The 404 Media Podcast (Premium Feed)

Joseph: 00:03

Hello, and welcome to the four zero four Media Podcast where we bring you unparalleled access to hidden worlds both online and IRL. Four zero four Media is a journalist founded company and needs your support. To subscribe, go to 404media.co. As well as bonus content every single week, subscribers also get access to additional episodes where we respond to their best comments. Gain access to that content at 404media.co.

Joseph: 00:29

I'm your host, Joseph. And with me are the other four zero four media cofounders, the first being Sam Cole Hey. Emmanuel Bayberg

Emanuel: 00:38

Hey. What's

Joseph: 00:39

up? And Jason Kebler.

Jason: 00:40

Hello. Hello.

Joseph: 00:42

Jason, you wanted to talk about zines.

Jason: 00:45

Yeah. So at long, long, long last, we have all the zines printed. I immediately after recording this, I'm going to go mail them. It's going to take many, many hours. We've got some help.

Jason: 01:01

We're gonna have a mailing session. So a few people have asked, hey. Where's my zine? The answer now is in the mail. If you so a couple things.

Jason: 01:12

One, I'm gonna have some extras. So they've been sold out for a while. We will put more on our Shopify in the next day or two if you are interested in it. Again, the Zine is about our reporting on ICE's surveillance apparatus, so very timely at the moment. Also, for subscribers, we'll have a PDF of the zine on this site, and we're also trying to figure out how to sort of like make it more widely available.

Jason: 01:44

I think we'll probably do like a pay what you want, and it's okay if that's free just because like the it's such an important topic, but we're gonna get that up probably later this week. And I I actually don't have the URL right now. We'll put it in the show notes what the URL will be for that. But, basically, Zine is done. It's gonna be on the Internet very soon.

Jason: 02:08

And if you bought one, it's in the mail. So thank you for to everyone who ordered. If you didn't get one, there's probably gonna be about a 100 more that are going up on our Shopify in the next day or two. This is your announcement. So thank you so much.

Jason: 02:25

Check it out.

Joseph: 02:26

So DDoS our site by refreshing the Shopify. Actually, it wouldn't even be our site. It would be the Shopify, so we're gonna be fine. You know, if you keep spamming refresh to get the the zine, you'll be fine with that. Let's get to this week's stories.

Joseph: 02:41

The first one, written by Sam, and I think Emmanuel worked on it as well. Aliens and angel numbers, creators worry, porn platform, many vids is falling into, quote, AI psychosis, end quote. Sam, let's start with simply what is this platform. I'm not sure if everybody will have heard of it. I'm sure some listeners have, but probably not everybody.

Joseph: 03:08

What is ManyVids exactly?

Sam: 03:11

Yeah. So I think most commonly people refer to Manyvids as a competitor to OnlyFans. So you can buy subscriptions to different creators. You can buy custom videos. You can watch, like, live cam shows, stuff like that.

Sam: 03:31

So it's a porn platform essentially, but it's more for, like, independent creators.

Joseph: 03:38

So And it's

Sam: 03:39

been around since 2014. Sorry. That's important context because it's been around for a really long time.

Joseph: 03:43

Oh, I see. So it's been around way longer than OnlyFans. Yeah. Well, okay. So the CEO and the founder, Bella French, what do sort of what's their background, and what do they usually post about online?

Joseph: 03:59

I'm sure listeners can tell where I'm getting to, which is the stuff in the headline, but what what was her background, and what does she usually post about?

Sam: 04:08

Yeah. So Bella is a former sex worker herself. She's been very open over the years about that being the reason why she started ManyVids. She wanted to create a platform that was good for online sex workers and content creators. She had been on, you know, like, can platforms and things like that herself.

Sam: 04:31

So she was like, I can do it better. I can do it more with, like, the interests of creators in mind. And that's been the position that she's had since the beginning, basically. And many Since 2014? Pretty much.

Sam: 04:44

Yeah. It's like she launched it very publicly. Like, I am formerly a creator in this world. I want to create a platform that's, like, beneficial to other creators. So that's that's also kinda been, like, the I mean, it's it's a marketing strategy.

Sam: 05:04

Right? Like, it's like, come to my platform and use my platform because I understand you, and I understand the adult content creators' needs. So and, you know, as as a former cam cam model, I can do this in a way that, like, the big you know, like, even, like, it was pre OnlyFans, but even, like, the big platforms are doing it. So that's been the pitch for many years. A lot of people are, like, hot and cold on many vids who use it.

Sam: 05:36

It's definitely it takes a big cut. It takes a bigger cut than a lot of other platforms on different types of content. It's pretty flawed in a lot of, like, UI type of ways, but a lot of people use it. It's got, you know, like, millions of, like, combined users and creators. So it's incredibly popular.

Sam: 05:57

Yeah. It's that's that's her background as far as, like, where she's coming from. She's always been about, I want to make a better, more profitable experience for the people that I'm serving, which are the creators on the platform first and foremost versus, like, you know, I wanna make a bunch of free tube sites for guys. It was like, you know, I I believe in sex workers, I want them to succeed. So it's been her thing.

