This isn’t the first state court to reach this conclusion, but so few courts bother to examine the science-y sounding stuff cops trot out as “evidence” that this decision is worth noting.

There’s no shortage of junk science that has been (and continues to be) treated as actual science during testimony, ranging from the DNA “gold standard” to seriously weird shit like “I can identify a suspect by the creases in his jeans.”

Anyone who’s watched a cop show has seen a detective slide a pen into a shell casing and place it gently in an evidence bag. At some point, a microscope gets involved and the prosecutor (or witness) declares affirmatively that the markings on the casing match the barrel of the murder weapon. Musical stings, ad breaks, and tidy episode wrap-ups ensue.

Maryland’s top court dismantled these delusions back in 2023 by actually bothering to dig into the supposed science behind bullet/cartridge matching. When it gazed behind the curtain, it found ATFE (Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners) and its methods more than a little questionable.

To sum up (a huge task, considering this was delivered in a 128-page opinion), ATFE’s science was little more than confirmation bias. When trainees were tested, they knew one of the items they examined came from the gun used in the test. When blind testing was utilized, the nearly 80% “success” rate in matches dropped precipitously.

He observed, however, that if inconclusives were counted as errors, the error rate from that study would “balloon[]” to over 30%. In discussing the Ames II Study, he similarly opined that inconclusive responses should be counted as errors. By not doing so, he contended, the researchers had artificially reduced their error rates and allowed test participants to boost their scores.By his calculation, when accounting for inconclusive answers, the overall error rate of the Ames II Study was 53% for bullet comparisons and 44% for cartridge case comparisons—essentially the same as “flipping a coin.”

From “pretty sure” to a coin flip. Not exactly the standard expected from supposed forensic science. And that’s common across most cop forensics. When blind testing is used, error rates soar and stuff that’s supposed to be evidence looks a whole lot more like guesswork.

The same conclusion is reached here by the Oregon Court of Appeals, which ultimately reverses the lower court’s refusal to suppress this so-called evidence.

This opinion [PDF] only runs 43 pages, but it makes the same points, albeit a bit more concisely. As the lead off to the deep dive makes clear, cartridge matching isn’t science. It’s just a bunch of people looking at stuff and drawing their own conclusions.

As we will explain, in this case, the state did not meet its burden to show that the AFTE method is scientifically valid, that is, that it is capable of measuring what it purports to measure and is able to produce consistent results when replicated. That is so because the method does not actually measure the degree of correspondence between shell cases or bullets; rather, the practitioner’s decision on whether the degree of correspondence indicates a match ultimately depends entirely on subjective, unarticulated standards and criteria arrived at through the training and individualized experience of the practitioner.

For a similar reason, the state did not show that the method is replicable and therefore reliable: The method does not produce consistent results when replicated because it cannot be replicated. Multiple practitioners may analyze the same items and reach the same result, but each practitioner reaches that result based on application of their own subjective and unarticulated standards, not application of the same standards.

That’s a huge problem. Evidentiary standards exist for a reason. No court would allow people to take the stand and speculate wildly about whether or not any evidence exists that substantiates criminal charges. Tossing a lab coat over a bunch of speculation doesn’t suddenly make subjective takes on bullet markings “science.” And continuing to present this guesswork with any level of certainty perverts the course of justice.

[W]hen presented as scientific evidence, AFTE identification evidence—an “identification” purportedly derived from application of forensic science—impairs, rather than helps, the truthfinding process because it presents as scientific a conclusion that, in reality, is a subjective judgment of the examiner based only on the examiner’s training and experience and not on any objective standards or criteria.

In an effort to salvage this evidence, the government claimed the ATFE Journal was self-certifying. In other words, the fact that ATFE published this journal was evidence in and of itself of the existence of scientific rigor. Both the trial court and the appeals court disagreed:

The court rejected the idea that the AFTE Journal, which the government argued shows that the method is subject to peer review, satisfies that factor for two reasons: because the AFTE Journal “is a trade publication, meant only for industry insiders, not the scientific community,” and, more importantly, because “the purpose of publication in the AFTE Journal is not to review the methodology for flaws but to review studies for their adherence to the methodology.”

The ruling quotes many of the same studies cited by the Maryland court in its 2023 decision — the blind studies that made it clear cartridge matching is mostly guesswork. This court arrives at the same conclusion:

[T]he AFTE method, undertaken by a trained examiner, may be effective at identifying matches, but the problem is that, from what was in the record before the court, the analysis is based on training and experience— ultimately, hunches—not science…

To sum up, this method lacks anything that could be considered sound science:

Neither the AFTE theory nor the AFTE method prescribes or quantifies what the examiner is looking for; the examiner is looking for sufficient agreement, which is defined only by their own personal identification criteria.

