NYPD must disclose facial recognition procedures deployed against Black Lives Matter protesters

New York police must now comply with a public records request related to its use of facial recognition and other surveillance on protestors. A judge has ordered the New York Police Department to release documents pertaining to its monitoring of Black Lives Matters protests during the summer of 2020, requiring it to release 2,700 emails and other documents to the public or state why it fall”and/or allege with specificity that each document falls within one of the enumerated exemptions of Public Officers Law.”

The NYPD previously rejected a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request by Amnesty International and the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project for records related to its use of facial recognition and surveillance tools on activists (as well as a subsequent appeal to that FOIL request), leading both groups to sue the law enforcement organization last year. The police agency has argued that the records request would cover over 30 million documents, and that following through would be “unreasonably burdensome.”

In a ruling issued on Friday, New York Supreme Court Justice Lawrence Love rejected the NYPD’s reasoning. Legal teams for the NYPD and Amnesty International have met since the lawsuit was filed, and narrowed down the number of documents to 2,700 in total, an amount that Love called “far more reasonable.” The judge also ordered both Amnesty International and STOP to re-submit its FOIL request, this time tailoring it to cover the 2,700 documents in question.

A number of public records requests from Buzzfeed, Wired and other news outlets revealed that the NYPD has an extensive range of surveillance tools at its disposal. The policy agency has purchased technology such as cell site simulators, gait recognition software, X-ray vans and facial recognition software from notorious vendor Clearview AI.

TikTok might be working on a music service

TikTok has helped users discover both current and past musical artists, and now it might be starting its own music streaming service. Parent ByteDance has filed a trademark application with the US Patent and Trademark Office for “TikTok Music,” Insider…

Tim Hortons wants to settle location-tracking lawsuits with coffee and doughnuts

Tim Hortons has agreed to settle multiple class action lawsuits that accused the company of tracking customers’ locations through its app without consent. Under the proposed settlement, which requires a judge’s approval, eligible customers in Canada wi…

Twitter trial against Elon Musk begins October 17th

Twitter now has an exact start date for its trial against Elon Musk over his attempt to withdraw from his $44 billion purchase offer. The Vergenotes Delaware Court of Chancery Judge Kathaleen McCormick has scheduled the lawsuit’s trial for October 17th. The courtroom showdown will last the promised five days, wrapping up on October 21st.

The timing represents a slight compromise. Twitter had pressed for a four-day trial starting in September. The social media firm’s shareholder vote on the takeover is slated for September 13th. Musk’s attorneys wanted to push the trial to February 2023, arguing that they needed more time to collect and interpret data on Twitter’s volume of fake accounts and bots.

The move ultimately favors Twitter. It only has to wait a few months for a ruling. If Musk’s team isn’t finished combing through data by October, the company may also strengthen its argument that the Tesla chief rushed his offer and doesn’t have enough information to level accusations of deceit. That, in turn, may let Twitter either force completion of the deal or demand compensation for a broken agreement.

Uber doesn’t need to offer wheelchair-accessible vehicles in all cites, judge rules

A federal court has ruled that Uber does not need to provide wheelchair-accessible service in every US market, ABC News has reported. The company’s decision to provide such a service only in certain cities was not in violation of federal law and would be overly burdensome, said Chief Judge Richard Seeborg of the federal San Francisco Court. 

Two users of motorized wheelchairs in New Orleans and Jackson, Mississippi sued Uber over the lack of accessible services in those cities. Since Uber couldn’t accommodate non-foldable wheelchairs, they claimed that it was in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that prohibits businesses from discriminating against people based on their disabilities. They further argued that Uber has a “deep-rooted accessibility problem,” treating it as an “afterthought.” The trial for the case lasted nearly five years. 

Uber said in its defense that it would be too expensive to offer wheelchair service in every city if it needed to contract with providers of wheelchair-accessible vehicles. Judge Seeborg agreed, saying that the plaintiffs gave “scant evidence” that Uber could do so cost-effectively and that wait times would still be “significant” if it did. “The anticipated cost here is too high for the limited service that would result, making the proposed modification unreasonable,” he said. 

The judge did reject Uber’s argument that it didn’t need to provide wheelchair-accessible services everywhere because it has done so in some cities, noting that the ADA looks at each modification for reasonableness.

