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 ?

Country Over Party

Country Over Party

Thus far, the debate regarding Trump’s impeachment has revealed the intense partisanship that the Trump campaign has incited. Liberals have become more left, and conservatives have become more right. Republicans have remained loyal to Trump out of partisanship rather than common sense, and Democrats have been behind the idea of impeachment since the beginning.

Both witnesses, George Kent, and Bill Taylor, have “laid out [a] case in exacting detail” that Trump did in fact communicate with Ukraine in order to “investigate Biden”. Republican Bill Taylor affirms in his opening statement, that “withholding security assistance in exchange for help with a domestic political campaign” is not something that he supported, and it is still something he refuses to overlook. Considering the intensity of partisanship surrounding the impeachment, it is very telling when a republican deviates from their party. The mere fact that Taylor is a republican possibly reveals that within republicans, loyalty to party is perhaps stronger than to the facts. It is also worth noting that, according to 538, eighty percent of Democrats want to impeach Trump.

Similarly, Nancy Pelosi plays an interesting role when looking at partisanship. Even when most Democrats agreed that Trump was chaotic and dangerous in the White House, Pelosi was firm in her opinion he shouldn't be impeached. Now, she recognizes that the next eleven months in the white house will be chaotic regardless of whether he is impeached or not. Amongst the chaos of partisanship, it is easy to be mislead. 

The facts of the matter are as follows; Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine. But it has also been stated that Ukraine knew about the military freeze in July, a month before Trump's phone call. There is also very strong evidence to prove that Trump did in fact pressure Ukraine to pursue investigations of Biden. To President Zelenskyy, Trump says, 

“I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.”

“The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the persecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.”.

 To which President Zelinskyy eventually agrees, 

“I also want to assure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. As to the economy, there is much potential for our two countries” 

It is easy to get misinformed or wrapped up in the partisanship of Trump's impeachment. But, as a country, it is important to step back and take an objective, unbiased look at the facts of the matter. Trump's impeachment could potentially have a ‘huge’ impact on American History, and as citizens, it is important that we remain informed.

1. Are Trump's offenses impeachable, as the Democrats have been arguing?
How will possible impeachment affect the coming months before the 2020 election?
2. Have you found it difficult to stay properly informed during the impeachment
hearings? How can American citizens avoid being misinformed? Why is that important?
3. Throughout his term, Trump has lied and done some shady stuff. Has he
done anything else that could be considered Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors? If you think not, justify your opinion.

Controversies Surrounding The 1964 Civil Rights Decision

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/us/politics/supreme-court-gay-transgender.html

On October 8th the supreme court began their arguments regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act to decide whether or not the law provides protection for members of the LGBTQ community from job descrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars employment descrimination on the basis or race, religion, sex and national origin as well as prohibiting descrimnation in the process of voter registration, racial segregation in schools and employment. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy who wrote the majority opinion in the court’s four major gay rights cases, and joned the 5-4 ruling in the case of same sex marriage retired just last year. As the hearings begin to catch momentum it is evident that justices are divided amongst their presumed ideological standings, however Justice Gorsuch appears to be an exception. As a believer in textualism it appears that Justice Gorusuch may vote for the law to protect members of the LGBTQ and transgneder community alike, however Gorsuch does have a few reservations. Gorsuch believes that if the court were to come to the conclusion that the law provides protection for previously unprotected individuals, such a verdict seems more likely to come from congress and not the supreme court. Gorusuch also fears the massive public uproar the court's decision poses, however if the court decides that the civil rights act protects the individuals in question an entire community will finally be protected in the same way most citizens have been for the past 55 years.

What are some other popular ideologies seen in the supreme court?

Why does Gorsuch believe a verdict favoring the protection of members of the LGBTQ and transgender community is more pausable coming from congress?

What is your opinion on textualism, does it restrict members of the court from siding with their party?

