IBM Used NYPD Surveillance Footage To Develop Technology That Lets Police Search by Skin Color (theintercept.com) 241
Three months after the American Civil Liberties Union revealed that Amazon provided facial recognition technology to local law enforcement, a new report by The Intercept says that IBM collaborated with the New York City Police Department to develop a system that allowed officials to search for people by skin color, hair color, gender, age, and various facial features. VentureBeat: The Intercept and the National Institute's nonprofit Investigative Fund, citing "confidential corporate documents" and interviews with engineers involved with the project, write that IBM began developing the analytics platform roughly 10 years ago in partnership with New York's Lower Manhattan Security Initiative counterterrorist center, after an earlier experiment with the city of Chicago. Using "thousands" of photographs from roughly 50 cameras provided by the NYPD, its computer vision system learned from 16,000 points to identify clothing color and other bodily characteristics, in addition to potential threats like unattended packages, people entering off-limits areas, and cars speeding up against the flow of traffic.
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Searching camera feeds based on physical human traits. Quelle horror.
Yeah... at first glance at the headline the initial reaction is... "uh-oh" that doesn't sound good- then reading the blurb you realize that, it's just doing a useful feature. If you're looking for a specific suspect it would be great if the software could narrow it down to people of a similar demographic.
Certainly there is room for abuse here, but there's also room for a very valid and useful police tool. It all comes down to who is using the tool. A "good cop" could have a very powerful tool here... any
Re: (Score:2)
This. The debate about proper use of human-recognition software is a valid and important one. But if such software can't identify basic descriptive characteristics (such as, oh say, skin color) then it isn't worth a damn.
Alas, we live in a world where people of many descriptions commit illegal acts. And we try to identify suspects based on evidence, including what eyewitnesses or video surveillance indicates they look like. Recognition software is one of many tools used for such purposes. But if it is used
Re: (Score:2)
The 4th Amendment was, when written, primarily about "no general warrants" , because that was a very real problem the Founding Fathers personally faced. It has always been meant to forbid the practice of "a liquor store was just robbed, arrest the nearest black man, I'm sure he's guilty of something".
I long for a SCOTUS that actually cares about the Constitution above their personal political preferences. If only ...
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.
These things are always abused. Always.
Re: (Score:2)
Cars are abused by bank robbers to get away with the money.
Guns are abused by criminals to kill people.
Is this a reason not to have cars and guns?
Re: (Score:2)
I have no data, but suspect that there is a large overlap in people who support:
a) gun control
b) self-driving cars
Re: (Score:2)
I just want to go on record that I am ABSOLUTELY AGAINST guns controlling self driving cars. That way madness lies.
Re: (Score:2)
I just want to go on record that I am ABSOLUTELY AGAINST guns controlling self driving cars. That way madness lies.
I'm OK with that, just don't give the self-driving cars guns! I saw that movie, and I don't want to have to think about all those time travel paradoxes.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm OK with that, just don't give the self-driving cars guns!
Too late! The Russians are already working on it:
The Kalashnikov Arms Factory Turns Out An Electric Car They Say Will "Rival" Tesla https://www.forbes.com/sites/g... [forbes.com]
Will a Tesla armed with a Musk Flamethrower be a match for it . . . ?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm totally in favor of self driving cars for anyone who thinks they should be behind the wheel while operating their cell phone, putting on make-up, reading the paper, etc. For the rest of us, I don't ever want one...never, ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We punish those who commit abuses. We tend to not ban things that can be abused.
Um, sort of. We make rules based upon those abuses, and those rules frequently inhibit the rights of the non-abusers. Think TSA, gun control, speed limits, HOAs, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Some things are too dangerous so get banned. WMD, for example. And in most places guns too.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.
These things are always abused. Always.
Weren't you the one always in favour of giving the state more power? More power to discriminate on basis of both skin colour and gender?
You're right (now) that these things will always be abused, but you know what - we told you so. Honestly, you're in agreement only if the right sort of discrimination occurs, so this problem is because of people like you. Had you been egalitarian from the get go the state would have less power to enforce discrimination.
Well Done!