Joseph: 06:27

So I'm I'm just curious before we get more to the news. You say it became very popular. It has millions of users and creators combined. Do you think it became popular because of that sort of marketing pitch and position? Right?

Joseph: 06:44

You know, I think there's this is a sincere position as well. Do you think it was that or the fact it came before OnlyFans or a bit of both? Like, why do you think it actually got successful? Because also it seems like sometimes the product can be a bit faulty, as you say, the UI and that sort of thing.

Sam: 07:02

Yeah. I mean, I think that that has been a big part of it. It is, like, a good platform. Like, most people who are on it are like, yeah. This is a platform that I use, like, in conjunction with a bunch of other platforms, which is usually how adult creators operate.

Sam: 07:16

It's like they're diversifying their revenue through, like, being on OnlyFans, selling custom content on ManyVids, doing, like, sexting shifts on Sex Panther. It's like different platforms do different things for people, so and you might find your niche here. You might find your niche there for different things. So I think that's that's been a big part of it. I would say definitely that's that pitch and especially just, like, so many people being on ManyVids and using it as a huge part of the revenue stream is why the site is as big as it is today, which is the case for, like, so many so many different platforms.

Sam: 07:54

OnlyFans, Pornhub, all these other platforms that, you know, host adult content are relying on the creators. It's like they can't actually make any money or be profitable without the people making the content. So it's kind of like, you know, a cycle effect. But, yeah, for sure. That's a good question.

Sam: 08:12

I mean, I think it's definitely a big part of it that she's been like, yeah, I'm here with you. I'm in it with you. I want your your needs to be heard.

Joseph: 08:21

Sure. So she's been posting like that for a long time, running the site, then something changed recently or rather I will say people believed something changed and they started to notice a shift. When was that, and what exactly am I referring to? Like, what was this shift that people perceived?

Sam: 08:46

Yeah. So around August, as far as I can tell, just kinda going back through Twitter posts and the news post, which the site itself has, a news feed that acts like Twitter, basically, or, like, acts. But around August, September, August, it started to look a little different. It was a lot more, like, engagement farming, like influencer bait type stuff. Like, they would reply to other, like, prompts on x and be like, our purpose is to protect feminine energy, to return the balance, and was posting, like, bullet point lists about, like, the boldness scale and how everything and all the leadership is connected.

Sam: 09:31

And it got, like, woo woo. You know? It got really, like, pseudo spiritual business guru type stuff. And it stopped being consistently, like, here's a new creator on the platform who's doing really well. Everybody check her out.

Sam: 09:49

It's then turns into, like, here's a flowchart that's hand drawn showing, like, a new safe for work model that we're gonna do next to bullet points written by ChatGPT about, like, member verification flows without a lot of context. And that's the thing is, like, these aren't, like, formulated thoughts or, like, statements from the company. They're just kinda, like, weird, not even the level of, like, LinkedIn lunatic posts, like, weirder than that. Like, talking about, like, social API for the AI age phase one pride engine. It's like if I read all this stuff out loud, it would sound absolutely insane.

Sam: 10:32

It's like talking about high universal income engines, the distribution hub of the new economy. And it's doing a lot of the the the parallels that chatbots, especially ChatGPT does. So they'll say, this is not a charity. This is the pride engine. It's like, this is not this.

Sam: 10:51

It's that. We're not doing this. We believe in that.

Joseph: 10:54

So so that's why that's why people think these posts are generated by ChatGPT or or AI more broadly because because of those characteristics? Or

Sam: 11:05

Yeah. I mean, it's it's that. It's just like when things are really, like, titles are randomly bolded, there's a lot of, like, bullet point emojis. There's a lot of, like, really choppy text that's, like, I don't know, kind of, like, chopping up one paragraph into, like, a list. And then you also have AI generated images and videos as parts of those posts.

Sam: 11:28

So it would be just, like, videos of, like, an alien ship coming through a window next to a post about, like, the aliens asked why it took us so long to get here. And then you also have just, like, screenshots of literal ChatGPT.

Joseph: 11:43

Oh,

Sam: 11:43

okay. Which is, like, a big hint that it's it's all inspired by ChatGPT. Obviously, we don't know for sure. I asked I mean, you know this, but I've asked many vids many times. Who's who's joining the post and also if they're AI generated, and then they send me back more of the same, more very

Joseph: 12:01

More of the woo woo. Stuff.

Sam: 12:05

So, yeah, again, it's like I wanna be careful about, like, calling it definitely AI because we don't definitely know that it is. But, like, the the videos definitely are. The images that are going along with the post definitely are. And it's it's all kinda lines up to a lot of what we see just with different people who are really into AI chatbots kinda fall into a different kind of, like, pattern in this way.

Joseph: 12:31

Yeah. A different pattern of posting of what they're saying, all of that sort of thing. I'll come back and ask you about how creators are reacting in a second. But Emmanuel, I think he works on this as well. What did you find and sort of what did you think of it as you were looking into it?

