theintercept--2020-06-03--Getting Real About the Job of Police: A Letter to Barack Obama

I have heard that you will be speaking this evening in an online town hall on George Floyd ’ s killing and the topic of police reform .
I ’ m not in the habit of writing to presidents .
Our struggle for justice is a power struggle , not simply a dialogue .
But I ’ m writing to you because , unlike our current president , you have at least adopted a stance of reason .
And I hope that our reasonable exchange might offer guidance for others who are looking to understand recent events .
Your initial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killing revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of police in U.S. society .
Because of that , I ’ m offering my thoughts as an educator who sees an urgent need for massive political education in the context of an explosive uprising and intersecting oppressions about what you should say next .
In your May 29 statement on Floyd ’ s death , you amplified the words of 12-year-old Keedron Bryant , who sang a viral song about being a black man in America , and of your friend who identified with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These were not simply examples of the trauma of racism as they are frequently presented , but also an important analysis of the interlocking systems of oppression that we are facing .
Bryant ’ s lyric that African Americans are being “ hunted as prey , ” for example , reminded me of NYPD Lt. Edwin Raymond ’ s complaint that he “ got tired of hunting Black and Hispanic people.
” Bryant ’ s observance that this is happening “ every day , ” along with Raymond ’ s lawsuit against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that racial , extrajudicial state violence is the exception to the rule .
For this reason , I found myself anxious and disheartened when you said that the solution should include “ the majority of men and women in law enforcement who take pride in doing their tough job , the right way , every day.
” Your premise here , as I understand it , is that when police officers commit acts of racist violence , they are outliers , doing something other than the job they were hired to do — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the work that police officers are paid for and expected to do .
By presenting things this way during this time , I assume you are trying to avoid alienating police officers who see themselves and their work as a force for good .
Their job is indeed challenging , and I know many officers understand their own work that way .
But it is frustrating to see you , an extremely influential African American public figure , refusing to grapple in a more serious , historical , and political way with what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and how it contributes to our oppression .
A more historically informed and honest engagement with policing will have to confront a painful but urgent reality : The job of the modern police in America has been to reinforce a racist social order since its beginnings in the 19th century .
Regardless of the good intentions of any individual police officer , the history , economic incentives , and culture of the police in every era , in every city in the United States , make this clear .
there may have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engage in a more serious way when you were campaigning and acting as president , but you are under no such constraints right now .
I ’ ve heard you say that you believe in reconciliation and redemption .
But as Rev .
William Barber told a crowd in Charleston , South Carolina , “ Before you have grace , there must be acknowledgement.
” The institution of policing is saturated with the slogan “ to protect and to serve , ” but a deeper look at what police are trained and rewarded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the real job of police is .
Derek Chauvin was doing his job when he arrested Floyd .
You might feel that he didn ’ t do his job well , but the police union will likely disagree with you .
( Lt. Bob Kroll , the Minneapolis police union president , has said he is working to get Chauvin and the three other fired officers their jobs back . )
It was not the job of the police to understand why Floyd may have been using a counterfeit $ 20 bill ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be obedient — even though he did not resist arrest .
It was also the job of the police to ensure the subservience of the others who courageously attempted to reason with Chauvin and save Floyd ’ s life .
When people hit the streets in outrage , it was the job of the police to enter their neighborhoods in armed trucks , with heavy tactical gear .
This is not a small part of their job .
You may be familiar with the 1997 bill , supported by your friend , former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police departments around the country in acquiring military gear and armed vehicles .
The 1033 program helped to ship more than $ 7.4 billion worth of excess military equipment to over 8,000 police agencies across the country .
Even school districts have obtained weapons and tactical gear , such as rifles , extended magazines , automatic pistols , armored plating , tactical vests , SWAT gear , Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles , and grenade launchers .
Weapons such as these are now being deployed against citizens in cities across the country .
Police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is their job .
This is why the Minneapolis Police Department defied a ban from Mayor Jacob Frey in order to give its officers a “ warrior training.
” When the police broke down the door of Breonna Taylor ’ s home in Louisville , Kentucky , to look for evidence in a narcotics investigation , they were doing their job .
Taylor was an EMT .
It was her job to save lives .
But it was not the job of the police to protect her life .
The Louisville Metro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the police officers did their job : they knocked on the door several times and announced themselves before entering Taylor ’ s home .
What happened next , then , shooting 20 rounds in response to gunfire by Taylor ’ s boyfriend , including the eight bullets that entered her body , killing her while she was sleeping , was simply an unfortunate but necessary collateral damage of a job well-performed .
Former Glynn County detective Gregory McMichael told police that he suspected Ahmaud Arbery was a burglar .
Perhaps , when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down and kill Arbery in the streets of Georgia , he felt so boldly empowered to do so because he saw it as a continuation of his job .
Such examples of police violence are often presented as anomalies , but they just scratch the surface of a much wider picture .
An honest confrontation with the data destroys any myth of nonoppressive everyday policing .