Re: (Score:3)
No, you have me confused with someone else. The state should never have this kind of invasive power.
Re: (Score:2)
Without having read the parent, this comment seemed brilliant until the "egalitarian" part. There *is* such thing as *good discrimination*. Egalitarian thought would mean that you can't make subjective judgments of "better" or "worse." Absent these notions, you would need to substitute some other unnatural means of judgment that would have little to do with what the outcome of such judgment would be. Therefore, in the context of what you are supposed to be judging, the unpredictable range of outcomes would
Um... how exactly is the state enforcing (Score:2)
Do you mean "Affirmative Action"? Because that's usually what folks mean when they use language like you just did. If so, for what I wish was the last time "Affirmative Action" is _not_ a quota system. All "Affirmative Action" does is require businesses keep records of their hiring decisions and furnish them on request. This is necessary if you're going to make discrimination on the basis of protective classes illegal since otherwise it's the businesses word against the perso
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously.
Reading the title, it implies NYPD is searching for minorities to ... well to do something bad.
In reality it's search technology for not only skin color but other traits - none of which is inherently racist at all. If someone reports a crime by a 'white male, approx 50 years of age, 6'2 and about 250 pounds with blonde, shoulder length hair' then searching for that is the same as cops walking the beat looking for the same. It's also NOT RACIST if someone reports a crime by the same person but with darker skin and they search for it.
I'm all for limiting abuses by cops and can certainly agree this COULD be used in bad ways but the article is troll bait, click bait, fake news, and every other horrible thing that's driving our country down the tubes.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the same, the technology greatly changes this and it's ripe for potential abuse, and not just the kind you are choosing to talk about with regard to race. This is the prefect tool to "create" evidence where none exists. And by create I don't mean locate evidence, I mean create.
Technological tools like this are incredibly scary.
Re: Wow (Score:2)
If you live in a nation where the state regularly creates evidence then this tool changes nothing, and you're just whining about something new and unfamiliar.
If you do not live in such a state then it also changes nothing, and you're still whining about something new and unfiliar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They emphasized "skin color" in the headline because that's how you get eyeballs in 2018.
The irony is just a couple articles below is something about not merely trying to capture attention but providing quality instead.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't restrict a search using physical parameters. You need to use DNA.
Nobody is saying image recognition is the only tool on the workbench. It's a useful way to narrow down suspects and concentrate resources for further investigation.
And DNA evidence, while compelling, is not a requirement to obtain a conviction or an acquittal.
Re: (Score:2)
Can be used evil. (Score:5, Insightful)
While this could be open for abuse, I don't think IBM was trying to be racist in this case, it is just a visual factor to help narrow down a search. Just like how law enforcement will also identify people by the tattoos or scars they may have.
Re:Can be used evil. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're soft pedaling it. Of course IBM is not being racist, nor are their developers, nor their customers in NYPD. The very implication of it in the title and summary of the OP is a perfect example of the race-baiting, click-baiting business model adopted by the news-entertainment industry which has ruined their credibility.
It is obvious to anyone that basic physical traits like color and size are essential to locating a person in a crowd, yet they've chosen to make a big deal out of it specifically for the purpose of churning their audience to anger.
Re: (Score:2)
click-baiting business model adopted by the news-entertainment industry which has ruined their credibility
This might be me splitting hairs here, but I believe the word is integrity not credibility. Credibility typically is an adherence to fact, IBM is working on a system of facial recognition and the ACLU sees that as highly problematic. Integrity is typically an adherence to morals or standards. This media is attempting to sensationalize a thing that is mired in fear, of which newspapers should join in the fray per journalistic standards.
That's all I had to say, I know, just me getting wrapped up in minutia
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think IBM was trying to be racist in this case
How could IBM be racist anyway? 100% of the target have some form of skin color, right?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think IBM was trying to be racist in this case
How could IBM be racist anyway? 100% of the target have some form of skin color, right?
Only the ones with skin... ... only the ones with skin. ...ONLY the ones with skin...
Oh no! Low flying panic attack. (Score:5, Funny)
Burn the Witch!