Impeachment Scandal

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/impeachment-process-works/story?id=51202880



Summary: While allegations about Trump's misdemeanors have been surfacing the media for months, the Democrats efforts to impeach Trump have gained attention in recent weeks over suspicion of Trump's phone call with Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Though the Muller report did not clear the president of obstruction of Justice, the Ukraine Call may call for further investigation. Trump portray's the accusation as a "Witch Hunt, and members of Congress have criticized the accusations as well claiming that it violates the president's due process rights and interferes with his ability to conduct foreign policy. The leader of the majority party in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, announced the formal opening of the impeachment inquiry saying the president betrayed his oath in office and our national security. However, the impeachment process is dictated entirely by the ruling party. The House of Representatives is currently majority democrat, meaning that they will most likely vote to impeach him. This would not change much though since the president has to be acquitted in both the House and the Senate to actually be impeached, and the Senate is majority Republican. If the senate fails to convict, the president will be considered impeached but not removed. If Trump were to be impeached, the vice president would assume office under the 25th amendment. Only two presidents were impeached in the past, Johnson and Clinton, and we will see if this number will change after the upcoming trials.

Questions:
In what ways would the accusations against Trump violate his due process rights?

How are these impeachment trials going to effect the upcoming election?

In what ways does what was said on the phone call categorize as a misdemeanor, felony, treason or bribery?

Favoring Money Over Rights

https://www.wsj.com/video/free-speech-vs-chinese-market-us-companies-face-tough-choice/92AFA903-5523-4023-B51C-2111B45A24EA.html
https://in.ign.com/hearthstone-heroes-of-warcraft/140306/feature/fans-pledge-to-boycott-blizzard-over-hearthstone-pros-ban
A few weeks ago two large companies, the NBA and Activision-Blizzard, came under fire for stopping their employees and players from speaking out about the ongoing Hong Kong protests. The decision from both of these companies has resulted in massive blowback from their respective audiences as protests were staged and Blizzard employees even walking out in support of Hong Kong protestors. The main issue that has been brought up because of these protests has been the necessity to favor national values over profit. What is going on in China right now is a civil rights catastrophe, but large companies restrict their players from complaining because of the possible repercussions from the Chinese market. For years almost every type of media has worked with the Chinese government in order to allow their products to enter the market. In movies and games, it usually involved removing parts of the story or game to fall in accordance with China's strict policy. For over a decade Activision-Blizzard has been running a separate version of their game World of Warcraft that cuts all of the bones, blood, and references that go against China's standards. This calls into question the morals of companies like Activision-Blizzard because of their complacency of China's actions in order to enter their billion-person market. People are demanding that lines are drawn in the sand to withdraw out of the Chinese market until their civil rights issue is properly resolved to make a statement that they are not okay with China's actions. Activision-Blizzard has already made a step with an official apology and reversing the decision that caused the outcry in the first place. But this is only the first step in showing that the rights of people are more important than the buck.

Do you think companies should withdraw from the Chinese market?

Can and should the government require U.S. companies to stop trade with China?

What would your response be if you were the NBA or Activision-Blizzard?

Does the Civil Rights Act protect LGBT workers? The Supreme

Court is about to decide

https://www.salon.com/2019/11/08/does-the-civil-rights-act-protect-lgbt-workers-the-supreme-court-is-about-to-decide_partner/

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act makes it illegal for employers to discriminate
based on numerous factors, including race, religion, and sex. Lower federal courts
have disputed how sex should be defined as stated in this act for many years, with
three cases about LGBT employment discrimination even reaching the Supreme Court
in October 2019. Until now, however, the Supreme Court has avoided making
a definite ruling on whether Title VII prohibits LGBT employment discrimination.

It is expected that Justices who subscribe to originalism—such as Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh,
two of Trump's nominees—are more likely to define sex narrowly, as the writers of Title VII
did not have LGBT rights in mind when writing it. However, there are also some strong
precedents set for broad interpretation of sex, even among originalists. Consequently, it is
difficult to predict what the Supreme Court will ultimately decide. The Supreme Court's final
decision is expected to occur in mid-2020.

• How are originalism and judicial activism applicable to the interpretation of Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act?

• What do you think the Supreme Court will decide? Why? 
• How is this case relevant to the Free Exercise Clause? What role has this clause played 

in past decision(s) regarding LGBT employment discrimination?

