theintercept--2020-03-02--On Afghanistan, Three Words I Never Thought I’d Write: Bravo, Donald Trump

No peace deal is perfect , and the “ Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan ” is no exception to that rule .
But it is the beginning of a much-delayed diplomatic process to bring an end to America ’ s longest — and most unpopular — war .
Trump tried and failed to do it in 2019 .
In 2020 , he may have succeeded .
Officially entitled “ Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan , ” this three-part , four-page document guarantees a timeline of 14 months for the “ complete withdrawal ” of all U.S. and NATO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ Afghan soil will not be used against the security of the United States and its allies ” ; the launch of intra-Afghan negotiations by March 10 ; and a “ permanent and comprehensive ” ceasefire .
But credit where credit is due .
Over the weekend , at the Sheraton hotel in Doha , Qatar , the Trump administration was able to achieve in its first term what the Bush and Obama administrations were either unable or unwilling to do over two terms each : Sign a peace deal with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever write these three words .
It pains me , in fact , to see them on the page .
Don ’ t get me wrong : I have no doubt that if Barack Obama had signed such a deal with the Taliban , he would have been pilloried by the same Republican politicians and Fox News pundits now cheering Trump ’ s agreement .
Obama , for example , was scorned and slammed for releasing five Taliban detainees in exchange for a captured U.S. soldier , Sgt .
Bowe Bergdahl , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand , has agreed to the release of an astonishing 5,000 Taliban prisoners .
I am also aware that Trump has never been consistent on Afghanistan , nor does he give a damn about ordinary Afghans .
He has cut U.S. aid to the country ; bragged about dropping the “ mother of all bombs ” on it ; pardoned two U.S. army officers accused of committing war crimes in Afghanistan ; and casually and repeatedly discussed killing millions of Afghans , including in his speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.N. , there were more than 10,000 civilian casualties in Afghanistan , with around a quarter of them killed or wounded by the U.S. military and its allies .
Their blood is on Trump ’ s hands — in the same way that the blood of thousands of Afghan civilians killed and injured between January 2009 and January 2017 is on Obama ’ s .
For far too long , Iraq was the “ bad war ” and Afghanistan the “ good war.
” Yet there was nothing “ good ” about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
None of the 19 hijackers were Afghans .
The 9/11 plot was hatched in Hamburg , Germany , not Kabul or Kandahar .
Yes , there were Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan but the Taliban , lest we forget , had agreed to hand over Osama bin Laden to a third country , on the condition that the United States provided some evidence of his guilt .
The Bush administration refused .
Nevertheless , in September 2001 , there was massive support across the political spectrum for attacking the Taliban in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backed Bush ’ s decision to invade and believed it would end in victory .
So did the New York Times editorial board .
The only member of Congress to oppose the conflict was the indomitable Rep. Barbara Lee , who warned of the danger of embarking “ on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target.
” Nearly two decades later , it is difficult to overstate what a catastrophic disaster this particular “ open-ended war ” has been — both for the American and Afghan peoples .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ soldiers killed and more than 20,000 wounded .
More than 58,000 Afghan security forces killed .
More than 100,000 Afghan civilian casualties .
More than half the population below the poverty line .
More than $ 2 trillion spent .
A quadrupling in opium production .
Endemic corruption .
War crimes .
The cover-up of child sexual abuse .
The rise of ISIS in Afghanistan .
The list goes on .
Today , the Taliban control or contest nearly half the country ’ s districts which , according to data from the Pentagon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at any point since 2001.
” Meanwhile , five months after the Afghan presidential election , the official winner Ashraf Ghani is still trying to form a government while his main rival Abdullah Abdullah has declared himself the victor , crying “ fraud ” and “ treason ” in the process .
It wasn ’ t only the Iraq invasion that was defined by official deceit and dishonesty .
As a damning investigation by the Washington Post , based on leaked government documents , revealed in December 2019 , “ senior U.S. officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war in Afghanistan throughout the 18-year campaign , making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.
” Those who now line up to criticize or condemn Trump for trying to end this “ unwinnable ” war have yet to grapple with the shocking revelations contained in these “ Afghanistan Papers.
” Trump , of course , isn ’ t interested in peace — or the truth .
The U.S. president craves a photo op with Taliban leaders and knows that he also needs a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he hopes to use a U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan to bolster his prospects for reelection in November .
But guess what ?
Sometimes bad people do the right thing for the wrong reasons .
Yes , Trump is an awful president and an even more awful person .
But just as only Nixon could go to China , perhaps only Trump could do this historic deal with the Taliban .
As political scientist Barnett Rubin , who has advised both the U.S. State Department and the United Nations on Afghanistan , told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , predictable U.S. politician would take the political risks needed to negotiate seriously with the Taliban.
” Will a deal between the two sides hold ?
Can either Trump or the Taliban be trusted to stick to the terms of the agreement ?
Does it give away too much to the insurgents , in return for too little ?
Maybe .
The bigger question , according to International Crisis Group President Robert Malley , is : What ’ s the alternative ?
“ The fact that the Taliban got so much out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a result of anything the Trump administration did , ” Malley told me .
“ It is because , after two decades , the U.S. has failed to win an unwinnable war.
” For Malley , who was a senior foreign policy adviser to Obama , “ it would have been far preferable if a deal had been reached years ago , when the Taliban were in a weaker position ” but it would be “ far worse if a deal were not reached now , based on the illusory belief that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a weaker position tomorrow.
” As with Iran and the nuclear agreement , though , there are plenty of hawks in Washington , D.C. , who still want to hold out for a better deal in Afghanistan .
For a deal to work , it requires agreement on all sides .
“ A ‘ better deal ’ that one side rejects is not a deal at all , but a dream of a better world , ” said Rubin .
“ We all have such dreams , but eventually we have to wake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ we are dead .
”

Photo: Fatih Aktas/Anadolu Agency via Getty Image
Bravo, Donald Trump.
I never imagined I would ever write these three words. It pains me, in fact, to see them on the page.
But credit where credit is due. Over the weekend, at the Sheraton hotel in Doha, Qatar, the Trump administration was able to achieve in its first term what the Bush and Obama administrations were either unable or unwilling to do over two terms each: Sign a peace deal with the Taliban.
Officially entitled “Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan,” this three-part, four-page document guarantees a timeline of 14 months for the “complete withdrawal” of all U.S. and NATO troops from Afghanistan; a Taliban pledge that “Afghan soil will not be used against the security of the United States and its allies”; the launch of intra-Afghan negotiations by March 10; and a “permanent and comprehensive” ceasefire.
No peace deal is perfect, and the “Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan” is no exception to that rule. But it is the beginning of a much-delayed diplomatic process to bring an end to America’s longest — and most unpopular — war. Trump tried and failed to do it in 2019. In 2020, he may have succeeded.
Don’t get me wrong: I have no doubt that if Barack Obama had signed such a deal with the Taliban, he would have been pilloried by the same Republican politicians and Fox News pundits now cheering Trump’s agreement. Obama, for example, was scorned and slammed for releasing five Taliban detainees in exchange for a captured U.S. soldier, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, in 2014; Trump, on the other hand, has agreed to the release of an astonishing 5,000 Taliban prisoners.
I am also aware that Trump has never been consistent on Afghanistan, nor does he give a damn about ordinary Afghans. He has cut U.S. aid to the country; bragged about dropping the “mother of all bombs” on it; pardoned two U.S. army officers accused of committing war crimes in Afghanistan; and casually and repeatedly discussed killing millions of Afghans, including in his speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday. Last year, according to the U.N., there were more than 10,000 civilian casualties in Afghanistan, with around a quarter of them killed or wounded by the U.S. military and its allies. Their blood is on Trump’s hands — in the same way that the blood of thousands of Afghan civilians killed and injured between January 2009 and January 2017 is on Obama’s.
For far too long, Iraq was the “bad war” and Afghanistan the “good war.” Yet there was nothing “good” about the decision to invade and occupy Afghanistan. None of the 19 hijackers were Afghans. The 9/11 plot was hatched in Hamburg, Germany, not Kabul or Kandahar. Yes, there were Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan but the Taliban, lest we forget, had agreed to hand over Osama bin Laden to a third country, on the condition that the United States provided some evidence of his guilt. The Bush administration refused.
Nevertheless, in September 2001, there was massive support across the political spectrum for attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan. The vast majority of Americans backed Bush’s decision to invade and believed it would end in victory. So did the New York Times editorial board. The only member of Congress to oppose the conflict was the indomitable Rep. Barbara Lee, who warned of the danger of embarking “on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target.”
