More women than men are paying increased attention to politics after Donald Trump’s election, according to new data about political attentiveness.

Nine months after an election largely defined by its historic gender gap, survey data from the Pew Research Center shows that 58 percent of women say they are “paying increased attention to politics since Trump’s election,” compared with only 46 percent of men.

Overall, 52 percent of the population said they are paying more attention, while 33 percent say they are paying about the same amount of attention, and 13 percent admitted to being less attentive.

“There are similarly wide gender gaps in heightened interest to politics among members of both parties,” according to the Pew. “Sixty-three percent of Democratic women say they are more attentive to politics, compared with 51 percent of Democratic men. Among Republicans, 54 percent of women and 43 percent of men say the same.”

Pew conducted the survey between June 27 and July 9, speaking with 2,505 adults in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.

The Gender Gap

Women paying more attention to politics has translated into on-the-ground political activism, according to the data. Seventeen percent of women say they have attended a political rally, event, or protest; 12 percent of men say the same.

It’s likely that a large number of these women were among the estimated 5 million who came out for women’s marches that swept the nation after Inauguration Day.

Education level also appeared to make a difference–the subgroup of the population most likely to have attended a protest is women with post-graduate degrees, with 43 percent having participated.

Out of the total 15 percent of the population who have attended such events, the vast majority (67 percent) did so “in opposition to Trump or his policies,” compared  to the mere 11 percent of those who said they’ve attended a political event in support of the president.

Trump Talk Ending Friendships

The majority of Americans (59 percent) find talking politics with someone who has differing opinions than them on the president to be a “stressful and frustrating” experience. Only 35 percent of the population says it is “interesting and informative” to engage in such conversations.

Women tend to be more frustrated with these conversations–64 percent say they are stressful, compared to 54 percent of men sharing that view.

Going beyond just conversations, about one-in-five survey respondents said that knowing a friend voted for Trump would put a strain on their friendship. However, only 7 percent said that knowing a friend had voted for Hillary Clinton would negatively affect their friendship.

The numbers are even more stark when looking at a breakdown by political affiliation and ideology. Thirty-five percent of Democrats said a friend’s Trump vote would put a strain on the friendship, while only 13 percent of Republicans said the same about a friend #withher. For the Democrats who consider themselves to be liberal, rather than moderate or conservative, 47 percent said their friendships would be strained by a vote for Trump.

A Country Not So Divided

Looking past politics, most Democrats (59 percent) and Republicans (56 percent) said that members of the opposing party probably share their other values and goals.

The ideological group most likely to feel this way is moderate and liberal Republicans, 73 percent of whom said Democrats likely shared their non-political goals and values. These survey questions were only asked of partisan-identifying respondents, not those who said they leaned toward one party.

Click here for the full survey report and methodology explanation from Pew Research Center.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Women Are Paying More Attention to Politics in Post-Trump World appeared first on Law Street.

The 2016 presidential election was noteworthy not just because of its outcome, but also for the extent to which both parties used technical data collection behind-the-scenes to secure victories in swing states. Just last week, a cyber risk analyst stumbled onto a trove of that gathered data, collected on 198 million Americans, on an unprotected server.

The analyst, Chris Vickery, an employee of the cyber security startup UpGuard, came across the 1.1 terabytes of data on an Amazon cloud server, which wasn’t password protected and was accessible to anyone with the URL address. According to UpGuard, it took Vickery several days to download the extensive dataset, which may have been left open and exposed for 10 to 14 days.

UpGuard is calling this leak the “largest known data exposure of its kind,” and confirmed that the discovered content includes names, dates of birth, home addresses, phone numbers, and indications of individuals’ ethnicities and religions. Voters’ political views on hot-button campaign issues such as fossil fuels and taxes were also minutely recorded, likely for future micro-targeted campaigns.

Currently downloading what is, basically, the home address of every Trump supporter.

Understand the cloud before you upload to it. pic.twitter.com/nRPb98jwoP

— Chris Vickery (@VickerySec) June 13, 2017

The information was collected by GOP data firm Deep Root Analytics, one of three data firms hired by the RNC to help Donald Trump win the presidential election.

The firm acknowledged that the data was theirs on Friday and released a statement apologizing for the breach.

Deep Root Analytics CEO Brent McGoldrick said the company takes “full responsibility” for the leak. He added that the mistake was likely due to “a recent change in asset access settings since June 1.”

Although much of the data collected by Deep Root Analytics is available online through more innocuous sources, many have been quick to analyze the leak’s potential cyber security ramifications.

“That such an enormous national database could be created and hosted online, missing even the simplest of protections against the data being publicly accessible, is troubling,” UpGuard said on their website.

This leak also comes at a time when the U.S. elections and elections in other western nations have been the targets of increasingly aggressive cyber attacks.

“This is deeply troubling,” Privacy International’s policy officer Frederike Kaltheuner told BBC News. “This is not just sensitive, it’s intimate information, predictions about people’s behavior, opinions, and beliefs that people have never decided to disclose to anyone.”

While this leak could have been much more damaging and revealed more secretive information, experts say this should be a cautionary warning. If companies don’t make cyber security a priority, individuals may have to worry a lot more the next time a leak occurs.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Accidental Data Leak Exposes 198 Million Americans’ Personal Information appeared first on Law Street.

Last Sunday, The New York Times published an extensive profile of Uber’s CEO, Travis Kalanick, which recounted his and his company’s numerous scandals. A new allegation was nestled among the long list of known controversies. The report claimed Uber bought data from Slice Intelligence to track the brand allegiances of thousands of rideshare customers. Slice Intel owns an email unsubscriber called Unroll.me, which it used to collect Lyft receipts from users’ inboxes before selling them to Uber. While it does not appear any laws were broken, the revelation has reignited a debate around profit-driven data collection.

The report only mentions this scheme in passing, but the fleeting allegation was enough to upset Unroll.me users. Hours after the report was published, Unroll.me’s CEO, Jojo Hedaya, released a tone-deaf statement on the company’s website.

The statement is titled “We Can Do Better,” but by “we” he means “the user.” In the non-apology, Hedaya places blame on the consumer. After describing the public anger as “heartbreaking,” Hedaya immediately notes that each user has to agree to Unroll.me’s terms of use and the “plain-English Privacy Policy,” but that “most don’t take the time to thoroughly review them.”

The statement indicates Unroll.me has no intention of changing its ways because it’s how the company can “monetize [its] free service.” This rationale is misleading. Users may not pay money to use the service but, as long as Unroll.me sells user data, the service isn’t free. Unroll.me profits at the expense of each user’s privacy and third-party buyers, such as Uber, set the price.

Unroll.me claims all the data it sells is anonymized, but it is difficult for any user to know how well their data is protected. The Times report details the way in which Uber uses its app to “fingerprint” iPhones. With a tiny line of code, Uber is able to identify any iPhone regardless of whether the Uber app had been deleted from the phone or the phone had been erased and reset. Increasingly, tech companies that claim to value user data, value it as something to be sold, not as something to protect.

Nothing is free. Consumers cannot demand private companies provide unmonetized free services. However, companies that sell user data cannot claim to provide free services. While users of a service like Unroll.me may not hand over money, a transaction ultimately takes place.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Unroll.me Sells Its Data to Uber: Is Your Free App Really Free? appeared first on Law Street.

Apple is being sued after the newest iOS update it released–iOS9–led to some users racking up giant data charges. The plaintiffs are arguing that Apple should have done a better job warning users that the update could lead to higher bills.

The lawsuit was filed by a California couple, William Scott Phillips and Suzanne Schmidt Phillips specifically, but is a class action suit. The lawsuit alleges that Apple violated California’s Unfair Competition Law, and the state’s False Advertising law. It’s a $5 million lawsuit because of the amount of people who may have been affected. While that payout is a pretty small amount compared to Apple’s overall wealth, it’s still symbolic of the fact that a lot of people are really upset about this new feature.

The feature that’s causing so many problems is called WiFi Assist. The idea itself seems helpful–it switches your iPhone or iPad from Wi-Fi to cellular data if it determines that the WiFi network you’re on is not reliable. The issue is that by doing so, it caused some users to go over their allotted amounts of data. This was particularly disturbing for customers who didn’t realize that the feature existed, or didn’t realize when they were being switched from WiFi to data. Additionally, according to the lawsuit, Apple only warned customers and instructed them how to turn the feature off after a flood of publicity criticizing the the new feature.

However, there is some disagreement over whether or not it’s actually WiFi Assist that’s causing a data drain for some customers. Some tech writers have made the observation that individuals could just have bad settings that are draining data from their phones. As Karissa Bell from Mashable put it:

Yes, it’s true WI-Fi Assist will prioritize your data connection over Wi-Fi in some situations. But the reality is it’s extremely unlikely that this setting is what’s causing you to blow through your data cap.

If you’re going over your data limit, it’s more likely because of bad settings — not WiFI-Assist.

She points out that you need to prioritize which apps are ok to use over a cellular connection–like Maps, and Gmail, and which ones you want to save for when you have a good WiFi connection, like Netflix or various social media sites. Additionally, Aaron Brow, of the Daily Express, pointed out that there are other culprits that lead to quick data loss as well, such as background refresh.

Apple has yet to comment on the lawsuit, although given all the hubbub over the WiFi Assist feature, it shouldn’t come as a surprise. But if you’re worried about your data use it’s wise to play around with your data settings to make sure that you haven’t enabled any draining features.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Apple Sued Over Data-Draining “WiFi Assist” Feature appeared first on Law Street.

To see Law Street’s coverage of the Top 10 Highest Reported Crime Rates for Mid-Sized Colleges click here.

The table below details three-year crime statistics (2011-2013) for all campuses with Fall 2013 enrollment between 10,00-19,999 students.

If you are having trouble viewing the table or are on mobile click here. For best results view in landscape.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Crime in America team:
Kevin Rizzo, Kwame Apea, Jennie Burger, Alissa Gutierrez, and Maurin Mwombela.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Campus Crime 2015: Mid-Sized Schools Data appeared first on Law Street.

