Facebook responded to concerns over its inescapable location tracking. Lawmakers aren't convinced.

Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder of Facebook

On December 17th, Facebook claimed that they can, and do, track users’ locations even when their location services privacy is turned off. Their claims follow a federal inquiry in which two senators, Sen. Josh Hawley R-Mo. and Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., had requested that Facebook would follow the privacy policy. They requested that Facebook would “respect” their users’ decision when they ask to keep their locations private. Sounds like a pretty reasonable request right? Not for The Zuck. Facebook went on to admit that when users turn off location tracking, Facebook analysts still have various ways to monitor users’ locations. They explained that They possess the ability to “estimate users’ locations used to target ads even when they’ve chosen to reject location tracking through their smartphone’s operating system.” It already sounds like a violation of privacy based on their claims, but Lawmakers still weren’t convinced. When asked how Facebook could estimate users’ locations, the inquiry revealed that Facebook would use context clues like locations they tag in photos and even their devices’ IP addresses. No biggie. Just tracking and monitoring your phone’s IP address even when precautions have been taken. 

These claims come over a year after a scandal that revealed that Cambridge Analytica had harvested the personal data of millions of peoples' Facebook profiles without their consent and used it for political advertising purposes.

Facebook has a history of privacy violations that led to the inquiry. Facebook admitted that they utilize this information that is collected against users’ will to target ads based on their location and general vicinity even when not on Facebook. 

Senator Hawley, a regular tech critic, expresses the essence of the findings perfectly: “Turn off ‘location services’ and they’ll STILL track your location to make money. No opting out. No control over your personal information. That’s Big Tech. And that’s why Congress needs to take action.”

1). Following the Facebook Scandal of 2018, Zuckerberg has claimed that “users are in control of their own privacy, does this claim still hold up to you following the revelations of the recent Senate inquiry? Does “estimations” of location count as a privacy violation?

2). Since the data collected is not being sold to companies for money like in 2018 and is sully being used to create targeted ads, do you think legal action needs to be implemented still? 

2a - longer question, read context). Due to the tech world itself being a new development, more specifically the ability to collect data seamlessly and unknowingly, there are not many precedents or pre-existing federal laws to be utilized when arguing over the ambiguity of tech privacy like this senate inquiry. If you were a current congressperson or justice, what pre-existing laws, amendments, protections, clauses or more that we have studied could argue Facebook's data collection a violation of privacy and freedom?

Should Trump Pardon Roger Stone?

Roger Stone was convicted of interfering with the 2016 election by protecting his long-time friend Donald Trump on November 15, 2019. This includes an accusation with witness tampering, interfering with an official proceeding, and five counts of making false statements. Throughout the years, Stone has been known to be a smooth talker and an attention seeker, he said that "the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about". However, this quickly became an empty phrase that got him into major trouble. Roger Stone is the sixth former Trump follower and friend to be convicted in cases deriving from Russia's interference in the 2016 election, which was the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.

Stone is part of a long history of Trump advisers and friends who have either been convicted or pleaded guilty in connection with the special counsel inquiry, including former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, former deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates, former national security adviser Michael Flynn, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, and former campaign adviser George Papadopoulos. All these men are equally linked to the President and have all created a support system for President Trump. However, this type of support ends up costing them a lot of money and almost their lives.

Stone is scheduled for sentencing Feb. 6, 2020, before U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, where he faces up to 50 years in prison. As a first-time offender, Stone’s punishment is expected to be significantly lighter. The irony of it all is that Trump has not said a word about pardoning Stone, but it is the Roger Stone supporters who are pushing Trump to pardon him. Even Roger Stone is urging some mercy from the President of the United States stating that he "appeal[s] to the president to pardon [him] because to do so would be an action that would show these corrupt courts that they’re not going to get away with persecuting people for their free speech or for the crime of getting the president elected".