Nearly two decades later, it is difficult to overstate what a catastrophic disaster this particular “open-ended war” has been — both for the American and Afghan peoples. Where to begin? Some 2,400 American soldiers killed and more than 20,000 wounded. More than 58,000 Afghan security forces killed. More than 100,000 Afghan civilian casualties. More than half the population below the poverty line. More than $2 trillion spent. A quadrupling in opium production. Endemic corruption. War crimes. The cover-up of child sexual abuse. The rise of ISIS in Afghanistan. The list goes on.
Today, the Taliban control or contest nearly half the country’s districts which, according to data from the Pentagon, is “more territory … than at any point since 2001.” Meanwhile, five months after the Afghan presidential election, the official winner Ashraf Ghani is still trying to form a government while his main rival Abdullah Abdullah has declared himself the victor, crying “fraud” and “treason” in the process.
It wasn’t only the Iraq invasion that was defined by official deceit and dishonesty. As a damning investigation by the Washington Post, based on leaked government documents, revealed in December 2019, “senior U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan throughout the 18-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.”
Those who now line up to criticize or condemn Trump for trying to end this “unwinnable” war have yet to grapple with the shocking revelations contained in these “Afghanistan Papers.” Trump, of course, isn’t interested in peace — or the truth. The U.S. president craves a photo op with Taliban leaders and knows that he also needs a diplomatic win. Above all else, he hopes to use a U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan to bolster his prospects for reelection in November.
But guess what? Sometimes bad people do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Yes, Trump is an awful president and an even more awful person. But just as only Nixon could go to China, perhaps only Trump could do this historic deal with the Taliban.
As political scientist Barnett Rubin, who has advised both the U.S. State Department and the United Nations on Afghanistan, told me, “no rational, conventional, predictable U.S. politician would take the political risks needed to negotiate seriously with the Taliban.”
Will a deal between the two sides hold? Can either Trump or the Taliban be trusted to stick to the terms of the agreement? Does it give away too much to the insurgents, in return for too little? Maybe. The bigger question, according to International Crisis Group President Robert Malley, is: What’s the alternative?
“The fact that the Taliban got so much out of the deal is not, primarily, a result of anything the Trump administration did,” Malley told me. “It is because, after two decades, the U.S. has failed to win an unwinnable war.”
For Malley, who was a senior foreign policy adviser to Obama, “it would have been far preferable if a deal had been reached years ago, when the Taliban were in a weaker position” but it would be “far worse if a deal were not reached now, based on the illusory belief that, somehow, the Taliban will be in a weaker position tomorrow.”
As with Iran and the nuclear agreement, though, there are plenty of hawks in Washington, D.C., who still want to hold out for a better deal in Afghanistan.
They’re deluded.
For a deal to work, it requires agreement on all sides. “A ‘better deal’ that one side rejects is not a deal at all, but a dream of a better world,” said Rubin. “We all have such dreams, but eventually we have to wake up.”
Unless, he added, “we are dead.”


theintercept--2020-03-02--How the Senate Paved the Way for Coronavirus Profiteering, and How Congress Could Undo It

to combat the coronavirus pandemic is within view , the Trump administration has already walked back its initial refusal to promise that any remedy would be affordable to the general public .
“ We can ’ t control that price because we need the private sector to invest , ” Alex Azar , Health and Human Services secretary and a former drug industry executive , told Congress .
After extraordinary blowback , the administration insisted that in the end , any treatment would indeed be affordable .
President Donald Trump on Monday morning tweeted that he would be meeting with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House about progress on a vaccine and cure .
Progress being made !
” The federal government , though , under the Clinton administration , traded away one of the key tools it could use to make good on the promise of affordability .
Gilead Sciences , a drugmaker known for price gouging , has been working with Chinese health authorities to see if the experimental drug remdesivir can treat coronavirus symptoms .
World Health Organization officials say it ’ s the “ only one drug right now that we think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which was previously tested to treat Ebola virus , was developed through research conducted at the University of Alabama at Birmingham with funding from the federal government .
That ’ s how much of the pharmaceutical industry ’ s research and development is funded .
The public puts in the money , and private companies keep whatever profits they can command .
But it wasn ’ t always that way .
Before 1995 , drug companies were required to sell drugs funded with public money at a reasonable price .
Under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1994 midterms , the Republican Revolution , built largely around a reaction to Bill Clinton ’ s attempt to reform the health care system , swept Democrats out of Congress .
On its heels , in April 1995 , the Clinton administration capitulated to pharmaceutical industry pressure and rescinded the longstanding “ reasonable pricing ” rule .
“ An extensive review of this matter over the past year indicated that the pricing clause has driven industry away from potentially beneficial scientific collaborations with [ Public Health Service ] scientists without providing an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the National Institutes of Health said in a 1995 statement announcing the change .
“ Eliminating the clause will promote research that can enhance the health of the American people.
” The move was controversial , and a House member from Vermont , independent Bernie Sanders , offered an amendment to reinstate the rule .
It failed on a largely party-line vote , 242-180 .
Then in 2000 , Sanders authored and passed a bipartisan amendment in the House to reimpose the “ reasonable pricing ” rule .
In the Senate , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paul Wellstone of Minnesota .
“ Many in Congress find it hard to argue with Sanders ’ line that ‘ Americans must pay twice for life-saving drugs , first as taxpayers to develop the drug and then as consumers to pad pharmaceutical profits , ’ ” Nature wrote at the time .
Then-Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware voted to table Wellstone ’ s amendment , and it was defeated 56-39 .
“ Our amendment requires that the NIH abide by current law and ensure that a company that receives federally owned research or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the American public on reasonable terms , ” Sanders said in a floor speech .
“ This is not a new issue .
During the Bush administration , the NIH insisted that co-operative research agreements contain , quote , a reasonable pricing clause that would protect consumers from exorbitant prices of products developed from federally funded research.
” A related effort from Sen. Ron Wyden , D-Ore. , made it into the final Senate bill , watered down to say that the director of the NIH should offer “ a proposal to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both intramural and extramural research by March 31st , 2001.
” The two measures were hashed out in a conference committee , and Sanders ’ s tougher House language was stripped out .
The conference report included this language : “ The conferees have been made aware of the public interest in securing an appropriate return on the NIH investment in basic research .
The conferees are also aware of the mounting concern over the cost to patients of therapeutic drugs .
By July 2001 , based on a list of such therapeutic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reached $ 500,000,000 per year in sales in the United States , and have received NIH funding , NIH will prepare a plan to ensure that taxpayers ’ interests are protected.
” That plan has never been implemented , while the federal government has continued to fund research that leads to private gain .
The Antiviral Drug Discovery and Development Center at the University of Alabama in 2019 received a five-year , $ 37.5 million grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases — one of the 27 institutes that make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have pledged to use authority they say is inherent in a federal law already on the books , known as Bayh-Dole , to force reasonable prices , and have pledged to go even further with new legislation .
But the public might not need to wait for Election Day .
With Congress set to contemplate a round of funding to mitigate the pandemic , the Sanders-Wellstone amendment could make a comeback .

Before a vaccine to combat the coronavirus pandemic is within view, the Trump administration has already walked back its initial refusal to promise that any remedy would be affordable to the general public. “We can’t control that price because we need the private sector to invest,” Alex Azar, Health and Human Services secretary and a former drug industry executive, told Congress.
After extraordinary blowback, the administration insisted that in the end, any treatment would indeed be affordable. President Donald Trump on Monday morning tweeted that he would be meeting with “the major pharmaceutical companies today at the White House about progress on a vaccine and cure. Progress being made!” The federal government, though, under the Clinton administration, traded away one of the key tools it could use to make good on the promise of affordability.
Gilead Sciences, a drugmaker known for price gouging, has been working with Chinese health authorities to see if the experimental drug remdesivir can treat coronavirus symptoms. World Health Organization officials say it’s the “only one drug right now that we think may have real efficacy.” But remdesivir, which was previously tested to treat Ebola virus, was developed through research conducted at the University of Alabama at Birmingham with funding from the federal government.
That’s how much of the pharmaceutical industry’s research and development is funded. The public puts in the money, and private companies keep whatever profits they can command. But it wasn’t always that way. Before 1995, drug companies were required to sell drugs funded with public money at a reasonable price. Under the Clinton administration, that changed.
In the 1994 midterms, the Republican Revolution, built largely around a reaction to Bill Clinton’s attempt to reform the health care system, swept Democrats out of Congress. On its heels, in April 1995, the Clinton administration capitulated to pharmaceutical industry pressure and rescinded the longstanding “reasonable pricing” rule.
