When you've caused a problem, deflect! At least, that seems to be the strategy of Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris, who spent the last several years as part of an administration that presided over a growing mismatch between Americans' pay and the cost of living. Rather than take responsibility for the decline of the dollar's purchasing power, she blames businesses that were forced to raise prices as a result. And she wants to fix the problem she helped cause by restricting those prices, never mind the inevitable consequences for the availability of goods and services.

Wait, I Thought This Was an Economy To Be Proud Of?

First though, let's journey back to 2023 when Harris claimed to be proud of the state of the economy.

"That is called Bidenomics, and we are very proud of Bidenomics," she insisted last August in a speech where she also trumpeted, "the unemployment rate is near its lowest level in over half a century. Wages are up. Inflation has fallen 12 months in a row."

Now though, the vice president and would-be chief executive huffs, "When I am President, it will be a day one priority to bring down prices. I'll take on big corporations that engage in illegal price gouging and corporate landlords that unfairly raise rents on working families."

And that's exactly what she proposed in her speech last week which recognized concerns over the cost of living and included a host of schemes for greater government involvement in the economy, including "the first ever federal ban on price gouging on food" amidst worries over grocery bills.

It's nice that Harris recognized Americans' concerns over making ends meet. Less nice, though, was pretending that cost concerns are a result of mean corporations rather than bad policy. Also not so nice is her insistence on doubling down on bad policy with even worse cost controls.

Let's emphasize that there's little doubt government policy is at the root of inflation.

Government Officials Should Get the Blame for Those High Prices

"Inflation comes when aggregate demand exceeds aggregate supply," wrote economist John Cochrane of the Hoover Institution and the Cato Institute in a March piece for the International Monetary Fund. "The source of demand is not hard to find: in response to the pandemic's dislocations, the US government sent about $5 trillion in checks to people and businesses, $3 trillion of it newly printed money, with no plans for repayment."

"Fiscal stimulus boosted the consumption of goods without any noticeable impact on production, increasing excess demand pressures in good markets," admitted the Federal Reserve Board of Governors as early as July 2022. "As a result, fiscal support contributed to price tensions."

Even Jim Tankersley and Jeanna Smialek of The New York Times, a paper which almost reflexively supports Democrats, concede "most economists" say that factors including "snarled supply chains, a sudden shift in consumer buying patterns, and the increased customer demand fueled by stimulus from the government and low rates from the Federal Reserve…are far more responsible than corporate behavior for the rise in prices."

And the rise in prices is substantial. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic's inflation calculator shows that in July 2024, it took $120.25 to buy what $100 purchased in January 2021 when Joe Biden and Kamala Harris took office. That's on average; some sectors have seen greater or lesser inflation.

What Price Gouging?

Especially when it comes to groceries, it's difficult to make a case for "price gouging." A New York University Stern School of Business annual survey shows a net profit margin of 1.18 percent for retail grocery stores last year. That's down a bit from when the Biden administration took office (you can check annual data here). Kroger, the industry giant that is frequently portrayed as a greedy bogeyman, recently enjoyed a slightly higher net profit margin of 1.43 percent; over the last 15 years, its profits briefly reached as high as 3.02 percent in 2018. (The Cato Institute's Scott Lincicome does a good dive into food-industry economics on X.)

So much for Harris's deflection. But then there's her scheme for price controls to address the higher prices brought by government policy. Such controls have such a well-documented track record that they heap stupidity onto Harris's dishonesty.

A History of Price Control Failures

In 2022, when inflation was surging and the dollar's declining purchasing power had many Americans looking for the sort of "solutions" that Harris now offers, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis economist Christopher J. Neely pointed out that schemes for government-imposed price controls date back to the Code of Hammurabi and "have costs whose severity depends on the broadness of the control and the degree to which it changes the price from the free-market price."

Free market prices, he emphasized, "allocate scarce goods and services to buyers who are most willing and able to pay for them" and "signal that a good is valued and that producers can profit by increasing the quantity supplied." In the absence of such allocation and signals, you get shortages of goods and services. With grocery stores, that means empty shelves—little to buy at the controlled prices.

There's more to it than that. Neely pointed out that you also get cheapened goods to reduce production costs, gamesmanship to get around rules, and black markets that entirely defy the law. He recommended that "price controls should stay in the history books."

The Washington Post editorial board, usually as protective of Democrats as the Times, agrees. It pointed out that Harris didn't define what constituted the "excessive" profits she wanted to target and that "thankfully, this gambit by Ms. Harris has been met with almost instant skepticism, with many critics citing President Richard M. Nixon's failed price controls from the 1970s."

From the Code of Hammurabi to former President Nixon, with a detour for the Roman Emperor Diocletian—who, economist John Cochrane notes, torpedoed production and trade with price restrictions—such controls have been irresistible for government officials. That's because bad economics all too often makes for good—or, at least, effective—public relations. People who tell pollsters they think corporations are raking in 36 percent profits (the real average across industries is closer to 8 percent) can be convinced by clever politicians that they're being ripped off and need government intervention.

What politicians won't admit is that it's their own policies that put the public in distress to begin with, and that their latest schemes, if implemented, will make matters worse.

The post Kamala Harris' Dishonest and Stupid Price Control Proposal appeared first on Reason.com.

North Carolina is one of the few states to keep detailed statistics on homeschoolers—who are famously resistant to scrutiny, and for good reason—and officials in the state recorded an interesting development this year. After dipping from a pandemic-era high when public schools were closed or generally making a poor job of remote learning, the ranks of homeschoolers have again begun to rise. With census figures showing similar growth elsewhere, we have further evidence that DIY education is here to stay.

Homeschooling Surges Again

In the Statistical Summary for Homeschools 2023–2024, compiled by the state's Department of Administration, the number of registered K–12 homeschools in North Carolina stands at 96,529. Each school can serve more than one student, and the estimated number of homeschooled K–12 students is 157,642. That's down from the peak of 112,614 registered homeschools serving an estimated 179,900 students during the chaos of 2020–2021, but up from 94,154 registered homeschools and 152,717 students last year. Before the pandemic, in 2019–2020, 94,863 homeschools served 149,173 students.

For K–12 private schools, enrollment is up from 126,678 in 2022–2023 to 131,230 in 2023–2024. In 2019–2020, before the pandemic, North Carolina private schools had 103,959 students enrolled.

By contrast, traditional public school enrollment is declining.

"Traditional public schools have 1,358,003 students in 2023-24, losing 0.4% of students from last year to this year and down 3.6% overall from before COVID-19," according to Chantal Brown of EducationNC, which covers education issues in the state. "Charter schools have 139,985 students in 209 schools in 2023-24, gaining 4.9% over last year."

North Carolina isn't alone. In May, Carly Flandro of Idaho Education News found, based on Census Bureau Household Pulse Survey data, "about 6% of Idaho students were home-schooled, on average, during the past two school years. And the state data that is available shows increases since the height of the pandemic. At the same time, public school enrollment dipped this year for the first time since the 2020-21 school year."

Newsweek's Suzanne Blake added that Texas also saw a rise in homeschooling in a continuation of a trend that began "even before the pandemic."

A National Taste for DIY Education

In fact, the Census Bureau's Household Pulse Survey, which takes a continuing series of snapshots of data over the course of each year, shows a national increase among the ranks of homeschooled students from roughly 3.6 million in 2022–2023 to about 4 million this past year (there's variation depending on the snapshot you examine, so it's best to look for averages). Meanwhile, public school enrollment declines.

Based on average of survey data from 2022–2023, Johns Hopkins University's Homeschool Hub, which compiles information about DIY education, estimates that 5.82 percent of American K-12 students were homeschooled that year. Of course, that's down from the height of the pandemic when public schools closed or just dropped the ball.

"In the first week (April 23-May 5) of Phase 1 of the Household Pulse Survey, about 5.4% of U.S. households with school-aged children reported homeschooling," the Census Bureau reported of comparing data from the spring of 2020 to the fall of that year. "By fall, 11.1% of households with school-age children reported homeschooling (Sept. 30-Oct. 12)."

