Author: TSA Press

Few
things
bring
comfort
when
traveling
like
a
safe
place
to
stay.
You
check
the
amenities:
the
doors
lock,
there’s
silverware
and
a
nice
TV
for
you
to
watch.
But
is
there
anything
watching
you?
A
growing
number
of
people
are
finding
out
that

their
AirBnBs
and
rentals
sometimes
have
recording
devices
hidden
throughout
the
property.
A
South
Carolina
lawyer
was
caught
and
charged
with
bugging
his
property
and
recording
thousands
of
covert
videos.

The
State
reported
on
him
finally
getting
caught:

An
Aiken
lawyer
facing
criminal
charges
related
to
possessing
child
sex
images
and
voyeurism
put
hidden
cameras
in
a
Folly
Beach
rental
unit
and
filmed
renters
—
including
minors
—
naked
or
involved
in
intimate
acts,
according
to
a
lawsuit
filed
this
week.

William
“Danny”
Mayes,
whose
law
license
was
suspended
by
the
State
Supreme
Court
in
November,
was
named
as
a
defendant
in
a
civil
lawsuit
filed
Tuesday
in
Aiken
County
state
court
charging
him
with
negligence,
intentional
infliction
of
emotional
distress
and
invasion
of
privacy.

One
of
the
victims
was
a
10-year-old
child
videoed
in
the
act
of
undressing,
according
to
an
affidavit
in
the
case.

Mayes
admitted
that
he
set
up
cameras
to
record
the
people
renting
his
unit.
One
of
those
recordings
—
a
woman
undressing
—
was
set
to
music.
His
wife
was
charged
with
negligence
charges
for
handling
the
unit,
but
there’s
no
way
Mayes
won’t
get
hit
with
being
fully
aware
of
what
was
going
on.

Mayes
has
been
charged
with
14
counts
of
voyeurism
in
the
first
degree
and
one
count
of
sexual
exploitation
of
a
minor.
If
you
plan
on
renting
a
unit
for
a
trip,

take
a
moment
to
check
if
there
are
any
unwanted
cameras
in
the
unit.
You’ll
appreciate
the
peace
of
mind.

Lawsuit:
SC
Lawyer
Hid
Cameras
In
Beach
Rental
Unit
And
Videoed
Guests
In
Intimate
Acts
[The
State]

---

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Few
things
bring
comfort
when
traveling
like
a
safe
place
to
stay.
You
check
the
amenities:
the
doors
lock,
there’s
silverware
and
a
nice
TV
for
you
to
watch.
But
is
there
anything
watching
you?
A
growing
number
of
people
are
finding
out
that

their
AirBnBs
and
rentals
sometimes
have
recording
devices
hidden
throughout
the
property.
A
South
Carolina
lawyer
was
caught
and
charged
with
bugging
his
property
and
recording
thousands
of
covert
videos.

The
State
reported
on
him
finally
getting
caught:

An
Aiken
lawyer
facing
criminal
charges
related
to
possessing
child
sex
images
and
voyeurism
put
hidden
cameras
in
a
Folly
Beach
rental
unit
and
filmed
renters
—
including
minors
—
naked
or
involved
in
intimate
acts,
according
to
a
lawsuit
filed
this
week.

William
“Danny”
Mayes,
whose
law
license
was
suspended
by
the
State
Supreme
Court
in
November,
was
named
as
a
defendant
in
a
civil
lawsuit
filed
Tuesday
in
Aiken
County
state
court
charging
him
with
negligence,
intentional
infliction
of
emotional
distress
and
invasion
of
privacy.

One
of
the
victims
was
a
10-year-old
child
videoed
in
the
act
of
undressing,
according
to
an
affidavit
in
the
case.

Mayes
admitted
that
he
set
up
cameras
to
record
the
people
renting
his
unit.
One
of
those
recordings
—
a
woman
undressing
—
was
set
to
music.
His
wife
was
charged
with
negligence
charges
for
handling
the
unit,
but
there’s
no
way
Mayes
won’t
get
hit
with
being
fully
aware
of
what
was
going
on.

Mayes
has
been
charged
with
14
counts
of
voyeurism
in
the
first
degree
and
one
count
of
sexual
exploitation
of
a
minor.
If
you
plan
on
renting
a
unit
for
a
trip,

take
a
moment
to
check
if
there
are
any
unwanted
cameras
in
the
unit.
You’ll
appreciate
the
peace
of
mind.