Uber does accommodate wheelchair users in other cities like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Boston. New Orleans considered mandating the service, but Uber lobbied against those efforts, according to the court records. “We welcome the outcome and are proud of our efforts to improve accessibility for all users, including through Uber WAV,” said an Uber spokesperson in a statement.

Noting that the decision arrived on the eve of the anniversary of the ADA’s passage into law, lead plaintiff Scott Crawford decried the ruling. “Uber made no sincere attempt to provide accessible service, but instead claimed it was too burdensome,” he said. “This could have been economically resolved years ago.’

The US Treasury is investigating Kraken for enabling crypto trading in sanctioned countries

It’s rough seas for crytpocurrency exchanges these days and the latest to be buffeted is one of the world’s largest, Kraken. It’s reportedly under investigation by the US Treasury Department over possible sanctions violations for letting users in Iran and elsewhere trade digital tokens, according to The New York Times. 

Kraken is a private exchange valued at $11 billion co-founded by chief executive Jesse Powell in 2011. The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has been investigating the company since 2019 and may impose a fine, according to the NYT‘s sources. It would be the largest crypto company to face enforcement action related to US sanctions imposed in 1979 prohibiting the export of goods or services to Iran.

Sanctions issues at Kraken first came up in November 2019 when an employee sued the company for doing business with prohibited countries. That suit was settled, but the OFAC began investigating the company the same year over accounts in Iran, along with other sanctioned countries including Syria and Cuba.

Powell allegedly posted a spreadsheet to a company Slack channel showing that Kraken had 1,522 accounts in Iran, 149 in Syria and 83 in Cuba as of last month, according to the NYT. The data supposedly came from residence information on “verified accounts.” 

Kraken declined to comment to the NYT, but said that it “closely monitors compliance with sanctions laws and, as a general matter, reports to regulators even potential issues.” A Treasury spokesperson said the agency was committed to enforcing “sanctions that protect US national security,” but also gave no further details. 

OFAC has previously fined other cryptocurrency exchanges over similar sanctions violations. BitGo was hit with a $98,000 fine in 2020 over 183 violations, and BitPay face a $500,000-plus fine last year for 2,102 violations.

Cryptocurrency exchanges are facing more than the usual scrutiny these days. Last year, the world’s largest crytpo exchange Binance faced a US money laundering probe for being a major destination of illicit cryptocurrency. Crypto lender Celcius is under investigation by multiple states after it froze transactions, and the Winklevoss twins’ crytpo exchange Gemini is facing lawsuits over a $36 million crypto theft. 

SEC investigates Coinbase, says it may have illegally sold unregistered securities

Coinbase is facing a US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) probe into whether it allowed users to trade digital tokens that should have been registered as securities, Bloomberg has reported. Coinbase, involved indirectly in another probe by the SEC and state of New York, recently caught the regulator’s eye after expanding the number of tokens it offers for trading. 

After taking a conservative approach to listing cryptocurrencies, Coinbase now lets Americans trade more than 150 tokens, according to Bloomberg. If any of those are considered to be securities, it would need to register as an exchange with the SEC. A token is considered to be a security if it involves investors putting up funds for a company in order to profit from the work of its leadership.

Last week, the commission accused a former Coinbase employee of violating insider-trading rules by helping his brother and a friend buy dozens of different types of tokens before they were listed on the platform. Coinbase itself wasn’t accused of any wrongdoing, but the SEC said it considered nine of the dozens of digital tokens traded by the men to be securities, including seven listed by the exchange. 

In a response by chief legal officer Paul Grewal, Coinbase said that it “does not list securities on the platform. Period.” As evidence of that, it said that the US Department of Justice “reviewed the same facts [as the SEC] and chose not to file securities fraud charges against those involved.” 

Coinbase has previously complained that there’s no regulatory framework for digital asset securities. As it happened, the company filed a petition for rule making to clarify those rules just before the SEC filed charges. “Instead of crafting tailored rules in an inclusive and transparent way, the SEC is relying on these types of one-off enforcement actions to try to bring all digital assets into its jurisdiction, even those assets that are not securities,” Grewal wrote.