“An extensive review of this matter over the past year indicated that the pricing clause has driven industry away from potentially beneficial scientific collaborations with [Public Health Service] scientists without providing an offsetting benefit to the public,” the National Institutes of Health said in a 1995 statement announcing the change. “Eliminating the clause will promote research that can enhance the health of the American people.”
The move was controversial, and a House member from Vermont, independent Bernie Sanders, offered an amendment to reinstate the rule. It failed on a largely party-line vote, 242-180.
Then in 2000, Sanders authored and passed a bipartisan amendment in the House to reimpose the “reasonable pricing” rule. In the Senate, a similar measure was pushed by the late Paul Wellstone of Minnesota.
“Many in Congress find it hard to argue with Sanders’ line that ‘Americans must pay twice for life-saving drugs, first as taxpayers to develop the drug and then as consumers to pad pharmaceutical profits,’” Nature wrote at the time.
Then-Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware voted to table Wellstone’s amendment, and it was defeated 56-39.
“Our amendment requires that the NIH abide by current law and ensure that a company that receives federally owned research or a federally owned drug provide that product to the American public on reasonable terms,” Sanders said in a floor speech. “This is not a new issue. During the Bush administration, the NIH insisted that co-operative research agreements contain, quote, a reasonable pricing clause that would protect consumers from exorbitant prices of products developed from federally funded research.”
Bernie Sanders in 2000, arguing on behalf of his successful House amendment to require drugs funded by public dollars to be sold to the public at a reasonable price. It was stripped out in conference. pic.twitter.com/5j5Y8aPOfj — Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) March 2, 2020
A related effort from Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., made it into the final Senate bill, watered down to say that the director of the NIH should offer “a proposal to require a reasonable rate of return on both intramural and extramural research by March 31st, 2001.”
The two measures were hashed out in a conference committee, and Sanders’s tougher House language was stripped out. The conference report included this language: “The conferees have been made aware of the public interest in securing an appropriate return on the NIH investment in basic research. The conferees are also aware of the mounting concern over the cost to patients of therapeutic drugs. By July 2001, based on a list of such therapeutic drugs which are FDA approved, have reached $500,000,000 per year in sales in the United States, and have received NIH funding, NIH will prepare a plan to ensure that taxpayers’ interests are protected.”
That plan has never been implemented, while the federal government has continued to fund research that leads to private gain. The Antiviral Drug Discovery and Development Center at the University of Alabama in 2019 received a five-year, $37.5 million grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases — one of the 27 institutes that make up the NIH.
Democratic presidential candidates have pledged to use authority they say is inherent in a federal law already on the books, known as Bayh-Dole, to force reasonable prices, and have pledged to go even further with new legislation. But the public might not need to wait for Election Day. With Congress set to contemplate a round of funding to mitigate the pandemic, the Sanders-Wellstone amendment could make a comeback.


theintercept--2020-03-02--ICE’s New York Office Uses a Rigged Algorithm to Keep Virtually All Arrestees in Detention. The ACLU

ICE’s New York Office Uses a Rigged Algorithm to Keep Virtually All Arrestees in Detention. The ACLU Says It’s Unconstitutional.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement quietly began using a software tool to recommend whether people arrested over immigration violations should be let go after 48 hours or detained .
The software ’ s algorithm supposedly pored over a variety of risk factors before outputting a decision .
A new lawsuit , however , filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union and Bronx Defenders , alleges that the algorithm doesn ’ t really make a decision , at least not one that can result in a detainee being released .
Instead , the groups said , it ’ s an unconstitutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detain virtually everyone ICE ’ s New York Field Office brings in , even when the government itself believes they present a minimal threat to public safety .
The suit , which asks that ICE ’ s “ Risk Classification Assessment ” tool be ruled illegal and the affected detainees reassessed by humans , includes damning new data obtained by the NYCLU through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit .
The data illuminates the extent to which the so-called algorithm has been perverted .
Between 2013 and 2017 , the FOIA data shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for “ low risk ” individuals 53 percent of the time , according an analysis by the NYCLU and Bronx Defenders .
But from June 2017 — shortly after President Donald Trump took office — to September 2019 , that number exploded to 97 percent .
“ This dramatic drop in the release rate comes at a time when exponentially more people are being arrested in the New York City area and immigration officials have expanded arrests of those not convicted of criminal offenses , ” says the groups ’ lawsuit .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dragnet means that people who pose no flight or safety risk are being jailed as a matter of course—in an unlawful trend that is getting worse.
” Individuals detained under what the lawsuit calls a “ no-release policy ” will remain jailed until they can be seen by an immigration judge .
People arrested by ICE had no access to information about how they were classified by the algorithm — that ’ s why the FOIAs were necessary — and most don ’ t have access to lawyers at the time of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the Bronx Defenders told The Intercept .
“ The result , ” he said , “ is that people are detained for weeks , even months , without having been given the actual justification for their detention and without a real chance to challenge it.
” that this algorithmic rubber stamp violates both the constitutional guarantee to due process and federal immigration law that calls for “ individualized determinations ” about release , rather than blanket denials with a computerized imprimatur .
Reached by email , ICE New York spokesperson Rachael Yong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ am not familiar with the lawsuit you reference , but I am not inclined to comment on pending litigation.
” The risk assessment algorithm is supposed to provide a recommendation to ICE officers who are then meant to make the final decision , but the agency ’ s New York Field Office diverged from the algorithm ’ s ruling less than 1 percent of the time since 2017 .
When detainees are finally seen by a human , non-algorithmic immigration judge , the lawsuit says , “ approximately 40 % of people detained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The Trump administration ’ s stepped-up immigration arrests of people without criminal convictions lay bare the perversity of the rigged no-release policy .
“ If the New York Field Office were actually conducting individualized determinations pursuant to its stated criteria , ” the lawsuit says , “ the percentage of people released should have actually increased since 2017 because more people arrested qualified for release.
” The technical reasons for this drastic change are clear .
Algorithms are essentially problem-solving formulas that can operate at superhuman speed .
ICE ’ s risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an immigration detainee ’ s personal history , weighing factors like their flight risk and threat to public safety , then spitting out one of four options : detention without bond , detention with the possibility of a release on bond , outright release , or a referral to a human ICE supervisor .
In 2018 , Reuters reported that Trump ’ s inauguration brought a critical change to the risk assessment tool where the software was edited to simply remove the possibility of a “ release ” output .
The NYCLU ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ option for bond was removed in 2015 .
In other words , this ostensible problem-solving software was rigged to provide only one solution : detention .
government ’ s own data , the decision-making tool functionally makes decisions about as well as a stopped clock would tell time .
Rather than functioning as a tool that even attempts to aid human decision-making , FOIA data shows the opposite .
The “ Risk Classification Assessment ” tool serves as a funnel to fast-track action in line with the Trump administration ’ s brutal immigration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ICE algorithm reached its ultimate decisions has been kept secret .
“ ICE has been anything but transparent about both the RCA ’ s algorithm and how the tool is used by officials in the field , ” explained NYCLU attorney Amy Belsher .
“ And yet , these determinations have profound and severe impacts on the lives of the thousands of people ICE arrests every year.
” Unlike much of the secret code used in government or business , however , this secret algorithm was exposed because ICE rigged it : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t work .
The risk-assessment tool has almost ceased to be an algorithm altogether , rather serving only to give the impression of algorithmic justice .
“ Given what we now know about the manipulations to the tool , ” added Belsher , “ it appears the main function of the RCA is to provide a veneer of objectivity and fairness to a process that lacks it entirely.
” In this computer-enabled vacuum of accountability , ICE ’ s New York personnel can point to the oracular algorithm to justify increased detentions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but itself .
For New Yorkers handed an algorithm-sanctioned detention , the lawsuit says , the consequences can be immediate and crushing : Once denied release under the new policy , people remain unnecessarily incarcerated in local jails for weeks or even months before they have a meaningful opportunity to seek release in a hearing before an Immigration Judge .
While waiting for those hearings , those detained suffer under harsh conditions of confinement akin to criminal incarceration .
While incarcerated , they are separated from families , friends , and communities , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their jobs , and their homes .
Because of inadequate medical care and conditions in the jails , unmet medical and mental-health needs often lead to serious and at times irreversible consequences .
At no point have detainees ensnared by the ICE algorithm had any chance at recourse , explained Belsher , describing a legal process as opaque as the risk-assessment tool .
“ People are not able to meaningfully participate in ICE ’ s initial custody determination process , they are not given access to counsel and can not submit evidence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s decision is administratively final ; there is no process within the agency for people to challenge either the RCA ’ s recommendation or ICE ’ s custody determination .
