Proposed “Right to Know Act” Would Empower Users of Digital Devices to Decline NYPD Searches



  • New York City is considering a range of legislative measures to increase civilian control over the New York Police Department (NYPD). Earlier this year, EFF endorsed the proposed Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology (POST) Act to increase transparency into the NYPD’s acquisition of surveillance technology, such as license plate readers and cell site simulators. Now EFF also supports the proposed Right to Know Act to guard the digital rights of New Yorkers and visitors impacted by so-called “consent” searches of their digital devices during stop and frisks.

    The NYPD is the nation’s largest police department, with global operations and an unfortunately long history of acting outside its authority. Given its size and presence among domestic law enforcement agencies, NYPD policies can set national norms, which are why its abuses—and policies enacted to curtail them—are important not only to New Yorkers but all Americans.

    In New York, the frequency of racially disparate detentions and searches of innocent New Yorkers exploded under an era of “broken windows policing” championed by former police commissioner Bill Bratton. (Bratton also worked in similar capacities in Boston and in Los Angeles, where his record prompted sustained criticism from local residents and communities.) “Broken windows policing” encourages police to aggressively pursue low-level crimes, driving NYPD officers to issue 1.8 million summonses between 2010 and 2015 for quality-of-life misdemeanors and infractions such as public drinking.

    The “broken windows” paradigm often places police in a position to challenge, or even violate, constitutional limits on their authority.

    This has grown especially apparent in the stop-and-frisk program used by the NYPD. The constitutional authorization for stopping and frisking individuals dates to 1968, when the Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio allowed brief detentions of civilians based on reasonable suspicion of crime, and pat-down frisks of detained civilians based on reasonable suspicion of concealed weapon possession.

    Until 2011, the Department’s stop-and-frisk practices escalated dramatically, attracting widespread criticism from figures including the current Mayor, the city’s Public Advocate, and even a former New York State Attorney General. In 2013, a federal judge ruled that the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices reflected impermissible racial bias, and ordered an end to the Department’s disregard for constitutional limits on its authority.

    Included in the items searched by NYPD officers during stops and frisks are portable electronic tools including cellular phones, tablets, and laptops. The rising tide of digital device searches around the country prompted the Supreme Court in 2014 to decide Riley v. California, limiting law enforcement authority to search cell phones without a warrant (even incident to arrest, when the state’s power over an individual stands at its zenith). The Riley court was clear that a judicial warrant is required for a mandatory search of a cell phone because they can reveal massive quantities of an individual’s most sensitive information, including communications, associations, locations, and photographs.

    Even though Riley prohibited compulsory warrantless searches of digital devices incident to arrest, warrantless searches of electronic devices still continue, enabled by waivers of Fourth Amendment rights prompted by police requests for so-called “consent” to search. It is consent searches that the Right to Know Act aims to subject to appropriate limits.

    Police encounters are inherently intimidating, especially for youth of color. When an armed police officer demands permission to search an electronic device, many members of the public may not realize they have the right to say “no.” Others are aware of their theoretical rights but legitimately fear the consequences of asserting them. The Right to Know Act would limit this end-run around the privacy rights recognized in Riley in two important ways.

    First, the Act would require police seeking consent to execute a search of digital devices (or their persons, vehicles, other belongings, and homes) to first notify civilians that they have the right to refuse consent. This requirement to provide notice of rights would operate similarly to Miranda warnings, but at an earlier stage in the investigative process.

    Short of creating any new rights, this provision would simply require that civilians receive notice of their existing rights. Such notice is neither difficult to provide, nor burdensome on police officers. Indeed, as recognized by the Supreme Court in Miranda, notice of constitutionally guaranteed rights is crucial to prevent waivers that are neither informed nor voluntary.

    In addition, the Act would require officers “to obtain objective proof that an individual gave informed and voluntary consent to a search.” This requirement is important to address the frequent occurrence when police claim to have been granted consent but investigative targets claim otherwise. By requiring objective proof of consent, the Right to Know Act will help restore trust in law enforcement.

    The Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) recently documented systemic violations by the Department, identifying hundreds of unlawful searches entirely disregarding legal requirements to secure either a judicial warrant or consent to justify a search. These pervasive violations of constitutional limits on the Department’s search authority, coupled with the unfortunate phenomenon of some police officers making false statements in other contexts, suggest the need for the Act’s requirements to protect New Yorkers and ensure the vitality of their rights.