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Oh no, someone mentioned skin color. Racist! Racist! Racist.
Wait, I thought these days you are racist if you DON'T mention skin color? People keep saying that "not seeing skin color" is racist, so...
Re:Oh no! Low flying panic attack. (Score:5)
Can't win, don't try.
SJWs will find fault with whatever you say or do. If somehow they can't, they'll go after whatever they think your intent was. Failing that, well you were probably thinking something inappropriate and hateful. As a last resort, they'll claim that THEY felt attacked, marginalized, or otherwise harmed - and you obviously can't attack someone who is a victim. You victim-blamer you! See? Evil to the end.
Personally i'm offended by any searches of physical attributes that include hair, being bald myself. This surveillance product should be banned!
Re: (Score:3)
A fun way to shut down an annoying SJW is to assert the thing they're claiming you're doing, even if untrue. They don't know how to deal with it. They already know that calling someone a racist, sexist, bigot, etc doesn't have any effect if the person they're trying to insult with it takes pride in being those things. An SJW is a bully wrapped in a thin veil of morality, trying to hurl insults similar to calling a straight person gay on the schoolyard, just to incite a reaction that will stroke their ego
Re: (Score:3)
SJWs don't actually care and will constantly challenge until they find something about you in violation of their moral code. They will call holding a door open for any woman sexist, and not holding the door for a black person racist. Thus creating a checkmate situation when a black woman is following you through a door.
There is no winning, so may as well have fun triggering them repeatedly.
Re: (Score:3)
The real best way to annoy SJW is to simply not be racist or sexist.
Sadly, this is not true. Evergreen College [wikipedia.org] clearly demonstrated that "not racist" has no meaningful scope, SJWs there took it all the way to blatant anti-white racism and objecting to that was still called racist.
It is identity politics all the way down.
You do understand that there's almost no SJWs (Score:2)
There's a very, very small number of nut job feminists running out of community colleges. They've got absolutely no power but they're blown way out of proportion by the likes of Fox News for much the same purpose as the Russian Trolls pretend to be SJWs: They're trying to get a rise out of you and distract you from economic problems with meaningless social ones (to wit: A loss of social stan
Re: (Score:2)
...may have a deep aversion to the tenet of being "judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Yeah, I just find it funny when well intentioned folk say things like: "I don't see color" or "I am blind to skin color" - meaning that they will treat you like an individual instead of like a racial stereotype - and then they get remorselessly attacked for "erasing identity".
These days it's wrong *NOT* to treat someone like a stereotype; you MUST treat people differently based on their racial identity if you DON'T want to be a racist.
Re: (Score:2)
... In 2017, IBM released Intelligent Video Analytics 2.0, a product with a body camera surveillance capability that allows users to detect people captured on camera by “ethnicity” tags, such as “Asian,” “Black,” and “White.”
Kjeldsen, the former IBM researcher who helped develop the company’s skin tone analytics with NYPD camera access, said the department’s claim that the NYPD simply tested and rejected the bodily search features was misleading. “We would have not explored it had the NYPD told us, ‘We don’t want to do that,’” he said. “No company is going to spend money where there’s not customer interest.”
So yeah, it's literally about the NYPD requesting a feature to have the software sort people in the videos by personally identifying features... prior to a warrant for each person. If you're unfamiliar with the fourth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution, or the concept of due process, the best time to read them would have been before this system existed, the second best time is now.
The racism part is a red herring, but at least it got people to pay attention. The problem prior to that, i
Re: (Score:2)
Searching live camera footage is not really different from searching a crowd, except for the cost. Storing camera footage for later searching is a concern not well addressed in the Constitution. Personally I think we need a new amendment to specifically limit the ability of the government to store data (or search data stored by others) about mostly-innocent people.
uh (Score:2)
So, police searching by characteristics that a suspect, you know, has, is bad? Why?