Can Trump Legally Out The Whistleblower?

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/06/776481504/can-trump-legally-out-the-whistleblower-experts-say-it-would-not-violate-any-law 

In the midst of the impeachment inquiry, many Trump supporters and the president himself have pushed for the unmasking of the whistleblower. This poses the question of whether it would be considered a crime if the president were to expose the identity of the whistleblower to the public. Several experts weigh in on the issue, agreeing that while “outing” the whistleblower would not be a crime, there are potential consequences if revealing the identity resulted in danger for the whistleblower or their family. Robert Litt, the former general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence under President Barack Obama, stated that if Trump revealed the name, “he's probably as protected as anyone is," whether he says it or tweets it. They declared that if Trump, a news outlet, a member of Congress, or even a normal citizen revealed the whistleblower, “no criminal law would be violated”. Federal law does not protect the identity of the whistleblower as “Congress has never provided that protection”. 

In theory, however, exposing the identity could lead to retaliation against the whistleblower and their family so consequences do exist if a person chose to publicize the name. The person could be at risk of a civil lawsuit, and if they are a member of Congress, they could be removed from committees. As we have learned, workplace retaliation is in fact a federal crime, so while the action of outing a whistleblower is legal, there are many ramifications to this action that could be illegal. McLaughlin, the former acting director of the CIA, explained that there is a “longstanding deference to the protection of whistleblowers who risk their jobs to expose corruption, waste and abuse that has largely prevented federal government officials from naming them”, but now under the Trump administration, there are concerns that the president may ignore this history. Precedent such as this can be ignored, but this would create a new precedent that may discourage future whistleblowers from stepping up. The law was made to protect their interests from possible vengeance. Whistleblower protections in this case stem from the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998. This act bans retaliation and prevents the inspector general from revealing the whistleblower's name, however it does nothing to prevent anyone else from identifying the whistleblower. This brings attention to the gaps within whistleblower protection laws, and the threat is poses to protecting their rights and safety. 

As we study civil liberties and rights, we discover more holes like those in the whistleblower protections. These gaps have significant consequences and may even contribute to silencing people by allowing others to potentially threaten to their safety if they speak out. 

1. Is it legal (for anyone) to reveal the identity of a whistleblower? 
2. Explain the protections included in the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998.
3. What are the potential consequences of outing a whistleblower, and how could precedent be changed if the president were to reveal the identity of the whistleblower?

Judge Voids Trump-Backed "Conscience Rule" For Health Workers

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/upshot/trump-conscience-rule-overturned.html

On Wednesday, Judge Engelmayer of the District Court for the Southern District of New York
voided the Trump administration’s “conscience rule.” Planned to be implemented
this month, the rule built on existing civil rights protections for religious health care
workers by merging 25 separate laws into a single framework, and it would have
permitted medical providers to deny care if it conflicted with their religious or moral beliefs.
Under the rule, the government could withhold or even terminate funding if recipients
compelled their employees to perform such tasks despite objections—a provision that
Engelmayer concluded to be “impermissibly coercive.” To justify the rule, administration
officials claimed that the number of conscience complaints from health care workers
had skyrocketed, but Engelmayer argued that the officials mischaracterized many of
these complaints. In his written opinion, he states that the Department of Health and
Human Services does not even have the authority to impose much of the rule. Opponents
of the rule lauded Engelmayer for voiding a policy that they believe permits legal
discrimination, whereas supporters express disappointment in his decision, claiming
that it harms medical professionals by denying them religious liberty. It remains unclear
whether the Trump administration will appeal the ruling.

1. How does New York v. H.H.S. illustrate the conflict between civil liberties and civil rights?
2. How does the federal judge’s decision in New York v. H.H.S. compare to recent decisions the Supreme Court has made in similar cases? Does the judge’s decision overturn or uphold precedent? Perhaps consider the Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. 
3. Do you think the “conscience rule” is unconstitutional? Why or why not? Perhaps consider the decision in Casey v. Planned Parenthood.