    In short, the Right to Know Act would place important limits on consent searches of civilians’ digital devices. We hope that in the future, the New York City Council will enact additional protections of digital liberty, including compilation and publication of demographic statistics about exactly whom the NYPD is subjecting to digital consent searches, and ultimately a ban on consent searches of digital devices. For now, the Right to Know Act is an excellent start.


 



Tmux Commands

screen and tmux

A comparison of the features (or more-so just a table of notes for accessing some of those features) for GNU screen and BSD-licensed tmux.

The formatting here is simple enough to understand (I would hope). ^ means ctrl+, so ^x is ctrl+x. M- means meta (generally left-alt or escape)+, so M-x is left-alt+x

It should be noted that this is no where near a full feature-set of either group. This - being a cheat-sheet - is just to point out the most very basic features to get you on the road.

Trust the developers and manpage writers more than me. This document is originally from 2009 when tmux was still new - since then both of these programs have had many updates and features added (not all of which have been dutifully noted here).

Action tmux screen
start a new session tmux OR
tmux new OR
tmux new-session
screen
re-attach a detached session tmux attach OR
tmux attach-session
screen-r
re-attach an attached session (detaching it from elsewhere) tmux attach -d OR
tmux attach-session -d
screen -dr
re-attach an attached session (keeping it attached elsewhere) tmux attach OR
tmux attach-session
screen -x
detach from currently attached session ^b d OR
^b :detach
^a ^d OR
^a :detach
rename-window to newname ^b , <newname> OR
^b :rename-window <newn>
^a A <newname>
list windows ^b w ^a w
list windows in chooseable menu ^a "
go to window # ^b # ^a #
go to last-active window ^b l ^a ^a
go to next window ^b n ^a n
go to previous window ^b p ^a p
see keybindings ^b ? ^a ?
list sessions ^b s OR
tmux ls OR
tmux list-sessions
screen -ls
toggle visual bell ^a ^g
create another window ^b c ^a c
exit current shell/window ^d ^d
split window/pane horizontally ^b " ^a S
split window/pane vertically ^b % ^a |
switch to other pane ^b o ^a <tab>
kill the current pane ^b x OR (logout/^D)
collapse the current pane/split (but leave processes running) ^a X
cycle location of panes ^b ^o
swap current pane with previous ^b {
swap current pane with next ^b }
show time ^b t
show numeric values of panes ^b q
toggle zoom-state of current pane (maximize/return current pane) ^b z
break the current pane out of its window (to form new window) ^b !
re-arrange current panels within same window (different layouts) ^b [space]
Kill the current window (and all panes within) ^b killw [target-window]
  • Make ISO from DVD

    In this case I had an OS install disk which was required to be on a virtual node with no optical drive, so I needed to transfer an image to the server to create a VM

    Find out which device the DVD is:

    lsblk

    Output:

    NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT sda 8:0 0 465.8G 0 disk ├─sda1 8:1 0 1G 0 part /boot └─sda2 8:2 0 464.8G 0 part ├─centos-root 253:0 0 50G 0 lvm / ├─centos-swap 253:1 0 11.8G 0 lvm [SWAP] └─centos-home 253:2 0 403G 0 lvm /home sdb 8:16 1 14.5G 0 disk /mnt sr0 11:0 1 4.1G 0 rom /run/media/rick/CCSA_X64FRE_EN-US_DV5

    Therefore /dev/sr0 is the location , or disk to be made into an ISO

    I prefer simplicity, and sometimes deal with the fallout after the fact, however Ive repeated this countless times with success.

    dd if=/dev/sr0 of=win10.iso

    Where if=Input file and of=output file

    I chill out and do something else while the image is being copied/created, and the final output:

    8555456+0 records in 8555456+0 records out 4380393472 bytes (4.4 GB) copied, 331.937 s, 13.2 MB/s

    Fin!

    read more
  • Recreate postrgresql database template encode to ASCII

    UPDATE pg_database SET datistemplate = FALSE WHERE datname = 'template1';

    Now we can drop it:

    DROP DATABASE template1;

    Create database from template0, with a new default encoding:

    CREATE DATABASE template1 WITH TEMPLATE = template0 ENCODING = 'UNICODE'; UPDATE pg_database SET datistemplate = TRUE WHERE datname = 'template1'; \c template1 VACUUM FREEZE;

    read more
});