To see Law Street’s coverage of the Top 10 Highest Reported Crime Rates for Small Colleges click here.

The table below details three-year crime statistics (2011-2013) for all campuses with Fall 2013 enrollment between 1,500-9,999 students.

If you are having trouble viewing the table or are on mobile click here. For best results view in landscape.

*Swarthmore College reported a total of 89 forcible sexual assaults in 2013 to correct errors in previous years’ statistics. Eleven of these incidents occurred prior to 2010. As a result, only 78 were included in the average violent crime rate calculation, as the rankings are only based on incidents that happened between 2011 and 2013.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Crime in America team:
Kevin Rizzo, Kwame Apea, Jennie Burger, Alissa Gutierrez, and Maurin Mwombela.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Campus Crime 2015: Small School Data appeared first on Law Street.

In a groundbreaking article released on Sunday, the Washington Post reported the findings of a five-month study showing that from January through May 2015, at least 385 people were shot and killed by on-duty police officers in the U.S. The rate of killings, more than two per day, is also more than twice the rate reported by the FBI in the last decade. In addition to the possibility of a spike in police killings, the Post points to the lack of accuracy in past reporting for the disparity. The article also mentions that the FBI itself is aware that its numbers are incomplete, particularly because these statistics are voluntarily submitted by police departments.

Other studies, including a project by the Guardian called The Counted, also reveal the incredible rate of uncounted police shootings. In a period of public outcry over police brutality, it is no coincidence that this issue is finally being addressed. By not requiring accurate statistics to be maintained, the government is only reinforcing public fears of a lack of police accountability. Understanding the extent of this problem is the first step toward being able to properly discuss and analyze it.

The Post study also found some troubling patterns in these shootings. Nearly a quarter of the victims were identified by police or family members as mentally ill. Among the cases identified by the Post, 16 percent of the victims were either unarmed or were carrying toy weapons. Both the the Post and the Guardian investigations highlight the disproportionate killings of blacks and Hispanics, particularly in shootings with unarmed victims. Police treatment of mentally ill suspects and minorities have become a widespread issue on which these studies begin to provide insight.

Although these reports sparked some public outrage, it is important to remember the big picture. More than 80 percent of those killed by police were armed with potentially lethal objects, which likely makes police action justified in many situations.

Police shootings are a complex and nuanced issue. Comparisons between the United States and other nations are not incredibly informative given the vast differences in weapon ownership, crime, and various other characteristics. Furthermore, the demonization of police officers to which some citizens resort, is neither reasonable nor helpful in dealing with this issue. Nevertheless, limiting police shootings is certainly a laudable goal, and gathering accurate data is the best place to start.

Let us not forget the harmful consequences that officer-involved shootings can have on police departments and individual officers. Police officers face the damage–particularly emotional damage–that can be inflicted when they are compelled to use deadly force. Moreover, the divide that such events creates between law enforcement and their communities can be detrimental to their ability to function. Unnecessary police shootings are a losing situation for all sides and must be addressed by law enforcement.

One issue that relates directly to these shootings is police officer training. This issue was addressed from a unique perspective in an article on Police One by Roy Bedard, a close quarters and field tactics specialist who trains police, corrections officers, and military professionals. He cites his own rookie officer training and the training that most new officers receive on handgun use. Officers are trained to fire for the center of mass in order to “shoot to stop,” yet Bedard comments on how “shoot to stop” and “shoot to kill” become synonymous in practice.  With this training, it is no surprise that rough encounters with police have resulted in so many deaths.

It would be foolish to blame police shootings solely on training and decisions made by police officers. In high-intensity situations with civilian lives on the line, as well as their own, police officers must quickly determine the best course of action for all involved. Sometimes this means shooting suspects. Sometimes these shootings save lives and that must not be forgotten. Nevertheless, it is important for police departments to train their officers to use deadly force as sparingly as possible. Many of the cases cited by the Washington Post, as well as several recent high-profile police shootings, point to officers using unnecessary force, which is troubling.

On Tuesday, following growing publicity of these reports, two senators announced their plan to introduce legislation that would require states to report all police-related deaths to the Justice Department. This bill, proposed by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) would require all details of these cases to be reported, including age, race, sex, and the situation surrounding the shooting. With more accurate information, law enforcement will be able to understand the true scope of police shootings and take any necessary steps to reduce them.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Number of Americans Killed By Police is Much Higher Than You Think appeared first on Law Street.

According to the American Values Index, a project created by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), the United States is becoming increasingly multi-religious. The tool, which allows users to see the religious and political views of people around the country, is a fascinating use of public data and polling. It’s also an interesting look into the changing demographics and ideological priorities in the U.S.

PRRI is a nonpartisan research organization that declares its goals as follows:

PRRI’s mission is to help journalists, opinion leaders, scholars, clergy, and the general public better understand debates on public policy issues and the role of religion and values in American public life by conducting high quality public opinion surveys and qualitative research.

The United States has long been seen as a consistently white Christian nation, and demographically speaking, that characterization was fair for a long time; however, according to the American Values Index, white Christians are now a minority in 19 states. The percentage of white Christians has fallen to as low as 20 percent in Hawaii, 25 percent in California, and 33 percent in New Mexico.

Furthermore, America’s Protestant tradition is also on the decline. Only 47 percent of the nation overall is Protestant. Notably, some of these shifting statistics come from the increasing amount of religious unaffiliated Americans. Twenty-two percent of Americans now don’t identify with any particular religious tradition, and given that those ranks are dominated by young people, those numbers are on the rise.

It will be interesting to see if these revelations play any part in the 2016 elections that are already ramping up. A national survey by Public Policy Polling in February revealed that 57 percent of Republicans polled answered “yes” to the following question: “Would you support or oppose establishing Christianity as the national religion of the United States?” Thirty percent of those polled said “no” and 13 percent said they weren’t sure. Regardless of the fact that such a proposition blatantly flies in the face of the First Amendment, it also shows a blind disregard of the actual demographics of the United States.

There are specific areas where this attitude is more prevalent. Just a few weeks ago, members of the Kootenai County Idaho Republican Party put up a proposal that Idaho be declared a “Christian state.” That measure was eventually tabled, however.

The American Values Index also highlighted some interesting statistics about ideological views in the United States. For example, the conservative split on social issues, particularly abortion and gay marriage, is very noticeable. Young white evangelical protestants are pretty much split on the issue of gay marriage, while their older counterparts stand in strong opposition. However, both generations agree on the topic of abortion, with roughly two-thirds saying it should be illegal in all or most cases.

The American Values Index, in addition to being a fun tool to play around with for those like myself who love data, creates in interesting window into the minds of American voters, particularly on socio-cultural issues. As we move closer to the hotly anticipated 2016 elections, it will be interesting to see what part these values issues play.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post American Values Index Highlights Increasing Multi-Religious Culture appeared first on Law Street.

Tucked into the hills of Clarksburg, West Virginia sits one of the FBI’s largest and most secure facilities. The 1,000-acre technology campus holds the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS), providing critical support services to American law enforcement across the country.

When arriving at the Clarksburg complex the heightened level of security is easy to notice. Visitors are background checked in advance and escorted while on the property. Although walls do not surround the complex, FBI agents patrol its grounds on ATVs. Visitors trade their drivers license for a temporary ID in order to to pass through the security checkpoint at the entrance.

The 500,000-square-foot facility in the center spans the length of nearly three football fields, housing roughly 2,600 employees. Also inside on the property is a daycare center, a 600-seat cafeteria, a fitness center, and even a power plant.

So what exactly does the FBI do there, and why does it need such security?

Not only does it house the largest division within the FBI, underneath the main office building is one of the FBI’s most important data centers. It is the home of the Law Enforcement Records Management System, which includes the largest fingerprint repository in the world, the FBI’s centralized criminal records database, the National Instant Background Check System, and several technology services for law enforcement across the country. The National Crime Information Center (NCIC), a database containing over 11 million records of criminal justice information, is used millions of times each day by American law enforcement. Whether you are buying a gun, having your background checked, or simply being pulled over by a police officer, the CJIS Division’s servers are contacted millions of times daily. Considering the importance of the information stored there and the services provided by CJIS, the security at the Clarksburg complex seems understandable.

Underneath this courtyard sits the FBI’s 100,000-square-foot data center. It provides 24/7 support to law enforcement across the United States. Courtesy of Law Street Media.

Beyond supporting the internal operations of American law enforcement, the West Virginia campus is also home to one of the FBI’s most important public facing services: the nation’s crime statistics.

Inside the Uniform Crime Report

The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program is tasked with collecting and publishing crime statistics for nearly every law enforcement agency across the country. At its inception in 1930, the program gathered statistics from 400 cities representing roughly 20 million Americans. Over time the program expanded and today it covers more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies representing 98 percent of Americans. Each year the UCR Program publishes the Crime in the United States publication, which details the country’s crime statistics on a national, state, and local level. The report is arguably the most talked about FBI publication each year, providing standardized crime statistics for agencies across the country.

Throughout its existence, the Program has undergone several important changes and improvements, but few are as extensive and as significant as the recent updates to the UCR system. From updating crime definitions to the adaptation of an entirely new system for collecting and evaluating data, the UCR is rapidly modernizing, and it is long overdue.

“We are running on 1970s technology,” said Amy Blasher, the Unit Chief of the Crime Statistics Management Unit within the CJIS. “We are in the middle of a major redesign, overhaul, [for a] brand new UCR system.” Historically, the process has been done manually, by reviewing stacks of paper submitted by law enforcement agencies, but the new system aims to eliminate paper reports altogether. Starting in July 2013, the UCR Program required all reporting agencies to begin submitting statistics in a computerized format.