Emanuel: 12:52

So we've been looking at this for a while. I think initially, Sam told me that some sources who use minivids flagged it to her and we looked at it and it was definitely weird at the time, but we kind of put it on the back burner and honestly, we're a little unsure about how to cover it. But then, in the last couple of weeks, some more creators reached out and some of them reached out to me and told me about it. And I think ultimately, the thing that made us want to cover it is that these type of well, let me I should state again, just so we're very clear about this, we don't have like full insight into Bella French or whoever else is like operating these accounts, we're not psychologists, but our sources defined or described post as exhibiting what we now call AI psychosis, and a lot of people, as we mentioned before, reach out to us with similar delusions, and there's definitely a lot of parallels between like the content of the post and and other behavior like that that we've seen. And all of that, you know, has already been in the news and we've all seen various forms of it.

Emanuel: 14:20

I can't think of another example where a platform that people rely on for their income just spoke in its, like, official capacity about this stuff in this manner. It's like, one day, you look at your phone and, like, Stripe, you know what I mean, starts posting about

Joseph: 14:45

Right.

Emanuel: 14:45

Like, spirit gods and the future of humanity, and you're like, oh my god, like, our entire our entire income relies on this platform and it's

Joseph: 14:54

The like CEO of YouTube or something.

Emanuel: 14:56

Right. And it's like, who who who's at the wheel right now? So I think they're very it's like a very fair concern to raise and to report on. And unfortunately, I guess I wasn't sure what to expect, but the response hasn't been super encouraging. I think it's possible that there is a separation between the business side and the technical side and whoever is doing the public facing social side.

Emanuel: 15:24

And I hope that that is the case because the platform is still functional, but us reaching out and making it a story and asking for official comment and getting official comment back, none of that was encouraging.

Joseph: 15:38

Can you elaborate just a tiny bit? I know this isn't in the article, so you may only wanna say a little bit, but what do you mean by the response not being encouraging? Just that any response you got was sort of more of the same sort of posting? Is that what you mean, Emmanuel?

Emanuel: 15:56

Or Yeah. I mean, Sam could probably because Sam did the the communication with with many of its, but it's like, I guess what I was imagining that there is a scenario where we reach out, we highlight all these posts, we say that creators are worried and somebody else steps in and says, uh-oh, like, we didn't realize that this is the impression that we were given, we were giving users and that they they even knew that this was what was going on and they and they step in and say, oops, Or like, hey, this is just like something that we post about, but like, the business is very safe and like, don't worry about it. It's like, it wasn't like that. It was more like, you know what I mean? Stay tuned for more spiritual awakenings that we will will bring to you, you know what I mean?

Emanuel: 16:43

Perhaps on the Lex Friedman podcast or the Joe Rogan podcast, you know, it's like, that is like officially where we're still waiting for the ultimate comment is, I guess, Bella. It's Bella, right, Sam? Who says that she the only way to properly respond to this is a three hour podcast, which she suggests either Joe Rogan or Lex Friedman, another popular podcaster, should host. And I would I mean, by all means, it's like it's a heavy, complicated subject worthy of discussion, but I don't I don't think I don't think Joan Rogen is gonna have her on, you know.

Sam: 17:18

Well, I mean, like, I think I could see a world where they would, and it's like, it's not a a good one because just to give more context to why this is all, like, freaking people out. It's not just like, oh, this item on posts weird. On her personal website, she changed her bio to completely shift her her, like, ideology and worldview of sex work. She sometime between November and now, because November is the last time we have an archive of the site, and it wasn't there then. But at some point recently, in the last couple months or weeks, she changed her bio on her personal website where she says she's, you know, working on ManyVids and she's the CEO and all that, that she wants to transition 1,000,000 people out of the adult industry.

Sam: 18:05

She says she when she started the site, she had two choices, surrender to an exploitative industry or dismantle it. And now she's kind of bleeding a lot of that, like, woo woo stuff into this statement on her site. She says she was guided by first principles and core value thinking. Bella is leading MV's next evolution, a fintech social platform hybrid that turns digital presence into economic creation. Our goal is to transition 1,000,000 people out of the adult industry and do everything we can to ensure no one new enters it.

Sam: 18:38

We are working to transform an industry we don't believe should exist, but recognize that simple elimination creates deeper shadows. So, like, I'm reading that as someone who's a creator, and I'm like I'm like, okay. Well, that's the end of this site. Like, if you're not gonna allow anyone else to enter the sex industry, what's happening with new users on ManyVids? Why is ManyVids now this grand plan, this big scheme where you're gonna dismantle the sex work industry, the sex industry, and believe it's exploitative all of a sudden.

Joseph: 19:14

I mean, it's completely opposite. Yeah.

Sam: 19:16

Right. It's it's the opposite of what she's been saying for years and years and years. And like we said, it's kinda built the trust of users into, like, I am here, and I'm on your side, and I I believe in sex workers and the industry's right to exist. And then she's like, actually, it's exploitative, and I want to dismantle it and transition people out of the industry, which is a talking point that you hear from sex work exclusionary radical feminists who want to ban sex work at large, ban porn at large, and believe that, like, sex workers need to be saved from this vile industry that they've entered. So all of that combined with these very public sort of meltdowns.