Having arrived at this conclusion, the court does what it has to do. It reverses the lower court’s dismissal of the suspect’s suppression motion. The “error” of putting this “evidence” on the record was far from harmless. The state has already announced it plans to appeal this decision, but for now, investigators hoping shell markings will help them close some cases might want to dig a little deeper in the evidence locker.

From Techdirt via this RSS feed

It’s not every day you watch a company faceplant so theatrically in public, but Cloud Innovation’s latest stunt deserves a slow clap. Cloud Innovation, which you’d probably never heard of unless you’re neck-deep in African IP registry battles (stay tuned), just managed to make a legal play whose end result should be calling a lot more attention on its own legal actions and threats.

The move? They sent a cease and desist letter to Joe Hall—demanding Hall delete a tweet. Not a tweet where he said anything defamatory. Not a tweet where he made false claims. Indeed, not a tweet where he said anything at all. Just… a tweet with a link. Literally, a URL to a Medium article discussing the AfriNIC saga, in which Cloud Innovation is a central player.

That’s the entire complaint: someone shared a link.

The letter, signed illegibly by someone calling themselves “Legal Counsel,” gives Hall 24 hours to remove his tweet sharing Emmanuel Vitus’s Medium article “AfriNIC: Hope, Hijack, and the Harsh Lessons of African Multistakeholderism” or face a lawsuit for “defamation, unlawful publication and dissemination of defamatory article.”

So, of course: you should go read that article. Cloud Innovation seems desperate for you not to. It’s also both a fascinating and depressing deep dive into what happened with AfriNIC—something I never would have learned about if Cloud Innovation hadn’t been so hellbent on making sure I never saw it.

Still let’s pause here to appreciate the legal theory being advanced by Cloud Innovation: that sharing a link to an article someone else wrote makes you liable for defamation. This is roughly equivalent to claiming that the person who hands you a newspaper is responsible for everything printed inside it.

The Backstory: AfriNIC’s Institutional Collapse

The article Hall shared tells a genuinely important story about AfriNIC, the African Network Information Centre responsible for distributing IP addresses across the continent. What was once a symbol of African digital sovereignty has been paralyzed by a number of issues, with much of it coming from an aggressive legal campaign from Cloud Innovation, which has filed dozens of lawsuits to block the registry’s governance and operations.

Among many other things, the piece details how Cloud Innovation obtained control of millions of IPv4 addresses—worth potentially hundreds of millions of dollars—and those IP addresses appeared to be “redirected to data centers abroad,” rather than used in Africa. When AfriNIC tried to audit and potentially reclaim these resources, Cloud Innovation responded with a legal blitz that has effectively shut down the institution.

More than fifty legal cases were filed in rapid succession. Some were emergency applications. Others aimed to freeze bank accounts, block board meetings, suspend elections, or issue restraining orders against AfriNIC’s leadership. The goal was not just to defend a legal position. It was to paralyze the registry entirely.

And it worked. As AfriNIC tried to clean up its records and assert control, it faced a coordinated legal pushback. Every step taken by the registry was met with a countermeasure in court. Every attempt at reform was slowed by injunctions. The legal process became a tool of exhaustion.

It’s a story of institutional capture, regulatory failure, and the vulnerability of critical internet infrastructure. Oh, and abuses of the legal system. In other words, exactly the kind of story that deserves widespread attention and discussion.

And also, exactly the kind of thing Hall, who is a distinguished technologist at the Internet Society, would want to share with his followers.

Enter the Streisand Effect

Which brings us to… well… you know. By trying to suppress discussion of an article that documents their use of aggressive legal tactics to silence critics, they’ve… used aggressive legal tactics to try to silence a critic.

And they didn’t just go after Hall. According to the response letter, “substantially identical letters were sent to other people who posted links to the same article.” Multiple people have reported receiving similar threats just for sharing the link (and, tragically, it appears at least some removed their tweets).

Either way, the end result is that way more attention is likely to go to the underlying story than it would have received otherwise. Before the legal threats, this was a somewhat niche piece about African internet governance. Now it’s a case study in how not to handle public criticism.

And a reason to read the article.

How to Respond to a Censorial Legal Threat

Hall’s response, crafted by lawyer Kendra Albert of Albert Sellars LLP, is a masterclass in how to handle bullshit legal threats. The letter methodically demolishes Cloud Innovation’s claims on multiple grounds:

Section 230 immunity: Hall shared someone else’s content on a platform (ExTwitter). Section 230 explicitly protects users from being treated as publishers of third-party content. Game over.

Fair report privilege: The article reports on actual legal proceedings that Cloud Innovation filed. Accurate reporting on court cases is privileged from defamation claims.

