuckerberg’s Sunday internal post. “Even though he is a ‘celebrity,’ given the sensitivity of the topic and his influence, we don’t want to shield him from any protection.”
Another asked when Facebook will actually kick off its planned independent oversight board, which is supposed to make decisions on contentious posts.
But the oversight board is reportedly going to take months, at the earliest, to become operational. And even then, it likely wouldn’t address the kinds of incendiary statements Trump posts because it will start by reviewing content that may have been unfairly taken down — and Trump’s comments about protesters have been allowed to stay up.
In the meantime, Facebook will continue to face employee pushback, which shows no signs of abating. Amid intense employee pressure, Zuckerberg is shifting the company’s end-of-week all-hands to Tuesday, when he is expected to address concerns about recent decisions in an internal Q&A.