The recent changes to the UCR program aim to automate much of the quality checking process, create more comprehensive data, reduce the use of paper, and ultimately decrease the amount of time it takes for information to be publicly available. “What the new system is going to allow us to do is have a public facing piece that will be able to push the data out from the states,” Blasher said. And in doing so people “will be able to go in more real time and see the data.”

The creation of each publication is a very intensive process, involving constant interaction with reporting agencies, reviewing all data to ensure quality, and collaboration among UCR staff. The FBI receives most of the statistics from state UCR agencies that collect the information from individual agencies. Currently, 46 states have a centralized UCR program. Agencies in the remaining four states report to the FBI directly. Each month the UCR program compiles and reviews each state’s data, but the statistics are not publicly available until the end of the following year. In addition to collecting the statistics, the UCR Program also creates annual reports for law enforcement and the public. The Multimedia Publications Group ensures that the information is effectively presented to the public by highlighting key findings and putting them in terms that are easy to understand.

Current Problems

The statistics provided by the Uniform Crime Reporting Program do have their limitations. The Summary Reporting System, which is used in the annual report, has been criticized for providing incomplete data.The Summary system’s hierarchy rule requires only the most significant offense to be recorded. The Summary system only tracks eight specific crimes that are grouped into two categories, violent crimes and property crimes. Statistics only detail the number of crimes known to law enforcement and only provide limited information about the nature of each offense. Law enforcement agencies and state UCR programs provide statistics voluntarily, as there is no federal reporting requirement for agencies. While the UCR Program audits state programs every three years, individual agency audits are voluntarily and cannot result in any form of punishment if statistics are inaccurate or incomplete. This essentially means that reporting practices are up to the discretion of each agency.

Despite its drawbacks, the UCR remains the most definitive source of crime information available. According to statistician and UCR Unit Chief Dr. Samuel Berhanu, “it is one of the richest data sets in this country,” and is one of the longest standing series of crime data in the entire world. Throughout the UCR Program’s lifespan, the FBI has a history of responding to criticism and improving its statistics. Recently, updates to the UCR are starting to happen at a much faster rate. As demand for more accurate and more frequent statistics grows, the FBI has responded with better definitions and new procedures that are more efficient.

One of most notable improvements is the redefinition of rape, which the Bureau expanded to record the crime more accurately. Many law enforcement agencies began using the new definition in January 2013, and the most recent Crime in the United States publication, released in November, marks the first full year statistics with the updated definition.

Further changes to the UCR Program include the addition of human trafficking and animal cruelty to the list of crimes in the Summary Reporting System. Significant expansions of hate crime definitions and reporting codes have also started to take effect. The FBI will now track hate crimes with gender and gender identity biases, seven new religious biases, and an anti-Arab bias. The new and improved definitions will allow law enforcement and the public to understand the nature of crime in the United States in unprecedented ways.

Even more changes are likely to come, as new recommendations are making their way through the FBI. There are two ways that changes to the UCR can occur: by legislation from Congress or internally through CJIS’ Advisory Policy Board (APB). The APB is divided into regional working groups that include representatives from states and localities. Changes from the APB are generally preferred by the FBI because the recommendations generally have law enforcement buy in.

The Advisory Policy Board has its second annual meeting this month where it will likely discuss several policy changes and additions. Two upcoming recommendations are the addition of cyberspace as an offense location and the creation of new policies and definitions for domestic abuse. Changes through the APB help ensure that law enforcement buys into the new procedures and that the changes reflect existing issues with reporting.

Although the UCR Program is undergoing several changes–both in terms of what is collected and how it is processed–important obstacles and limitations remain. When changes to the reporting system occur it typically takes a long time for individual agencies to implement them. In the meantime, inconsistencies exist between different states and even local agencies, making it harder to identify and interpret trends. Similarly, many criticize the available amount of information provided by the Summary Reporting System, as supplemental data is often limited and sometimes unavailable.

The Solution: NIBRS

Criticism of the Summary Reporting System is longstanding, as scholars, the media, and the public have called for more accurate and informative statistics, but what you may not know is that a solution for many of these issues already exists.

The FBI approved the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) in 1991, and since then several law enforcement agencies have begun to implement the new comprehensive reporting system. The fundamental goal of the NIBRS is to collect a wide variety of data about each individual incident. NIBRS eliminated the hierarchy rule and collects information about each crime that occurs, even if they all happen at once. It also collects data about the relationship between the victim and the offender, the location of the crime, the time of day, whether a weapon was used, and much more. While the Summary System only uses nine categories for offenses, NIBRS has 22 offense categories with 46 specific crimes. As Blasher explains, “In Summary you know a crime occurred, in NIBRS you know a crime occurred, how it occurred, and a lot more of the specifics.”

However, despite the significant improvements that NIBRS can provide, it has faced its own set of obstacles. The most notable challenge is the fact that NIBRS has not been adopted by most law enforcement agencies. According to the 2012 NIBRS publication, there are 6,115 agencies that report statistics using the new system accounting for roughly 33 percent of all law enforcement agencies. Because so few agencies use NIBRS, the data that the system provides cannot provide any conclusions about trends on a national or state level.

The FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has acknowledged the current limitations of the NIBRS data, and in 2012, they announced a plan to expand the system to make its findings nationally significant. A study conducted by the BJS found that a nationally representative sample could exist if the NIBRS program spread to 400 additional agencies. This means that if the additional agencies started using the new system then national trends could be identified without universal implementation of NIBRS. The National Crime Statistics Exchange (NCS-X) initiative sought to reach that goal by providing resources and assessments to help the selected agencies adopt the system.

The problem with NIBRS gets to a much larger issue with crime statistics on a national level, and it is not a problem with the FBI. Participation in the Uniform Crime Report is a voluntary decision made by individual agencies, and individual agencies set their own time frame for implementing new changes. Although the FBI works with agencies to implement changes, it is limited by the ability of each agency to comply with the new standards. There have been some notable advancements, as cities like Seattle have adapted NIBRS and created publications to help other agencies follow suit; however, a lot of work remains to bring agencies up to pace and to get the public the full data picture that it demands.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Modernizing American Crime Stats: A Look Inside the FBI’s Data Division appeared first on Law Street.

When you hear the word “FitBit,” you usually associate the physical activity monitor with fitness; however, after a recent case in Canada, FitBit might very well be associated with personal injury evidence used in Litigation.

In a personal injury case in Calgary, Canada, the law firm of Mcleod Law is using the plaintiff’s FitBit activity to support her personal injury claim. The plaintiff, who was a personal trainer, was injured in an accident four years ago. The attorneys representing her are seeking to demonstrate that her activity levels are lower than the baseline of a woman her age and profession, in order to prove damages. Among other things, Fitbit monitors physical activity by measuring steps taken by the individual wearing the device. The plaintiff’s attorneys hope to formulate a ‘quantitative representation of the claimant’s activity during their normal weekly routine.’

Logistically, the law firm is not using the raw FitBit data, but will be using analytics company Vivameterica to analyze such data. This company will analyze the plaintiff’s information and compare the data to other databases showing average activity of an individual with similar weight, age, gender, body mass index, etc.

This case is the first of its kind in that it could set a precedent for evidence of personal data collected through wearable devices in personal injury cases; however, there are many out there who are skeptical of this type of data being used in the courtroom.

Skeptics are concerned that this kind of data could lead to potential manipulation on the part of the plaintiffs, as well as false representations of activity. For example, if a plaintiff knows their FitBit data will be analyzed in court, they might be overly active so that there wearable device could pick up on such activity, in order to prove damages. In the alternative, individuals take off their Fitbit device throughout the day for various reasons. This could lead to a false read of an individual’s true physical activity.

Although this type of evidence does raise some issues, it could be an excellent tool for attorneys in proving damages, or in the alternative, for mitigating such damages. As technology advances, so too must our litigation system. It is very possible that we will be seeing data from wearable devices being used in the future.

Melissa Klafter

Melissa Klafter has a JD from St. John’s University School of Law and plans to pursue a career in Personal Injury Law. You can find her binge-watching her favorite TV shows, rooting for the Wisconsin Badgers, and playing with her kitty, Phoebe. Contact Melissa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FitBit Monitor Data to Be Introduced as Evidence in Personal Injury Cases appeared first on Law Street.

The following is the full text of the FBI’s disclaimer about the use of its Uniform Crime Reports. The disclaimer appears here in its entirety.

Since 1930, participating local, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies have voluntarily provided the Nation with a reliable set of crime statistics through the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. The FBI, which administers the program, periodically releases the crime statistics to the public.Uniform Crime Report Ranking Disclaimer is from the FBI. 

Usefulness of UCR Data

UCR crime statistics are used in many ways and serve many purposes. They provide law enforcement with data for use in budget formulation, planning, resource allocation, assessment of police operations, etc., to help address the crime problem at various levels. Chambers of commerce and tourism agencies examine these data to see how they impact the particular geographic jurisdictions they represent. Criminal justice researchers study the nature, cause, and movement of crime over time. Legislators draft anti-crime measures using the research findings and recommendations of law enforcement administrators, planners, and public and private entities concerned with the problem of crime. The news media use the crime statistics provided by the UCR Program to inform the public about the state of crime.

Pitfalls of Ranking

UCR data are sometimes used to compile rankings of individual jurisdictions and institutions of higher learning. These incomplete analyses have often created misleading perceptions which adversely affect geographic entities and their residents. For this reason, the FBI has a long-standing policy against ranking participating law enforcement agencies on the basis of crime data alone. Despite repeated warnings against these practices, some data users continue to challenge and misunderstand this position.

Data users should not rank locales because there are many factors that cause the nature and type of crime to vary from place to place. UCR statistics include only jurisdictional population figures along with reported crime, clearance, or arrest data. Rankings ignore the uniqueness of each locale. Some factors that are known to affect the volume and type of crime occurring from place to place are:

• Population density and degree of urbanization.
• Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
• Stability of the population with respect to residents’ mobility, commuting patterns, and
  transient factors.
• Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
• Modes of transportation and highway systems.
• Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
• Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
• Climate.
• Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
• Administrative and investigative emphases on law enforcement.
• Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
• Citizens’ attitudes toward crime.
• Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.

