Category Archives: Press Room

Recent press releases issued by Media Alliance. Sometimes we’ll post newspaper, radio and broadcast interviews here as well.

Oakland Becomes Third U.S. City to Ban Facial Recognition


By Caroline Haskins. Published in Vice 7-16-2019

Oakland, California just became the third U.S. city to ban the use of facial recognition in public spaces.

A city ordinance passed Tuesday night which prohibits the city of Oakland from “acquiring, obtaining, retaining, requesting, or accessing” facial recognition technology, which it defines as “an automated or semi-automated process that assists in identifying or verifying an individual based on an individual’s face.”

Continue reading Oakland Becomes Third U.S. City to Ban Facial Recognition

Le Show With Andres Soto: Police Killings in Contra Costa County


30 minute discussion with the Oscar Grant Committee on police killings in Contra Costa County, the Bay Area County with the highest level of law enforcement use of force against people of color. The committee recently met with new “progressive” DA Diana Becton to discuss the Terry Ammons death in Pittsburg and discovered the new DA is a lot like the old DA. With Gerald Smith and Michael Goldstein of the Oscar Grant Committee Against State Repression and MA ED Tracy Rosenberg


Black Agenda Report: The People v. The Information Monopolies: Case Continued


Democrats failed to get enough votes to repeal the FCC’s undoing of net neutrality, but there’s still time to change some member’s votes.

“Verizon literally slowed access to the net when people were fleeing forest fires and checking their cell phones for updates on routes they should take.”

Some members of Congress are still attempting to use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to stop the FCC’s repeal of net neutrality, which is meant to protect us from the financial motives of Internet Service Providers controlling the pipes that data travels through. I spoke to Tracy Rosenberg, the Executive Director of Media Alliance about what’s next.

Ann Garrison: Tracy, could you explain the CRA and how some Congress members have been trying to use it to prevent enactment of the repeal of net neutrality?

Tracy Rosenberg: Yes. The CRA permits Congress to take action to repeal what a regulatory agency has done. The use of the CRA to save neutrality passed the Senate some time ago, then sat in the House. We had a deadline of December 14 to get from 179 to 218 House votes, and we only got to 180, but the deadline has now been extended to the end of the Congressional session. So, what people can do is go to Battle for the Net,, where there’s a scorecard that will show you the representatives who have signed on and those who haven’t.

AG: Congress may extend its deadline to adjourn because Trump’s still pandering to his xenophobic base by demanding billions of dollars to turn the border fence into a wall. Is there any chance net neutrality could still be saved before Christmas?

TR: Procedurally yes, but it’s very unlikely. We’d still have to get 38 more votes. But pressuring any House members holding out is still a good thing to do because it demonstrates the will of the public and the majority of Congress.

AG: And what’s the next step if this fails?

TR: There are a number of different things going on that can bring us closer to saving net neutrality, aka an open internet. The lawsuit against the FCC is in court. It’s in the Third Circuit in D.C., and arguments will start in February of 2019. There are about 18 lawsuits that have been consolidated.

In the 2019 Democratic House, we should also have a very clear majority, so it is possible that new legislation can be put forward in both the House and the Senate to make net neutrality the law of the land. Congress has always had the power to overrule the FCC, so we can legislatively do what we were unable to do by repealing the FCC’s decision.

AG: There’ll be four more Republican Senators in January. Could they become a roadblock? Or is the Senate majority large enough to be secure?

TR: Republican Senators Collins and Kennedy flipped to our side last time. Assuming they don’t change their positions again, we’ll need to get a few more votes in the new, even more Republican Senate. On the other hand, the new Democratic House shouldn’t compel us to flip any votes, so our lobbying effort will precisely target the new Republican Senators.

AG: OK, lastly, could you remind us of what will happen if we lose net neutrality?

TR:We have lost it, unless you are a resident of one of the states that have passed statewide net neutrality laws. Those state laws should take effect if the courts kick back the FCC’s pre-emption lawsuits. So far, because the loss of net neutrality is being litigated and legislatively challenged, the telecoms and cable companies have been careful not to shut down the open internet too fast, but we’re getting occasional glimpses of what that will be like with Sprint throttling Skype, and Verizon slowing service to customers during catastrophic forest fires unless they upgraded service.

AG: OK, I want to make sure we fully understand that. Are you saying that Verizon literally slowed access to the net when people were fleeing forest fires and checking their cell phones for updates on routes they should take or help they might get from emergency responders?