A recent Rutgers University study found that being killed by police is a leading cause of death in young men .
, about a tough but benign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , are severely ahistorical .
Your comments refuse to acknowledge a few things that happened under your administration .
In the the 23 days between July 17 , the date that Eric Garner was killed , and August 9 , 2014 — as the Black Lives Matter movement was unfolding , police across the country killed 66 people , according to the Mapping Police Violence database .
It was your Justice Department task force that found that Ferguson ’ s municipal court “ primarily uses its judicial authority as the means to compel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advance the City ’ s financial interests ” in a way that violated the Constitution .
In a city of 21,000 , 16,000 people had outstanding arrest warrants , meaning that they are actively wanted by the police .
This has tremendous implications for everyday policing .
In her book “ Punishment Without Crime , ” law professor Alexandra Natapoff describes a form that Baltimore police use to record trespassing arrests .
It has a blank space for the name of the arrestee , but race and gender are already filled in as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were not founded to protect citizens .
They were founded to preserve and enforce social order within oppressive social hierarchy .
Boston founded what is commonly referred to as the first U.S. police department in 1838 — a year when slavery was still legal in large parts of the country .
But this starting point ignores the fact that , in the South , there were already institutions employing hundreds of people to surveil , catch , and punish enslaved black people .
Police departments continue to rewrite history .
The Minneapolis Police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previous eras , it was involved in battling labor disputes .
This sanitizing and deceptive language conceals the fact that Minneapolis police entered struggles between workers fighting for their rights on the side of the employers .
In 1934 , for example , police officers shot at striking union workers , most of them in the back , and killed two , as MinnPost reported .
Other such details about the Minneapolis Police Department ’ s troubling history are included in a “ People ’ s History of the MPD , “ released @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
historical record of police violence is so conclusive , the only way proponents of policing can counter this history is by pointing out that some police officers are nice and occasionally do nice things .
Mr. President , if you were thinking of doing this , I ’ d like to save you the trouble .
Despite my own rage about current events , I can acknowledge that some individual police officers are nice and well-meaning .
But there are many nice people in ill-conceived organizations .
The niceness of individual police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a knee , dance at cookouts , or fist-bump protesters , does not speak to the core function of their job .
Police are paid for their capacity to suppress dissent and commit violence .
Those who try to work against this system often must risk their jobs to do so .
For example , the NYPD 12 who sued the New York Police Department to end the use of racial quotas , were protesting a daily expectation of their jobs .
What is crucial to note is that in order to reduce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these officers did not get back to everyday policing .
Instead , to become a part of the solution these officers exposed precisely what makes the everyday policing of a police force with 36,000 officers an oppressive practice .
While establishment Democrats , including your administration , continue to argue that police reform is the solution against all historical and current evidence , a more realistic solution has emerged from organizers around the country : defunding the police and investing in community programs that actually reduce harm .
In the wake of George @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black Visions Collective and Reclaim the Block have invited Minneapolis City Council members to sign onto a pledge .
• None To never again vote to increase police funding or to increase the police department ’ s budget .
• None To propose and vote for a $ 45 million cut from MPD ’ s budget as the City responds to projected COVID-19 shortfalls .
• None To protect and expand current investment in community-led health and safety strategies , instead of investing in police .
• None To do everything in my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcement agencies to immediately cease enacting violence on community members .
In concert with these recommendations , the University of Minnesota has already limited its contractual relationships with the Minnesota Police Department .
On Tuesday , Minnesota Public Schools voted to terminate its contract with the police department .
Here in Philadelphia , where I live , groups like Movement Alliance Project have helped citizens flood the inboxes of city council members demanding that they reject a $ 14 million investment into policing that robs funds of social and cultural programs .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers released a statement rejecting the LAPD budget because of its investment in the LAPD over essential health and social programs .
The logical and evidence-based demand of defunding the police acknowledges that not every social institution can be reformed to serve the public , especially those that were conceived precisely for the opposite reason .
President Obama , you have always played an important role as educator-in-chief .
I invite you to join us in offering a more historical and data-informed perspective on the problem of policing and the possible future that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason and justice ,

Photo: Zahim Mohd/NurPhoto/Getty Images
Dear Barack Obama:
I have heard that you will be speaking this evening in an online town hall on George Floyd’s killing and the topic of police reform.
I’m not in the habit of writing to presidents. Our struggle for justice is a power struggle, not simply a dialogue. But I’m writing to you because, unlike our current president, you have at least adopted a stance of reason. And I hope that our reasonable exchange might offer guidance for others who are looking to understand recent events.
Your initial statement in response to Floyd’s killing revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of police in U.S. society. Because of that, I’m offering my thoughts as an educator who sees an urgent need for massive political education in the context of an explosive uprising and intersecting oppressions about what you should say next.
In your May 29 statement on Floyd’s death, you amplified the words of 12-year-old Keedron Bryant, who sang a viral song about being a black man in America, and of your friend who identified with it.