I've long joked that our national obsession with race would lead to people being unwilling to simply describe people ("well officer, he was ... er ... tall?") but I guess reality has outrun my sense of humor at this point.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I cannot believe how insensitive and discriminatory you are! Your example says "he", but is that really how zhey identified on that day? Your belief in what zhey really are is forcing your constrained, bigoted views on them. And tall? Are you a heightist or something? Everyone is as tall as they want to be, or need to be, calling attention to zheir own preferences is simply intolerant. Can't we just call people "zheyselves", because on any given day they may not identify even as a human but a blue lig
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you singling out blue ligers? Do you have a PROBLEM with blue ligers?!
Re: (Score:2)
Please, addressing me as "zhey" is really offensive. Please use the proper term "your majesty". Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to love the people complaining about pronouns that then go on to assign arbitrary pronouns to everyone else "IN CASE THEY MIGHT BE OFFENDED BY AN ASSIGNED PRONOUN"
Can't win, don't try.
This is the opposite of racist (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead of looking for people by race in this country, we tend to identify them by skin color.
Race is not skin color; race is a collection of traits which make people from different groups appear, act, and be constructed slightly differently from those of other groups.
Since we cannot talk about race ("African-American") we identify suspects by description in the news, including skin color. Here's the relevant quotation:
We are looking at one of the 16,000 point here.
Garbage Title (Score:4, Insightful)
The title should say:
"IBM Used NYPD Surveillance Footage To Develop Technology That Lets Police Search by Physical Features"
Re: (Score:2)
About time... (Score:4, Funny)
Nevermind (Score:2)
Governmemts can ease off antitrust investigations in exchange for helping spy on people (we will ignore for now wiggling fingers behind the back for "donations", the source and driver of much corruption in the world).
Nah, this never happens. Nevermind.
Also clothing color (Score:2)
I do not think it is acceptable to use this type of tool for anything resembling data science or statistics, and access to it needs to be very tightly controlled with transparent policies and a justifiable purpose.
I saw a documentary on the NYC surveillance capabilities a few years ago, back when they could search only by clothing color and a few other visual cues easier than race/ethnicity. This is a system for responding to descriptions of suspected terrorists (or criminals?), allowing easy filtering of
fun ... (Score:2)
until of coarse Pakistan or China steel the technology.
Where are all those , if we don't build it , someone else will, folks who frequent here , who always think developing every piece of technology is good.
Reality is not politically correct (Score:3)
Discrimination in a legal aspect is far different than discrimination - or should I say, categorization - by physical attribute. The latter should be allowed in the same way that the former should be defended against. That this article even exists is proof that some loud folks believe both types of discrimination listed above are the same. Otherwise, how could you consider that police using skin color in any aspect would be anything but normal, unless you somehow consider that to be wrong on some moral, ethical, or legal level? That's a problem, because at that point, it's just an attempt to whitewash reality with what today is considered politically correct. In fact, it sounds like . [wikipedia.org]
Searching for suspects or describing victims based on known attributes is just a rational, good practice. Imagine if police were not allowed to consider gender, skin color, age, hair color, eye color, height, or weight in their official records. Imagine if it were hospitals that were not allowed to use those traits when treating patients.
Sounds absurd to you, like this is one of those 'taken to a logical extreme' examples that no one would ever consider?
Well, I've got news for you. It's already creeping in. Apparently the practice of using someone's apparent or legal gender and legal name for police reports is deeply upsetting to folks. The TG community calls it 'deadnaming,' and considers the use of the original or legal name to be violence, done both to the victim and to the TG community. [huffingtonpost.com]
They're actually upset that the legal name and gender are being used by police in any capacity [npr.org].
There's a good point in there, where their preferred name might be known and can be used while interviewing folks. The thing is, they say it like it's new, like there's not a 'known aliases' field somewhere. Or perhaps 'important notes: TG male to female, named X'. The folks advocating against deadnaming don't want that though. They don't want notes. They want this to be used for the official, primary fields. They state that even bringing up name in a historical reference about the individual should be disallowed, and go on to include things like parents (who might not approve) and so on.
Now, this isn't like other minority rights issues. For example, marriage is a legal definition that confers real legal entitlements, and the LGBT* marriage rights is about getting official recognition for any couples regardless of gender (which is what we should be doing, and is so obvious I have a problem even considering alternative viewpoints) . But that's not what this is. This is lying about reality to make someone feel good about themselves, or at least, not make them feel bad, or in the case that they've died, getting others to feel good knowing it won't happen to them.
