National Roundup

Vermont
State sues web-scraping facial recognition firm
MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — The state of Vermont is suing a data broker that it says uses facial recognition technology to map the faces of Vermonters, including children, and then sells access to the data to private businesses, individuals and law enforcement.

New York-based Clearview AI has drawn attention following investigative reports about its practice of harvesting billions of photos from social media and other services to identify people.
Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and other companies in February demanded that Clearview stop harvesting their users’ images.

Vermont Attorney General T.J. Donovan filed a lawsuit against Clearview on Tuesday, alleging that the company violated Vermont’s Consumer Protection Act and new data broker law.

“I am disturbed by this practice, particularly the practice of collecting and selling children’s facial recognition data,” Donovan said in a written statement. “This practice is unscrupulous, unethical, and contrary to public policy.”

The state also asked the court to order Clearview to stop collecting or storing Vermonters’ photos and facial recognition data.

Tor Ekeland, an attorney for Clearview AI, said in an email that the tool helps law enforcement catch child rapists, murderers, and thieves while protecting the innocent from being falsely accused.

“Clearview operates in strict accordance with the U.S. Constitution and American law,” he wrote, adding that the firm welcomes the chance to work collaboratively with the state outside of the courtroom “to further refine our proven, crime-solving technology for the benefit of all.

“However, we are ready to defend our, and the public’s, Constitutional right to access freely available public information.”


Connecticut
Gun rights supporters sue state over 10-bullet max law
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Gun rights supporters are suing Connecticut officials over part of a 2013 state gun control law passed after the Sandy Hook school shooting, saying it unconstitutionally bans people from loading more than 10 rounds of ammunition into their firearms.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court on Tuesday cites the Second Amendment right to bear arms and the ability of people to better defend themselves with more bullets in their guns.

“Law abiding gun owners in Connecticut are left more susceptible to harm or death by being limited in their means of self-defense,” Holly Sullivan, president of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, said in a statement. “Criminals who are intent on doing harm will not follow this same law.”

The CCDL, the Second Amend­ment Foundation and two Connecticut gun owners filed the lawsuit against Public Safety Commissioner James Rovella, state police Col. Stavros Mel­lekas and Chief State’s Attorney Richard Colangelo Jr., none of whom were in their current jobs when the gun control law was passed.

A message seeking comment was left with Attorney General William Tong’s office, which is expected to defend state officials and the gun control law. Colangelo’s office referred questions to Tong’s office.

State officials passed some of the strictest gun control laws in the country after a gunman used an AR-15-style rifle to kill 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown on Dec. 14, 2012.

The laws included a ban on ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. People who owned “large capacity” magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition before the law took effect were required to notify the state Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection and were allowed to keep them, but are prohibited from putting more than 10 rounds in them.

Gun control supporters say the law can save lives by limiting how many bullets a shooter can fire before having to reload. It was approved by former Gov. Dannel Malloy, a Democrat, and the Democratic-controlled legislature.

But gun rights supporters say magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are considered standard and many firearms are not available with magazines that hold fewer than 10 rounds.

“This law does nothing more than penalize law-abiding citizens while criminalizing components of handguns they own that were previously legal,” said Allan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, based in Bellevue, Washington.

The two gun owners suing the state are Susan Ross, of East Haddam, and Domenic Basile, of Watertown, who both own handguns with magazines designed to hold more than 10 rounds.

“A person with 15 rounds of ammunition available will be better able to defend himself or herself from a criminal gang, or from a drug-crazed criminal who continues attacking even after being shot, than a person who has only 10 rounds of ammunition available before they must reload their gun,” the lawsuit says.

Po Murray, chairwoman of the Newtown Action Alliance, said the lawsuit should be dismissed in the interest of public safety and public health. The alliance was formed to prevent gun violence after the Sandy Hook shooting.

“Assault weapons and high capacity magazines are the weapons of choice for mass shooters,” she said. “The U.S. Constitution must protect the lives of innocent children and adults in schools not the gun lobby’s pursuit of profits selling weapons of war designed to efficiently kill maximum number of people.”


Utah
‘Diesel Brothers’ to pay more than $851,000 for air pollution
SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) — A federal judge ordered custom truck makers from the television show “Diesel Brothers” to pay more than $851,000 to the U.S. government and a Utah county for air pollution.

The judge issued the to David “Diesel Dave” Kiley, David “Heavy D” Sparks and other defendants in the case Friday, The Salt Lake Tribune reported.

The defendants must pay $761,451 to the federal government and $90,000 to Davis County, the judge ruled.

The judge last year found the “Diesel Brothers” violated the Clean Air Act and Utah law by removing pollution control devices from trucks that were modified as part of their television show.

The cost may increase after the judge allowed Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, the plaintiff in the case, to submit attorney fees for the defendants to pay.

Attorneys for the organization previously told the judge they had fees of $1.2 million, according to Cole Cannon, an attorney for Kiley and Sparks.

The men have not decided whether to appeal, Cannon said.

The case was filed over about two dozen trucks and it is “regretful” more of the money will not go to clean-air projects in Utah, Cannon said.