National

The New York Police Department plans to limit DNA collection from juveniles and ease restrictions on removing samples from the city's digital database, New York City Police Commissioner Dermot Shea told the Wall Street Journal this week.

The big picture: U.S. law enforcement has access to DNA in databases outside of the criminal justice system. Through genealogy websites with millions of users like FamilyTreeDNA and GEDmatch — the latter of which automatically opts users out of law enforcement collection — police can use DNA to identify suspects, the New York Times reports.

Details: The NYPD plans to audit more than 80,000 samples managed by the New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner's Local DNA Index System by removing samples that are over two years old and those not "linked to a continuing case of conviction," the WSJ reports.

With the changes, a court order will no longer be required for people acquitted in criminal cases to remove their DNA samples from the database, after they give documentation of a court's final decision in their case.

NYPD investigators would only be able to collect DNA from juveniles when they are being investigated for sex crimes, felonies, hate crimes or firearm crimes under the new plan.

Go deeper: Ancestry.com refused court request to give police DNA database access

NYPD aims to ease process of removing DNA from city's database

Law enforcement has access to DNA in databases outside of the criminal justice system.

In this illustration, a plastic baggie is labeled with the word "evidence" as a police badge rests inside.

Cities

Police

Technology

Surveillance

From the Valley to D.C., Big Tech players like Facebook, Google and Amazon are under more scrutiny than ever as new technology develops and privacy and antitrust concerns grow in lockstep with companies’ ambitions.

Forget lone hackers and gangs of digital outlaws: Governments, acting for good and ill, have become the prime movers in the cybersecurity world.

What's happening: Three big stories this week drove home government's central role in a myriad of major breaches, hacks and scams.

1. Equifax: Monday, the Justice Department indicted four members of China's military for executing the 2017 Equifax data breach, which exposed the personal data of nearly 150 million Americans.

Equifax had already agreed to a settlement with state and federal authorities for hundreds of millions of dollars, one that focused on efforts to recompense consumers harmed by the breach and to provide incentives to businesses to batten down their hatches against similar future attacks. 

By attributing the breach to China and bringing the receipts, the U.S. made clear that what had seemed to be a business story was in fact more about China's hunger for data on U.S. citizens — and the ability of its state-employed actors to execute one of the largest data heists in history.

2. Huawei: The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that U.S. officials say Huawei, the Chinese telecom giant, has been running a decade-long program of installing secret back doors in its equipment that allow it to monitor network traffic on behalf of the Chinese government.

The charges, which Huawei vehemently denies, repeat long-standing U.S. claims against the company, and many experts are critical of Huawei's close ties to the Chinese authorities. But the U.S. has never publicly provided evidence to back the charge. 

3. The CIA: For nearly 50 years, a Swiss company called Crypto AG that sold encryption systems to governments around the world operated as a CIA front and enabled the U.S. to monitor those governments' secret communications, a remarkable Washington Post investigation revealed Tuesday. 

The audacity, scope and span of the operation (from 1970 to 2018) make it "one of the most momentous and simply mind-boggling revelations in intelligence history," as Thomas Rid, professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins, said on Twitter. 

Flashback: Even when governments aren't directly pulling the levers, their power shapes events in cybersecurity.

When a group that called itself the Shadow Brokers stole and shared a trove of NSA hacking tools in 2017, third parties grabbed the NSA code and transformed it into what became known as the WannaCry and NotPetya worms, which caused enormous damage to businesses worldwide. 

The bottom line: Modest-size criminal attacks on individuals and businesses can be maddening and destructive, and they come from all directions. But increasingly, we're learning that massive-scale hacks and breaches almost always come with a government's fingerprints somewhere on them. 

Cybersecurity is a government game

Today, nearly every big hack or breach comes with a government's fingerprints.

Illustration of a flag covered in 1s and 0s

Cybersecurity

Podcast: The intelligence coup of the century

Crypto AG provided communications tech to countries for decades. It was secretly owned by the CIA.