Those advocating for absolute validity of personal feelings are going to be constantly confronted with the premise that the physical world doesn't care much about political correctness, and they're not going to just make their peace with it. I actually worry that we're going to have to legally protect concepts like critical thinking and scientific method as they're nickle and dimed away over time. ... well, I went off on a rant there. Anyway, let's not let political correctness become legally enforced stupidity.
Seems Reasonable (Score:2)
Color me surprised (Score:2)
THIS SHOULD BE DISALLOWED!
Government should only use AI to view and catalog and track people by actual individual faces, walking gait, clothes, clothing style probabilities, license plate, vehicle type, vehicle damage deltas, phone emissions, Bluetooth reflections, WiFi reflections, infrared, night vision, and more all feding into a live tracker database panopticon they can just type your name into to find where you are right now.
Adding skin color to that is racist and just going too far!!!
So you CAN'T search by skin color? (Score:2)
So, are we expecting that police officers, when looking for a suspect, will not go to the most obvious feature of a person while scanning a crowd? How would that conversation go?
Officer 1: OK, let's search for that black guy that is suspected of robbing that bank.
Officer 2: Gottcha. I'll look for some guys with black skin and....
Officer 1: No, no, no. Don't LOOK for guys with black skin. That's racist.
Officer 2: Soooo... I SHOULDN'T look for guys with black skin? Isn't that the guy we are tryin
Re:Classic IBM. (Score:5, Insightful)
What's immoral about this? I understand the objections to mass surveillance, but what's wrong from analyzing the footage to find what you're looking for?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You do realize that we live in a society where news organizations are criticized for including race in descriptions of police suspects?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was Yutes [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I though the Left wanted to require all criminals to be identified as "Republicans."
Re: (Score:2)
You have to use newspeak terms now. When you hear about blacks committing crimes they are referred to as "youths" by the media.
Now that's just wrong. The newspeak for black people committing crimes is "urban youths". "Urban", not "youth" is the new black. Of course, most people of any race who commit crimes are young, but it is a bit racist for the media to assume that young black people are criminals.
Re: Classic IBM. (Score:2)
Of course, most people of any race who commit crimes are young
There is likely a bunch of survivorship bias in that. Some people might "grow out" of being a criminal but this is likely small crimes. Hardened criminals aren't likely to suddenly stop committing crimes. Either they get good enough where they stop getting caught or they are removed from the pool via either prison or death.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on what you call "small crimes" but the common factor in people not growing out serious crime is mental illness, either natural or induced from the Trauma of going to prison.
Re: (Score:2)
The law is just a set of codes to make sure it is difficult for the poor to take other people's property while providing protections for the actions of the wealthy doing the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I dare you to walk up to a black boy and call him 'boy'.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. REAL demeaning.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-co... [thesun.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Give the police the possibility to classify people by skin color, and they wil mistakenly believe it is an important factor.
If you're looking for a specific person, the skin color is very important.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Racial Profiling (Score:2)
The machine isn't stopping anyone. This isn't fucking RoboCop.
Yes IBM helped the Nazis deal with the jews! (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes IBM helped the Nazis deal with the jews!
IBM profit at any cost take your pick H1B, anti jew, anti black, etc.
They may even help north Korea as well.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hang on buddy.
5, 4, 3, 2, 1.... Here come the racists, with the usual cesspit of comments.
They'll explain to you why they are
a: Not racist
b: "Facts" that "support" justified racial biases
I was here in '97 at the beginning of this site. It's pretty sad.
Re: (Score:2)
What is sad is you apparently feel comfortable calling anyone who has a different opinion than yourself, a racist.
Go ahead and explain to everyone why, when searching for someone based on a description, the person's skin color, or anything else, should be omitted.
Do you think the police should just be looking for, "some guy"?
Re: (Score:2)
Hey!! That's sooo Sexist! How can you possibly suggest that the police would be so sexist as to be looking only among that male population?