Sam: 20:03

I think by the time this podcast comes out for everybody, we'll have published another post that's about, like, the response and the way that they've responded basically by saying, like, yeah, we believe in aliens, like peace sign, like, heart emoji, and the the Lex Friedman and Joe Rogan stuff. It's like, think that we should hash this out on a three hour podcast, and then more AI videos of her as a fireman with, like, lasers shooting out of her eyes. It's just bizarre bizarre behavior from someone who you hope is, like, steering the ship. Again, it's like Emmanuel said. We don't really know who's got the reins at this point, but they're definitely they're hearing the criticisms, and they're laughing.

Joseph: 20:49

Yeah. And someone who holds the livelihood of all of these creators in her hands. And, I mean, you can have the woo woo stuff, and maybe some people would already find that concerning. Obviously, the complete about face, ideologically when it comes to sex work must be probably the most terrifying part to a lot of creators. With that said, what are some of these creators saying?

Joseph: 21:17

Are they going to switch platforms? Are they gonna stick it out? Like, what are they saying?

Sam: 21:21

So I think a lot of people are sticking it out. They're saying, well, we're gonna we have so much invested in this platform, so we're gonna stay and see what happens, but we're not happy about it. A lot of people that I or a few people that I talked to started from that position when I first reached out to them, and I was like, hey. Are you gonna stay? And they said, yeah.

Sam: 21:41

We're gonna see what happens. And then within, like, two days, like, as things just kinda kept getting weirder rapidly, came back and said, actually, I'm gonna start downloading all my stuff off the platform and getting out of there. So quite a few people that we talked to and a lot of people that I've seen just, like, online talking about this are saying we are like, it's not even, a protest thing. It's just, like, I don't feel comfortable having my, like, financial data and my ID and, like, all these things wrapped up in a platform that, like, is losing seeming to lose touch with reality. Yeah.

Sam: 22:21

It's a scary place

Joseph: 22:21

to be.

Sam: 22:22

Yeah. Especially now. It's like, know, our data is being used for all sorts of horrible things. So it's like, it's a big risk that a lot of people are feeling right now to stay, but it's also a big risk to leave because you're leaving so much income on the table financially. I don't know.

Sam: 22:40

I don't really see how this shakes out as, like, good for them reputationally in any way, but I don't know. It's just like this is the thing about online sex work, especially. It's like there are so many platforms out there to choose from, and so many of them are they don't have, like, a lot of the the best interest of the creators at heart and are just trying to scrape some cash off them. So I don't know. It's, an out of the pan into the fire situation for some of these creators.

Sam: 23:05

So I don't know. We'll see if it's, a mass exodus or what that inflection point will be. Right now, I guess we should make clear nothing has, like, changed about the way the site operates that I can tell. I guess if you're a creator and you've seen something change, let me know. But, like, I haven't heard anything major being like, oh, they closed new applications or new submissions because they don't want anybody else in the sex industry.

Sam: 23:29

It's like, it's all operating as usual, but it's, like, kind of waiting and seeing and seeing if the if it actually becomes, like, real instability versus, like, hoping it doesn't.

Joseph: 23:42

Yeah. Last thing. I know we're not saying AI psychosis. This is how sources characterize it to us, but I think it absolutely still brings up the question of, you know, is this something we have to worry about a bit more broadly? I remember a while ago, I feel like we've seen a couple of examples, like, on Twitter, like, people having these seemingly AI induced very public meltdowns.

Joseph: 24:11

Right? And just what do you think of that? Like, we see it, obviously, people have psychosis like this just individually, you know, complete members of the public almost by themselves, and then on big platforms on social media or or whatever. Like, what do you think about that? Is this something we have to, you know, keep an eye out for or be worried about?

Joseph: 24:32

Or

Sam: 24:33

I mean, I think it's definitely like, it's it's odd that it's happening to people in a very public way, like, once a week at this point. Right. I think we still don't know that much about how, like, quote, unquote, AI psychosis develops. I think I would I mean, just in general, I know we're quoting other people, and it's it's kind of like the the slang term at this point, but it's it's like using chatbots is inducing delusions in some people that maybe they were already prone to. We don't really know.

Sam: 25:13

So, like, seeing it happen and play out with someone in a very public facing role potentially is really disturbing. And I don't know. It makes me wonder, like, how many people are going through this in isolation and are experiencing the same sorts of thoughts and feelings and, like, big mindset shifts in their belief system in private or in their families or just, like, among their friends and other people who, like, don't have the same visibility as the CEO of a huge platform. I don't know. It's it's definitely concerning.

Sam: 25:52

I was reading earlier today, I guess, the Anthropic CEO posted, like, a a really long essay, like, a 38 page essay about enslavement and master structure of mankind via AI. And it's like, is someone does someone need to check-in with him? You know? Like, are we okay? I don't know.

Sam: 26:13

What's going on there? So, yeah, it's just a little bit scary the way that the way that these systems are putting people in these boxes that they don't hear outside voices. Even when I'm emailing many of us, and I'm like, hey, people are freaked out. They just kind of keep going and they're like, yeah, we believe in aliens. Like, what are you talking about?