Lawsuit:
SC
Lawyer
Hid
Cameras
In
Beach
Rental
Unit
And
Videoed
Guests
In
Intimate
Acts
[The
State]

---

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Few
things
bring
comfort
when
traveling
like
a
safe
place
to
stay.
You
check
the
amenities:
the
doors
lock,
there’s
silverware
and
a
nice
TV
for
you
to
watch.
But
is
there
anything
watching
you?
A
growing
number
of
people
are
finding
out
that

their
AirBnBs
and
rentals
sometimes
have
recording
devices
hidden
throughout
the
property.
A
South
Carolina
lawyer
was
caught
and
charged
with
bugging
his
property
and
recording
thousands
of
covert
videos.

The
State
reported
on
him
finally
getting
caught:

An
Aiken
lawyer
facing
criminal
charges
related
to
possessing
child
sex
images
and
voyeurism
put
hidden
cameras
in
a
Folly
Beach
rental
unit
and
filmed
renters
—
including
minors
—
naked
or
involved
in
intimate
acts,
according
to
a
lawsuit
filed
this
week.

William
“Danny”
Mayes,
whose
law
license
was
suspended
by
the
State
Supreme
Court
in
November,
was
named
as
a
defendant
in
a
civil
lawsuit
filed
Tuesday
in
Aiken
County
state
court
charging
him
with
negligence,
intentional
infliction
of
emotional
distress
and
invasion
of
privacy.

One
of
the
victims
was
a
10-year-old
child
videoed
in
the
act
of
undressing,
according
to
an
affidavit
in
the
case.

Mayes
admitted
that
he
set
up
cameras
to
record
the
people
renting
his
unit.
One
of
those
recordings
—
a
woman
undressing
—
was
set
to
music.
His
wife
was
charged
with
negligence
charges
for
handling
the
unit,
but
there’s
no
way
Mayes
won’t
get
hit
with
being
fully
aware
of
what
was
going
on.

Mayes
has
been
charged
with
14
counts
of
voyeurism
in
the
first
degree
and
one
count
of
sexual
exploitation
of
a
minor.
If
you
plan
on
renting
a
unit
for
a
trip,

take
a
moment
to
check
if
there
are
any
unwanted
cameras
in
the
unit.
You’ll
appreciate
the
peace
of
mind.

Lawsuit:
SC
Lawyer
Hid
Cameras
In
Beach
Rental
Unit
And
Videoed
Guests
In
Intimate
Acts
[The
State]

---

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Few
things
bring
comfort
when
traveling
like
a
safe
place
to
stay.
You
check
the
amenities:
the
doors
lock,
there’s
silverware
and
a
nice
TV
for
you
to
watch.
But
is
there
anything
watching
you?
A
growing
number
of
people
are
finding
out
that

their
AirBnBs
and
rentals
sometimes
have
recording
devices
hidden
throughout
the
property.
A
South
Carolina
lawyer
was
caught
and
charged
with
bugging
his
property
and
recording
thousands
of
covert
videos.

The
State
reported
on
him
finally
getting
caught:

An
Aiken
lawyer
facing
criminal
charges
related
to
possessing
child
sex
images
and
voyeurism
put
hidden
cameras
in
a
Folly
Beach
rental
unit
and
filmed
renters
—
including
minors
—
naked
or
involved
in
intimate
acts,
according
to
a
lawsuit
filed
this
week.

William
“Danny”
Mayes,
whose
law
license
was
suspended
by
the
State
Supreme
Court
in
November,
was
named
as
a
defendant
in
a
civil
lawsuit
filed
Tuesday
in
Aiken
County
state
court
charging
him
with
negligence,
intentional
infliction
of
emotional
distress
and
invasion
of
privacy.

One
of
the
victims
was
a
10-year-old
child
videoed
in
the
act
of
undressing,
according
to
an
affidavit
in
the
case.

Mayes
admitted
that
he
set
up
cameras
to
record
the
people
renting
his
unit.
One
of
those
recordings
—
a
woman
undressing
—
was
set
to
music.
His
wife
was
charged
with
negligence
charges
for
handling
the
unit,
but
there’s
no
way
Mayes
won’t
get
hit
with
being
fully
aware
of
what
was
going
on.