But before the pandemic, the folks at the Homeschool Hub remind us, "homeschooled students between the ages of 5 and 17 made up 2.8% of the total student population in the United States in 2019." That means that, while a lot of families that took to homeschooling out of necessity returned to familiar public schools when they could, enough stuck with it to more than double the number of homeschooled kids. With COVID-19 and intrusive public health policies largely a bad memory, homeschooling continues as an increasingly popular practice as a matter of choice.

Fleeing Public Schools…

In a June article about declining public school enrollment in EducationWeek, Mark Lieberman explained that about half of the loss can be attributed to population changes as the number of kids declines, but about 20 percent fled to private alternatives and another 20 percent turned to homeschooling. (Another 10 percent are unaccounted for, though some probably skipped kindergarten and others may be in DIY arrangements such as homeschooling and microschools, but unreported.)

Lieberman delved into the school choice programs that let education funds follow students to the options of their choice rather than being assigned to brick-and-mortar public schools. But he didn't examine what might drive families to abandon the familiar for education alternatives the require greater dedication and commitment.

Disappointment with schools' pandemic responses clearly played a role in driving many families to try educating their own kids—and many liked the experience. But so do endless battles over how kids are taught and, especially, what is incorporated in the lessons presented to them by often deeply politicized schools. To please one faction of parents with spin that they like is to inherently alienate others.

…To Escape Pointless Conflicts

"Schools in many parts of the U.S. have become a battleground and parental involvement is one of the topics at the center," ABC News reported last September. "Fights in school board meetings, including in Chester County, [Pennsylvania] have erupted over how race, sexual orientation, gender and other topics are brought up, or taught, in the classroom."

Families can fight school administrators and other parents in struggles that inevitably leave those on the losing side unhappy with lesson content. It makes sense for those who lose to withdraw their children from the public schools in favor of lesson plans and approaches that meet their standards. For that matter, it's tempting for even those on the winning side to forego the curriculum wars and just pick the education they like for their kids without battling their neighbors. Why argue with your ideological opponents over what should be taught when you can ignore them and teach your kids what you please?

"When parents can choose where and how their children will be educated, they're no longer at the mercy of politicians and bureaucrats," the Cato Institute's Colleen Hroncich wrote in 2022. "That means they don't have to rely on political battles when it comes to education."

That's undoubtedly a big part of the impetusmothe for recent school choice victories that expand options for families, as well as decisions parents and students make to embrace those options. Homeschooling and other education alternatives are on the rise because they're liberating, and they work.

The post Homeschooling Grows as an Escape from Failing Schools and Curriculum Fights appeared first on Reason.com.

The recent attempted assassination of Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump, which resulted in the death of one rally attendee and injuries to the candidate and two others, was not an isolated event. The high profile incident occurred against a backdrop of lower-level attacks and violent protests across the country that indicate too many Americans are increasingly willing to exchange battles over ideas for fists, bullets, and firebombs. It's a sign of an existential political climate in which nobody thinks they can afford to lose—or that opponents can be allowed to win.

Not-So-Isolated Incidents

"A Michigan man used an all-terrain vehicle to run over and critically injure an 80-year-old man who was putting a Trump sign in his yard, in what police have described as a politically motivated attack," the BBC reported July 23. The apparent attacker killed himself after calling police to confess to the crime.

Just days later, anti-Israel protesters vandalized property and battled police in Washington, D.C. in what has become almost a matter of routine.

The partisan Michigan attacker, the mysteriously motivated would-be assassin, and the subset of protesters who cross the line don't really represent mass endorsements of violence. They're often lone actors or extremists within their own movements. But no majority vote is required before people and property are attacked. It just takes somebody willing to get physical, and too many meet that bar.

Politics Plagued by a Violent Minority

Last month, the University of Chicago's Robert A. Pape, a professor of political science who studies political violence, released the results of a study on Americans' attitudes towards using violent means to achieve political ends. What he found is that 10 percent of respondents agree "the use of force is justified to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president." Opposing them are 6.9 percent of respondents who agree "the use of force is justified to restore Donald Trump to the presidency."

When questions about justifying violence are given broader scope, researchers find larger numbers open to its use. Last year a study from the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis found "one-third of respondents…considered violence to be usually or always justified to advance at least 1 of 17 specific political objectives," including preventing discrimination based on race or ethnicity and preserving an American way of life based on Western European traditions.

The good news is that even the larger numbers still represent a minority of the population, outnumbered by those who prefer to keep bullets and bombs out of their political discourse. The bad news is it only takes one person to target a candidate or run over a homeowner putting a sign on his lawn. And it only takes one, or a handful, to stage any of the myriad lower-profile incidents that suggest we're in a cycle of political strife.

Rising Tide of Threats and Attacks

In March, a California man pled guilty to firebombing a Costa Mesa Planned Parenthood clinic—the third suspect to do so in that crime. They had planned other attacks that were thwarted by their arrests.

In January, the Center of the American Experiment, the Upper Midwest Law Center, and TakeCharge—three Minnesota conservative groups—were targeted by arsonists in what was believed to be an act of political terrorism. The organizations are offering a $100,000 reward "for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the individual or individuals who started the arson fires."

A car belonging to a Portland, Oregon, city commissioner's family was torched outside his home just weeks before that. In response, Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt warned "acts of political violence and acts of political vandalism are unacceptable and will not be tolerated."

Gonzalez is far from alone in being violently targeted by people who disagree with him.

"The number of threats to public officials is growing," according to a May data review from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. "While 2013-2016 had an average of 38 federal charges per year, that number sharply increased to an average of 62 charges per year between 2017-2022."

The review added that ideological motivations could be confirmed for roughly half the cases, and that "the number of federal prosecutions is on pace to hit new record highs" this year.

High Stakes Politics and Rising Illiberalism

Much of this is the result of the rising tensions of recent years. Political factions have gone from opposing each other to despising each other and considering opponents too vile and dangerous to be allowed to win office and exercise power. That political leaders tear not just into each other, but into whole segments of the population they perceive as alien understandably reinforces fears of the criminal justice system and the regulatory state in the hands of enemies.

Added to that is the abandonment of liberal ideas about restrained government and tolerance by both the left and the right. In their place are thuggish ideologies that leave little room for dissent.

"On the left, a new crop of socialists hope to overthrow the liberal economic order, while the rise of intersectional identity politics has supplanted longstanding commitments to civil liberties," Reason's Stephanie Slade wrote in 2022. "On the right, support for free markets and free trade are more and more often derided as relics of a bygone century, while quasi-theocratic ideas are gathering support."

That creates an environment in which violence might become just another tactic for people who consider their causes of overriding importance. In January, The New York Times interviewed Andreas Malm, a celebrity activist who advocates for political violence on behalf of climate causes. He clarifies that he supports targeting property, not people, but "can't guarantee that it won't come with accidents."

He also thinks his opponents shouldn't be allowed to use the same tactics in return, saying "the idea that if you object to your enemy's use of a method, you therefore also have to reject your own use of this method would lead to absurd conclusions."

Malm, it should be noted, is Swedish. And that points to the fact that America isn't alone in seeing activists adopt violence as a preferred means of achieving results.

"American political violence has much in common with that taking place in Germany and India, as well as in France's most recent election," Rachel Kleinfeld recently noted in Foreign Affairs.

Shared misery is cold comfort, but it may be the only kind available right now.

The post The Wave of Political Violence Has No End in Sight appeared first on Reason.com.

You can add the Internal Revenue Service to the ranks of federal agencies conceding that raining taxpayer money on all and sundry to offset the negative effects of pandemic-era closures didn't go as well as intended. Not only was a program meant to offset the cost of paying workers during lockdowns and voluntary social-distancing prone to being gamed, but the "vast majority" of claims submitted to the program show evidence of being fraudulent.

The Tax Man Is Shocked To Discover Fraudsters

In the course of a detailed review of the Employee Retention Credit, "the IRS identified between 10% and 20% of claims fall into what the agency has determined to be the highest-risk group, which show clear signs of being erroneous claims for the pandemic-era credit," the IRS announced June 20. "In addition to this highest risk group, the IRS analysis also estimates between 60% and 70% of the claims show an unacceptable level of risk."