Thank you for that. These were not simply examples of the trauma of racism as they are frequently presented, but also an important analysis of the interlocking systems of oppression that we are facing. Bryant’s lyric that African Americans are being “hunted as prey,” for example, reminded me of NYPD Lt. Edwin Raymond’s complaint that he “got tired of hunting Black and Hispanic people.”
Bryant’s observance that this is happening “every day,” along with Raymond’s lawsuit against the NYPD for discrimination, counter the idea that racial, extrajudicial state violence is the exception to the rule.
For this reason, I found myself anxious and disheartened when you said that the solution should include “the majority of men and women in law enforcement who take pride in doing their tough job, the right way, every day.”
Your premise here, as I understand it, is that when police officers commit acts of racist violence, they are outliers, doing something other than the job they were hired to do — that racist violence is a departure from the work that police officers are paid for and expected to do.
By presenting things this way during this time, I assume you are trying to avoid alienating police officers who see themselves and their work as a force for good. Their job is indeed challenging, and I know many officers understand their own work that way.
But it is frustrating to see you, an extremely influential African American public figure, refusing to grapple in a more serious, historical, and political way with what the job of the police actually is — and how it contributes to our oppression.
A more historically informed and honest engagement with policing will have to confront a painful but urgent reality: The job of the modern police in America has been to reinforce a racist social order since its beginnings in the 19th century. Regardless of the good intentions of any individual police officer, the history, economic incentives, and culture of the police in every era, in every city in the United States, make this clear.
I understand that there may have been political reasons for your failure to engage in a more serious way when you were campaigning and acting as president, but you are under no such constraints right now.
I’ve heard you say that you believe in reconciliation and redemption. But as Rev. William Barber told a crowd in Charleston, South Carolina, “Before you have grace, there must be acknowledgement.”
The institution of policing is saturated with the slogan “to protect and to serve,” but a deeper look at what police are trained and rewarded for can help us to understand what the real job of police is.
Derek Chauvin was doing his job when he arrested Floyd. You might feel that he didn’t do his job well, but the police union will likely disagree with you. (Lt. Bob Kroll, the Minneapolis police union president, has said he is working to get Chauvin and the three other fired officers their jobs back.) It was not the job of the police to understand why Floyd may have been using a counterfeit $20 bill; it was to ensure that he would be obedient — even though he did not resist arrest.
It was also the job of the police to ensure the subservience of the others who courageously attempted to reason with Chauvin and save Floyd’s life.
Photo: Stephen Maturen/Getty Images
When people hit the streets in outrage, it was the job of the police to enter their neighborhoods in armed trucks, with heavy tactical gear. This is not a small part of their job. You may be familiar with the 1997 bill, supported by your friend, former Vice President Joe Biden, that assisted police departments around the country in acquiring military gear and armed vehicles. The 1033 program helped to ship more than $7.4 billion worth of excess military equipment to over 8,000 police agencies across the country.
Even school districts have obtained weapons and tactical gear, such as rifles, extended magazines, automatic pistols, armored plating, tactical vests, SWAT gear, Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, and grenade launchers. Weapons such as these are now being deployed against citizens in cities across the country.
Police officers are trained in domestic counterinsurgency because this is their job. This is why the Minneapolis Police Department defied a ban from Mayor Jacob Frey in order to give its officers a “warrior training.”
When the police broke down the door of Breonna Taylor’s home in Louisville, Kentucky, to look for evidence in a narcotics investigation, they were doing their job. Taylor was an EMT. It was her job to save lives. But it was not the job of the police to protect her life. The Louisville Metro Police Department has responded by saying that the police officers did their job: they knocked on the door several times and announced themselves before entering Taylor’s home. What happened next, then, shooting 20 rounds in response to gunfire by Taylor’s boyfriend, including the eight bullets that entered her body, killing her while she was sleeping, was simply an unfortunate but necessary collateral damage of a job well-performed.
Former Glynn County detective Gregory McMichael told police that he suspected Ahmaud Arbery was a burglar. Perhaps, when he called his son Travis McMichael to hunt down and kill Arbery in the streets of Georgia, he felt so boldly empowered to do so because he saw it as a continuation of his job.
Such examples of police violence are often presented as anomalies, but they just scratch the surface of a much wider picture. An honest confrontation with the data destroys any myth of nonoppressive everyday policing. A recent Rutgers University study found that being killed by police is a leading cause of death in young men.
Statements like yours , about a tough but benign everyday policing meant to protect vulnerable citizens, are severely ahistorical. Your comments refuse to acknowledge a few things that happened under your administration.
In the the 23 days between July 17, the date that Eric Garner was killed, and August 9, 2014 — as the Black Lives Matter movement was unfolding, police across the country killed 66 people, according to the Mapping Police Violence database .