Politics

Pro Rata Podcast

World

Axios Re:Cap

China is becoming the most formidable rival America has faced, and the risk of confrontation with Russia, North Korea or Iran still looms. Authoritarians are rising, the chaotic Afghanistan exit revealed the limits of U.S. power, and the pandemic, climate change and other critical challenges continue to pose grave threats.

Podcasts

Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Venmo and LinkedIn have sent Clearview AI cease-and-desist letters in the wake of a blockbuster report that the facial recognition startup has scraped billions of people's faces from their websites, the New York Times reports.

The big picture: Clearview's app is used to identify suspected criminals by over 600 law enforcement agencies, including the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, per the Times.

What they're saying: Twitter has demanded that Clearview delete all data collected from its site, per AP, while YouTube said its terms "explicitly forbid collecting data that can be used to identify a person."

New Jersey's attorney general banned police officers from using Clearview in January.

Class-action lawsuits in Illinois and Virginia have been filed against the company, the Times reports. 

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), the top Republican on the House Financial Services Committee, has demanded documentation from Clearview on its data collection practices and called on committee Chair Maxine Waters to schedule a hearing on the issue.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has also asked Clearview for documentation of its customers, whether the company has detected any security breaches since it launched, and whether its facial recognition tech is currently integrated into body cameras.

The other side: Law enforcement across Canada and the U.S. told the Times that Clearview allows them to identify children subjected to sexual abuse. Officials say the app has also helped them solve murder cases as well as crimes involving identity theft, credit card fraud and shoplifting.

What to watch: Blowback against Clearview could quickly amplify support for a new flurry of state bills aimed at regulating, banning or studying facial recognition — which is not federally regulated, despite bipartisan support for its restraint.

Go deeper: Activists fight to keep face recognition off college campuses

Tech giants hammer facial recognition startup

Clearview AI is reportedly used by over 600 law enforcement agencies.

Facial recognition system

Big Tech

Axios Science

DAVOS, Switzerland — Historian and philosopher Yuval Harari urged the U.S. and China to stop AI,  surveillance and biometrics from converging before it is too late.

The big picture: Harari passionately warned his Davos audience that humanity could become entirely subject to AI and biometrics, with risks including "data colonialism" and "digital dictatorships" that could imprison someone if, for example, their biological data suggests they are not sufficiently loyal. 

“If we enter an arms race, then the arms race logic takes over,” Harari says of global competition around AI, robotics, bioengineering and other technologies. “And any hope of regulating and preventing the most dangerous developments of these technologies is lost.”

Warning of a world where algorithms analyze our biology and humans become “hackable animals,” he floated a scenario: Some countries may adopt an AI that analyzes your entire life — the parts you control and those you don’t — for hiring.  Others may resist it as dangerous, stressful and discriminatory.

That could create an economic imbalance, leading corporations in the second set of countries to press their governments to act.

“This is the race-to-the-bottom danger. If we enter an arms race situation in fields like AI, then it almost guarantees the worst outcomes in terms of privacy,” he told Axios in an interview. 

But, it’s not too late to slow down or even stop the arms race, he says. 

“Nothing is really inevitable.” The Cold War threatened nuclear Armageddon but ended peacefully. 

That’s because the U.S. convinced enough people around the world to trust it had the best interests of people everywhere in mind, says Harari. 

“This was maybe the most powerful weapon in the American ideological arsenal.” 

Now, the U.S. and its rival powers are in every-man-for-himself mode.  

“The most worrying trend is the loss of trust globally and the deterioration of the global rules that are the basis for trust,” he says, referencing President Trump’s speech in Davos earlier this week.

And unlike launching nuclear weapons, where there is consensus about the downsides, countries and companies will believe deploying AI first gives them an advantage.

These challenges require the restoration of trust and leadership but also philosophical answers, Harari says, though he fears the world is facing "philosophical bankruptcy."

“For thousands of years, philosophers have been preparing for this moment, and so to deliver they need to engage with the new technology.”

How AI, surveillance and biometrics could converge in a tech arms race

Historian Yuval Harari warns about the threat of simultaneous developments in advanced tech.