No false statements identified: The cease and desist letter doesn’t point to any specific false statements, let alone prove they’re false.

Public figure standard: Even if the above didn’t apply, under US law, Cloud Innovation would need to prove “actual malice”—that Hall knew the statements were false or showed reckless disregard for their truth.

The SPEECH Act: Even if Cloud Innovation won a defamation judgment in another country, they couldn’t enforce it in the U.S. without meeting American free speech standards.

You can read through the analysis of all of those, but just to whet your appetite, here was the description of the third item in that list:

Even if Dr. Hall was the original author and thus not immunized by Section 230, and even if the fair report privilege did not apply, Cloud Innovation’s claim would fail for a third reason. Under the First Amendment, Cloud Innovation Ltd would need to show that a defamation defendant published an identifiable false statement of fact that harmed its reputation, and that the speaker did so with the requisite level of intent. Cloud Innovation has already admitted that the facts in Mr. Vitus’ article are true, and any statements of opinion cannot be defamatory under U.S. law. Cloud Innovation would also have to identify those statements with specificity. We note that your letter does not identify any particular false statements in Mr. Vitus’s article, let alone any such statements from Dr. Hall.

The response letter notes that “it would be inappropriate for legal counsel to send a demand letter without research, which should have turned up at least one of the five independent reasons why Cloud Innovation has no claim against Dr. Hall.”

It concludes:

We will refrain from providing a count of the reasons why a lawyer from any jurisdiction should know better than to use baseless threats to intimidate a perceived critic.

Ouch.

The Bigger Picture: Standing Up to Censorial Bullies

This case, once again, illustrates why we need more people willing to stand up to legal intimidation, as Hall has done here. The letter he received was clearly designed to shut down discussion through intimidation, not to address any legitimate legal grievance.

The 24-hour deadline. The vague threats. The failure to identify specific false statements. The targeting of multiple people for simply sharing a link. These are all classic signs of a SLAPP attempt—designed to chill speech through the threat of expensive litigation.

And it’s working on some people. As the letter notes, at least one person has already deleted their tweet in response to the threat. That’s exactly what these campaigns are designed to achieve: silence through intimidation.

Of course, now Cloud Innovation’s legal strategy about the story has become part of the story, perhaps the key part of the story. The original article documented how the company used aggressive litigation to paralyze AfriNIC’s governance. Now they’re using similar tactics to try to suppress discussion of that very behavior.

The crazy thing about the Streisand Effect is that it’s so predictable, yet people keep falling for it. It’s like watching someone step on the same rake over and over again, except the rake is “trying to suppress information in the internet age” and the person is “a company that should probably know better.”

So, if you hadn’t checked it out yet, now is a good time to read Vitus’ reporting on AfriNIC.

From Techdirt via this RSS feed

Trump recently launched a “wireless phone service,” which as we mentioned, isn’t so much a real phone service as it is a quick licensing agreement and a lazy rebranding of other services. He’s also exploiting the presidency by launching a vast array of new, clumsily branded Trump home goods, including a new Trump-branded Instantpot. If you’re into that sort of thing.

The Trump empire also recently announced they were globally launching Truth+, the Trump regime’s video streaming propaganda service. Here too, the product is mostly just a bundling of existing right wing propaganda and fake journalism video channels pandering to far right wingers, including NewsMax, Real America’s Voice, One America News Network, RSBN and Patriot TV.

The press release for the propaganda bundle claims that this bonanza of bullshit and propaganda is essential in restoring Americans’ sagging trust in news and journalism:

“Truth+ is the singular option for non-woke TV and movies, as well as a great alternative to discredited legacy news channels that have squandered the trust of the American people.”

While we’re on the topic of U.S. journalism and trust, if you dig through the all of the U.S. reporting on this otherwise uninteresting launch of Truth+ you can’t find a single outlet that mentions this isn’t reliable, accurate journalism — much less directly calls out these channels’ history of propaganda. Zero mention, across any of them, that these outlets are filled with conspiracy theories and lies.

Outlets like The Wrap and Mediate, for example, just pretty much copy and paste the Trump regime’s press statements on the service. The same at Reuters.

Nobody, at any of the “news” outlets covering the launch of this fake news expansion, mention Trump’s blatant attacks on the First Amendment and real journalism (despite CBS paying Trump a bribe just a week earlier!). Nor do any of the outlets parroting the Truth+ press release bother to mention Trump Media’s repeated run-ins with super dodgy financial impropriety. Just not relevant, I guess.