Emanuel: 26:35

If you're if you're the CEO of a major AI company, it's not a delusion. It's like a a fundraising round. Disappointing. You'll probably get, like, another billion dollars. Right.

Sam: 26:44

It's not a weakness. It's a strength. Yeah. It's like, we'll put that on LinkedIn.

Joseph: 26:49

Yeah. Very conveniently making the tools that they're warning about and saying we're the responsible ones, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Alright. Let's leave that there. When we come back after the break, Jason's gonna tell us all about this pretty mysterious surveillance footage that did exist, now it doesn't.

Joseph: 27:08

Anyway, you'll hear about all about that in a second. We'll be right back after this. Alright. And we are back. Jason, you wrote this one.

Joseph: 27:29

The headline is DHS says critical ice surveillance footage from abuse case was actually never recorded. Doesn't matter. So first off, what is this footage and what did DHS say before? Because we you wrote an earlier article, and this is building on it.

Jason: 27:47

Yeah. So this is like a big giant shit show. It's like a really messy situation that stems from a lawsuit filed by people detained in Broadview, which is suburban Chicago ICE detention center that got like a lot of attention back in October when ICE was doing like really high profile raids in Chicago. And so Broadview is a place where people are supposed to be processed and not held overnight. Like notably, they're only supposed to be there for a few hours normally and then they're supposed to be sent to another place.

Jason: 28:26

But what was happening was people were being kept there for, like, weeks on end, and they were being held allegedly in really horrendous conditions. From their lawsuit, they said, like, quote, they are denied sufficient food and water. The temperatures are extreme and uncomfortable. The physical conditions are filthy with poor sanitation, clogged toilets and blood, human fluids, insects in the floor in the sinks and the floor. Federal agents who patrol Broadview under defendant's authority are abusive and cruel.

Jason: 28:59

So basically, it's a class action lawsuit from people who were held there. And as part of this, it it was filed by the ACLU and the MacArthur Institute for Justice, which are, like, two really big civil liberties groups. So as part of this, they were seeking surveillance footage from inside of Broadview that would show what the conditions were. So there are like all these surveillance cameras at Broadview and it turns out that DHS says that basically this footage from October 20 through October 31, So eleven days, like nearly two weeks during this super critical period is missing, like more or less. So Sorry.

Joseph: 29:43

Why is that period so critical?

Jason: 29:45

It's critical because that's like what the loss that's like the time period that these, you know, that that broad view was overcrowded, that the alleged abuses happened. Like, this was like when there was a surge in people being detained. It's like a really important time period, this like eleven day period that is missing. And so we had covered this before, and initially, the government said that the the footage was irretrievably destroyed was sort of language that they were using. And then a few weeks later, there was like another court hearing and they said that a system crash caused the footage to be deleted.

Jason: 30:28

And now, like in a filing from this week, the government basically said that the footage is not missing, that it was never recorded in the first place. So basically, like, the surveillance cameras were not even running for eleven days during this critical period. And so this is the, you know, third story that they've told. And the kind of, like, specifics here, which we'll get into now, are really crazy. Just like a not a good situation.

Joseph: 31:01

Sure. Before you get to those, I'm not sure if this is gonna be clear or not, but is there any indication in these court filings or elsewhere why the story has changed? Was it like they genuinely didn't know it first or then they were given wrong information or or they just flat out lied? Like, is there any indication of why the story has changed, or is that not clear?

Jason: 31:24

So I think this is, like, the critical part of the story. So, basically, what I have been able to suss out from these court records is that the people who run the surveillance system within Broadview is not DHS. It is an outside contractor. Like, they have basically said, like, they've they they have an outside contractor who runs these CCTV cameras, these these surveillance cameras. And that company is a company called five by five, like the number five by five.

Jason: 32:06

And crucially, there's like no information about five by five management on the Internet really at all. Like, nothing. I was able to find, like, their incorporation documents, and that's it. But there are no website. There's basically, like, no information about it at all.

Jason: 32:24

And through this court case, we have learned that five by five management is one person. It's like a one person company. And it's not clear, like, what they do, what other clients they have, like, why they are qualified to do this in any way, shape, or form. But, basically, like, this one person was running this surveillance system and something happened. We don't know what.

Jason: 32:53

Like, we're trying to to learn what. That's part of the the court proceedings. But, basically, there was something that happened that caused the cameras to go down for eleven days, and no one noticed during this time, allegedly. Like, the the story is that no one noticed during this critical time. And so, basically, DHS is blaming five by five management for what happened.

Jason: 33:22

And five by five management has not been deposed in the case yet, meaning five by five management hasn't said what happened yet. So the story came seems to be, like, leaking out or, you know, they I I say leaking like it's dripping out, like it's there's one bit of information, another bit of information, and it seems to be there's been like a couple meetings between the ACLU lawyers, the DHS lawyers, like the Department of Justice lawyers, and the five by five management where they're like trying to figure out what's going on and what happened. And the story at the moment is that there is a server that controlled not just the surveillance systems, but, like, other information that is relevant to the case, like, I don't know, just other computer files about ongoings at Broadview, and that server died at some point. And so, like, the super interesting thing is that, like, it's not just the footage that is missing, but also some of the other files that the plaintiffs have requested, like the retention policies, some stuff about, like, which people are actually, like, detained at Broadview, you know, things like this. We actually don't even know, like, everything that was on the server because they they haven't said yet.