Photo illustration of Yuval Noah Harari lecturing with a globe in the background

Photo Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios. Photo: Visual China Group via Getty Images

Deep Dive - Davos 2020

Sign up for Axios AM to get deep dives into the biggest topics impacting the future

This story first appeared in an Axios Deep Dive

Business

The Federal Aviation Administration wants to require the vast majority of drones to broadcast identifying and location information so authorities can spot rogue drones and generally keep tabs on the rest.

Why it matters: Drone makers have been waiting on the FAA to propose the Remote ID regulation to ease security concerns about potentially hostile drone operators that could, for example, wreak havoc at an airport — similar to the incident that shut down the U.K.'s Gatwick Airport last year. 

Between the lines: The drone industry hopes a workable Remote ID standard will make the FAA comfortable with allowing operators to fly drones beyond their line of sight and over people — allowances necessary to enable package delivery and other commercial uses.

Details: The draft rule, which was published in the Federal Register Tuesday, will apply to all recreational and commercial drones weighing more than 0.55 pounds. The public can comment on the proposed rule for 60 days.

FAA proposes new drone-tracking regulations

Remote identification rules will help authorities spot rogue drone operators.

Drones

Future

Baltimore will become the first city in the U.S. to pilot aerial surveillance, funded by philanthropists, to understand its impact on crime, per the Baltimore Sun.

Driving the news: Baltimore Police Commissioner Michael Harrison, who's been skeptical of the effectiveness of surveillance planes, has reversed course and said he supports a pilot program to let three private planes monitor the city from above.

Why it matters: The use of surveillance planes has been a controversial topic in Baltimore since 2016, when Bloomberg reported private surveillance planes had been circling the city in secret.

On one side of the debate are advocates, including the ACLU, who say use of the planes — called "spy planes" by some — will be a drastic privacy invasion.

On the other are community groups searching for ways to curb crime and record-high homicide rates.

How it works: The program is run by Ohio-based Persistent Surveillance Systems, which is backed by Texas billionaires Laura and John Arnold.

Three planes would record during daylight hours from 8,500 feet above the ground, but would not be used for real-time surveillance. Instead, law enforcement could use the footage to investigate past crimes, per the Sun.

"By funding a limited-duration pilot and a fully independent evaluation, we hope to learn whether this technology can be a useful part of Baltimore’s crime reduction strategy," Arnold said in a statement.

The 4-to-6-month pilot will begin in May. Harrison said he would halt the program if it doesn't show results.

Of note: Baltimore Mayor Bernard C. "Jack" Young and Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan support the decision.

Go deeper: Baltimore wrestles with aerial surveillance

Baltimore revives controversial "spy plane" surveillance pilot

Baltimore will become the first U.S. city to pilot aerial surveillance.

Baltimore

In a wide-ranging interview on "Fox News Sunday," former FBI director James Comey argued that the bureau was "vindicated" by the Justice Department inspector general's findings on the origins of the Russia investigation, but admitted that he was "wrong" about serious failures the watchdog found in the FBI's surveillance process.

Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace-9 04 50 Am - 9 06 56 Am-2019-12-15

WALLACE: "Seventeen significant errors in the FISA process, and you say that it was handled in a thoughtful and appropriate way."

COMEY: "He's right, I was wrong. I was overconfident in the procedures that the FBI and Justice had built over 20 years. I thought they were robust enough. It's incredibly hard to get a FISA. I was overconfident in those because he's right, there was real sloppiness. Seventeen things that either should have been in the applications or at least discussed and characterized differently. It was not acceptable, so he's right, I was wrong."

Why it matters: Inspector General Michael Horowitz determined that there were 17 errors and omissions in the FBI's applications for the surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page, including the altering of an email by an FBI lawyer to exclude potentially exculpatory information.

Horowitz said at a hearing on Capitol Hill last week that no one who "touched" the surveillance process should feel "vindicated."