Ranking agencies based solely on UCR data has serious implications. For example, if a user wants to measure the effectiveness of a law enforcement agency, these measurements are not available. As a substitute, a user might list UCR clearance rates, rank them by agency, and attempt to infer the effectiveness of individual law enforcement agencies. This inference is flawed because all the other measures of police effectiveness were ignored. The nature of the offenses that were cleared must be considered as those cleared may not have been the most serious, like murder or rape. The agency’s clearances may or may not result in conviction, the ultimate goal. The agency may make many arrests for Part II offenses, like drug abuse violations, which demonstrate police activity but are not considered in the clearance rate. The agency’s available resources are also critical to successful operation, so its rate of officers to population and budget should be considered. The UCR clearance rate was simply not designed to provide a complete assessment of law enforcement effectiveness. In order to obtain a validpicture of an agency’s effectiveness, data users must consider an agency’s emphases and resources; and its crime, clearance, and arrest rates; along with other appropriate factors.

Because of concern regarding the proper use of UCR data, the FBI has the following policies:

• The FBI does not analyze, interpret, or publish crime statistics based solely on single-dimension inter-agency ranking.
• The FBI does not provide agency-based crime statistics to data users in a ranked format.
• When providing/using agency-oriented statistics, the FBI cautions and, in fact, strongly discourages, data users against using rankings to evaluate locales or the effectiveness of their law enforcement agencies.

Promoting Responsible Crime Analysis

For more information about the UCR Program, visit http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr. For Web assistance, please contact the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division at (304) 625-4995.

Click here to read more Crime in America 2015 coverage.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What the FBI Says About Its Uniform Crime Reports appeared first on Law Street.

For a long time fingerprints have been  the ubiquitous identifier. They allow us to solve crimes, track people, and as of recently, even unlock our iPhones. But what if there was something even more dependable than fingerprints? New developments in technology indicate that that’s the case — we’re now seeing the development of voiceprints.

Voiceprints — more scientifically known as voice biometrics — are as distinctive as fingerprints. Companies have begun taking advantage of voiceprints to provide an extra layer of security for their customers — after all, it’s possible to get someone’s password, but you can’t duplicate someone’s voice. Basically, there are two ways that voiceprints can be used — either you have a particular phrase that you say, like a password, or you give a long sample of your speech involving many different sounds, and then the computer program can recognize you. There are many different possible combinations for how this technology can be used.

John Buhl of Vanguard, a company that has really started making moves on voiceprint technology, stated:

We’ve done a lot of testing, and looked at siblings, even twins. Even people with colds, like I have today, we looked at that.

In addition to using voiceprints as possible password protection, banks and other companies that deal with secure information are taking voiceprints to help weed out fraud. They’re hoping to prevent criminals from making false calls authorizing payments.

Finally, law enforcement officials are also using voiceprints and other biometric data. In the United States, the police are able to use voiceprints to track people who are on parole. In other countries, the use of voiceprints has gotten even more extensive. The New Zealand government alone has amassed over one million voiceprints at this point.

This is yet another intersection of technology and privacy that is both fascinating and concerning. The databases that both private companies and the government are currently compiling of people’s voices are not regulated, and they’re growing fast. The Associated Press estimates that roughly 65 million voiceprints are being stored in some combination of private and government databases.

There are a lot of privacy concerns inherent in this issue. One is that it could rob people of anonymity in cases where they so desperately need it, such as anonymous tips or counseling services. People may be pushed away from calling say, a suicide hotline, because they are worried that their voice would be tracked back to them.

There’s also a concern over the fact that in general, corporations and governments are collecting way too much information on us. A privacy expert at the University of Pennsylvania, Professor Joseph Turow, stated:

Companies are using data drawn from our internet and purchasing [behavior] – and now our voices – and connecting it to the identities that they’ve created for us. Then they can lead us in a variety of different directions, based on their stereotype of us.

Because we often see technology progress more quickly than our laws governing it, the use and collection of voiceprints are essentially unsupervised. That right there is an important lesson to keep in mind — we have this great technology, but at some point we may need to question the uses for it. While I don’t think that voiceprints are going away anytime soon, activists’ concern may slow the progression of collection until we figure out exactly how we want to use this new resource.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [plantronicsgermany via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Has Your Voiceprint Been Collected and Stored Without Your Knowledge? appeared first on Law Street.

Apple has done it again! No I’m not talking about their new ‘phablet’ {sidebar: how ridiculous is that word} as I’m sure everyone has heard plenty about it. However, the tech giant just announced new consumer protections from both government entities and the company itself, with its latest iOS 8 mobile operating system. Apple has created an encrypted operating system with passcodes inaccessible to the company. This means that if a government entity requests data concerning an iPhone user running the new operating system, Apple would be unable to provide the requested information. Although privacy concerns and requests for individual data by government entities is a huge point of contention for companies and individuals alike, we should expect the government to work slowly and incrementally to address these concerns. Although change will take considerable time, we should look at proposed legislation that will bring us a step closer to securing the privacy of our electronic communications with legislation like the Email Privacy Act.

Several tech companies, businesses, and civil liberties organizations have come together in support of the Email Privacy Act.  It’s rare that a policy is accepted by such a broad group, especially when those groups are normally on opposite sides of policy issues. It seems unlikely that any government would relinquish power over invasions of privacy, but the Email Privacy Act, which would reform the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), aims to do just that. The ECPA, passed in 1986, allowed law enforcement and government entities the freedom to request electronic communications without a warrant from third-party service providers after the communication was more than 180 days old. The Email Privacy Act aims to eliminate this 180-day rule and increase electronic communication confidentiality.

Before explaining the reforms of the Email Privacy Act, I first want to provide context for the ECPA. As I stated, the ECPA was passed in 1986, before the invention of Internet or email. Based on the language of the law, it’s apparent that legislators couldn’t discern the immense popularity electronic communications would eventually have, let alone envision the various social media platforms we would become accustomed to. After realizing how outdated the ECPA is, Congress has put forth efforts to reform the law with H.R.1852 and a similar Senate bill S.607. Each bill intends to eliminate the 180-day clause (Title 18, section 2703 of the U.S. Code). In addition to this change, the bills would set standards for requesting warrants, set deadlines for notifying subscribers whose electronic communications are requested, and set guidelines for delaying notification to subscribers.

If passed, the Email Privacy Act will stop remote computing services and electronic communication services from divulging the contents of any communications to a government entity without a warrant. Government entities may still submit requests to service providers for information, only after approval of warrant. If a warrant is granted to law enforcement, they must notify the subscriber in no more than 10 days that their communications have been surrendered. If a government entity other than law enforcement produces a warrant for an individual’s electronic communications, they must notify the subscriber in no more than three days. The only time a subscriber will not be informed of their surrendered communications is in response to an administrative subpoena.

Although notification of surrendered electronic communications must take place in all cases where a warrant is granted, both government entities and law enforcement may be granted a delay. In the case of law enforcement, they may be granted one or more delays of 180 days and for a government entity a delay of 90 days. There are five instances where a delay of notification to subscribers will be granted:

1. If notification may endanger the life or physical safety of the individual;
2. if flight from prosecution is a concern;
3. if intimidation of potential witnesses is a concern;
4. if destruction of or tampering with evidence is a concern; and,
5. if jeopardizing investigation or unduly delaying trial is a concern.

Even if there is a delay, subscribers must eventually be notified. Each subscriber who has their communications surrendered will be sent a copy of the warrant; notice concerning why and how the information was obtained; notice of delay; information on the court authorizing the delay; and provision for why the delay was granted.

Privacy concerns dealing with technology, and especially electronic communications, will continue until policies are reformed and in some instances, new policies created.  We can’t be discouraged by the inability of  a slow-moving government to address our concerns as quickly as we would like, but we can support new legislation, whenever presented, to address the concerns we have.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a recent Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Ottox via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Apple is Now a Step Ahead of the Government to Protect Your Privacy appeared first on Law Street.

“You may not know them, but data brokers know you,” Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chairwoman Edith Ramirez said at the release of an FTC report about the data broker industry. Data brokers know where you live, what you buy, what medical conditions you have, your background, interests, and even the names of your kids. It sounds like something out of a sci-fi movie, so it is no wonder most Americans have no idea the thriving market for their personal information even exists. Here’s everything you need to know about how data brokers collect your information, what it is used for, and what protection you have.

What are data brokers?

Data brokers are companies that compile and resell or share the personal data of consumers. The FTC released a report on May 27, 2014 examining nine companies in the industry: Acxiom, CoreLogic, Datalogix, eBureau, ID Analytics, Intelius, PeekYou, Rapleaf and Recorded Future. These companies derive a whopping $426 million in annual revenue from their products.

The information set held by these companies is massive. Acxiom estimates it holds roughly 1,500 pieces of data per consumer. Another broker dwarfs Acxiom with 3,000 data points for nearly every U.S. consumer. One broker is said to maintain about 700 billion aggregated data elements and adds more than 3 billion pieces of data each month. Another database has information on 1.4 billion consumer transactions alone, such as credit card purchases. Watch an in-depth look at data brokers by 60 Minutes below.

Where do data brokers find their information?

Contentions with the data broker industry arise from the fact that information gleaned does not come directly from consumers. Data brokers garner a lot of information from publicly available sites. A site relaying U.S. Census data can provide information regarding local demographics and real estate value. These firms get additional information from voter records, tax records, court records, mortgages and property information, driving records, and numerous other avenues. Companies can scour social media sites, such as LinkedIn, for any publicly-available information. Data brokers also gain a lot of information from card loyalty programs, credit cards, and advertising agencies that may follow a user’s online activities. If you recently bought a subscription to Forbes Magazine or purchased a new dress from a catalog sent to your home, these data brokers will know. By compiling all this information, brokers begin to paint a profile of you, including your age, race, income, social security number, religion, political affiliation, criminal history, movie preferences, gun-ownership, gym membership, and hobbies.