It was your Justice Department task force that found that Ferguson’s municipal court “primarily uses its judicial authority as the means to compel the payment of fines and fees that advance the City’s financial interests” in a way that violated the Constitution. In a city of 21,000, 16,000 people had outstanding arrest warrants, meaning that they are actively wanted by the police. This has tremendous implications for everyday policing.
In her book “Punishment Without Crime,” law professor Alexandra Natapoff describes a form that Baltimore police use to record trespassing arrests. It has a blank space for the name of the arrestee, but race and gender are already filled in as “Black Male.”
Modern police departments were not founded to protect citizens. They were founded to preserve and enforce social order within oppressive social hierarchy.
Boston founded what is commonly referred to as the first U.S. police department in 1838 — a year when slavery was still legal in large parts of the country. But this starting point ignores the fact that, in the South, there were already institutions employing hundreds of people to surveil, catch, and punish enslaved black people.
Police departments continue to rewrite history. The Minneapolis Police Department’s website claims that in previous eras, it was involved in battling labor disputes. This sanitizing and deceptive language conceals the fact that Minneapolis police entered struggles between workers fighting for their rights on the side of the employers. In 1934, for example, police officers shot at striking union workers, most of them in the back, and killed two, as MinnPost reported. Other such details about the Minneapolis Police Department’s troubling history are included in a “People’s History of the MPD,“ released by an activist coalition called the MPD150.
Because the historical record of police violence is so conclusive, the only way proponents of policing can counter this history is by pointing out that some police officers are nice and occasionally do nice things.
Mr. President, if you were thinking of doing this, I’d like to save you the trouble.
Despite my own rage about current events, I can acknowledge that some individual police officers are nice and well-meaning. But there are many nice people in ill-conceived organizations. The niceness of individual police officers, or their ability to take a knee, dance at cookouts, or fist-bump protesters, does not speak to the core function of their job. Police are paid for their capacity to suppress dissent and commit violence.
Those who try to work against this system often must risk their jobs to do so. For example, the NYPD 12 who sued the New York Police Department to end the use of racial quotas, were protesting a daily expectation of their jobs.
What is crucial to note is that in order to reduce their participation in racist state violence, these officers did not get back to everyday policing. Instead, to become a part of the solution these officers exposed precisely what makes the everyday policing of a police force with 36,000 officers an oppressive practice.
While establishment Democrats, including your administration, continue to argue that police reform is the solution against all historical and current evidence, a more realistic solution has emerged from organizers around the country: defunding the police and investing in community programs that actually reduce harm.
In the wake of George Floyd’s killing, groups like Black Visions Collective and Reclaim the Block have invited Minneapolis City Council members to sign onto a pledge.
Here are its demands:
To never again vote to increase police funding or to increase the police department’s budget. To propose and vote for a $45 million cut from MPD’s budget as the City responds to projected COVID-19 shortfalls. To protect and expand current investment in community-led health and safety strategies, instead of investing in police. To do everything in my power to compel MPD and all law enforcement agencies to immediately cease enacting violence on community members.
In concert with these recommendations, the University of Minnesota has already limited its contractual relationships with the Minnesota Police Department. On Tuesday, Minnesota Public Schools voted to terminate its contract with the police department. Here in Philadelphia, where I live, groups like Movement Alliance Project have helped citizens flood the inboxes of city council members demanding that they reject a $14 million investment into policing that robs funds of social and cultural programs. In Los Angeles, over 1,000 health care workers released a statement rejecting the LAPD budget because of its investment in the LAPD over essential health and social programs.
The logical and evidence-based demand of defunding the police acknowledges that not every social institution can be reformed to serve the public, especially those that were conceived precisely for the opposite reason.
President Obama, you have always played an important role as educator-in-chief. I invite you to join us in offering a more historical and data-informed perspective on the problem of policing and the possible future that awaits us.
In the spirit of reason and justice,
Chenjerai Kumanyika


theintercept--2020-06-03--Amazon "Stands in Solidarity" Against Police Racism While Selling Racist Tech to Police

of renewed social crisis in the United States , which means American companies are quickly lining up to pay lip service to the cause .
Just like its tech giant competitors at Facebook , Apple , and Google , Amazon tweeted vaguely in favor of the principles of social justice and equitable policing , a predictable and predictably tinny expression of corporate solidarity with “ the fight against systemic racism and injustice.
” But Amazon is arguably singular among its mega-tech peers in its determination to provide American law enforcement with tools experts say only enable racist policing .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rough contours of social justice — while keeping their legal , public relations , and social media teams in agreement — some companies seem to be forgetting what it is they actually do .
When Nextdoor , a social network with a well-documented pattern of stoking the worst kinds of racial panic , tweets an image reading “ BLACK LIVES MATTER , ” it ’ s difficult to take seriously .
But while Nextdoor is merely content to rationalize and streamline urban and suburban residential paranoia into a tidy algorithmic feed , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as Wired ’ s Sidney Fussell noted yesterday , is expanding its public/private video surveillance dragnet across the country with an explicitly “ anti-crime ” mission .