The Employee Retention Credit was offered to businesses that were shut down by government COVID-19 orders in 2020 or the first three quarters of 2021, experienced a required decline in gross receipts during that period, or qualified as a recovery startup business at the end of 2021. But it was clear early on that scammers were taking advantage of giveaways of taxpayer money, either to claim it for themselves or to pose as middlemen helping unwitting business owners file claims.

In March of 2023, the tax agency warned of "blatant attempts by promoters to con ineligible people to claim the credit." In September of that year, it stopped processing claims amidst growing evidence that vast numbers of applications were "improper," as the IRS delicately puts it. In March 2024, the agency announced that its Voluntary Disclosure Program had recovered $1 billion (since raised to over $2 billion) in improper payouts from participants who got to keep 20 percent of the take.

Ultimately, only "between 10% and 20% of the ERC claims show a low risk" for fraud, even by generous federal standards for throwing other people's money at problems largely of government creation.

"We will now use this information to deny billions of dollars in clearly improper claims and begin additional work to issue payments to help taxpayers without any red flags on their claims," commented IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel.

As of the end of May, the IRS "has initiated 450 criminal cases, with potentially fraudulent claims worth nearly $7 billion."

There's More Fraud Where That Came From

Of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to pandemic stimulus fraud.

In April, Attorney General Merrick Garland boasted that the COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force (yes, it's widespread enough to rate its own task force) had "charged more than 3,500 defendants, seized or forfeited over $1.4 billion in stolen COVID-19 relief funds, and filed more than 400 civil lawsuits resulting in court judgements and settlements."

Strong work. But the various pandemic stimulus bills tallied up to trillions of dollars. And a lot more than a few billion ended up in the hands of grifters.

"The total amount of fraud across all UI [unemployment insurance] programs (including the new emergency programs) during the COVID-19 pandemic was likely between $100 billion and $135 billion—or 11% to 15% of the total UI benefits paid out during the pandemic," the Government Accountability Office warned last September.

Earlier, the Small Business Administration's Inspector General found more than $200 billion stolen from the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program and Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). "This means at least 17 percent of all COVID-19 EIDL and PPP funds were disbursed to potentially fraudulent actors," noted the report.

With between 70 percent and 90 percent of claims for the Employee Retention Credit identified as likely scams, either the IRS is a stand-out magnet for grifters or other agencies need to return to their own investigations with a somewhat more skeptical eye.

Stimulus Fueled Inflation as Well as Fraud

It's maddening enough that the federal government is handing out vast sums of money to con artists. But Americans are contending with a 2024 economy in which the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' own inflation calculator finds that it takes $124.77 to purchase what $100 bought in 2019, before anybody heard of COVID-19. Federal stimulus programs are directly to blame for much of that inflationary slippage in the dollar's buying power.

"U.S. fiscal stimulus during the pandemic contributed to an increase in inflation of about 2.6 percentage points in the U.S.," three economists with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis estimated last year. The reason, they said, was that governments "injected large amounts of money into the economy"—money created from thin air to artificially pump up the economy.

"Inflation comes when aggregate demand exceeds aggregate supply," agreed economist John Cochrane of the Hoover Institution and the Cato Institute in a March piece for the International Monetary Fund. "The source of demand is not hard to find: in response to the pandemic's dislocations, the US government sent about $5 trillion in checks to people and businesses, $3 trillion of it newly printed money, with no plans for repayment."

Officials justified the stimulus as a necessary evil to offset economic collapse from often-mandatory pandemic closures by keeping demand flowing with government checks. After conceding that stimulus fueled inflation, the St. Louis Federal Reserve economists argued that massive spending likely prevented "worse outcomes despite the price pressures that may have resulted from the spending."

But officials could have refrained from issuing closure orders so the economy could function without mandated disruptions. That would have made the creation of trillions of dollars from thin air and its distribution around the country entirely beside the point. Then, grifters wouldn't have opportunity to scam hundreds of billions of dollars out of federal agencies, including the IRS.

It's nice that the IRS, like other federal agencies, is catching up with the vast fraud it enabled. But it would be better if government officials weren't constantly addressing problems they created.

The post 'Vast Majority' of Pandemic Employee Retention Credit Claims Are Likely Scams, Says IRS appeared first on Reason.com.

In a welcome development for people who care about liberty, Australia's government suspended its efforts to censor the planet. The country's officials suffered pushback from X (formerly Twitter) and condemnation by free speech advocates after attempting to block anybody, anywhere from seeing video of an attack at a Sydney church. At least for the moment, they've conceded defeat based, in part, on recognition that X is protected by American law, making censorship efforts unenforceable.

A Censor Throws In the Towel

"I have decided to discontinue the proceedings in the Federal Court against X Corp in relation to the matter of extreme violent material depicting the real-life graphic stabbing of a religious leader at Wakeley in Sydney on 15 April 2024," the office of Australia's eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, announced last week. "We now welcome the opportunity for a thorough and independent merits review of my decision to issue a removal notice to X Corp by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal."

The free speech battle stems from the stabbing in April of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel and Father Isaac Royel at an Orthodox Christian Church by a 16-year-old in what is being treated as an Islamist terrorist incident. Both victims recovered, but Australian officials quickly sought to scrub graphic video footage of the incident from the internet. Most social media platforms complied, including X, which geoblocked access to video of the attack from Australia pending an appeal of the order.

But Australian officials fretted that their countrymen might use virtual private networks (VPNs) to evade the blocks. The only solution, they insisted, was to suppress access to the video for the whole world. X understandably pushed back out of fear of the precedent that would set for the globe's control freaks.

Global Content Battle

"Our concern is that if ANY country is allowed to censor content for ALL countries, which is what the Australian 'eSafety Commissar' is demanding, then what is to stop any country from controlling the entire Internet?" responded X owner Elon Musk.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) also argued that "no single country should be able to restrict speech across the entire internet" as did the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). The organizations jointly sought, and received, intervener status in the case based on "the capacity for many global internet users to be substantially affected."

In short, officials lost control over a tussle they tried to portray as a righteous battle by servants of the people against, in the words of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, "arrogant billionaire" Elon Musk. Instead, civil libertarians correctly saw it as a battle for free speech against grasping politicians who aren't content to misgovern their own country but reach for control over people outside their borders.

Worse for them, one of their own judges agreed.

"The removal notice would govern (and subject to punitive consequences under Australian law) the activities of a foreign corporation in the United States (where X Corp's corporate decision-making occurs) and every country where its servers are located; and it would likewise govern the relationships between that corporation and its users everywhere in the world," noted Justice Geoffrey Kennett in May as he considered the eSafety commissioner's application to extend an injunction against access to the stabbing video. "The Commissioner, exercising her power under s 109, would be deciding what users of social media services throughout the world were allowed to see on those services."

He added, "most likely, the notice would be ignored or disparaged in other countries."

American Speech Protections Shield the World

This is where the U.S. First Amendment and America's strong protections for free speech come into play to thwart Australian officials' efforts to censor the world.

"There is uncontroversial expert evidence that a court in the US (where X Corp is based) would be highly unlikely to enforce a final injunction of the kind sought by the Commissioner," added Kennett. "Courts rightly hesitate to make orders that cannot be enforced, as it has the potential to bring the administration of justice into disrepute."

Rather than have his government exposed as impotently overreaching to impose its will beyond its borders, Kennett refused to extend the injunction.

Three weeks later, with free speech groups joining the case to argue against eSafety's censorious ambitions, the agency dropped its legal case pending review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

"We are pleased that the Commissioner saw the error in her efforts and dropped the action," responded David Greene and Hudson Hongo for EFF. "Global takedown orders threaten freedom of expression around the world, create conflicting legal obligations, and lead to the lowest common denominator of internet content being available around the world, allowing the least tolerant legal system to determine what we all are able to read and distribute online."

But if the world escaped the grasp of Australia's censors, the country's residents may not be so lucky.

Domestic Censorship Politics

The fight between eSafety and X "isn't actually about the Wakeley church stabbing attacks in April — it's about how much power the government ultimately hands the commissioner once it's finished reviewing the Online Safety Act in October," Ange Lavoipierre wrote for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

"The video in dispute in the case against X has been used, in my opinion, as a vehicle for the federal government to push for powers to compel social media companies to enforce rules of misinformation and disinformation on their platforms," agrees Morgan Begg of the free-market Institute of Public Affairs, which opposes intrusive government efforts to regulate online content. "The Federal Court's decision highlights the government's fixation with censorship."