In fact , ICE does not even provide the person with the RCA ’ s determination of their flight or danger risk level or any other recommendation generated by the tool .
People are given a basic form stating only that ICE has decided to detain them.
” The no-release policy is particularly tough on people with disabilities or health problems .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cruel and needless , ” Scott-Railton , of the Bronx Defenders , said in a press release , “ and has particularly devastating consequences for people with physical or psychological disabilities who must fight their immigration cases while being held in inhumane conditions and without access to the health services they need .
”

In 2013, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement quietly began using a software tool to recommend whether people arrested over immigration violations should be let go after 48 hours or detained. The software’s algorithm supposedly pored over a variety of risk factors before outputting a decision.
A new lawsuit, however, filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union and Bronx Defenders, alleges that the algorithm doesn’t really make a decision, at least not one that can result in a detainee being released. Instead, the groups said, it’s an unconstitutional cudgel that’s been rigged to detain virtually everyone ICE’s New York Field Office brings in, even when the government itself believes they present a minimal threat to public safety.
“The federal government’s sweeping detention dragnet means that people who pose no flight or safety risk are being jailed as a matter of course — in an unlawful trend that is getting worse.”
The suit, which asks that ICE’s “Risk Classification Assessment” tool be ruled illegal and the affected detainees reassessed by humans, includes damning new data obtained by the NYCLU through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The data illuminates the extent to which the so-called algorithm has been perverted. Between 2013 and 2017, the FOIA data shows, the algorithm recommended detention without bond for “low risk” individuals 53 percent of the time, according an analysis by the NYCLU and Bronx Defenders. But from June 2017 — shortly after President Donald Trump took office — to September 2019, that number exploded to 97 percent.
“This dramatic drop in the release rate comes at a time when exponentially more people are being arrested in the New York City area and immigration officials have expanded arrests of those not convicted of criminal offenses,” says the groups’ lawsuit. “The federal government’s sweeping detention dragnet means that people who pose no flight or safety risk are being jailed as a matter of course—in an unlawful trend that is getting worse.”
Individuals detained under what the lawsuit calls a “no-release policy” will remain jailed until they can be seen by an immigration judge. People arrested by ICE had no access to information about how they were classified by the algorithm — that’s why the FOIAs were necessary — and most don’t have access to lawyers at the time of their detention, Thomas Scott-Railton, a fellow at the Bronx Defenders told The Intercept. “The result,” he said, “is that people are detained for weeks, even months, without having been given the actual justification for their detention and without a real chance to challenge it.”
The lawsuit alleges that this algorithmic rubber stamp violates both the constitutional guarantee to due process and federal immigration law that calls for “individualized determinations” about release, rather than blanket denials with a computerized imprimatur. Reached by email, ICE New York spokesperson Rachael Yong Yow told The Intercept, “I am not familiar with the lawsuit you reference, but I am not inclined to comment on pending litigation.”
The risk assessment algorithm is supposed to provide a recommendation to ICE officers who are then meant to make the final decision, but the agency’s New York Field Office diverged from the algorithm’s ruling less than 1 percent of the time since 2017. When detainees are finally seen by a human, non-algorithmic immigration judge, the lawsuit says, “approximately 40% of people detained by ICE are granted release on bond.”
The Trump administration’s stepped-up immigration arrests of people without criminal convictions lay bare the perversity of the rigged no-release policy. “If the New York Field Office were actually conducting individualized determinations pursuant to its stated criteria,” the lawsuit says, “the percentage of people released should have actually increased since 2017 because more people arrested qualified for release.”
The technical reasons for this drastic change are clear. Algorithms are essentially problem-solving formulas that can operate at superhuman speed. ICE’s risk assessment algorithm originally functioned by automatically reviewing an immigration detainee’s personal history, weighing factors like their flight risk and threat to public safety, then spitting out one of four options: detention without bond, detention with the possibility of a release on bond, outright release, or a referral to a human ICE supervisor.
In 2018, Reuters reported that Trump’s inauguration brought a critical change to the risk assessment tool where the software was edited to simply remove the possibility of a “release” output. The NYCLU’s FOIA data also shows that the option for bond was removed in 2015. In other words, this ostensible problem-solving software was rigged to provide only one solution: detention.
Based on the government’s own data, the decision-making tool functionally makes decisions about as well as a stopped clock would tell time. Rather than functioning as a tool that even attempts to aid human decision-making, FOIA data shows the opposite. The “Risk Classification Assessment” tool serves as a funnel to fast-track action in line with the Trump administration’s brutal immigration agenda.
For years, exactly how the ICE algorithm reached its ultimate decisions has been kept secret. “ICE has been anything but transparent about both the RCA’s algorithm and how the tool is used by officials in the field,” explained NYCLU attorney Amy Belsher. “And yet, these determinations have profound and severe impacts on the lives of the thousands of people ICE arrests every year.”
Unlike much of the secret code used in government or business, however, this secret algorithm was exposed because ICE rigged it: We now know exactly how it doesn’t work. The risk-assessment tool has almost ceased to be an algorithm altogether, rather serving only to give the impression of algorithmic justice. “Given what we now know about the manipulations to the tool,” added Belsher, “it appears the main function of the RCA is to provide a veneer of objectivity and fairness to a process that lacks it entirely.” In this computer-enabled vacuum of accountability, ICE’s New York personnel can point to the oracular algorithm to justify increased detentions, which in turn points to nothing but itself.
For New Yorkers handed an algorithm-sanctioned detention, the lawsuit says, the consequences can be immediate and crushing:
Once denied release under the new policy, people remain unnecessarily incarcerated in local jails for weeks or even months before they have a meaningful opportunity to seek release in a hearing before an Immigration Judge. While waiting for those hearings, those detained suffer under harsh conditions of confinement akin to criminal incarceration. While incarcerated, they are separated from families, friends, and communities, and they risk losing their children, their jobs, and their homes. Because of inadequate medical care and conditions in the jails, unmet medical and mental-health needs often lead to serious and at times irreversible consequences.
At no point have detainees ensnared by the ICE algorithm had any chance at recourse, explained Belsher, describing a legal process as opaque as the risk-assessment tool. “People are not able to meaningfully participate in ICE’s initial custody determination process, they are not given access to counsel and cannot submit evidence,” Belsher said. “ICE’s decision is administratively final; there is no process within the agency for people to challenge either the RCA’s recommendation or ICE’s custody determination. In fact, ICE does not even provide the person with the RCA’s determination of their flight or danger risk level or any other recommendation generated by the tool. People are given a basic form stating only that ICE has decided to detain them.”
The no-release policy is particularly tough on people with disabilities or health problems. “This practice of widespread detention is both cruel and needless,” Scott-Railton, of the Bronx Defenders, said in a press release, “and has particularly devastating consequences for people with physical or psychological disabilities who must fight their immigration cases while being held in inhumane conditions and without access to the health services they need.”


theintercept--2020-03-02--Citizen App Again Lets Users Report Crimes — and Experts See Big Risks

that alerts people to nearby emergencies , is testing the reintroduction of a controversial feature that lets users report crimes and incidents on their own by live streaming video .
Created by New York-based startup sp0n , Citizen first launched under the name “ Vigilante ” in 2016 in New York City , broadcasting alerts of 911 calls to users in the vicinity and allowing those users to send live video from incident scenes , comment on alerts , and report incidents on their own .
In a splashy launch video with the hashtag # CrimeNoMore , several young men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who was chased by a menacing stranger ; the video instructs users not to “ interfere with the crime , ” but then adds , “ Good luck out there !
” Vigilante was met with swift backlash from the public and police departments , and Apple soon pulled the app from its store .
At that time , the New York Police Department issued a statement saying , “ Crimes in progress should be handled by the NYPD and not a vigilante with a cell phone.
” Several months later , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incident reporting feature , and said it was shifting its focus to “ safety ” and “ avoiding crime ” — a far cry from its prior positioning .
Citizen ’ s return to public crime reporting has not been publicized , but is documented on the company ’ s user support website .
The app ’ s latest version in Apple and Google ’ s app stores also includes the description : “ Keep Your Community Safe : Report incidents right when they happen to protect the people around you.
” Dominic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to speak with The Intercept on the record during a phone call .
In an emailed statement the company sent instead , it said that about five percent of its incidents are reported via the live broadcast feature .
They are “ merged with 911-reported incidents ” and reviewed by Citizen moderators before appearing in the app , according to the statement .
The experiment comes after the company made more attempts to work with law enforcement , including bringing onto its board Bill Bratton ( who opposed Vigilante when he was police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an executive someone who oversaw NYPD communications when the department spoke out against the app .