In 2018 , the ACLU published a report showing that Amazon ’ s “ Rekognition ” facial recognition software was fundamentally racially biased , disproportionately misidentifying , in ACLU ’ s test , black members of Congress as people who were arrested and had their mugshot in a police database .
“ The false matches were disproportionately of people of color , including six members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them civil rights legend Rep. John Lewis ( D-Ga. ) , ” read the report .
“ Nearly 40 percent of Rekognition ’ s false matches in our test were of people of color , even though they make up only 20 percent of Congress.
” A report published that same year by an MIT team found , similarly , that Rekognition misclassified darker-skinned women as men 31 percent of the time .
The ACLU report added , “ People of color are already disproportionately harmed by police practices , and it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exacerbate that.
” As the ACLU and other artificial intelligence researchers have made clear , the threat of computerized misidentification isn ’ t just an academic error , but a potentially ruinous one that could improperly influence police officers prior to an encounter , or even cause them to seek a search warrant , by presenting them with a false criminal history .
It ’ s difficult to reconcile this reality with a recent tweet from Amazon executive Andy Jassy , chief of Amazon Web Services , the cloud computing division which operates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ astutely pointed out , Jassy has previously defended Rekognition ’ s use by police on the grounds that the company ’ s “ terms of service ” U.S. Constitution would prevent any abuse .
The inequitable and brutal treatment of Black people in our country must stop .
Together we stand in solidarity with the Black community — our employees , customers , and partners — in the fight against systemic racism and injustice .
What exactly does it mean to oppose the discriminatory policing of black Americans while simultaneously selling discriminatory tools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ring , a surveillance network predicated on the detection and elimination of racially coded “ suspicious activity , ” which funnels video directly to local police and which once handed out to employees blue and black Ring-branded novelty police badge stickers emblazoned with “ FUCK CRIME ” on the front ?
In a statement to The Intercept , ACLU technology attorney Jacob Snow said that “ If Amazon and Andy Jassy really stand in solidarity with the black community , then they should stop selling facial recognition surveillance technology that supercharges police abuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also stop firing workers organizing for better conditions in Amazon warehouses .
Real solidarity goes beyond empty posts on social media that do nothing to protect black people.
” Liz O ’ Sullivan , a privacy researcher and advocate who quit her job at AI surveillance firm Clarifai last year over ethical concerns , told The Intercept that the services Amazon provides to police nationwide “ may enable these officers to track and suppress those protesting and speaking out against racial injustice ” through the use of facial recognition .
“ Surveillance is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ Sullivan added .
“ The two can not be separated.
” I asked Amazon and Jassy repeatedly whether they would permit the use of Rekognition to identify individuals protesting against police violence , and whether the company would more generally reassess or modify the ways in which police use Rekognition , and received no response .
Given that Amazon refuses to even disclose which law enforcement agencies use Rekognition to begin with , it ’ s probably no surprise that they wouldn ’ t provide clarity on how the software is used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one thing to quietly profit from an unjust system , and quite another to decry its existence while selling the very software it runs on .

Photo illustration: Soohee Cho/The Intercept, Getty Images
It is a week of renewed social crisis in the United States, which means American companies are quickly lining up to pay lip service to the cause. Just like its tech giant competitors at Facebook, Apple, and Google, Amazon tweeted vaguely in favor of the principles of social justice and equitable policing, a predictable and predictably tinny expression of corporate solidarity with “the fight against systemic racism and injustice.” But Amazon is arguably singular among its mega-tech peers in its determination to provide American law enforcement with tools experts say only enable racist policing.
In their rush to appear sympathetic to the rough contours of social justice — while keeping their legal, public relations, and social media teams in agreement — some companies seem to be forgetting what it is they actually do. When Nextdoor, a social network with a well-documented pattern of stoking the worst kinds of racial panic, tweets an image reading “BLACK LIVES MATTER,” it’s difficult to take seriously. But while Nextdoor is merely content to rationalize and streamline urban and suburban residential paranoia into a tidy algorithmic feed, a growing portion of Amazon’s business, as Wired’s Sidney Fussell noted yesterday, is expanding its public/private video surveillance dragnet across the country with an explicitly “anti-crime” mission.
“Surveillance is a racial justice issue. The two cannot be separated.”
In 2018, the ACLU published a report showing that Amazon’s “Rekognition” facial recognition software was fundamentally racially biased, disproportionately misidentifying, in ACLU’s test, black members of Congress as people who were arrested and had their mugshot in a police database. “The false matches were disproportionately of people of color, including six members of the Congressional Black Caucus, among them civil rights legend Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.),” read the report. “Nearly 40 percent of Rekognition’s false matches in our test were of people of color, even though they make up only 20 percent of Congress.” A report published that same year by an MIT team found, similarly, that Rekognition misclassified darker-skinned women as men 31 percent of the time.