TR: Yes, Verizon slowed wireless access in fire stricken areas. This meant slowed service not only to people fleeing the fires, but also to people still in their homes but checking for updates to see whether or not they needed to flee. Customers would see a button on their screens that they could press to upgrade. The same thing happened in Florida during hurricanes.

If the legal and legislative challenges to net neutrality fail, there’ll be more throttling and internet service providers will demand that consumers pay more for unfettered internet access.

Tracy Rosenberg is a social justice activist and the Executive Director of Media Alliance in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Ann Garrison is an independent journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2014, she received the Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza Democracy and Peace Prize for her reporting on conflict in the African Great Lakes region. She can be reached at


TechDirt: Man Shot By Cops Claims Shotspotter Found Phantom ‘Gunshot’


Originally published by Tim Cushing at TechDirt


Man Shot By Cops Claims Shotspotter Found Phantom ‘Gunshot’ To Justify Officer’s Deadly Force

from the so-are-cops-still-losing-the-tech-race-or-whatever? dept

A lawsuit originally filed early last year makes some very disturbing allegations about police officers and their relationship with their vendors. New York resident Silvon Simmons was shot three times by Rochester Police Officer Joseph Ferrigno. Simmons was unarmed, but was hit with three of the four bullets fired by Ferrigno as he ran way from the officer.

Shortly before being shot. Simmons had been engaged in “Minding Your Own Business,” which can apparently be nearly-fatal. Returning from a trip to a convenience store shortly after 9 pm, Officer Ferrigno cut in front of him, hit Simmons with his spotlight, exited his car with his gun drawn, and opened fire when Simmons began running. According to Simmons’ amendment complaint [PDF] filed in August, Ferrigno never stated he was police officer before opening fire. Simmons, blinded by the spotlight, was unsure who was shooting at him. Even if he had known it was cop, he still would have had no idea why he was being stopped, much less shot at.

The number of bullets fired matters, as Tracy Rosenberg of Oakland Privacy reports. Something seriously messed up happened after the shooting. A gun was found in the yard several houses away from where Simmons was stopped. Cops tried to tie this weapon to Simmons to justify Ferrigno’s deadly force use, despite the gun being located in the opposite direction of Simmons’ flight path.

Continue reading TechDirt: Man Shot By Cops Claims Shotspotter Found Phantom ‘Gunshot’


34 Organizations Unite to Release Principles for Privacy Legislation


Today, 34 civil rights, consumer, and privacy organizations join in releasing public interest principles for privacy legislation, because the public needs and deserves strong and comprehensive federal legislation to protect their privacy and afford meaningful redress.

Irresponsible data practices lead to a broad range of harms, including discrimination in employment, housing, healthcare, and advertising. They also lead to data breaches and loss of individuals’ control over personal information. Existing enforcement mechanisms fail to hold data processors accountable and provide little-to-no relief for privacy violations.

The privacy principles outline four concepts that any meaningful data protection legislation should incorporate at a minimum:

  • Privacy protections must be strong, meaningful, and comprehensive.
  • Data practices must protect civil rights, prevent unlawful discrimination, and advance equal opportunity.
  • Governments at all levels should play a role in protecting and enforcing privacy rights.
  • Legislation should provide redress for privacy violations.

Continue reading 34 Organizations Unite to Release Principles for Privacy Legislation


The Purpose Of The Smart City Is To Kill Us


By Tracy Rosenberg. Originally published on Medium. 

Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean …..

It’s been a hell of a week. No doubt it was extra added if you happen to carry the last name that I was born with — Rosenberg. But virtually no one wants to be blown away for an identity that they can’t, and don’t want, to change. In the mad serial killer chants of “our people”, more and more of us are finding out we simply aren’t included. Continue reading The Purpose Of The Smart City Is To Kill Us


A Look At Transparency On The Ballot This 2018 Midterm Election

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailBy Jessie Gomez. Originally published at

In Nevada, Question 1 on this year’s ballot is Marsy’s Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment, better known as Marsy’s Law, and would exempt certain law enforcement records from being disclosed. Meanwhile in San Francisco, Proposition B, the Personal Information Protection Policy Charter Amendment better known as the “Privacy First” measure is set to protect the personal information of San Francisco residents from abuse by tech companies. Yet, the measure’s broad language could award the City’s Board of Supervisors the ability to change its transparency laws in the future. Continue reading A Look At Transparency On The Ballot This 2018 Midterm Election