Jason: 34:54

And so in one of these filings, the plaintiffs actually say that they had a meeting with five by five where they were like, yo, you need to give us everything off this server. You need to transfer it to a new server, like, that we can access and read. And five by five was required to come up with a plan to do this. And in that plan, they said, you have to pay me money to do this. Like, you have to pay additional money.

Jason: 35:19

We're not doing it for unless you give us more money. And we require indemnity from legal repercussions. So indemnity means they can't be held liable for like losing this stuff, basically. Like that that is what they proposed. And the lawyers for the plaintiffs were like, that's a nonstarter.

Jason: 35:40

That that's fucking crazy. Because if you get subpoenaed, if if you're part of a court case like this, like, you can't be like, pay me money or I'm not doing it. Yeah. Especially, it's it was your job to keep this online. Like, that was your job in the first place.

Joseph: 35:56

Getting subpoenaed is now like a side hustle where you can, like, make a few more thousand dollars or something by, yeah, giving over pretty crucial evidence in in the court case. No. That's not that's not how it works.

Jason: 36:07

Yeah. So, I mean, this this like I said, it's crazy because basically, like, this random company that no one has ever heard of was in charge of all these surveillance systems. It went down for, like, reasons that we don't really know, and now they're just like, oops. We don't have it. And if you want any information, have to pay me more money and give me legal immunity.

Jason: 36:27

It's, like, really nuts. And, like, later this week, there's going to the guy is gonna be deposed, so, you know, I'll continue to cover it. But, like, theoretically, we will learn more at some point, hopefully later this week, although there's been, like, a lot of different delays. But, basically, like, DHS has has been saying, like, we didn't do anything wrong. Too bad.

Jason: 36:53

You don't have this footage. And then, like, a really other critical argument that they're making is saying that even if we did have the footage, it wouldn't be relevant and you can't have it and it's crazy that you're asking for it because the conditions in the detention center have improved since the lawsuit was filed, and therefore, it's no longer relevant, which is The lawsuit really crazy argument to make.

Joseph: 37:22

Right. Because Right. The lawsuit is about particular abuses and conditions at a certain point in time. It's not like, well, we we made it better now, so you can relax. Like, again, that's not how it works either.

Joseph: 37:35

Yeah. Yeah. I I

Jason: 37:36

think they're trying to make, like, a really complicated procedural argument basically trying to say, like, we don't need to give this to you yet because the next step in this case is about, like, a specific restraining order about how inmates are being treated now and what we're not treating them badly anymore. So there's, like, nothing to change. But, like, the the facts of the matter stand that the lawsuit itself is about abuses that happened in the past when this footage should have been recorded and retained and all that.

Joseph: 38:14

Yeah. Has the judge sort of leaned in any particular direction such as, yes, granting the plaintiffs, you know, asks or demands for certain evidence or blocking it, or is the judge kind of at an arm's distance right now?

Jason: 38:29

The judge actually did say like, this is crazy. You have to you have to do like a good faith, like explanation of like what's going on here. And so the judge like largely rejected the government's argument that this doesn't matter, that, you know, it doesn't have to provide this thing. It was like a procedural document, so it's not like a long opinion about how the judge feels, but it's basically like, no. We're like rejecting this and you do have to explain.

Jason: 38:59

I think, like, this this is a pretty high profile lawsuit. It's been going on for months. You know, the specifics here are are pretty important as in, like, ICE has been having these, like, really makeshift detention centers. Again, like, this is supposed to be a place where, people were just processed quickly and then put on like, put elsewhere. And in this case, they were held there for, like, a really long time in overcrowded, like, conditions.

Jason: 39:30

And even the government in its filings say, like, we're not treating them that badly anymore. Kind of admitting that, you know, the conditions at one point were not ideal even by ICE's standards, and so that's that's not ideal. But I think also just to, like, expand out the context slightly, there's this big discussion now about ICE reforms or potential ICE reforms and, like, what the Democrats are asking for to, you know, not shut down the government or or what have you. And one of them is body camera footage or body cameras on ICE agents, which they currently don't have unless they're making like propaganda videos with GoPros and meta Ray Ban glasses and things like that.

Joseph: 40:20

Although apparently in the prety shooting, they did have body cams.

Jason: 40:24

Oh, it does.

Joseph: 40:24

Apparently, that was reported. Maybe I'm that that was

Jason: 40:27

Well, they don't universally have them at the moment. They, like Yeah. Yeah. Some of them sometimes do. Yeah.

Jason: 40:33

I think. Yeah. But the this case sort of shows or, like, the argument that they're making is, like, who controls that footage is really important because in this case, like, the entity controlling this footage is like a third party random contractor, and they lost it. And then there's also just the the fact that even getting this footage, even as part of a court case where the judge said you have to provide this footage, it's it's not coming out like it's not being provided. And so I think that this sort of raises all sorts of questions about, like, how accountable ICE could be held with something like a body camera footage if if this is sort of like the stance that is gonna happen when footage is requested.