What is this data used for?

Individual data points are compiled to form a profile of potential consumers who can then be targeted for specific products. The information allows companies to more accurately target consumers for advertising campaigns and gain information about consumer preferences. The FTC report shows that data brokers usually package data into two forms:

1. Data elements: Age, family, and interests.
2. Data segments: Compilation of interests used to to create a list of people with similar characteristics. Here are some examples of these list segments: “African-American Professional;” “Allergy Sufferer;” “Bible Lifestyle;” “Biker/Hell’s Angels;” “Plus-Size Apparel;” “Twitter User with 250+ friends.” Other categories include people with high cholesterol or those interested in novelty Elvis items.

Data brokers then use this information to create various products in three different categories:

1. Marketing: This includes mail, email, telemarketing, mobile, and TV campaigns. To target consumers, marketers use a process called “onboarding.” Onboarding allows marketers to load offline information, such as magazine subscriptions or store loyalty cards, into cookies that digital advertisers use to target consumers. Cookies are stored in a computer’s browser and allow advertisers to promote their products on numerous Internet services.
2. Risk Mitigation: This includes identity verification. These products use analytics to help banks comply with “know your customer” identity verification requirements under the USA Patriot Act. Products also include fraud detection to track patterns of attempted fraud. For instance, these products can track how long an email address has been used or whether a delivery address matches a listed consumer.
3. People Search: This includes products generally intended for use by individuals. Products can search for someone’s criminal record, ancestry, phone number, telephone history, or social media information. Most come in the form of fee-based search products.

Does the data make our lives easier?

Many people would agree that products that help to verify one’s identity are a good thing. Companies that can link consumer purchases to personal information like an address, phone number, and email drastically reduce chances of fraud. Some also see personalized advertising as a good thing. Say you are a senior citizen. Rather than scrolling through the Internet and seeing ads for baby strollers or discounted student loans, you might see ads for healthcare services. Targeted advertising means you receive information and discounts for things you actually use instead of products with no relevance to your life. Ideally the more information data brokers have about you, the more they can target your individual tastes. While each individual piece of data has little benefit, the aggregation of this data by data brokers is immensely beneficial to companies doing market research to improve and tailor their products.

How are data brokers changing political campaigns?

The use of personal data is not limited to what you buy. In the 2012 elections, campaigns contracted with political data brokers to match voting records with cookies on computers. Voter registration lists have long been used to target voters. Combined with more information, these lists now take a powerful form in the digital arena. Political microtargeting allows campaigns to utilize information from data brokers to deliver a specific message to a target demographic. Data can help campaigns decide which voters are most likely to respond to a specific ad or which groups need to be targeted with a specific message. Candidates can target registered Democrat or Republican voters with online ads and can even target based on how much the individual has donated to campaigns before.

President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign was among the first to use big data to its advantage. The 2012 team assembled an analytics department five times the size of that in its 2008 campaign. Some insights into the use of data in Obama’s 2012 campaign:

• As TIME describes, the team discovered that East Coast women between 40 and 50 were not donating as much as hoped. This demographic was the most likely to hand over cash for the chance to dine with a gravitational celebrity. The campaign’s solution? A fundraising drive with the prize being a dinner with Sarah Jessica Parker.
• The campaign used data to predict how much money they would get from each fundraising email. They also used demographics to determine which groups would be most responsive to an email signed by either Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, or Joe Biden.
• The campaign bought data from brokers regarding the television-viewing habits of Ohioans. The campaign was able to combine lists of voters with lists of cable subscribers and then coordinate the information of watching habits. Using this information, they targeted campaign ads to specific demographics at the exact time these niche voters were watching TV. This led to the campaign buying airtime in shows like Sons of Anarchy and the Walking Dead rather than traditional news programming. Watch for more on the use of big data during Obama’s reelection campaign below.

Little information is disclosed on just how much data campaigns can access. Inevitably the collection and effective use of data will play a huge role in the 2016 presidential election, but not all consumers are happy with that. The regulation of the use of data for political purposes raises questions of free speech and privacy. Others claim microtargeting actually offers more privacy, since the data does not include names or physical mailing addresses. It may be hard, however, for consumers to opt out of political advertising. Even lists like the National Do Not Call registry have exceptions for political campaign calls. According to a study by the University of Pennsylvania, 86 percent of Americans said they did not want political advertising tailored to their interests.

What are the problems with data brokers?

There is a certain “creepiness” factor to data collection without consumer consent. Target tried to market products to new parents by identifying them even before the baby was born. Data showed that pregnant women purchased products like cocoa butter and calcium tablets. Target began sending targeted mail to these women. But instead of finding it helpful, the women found the fact that Target knew they were pregnant to be unnerving.

Others worry about the effects of outdated data. Consumers have little access to immediately change what information that brokers have on them, such as an address change or marriage. This means people could potentially be prevented from making a purchase solely based on outdated information. Outdated information becomes more offensive when the deceased remain on data broker lists and continue to receive offers in the mail. Some women revealed stories of experiencing a miscarriage yet continuing to receive insensitive mailings from Gerber and American Baby Magazine.

Companies that have such specific information about segments of consumers may take advantage from the data. An example from the FTC looks at the case of a consumer labeled to be a biker enthusiast. This person might get more coupons for motorcycles and gear, but they could also see higher insurance rates if companies use this information to conclude this individual engages in risky behavior. Watch a Congressional hearing on the industry’s issues below.

An Acxiom presentation to the Consumer Marketing Organization in 2013 indicates further issues with potential discrimination. Acxiom placed customers into “customer value segments.” Data showed that while the top 30 percent of customers add 500 percent of value, the bottom 20 percent actually cost 400 percent of value. The bottom 20 percent call customer service numerous times and cost the company in returns. The company would be better off ignoring these customers altogether, and data brokers can help companies to identify these costly customers. These high-cost customers could then face higher prices or poor service without even being aware they are discriminated against.

Do people have any protection?

The problem most people have with the collection of data is that they have no say in it. They are not aware when information is being collected, nor are they in control of what it is used for or if it is correct. The resale and illegal use of the data is prohibited. Data brokers also suppress protected lists such as phone numbers on the Do Not Call Registry.

Some data brokers do try to protect consumers. Some voluntarily remove information regarding children and teens from their data. Others provide ways to edit and review what data the broker has on you. Acxiom uses aboutthedata.com for this very purpose. Epsilon allows consumers to review information, but reviewing the information costs $5 and requests can only be made by postal mail. Trying to review information collected by every broker is extremely time consuming. Watch for more on how to protect yourself below.

No laws require brokers to maintain the privacy of consumer data unless it is used for prohibited purposes. Federal law protects the confidentiality of medical records. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) restricts the search of information when determining eligibility for employment, credit, or housing; however, most data does not fall under the scope of FCRA.

What is the FTC pushing for?

The FTC report recognizes the immense value of data brokers to both companies and consumers; however, the FTC has offered the following recommendations to improve the industry and bolster consumer protection:

• Create a central database where consumers can see what information about them was collected. The database should also allow consumers to opt out from the data collection.
• Require brokers to list their data sources.
• Increase industry visibility and consumer awareness.
• Comprehensive legislation to prevent the discriminatory use of data. For instance, some categories infer sensitive statistics. “Metro Parents” are single parents primarily high school-educated handling the stresses of urban life on a small budget. “Timeless Traditions” are immigrants who speak some English but generally prefer Spanish.
• Adopt a series of best practices, including better protection for minors, improving data security, preventing unlawful discrimination, and restricting collection to only needed data.

The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) and other groups attacked the FTC report. In an interview with the Washington Post, Stuart Ingis of the DMA said, “You’d think if there was a real problem, they’d be able to talk about something other than potential” abuses.

The data broker lobby is very powerful. Senators John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) and Edward Markey (D-MA) led the regulatory push by proposing the DATA bill on February 12, 2014, requiring data brokers to be transparent about the information they collect. But considering the fact that political campaigns benefit from data broker information when targeting voters, it is unlikely there will be new legislation on data brokers in the near future. In the meantime, expect data brokers to know much more about you than you know about them.

Resources

Primary

FTC: Data Brokers: A Call for Transparency and Accountability

Ed Markey: Markey, Rockefeller Introduce Data Broker Bill

White House: Big Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values

Senate: A Review of the Data Broker Industry

Additional

Yahoo: FTC Wants More Transparency for Data Brokers

Data Privacy Minitor: FTC Report Seeks Congressional Review

Privacy and Security Law Blog: “Getting to Know You, Getting to Know All About You”

Washington Post: Brokers Use Billions of Data Points to Profile Americans

ProPublica: Everything We Know About What Data Brokers Know About You

Slate: What Do Data Brokers Know About Me?

CNN: Why Big Companies Buy, Sell Your Data

New York Books: How Your Data are Being Deeply Mined

Pulitzer Center: Consumer Data Privacy in Politics

Time: Inside the Secret World of the Data Crunchers Who Helped Obama Win

ProPublica: Everything We Know So Far About Obama’s Big Data Operation

AdWeek: Confessions of a Data Broker

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Big Business of Big Data appeared first on Law Street.

Recent media attention has shed light on many of the controversial aspects of police militarization, from excessive force to the use of paramilitary units in routine policing. Less frequently discussed, however, is the significant lack of transparency of these trends. The public lacks information about the extent and impact of equipment transfers and the increasingly hostile police culture. While the military has historically been able to invoke claims to national security to justify its secrecy, should local police departments, tasked to serve and protect our communities, be able to do the same?

Despite the significant lack of information on police militarization, Peter Kraska, a justice studies professor at Eastern Kentucky University, found some disturbing trends among law enforcement agencies. His article, “Militarizing Mayberry and Beyond,” documents research on police departments in small localities and demonstrates the recent changes in U.S. law enforcement. Kraska’s findings suggest that more and more low-population areas are forming SWAT teams, which are increasingly used for proactive deployment.