Trump+ probably won’t be interesting or popular enough to have much of an actual impact by itself. OAN, for example, makes a lot of noise but historically sees very low viewership numbers. Viewership has been so low, major cable TV providers like Verizon and DirecTV kicked them out of their lineups, causing no shortage of whining from Trumplicans falsely claiming they were being unfairly censored.

Still, it’s part of a much broader, and far more successful right wing effort to steadily replace U.S. journalism with lazy culture war infotainment and propaganda as far as the eye can see. Peppered with overlarge, semi-functional corporate media companies too afraid to tell anybody the truth, and a handful of actual journalists increasingly operating on shoestring budgets.

Either way, supposed free thinkers can now more easily fill their heads with billionaire-approved bile, pebbles and hate, literally branded as the truth. Whose to question the wisdom of the free market?

From Techdirt via this RSS feed

Men in masks kidnapping people off streets or turning businesses into ghost towns is now nothing more than an everyday occurrence in the United States. The Trump administration never actually cared whether or not the people it ejected from the country due to their race, color, or creed were, in fact, criminals. All it ever wanted to do was place its thumb on the scales of justice to ensure the population of non-white, non-MAGAs decreased steadily.

The United States once promised a better life for anyone fleeing oppression or simply seeking a better fortune than could be found in their own countries. We haven’t been that nation for most of the last decade, if not longer. Instead, we’re the kind of country that aligns itself with people who would rather see a boat full of refugees sink than agree to share “their” country with anyone who isn’t as big on bigotry as our current president.

The new budget bill barely passed and it took the assumption that Vice President JD Vance wouldn’t accidentally vote the wrong way to get it done. It’s a Trump bill, which means social services will be stripped of funding, rich white voters will be able to take advantage of new tax breaks, and the administration’s hateful expulsion of immigrants will be extremely well-funded. The same administration that created the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under the pretense of making a big government smaller actually believes the parts of the government it likes should get much, much bigger.

This dissonance prompted a war of words between Trump and the former head of DOGE, Elon Musk — the white foreigner who spent a lot of his own money ensuring Trump’s return to office. Musk, for once, acted like a classic conservative, criticizing the billions being added to the deficit, despite Trump’s claims about trimming the federal fat while yanking the power of purse away from Congress as often as possible.

Perhaps the biggest beneficiary of the new budget is the current national focal point, Immigration and Customs Enforce. ICE — along with its private prison contractors — is getting an exponential increase in funding, making it clear this administration is little more than a one-issue presidency.

The legislation makes U.S Immigration and Customs and Enforcement the largest federal law enforcement agency, giving it $45 billion for building new detention centers in addition to $14 billion for deportation operations. It also includes $3.5 billion for reimbursements to state and local governments for costs related to immigration-related enforcement and detention.

The bill funds an expansion to approximately double immigrant detention capacity, from about 56,000 detention beds to potentially more than 100,000. Private prison firms — many of which were significant financial supporters of GOP candidates for Congress as well as the president’s election campaign — will reap major financial benefits from this spending, as nearly 90 percent of people in ICE custody are currently held in facilities run by for-profit firms.

In terms of national concern, immigration is very low on the list of things bothering most people. The people doing the most complaining about migrants are racists who have suddenly been given a megaphone by a president who shares many of their deliberate misconceptions. These people complain immigrants are taking jobs from US citizens but there’s been no rush by US citizens to fill the void left by ICE raids at meat packing plants, farms, and other labor-intensive occupations. They also claim migrants burden the government with their free-loading, ignoring years of data showing migrants not only pay more than their share of taxes, but also commit criminal acts less frequently than natural-born citizens.

ICE is now the largest law enforcement agency in the United States — the recipient of nearly $70 billion to fund work it doesn’t really even need to be doing. As CBP data shows, the flow of migrants into the country has slowed to a trickle. The people being hunted down by ICE’s Gestapo-esque squads are generally just people who work hard, pay taxes, respect laws, and are a net gain for this country. The criminal element has largely been removed already and whatever’s left simply isn’t enough to justify raids of businesses, neighborhoods, and public gatherings. All that’s doing is fluffing ICE’s detainment stats. And the only people who care about those numbers are the bigots currently serving as un-elected officials in the Trump Administration.

And this means that ICE will continue to be this terrible long after Trump leaves office (assuming, of course, he decides to respect this particular law). Once the money becomes part of an agency’s budget, it takes a concerted effort to roll back the expected annual funding. And from what we’ve seen of the federal government pretty much since its inception, funding only gets cut if it scores political points. Since ICE is part of the DHS and the DHS is still pretending it gives a single shit about homeland security, all it will take for ICE to remain the largest US law enforcement agency is periodic assertions about its national security-related efforts, even if those efforts are just regular-ass racism the agency pretends makes this country safer.

From Techdirt via this RSS feed