Experts say that , if not addressed with great care , what Citizen does next could set the stage for invasive advertising , greater injustice for vulnerable people , and increased government surveillance .
User-powered crime reporting has been rife with racism , panic , and concerns users might bring about personal harm — issues not just for Citizen ’ s predecessor app Vigilante but also for platforms like Amazon ’ s Ring , which makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ network , and Nextdoor , an app that networks neighbors with one another to communicate about crime and other matters .
Citizen ’ s reintroduction of user reporting is a walk back for the company , which had removed the feature in emphatic terms .
In 2017 , CEO Andrew Frame told TechCrunch user reporting would be removed because it had become a distraction from the app ’ s mission , which he said was to “ reduce crime , not exploitation of people.
” To head off racial bias concerns , Frame @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would not be included in the app .
Now , on its user support website , Citizen encourages people to report incidents about “ protests , lost pets , downed power lines , and other community FYIs.
” But its general criteria for reported incidents from 911 calls are broader , and include alleged crimes in progress such as assaults and thefts , fire , smoke , gas leaks , situations involving hazardous materials , and heightened police activity .
In addition to now accepting incident reports from users through its app , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outsiders via other channels .
In 2018 , it began rolling out a tool and community called “ GuardianNet ” or “ GNet.
” The tool gave users , or “ Guardians , ” access to Citizen ’ s internal feed of real-time police , fire , and emergency radio through a web-based interface , allowing them to comb through dispatches and , until last year , to create safety alerts .
The company has aggressively recruited people , typically police scanner hobbyists , to volunteer as unpaid dispatchers .
Its representatives have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popular radio scanning forums , and Facebook groups , and tried to organize in-person meetups .
David Choi , a Citizen operations manager , wrote on Reddit that the network was “ built exclusively for scanner enthusiasts to listen to police/fire radios and report incidents to keep their communities safe and informed.
” In response to concerns from Reddit users that a phone number was needed to sign up for the network , Choi responded , “ We ’ re not looking to sell you anything at all .
We ’ re just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who like listening to emergency responder radio and give these people an opportunity to help others and maybe even save lives.
” Citizen has previously highlighted the importance of its Guardians in keeping the public safe : In September 2018 , it said one Guardian “ hero ” helped alert thousands of people in real time about a bomb threat in New Jersey , and last year said another Guardian broke the news of a shooting at a New Jersey mall .
But the “ Guardians ” are a key component of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American cities it currently operates in ; if a city has publicly accessible radio bands and people combing through them , Citizen can gather enough resources to enter the market .
Last March , Choi announced that GuardianNet ’ s incident reporting feature would be “ temporarily paused for the near term future ” to prepare for a reboot , but that its scanner feeds and chat rooms would remain open .
Now , it seems Citizen is changing course again .
In a statement , the company said GuardianNet was “ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” and is no longer accessible to the public .
The Guardian site now redirects to a page called “ ProtectOS , ” which requires a phone number to sign up .
Experts say Citizen ’ s location data collection raises questions about privacy and surveillance , the government ’ s interest in such data , and the lack of oversight into location data tracking .
Citizen ’ s terms of service state that users must permit the app to access their location data even when it isn ’ t open .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and notification permissions to notify users of emergencies , which might include “ life-saving ” crime and safety alerts .
Metadata associated with content like videos , which are required to initiate an incident report on the app , are also collected , according to the company ’ s privacy policy .
These include unique device identifiers , information on wireless networks , location information , and more , all of which can be tied back to users , who sign up for Citizen using their names , email addresses , and phone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the University of Michigan ’ s School of Information who focuses on digital privacy , said the privacy risks of using Citizen are similar to those of any app that relies on location data to work .
“ The risk is always that these location traces are used in ways that users are not anticipating .
Advertising is the most common risk , ” he said .
Location data is valuable , and its sale is growing and largely unregulated .
Broadly speaking , private companies collect users ’ movements through popular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advertising firms and data brokers .
It is completely legal to collect location data , and the companies often defend their practices by claiming the location pings they collect are anonymized , essentially raw data with no identifying information .
But experts say that ’ s impossible : Location information can be easily tied to someone ’ s identity .
“ Based on where one lives , you can infer their income level , track where they go , ” said Schaub .
“ You might be able to see they are going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not that anonymous anymore , or going to a mental health service provider , or a fertility clinic.
” Though Citizen has repeatedly stated that it does not and never will sell user data , it ’ s possible the company may change its mind as it did with user crime reporting .
In response to questions about sharing user data , Citizen sent the following statement : “ Citizen shares personal information with the service providers that provide services to or on behalf of Citizen .
We also enable service providers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to provide services to or on behalf of Citizen .
We pay these service providers and have agreements in place that prevent them from using the data for their own benefit .
There is no service provider paying us for any data or data derivative.
” Generally , tech companies ’ claims that they will never sell users ’ data is a misnomer , said Gennie Gebhart , associate director of research at the Electronic Frontier Foundation .
“ No one is literally exchanging a pile of data for a suitcase of money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even if a company is not selling data to third parties , it may be making data available to other companies for valuable consideration , or otherwise profiting from what it collects .
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg , for example , has long insisted that Facebook does not sell its users ’ data , and even testified before the Senate to this effect .
But it allows advertisers to target users at a very granular level , reaping the benefit of invasive tracking even if the underlying user data used for targeting is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of service contain a provision that allows sp0n and third-party providers to advertise based on users ’ location and what they do in the app , including what they search for .
Ads on Citizen might be targeted based on the photos and videos uploaded by users and other tracked information , according to its terms .
Experts also pointed out Citizen ’ s lack of transparency when it comes to how long it stores user data .
Citizen says it stores user information for “ as short a duration as possible ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of historical location data where possible.
” If Citizen ’ s main concern was user privacy , said Schaub , it would explicitly state how long location data was kept for .
Nate Wessler , a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union ’ s Speech , Privacy , and Technology Project , questioned the breadth of Citizen ’ s location data collection .
“ I very much doubt they need location data , a year ’ s worth or five year ’ s worth , or even a month ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The more customer data is kept , the more is potentially exposed to law enforcement.
” Citizen ’ s app once worked without continuous location tracking .
But one update last year changed that , forcing users to enable full location data access to use any part of the app .
Users were outraged , flooding Citizen ’ s App Store reviews with negative comments about the “ location-hungry , ” “ creepy , ” and “ hostile ” nature of the company ’ s attempts to access their data .
In response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , telling users they could use the app without enabling location access by closing a pop-up that asked for permanent location sharing .
In other responses , Citizen acknowledged that “ some users ” had privacy concerns about sharing location data but maintained that if users ’ location settings were not “ properly configured , ” they would continue receiving in-app reminders to change them whenever they opened the app .
A Citizen spokesperson said over email that users can currently “ control their own location data access ” on the app , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such access .
Schaub offered alternatives for Citizen to work without the need for constant , or even occasional , location data sharing .
Instead of revealing their movements to Citizen , users could select specific coverage areas where they ’ d like to receive safety notifications , for example .
Even if the app does continue requiring location data , Schaub said Citizen could be more forthcoming about the data it collects and what it is used for .
“ This notice shouldn ’ t just be in the privacy policy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activate the feature or when you see it for the first time .
This should be shared with users rather than buried in the terms of service , ” he said .
It ’ s also worth noting that if Citizen did end up selling user data , it would not be the first time the company has breached a user privacy assurance .
Last year , the Washington Post found that Citizen sent personally identifying information such as users ’ phone numbers , emails , and GPS coordinates to the marketing tracking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its privacy policy .
Citizen said it removed the tracker after being informed of it , and J. Peter Donald , Citizen ’ s then spokesperson , said the company would do a better job of clarifying its privacy policy .
Location data is interesting not only to advertisers , but also the federal government .
In early February , the Wall Street Journal reported that the Trump administration purchased a database containing millions of Americans ’ cellphone location data to help identify and deport undocumented immigrants .
Though a landmark 2018 Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ access to location data from cellphone providers , the government was still able to purchase the data from private companies .
Wessler said that if Citizen location data is ever made available to private entities , it would also effectively become available for purchase by government entities .
The government could also try to get Citizen ’ s user data without paying for it .
The company provides guidelines for law enforcement that indicate a search warrant is required to obtain users ’ location data , photos , videos , and chat messages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to compel video and chat metadata and IP addresses .
Wessler said , based on his reading of the guidelines , that Citizen seems to follow the appropriate legal standard for compelling user data , but the company could better inform the public by issuing transparency reports detailing the number of law enforcement requests for such information , as many large tech companies do regularly .