The big picture: Comey argued, however, that the central conspiracy that President Trump and his allies have pushed about the Russia investigation — that it was a "treasonous" attempt by the FBI to overthrow the president — was "nonsense." Horowitz concluded that there was no evidence of political bias in the FBI's opening of the investigation.

This finding has been disputed, however, by Attorney General Bill Barr, whom Comey criticized for suggesting that the FBI's errors were "intentional" and politically motivated.

"He does not have a factual basis as the attorney general of the United States to be speculating that agents acted in bad faith," Comey said. "The facts just aren't there. Full stop. That doesn't make it any less consequential, any less important, but that's an irresponsible statement."

Comey also addressed claims Trump made at a rally this week that the Russia investigation "destroyed" the lives of many people, admitting that Page was treated unfairly and that his name never should have become public. He countered, however, that Trump's "lies" about the FBI were also deeply harmful:

 "The FBI is an honest, apolitical organization. Remember the treason, remember the spying, remember all of us going to jail. That was false information that your viewers and millions of others were given. ... Now I'm saying on behalf of the FBI: It was all made up. And I hope people will stare at that and learn about what the FBI is like — human and flawed, but deeply committed to trying to do the right thing."

Horowitz: No one who touched FISA process should feel "vindicated"

Horowitz says he was "surprised" Durham disputed Russia probe findings

Horowitz says he found no evidence of "deep state" bias against Trump

Comey defends FBI but admits FISA failures: "I was wrong"

In a wide-ranging interview, Comey doubled down on claims that he was "vindicated" by the IG report.

James Comey

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's testimony on Capitol Hill today painted a vivid illustration of how political actors frequently cherry-pick facts for their own partisan gain.

Why it matters: The dueling narratives aren't mutually exclusive, but it takes some nuance to sort through the partisan hyperbole.

For Republicans, Horowitz's investigation into the origins of the 2016 Russia probe provided a bombshell account of how an out-of-control FBI lied to a surveillance court in order to spy on a presidential campaign.

For Democrats, the report debunked the conspiracy that President Trump and his allies have promoted for years — that the Russia investigation was a "deep state" hoax designed to take down his presidency.

The big picture: Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz made clear in testimony today that both sides have a point, within limits.

Horowitz determined the FBI was justified in opening a counterintelligence investigation after receiving a tip that Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos had told Australian diplomats that Russia had Hillary Clinton's emails.

Horowitz found no evidence of political bias in the FBI's subsequent scrutiny of Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort, and no evidence of a "deep state conspiracy" to take down Trump.

But Horowitz also counted at least 17 errors in Carter Page's FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) application, including the omission of information that may have helped refute allegations that he was an agent of the Russian government.

What he's saying: Horowitz was "surprised" that U.S. Attorney John Durham, tasked by Attorney General Bill Barr with conducting a more expansive investigation into the origins of the Russia probe, issued a statement disputing the conclusion that the opening of the investigation was properly predicated.

The rare intervention has set off concerns that the investigation is being micromanaged by Barr, who attacked the Russia investigation as "a completely bogus narrative" in an interview yesterday with NBC News.

The bottom line: "I think the activities we found here don't vindicate anybody who touched this," Horowitz told the Senate Judiciary Committee, referencing a celebratory James Comey op-ed in the Washington Post.

What to watch: Looking past the short-term political implications of the report, the FISA process — which sees 98% of all surveillance applications approved — could finally face a reckoning.

The other report blowing up D.C.

The testimony painted a vivid illustration of how partisans frequently cherry-pick facts for their own gain.

Russia investigation

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz said at a hearing Wednesday that the irregularities uncovered in his investigation of surveillance activities during the FBI's Russia probe do not "vindicate" anyone, as former FBI Director James Comey and others claimed upon release of his report.

Msnbc Live With Craig Melvin-11 15 42 Am - 11 18 13 Am-2019-12-11

The big picture: Comey and a number of other former FBI officials have celebrated the fact that Horowitz's report concluded the Russia investigation was adequately predicated and was not tainted by political bias. President Trump and his allies have long claimed that the investigation was an effort by the "deep state" to reverse the results of the 2016 election — a conspiracy for which Horowitz said there is "no evidence."