There should be an extent to how and when the civil liberty freedom of speech should be allowed. Going behind the nations back, blackmailing, and interfering with an important election that could possibly determine the outcome of our future, is a BIG deal. Enormous. There is no reason why Trump should pardon Roger Stone, and if he does, it shows how the idea of elitism has become absolute and the only way for people to maintain power. Roger Stone being pardoned reinforces the idea that cheating is the only answer. It also emphasizes how Trump lacks strength and confidence in himself to be able to win an election without the help of his friends and advisers.

Questions:

1. Do you think that Trump should pardon Roger Stone?
2. Should this case be considered as a violation of freedom of speech clause under the First Amendment?
3. What do you think about interfering with an election or something as serious and important as such, is it unethical or ethical?

Progressives's backlash to Buttigieg

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/16/politics/pete-buttigieg-online-neverpete/index.html

Recently democratic Candidate Pete Buttigieg has been taking harsh criticism from the progressive side
of the democratic party. A never Pete hashtag has emerged in many online leftist spheres, similar to the
never Trump hashtag used by Republicans that were equally vehemently against Trump. Popular
sentiment of those who criticise Buttigieg are that he is too moderate and won’t implement the systemic
change that many are calling for, like limits on money in politics and medicare for all. However Pete
Buttigieg has already unveiled plans to cut carbon emissions to zero by 2050 and an alternate
healthcare plan called Medicare For All Who Want it. Some critics even believe he is a trojan horse or
actively gives credibility to Republican talking points against more progressive candidates like Bernie
Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. 

Although Buttigieg is the youngest candidate running, he has a very small portion of the young vote with
2%-8% of the vote of people under 35 years of age. Voters of this age are mainly concerned with climate
change and believe that Buttigieg is not taking nearly enough action. Too many the fact that his low level
of support among people of color also makes him unappealing. 

With this new wave of backlash against Buttigieg and the radicalization of the republican party under
Donald Trump the place for moderate candidates seems to be disappearing.

1. Do you believe that the concerns levied against Buttigieg are legitimate?
2. Do you think that Pete would win moderate republican vote if he won democratic primaries?
3. Why do you think Buttigieg has trouble obtaining the votes of people of color and young people?

Despite Trump’s vow to revive the death penalty, support for capital punishment shrank in 2019

Over the past year, the death penalty has become vastly unpopular both in application and public support.
As of May, there are now 21 states that have disbanded the death penalty. Many of these states are concentrated
in the Mid Atlantic and New England regions. Less people are being sentenced to death as well, with only
33 this year marking a 47 year low. There are also less people being executed, with only 25 executions
actually being carried out. This is partly due to a temporary moratorium imposed by California, which holds
a quarter of all death row inmates. This moratorium marks a turning point, as California has historically been
a proponent of the death penalty. 

There has also been a decline in public support for the death penalty. A record high 60% of people
support life without parole over the death penalty. This is in part due to some high profile exonerations.
One of these was in the case of Curtis Flowers, who was an African American man accused of a
quadruple murder. The supreme court found that the prosecution had worked to keep African Americans
off the jury. In another case, Rodney Reed, who was accused of rape and murder, was given a last
minute stay of execution as there was a call for more DNA evidence. This attracted the attention of
some high profile figures and celebrities, which helped inform the public about it. This can be compared
to the SCOTUS cases of both both Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia, which stopped and than
restarted the death penalty. People also believe that it is more expensive to execute someone than hold
them for life, and they don’t see why we should spend the extra money. 

Although Trump vowed to bring back the death penalty, it has steadily declined in both application and
popularity. 