That is, the campaign to force X to suppress video of one crime is largely about domestic political maneuvering for power. But it comes as governments around the world—especially that of the European Union—become increasingly aggressive with their plans to control online speech.

If the battle between Australia's eSafety commissioner and X is any indication, the strongest barrier to international censorship lies in countries—the U.S. in particular—that vigorously protect free speech. From such safe havens, authoritarian officials and their grasping content controls can properly be "ignored or disparaged."

The post Australian Censors Back Down, Highlighting the U.S. as a Free Speech Haven appeared first on Reason.com.

Britain's signals intelligence spy chief raised eyebrows this week with warnings that Russia is coordinating both cyberattacks and physical acts of sabotage against the West. There's evidence to back her claims—and the West may be returning the favor. Coming soon after FBI Director Christopher Wray warned that China is targeting American infrastructure, it looks like the world is not only fracturing once again, but that the hostile blocs are engaged in covert warfare.

Rumors of War

"We are increasingly concerned about growing links between the Russian intelligence services and proxy groups to conduct cyberattacks as well as suspected physical surveillance and sabotage operations," Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) Director Anne Keast-Butler told an audience at the United Kingdom government-sponsored CyberUK 2024 conference. "Before, Russia simply created the right environments for these groups to operate, but now they are nurturing and inspiring these non-state cyber actors in some cases seemingly coordinating physical attacks against the West."

Keast-Butler, whose agency is comparable to the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA), also called out China, Iran, and North Korea as cybersecurity dangers. But naming Russian officials as being behind "physical attacks" raises the stakes. Sadly, her claims are well-founded.

Sabotage, Espionage, and Other Mischief

"A 20-year-old British man has been charged with masterminding an arson plot against a Ukrainian-linked target in London for the benefit of the Russian state," CBS News reported last month. That wasn't an isolated incident.

"In April alone a clutch of alleged pro-Russian saboteurs were detained across the continent," The Economist noted May 12 in describing what it called a "shadow war" between East and West. "Germany arrested two German-Russian dual nationals on suspicion of plotting attacks on American military facilities and other targets on behalf of the GRU, Russia's military intelligence agency. Poland arrested a man who was preparing to pass the GRU information on Rzeszow airport, the most important hub for military aid to Ukraine. Britain charged several men over an earlier arson attack in March on a Ukrainian-owned logistics firm in London whose Spanish depot was also targeted."

The GCHQ chief's warnings coupled with reality on the ground are alarming in themselves. Worse, they come after FBI Director Christopher Wray issued similar cautions in April about China.

"The PRC [People's Republic of China] has made it clear that it considers every sector that makes our society run as fair game in its bid to dominate on the world stage, and that its plan is to land low blows against civilian infrastructure to try to induce panic and break America's will to resist," Wray told the Vanderbilt Summit on Modern Conflict and Emerging Threats in Nashville, Tennessee.

Wray clarified that, by "infrastructure," he meant "everything from water treatment facilities and energy grids to transportation and information technology."

If that doesn't make you want to check that your pantry is stocked and that the water filter and generator are in working order, nothing will.

A Game Both Sides Can Play

Of course, in war of any sort, the implication is that both sides are involved in conflict. Western intelligence officials are loud in their warnings about foreign threats, but less open regarding just what their own operatives might be doing in Russia, China, and elsewhere. Still, there's evidence that this is hardly a one-sided war, shadowy though it may be.

In June 2022, The New York Times reported that Ukraine's defensive efforts relied heavily on "a stealthy network of commandos and spies rushing to provide weapons, intelligence and training." In addition to Americans, the story noted, "commandos from other NATO countries, including Britain, France, Canada and Lithuania, also have been working inside Ukraine."

American journalist and combat veteran Jack Murphy goes further, claiming the CIA, working through an allied spy service "is responsible for many of the unexplained explosions and other mishaps that have befallen the Russian military industrial complex." The targets include "railway bridges, fuel depots and power plants," he adds.

And if you wonder who blew up Nord Stream 1 and 2, well, so do a lot of people. Russia was initially accused, but it didn't make a lot of sense for the country's forces to destroy pipelines that generated revenue and fed western dependence on Russian natural gas. Since then, Denmark and Sweden have closed inconclusive investigations, journalist Seymour Hersh blamed American officials, and a report by Der Spiegel and The Washington Post placed responsibility on a rogue Ukrainian military officer.

The Wider War Is Here

Taken all together, the warnings from Keast-Butler and Wray, as well as acts of sabotage and arrests of foreign agents suggest that fears of a wider war resulting from Russia's continuing invasion of Ukraine may miss the point; the war could already be here. People looking for tanks and troops are overlooking cyber intrusions, arson, bombings, and other low-level mayhem.

"Russia is definitely at war with the West," Oleksandr Danylyuk of the Royal United Services Institute, a British defense and security think tank, told NBC News earlier this week.

Russian officials seem to embrace that understanding, with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov commenting in March that the invasion of Ukraine, originally referred to by the euphemism "special military operation," is now more serious. "It has become a war for us as the collective West more and more directly increases its level of involvement in the conflict," he said.

Fortunately, a shadow war of the sort around us is less destructive than open military conflict, especially when the hostilities involve nuclear-armed powers. It's far better that spies hack the email accounts of government officials, as happened in the case of a Russian cyberattack on Germany's ruling Social Democrats, than that cities burn. But civilians still must live with the consequences of combatants attempting to do each other harm—particularly when the harm is to infrastructure on which regular people rely.

So, welcome to the world of global shadow war. Try to not become collateral damage.

The post World War War III May Already Have Started—in the Shadows appeared first on Reason.com.

Rent control is having something of a moment: In Los Angeles, tenants are invoking a law that imposes limits on apartments built on sites where rent-controlled units previously stood. A new rent control ordinance went into effect last month in the Bay Area city of Concord, California. Phillipsburg, New Jersey is considering similar restrictions. And, importantly, the Biden administration recently moved to cap rent hikes in some federally subsidized housing across the entire country.

But reviving bad policy doesn't make it less dumb than it was in past incarnations.

Affordable Housing Comes at a High Price

"The Biden administration moved this week to limit how much rent can rise in certain affordable housing units across the country," CNBC's Annie Nova noted April 3. "The cap applies to units that receive funding from the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, the nation's largest federal affordable housing program, according to experts. The National Low-Income Housing Coalition estimates that around 2.6 million rental homes across the U.S. have current LIHTC rent and income restrictions."

Tenant advocates applauded the move, but it drew criticism, too.

"While well‐​intentioned, rent control fails to achieve its primary goal of improving housing affordability for the poor and disadvantaged," economists Jeffrey Miron and Pedro Aldighieri respond in a piece published by the Cato Institute. "In fact, it often generates unintended consequences that exacerbate the very problems it seeks to solve."

They point out that restricting the price of housing discourages owners from maintaining and improving their property. It can also make it attractive for landlords to pull apartments from the rental market and put them up for sale as owner-occupied dwellings. Those enjoying deals on housing costs might also find themselves in the equivalent of golden handcuffs.

"Tenants in rent‐​controlled units become less mobile to avoid losing access to below‐​market rents," add Miron and Aldighieri.

The authors point to studies finding that rent control has reduced the supply of rental housing in communities as far apart as Cambridge, Massachusetts, and San Francisco. In fact, the use of the City by the Bay to illustrate the failures of rent control has a long history. It was the example offered by Milton Friedman and George Stigler in Roofs or Ceilings?, a 1946 essay on rent restrictions published by the Foundation for Economic Education and recently resurfaced on X by the author Amity Shlaes.

A Tale of Two Housing Crunches

Discussing the effects of the infamous April 18, 1906 earthquake, Friedman and Stigler pointed out that "a city of about 400,000 people lost more than half its housing facilities in three days." In the weeks that followed, people left the city, temporary shelters went up, and construction crews swiftly got to work.

"When one turns to the San Francisco Chronicle of May 24, 1906—the first available issue after the earthquake—there is not a single mention of a housing shortage!" they write. "The classified advertisements listed 64 offers (some for more than one dwelling) of flats and houses for rent, and 19 houses for sale, against 5 advertisements of flats or houses wanted. Then and thereafter a considerable number of all types of accommodation except hotel rooms were offered for rent."