Roughly 40 percent of police paramilitary units, or PPUs, were engaged in warrant work in 1984. By 1995 that  statistic skyrocketed: 94 percent of these specialized, soldier-like teams were used to serve warrants. Kraska notes that the majority “of these PPUs serve in the organization as regular patrol officers during their normal duties.” Despite being trained and designed for emergency situations, PPUs are most often deployed for routine practices.

Capt. Chris Cowan of the Richland County (South Carolina) Sheriff’s Department, told the New York Times that an armored vehicle with a mounted gun, “allows the department to stay in step with the criminals who are arming themselves more heavily every day.” Kraska dismisses this perceived arms race saying, “there’s not evidence that the citizenry is grabbing this heavy weaponry themselves, going after cops.”

There is little information about the weaponization of criminals in general, which seems to be a recurring theme in FBI data collection. Kraska claims, “we don’t have good national-level statistics that provide us a good measure of the extent to which the police are fired upon using heavy weaponry, or the policing occupation is more dangerous.” The absence of data is twofold, as little information is available about the increasing militarization of both criminals and police forces.

The Relationship Between Police and Criminals

The U.S. lacks important data on the relationship between police and criminals. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report does include a publication called “Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted,” which contains an entire table specifically dedicated to the “Number of victim officers killed with firearms while wearing body armor and receiving torso wounds,” yet they provide no national statistics on killings by police.

“You would think that given these are all taxpayer-funded items, and that they’re coming either directly out of the Department of Defense or they’re coming out of the Department of Homeland Security, and they’re being transferred to supposedly democratically-controlled civilian-based police agencies all over the country, that sort of simple, straight-forward program based in tax dollars, that the data and all the information about that would be easily coughed up.”

-Peter Kraska

Where’s the Data?

It is disturbing that we know so little and that such information is consistently difficult to come by. To gather information about the effects of police militarization, we have to rely on nongovernmental organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) or the Cato Institute. Moreover, the little information that is available is constrained, as many law enforcement agencies will not answer independent surveys.

While data should be limited in certain circumstances, I question the possible reasons for concealing or not collecting so much important data about our law enforcement. What justification could there be for not granting U.S. citizens access to information about our law enforcement? Agencies’ justifications for refusing to provide information to the ACLU include, “the requested documents contained trade secrets, concerns about jeopardizing law enforcement effectiveness… and the costs associated with producing the documents were simply prohibitive.”

As the issue of proactive, if not aggressive, paramilitary units becomes increasingly prevalent, the situation is exacerbated by the disturbing secrecy with which our government handles data. As Kraska says in his 1997 work, the deep bureaucracy behind this kind of law enforcement “acts as a barrier to police-community ties by fostering a ‘we-they’ attitude.” This barrier not only distinguishes our police from citizens, but also separates citizens from information about our police.

Why isn’t our government providing us with uniform information? Kraska says it is a result of “the nature of military bureaucracy, and increasingly police bureaucracy. The bottom line is it’s one of secrecy.” As police culture transforms into military culture, law enforcement naturally distances itself from the community. The increase in police militarization is inexorably linked with a tightened grip on information about law enforcement practices.

I know I will not stand alone in demanding different treatment by not only those who enforce the law, but also by those who create the law. I demand that this policing style come to end. I demand that the FBI Uniform Crime Reports include information on how many people are killed by our police. I created a petition on WhiteHouse.gov asking the President to request this and filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FBI. We are all disenfranchised when deprived of information about the enforcement of our laws, so I think we should all demand.

#WeDemand

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [CHPSocialMedia via Wikimedia]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arming the Police Against American Citizens, Part II appeared first on Law Street.

The FBI’s latest data shows crime dropping nationally; however, the results for the Top 10 Safest Cities were not all great news. Across the country, violent crime decreased 5.4 percent during the first six months of 2013 compared with the same period in 2012. Violent crime reporting was ahead of prior year figures in half of our Safest Cities, most notably by nearly 28 percent in #5 ranking Scottsdale, Ariz. The southwestern city’s rape and aggravated assault figures in particular were ahead of prior year reporting. On the opposite end of the spectrum, #6 ranking Henderson, Nev. saw its violent crime decrease more than 25 percent at the beginning of 2013, with significant drops in the same categories of rape and aggravated assault.

The FBI’s semiannual report covers January to June 2013 — the most recent period for which comprehensive crime statistics are available. Law Street’s analysis of this preliminary data for each of the Top 10 Safest Cities Over 200,000 appears below as an update to our original rankings published last Fall. Changes in these preliminary statistics, included below, compared with the same time period in the previous year provide key information on emerging trends in these important cities ahead of the full-year coverage of rankings that will be available this Fall. Click here for developing Crime in America 2014 coverage.

1. Irvine, Calif.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Irvine, Calif. — the safest American city over 200,000 — was slightly ahead of its 2012 violent crime rate, with an increase of 9.26 percent during the period January to June 2013. The large percentage increases in both murder and rape reflect very small numbers of actual cases: the city had two murders compared to one in the comparative period, and nine rapes compared with five in the same period of 2012. Robberies in the city decreased by nearly 16 percent to 16 instances.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: +9.26%
Murder: +100%
Rape: +80%
Robbery: -15.79%
Aggravated Assault: +10.34%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF IRVINE’S 2012 RANKING

2. Gilbert, Ariz.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Gilbert, Ariz., Law’s Street’s #2 Safest City, experienced fairly consistent levels of violent crime during the first six months of 2013 versus prior year. The city’s total violent crime decreased by just under one percent, with 102 violent crimes versus 103 in the comparative period. Notably, there was only one murder during this period (versus four in the first six months of 2012). Rape reporting was up by 33 percent, but the yearly figures are not comparable due to changes in the FBI’s new definition of rape.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: -0.97%
Murder: -75%
Rape: -33.33%*
Robbery: -8%
Aggravated Assault: +10.77%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF GILBERT’S 2012 RANKING

3. Plano, Texas

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE 
The FBI did not include Plano, Texas in its 2013 preliminary data — no explanation for this omission is provided, nor did the FBI respond to comment by the time this post published. According to the Plano Police Department, the city submits its data to the FBI on a monthly basis and should have been included in the Preliminary Semiannual Report. The figures below were provided directly to Law Street by the Plano Police Department. The #3 Safest City’s crime was down in the first six months of 2013, with the most dramatic changes in robbery and aggravated assault (8 and 18 fewer instances, respectively). Plano had two murders, compared with in the prior year, as well as 4 more rapes. Overall, violent crime was down nearly 12 percent between January and June 2013 compared with the same period in 2012.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: -11.73%
Murder: 100%
Rape: 17.39%
Robbery: -16%
Aggravated Assault: -17.14%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF PLANO’S 2012 RANKING

4. Fremont, Calif.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Violent crime in Fremont, Calif. was up slightly between January and June 2013 versus the same period in 2012. While murder and aggravated assault were both down during this period (-50% and -25,39%, respectively), there were 12 rapes (3 in 2012) and 80 robberies (63 in 2012), accounting for the slight uptick in total violent crime.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: +3.33%
Murder: -50%
Rape: +300%
Robbery: +26.98%
Aggravated Assault: -24.39%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF FREMONT’S 2012 RANKING

5. Scottsdale, Ariz.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Scottsdale, Ariz., #5 in the rankings of the Safest Cities, experienced a 27.52 percent increase in violent crime during January to June 2013 compared to the same period in 2012. Murder remained constant (2 cases each year) and robbery declined just under four percent (49 robberies versus 51 in 2012); however, there was a spike in rape (29 cases) and aggravated assault (110 cases) during the relevant time period.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: +27.52%
Murder: +/-0%
Rape: +61.11%
Robbery: -3.92%
Aggravated Assault: +41.03%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF SCOTTSDALE’S 2012 RANKING

6. Henderson, Nev.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Nevada’s second-largest city, Henderson, experienced a 25 percent decline in violent crime in the first six months of 2013 as compared to the same period in 2012. The figures were down in each of the four violent crime categories, including a 54 percent decrease in rape (16 in 2013; 35 in 2012) and 27 percent fewer aggravated assaults (71 in 2013; 98 in 2012). The #5 Safest City had only two murders, compared with three during the period in 2012.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: -25.45%
Murder: -33.33%
Rape: -54.29%
Robbery: -11.36%
Aggravated Assault: -27.55%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF HENDERSON’S 2012 RANKING

7. Virginia Beach, Va.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Virginia Beach, Va., the most populous city in the Commonwealth, had a very small increase in violent crime between January and June 2013 compared with prior year figures. This is likely due to a seemingly huge jump in rape cases, however the figures for that particular category in Virginia Beach are not comparable year over year due to the FBI’s expanded reporting criteria. The #7 Safest City had 23 fewer aggravated assaults, one less murder, and the same number of robberies during the period at hand.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: +3.57%
Murder: -9.09%
Rape: +115.63%*
Robbery: +/-0%
Aggravated Assault: -13.86%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF VIRGINIA BEACH’S 2012 RANKING

8. Irving, Texas

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Irving, Texas, part of the Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex, held its violent crime rate steady for the first six months of 2013 versus 2012. The #8 Safest City held its murder rate constant with only one case during each period, and the city had fewer rapes and aggravated assaults than prior year. Robbery increase slightly with 84 instances in 2013 compared with 63 in 2012.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: +/-0%
Murder: +/-0%
Rape: -6.25%
Robbery: +33.33%
Aggravated Assault: -11.56%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF IRVING’S  2012 RANKING

9. Garland, Texas

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Garland, the third Texas city to rank on this list, experienced a 16.55 percent decrease in violent crime between January and June 2013 compared to the same period in 2012, despite a slight uptick in rape reporting (30 versus 25). The city’s aggravated assault and robbery reported both decreased, down 21 and 29 instances, respectively, and there were three murders compared with four in 2012.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: -16.55%
Murder: -25%
Rape: +20%
Robbery: -23.58%
Aggravated Assault: -16.67%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF GARLAND’S 2012 RANKING

10. Chula Vista, Calif.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Located just outside downtown San Diego, Chula Vista, California’s violent crime increased slightly in the first six months of 2013, from 283 to 298 instances in the four relevant categories. While there were three fewer murders than prior year, reporting of rape, robbery, and aggravated assault all increased (+3, +12, +3 cases year over year, respectively).