The ACLU report added, “People of color are already disproportionately harmed by police practices, and it’s easy to see how Rekognition could exacerbate that.” As the ACLU and other artificial intelligence researchers have made clear, the threat of computerized misidentification isn’t just an academic error, but a potentially ruinous one that could improperly influence police officers prior to an encounter, or even cause them to seek a search warrant, by presenting them with a false criminal history.
It’s difficult to reconcile this reality with a recent tweet from Amazon executive Andy Jassy, chief of Amazon Web Services, the cloud computing division which operates Rekognition:
*What* will it take for us to refuse to accept these unjust killings of black people? How many people must die, how many generations must endure, how much eyewitness video is required? What else do we need? We need better than what we're getting from courts and political leaders. — Andy Jassy (@ajassy) May 30, 2020
As Wired’s Fussell astutely pointed out, Jassy has previously defended Rekognition’s use by police on the grounds that the company’s “terms of service” U.S. Constitution would prevent any abuse.
Equally thin Amazon’s companywide statement:
The inequitable and brutal treatment of Black people in our country must stop. Together we stand in solidarity with the Black community — our employees, customers, and partners — in the fight against systemic racism and injustice.
What exactly does it mean to oppose the discriminatory policing of black Americans while simultaneously selling discriminatory tools to the police — or while operating Ring, a surveillance network predicated on the detection and elimination of racially coded “suspicious activity,” which funnels video directly to local police and which once handed out to employees blue and black Ring-branded novelty police badge stickers emblazoned with “FUCK CRIME” on the front?
In a statement to The Intercept, ACLU technology attorney Jacob Snow said that “If Amazon and Andy Jassy really stand in solidarity with the black community, then they should stop selling facial recognition surveillance technology that supercharges police abuse against the black community. They should also stop firing workers organizing for better conditions in Amazon warehouses. Real solidarity goes beyond empty posts on social media that do nothing to protect black people.”
Liz O’Sullivan, a privacy researcher and advocate who quit her job at AI surveillance firm Clarifai last year over ethical concerns, told The Intercept that the services Amazon provides to police nationwide “may enable these officers to track and suppress those protesting and speaking out against racial injustice” through the use of facial recognition. “Surveillance is a racial justice issue,” O’Sullivan added. “The two cannot be separated.”
I asked Amazon and Jassy repeatedly whether they would permit the use of Rekognition to identify individuals protesting against police violence, and whether the company would more generally reassess or modify the ways in which police use Rekognition, and received no response. Given that Amazon refuses to even disclose which law enforcement agencies use Rekognition to begin with, it’s probably no surprise that they wouldn’t provide clarity on how the software is used or not used. It’s one thing to quietly profit from an unjust system, and quite another to decry its existence while selling the very software it runs on.


theintercept--2020-06-03--More Than 70 Children Killed in Just 10 Airstrikes In Afghanistan, Report Finds

fifteen civilians died in just 10 airstrikes in the U.S. war in Afghanistan in the last two years ; more than 70 of them were children .
That ’ s the finding of a new investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism , or TBIJ , which offers a glimpse into the terrible reality of the conflict in Afghanistan .
The strikes that the investigation focused on — conducted by the U.S. military and the U.S.-backed Afghan air force — represent just a handful of the total number of bombings during the period .
TBIJ crowdsourced information on particular strikes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ film crew who traveled to Afghanistan to meet some of the survivors , confirming civilian casualties in some instances when the U.S. government had not admitted them .
The 10 airstrikes analyzed in their report took place between 2018 and 2019 .
The fact that over 60 percent of those who died in the bombings were children reflects Afghanistan ’ s overwhelmingly young population and a culture in which large families tend to live together in big housing compounds .
There is no official explanation for four of the 10 strikes TBIJ investigated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to details provided by the U.S. military or contained in United Nations reports , the U.S. military invoked self-defense .
But even in cases where fighting was occurring nearby , victims say the strikes that hit their homes and killed their families were unjustified .
Compounding their pain , they have never received any accountability or even an explanation for their loss .
Experts in the law of war told TBIJ that the strikes “ raise serious concerns around compliance with the law of armed conflict , ” in the words of Daragh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the University of Essex .
Patricia Gossman , a senior researcher on Afghanistan for Human Rights Watch , said that the high number of civilian casualties , and of children killed , meant that “ these strikes may have been disproportionate.
” In one incident documented by TBIJ , airstrikes hit a compound in Faryab province where an Afghan man named Bismillah Khan and his extended family lived .
In the early hours of September 1 , 2019 , a series of explosions hit their home , collapsing the buildings on top of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The strikes killed 12 people , including seven children and the newly married wife of one of Khan ’ s cousins .
Volunteers working for TBIJ and the open-source investigation outlet Bellingcat compiled social media posts and local news reports corroborating the strike .
Despite evidence showing that civilians were harmed , including images of bodies and destroyed homes , neither the U.S. military nor the U.S.-backed Afghan air force took responsibility for the strike .
Promises to investigate have gone unfulfilled , and the victims and local community have been forced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Khan and many of his neighbors have left the village , unable to bear living at the site of a massacre .