Friedman and Stigler contrasted this to the post-war situation in 1946, when "the city was being asked to shelter 10 percent more people in each dwelling unit than before the war"—a less acute situation than the one faced in 1906. But the result in 1946 was very different from that faced 40 years earlier.

"During the first five days of the year [in 1946] there were altogether only 4 advertisements offering houses or apartments for rent, as compared with 64 in one day in May 1906."

That's because, faced with a sudden mismatch between supply and demand, people decades apart chose very different ways of "rationing" housing stock.

"In 1906, the rationing was done by higher rents," wrote Friedman and Stigler. "In 1946 the use of higher rents to ration housing has been made illegal by the imposition of rent ceilings, and the rationing is by chance and favoritism." Higher rents in 1906 spurred people to build quickly and to efficiently use available space. Restricted prices in 1946 offered no such incentives, so housing remained hard to find.

That would have been a hard-learned lesson—had it been learned at all. But it wasn't.

Lessons Unlearned

Decades later, the 2019 study cited last month by Miron and Aldighieri looked at a 1994 law change in San Francisco that suddenly extended rent control to housing constructed before 1980. Sure enough, tenants benefiting from controlled rents became less likely to move, while landlords subject to restrictions converted their properties to condos and co-ops or redeveloped them to escape regulation.

Rent controls "reduced the supply of available rental housing by 15 percent," the study concluded. "This reduction in rental supply likely increased rents in the long run." Contrary to housing activists' intentions, "the conversion of existing rental properties to higher-end, owner-occupied condominium housing ultimately led to a housing stock increasingly directed toward higher income individuals."

So much for the magical benefits to the poor of price controls on housing. But, despite bitter experience of the ill-effects of rent controls, restricting the price that landlords can charge tenants for use of their property remains popular. Whether it's the Biden administration or local politicians in California, New Jersey, and elsewhere, a policy that pretends to make homes affordable is a very visible way of demonstrating concern for low-income families—even if it's completely counterproductive.

By contrast, the productive approach—getting out of the way—isn't so headline-ready.

"The most sustainable and effective way to promote affordable rents is to enable new construction by deregulating zoning, land use, and building requirements," write Miron and Aldighieri. "Such policies make development cheaper and supply more responsive to prices, keeping rents in check."

Unfortunately, leaving the market free to match supply and demand for housing—or anything else—may meet human needs, but it doesn't make for feel-good press releases. So, government officials continue to offer rent control as a solution to housing woes. And economists have endless opportunities to explore why restricting prices still fails to make housing affordable.

The post Rent Control Remains the Wrong Solution to Housing Woes appeared first on Reason.com.

This column was written before police entered Columbia University's Hamilton Hall

One challenge of free speech advocacy is holding the line even when the speech in question is vile. Then you must make distinctions between acceptable forms of expression and those that violate the rights of others. That's why it's important to have clear, firm principles applied equally to all points of view. In the absence of clarity, you find yourself making things up as you go along—like too many institutions of higher learning at a moment of campus unrest.

Muddled Boundaries for Expression

"Early this morning, a group of protestors occupied Hamilton Hall on the Morningside campus," Columbia University advises. "In light of the protest activity on campus, members of the University community who can avoid coming to the Morningside campus today (Tuesday, April 30) should do so."

The school subsequently locked down the campus. That was two weeks after over 100 protesters were arrested at an encampment on campus grounds and days after administrators then muddled boundaries by vowing not to summon police again to handle demonstrations against Israel's response to the October 7 attack by Hamas. The protests frequently feature antisemitic language, sometimes turn violent, and passed the point of violating Columbia's rules and control over its own property weeks ago.

Columbia has done a poor job of defining what is and isn't acceptable. Without firm guidelines, the protests have lingered and spread to other institutions. Some are dealing with the protests better than others—particularly those that respect speech rights but also make clear where the line is drawn.

Free Speech With Respect for Others

"Against the backdrop of the war in Gaza, college administrators are confronting a flurry of student activity on campus that includes peaceful protest and lawful self-expression, punctuated at times by bursts of severe disruption and even isolated acts of violence," notes the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which consistently calls for respect for expression and regard for the equal liberty of others. "Separating First Amendment-protected speech from illegal conduct in these situations can present challenges, but it's not an impossible task."

The key is setting expectations ahead of time. That's true at public universities bound by the First Amendment and at private schools educating students to function in a society where people disagree.

"Whenever you have protests, universities will define the time, manner and way in which it's done," Daniel Diermeier, Chancellor of Vanderbilt University, told NPR last week. "So for example, you're not allowed to disrupt classes, and you're not – you know, injuring a security guard and forcing your way into a closed building is not an expression of free speech."

When Vanderbilt students did exactly that in March, police ejected them within a day. Three were expelled and about two dozen others received lesser discipline. They were punished not for their message—others criticized Israel without consequence—but for occupying property and attacking a guard. There's a distinction between the two that must be maintained if institutions are to simultaneously preserve speech rights while forestalling chaos.

"To provide clarity—and to ensure freedom of expression—universities must adopt free speech principles and enforce them consistently," emphasizes FIRE. "Harmful, hateful, and offensive speech" is protected by the First Amendment, the organization points out. That includes expression directed at specific groups, like the antisemitic slogans sometimes encountered at recent protests.

That said, FIRE adds that "a campus where unprotected conduct and expression—such as violence, true threats and intimidation, incitement, and discriminatory harassment—go unaddressed is a campus where faculty and students will be afraid to speak."

A Difficult Balancing Act

Yes, that is a balancing act. It's one that leaves room for criticism of both Columbia's paralysis over its campus encampment as well as the crackdown by public colleges in Texas on demonstrations that may be offensive but are peaceful and conducted within constitutional boundaries.

In March, Texas Governor Greg Abbott directed state institutions "to address the sharp rise in antisemitic speech and acts on university campuses and establish appropriate punishments, including expulsion from the institution." That impermissibly targets speech protected by the First Amendment.

A better take is found in the Chicago Principles developed in 2014 at the University of Chicago and adopted elsewhere with varying degrees of consistency. The principles embrace freedom of expression and state that "it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive," but also that "the University may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University."

In response to recent protests at the University of Chicago, within hours administrators reaffirmed the school's commitment to free expression. They also reminded participants that the encampment "clearly violates policies" and reserved the right to take "disciplinary action" over disruptions of campus life.

In FIRE's free speech rankings of 248 universities, the University of Chicago ranks "above average" at 13, while Columbia is "below average" at 214.

Self-Inflicted Wounds

Columbia's low score represents not wholesale suppression of all expression, but years of selective tolerance of some points of view and crackdowns on others. That's been a feature of life at many Ivy League and other elite institutions, where those with the "right" ideas have grown accustomed to doing what they please while muzzling opponents. That likely contributed to the current unfortunate moment of confusion over where boundaries lie, if anywhere.

For those concerned over the need to tolerate vile speech, even within limits, it is worth knowing that trumpeting offensiveness to the world may carry its own penalty.

"33% of those making hiring decisions said they are less likely to hire Ivy League graduates today than five years ago," Forbes's Emma Whitford reports of a survey of employers intended to measure the impact of campus chaos. "Only 7% said they were more likely to hire them."

We all have a right to voice our views—peacefully. But we can't make people like them.

The post For Peaceful Campus Protests, Colleges Need Free Speech Principles appeared first on Reason.com.

If you're looking for further evidence that the world is recovering from the disruptions of pandemic policy, the Simon Abundance Index provides just that. After a brief retreat, the index once again portrays a world of cheaper commodities that contribute to human prosperity. Born from a famous 1980 bet between economist Julian Simon and doomsayer Paul Ehrlich, the index stands as testimony for Simon's belief that the greatest resource is human ingenuity—although government intervention is perfectly capable of screwing up a good thing.

"After a sharp downturn between 2021 and 2022, which was caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, government lockdowns and accompanying monetary expansion, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the SAI is making a strong recovery," according to Marian L. Tupy of the Cato Institute. "Since 1980, resource abundance has been increasing at a much faster rate than population."