Article Link

Questions: 

1. Should the death penalty be applied today? 

2. How much influence does the media have on the popularity of controversial issues? 

3. Would the current supreme court rule against the death penalty?

Day Before House Vote, Trump Sends Angry Letter Attacking Impeachment

 

Today, Trump sent a 6-page letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi condemning the impeachment inquiry. The letter came the day that House Democrats formed the majority needed to impeach Trump—with most Democrats supporting the two articles of impeachment and all Republicans opposed to them. In the letter, the president describes the impeachment inquiry as “an illegal, partisan attempted coup” and accuses Democrats of “Obstructing Justice” and “bringing pain and suffering to our Republic for [their] own selfish personal, political, and partisan gain.” In what I interpret to be purposeful irony, Trump antagonizes the left using the same charges he currently faces. Trump’s response to his looming impeachment is different from previous presidents in his situation; Clinton sent an official apology to the House days before he was impeached and Nixon decided to resign instead of face the impeachment. Trump, however, has been defiant and accusatory, inspiring his supporters and other Republicans to have a similar attitude. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell openly said that he would not be “impartial” in the impeachment proceedings. Meanwhile, he refused to allow more witnesses from the White House, saying he did not want to aid the Democrats’ case in any way. Ultimately, this impeachment process has revealed the intense polarization and partisanship in American politics today, which threaten to objectivity designed for such a process. 

NYT Article Link

The Letter Itself

Questions:

1. What are the effects of Trump's approach to his impeachment? Why do you think it differs so much from previous presidents?

2. Is Trump's letter part of a larger strategy of attacking the impeachment/House Democrats or just an impulsive way to vent his frustrations?

3. Do you think there is any chance of Trump being convicted by the Senate? If not, will an impeachment by the House alone do anything to affect his support in the 2020 election?

Senate Approves $738 Billion Defense Bill, Sending It to Trump

      Today, on December 17, the Senate passed a defense policy that would be one of the most expensive ever and cost around $738 billion. After taking off many amendments and provisions of the liberal House's version of the bill, the final vote in the senate was 86 to 6. Some of the big effects of the bill include a 3% wage increase for US troops, the creation of the Space Force as a sixth branch of military, and sanctions on countries. The creation of the Space Force is not as much as most of America thinks; it is only a re-organization of military and space groups in the government. One of the sanctions includes one on a Russian energy company tries to reduce the country's reliance on Ukrainian gas. The company wanted to build a pipeline under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany. Another topic addressed in the bill was Turkey's use of American-made military jets. It bars Turkey from gaining American-made F-35 fighter jets because of its use of a Russian-made missile defense system installed in the capital.
1. What do you think is the general conservative's view of the Space Force?

2. What could have been the United States' objective to sanction the Russian energy company. What were their motives?



https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/17/us/politics/senate-defense-bill-trump.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Congress approves US Space Force and paid parental leave for federal employees

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/17/politics/ndaa-passes-congress-parental-leave-space-force/index.html

Congress passed an annual defense authorization bill worth $738 billion on December 17.  This particular bill is significant because it creates the new Space Force branch of the US Armed Services, as well as providing all federal workers 12 weeks of paid parental leave.  Democrats had previously viewed Trump’s calls for a Space Force as something which would give them leverage in budget negotiations to advance their own agendas. Due to the victories gained for both parties by this bill, it passed the house with a bipartisan vote of 377-48.  The only representatives who opposed it consist of one Democrat, six Republicans, and one independent. It should be noted that the creation of the Space Force simply reorganizes and consolidates existing divisions of the military that are already conducting operations relating to space.  One final important provision of this bill is that it will also give military personnel a 3.1% raise, as well as extending full survivors benefits to all Gold Star families.
Congress passing this spending bill is an example of the legislative branch exercising one of its most important powers and responsibilities, appropriating money. This story also demonstrates why the Congress’ power of the purse is significant since even though the President commands the armed forces (power of the sword), the dramatic reorganization of the military in the form of creating a Space Force can still only be achieved by Congress funding it.
Question:

• While compromise promotes bipartisanism and reduces gridlock and polarization, allocating funds for what both parties want leads to increased deficit spending. Given this, do the benefits of compromising on this defense spending bill outweigh the potentially negative economic consequences of spending more and taxing less?
• Does the creation of a Space Force reflect America's overemphasis on defense spending, or does it demonstrate the ability for our government to adapt to changing times and technological advancement?
• Are news organization more inclined to publish stories discussing gridlock or bipartisan compromise ?