However, Horowitz argues that the inaccuracies and omissions in the FBI's applications for the surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page are "deeply concerning."

Horowitz said in his opening statement that the errors reflect "a failure not just by those who prepared the FISA applications, but also by the managers and supervisors in the [investigation's] chain of command, including FBI senior officials who were briefed as the investigation progressed."

DOJ inspector general: No one who touched FISA process should feel "vindicated"

James Comey and other ex-FBI officials have celebrated the IG's finding that the Russia probe was justified.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

President Trump's crackdown on TikTok suggests that the U.S. government is starting to see the internet more like China does — as a network that countries can and should control within their borders.

The big picture: Today's global internet has split into three zones, according to many observers: The EU's privacy-focused network; China's government-dominated network; and the U.S.-led network dominated by a handful of American companies. TikTok's fate suggests China's model has U.S. fans as well.

Why it matters: As the global internet splinters further, the U.S. and China look set to enter a Cold War-style battle for the hearts and minds of global users and developing nations. In this fight, U.S. nationalism may make a weaker case to the world than the ideal of internet freedom and open networks that the U.S. once evangelized.

Driving the news: President Trump's threat to ban TikTok from the U.S. has fast-tracked an effort to force the video-sharing app's Chinese owners to sell it to a U.S. company (Microsoft is in talks).

Be smart: The move puts other foreign-owned companies on notice that the U.S. intends to favor American-owned businesses in the digital world. 

That's a giant break from a long-established bipartisan consensus that American interests are best served by a U.S. marketplace, online and off, managed as a level playing field.

China started this game — it was the first country to self-isolate from the global internet. 

China controls information flows inside its borders, and its "great firewall" keeps most information the government dislikes from entering the country. 

The Chinese government has ensured that its most widely used search and social services are domestically owned, and its laws now require any internet service to share data with the authorities.

Meanwhile, the EU's new privacy rules have created a different kind of internet zone  governed by a stringent set of standards for handling individual user data.

Last month, a major EU ruling struck down the Privacy Shield, an arrangement between the EU and the U.S. that enabled companies to transfer data into and out of EU nations without risk. 

Trump's crackdown on TikTok suggests that the U.S. is now adopting a more China-like perspective on what kinds of actions governments should take toward internet companies, including:

picking winners and losers among companies based on the whims of leaders;

insisting that companies make data available to the government for its needs — as Attorney General William Barr's argument for weak encryption does;

threatening to punish private platforms unless they support political leaders' preferred form of speech regulation.

Yes, but: Concerns over TikTok's willingness to share U.S. user data with the Chinese government are real.

TikTok says it keeps all such data outside of China and the reach of the Chinese government's laws. 

Many security experts view all Chinese-owned businesses as vulnerable to government interference and intelligence demands.

Our thought bubble: During the Cold War, America's reputational advantage over the Soviet Union as a rule-of-law democracy was regularly undercut by U.S. operations to overthrow governments abroad and American failures to guarantee human rights at home. 

The Trump administration's strong-arming of TikTok threatens to similarly squander the U.S.'s high ground as a champion of fair markets and networks.

What's next: Zoom, the videoconferencing service that's become a pandemic staple, could be the next China-linked company to face the White House's wrath. 

Zoom has had its share of security and privacy lapses, but it's a publicly traded U.S. company founded by an American citizen and headquartered in San Jose. 

Its software development operation has been based in China, sparking fears and charges by lawmakers that its code could be somehow compromised.

Go deeper: Dan Primack interviews White House trade adviser Peter Navarro about the TikTok deal on the Axios Re:Cap podcast

The U.S. is now playing by China's internet rules

China believes in nationalist control over digital networks, and increasingly, so does the White House.

Illustration of a computer with an American flag on the screen surrounded by barbed wire. 

TikTok

Axios Finish Line

As companies continue to prepare for the return of their employees to the workplace, they're weighing new types of surveillance in the name of safety.