A Contrast to the Fears of Doomsayers

The index was born in the days of worries over population growth and the strain more people would place on the world's resources. The Limits to Growth, published by the Club of Rome in 1972, famously predicted that nonrenewable natural resources including copper and aluminum would start running out in a matter of years, hiking prices and curtailing availability. "Population growth and the law of increasing costs could rapidly drive the system to the point where all available resources were devoted to producing food," insisted the authors.

"In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now," warned Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb (1968).

Policymakers took the doomsayers' warnings seriously. China implemented a one-child policy that was coercively enforced and hobbles the country to this day, even after its repeal. Governments from India to Mexico imposed forced sterilization policies.

"'The Population Bomb' made dire predictions—and triggered a wave of repression around the world," Charles Mann noted in 2018 for Smithsonian magazine.

Innovation Is the Greatest Resource

Simon initially agreed with Ehrlich and friends that population was a problem. But he researched the issue and dramatically changed his mind on the relationship between people and prosperity.

"Humankind has evolved into creators and problem-solvers to an extent that people's constructive behavior has outweighed their destructive behavior, as evidenced by our increasing life expectancy and richness of consumption," Simon wrote in 1984 for Reason. "And in recent centuries and decades, this positive net balance has been increasing rather than decreasing."

That's because, he continued, "humankind has evolved culturally (and perhaps also genetically) in such a manner that our patterns of behavior—social rules and customs being a crucial part of these patterns—predispose us to deal successfully with resource scarcity. That is, over the centuries, these evolved patterns have given us greater rather than less command over resources."

Gambling on Abundance

The result of his changed views was a challenge issued to and accepted by Paul Ehrlich. In October 1980, they drew up a futures contract by which Simon agreed to sell Ehrlich, in 1990, the same quantities that could be purchased for $1,000 in 1980 of five metals: copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten. If the combined value was above $1,000 at the end of the bet, Simon would pay the difference. If it was below $1,000, Ehrlich would make up the difference to Simon. In October 1990, Ehrlich mailed Simon a check; the price of the metals, which were selected by Ehrlich, had fallen by more than a third after inflation.

Of course, resource prices and innovation evolve naturally, not in straight lines. Different time periods might have produced different results for that bet. But Simon's main contention—that humans tend to innovate their way around resource constraints—continues to hold, as documented by the Simon Abundance Index, which tracks the availability and cost of many more commodities than the five included in the original 1980 bet.

"The Simon Abundance Index (SAI) quantifies and measures the relationship between resources and population," notes the 2024 edition of the index. "The SAI converts the relative abundance of 50 basic commodities and the global population into a single value. The index started in 1980 with a base value of 100. In 2023, the SAI stood at 609.4, indicating that resources have become 509.4 percent more abundant over the past 43 years. All 50 commodities were more abundant in 2023 than in 1980."

Policy-Driven Backsliding

Growth in abundance is occasionally interrupted. There was major backsliding (increased commodity costs) during the Great Recession, which was largely caused by federal efforts to encourage mortgage issuance no matter what, and in response to the economic disruptions of pandemic lockdowns. Tracked commodities are 509.4 percent more abundant now than in 1980, but they were 518.98 percent more abundant in 2019, before any of us had heard of COVID-19 or suffered a stay-at-home order.

As it turns out, even the blessings of human innovation can be kneecapped by the mandates and intrusions of government officials. It should come as no surprise that the brief retreat in resource abundance coincides with an interruption of the decades-long global march away from crushing poverty and towards prosperity. More people lived below the poverty line in 2022 (712 million) than in 2019 (689 million), even as "resource abundance fell by 3.55 percent in 2022."

But we appear to have turned the corner, with abundance once again increasing. "For the time required to earn the money to buy one unit of this commodity basket in 1980, you would get 3.38 units in 2023," according to index authors Tupy and Gale Pooley of Brigham Young University-Hawaii. And contrary to the doomsayers, that happened as the human population increased from 4.4 billion to more than 8 billion. That represents improved access to everything from food to energy, with lamb increasing in abundance by a whopping 675.1 percent since 1980 (the most in the basket of commodities), while coal became 30.7 percent more abundant (the least improvement over that time).

A world of greater abundance in resources means a world in which people are better nourished, better clothed, warmer in the winter, cooler in the summer, and more prosperous. It's a world in which human ingenuity is set free to make the human race happier, healthier, and wealthier.

Well, it's a world of abundance and prosperity unless politicians screw it up. Again.

The post Julian Simon Was Right: Ingenuity Leads to Abundance appeared first on Reason.com.

At press time, the U.S. Senate is debating whether to not only renew the U.S. government's spying powers under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) but dramatically expand them. That's because the House, in reauthorizing the expiring powers last week after an extended battle, adopted language that broadens the definition of those who can be forced to help the government snoop. That leaves the Senate as the last check on already controversial legislation that just became more dangerous before it's signed by a president eager to exercise its power.

Unchecked Surveillance Authority

"The legislation coming from the House gives the government unchecked authority to order millions of Americans to spy on behalf of the government," warns Sen. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.). "Under current law—section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act—the government can order the telephone companies and email and internet service providers to hand over communications. This bill expands that power dramatically. It says that the government can force cooperation from, quote, 'any other service provider who has access to equipment that is being or may be used to transmit or store wire or electronic communications.'"

The problem, point out privacy advocates, is that even before the House of Representatives debated the provisions of the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISAA)—rejecting (on a tie vote) a requirement that government agents get a warrant before searching records about Americans, and ultimately settling on a two-year renewal of surveillance powers—members of the House Intelligence Committee inserted new and troubling language.

Their intention, according to Charlie Savage of The New York Times, was to clarify that cloud-computing data centers must cooperate with government spooks. But that's not what they confined themselves to in their changes to the text. As Wyden emphasizes, the bill now broadly applies to service providers with access to communication equipment. After much protest, exceptions were written in for hotels, restaurants, dwellings, and community centers. But everybody else is subject to the law.

Everyone Is a Spy

"An enormous range of businesses would still be fair game," protests a coalition of privacy, civil liberties, and civil rights groups in a letter to Senate leadership from both parties, "including grocery stores, department stores, hardware stores, laundromats, barber shops, fitness centers, and—perhaps most disturbingly—commercial landlords that rent out the office space where tens of millions of Americans go to work every day, including news media headquarters, political campaign offices, advocacy and grassroots organizations, lobbying firms, and law offices."

The coalition, which includes groups of widely varying political views, refers to this language as the "Everyone Is a Spy" provision, since potentially anybody with access to a laptop or WiFi router could be compelled to help the government conduct surveillance. Given how broadly the word access can be defined, that might even include cable installers, repairmen, and house cleaners.

"If this became law, millions of American small business owners would have a legal obligation to hand over data that runs through their equipment," caution former Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R–Va.) and former Sen. Mark Udall (D–Colo.), both now with the Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability. "And when they're done with doing their part in mass surveillance, these small businesses would then be placed under a gag order to hide their activities from their customers."

RISAA's Section 702 reauthorization is pending in the Senate, though the White House is pushing lawmakers "to swiftly pass this bill before the authority expires on April 19," so abuses of the new language are hypothetical. But it's a fact that the law's existing surveillance power, without the broadened scope of the "Everyone Is a Spy" provision, has already been misused against a great many Americans.

Surveillance Abuse Under Existing Law

In 2023, the House Judiciary Committee held two hearings to examine "the FBI's abuses of its Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorities." Declassified documents offered glimpses of misuses of surveillance power including FBI spying on a U.S. senator, a state lawmaker, and a judge.

"Section 702 poses significant privacy and civil liberties risks, most notably from U.S. person queries and batch queries" in which multiple search terms are run through the system as part of a single action, according to a report published last September by the federal Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB). That report revealed that roughly three million queries on Americans were run just in 2021.

"Significant privacy and civil liberties risks also include the scope of permissible targeting," added the PCLOB review.

If the scope of permissible targeting is already risky, expanding the law's language to compel cooperation from "any other service provider who has access to equipment that is being or may be used to transmit or store wire or electronic communications" would seem to dramatically compound the risks.

Government Itself Is a Threat

"No democracy should give its government the Orwellian power contained in the House bill," cautions Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law. "The Senate must take the time it needs to get this right, or our democracy will pay the price."