Jason: 41:27

And did an article in the past basically where there's been a few studies showing that body camera for cops, like, don't actually really do much in terms of accountability because sometimes they turn them off, which is illegal, but they're like rarely actually held accountable for that. Sometimes the body camera footage is just like published and the administration or the police say, well, this is what happened and, you know, don't believe your lying eyes, etcetera, etcetera. And so as a tool for, like, accountability, it's not there's not that much actual hard evidence that it makes too much of a difference.

Joseph: 42:09

Yeah. Yeah. It's a really strange phenomenon because intuitively, you're gonna think, oh, yeah. Body cams, of course, are gonna be a good mechanism of accountability. But as you say, you know, studies kind of point in the other direction.

Joseph: 42:23

That being said, well, it's a slightly different point, but, of course, imagine the shootings recently if we didn't have, like, witness footage and people filming on their phones and that sort of thing. But, of course, getting to your point, that is footage controlled by individual members of the public who aren't presumably going to say, it was on an old server, you now need to pay me to get this information after I'm being subpoenaed or something like that. There's like an asymmetry there in how the footage is actually treated. Yeah. Alright.

Joseph: 42:58

We'll leave that there. If you're listening to the free version of the podcast, I'll now play us out. But if you are a paying four zero four media subscriber, we're gonna talk about flock or more specifically, sort of strange thing that police are being told to do around their use of the AI enabled license plate reading cameras. You can subscribe and gain access to that content at 404media.co. We'll be right back after this.

Joseph: 43:38

Alright. In the subscribers only section, Jason, again, this is one of yours. The headline is police told to be, quote, as vague as permissible, excuse me, end quote, about why they use flock. Yeah. Usually or I can't even really say usually because stuff keeps changing with flock in this story, but when we first were reporting on flock and ICE and the abortion stuff, it was about these network audits, these little spreadsheets which show every time the nationwide network of flock cameras is queried by a different agency or a different official, and there's there's little reasons or reason column there, and that's how we found ICE, HSI, woman having abortion or or whatever the term was.

Joseph: 44:30

That led to, as you reported recently, a lot of officials kind of, well, inadvertently revealing their own investigations, but also the license plates included in that, you know, revealing the surveillance targets. So what's this story about with that context? Why are these cops being told to be vague in what they're using flocked for?

Jason: 44:58

Yeah. This is like fallout from a few of our previous stories essentially and also most importantly a website called haveibeenflocked.com. So basically, like, they have these search audit logs, which we've discussed many times before, but as you said, like huge spreadsheets of every lookup of flock, like a that a police officer did a flock search on. And a few weeks ago, we've reported that basically there were, like, some police departments that were not redacting the license plates of the searches. And so basically, they were exposing the specific surveillance targets that they were using FLAC against, which is like really crazy for pre

Joseph: 45:46

In response in response to public records or requests from researchers, journalists, that's like a FOIA basically, but to a local police officer or

Jason: 45:54

police department. Exactly. Exactly. And so we were aware of, like, maybe four or five different police departments that were failing to redact the license plates. And so you were able to essentially, like, determine who police were investigating and what they were investigating them for, and also cop that was doing the investigating and all that sort of thing.

Jason: 46:16

And so this guy started a website called haveibeenflocked.com that aggregated all of this and made it searchable so you could type in a license plate and see if, you know, your car was subject to a flock investigation more or less. And, again, as part of this, the the actual, like, cop that did this search would show up there. And so FLAC tried to have this website shut down. FLAC's, like, CEO and their, like, PR team, like, was emailing cops trying to do damage control on all of this. And it it's like a little bit of a complicated story because the data is sensitive, but also it it just kind of speaks to how pervasive flock is and sort of the architecture of the system is, like, not the greatest.

Jason: 47:13

It's like it's like a really tricky thing to have this, like, transparency, which some states require. Like, they require very transparent data to be released. And also, like, if you connect that to a gigantic nationwide system, then you're creating a situation where any single police department that's a customer of flock can leak the details of other cops, like investigations and things like that. So in the fallout of all of this, Flock was doing some damage control, but then through other public records requests, which were done by Lucy Parsons' lab, which is a really good, like, surveillance privacy. Like, they do really good research in journalism and sometimes share it with us, sometimes publish on their own, sometimes share it with other groups.

Jason: 48:06

They basically got these warnings, these official warnings that cops were sent about all of this.

Joseph: 48:16

Like an email or a document or something. Right?

Jason: 48:19

It was a mix of emails and then these things called officer safety situational awareness bulletins Mhmm. Which is like a bit of a mouthful, but basically, these are PDF files that sometimes the FBI makes, sometimes they're made by these intelligence groups. This one in particular was made by the Houston Investigative Support Center, which is like a consortium of the Houston Police Department, the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and HSI, which is ICE's Homeland Security Investigations. And it was like a document about the situation that was then sent to cops in the Houston area. But then through other documents, we saw that this warning wasn't set just sent to cops in the Houston area.