Since relaunching its app as Citizen , the company has also made headway with police departments , hinting at possible futures for the product .
Frame , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last year he was aware police departments initially “ hated ” his app , but declared the perception had improved since then .
“ I don ’ t know how much they love us , but they at least don ’ t hate us anymore , ” he said .
It may be true in New York City , where his company is based .
Last year , a Citizen employee organized a chummy basketball game between the NYPD and company employees to help “ humanize the app ” and “ humanize the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law enforcement community in other ways , such as through hiring .
J. Peter Donald , who was Citizen ’ s head of policy and communications until last summer , confirmed to The Intercept that he issued the NYPD ’ s anti-Vigilante statement as the department ’ s director of communications — thus helping pave the way for the app ’ s removal from Apple ’ s store .
In other words , he was a prominent critic of Citizen ’ s predecessor app before he joined the company that makes it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change of heart , Donald pointed to a statement he gave when he joined Citizen in 2018 : “ I am eager to join Citizen to continue keeping people informed about their safety and using technology to help people when it matters most.
” Donald was appointed to his NYPD post by Bill Bratton , a former New York Police commissioner and Los Angeles Police Department chief who joined Citizen ’ s board of directors last year .
Like Donald , Bratton was also initially opposed to the app , telling Forbes he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encourage others to interfere with investigations.
” Bratton now welcomes the use of other new technologies in policing too , recently voicing his support for NYPD use of facial recognition tools .
Bratton did not immediately respond to questions from The Intercept about the app and his role .
Among police departments , the embrace of new technologies has increased dramatically in the past few years .
Clearview AI , a controversial facial recognition startup that claims to have over three billion indexed photos , is being sold to police departments across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the startup ’ s entire client list , confirming that the majority of them are local and state police departments .
Notably , NYPD officers had run more than 11,000 searches using Clearview ’ s database , the most of any organization using the software .
Ring , a doorbell-camera company acquired by Amazon , works with over 400 police departments and gives law enforcement the ability to directly request camera footage from people ’ s homes .
Its social network , Neighbors , lets users anonymously report crimes , share videos , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November , The Intercept reported Ring ’ s plans to use facial recognition and its network of home doorbell cameras to create AI-enabled neighborhood watchlists .
Of companies like Ring that partner with law enforcement , Wessler said , “ It becomes this surveillance industrial complex where people are spending their own money to send surveillance data to the police.
” Working with law enforcement would present similar risks for Citizen .
“ Who knows how Citizen might shift their business model over time to make money , ” Wessler said .
Last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there was a possibility Citizen could charge “ universities , airports , and places with lots of people to allow authorities to send notifications to its users.
” The sources also said it was possible users could message officials directly about their safety concerns .
“ When you start trying to make money from both police departments and individual users , the blending of that can be toxic , ” Wessler said .
In response to a question about working with authorities , Citizen said it “ does not work with law enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” but does work with “ advisors with backgrounds in public safety.
” This does not denote “ a formal relationship with any kind of law enforcement , ” the statement continued , emphasizing the company ’ s “ independent mission and vision.
” In one recent job posting , however , Citizen describes a role dedicated to researching the needs and motivations of its users and “ partners in the public sector , ” which includes police departments and governments .
Experts say crime-tracking apps like Citizen — especially in light @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporting feature — can legitimize people ’ s racist perceptions of who commits crimes and looks suspicious .
“ The user gets the ability to use their own moral compass to figure out what ’ s suspicious and what is worthy of being posted and shot out to the world .
A lot of times it ’ s based on pretty insidious racial biases about who belongs and who doesn ’ t belong , and who ’ s suspicious and who ’ s not suspicious , ” said Matthew Guariglia , a policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He added that these biases also exist in communities of color , and that , despite being overpoliced , residents of those communities have understandable motivations to turn to technologies like Citizen .
“ It could be that some of these apps are a continuation of trying to get the basic civic services out of the government that other communities enjoy , ” he said .
Still , apps like Citizen can increase fear of crime even as crime rates hit historic lows across the country , said Sarah Lustbader , senior legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focused on criminal justice .
“ It makes people afraid enough to feel like they need it , but it also , it seems to me , reduces your quality of life because it just makes you fearful all the time , ” Lustbader said .
That fear , in turn , “ could exacerbate tensions and maybe even create more actual harm between people.
” In spite of its app ’ s rebranding , Lustbader doubted the company had changed its basic motivation and purpose , “ which is essentially to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and your worst fear when it comes to fear and crime.
” Citizen is hardly the only crime-tracking app that has raised concerns .
Many have been called out for encouraging racial profiling and increasing paranoia .
Nextdoor , a neighborhood-focused social networking service that allows users to report events — including “ suspicious people ” — launched in 2011 .
Since then , it has been repeatedly criticized for giving a platform to insidious racial biases .
In response to criticism of posts like one warning of “ two young African-Americans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Nextdoor announced that it would modify its system for reporting incidents in 2016 .
In 2014 , two young white entrepreneurs announced they were preparing to release an app called “ SketchFactor ” that would draw on public and crowdsourced information to rate the “ sketchiness ” of areas within a city .
SketchFactor eventually shut down after public outcry .
Racism is also a problem on Neighbors , Ring ’ s social network .
According to a Motherboard analysis of over 100 reports made on the network over a two-month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority of those reported as “ suspicious.
” The Intercept surveyed comments posted recently on Citizen , finding many that used racist language or evoked racist tropes .
On one incident given the title “ Tesla Crashed into Tree , ” a user commented on the race of the driver : “ Probably asian considering he drove into a tree lol.
” In another post , a user wrote , “ Sanctuary STATE !
I ’ ll probably get thrown off here for sayin it but : CA has become TJ ( Tijuana @ @ @ @ @ @ @ titled “ Man Fatally Shot Near Nassau County Border , ” another user commented , “ Look who lives over there .
Not the smartest people in the world I bet .
The poor will always behave like the poor… Not the smartest bunch.
” Citizen says it moderates all content and removes comments and videos that include harassment , discrimination , or hate speech , but many users have complained that a lot seems to slip through the cracks .
A Citizen spokesperson said over email that the company is working to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the moderation team is growing .
The app also continues to raise questions of user safety , even after its rebranding .
Though its terms remind users they “ should not travel to or remain in any area during , before , or after a crime or other hazardous situation , ” in every other respect , Citizen seems to invite users to move toward active emergency areas and film them .
Users near emergency incidents receive push notifications and are prompted to livestream video , and notifications show the distance to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feet .
In October 2018 , the company tweeted , “ Broadcasting live on the Citizen app is the best way to inform and protect your community during a crime or emergency event .
Here are some tips to help you record great video.
” Citizen has said it hopes to rapidly expand to many more cities across the globe .
It is funded by $ 60 million in venture capital from 8VC , Peter Thiel ’ s Founders Fund , Sequoia Capital , and more , according to Crunchbase , a database @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a free app and thus far has not publicly stated how it plans to make money .
In its statement to The Intercept , Citizen said its current priority is “ growing users on the app and optimizing the user experience , ” but “ revenue-generating products and services are in development.
” Schaub thinks Citizen may follow a tried-and-true path .
“ When companies are looking for monetization opportunities , they increasingly look toward the data they are collecting about customers , ” he said .
But if Citizen ’ s incident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without additional safeguards , it could exacerbate longstanding problems .
“ The long history of surveillance of the suburbs is people looking out their window and deciding who does and who does not belong , ” said EFF ’ s Guariglia .

Citizen, a mobile app that alerts people to nearby emergencies, is testing the reintroduction of a controversial feature that lets users report crimes and incidents on their own by live streaming video.
Created by New York-based startup sp0n, Citizen first launched under the name “Vigilante” in 2016 in New York City, broadcasting alerts of 911 calls to users in the vicinity and allowing those users to send live video from incident scenes, comment on alerts, and report incidents on their own. In a splashy launch video with the hashtag #CrimeNoMore, several young men were depicted rushing to aid a woman who was chased by a menacing stranger; the video instructs users not to “interfere with the crime,” but then adds, “Good luck out there!” Vigilante was met with swift backlash from the public and police departments, and Apple soon pulled the app from its store. At that time, the New York Police Department issued a statement saying, “Crimes in progress should be handled by the NYPD and not a vigilante with a cell phone.”
Several months later, the app rebranded as Citizen, removed the incident reporting feature, and said it was shifting its focus to “safety” and “avoiding crime” — a far cry from its prior positioning.
Citizen’s return to public crime reporting has not been publicized, but is documented on the company’s user support website. The app’s latest version in Apple and Google’s app stores also includes the description: “Keep Your Community Safe: Report incidents right when they happen to protect the people around you.”