Fortunately, Ron Wyden isn't the Senate's only skeptic when it comes to Section 702 and domestic surveillance. Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) opposed extending the law even before its language was broadened to include the "Everyone Is a Spy" provision.

"Using 702, Americans' communications content and metadata is inevitably swept up and kept in government databases without a warrant. Law enforcement agencies then access Americans' communications without a warrant," Paul warned in December. "Those who make the lazy and predictable argument that government is your only shield from threats always fail to mention that government itself often is the threat."

Civil libertarians were right about the dangers of Section 702 before it was amended to apply to landlords and cable installers. Last year's House hearings demonstrated that the law's power has already been abused by government officials. There's no reason to believe they'll be more restrained in their snooping when the law is less so.

The post Revised Section 702 Surveillance Authority Poses More Danger Than Ever appeared first on Reason.com.

A Russian defector is assassinated in Spain. The Chinese government offers bounties for dissidents who take refuge in foreign countries. The Canadian government fingers Indian officials for murdering a Sikh activist in British Columbia. What do these incidents have in common? They represent acts of "transnational repression," a form of authoritarianism that reaches across national frontiers and has becoming disturbingly common in recent years.

Repression Without Borders

"More than 20 percent of the world's national governments have reached beyond their borders since 2014 to forcibly silence exiled political activists, journalists, former regime insiders, and members of ethnic or religious minorities," finds a Freedom House report released in February. "According to the new data, 25 countries' governments were responsible for 125 incidents of physical transnational repression in 2023 alone, including assassinations, abductions, assaults, detentions, and unlawful deportations."

Last year enjoyed the dubious distinction, the report adds, of featuring the first documented cases of transnational repression by Cuba, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, El Salvador, Myanmar, Sierra Leone, and Yemen. Well, it's only fair that every regime gets an opportunity to terrorize a critic or political opponent in another country, instead of leaving all the fun to the year's main culprits: Russia, Cambodia, Myanmar, Turkmenistan, and China.

A Busy Year for International Thugs

Along those lines, recent weeks saw the assassination of Maksim Kuzminov, the Russian helicopter pilot who defected to Ukraine in 2023 in protest of his country's invasion of that nation. Russian media reported that military intelligence issued a kill order for Kuzminov, which, it seems, was carried out.

"Kuzminov, who was reportedly living in Spain under a false identity, was found dead in the Spanish town of Villajoyosa, near Alicante, on Feb. 13. Police said attackers shot the former pilot six times before running him over with a car," reports Politico. "Sources in Spanish intelligence services…believe Moscow hired hitmen from outside Spain to carry out the assassination."

China's overseas efforts are broader and more overt in their efforts to target dissidents.

"Fox Hunt is a sweeping bid by General Secretary Xi to target Chinese nationals whom he sees as threats and who live outside China, across the world," FBI Director Christopher Wray charged in a 2020 speech. "Hundreds of the Fox Hunt victims that they target live right here in the United States, and many are American citizens or green card holders."

Chinese officials threaten dissidents' family members who remain in China, but also pressure those overseas through "police stations" covertly established in foreign countries and intended to convey the impression that the regime reaches everywhere. U.S. officials busted one such outpost in New York City last spring.

China's government has a fixation on veterans of Hong Kong's democracy movement, offering bounties of $1 million H.K. ($127,730 U.S.) in December for assistance with the capture of dissidents who sought overseas refuge.

India's government, for its part, stands accused by Canadian officials of orchestrating the June killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. Accused of terrorism by India in pursuit of a Sikh homeland, Nijjar had a bounty on his head and was shot dead outside a temple in British Columbia.

Just months later, U.S. officials claimed to have thwarted a similar attempt on American soil against Sikh separatist leader Gurpatwant Singh Pannun.

Last year was a busy year for international thugs and assassins, it appears. But if we go back just a bit further, we find other incidents, such as the gruesome 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi Arabian agents in Istanbul, or the botched but lethal attack the same year on Sergei Skripal in the U.K. by Russian agents using the Novichok nerve poison (one of the Putin regime's favorite calling cards). There is a frightening abundance of examples from which to choose.

"Between 2014 and 2023, Freedom House has recorded a total of 1,034 direct, physical incidents of transnational repression committed by 44 origin-country governments in 100 target countries," observes Freedom House. "The governments of China, Turkey, Tajikistan, Russia, and Egypt rank as the most prolific perpetrators of transnational repression overall since 2014. China's regime on its own accounts for 25 percent of all documented incidents of transnational repression."

Bad Examples Encourage Bad Behavior

Part of the problem, unmentioned by Freedom House, is that relatively free democratic governments can compound the problem with their own misbehavior. While Canada, the U.S., and their allies aren't known for poisoning overseas dissidents (at least, not as a matter of course that they want publicized), they do sometimes bend laws to target inconvenient people in other countries. The U.S. federal government, aided by its British allies, has tormented journalist Julian Assange for years with arrest and extradition efforts over what Amnesty International describes as "politically motivated charges" under the Espionage Act. His "crimes," points out the Freedom of the Press Foundation, are "things journalists at news outlets around the country do every day."

That sets a precedent on which authoritarian government can seize.

"National security laws of other countries, including the US and the UK, also have extraterritorial effect," sniffed China's Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Mao Ning when challenged on arrest warrants and bounties for Hong King dissidents residing in other countries. The scope of China's actions extend way beyond those of any western government in reach and severity, but she had a point.

"It's clear that governments are not being deterred from violating sovereignty and targeting dissidents living abroad," commented Freedom House's Yana Gorokhovskaia of events documented in the recent publication. "Democracies must ensure that the perpetrators of these brutal acts face real consequences. Otherwise, the use of transnational repression is likely to spread."

That's true. But if officials in relatively free countries are serious about deterring overtly authoritarian regimes from spying on, blackmailing, assaulting, kidnapping, and killing people who've taken refuge across national borders, they have to refrain from anything that even slightly resembles such behavior themselves. The end of transnational repression begins at home.

The post Report Finds Rise in Governments Targeting Dissidents Overseas appeared first on Reason.com.

Should data scientists be in the business of fingering Americans for crimes they could commit, someday? Last month, a group of federal lawmakers asked the Department of Justice to stop funding such programs—at least until safeguards can be built in. It's just the latest battle over a controversial field of law enforcement that seeks to peer into the future to fight crime.

"We write to urge you to halt all Department of Justice (DOJ) grants for predictive policing systems until the DOJ can ensure that grant recipients will not use such systems in ways that have a discriminatory impact," reads a January letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland from U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.) and Rep. Yvette Clarke (D–N.Y.), joined by Senators Jeff Merkley (D–Ore.), Alex Padilla, (D–Calif.), Peter Welch (D–Vt.), John Fetterman, (D–Penn.), and Ed Markey (D–Mass.). "Mounting evidence indicates that predictive policing technologies do not reduce crime. Instead, they worsen the unequal treatment of Americans of color by law enforcement."

The letter emphasizes worries about racial discrimination, but it also raises concerns about accuracy and civil liberties that, since day one, have dogged schemes to address crimes that haven't yet occurred.

Fingering Criminals-To-Be

Criminal justice theorists have long dreamed of stopping crimes before they happen. Crimes prevented mean no victims, costs, or perpetrators to punish. That's led to proposals for welfare and education programs intended to deter kids from becoming predators. It's also inspired "predictive policing" efforts that assume crunching numbers can tell you who is prone to prey on others. It's an intriguing idea, if you ignore the dangers of targeting people for what they might do in the future.

"For years, businesses have used data analysis to anticipate market conditions or industry trends and drive sales strategies," Beth Pearsall wrote in the Department of Justice's NIJ Journal in 2010. "Police can use a similar data analysis to help make their work more efficient. The idea is being called 'predictive policing,' and some in the field believe it has the potential to transform law enforcement by enabling police to anticipate and prevent crime instead of simply responding to it."

Interesting. But marketers targeting neighborhoods for home warranty pitches only annoy people when they're wrong; policing efforts have much higher stakes when they're flawed or malicious.

"The accuracy of predictive policing programs depends on the accuracy of the information they are fed," Reason's Ronald Bailey noted in 2012. "We should always keep in mind that any new technology that helps the police to better protect citizens can also be used to better oppress them."