“ Before the bombing we had a good life .
We are farmers .
We had cows and donkeys and they were also buried under the rubble , ” Khan told investigators .
“ I had photos of my family on my mobile , but every time I looked at them I couldn ’ t bear it.
” has dropped tens of thousands of bombs on Afghanistan since it began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence has escalated rather than decreased even with the official “ end ” of the combat mission there in 2014 , with the number of munitions dropped on the country hitting an annual record of 7,423 last year .
While the Pentagon states that it does everything in its power to avoid killing and wounding innocent people , it affords scant resources to investigate the actual impact of its strikes .
It does not actually track down the victims of airstrikes , relying on its own intelligence and refusing to visit the sites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The grueling work of investigating who these strikes are actually killing and maiming has thus been left to nongovernmental organizations and journalists .
The reality they uncover has usually been much uglier than official U.S. government accounts suggest .
There ’ s also a pattern to those accounts : The U.S. military tends to reflexively deny a strike or claim that solely militants were killed ; they only back down , in some cases , after independent investigators come forward with contravening evidence .
In an annual report released earlier this month on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ zones , the military claimed that only 132 people were killed by its operations in Afghanistan , Iraq , Somalia , Syria , Yemen , and Libya .
Such low officials figures have been repeatedly debunked by journalists and NGOs , invariably working with a tiny fraction of the Pentagon ’ s budget .
Even during the Obama administration , which professed a commitment to transparency , there was little accountability for the deaths of innocent people in U.S. military operations .
It was reported in 2012 , for instance , that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it killed in strikes as a militant by default .
The practice of “ signature strikes , ” in which people were killed even when their identities weren ’ t known because their behavior pattern allegedly matched that of a militant , belied Obama officials ’ insistence that airstrikes were precise and used only on high-value targets .
Outside investigators also accused that administration of drastically undercounting the number of civilians killed .
But under President Donald Trump , the U.S. government has seemingly done everything it can to encourage an environment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump campaigned on a promise to ramp up the brutality of existing wars , pardoning and even celebrating service members accused of war crimes .
On this issue it seems like Trump has delivered on his campaign promise — with reports of increased strikes and civilian death tolls in numerous countries where the military is operating or supporting local forces — including in Afghanistan , where casualty numbers in recent years have reached record highs .
After nearly two decades of inconclusive fighting , the United States appears to be preparing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taliban , the U.S. government is putting the final touches on a peace agreement with the group that will allow for a U.S. military withdrawal , but makes few guarantees for peace between the militants and the Afghan central government that was set up during the occupation .
Since 2001 the war has killed over 2,300 U.S. service members .
No one is sure how many Afghans have died , but even the most conservative estimates put the figure above 100,000 — not counting the many more who have been maimed or driven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As it prepares to leave Afghanistan , the Trump administration is also waging a rearguard battle to prevent any legal accountability for U.S. actions during the war , including deadly airstrikes and raids that routinely killed civilians far in excess of official numbers .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has threatened the International Criminal Court for authorizing a war crimes investigation focused in part on U.S. military killings of Afghan civilians , with Pompeo naming specific ICC staff members and their family members as potentially subject to retribution if they level accusations of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actions show a government deeply hostile to any type of close scrutiny of its actions .
The investigation into the strikes in Afghanistan compiled by TBIJ and independent researchers gives a clue why .
Contrary to the official narrative and figures , the U.S. war in Afghanistan has had a devastating impact on civilians .
While the war might soon fade from memory for Americans , many ordinary Afghans will be dealing with the consequences for the rest of their lives .

One hundred and fifteen civilians died in just 10 airstrikes in the U.S. war in Afghanistan in the last two years; more than 70 of them were children. That’s the finding of a new investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, or TBIJ, which offers a glimpse into the terrible reality of the conflict in Afghanistan. The strikes that the investigation focused on — conducted by the U.S. military and the U.S.-backed Afghan air force — represent just a handful of the total number of bombings during the period.
TBIJ crowdsourced information on particular strikes, then worked with an Al Jazeera film crew who traveled to Afghanistan to meet some of the survivors, confirming civilian casualties in some instances when the U.S. government had not admitted them. The 10 airstrikes analyzed in their report took place between 2018 and 2019. The fact that over 60 percent of those who died in the bombings were children reflects Afghanistan’s overwhelmingly young population and a culture in which large families tend to live together in big housing compounds.
There is no official explanation for four of the 10 strikes TBIJ investigated. As for the others, according to details provided by the U.S. military or contained in United Nations reports, the U.S. military invoked self-defense. But even in cases where fighting was occurring nearby, victims say the strikes that hit their homes and killed their families were unjustified. Compounding their pain, they have never received any accountability or even an explanation for their loss.