Dominic McMullan, a Citizen representative, refused to speak with The Intercept on the record during a phone call. In an emailed statement the company sent instead, it said that about five percent of its incidents are reported via the live broadcast feature. They are “merged with 911-reported incidents” and reviewed by Citizen moderators before appearing in the app, according to the statement.
The experiment comes after the company made more attempts to work with law enforcement, including bringing onto its board Bill Bratton (who opposed Vigilante when he was police commissioner in New York) and hiring as an executive someone who oversaw NYPD communications when the department spoke out against the app.
Experts say that, if not addressed with great care, what Citizen does next could set the stage for invasive advertising, greater injustice for vulnerable people, and increased government surveillance. User-powered crime reporting has been rife with racism, panic, and concerns users might bring about personal harm — issues not just for Citizen’s predecessor app Vigilante but also for platforms like Amazon’s Ring, which makes home security cameras and a related social network, and Nextdoor, an app that networks neighbors with one another to communicate about crime and other matters.
Community Involvement and Crime Reporting
Citizen’s reintroduction of user reporting is a walk back for the company, which had removed the feature in emphatic terms. In 2017, CEO Andrew Frame told TechCrunch user reporting would be removed because it had become a distraction from the app’s mission, which he said was to “reduce crime, not exploitation of people.” To head off racial bias concerns, Frame had also said that suspicious persons reports would not be included in the app.
Now, on its user support website, Citizen encourages people to report incidents about “protests, lost pets, downed power lines, and other community FYIs.” But its general criteria for reported incidents from 911 calls are broader, and include alleged crimes in progress such as assaults and thefts, fire, smoke, gas leaks, situations involving hazardous materials, and heightened police activity.
In addition to now accepting incident reports from users through its app, Citizen has experimented with taking reports from outsiders via other channels. In 2018, it began rolling out a tool and community called “GuardianNet” or “GNet.” The tool gave users, or “Guardians,” access to Citizen’s internal feed of real-time police, fire, and emergency radio through a web-based interface, allowing them to comb through dispatches and, until last year, to create safety alerts.
The company has aggressively recruited people, typically police scanner hobbyists, to volunteer as unpaid dispatchers. Its representatives have posted on local classified web pages, popular radio scanning forums, and Facebook groups, and tried to organize in-person meetups.
David Choi, a Citizen operations manager, wrote on Reddit that the network was “built exclusively for scanner enthusiasts to listen to police/fire radios and report incidents to keep their communities safe and informed.” In response to concerns from Reddit users that a phone number was needed to sign up for the network, Choi responded, “We’re not looking to sell you anything at all. We’re just trying to build up this community of people who like listening to emergency responder radio and give these people an opportunity to help others and maybe even save lives.”
Citizen has previously highlighted the importance of its Guardians in keeping the public safe: In September 2018, it said one Guardian “hero” helped alert thousands of people in real time about a bomb threat in New Jersey, and last year said another Guardian broke the news of a shooting at a New Jersey mall. But the “Guardians” are a key component of Citizen’s expansion beyond the 15 American cities it currently operates in; if a city has publicly accessible radio bands and people combing through them, Citizen can gather enough resources to enter the market.
Last March, Choi announced that GuardianNet’s incident reporting feature would be “temporarily paused for the near term future” to prepare for a reboot, but that its scanner feeds and chat rooms would remain open. Now, it seems Citizen is changing course again. In a statement, the company said GuardianNet was “a beta test” that “never launched,” and is no longer accessible to the public. The Guardian site now redirects to a page called “ProtectOS,” which requires a phone number to sign up.
Illustration: Soohee Cho/The Intercept
Location data, privacy, and surveillance
Experts say Citizen’s location data collection raises questions about privacy and surveillance, the government’s interest in such data, and the lack of oversight into location data tracking.
Citizen’s terms of service state that users must permit the app to access their location data even when it isn’t open. The company says it needs both location and notification permissions to notify users of emergencies, which might include “life-saving” crime and safety alerts.
Metadata associated with content like videos, which are required to initiate an incident report on the app, are also collected, according to the company’s privacy policy. These include unique device identifiers, information on wireless networks, location information, and more, all of which can be tied back to users, who sign up for Citizen using their names, email addresses, and phone numbers.
Privacy and Advertising
Florian Schaub, a professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Information who focuses on digital privacy, said the privacy risks of using Citizen are similar to those of any app that relies on location data to work. “The risk is always that these location traces are used in ways that users are not anticipating. Advertising is the most common risk,” he said.
Location data is valuable, and its sale is growing and largely unregulated. Broadly speaking, private companies collect users’ movements through popular cellphone apps and sell the data to advertising firms and data brokers. It is completely legal to collect location data, and the companies often defend their practices by claiming the location pings they collect are anonymized, essentially raw data with no identifying information. But experts say that’s impossible: Location information can be easily tied to someone’s identity.
“Based on where one lives, you can infer their income level, track where they go,” said Schaub. “You might be able to see they are going to an AA meeting, which is not that anonymous anymore, or going to a mental health service provider, or a fertility clinic.”
Though Citizen has repeatedly stated that it does not and never will sell user data, it’s possible the company may change its mind as it did with user crime reporting. In response to questions about sharing user data, Citizen sent the following statement: “Citizen shares personal information with the service providers that provide services to or on behalf of Citizen. We also enable service providers to collect personal information from app users only to provide services to or on behalf of Citizen. We pay these service providers and have agreements in place that prevent them from using the data for their own benefit. There is no service provider paying us for any data or data derivative.”
“No one is literally exchanging a pile of data for a suitcase of money.”
Generally, tech companies’ claims that they will never sell users’ data is a misnomer, said Gennie Gebhart, associate director of research at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “No one is literally exchanging a pile of data for a suitcase of money,” Gebhart told The Intercept.
Even if a company is not selling data to third parties, it may be making data available to other companies for valuable consideration, or otherwise profiting from what it collects. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, for example, has long insisted that Facebook does not sell its users’ data, and even testified before the Senate to this effect. But it allows advertisers to target users at a very granular level, reaping the benefit of invasive tracking even if the underlying user data used for targeting is never provided.
Citizen’s terms of service contain a provision that allows sp0n and third-party providers to advertise based on users’ location and what they do in the app, including what they search for. Ads on Citizen might be targeted based on the photos and videos uploaded by users and other tracked information, according to its terms.
Experts also pointed out Citizen’s lack of transparency when it comes to how long it stores user data. Citizen says it stores user information for “as short a duration as possible” and aims to “lower the accuracy of historical location data where possible.” If Citizen’s main concern was user privacy, said Schaub, it would explicitly state how long location data was kept for.
Nate Wessler, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, questioned the breadth of Citizen’s location data collection. “I very much doubt they need location data, a year’s worth or five year’s worth, or even a month’s worth,” he said. “The more customer data is kept, the more is potentially exposed to law enforcement.”
Citizen’s app once worked without continuous location tracking. But one update last year changed that, forcing users to enable full location data access to use any part of the app. Users were outraged, flooding Citizen’s App Store reviews with negative comments about the “location-hungry,” “creepy,” and “hostile” nature of the company’s attempts to access their data. In response, Citizen “adjusted” the setting, telling users they could use the app without enabling location access by closing a pop-up that asked for permanent location sharing. In other responses, Citizen acknowledged that “some users” had privacy concerns about sharing location data but maintained that if users’ location settings were not “properly configured,” they would continue receiving in-app reminders to change them whenever they opened the app.
A Citizen spokesperson said over email that users can currently “control their own location data access” on the app, though it still prompts users to enable such access.
Schaub offered alternatives for Citizen to work without the need for constant, or even occasional, location data sharing. Instead of revealing their movements to Citizen, users could select specific coverage areas where they’d like to receive safety notifications, for example. Even if the app does continue requiring location data, Schaub said Citizen could be more forthcoming about the data it collects and what it is used for. “This notice shouldn’t just be in the privacy policy, it should be made explicit when you activate the feature or when you see it for the first time. This should be shared with users rather than buried in the terms of service,” he said.
It’s also worth noting that if Citizen did end up selling user data, it would not be the first time the company has breached a user privacy assurance. Last year, the Washington Post found that Citizen sent personally identifying information such as users’ phone numbers, emails, and GPS coordinates to the marketing tracking company Amplitude — a direct violation of its privacy policy. Citizen said it removed the tracker after being informed of it, and J. Peter Donald, Citizen’s then spokesperson, said the company would do a better job of clarifying its privacy policy.