Predictive Policing in (Bad) Action

People worried about the dangers of predictive policing often reference the 2002 movie Minority Report, in which a science-fiction take on the practice is abused to implicate innocent people. Recent years, though, have delivered real-life cautionary tales about misusing data science to torment people for crimes they haven't committed.

"First the Sheriff's Office generates lists of people it considers likely to break the law, based on arrest histories, unspecified intelligence and arbitrary decisions by police analysts," the Tampa Bay Times reported in 2020 of Pasco County, Florida's predictive policing program. "Then it sends deputies to find and interrogate anyone whose name appears, often without probable cause, a search warrant or evidence of a specific crime."

In practice, as a former deputy described the program's treatment of those it targeted: "Make their lives miserable until they move or sue."

Sue they did, with many plaintiffs represented by the Institute for Justice. Last year, with legal costs mounting, the sheriff's office claimed in court documents that it discontinued predictive policing efforts.

Garbage In, Garbage Out

A big problem with predictive policing is that it relies heavily on honesty and dispassion in people who create algorithms and enter data. As recent arguments over biases in internet search results and artificial intelligence reveal, the results that come out of a data-driven system are only as good as what goes in.

"One foundational problem with data-driven policing is that it treats information as neutral, ignoring how it can reflect over-policing and historical redlining," the Brennan Center for Justice's Ángel Díaz wrote in 2021. He added that tech vendors dealing with the NYPD's predictive policing program "proposed relying on data such as educational attainment, the availability of public transportation, and the number of health facilities and liquor licenses in a given neighborhood to predict areas of the city where crime was likely to occur."

Are those real predictors of criminal activity? Maybe. Or maybe they're excuses for making people's lives miserable until they move or sue, as happened in Pasco County.

Forecasts Fueled by the Feds

As with so many big ideas with scary potential, impetus for development and implementation comes from government funding and encouragement.

"The National Institute of Justice, the DOJ's research, development and evaluation arm, regularly provides seed money for grants and pilot projects to test out ideas like predictive policing," American University law professor Andrew Guthrie Ferguson commented earlier this month. "It was a National Institute of Justice grant that funded the first predictive policing conference in 2009 that launched the idea that past crime data could be run through an algorithm to predict future criminal risk."

Of course, it's not bad to seek innovation and to look for new tools that could make the public safer. But hopefully, those funding such research want it to make the world a better place, not worse. And when lawmakers asked the Justice Department in 2022 for some documentation on predictive policing, officials admitted they didn't really know how money was being spent, let alone its impact.

"It remains an unanswered [question], for example, to what degree such tools are, or ever have ever been, assessed for compliance with civil rights law," Gizmodo's Dell Cameron wrote at the time.

Hence the letter from Wyden and company. After years of haphazard funding and development, warnings from civil libertarians, and abuses by police, some lawmakers want the federal government to stop funding predictive policing efforts until due diligence is done and safeguards are in place.

You have to wonder if predictive policing programs predicted the field's own current troubles.

The post Lawmakers Want Pause on Federal Funds for Predictive Policing appeared first on Reason.com.

It's quite a turn when a prosecutor defends the use of cash for financial transactions. After years of authorities treating mere possession of physical money as sketchy and grounds for seizure, this week a law enforcement official claimed there's nothing to see in her alleged cash reimbursements to her boyfriend for an enviable lifestyle arguably funded by the taxpayers. Either Fani Willis and company were right in the past and she should be subject to scrutiny for anonymous transactions, or she's right today and she and her colleagues owe the rest of us a pass on our taste for financial anonymity.

If you haven't kept up on the details, Fani Willis is the Fulton County district attorney overseeing the Georgia election interference case, which has been described as potentially the strongest and most consequential case against former (and maybe future) president Donald Trump. At least, it was described that way until defense attorneys revealed that Nathan Wade, a special prosecutor in the case, is unqualified for the job, was romantically involved with Willis, and is being paid much more than any of his colleagues (around $654,000 in all)—money from which Willis seemingly benefited in the form of expensive vacations and other pleasures of life with Wade.

She Reimbursed Everything in Cash. Of Course.

Well, she benefited unless she reimbursed Wade for her share. Whether or not she did is among the issues raised in a hearing investigating her alleged misconduct in the case.

"I didn't ever make him produce receipts to me," Willis said in response to questions about the couple's significant expenses. "Whatever he told me it was, I gave him the money back."

"You gave him cash before you ever went on the trip?" she was asked to clarify about one vacation.

"Mmm-hmm," Willis replied.

But she not only had no receipts, she also had no ATM slips or evidence the cash existed. It supposedly came from a substantial stash she kept at home on her father's urging.

Dad's Advice and 'Printed Freedom'

"I was trained, and most Black folks, they hide cash or they keep cash, and I was trained you always keep some cash," her father, John Floyd, confirmed. "I gave my daughter her first cash box and told her, 'Always keep some cash.'"

That's great advice. Cash is essential in emergencies, useful when electronic payments systems are down, and (importantly for this case) it's private and anonymous. When central-bank types floated the idea of abolishing physical money in favor of digital currency a decade ago, prominent German economist Lars Feld retorted that cash is "printed freedom" which helps people escape state control.

But that anonymity, which Fani Willis cited as the reason she had no evidence that she'd compensated Wade for his expenses, is exactly why government officials so despise its use by mere mortals.

Governments Hate Cash

"It just was not credible," CNN legal analyst Michael Moore, a former United States Attorney, commented of Willis's testimony about "things as nebulous as cash payments so there's no way to track it." He added: "It reminded me of watching a criminal defendant take the stand."

Cash is increasingly assumed by officialdom to be nefarious in and of itself.

"Cash can play a role in criminal activities such as money laundering and allow for tax evasion," notes Investopedia. "Since 2016, global policies have been implemented to thwart the use of cash in favor of digital currency transactions."

The mere presence of physical money triggers official suspicion and the urge to confiscate.

"It's the presence of paper legal tender—U.S. currency—that underlies nearly all of the thousands of police interactions we reviewed," The Greenville News reported in a 2020 story on civil asset forfeiture, under which money and valuables are seized, often with no charges brought against their owners.

Like Fani Willis, CNN's Moore is from Georgia and served there at both the state and federal level, so his attitude is illuminating. Georgia gets a D- grade from the Institute for Justice (I.J.) for its forfeiture laws.

"Across 15 states for which we have reliable property data for 2018,38 currency—primarily cash—predominates, accounting for an average of nearly 70% of forfeited property," I.J. revealed in the 2020 report, Policing for Profit. Georgia was among those states and "between 2015 and 2018, Georgia law enforcement agencies forfeited more than $51 million under state law. Between 2000 and 2019, they generated an additional $388 million from federal equitable sharing, for a total of at least $439 million in forfeiture revenue."

The 2023 budget for Fani Willis's Fulton County government includes Fund 442, Federal Equitable Sharing, for "proceeds of liquidated seized assets from asset forfeitures."

Willis may have taken her father's excellent advice about keeping cash on-hand. But her office is among those putting the screws to members of the public who abide by similar counsel and rely on physical money for its utility and anonymity. To keep large amounts of cash in Fulton County, Georgia, is to risk its seizure by the authorities. Yet Willis (assuming we believe her) does much business in cash.

If Prosecutors Get To Benefit, So Do We

So, which is it? Was the Fani Willis of the past, along with most of her profession, correct in considering cash to be inherently sketchy and evidence of some sort of criminal activity? If so, the court should view her claims of cash transactions as suspicious in themselves, just as she would treat regular people.

Or is the Fani Willis of last week correct that using cash is just good sense and evidence of homey wisdom handed down through the family? If that's the case, her office should have been treating people with the same light touch she hopes to receive.

The powers-that-be should abide by the same policies they inflict on the rest of us. If they want the freedom and privacy inherent in using cash, they can't keep it as a private privilege; we all get to benefit.

My sentiments are with John Floyd and Lars Feld on this. Cash is freedom and we should always keep some on hand. If that applies to Fani Willis, it must apply to everybody.

The post Prosecutor Fani Willis Touts the Value of Cash, but What About the Rest of Us? appeared first on Reason.com.