Re: (Score:2)
Damn!
Guess I have to check my Male Privilege.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember kids are too small to handle pistols and rifles safely.
They are much better suited to crew served weapons. Machine guns and mortars. Where their low strength is less of an issue and they can learn teamwork.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That reminds me. Need to pick up a Ribeye on the way home tonight.
Re: (Score:2)
She's a big girl. She won't be a victim like Mollie Tibbetts
Unlike you.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not racist and I don't see the problem with this. If someone robs a bank and is described as dark skinned should one then be forbidden to include that as a search criteria? Should people that are obviously not fitting the profile of the suspect still be harassed as you can't enter some type of information into the system?
Criticize racial biases all you want but don't go around bullshitting.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not racist and I don't see the problem with this. If someone robs a bank and is described as dark skinned should one then be forbidden to include that as a search criteria? Should people that are obviously not fitting the profile of the suspect still be harassed as you can't enter some type of information into the system?
Criticize racial biases all you want but don't go around bullshitting.
This can be a problem if it's generalized. Let's say that 77% of illegal immigrants in the US are from Latin America [migrationpolicy.org] (71% from Mexico or Central America; 6% from South America). Does that mean that Latinos should face more scrutiny? NO because that is racial profiling, and most Latinos in the US are here legally. The difference between this scenario and what IBM is doing is paramount: IBM is helping to look for individual suspects whereas the other is just a drag net.
Re: Classic IBM. (Score:2)
This can be a problem if it's generalized. Let's say that 77% of illegal immigrants in the US are from Latin America (71% from Mexico or Central America; 6% from South America). Does that mean that Latinos should face more scrutiny?
If you're specifically looking for illegal immigrants and if they truly do make up the overwhelming majority then yes, absolutely.
NO because that is racial profiling, and most Latinos in the US are here legally.
So what? "Scrutiny" does not mean "lock them all up". If you're looking for X, and most of X are in group Y, then the most productive use of your time is to look primarily at group Y. If you know that breast cancer occurs far more often in women than it does in men then it makes sense to screen women more often and more vigilantly than men. Calling that "profiling" does not m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a group nothing, every white, black, and asian is an individual every large scale metric becomes meaningless when applied to an individual. The only valid way to apply information to a group is one individual at a time.
Re:Classic IBM. (Score:4, Insightful)
Clearly (no color intended), color is a parameter, one of many, in the description of anyone. There's nothing racist about describing the color of someone's skin, or for AI to use it in identifying someone. The fact that you can't accept that says more about the chip on your shoulder than about the facts of the matter.
Oh, and FU for calling me a racist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The editors are trying to make this story sound scary like IBM is targeting brown people. There was a lull in news stories about Trump so they had to come up with something.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump, you say? I'm pretty sure that IBM's new system enables the police to search for orange-skinned criminals, too.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure i follow your argument, the fact that he's muslim is almost tangential; 19 year old male, no job, lots of passports stamps from Syria and Yemen -- sticks up as someone to investigate all by itself.
And THAT is pretty much the entire argument against profiling on religion. Merely being muslim should be a non-issue.
When you added on all the rest of the stuff it becomes more of interest, but that's not targeting muslims... that's proper profiling sure ... maybe he's part of some missionary-buildi
Re: (Score:2)
"Ignore the 19 year old muslim male with no job and lots of passport stamps from Syria and Yemen. "
Report it lost.
Get a new passport without stamps.
Profit.
But jokes aside, nobody registers those idiotic 18th century things called 'stamps'.
Re: (Score:2)
Search for: Orange skin, fake blonde hair covering a bald head, wanted for treason, collusion, tax fraud, wire fraud and stupidity.
found in under microsecond. Nice!
Only Mr. Trump is not currently under arrest for any crime. Many of his detractors accuse him of treason, collusion, tax fraud, and wire fraud, but look at the facts. For better worse stupidity is not against the law.
Re: (Score:2)
"Only Mr. Trump is not currently under arrest for any crime."
People under arrest are usually not subject of a search. Everybody knows where they are.
Coincidentally this is also the case here, so also no searching necessary.