Why it matters: Just as the coronavirus pandemic has acted as an accelerant for the adoption of remote work, it has also normalized increased surveillance and data collection. In the post-pandemic workplace, our bosses will know a lot more about us than they used to.

What's happening: "We're in this new era of biodata collection," says Amy Webb of the Future Today Institute.

A majority of employers, 51%, have begun or are planning to begin collecting temperature data on employees, according to survey data from Gartner provided to Axios.

60% are collecting self-reported data from employees on symptoms, and another 25% are asking employees to report who they've been in contact with. And 5% of firms say they're going as far as collecting workers' medical histories.

"It is all a form of surveillance," says Brian Kropp, head of Gartner's human resources practice.

"I think most of it doesn’t have nefarious intent," Webb says. "But, that being said, we don’t have clarity on how these data might be accessed by an insurer, for example. There isn't enough regulation or transparency around where data are being stored."

Another form of pandemic-era surveillance that's gaining popularity is the use of temperature-reading infrared cameras to watch over workers and customers.

"When the pandemic took hold, I started seeing more and more companies like Amazon using this technology to help identify sick people in their warehouses. Thermal imaging cameras are beginning to appear in Subway restaurants. Carnival Cruise Lines, whose ships became hot spots for the virus’s spread, said all passengers and crew would be screened when it began sailing again," the New York Times' Jonah Kessel writes.

These cameras are not always accurate and raise a whole host of privacy concerns.

And even those who work from home may have to deal with a rise in surveillance.

Since the start of the pandemic, a slew of companies have asked their newly remote employees to install software that tracks their mouse movements or keystrokes — or which webpages they visit as a way — to ensure they're being productive, NPR reports.

What to watch: Past studies have shown us that many workers aren't willing to put up with employer data collection. In a 2019 Gartner survey, 23% of workers said it was unacceptable for employers to ask for medical data.

But now, the desire to stay safe at work could quickly change those opinions and clear the lane for robust workplace surveillance.

Go deeper: When going back to work isn't safe

The coronavirus is ushering in a new era of surveillance at work

The pandemic is normalizing increased surveillance and data collection at work.

Illustration of a giant camera looking at a tiny worker.

After a record economic expansion, the coronavirus pandemic sent the U.S. economy into a recession as unemployment soared to staggering heights. The country now faces urgent questions about how much stimulus is needed for reeling consumers and businesses, and what a recovery might look like.

Economy & Business

Codebook

The sometimes militarized government response to nationwide protests following the killing of George Floyd has shone a light on the scope of the surveillance and enforcement apparatus that can be mobilized quickly against U.S. civilians.

The state of play: Since the protests began, extraordinary emergency authorities have been granted to the Drug Enforcement Agency to police demonstrators, including through “covert surveillance,” according to a DEA memo leaked to BuzzFeed. 

It is not clear what this entails, but the DEA has planes outfitted with “stingray” devices that can suck up phone data in bulk.

Other agencies: Attorney General Bill Barr has mobilized a dizzying array of federal law enforcement agencies to police demonstrations in Washington and elsewhere.

This includes representatives of the “Secret Service, National Guard, Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Park Police ... Border Patrol, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Transportation Security Administration, National Guard, Coast Guard, Federal Protective Service,” according to a Department of Homeland Security memo leaked to Yahoo News. 

The New York City Police Department has even requested drones from the Coast Guard.

Even U.S. foreign intelligence agencies could be roped into the domestic turmoil. 

As Jenna McLaughlin, Sean Naylor and I reported at Yahoo News, at a recent “virtual town hall,” employees of the Defense Intelligence Agency, which is primarily focused on military intelligence, raised concerns over word that a Defense Intelligence Agency task force was created to focus on the unrest.

According to sources, the DIA director denied any specific domestically focused task force but acknowledged that the agency was looking at any “foreign nexus” to the protests. 

Protest responses raise domestic surveillance concerns

Federal law enforcement agencies were deployed to police demonstrations throughout the U.S.

Sections

Axios Local

Axios gets you smarter, faster with news & information that matters.

About

Subscribe

All Surveillance stories