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: +5.30%
Murder: -60%
Rape: +18.75%
Robbery: +10.71%
Aggravated Assault: +2%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF CHULA VISTA’S 2012 RANKING

Research and analysis by Law Street’s Crime in America Team: Chelsey Goff, Anneliese Mahoney, Ashley Powell, and Kevin Rizzo.

Sources:

Violent crime, population, murder, and officer statistics are from the FBI Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report, January – June 2013.

Click here to read more Crime in America coverage.

*The figure shown for the 2013 rape offense was reported using the new definition of rape and is not comparable to previous years’ historical forcible rape data.

Note: A previous version of this post did not include data for Plano, Texas as it was not provided by the FBI in the Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report, January-June 2013.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Latest FBI Data is Mixed Bag for Top 10 Safest Cities appeared first on Law Street.

Mirroring the national trend of declining violent crime, the majority of Law Street’s Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities under 200,000 continue to experience decreases in overall violent crime. Based on new data released by the FBI February 18, seven out of these Top 10 cities had less crime than the same period during the prior year. Five of the Top 10 show sharper declines than the national average of -5.4 percent — most notably Flint, Mich. where violent crime was nearly 27 percent behind the 2012 six-month figures.

The FBI’s semiannual report covers January to June 2013 — the most recent period for which comprehensive crime statistics are available. Law Street’s analysis of this preliminary data for each of the Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Under 200,000 appears below as an update to our original rankings published last Fall. Changes in these preliminary statistics, included below, compared with the same time period in the previous year provide key information on emerging trends in these important cities ahead of the full-year coverage of rankings that will be available this Fall. Click here for developing Crime in America 2014 coverage.

1. Flint, Mich.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Flint, Mich. ranks as the number one most dangerous city with a population under 200,000; however, it leads this pack with a 26.38 percent drop in total violent crime from January to June 2013 versus prior year. Flint is one of many cities reporting rape data this year according to the FBI’s new, expanded definition of forcible rape, so the year over year data for this particular category is not comparable; however, the city’s huge decreases in murder, robbery, and aggravated assault all counter balanced that particular issue. With a violent crime rate of 1,021 per 100,000 people, Flint shows some signs of progress.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: -26.38%
Murder: -22.58%
Rape: +45.161%*
Robbery: -17.97%
Aggravated Assault: -33.07%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF FLINT’S 2012 RANKING

2. New Haven, Conn.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
The #2 Most Dangerous City under 200,000, New Haven, Conn. shows modest gains in its fight against crime. Violent crime in the state’s second-largest city dropped 8.11 percent in the first six months of 2013 versus the same period in 2012. Despite a 37.50 percent increase in rape (associated with the FBI’s new, expanded definition of forcible rape), there were still significant declines in the remaining categories of murder, robbery, and aggravated assault (-11.11 percent, -1.39 percent, and -16.45 percent, respectively).

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: -8.11%
Murder: -11.11%
Rape: +37.50%*
Robbery: -1.39%
Aggravated Assault: -16.45%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF NEW HAVEN’S 2012 RANKING

3. Rockford, Ill.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Illinois’ second most populous city, Rockford, experienced a 6.37 percent decrease in total violent crime from January to June 2013 over the prior year. Robbery in the #3 Most Dangerous City under 200,000 dropped by nearly a quarter, and although murder increased by the same amount, this reflected a move from four murders to five.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: -6.37%
Murder: +25.00%
Rape: +21.31%*
Robbery: -24.46%
Aggravated Assault: -3.18%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF ROCKFORD’S 2012 RANKING

4. Hartford, Conn.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Connecticut’s capital city is the #4 Most Dangerous City under 200,000, and the second of three Nutmeg State cities on this list. Similar to New Haven, Hartford’s violent crime dropped by nearly nine percent during the first six months of 2013, including an 11 percent decrease in murder and a nearly 19 percent drop in aggravated assault. Not encouragingly, rape in the city increased by more than 33 percent, while robbery was up nearly five percent.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: -8.96%
Murder: -11.11%
Rape: +33.33%
Robbery: +4.47%
Aggravated Assault: -18.20%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF HARTFORD’S 2012 RANKING

5. Little Rock, Ark.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Arkansas’ capital, the #5 Most Dangerous City under 200,000, didn’t fare quite as well as the top four Most Dangerous Cities on this list. Violent crime in Little Rock increased slightly in the first six months of 2013 due to a 19 percent spike in robbery. Murder, aggravated assault, and rape were all down year over year (-14.29 percent, -2.63 percent, and -23.61 percent respectively), though the rape figures are not comparable to prior year.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: +2.03%
Murder: -14.29%
Rape: -23.61%*
Robbery: +19.53%
Aggravated Assault: -2.63%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF LITTLE ROCK’S 2012 RANKING

6. Bridgeport, Conn.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Bridgeport, Connecticut’s most populous, experienced the greatest drop in violent crime during the first six months of 2013 of all three off the state’s ranking cities. The #6 Most Dangerous City under 200,000 experienced declines in three out of four violent crime categories, including half as many murders than the same period during the prior year; however, there was a slight increase in rape, as the city moved from 25 to 28 cases in 2013.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: -11.73%
Murder: -54.55%
Rape: +12.00%
Robbery: -11.74%
Aggravated Assault: -12.04%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF BRIDGEPORT’S 2012 RANKING

7. Richmond, Calif.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Richmond, Calif., the #7 Most Dangerous City under 200,000, experienced the sharpest increase (+19.53 percent) in violent crime of the Top Ten cities on this list. Crime in the bay area city increased in three out of four violent crime categories, most notably robbery and aggravated assault (+22.95 percent and +20.18 percent, respectively).

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: +19.53%
Murder: +10.00%
Rape: -13.04%
Robbery: +22.95%
Aggravated Assault: +20.18%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF RICHMOND’S 2012 RANKING

8. Odessa, Texas

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
Violent crime in Odessa, Texas remained fairly constant during January to June 2013 over prior year, with a decrease of less than one percent. Robbery and rape increased minimally (25 and 4 more cases for this period, respectively), and aggravated assault declined by nearly seven percent.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: -0.70%
Murder: +/-0.00%
Rape: +17.39%
Robbery: +42.37%
Aggravated Assault: -6.75%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF ODESSA’S 2012 RANKING

9. Paterson, N.J.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
New Jersey’s third most populous city, and the only member of the Garden State ranked on this list, Paterson’s violent crime declined modestly during the first six months of 2013 (versus 2012). Declines in murder and aggravated assault were countered by increases in rape (+22.22 percent) and robbery (+4.28 percent) in the first half of the year.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: -2.95%
Murder: -44.44%
Rape: +22.22%
Robbery: +4.28%
Aggravated Assault: -11.21%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF PATERSON’S 2012 RANKING

10. Springfield, Mass.

PRELIMINARY 2013 UPDATE
New England’s fourth-largest city, Springfield, Mass., rounds out the list of Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities under 200,000. The western Massachusetts city experienced an increase in violent crime across all relevant categories except for aggravated assault, which decreased by seven percent. Most notably, murder in Springfield was more than 83 percent ahead of the same time period in 2012.

PRELIMINARY 2013 VIOLENT CRIME TRENDS
Data below reflects changes for period January to June 2013 versus same period in 2012.
Total Violent Crime: +6.43%
Murder: +83.33%
Rape: +42.86%*
Robbery: +32.39%
Aggravated Assault: -7.18%

CLICK HERE FOR FULL COVERAGE OF SPRINGFIELD’S 2012 RANKING

Research and analysis by Law Street’s Crime in America Team: Chelsey Goff, Anneliese Mahoney, Ashley Powell, and Kevin Rizzo. 

Sources:

Violent crime, population, murder, and officer statistics are from the FBI Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report, January – June 2013.

Click here to read more Crime in America coverage.

*The figure shown for the 2013 rape offense was reported using the new definition of rape and is not comparable to previous years’ historical forcible rape data.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New FBI Data for Dangerous Mid-Sized Cities: Crime Drops, Flint Stands Out appeared first on Law Street.

In the United States, more than 80 percent of our citizens reside in cities and suburbs, and the safety of each varies greatly across the nation. Law Street Media’s Crime in America feature provides the first comprehensive look at the FBI’s current crime statistics for every American city with a population over 100,000 people. Take a look at the rankings and features below to discover how safe your city actually is. Check back regularly for continued reporting and additional features.

Top 10 Lists

Crime in America: Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Over 200,000

Crime in America: Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Under 200,000

Crime in America: Top 10 Safest Cities Over 200,000

Rankings & Charts

Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Over 200,000: By the Numbers

Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Under 200,000: By the Numbers

Top 10 Safest Cities Over 200,000: By the Numbers

100 Most Dangerous American Cities Overall: Where Does Your Home Rank?

100 Safest American Cities Overall: Where Does Your Home Rank?

100 Safest American Cities Over 200,000: Where Does Your Home Rank?

Notes

Why We Rank: The Public’s Right to Know

Defining Rape:The FBI Takes Action

What the FBI Says About Its Uniform Crime Reports

Methodology

Complete FBI Data

Uniform Crime Report, 2012

Uniform Crime Report, 2011

Research and analysis by Law Street’s Crime in America Team: Kasandra Cisneros, Valeriya Metla, Asim Mian, and Kevin Rizzo.