Join Our Newsletter Original reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you. I'm in
Experts in the law of war told TBIJ that the strikes “raise serious concerns around compliance with the law of armed conflict,” in the words of Daragh Murray, a senior law lecturer at the University of Essex. Patricia Gossman, a senior researcher on Afghanistan for Human Rights Watch, said that the high number of civilian casualties, and of children killed, meant that “these strikes may have been disproportionate.”
In one incident documented by TBIJ, airstrikes hit a compound in Faryab province where an Afghan man named Bismillah Khan and his extended family lived. In the early hours of September 1, 2019, a series of explosions hit their home, collapsing the buildings on top of Khan and his family while they slept. The strikes killed 12 people, including seven children and the newly married wife of one of Khan’s cousins.
“Before the bombing we had a good life. We are farmers. We had cows and donkeys and they were also buried under the rubble.”
Volunteers working for TBIJ and the open-source investigation outlet Bellingcat compiled social media posts and local news reports corroborating the strike. Despite evidence showing that civilians were harmed, including images of bodies and destroyed homes, neither the U.S. military nor the U.S.-backed Afghan air force took responsibility for the strike. Promises to investigate have gone unfulfilled, and the victims and local community have been forced to live without accountability for their loss. Khan and many of his neighbors have left the village, unable to bear living at the site of a massacre.
“Before the bombing we had a good life. We are farmers. We had cows and donkeys and they were also buried under the rubble,” Khan told investigators. “I had photos of my family on my mobile, but every time I looked at them I couldn’t bear it.”
The U.S. military has dropped tens of thousands of bombs on Afghanistan since it began occupying the country in 2001. This violence has escalated rather than decreased even with the official “end” of the combat mission there in 2014, with the number of munitions dropped on the country hitting an annual record of 7,423 last year.
While the Pentagon states that it does everything in its power to avoid killing and wounding innocent people, it affords scant resources to investigate the actual impact of its strikes. It does not actually track down the victims of airstrikes, relying on its own intelligence and refusing to visit the sites of its strikes or interview eyewitnesses. The grueling work of investigating who these strikes are actually killing and maiming has thus been left to nongovernmental organizations and journalists. The reality they uncover has usually been much uglier than official U.S. government accounts suggest.
There’s also a pattern to those accounts: The U.S. military tends to reflexively deny a strike or claim that solely militants were killed; they only back down, in some cases, after independent investigators come forward with contravening evidence. In an annual report released earlier this month on civilian deaths across all active U.S. war zones, the military claimed that only 132 people were killed by its operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Libya. Such low officials figures have been repeatedly debunked by journalists and NGOs, invariably working with a tiny fraction of the Pentagon’s budget.
Even during the Obama administration, which professed a commitment to transparency, there was little accountability for the deaths of innocent people in U.S. military operations. It was reported in 2012, for instance, that the military labeled any “military-aged male” it killed in strikes as a militant by default. The practice of “signature strikes,” in which people were killed even when their identities weren’t known because their behavior pattern allegedly matched that of a militant, belied Obama officials’ insistence that airstrikes were precise and used only on high-value targets. Outside investigators also accused that administration of drastically undercounting the number of civilians killed.
The U.S. military tends to reflexively deny a strike or claim that solely militants were killed; they only back down, in some cases, after independent investigators come forward with contravening evidence.
But under President Donald Trump, the U.S. government has seemingly done everything it can to encourage an environment of impunity and loosen the rules of engagement. Trump campaigned on a promise to ramp up the brutality of existing wars, pardoning and even celebrating service members accused of war crimes. On this issue it seems like Trump has delivered on his campaign promise — with reports of increased strikes and civilian death tolls in numerous countries where the military is operating or supporting local forces — including in Afghanistan, where casualty numbers in recent years have reached record highs.
After nearly two decades of inconclusive fighting, the United States appears to be preparing to exit Afghanistan. Rather than defeating the Taliban, the U.S. government is putting the final touches on a peace agreement with the group that will allow for a U.S. military withdrawal, but makes few guarantees for peace between the militants and the Afghan central government that was set up during the occupation. Since 2001 the war has killed over 2,300 U.S. service members. No one is sure how many Afghans have died, but even the most conservative estimates put the figure above 100,000 — not counting the many more who have been maimed or driven from their homes by the fighting.
As it prepares to leave Afghanistan, the Trump administration is also waging a rearguard battle to prevent any legal accountability for U.S. actions during the war, including deadly airstrikes and raids that routinely killed civilians far in excess of official numbers. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has threatened the International Criminal Court for authorizing a war crimes investigation focused in part on U.S. military killings of Afghan civilians, with Pompeo naming specific ICC staff members and their family members as potentially subject to retribution if they level accusations of war crimes against U.S. officials.
Such actions show a government deeply hostile to any type of close scrutiny of its actions. The investigation into the strikes in Afghanistan compiled by TBIJ and independent researchers gives a clue why. Contrary to the official narrative and figures, the U.S. war in Afghanistan has had a devastating impact on civilians. While the war might soon fade from memory for Americans, many ordinary Afghans will be dealing with the consequences for the rest of their lives.