Jason: 49:17

It was also sent to cops in the Atlanta, like, metro area, and then there was other emails suggesting a similar message went out to people like cops in Illinois. And this was all happening essentially through, like, fusion centers.

Joseph: 49:33

Yeah. They're like these little points where, as you say, all all of these agencies come together or they have access, but, like, they can share this information among each other very rapidly. And it's actually a pretty interesting spot to FOIA because you might get state stuff, local stuff, and federal stuff as well. And, of course, these agencies are using that to quickly exchange information between those agency. And, obviously, we saw that with the BlueLeaks hack a while ago, and that's why it was so fruitful as well because a lot of interesting stuff goes through there.

Jason: 50:05

Yeah. Yeah. Fusion centers, I mean, a couple, like, privacy groups say that these are like privacy nightmares, fusion centers, because they are places where local police, state police, and federal police all collaborate. And therefore, there's like a lot of information sharing that ideally you wouldn't want to have happening. And so, yeah, it's it's like, essentially, these intelligence centers that are now warning each other, hey.

Jason: 50:40

These public records requests are are leaking a lot of information about our flock searches. And so that was a huge preamble, but basically, one of them says that when you use flock moving forward, that quote flock administrators should ensure that the reason for the query be as vague as permissible. And so that they're basically saying, like, don't explain why you're using flock, like, in the flock system because then people might find out in the future.

Joseph: 51:08

Which is kind of well, I mean, is crazy, but it's additionally crazy because after all of our reporting and other researchers getting these network audits, and especially some of them will contain case numbers, Flok was retraining its law enforcement customers to say stuff like, well, it's kind of actually the other way around because remember when you were going through some, and I think you were showing some as well, where even the reason column was sometimes just blank, or it was already incredibly vague to the point where Flock was telling its customers, hey, you should probably put a case number in there or something. And now these fusion centers or whoever is sending this communication is telling the police, no. No. No. Keep it, like, super vague as much as you can.

Joseph: 51:57

It just seems like a mess in both directions, essentially.

Jason: 51:59

It is a mess in both directions. And then also, we don't know if California police have gotten this, but it is illegal in California to write investigation. Like, there's specific legislation that says you have to be more specific than that. And part of that is because, like, we have seen cases where cops are abusing the system, they're putting something super vague, and but it turns out that they're, like, using the system for stalking or they're using it for immigration enforcement in a state where they're not supposed to be doing immigration enforcement, like, things like that. And so the reason column is there for a reason, but now the official guidance from, you know, the feds essentially, like, this is, like, largely a it's being sent around by the DOJ and by the FBI.

Jason: 52:49

It's like be as vague as you're allowed to be. So there's that. And then the the one other thing I would mention is that in the documents that we've seen, a lot of the narrative is that this website puts officers at risk, which is kind of crazy. Like, that's a crazy takeaway here.

Joseph: 53:08

That's flock's claim about have I been flocked. Right.

Jason: 53:11

It's Flock's claim, but it's also the claim being made by these fusion centers that have put together these warnings saying that, like, because police officer names are in here, it could expose the names of and identities of police officers who are using FLOC, and therefore, they could become targets from these activists. And the activists are, like, people who are filing public records requests. It's, like, not I don't know.

Joseph: 53:37

I don't think they care about individual officers. Mean,

Jason: 53:41

they do only in the context of, like, abuse. Like, there's been a couple cases where it's like this officer was abusing the system and, like, they've been fired or something. But, like, as far as, like, putting law enforcement, like, police officers' lives at risk, it's, like, kind of the same argument that ICE has been making about why they need to wear masks and not tell people who they are, and that is now, like, filtering down to local police. And, you know, there's always been cases of cops like covering up their badge numbers and covering up their name tags and things like that, but like this is doing that digitally or suggesting that they do that digitally more or less. And I think that that is like worth mentioning because it there's kind of like this narrative throughout law enforcement over the last couple years that, like, being a cop is super dangerous and people are constantly trying to attack and dox you and and things like that.

Jason: 54:34

And it's like, if you look at the ICE stuff, for the most part, like, there there was one person who was maybe trying to attack ICE, but actually shot undocumented immigrants. But, like, for the most part, it's like ICE is the one that's perpetuating the violence and, like and yet the kind of excuse that we hear over and over again is like these domestic terrorists are going after ICE, and then you see the video and it's like, that's not what happened.

Joseph: 55:01

Yeah. Turns out they lie over and over again. Alright. Let's leave that there, and I'll play us out. As a reminder, four zero four Media is journalist founded and supported by subscribers.

Joseph: 55:15

If you do wish to subscribe to four zero four Media and directly support our work, please go to 404media.co. You'll get unlimited access to our articles and an ad free version of this podcast. You'll also get to listen to the subscribers only section where we talk about a bonus story each week. This podcast is made in partnership with Kaleidoscope and Alyssa Midcath. Another way to support us is by leaving a five star rating and review for the podcast.

Joseph: 55:42

That stuff really does help us out. Here is one of those from Kyle SH, Real Journalism, great independent media company. Thank you so much. This has been four zero four Media. We'll see you again next week.