Surveillance
Location data is interesting not only to advertisers, but also the federal government. In early February, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Trump administration purchased a database containing millions of Americans’ cellphone location data to help identify and deport undocumented immigrants. Though a landmark 2018 Supreme Court ruling requires court oversight for government access to location data from cellphone providers, the government was still able to purchase the data from private companies. Wessler said that if Citizen location data is ever made available to private entities, it would also effectively become available for purchase by government entities.
The government could also try to get Citizen’s user data without paying for it. The company provides guidelines for law enforcement that indicate a search warrant is required to obtain users’ location data, photos, videos, and chat messages, and a court order is required to compel video and chat metadata and IP addresses. Wessler said, based on his reading of the guidelines, that Citizen seems to follow the appropriate legal standard for compelling user data, but the company could better inform the public by issuing transparency reports detailing the number of law enforcement requests for such information, as many large tech companies do regularly.
Policing and Technology
Since relaunching its app as Citizen, the company has also made headway with police departments, hinting at possible futures for the product. Frame, Citizen’s CEO, told CNN last year he was aware police departments initially “hated” his app, but declared the perception had improved since then. “I don’t know how much they love us, but they at least don’t hate us anymore,” he said.
It may be true in New York City, where his company is based. Last year, a Citizen employee organized a chummy basketball game between the NYPD and company employees to help “humanize the app” and “humanize the NYPD.”
Citizen has forged connections to the law enforcement community in other ways, such as through hiring. J. Peter Donald, who was Citizen’s head of policy and communications until last summer, confirmed to The Intercept that he issued the NYPD’s anti-Vigilante statement as the department’s director of communications — thus helping pave the way for the app’s removal from Apple’s store. In other words, he was a prominent critic of Citizen’s predecessor app before he joined the company that makes it. In response to questions about his change of heart, Donald pointed to a statement he gave when he joined Citizen in 2018: “I am eager to join Citizen to continue keeping people informed about their safety and using technology to help people when it matters most.”
Donald was appointed to his NYPD post by Bill Bratton, a former New York Police commissioner and Los Angeles Police Department chief who joined Citizen’s board of directors last year. Like Donald, Bratton was also initially opposed to the app, telling Forbes he thought it would “scare people and encourage others to interfere with investigations.” Bratton now welcomes the use of other new technologies in policing too, recently voicing his support for NYPD use of facial recognition tools. Bratton did not immediately respond to questions from The Intercept about the app and his role.
Among police departments, the embrace of new technologies has increased dramatically in the past few years. Clearview AI, a controversial facial recognition startup that claims to have over three billion indexed photos, is being sold to police departments across the country. A recent data breach exposed the startup’s entire client list, confirming that the majority of them are local and state police departments. Notably, NYPD officers had run more than 11,000 searches using Clearview’s database, the most of any organization using the software.
Ring, a doorbell-camera company acquired by Amazon, works with over 400 police departments and gives law enforcement the ability to directly request camera footage from people’s homes. Its social network, Neighbors, lets users anonymously report crimes, share videos, and talk about suspicious happenings. In November, The Intercept reported Ring’s plans to use facial recognition and its network of home doorbell cameras to create AI-enabled neighborhood watchlists. Of companies like Ring that partner with law enforcement, Wessler said, “It becomes this surveillance industrial complex where people are spending their own money to send surveillance data to the police.”
“When you start trying to make money from both police departments and individual users, the blending of that can be toxic.”
Working with law enforcement would present similar risks for Citizen. “Who knows how Citizen might shift their business model over time to make money,” Wessler said.
Last year, anonymous company sources told Forbes there was a possibility Citizen could charge “universities, airports, and places with lots of people to allow authorities to send notifications to its users.” The sources also said it was possible users could message officials directly about their safety concerns. “When you start trying to make money from both police departments and individual users, the blending of that can be toxic,” Wessler said.
In response to a question about working with authorities, Citizen said it “does not work with law enforcement in any way, shape or form,” but does work with “advisors with backgrounds in public safety.” This does not denote “a formal relationship with any kind of law enforcement,” the statement continued, emphasizing the company’s “independent mission and vision.” In one recent job posting, however, Citizen describes a role dedicated to researching the needs and motivations of its users and “partners in the public sector,” which includes police departments and governments.
Racism, Paranoia, and Panic
Experts say crime-tracking apps like Citizen — especially in light of the possible reintroduction of its crime reporting feature — can legitimize people’s racist perceptions of who commits crimes and looks suspicious.
“The user gets the ability to use their own moral compass to figure out what’s suspicious and what is worthy of being posted and shot out to the world. A lot of times it’s based on pretty insidious racial biases about who belongs and who doesn’t belong, and who’s suspicious and who’s not suspicious,” said Matthew Guariglia, a policy analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
“The user gets the ability to use their own moral compass to figure out what’s suspicious. A lot of times it’s based on pretty insidious racial biases.”
He added that these biases also exist in communities of color, and that, despite being overpoliced, residents of those communities have understandable motivations to turn to technologies like Citizen. “It could be that some of these apps are a continuation of trying to get the basic civic services out of the government that other communities enjoy,” he said.
Still, apps like Citizen can increase fear of crime even as crime rates hit historic lows across the country, said Sarah Lustbader, senior legal counsel for The Appeal, a publication focused on criminal justice. “It makes people afraid enough to feel like they need it, but it also, it seems to me, reduces your quality of life because it just makes you fearful all the time,” Lustbader said. That fear, in turn, “could exacerbate tensions and maybe even create more actual harm between people.”
In spite of its app’s rebranding, Lustbader doubted the company had changed its basic motivation and purpose, “which is essentially to say you ought to indulge your worst instinct and your worst fear when it comes to fear and crime.”
Citizen is hardly the only crime-tracking app that has raised concerns. Many have been called out for encouraging racial profiling and increasing paranoia.
Nextdoor, a neighborhood-focused social networking service that allows users to report events — including “suspicious people” — launched in 2011. Since then, it has been repeatedly criticized for giving a platform to insidious racial biases. In response to criticism of posts like one warning of “two young African-Americans, slim, baggy pants, early 20s,” Nextdoor announced that it would modify its system for reporting incidents in 2016.
In 2014, two young white entrepreneurs announced they were preparing to release an app called “SketchFactor” that would draw on public and crowdsourced information to rate the “sketchiness” of areas within a city. SketchFactor eventually shut down after public outcry.
Racism is also a problem on Neighbors, Ring’s social network. According to a Motherboard analysis of over 100 reports made on the network over a two-month period, people of color were the majority of those reported as “suspicious.”
The Intercept surveyed comments posted recently on Citizen, finding many that used racist language or evoked racist tropes. On one incident given the title “Tesla Crashed into Tree,” a user commented on the race of the driver: “Probably asian considering he drove into a tree lol.” In another post, a user wrote, “Sanctuary STATE! I’ll probably get thrown off here for sayin it but: CA has become TJ (Tijuana) Im out.” In another post titled “Man Fatally Shot Near Nassau County Border,” another user commented, “Look who lives over there. Not the smartest people in the world I bet. The poor will always behave like the poor… Not the smartest bunch.”
Citizen says it moderates all content and removes comments and videos that include harassment, discrimination, or hate speech, but many users have complained that a lot seems to slip through the cracks. A Citizen spokesperson said over email that the company is working to improve the comments experience for users, and the moderation team is growing.
The app also continues to raise questions of user safety, even after its rebranding. Though its terms remind users they “should not travel to or remain in any area during, before, or after a crime or other hazardous situation,” in every other respect, Citizen seems to invite users to move toward active emergency areas and film them. Users near emergency incidents receive push notifications and are prompted to livestream video, and notifications show the distance to areas where emergencies are taking place in feet. In October 2018, the company tweeted, “Broadcasting live on the Citizen app is the best way to inform and protect your community during a crime or emergency event. Here are some tips to help you record great video.”
Citizen’s Next Move
Citizen has said it hopes to rapidly expand to many more cities across the globe. It is funded by $60 million in venture capital from 8VC, Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, Sequoia Capital, and more, according to Crunchbase, a database that tracks startup investments.
It remains a free app and thus far has not publicly stated how it plans to make money. In its statement to The Intercept, Citizen said its current priority is “growing users on the app and optimizing the user experience,” but “revenue-generating products and services are in development.”
Schaub thinks Citizen may follow a tried-and-true path. “When companies are looking for monetization opportunities, they increasingly look toward the data they are collecting about customers,” he said.
But if Citizen’s incident reporting feature is permanently restored, especially without additional safeguards, it could exacerbate longstanding problems. “The long history of surveillance of the suburbs is people looking out their window and deciding who does and who does not belong,” said EFF’s Guariglia.