Sources: FBI 2012 Uniform Crime Report, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Crime in America 2013 appeared first on Law Street.

Following is the full text of the FBI’s disclaimer about the use of its Uniform Crime Reports. The disclaimer appears here in its entirety.

Variables Affecting Crime

Each year when Crime in the United States is published, many entities—news media, tourism agencies, and other groups with an interest in crime in our Nation—use reported figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rankings, however, are merely a quick choice made by the data user; they provide no insight into the many variables that mold the crime in a particular town, city, county, state, region, or other jurisdiction. Consequently, these rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties, along with their residents.

Consider Other Characteristics of a Jurisdiction

To assess criminality and law enforcement’s response from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, one must consider many variables, some of which, while having significant impact on crime, are not readily measurable or applicable pervasively among all locales. Geographic and demographic factors specific to each jurisdiction must be considered and applied if one is going to make an accurate and complete assessment of crime in that jurisdiction. Several sources of information are available that may assist the responsible researcher in exploring the many variables that affect crime in a particular locale. The U.S. Census Bureau data, for example, can be used to better understand the makeup of a locale’s population. The transience of the population, its racial and ethnic makeup, its composition by age and gender, educational levels, and prevalent family structures are all key factors in assessing and comprehending the crime issue.

Local chambers of commerce, government agencies, planning offices, or similar entities provide information regarding the economic and cultural makeup of cities and counties. Understanding a jurisdiction’s industrial/economic base; its dependence upon neighboring jurisdictions; its transportation system; its economic dependence on nonresidents (such as tourists and convention attendees); its proximity to military installations, correctional facilities, etc., all contribute to accurately gauging and interpreting the crime known to and reported by law enforcement.

The strength (personnel and other resources) and the aggressiveness of a jurisdiction’s law enforcement agency are also key factors in understanding the nature and extent of crime occurring in that area. Although information pertaining to the number of sworn and civilian employees can be found in this publication, it cannot be used alone as an assessment of the emphasis that a community places on enforcing the law. For example, one city may report more crime than a comparable one, not because there is more crime, but rather because its law enforcement agency, through proactive efforts, identifies more offenses. Attitudes of the citizens toward crime and their crime reporting practices, especially concerning minor offenses, also have an impact on the volume of crimes known to police.

Make Valid Assessments of Crime

It is incumbent upon all data users to become as well educated as possible about how to understand and quantify the nature and extent of crime in the United States and in any of the more than 18,000 jurisdictions represented by law enforcement contributors to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. Valid assessments are possible only with careful study and analysis of the various unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction.

Historically, the causes and origins of crime have been the subjects of investigation by many disciplines. Some factors that are known to affect the volume and type of crime occurring from place to place are:

• Population density and degree of urbanization.
• Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
• Stability of the population with respect to residents’ mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
• Modes of transportation and highway system.
• Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
• Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
• Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
• Climate.
• Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
• Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
• Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
• Citizens’ attitudes toward crime.
• Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.

Crime in the United States provides a nationwide view of crime based on statistics contributed by local, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies. Population size and student enrollment are the only correlates of crime presented in this publication. Although many of the listed factors equally affect the crime of a particular area, the UCR Program makes no attempt to relate them to the data presented. The data user is, therefore, cautioned against comparing statistical data of individual reporting units from cities, counties, metropolitan areas, states, or colleges or universities solely on the basis of their population coverage or student enrollment. Until data users examine all the variables that affect crime in a town, city, county, state, region, or other jurisdiction, they can make no meaningful comparisons.

Uniform Crime Report Ranking Disclaimer is from the FBI.

Click here to read more Crime in America coverage.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What the FBI Says About Its Uniform Crime Reports appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street’s Crime Team used the FBI’s four major violent crime categories – murders, aggravated assaults, robberies, and forcible rapes – to create a standard measure of violent-crimes-per-100,000 people among all cities reporting crime data to the FBI. This allows year-to-year and city-to-city comparisons. To derive the ratio, the total number of violent crimes reported to the FBI  is divided by the city’s population, with  the result then multiplied by 100,000. The formula for this calculation is shown below. Crime ratings were further broken down by population, with 200,000 used as the dividing point.

Violent Crime Rate = (Total Violent Crime in a City/City Population) x 100,000

Click here for all Law Street Crime data.

Click here to read more Crime in America coverage.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Crime Ranking Methodology appeared first on Law Street.

Here at Law Street, we’ll be donating a lot of time to the bad guys in the next few days (foreshadowing!).  Today I am going to buck that trend, and extol the virtues of the modern day superheroes: prosecutors.

I’m embarrassed to say that I’m one of the kids who used to watch Law & Order and Perry Mason and think “one day I want to be a lawyer.”  They did all of the quintessential lawyer-like stuff, or so I thought.  I then went to law school and learned that most lawyers never get to do the awesome stuff that I saw on TV.

Cut to summer 2011, and I’m in New York at the first day of my internship with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.  I’ve mentioned this before, but I took the job on a whim.  I had no idea what being a prosecutor entailed, but the AUSAs I worked for gave me a baptism by fire.  This baptism was among the best experiences of my three years in law school.

I worked with two of the smartest people that I have ever had the pleasure of meeting.  One AUSA graduated from law school and worked at a top law firm for four years.  He then decided he wanted to become a prosecutor, so took the (often necessary) first step of clerking for a federal judge.  Immediately after starting the clerkship, he began the arduous task of applying to be a U.S. Attorney.  The timing worked out perfectly, and by the time his clerkship ended he was sworn in as an AUSA.  The second AUSA that I assisted had the highest GPA on record at her law school, clerked for a 4^th Circuit Judge and then Justice Scalia (SCALIA!!!!).  The pressure was definitely high; I knew that if I could impress them, then maybe the whole “legal career” was not just wishful thinking.

On my first day, I met AUSAs and was given three memos due by the end of the week.  This task was daunting considering that first year law students have four months to create their first legal memo. The difference with these memos was that they were being used in real trials of real people who faced real loss of their liberty.  That kind of pressure lit a fire under me that a legal writing grade never could, and it was the best type of game time challenge.

The second day, I was the second chair at a hearing in an illegal reentry case in front of a Southern District of New York judge. Big stuff! It was also my first encounter with a heinous example of legal unprofessionalism; a legal aid attorney was in no mood to be cordial or cooperative, and was not going to let a little thing like the law get in the way of representing her (guilty) client.  What did I learn?  The best way to shut opposing counsel down is not by being rude or snarky; it is stopping every argument they make with correct law, strong analysis, and a smile.

I experienced much in those three months working with the USAO-SDNY, and I maintain that it was the coolest job I had while in law school.

It became evident to me that summer why prosecutors are the most likely candidates for judicial appointments.  They gain real experience in the practice of law, in terms of persuasive writing, oral arguments, and jury trials.  They have insane workloads, and still find time to give each case the attention it deserves.

During my second year of law school, Justice Sonia Sotomayor came to my school for a dialogue with the students.  One of the questions presented to her was what she thought of the Supreme Court’s composition of former prosecutors and how that background affects their rulings.

Part of her answer focused on an inherent desire to stop the bad guys, and how that desire colors their interpretation of the law.  With that statement, she solidified what I always knew: prosecutors are wearing capes today, and are a huge cog in the wheel that protects us from criminals.

I work in homeland security now, and we often have to deal directly with prosecutors, judges, and law enforcement to further our goals of public safety.  The scenarios that I have been privy to range from the mundane to the insane, and the federal and local prosecutors are in the thick of the madness.

So as you consider your career trajectory, or why you’re considering law school, think about the lawyers you see on TV and know that it’s a real option for you.  Also, check out our crime blog, with it’s analysis of FBI statistics and crime data.  When you find yourself being terrified by the danger levels of certain cities, just make sure you locate the District Attorney and U.S. Attorney’s offices and send them a fruit basket or something, because they’ve got your back.

Images: [Wikimedia] [Wikimedia] [Wikimedia]

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy.

Featured image courtesy of [megadem via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Prosecutors as Modern Superheroes appeared first on Law Street.

The double standard of a generation. The ultimate oxymoron.

Each year major companies including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and Google, constantly revise their terms and conditions—making it even harder for users to monitor and control who is able to view their content.

It may come as a surprise to many, but these companies OWN everything you post. That’s right, what is yours, is theirs. Just recently, Google announced a change in privacy, allowing them to access Google+ profile pictures and comments as a mean of advertising. Likewise, Facebook announced this Wednesday that  content posted by teenagers, individuals ages 13-17, are now not only accessible to people who know their friends, but anyone who types in the right keywords.

This forbidding future allots cyber bullying, moreover the increased accessibility to child pornography, elicit content, and internet stalking.

The Internet is evolving. Privacy used to have some standards. Now it’s a savage free for all, even children are subject to.

All of this brings up a pressing question: If random people on the Internet have access to private user generate content, can the government?

Yes. No question. In fact, this has been happening prior to the current revisions in dot-com privacy policies.

In Policy Mic’s article, PRISM: The 8 Tech Companies Who Gave Your Data to the Government Have This to Say About the Scandal, Google states, “Google cares deeply about the security of our users’ data. We disclose user data to governments in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government ‘backdoor’ into our systems, but Google does not have a backdoor for the government to access user data.”

To break this quote down, Google basically said, “We do not hand your content to the government on a golden platter. They have to ask nicely, and then, only then, will give it to them what they want in a paper lunch bag—not gold”.

Different phrasing, same idea. This brings up the much-needed talk about legislation to protect the user. Congress needs to look into these corporations’ exploitation of user content.

This is unlike anything we have seen before, and there are relatively no laws protecting the users. Should there be? Absolutely. But that may result in a much different Internet, an Internet where you pay to use websites. One way or another you are paying, it just depends if you want to pay with your identity.

[NewYorkTimes] [PolicyMic]

—

Featured image courtesy of [g4II4is via Flickr]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Privacy or the Internet: Choose One appeared first on Law Street.