Mayes
has
been
charged
with
14
counts
of
voyeurism
in
the
first
degree
and
one
count
of
sexual
exploitation
of
a
minor.
If
you
plan
on
renting
a
unit
for
a
trip,

take
a
moment
to
check
if
there
are
any
unwanted
cameras
in
the
unit.
You’ll
appreciate
the
peace
of
mind.

Lawsuit:
SC
Lawyer
Hid
Cameras
In
Beach
Rental
Unit
And
Videoed
Guests
In
Intimate
Acts
[The
State]

---

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
a
recently
filed
proxy
statement,
how
much
did
Apple’s
General
Counsel,
Kate
Adams,
make
in
total
compensation
last
year?

Hint:
Over
the
last
four
years,
Adams
has
sold
off
$140
million
in
company
stock.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Everybody
who
has
real
power
is
capitulating.

Jeff
Bezos,
the
second-richest
guy
in
the
world,
who’s
worth
about
$250
billion,
gave
up.
He
owns
the

Washington
Post,
of
course,
but
he
didn’t
let
that
newspaper
endorse
Kamala
Harris.
By
nixing
the
endorsement,
Bezos
outraged
his
editorial
board,
caused
talented
reporters
to
quit,
and
cost
the

Post about
200,000
digital
subscribers.

Why
did
Bezos
do
this?

Not
because
Bezos
owns
the Post,
but
because
Bezos
owns
Blue
Origin,
a
space
exploration
firm
that
depends
on
the
federal
government
for
its
future.
With
Donald
Trump
at
the
helm,
the
federal
government
could
destroy
Blue
Origin,
so
Bezos
had
to
capitulate.
For
good
measure,
Bezos
recently
agreed
to
pay
$40
million
to
license
the
rights
to
a
documentary
about
Melania
Trump.
He’s
not
taking
any
chances.

Bezos
is
too
rich,
so
he
has
no
power.

Same
with
Mark
Zuckerberg.
Zuckerberg,
the
fourth-richest
guy
in
the
world,
who’s
worth
about
$200
billion,
gave
up.
He
donated
a
million
bucks
to
Trump’s
inauguration,
replaced
Nick
Clegg
(the
prominent
British
politician)
with
Joel
Kaplan
(a
longtime
buddy
of
Trump’s)
as
Facebook’s
head
of
public
policy,
moved
Facebook’s
content
moderation
team
from
blue
California
to
red
Texas,
and
appointed
Dana
White
(the
head
of
the
Ultimate
Fighting
Championship,
who
spoke
at
the
Republican
National
Convention)
to
Facebook’s
board
of
directors.

Why
did
Zuckerberg
do
this?

Because
the
federal
government,
with
Trump
at
the
helm,
can
destroy
Facebook,
so
Zuckerberg
had
to
capitulate.

He’s
too
rich,
so
he
has
no
power.

So,
too,
with
Patrick
Soon-Shiong.
He’s
worth
a
mere
five
or
six
billion,
so
he’s
hardly
worth
talking
about.
Soon-Shiong
owns
the

Los
Angeles
Times.
Like
Bezos
at
the

Post,
Soon-Shiong
forbade
his
newspaper
from
endorsing
Kamala
Harris.
Soon-Shiong
also
announced
plans
to
avoid
having
his
paper
become
a
liberal
echo
chamber
and
to
balance
the
paper’s
editorial
board
with
more
conservative
voices.

Why?

Because
Soon-Shiong
has
business
interests
in
health
care
technology
and
biotechnology,
which
depend
on
the
federal
government
(such
as
the
FDA)
to
survive.
The
federal
government,
with
Trump
at
the
helm,
can
destroy
Soon-Shiong,
so
he
had
to
capitulate.

He’s
too
rich,
so
he
has
no
power.

Bob
Iger’s
basically
a
nobody.
He’s
worth
a
mere
$700
million,
and
he’s
the
CEO
of
the
Walt
Disney
Company.
There
was
no
reason
at
all
for
ABC
News
to
settle
the
defamation
case
that
Trump
brought
against
it.
Trump
insisted
that
George
Stephanopoulos
defamed
him
by
calling
Trump
a
rapist
on
the
air.
But
a
New
York
federal
judge
had
said
that
Trump’s
conduct,
as
found
by
a
jury,
constituted
rape
in
the
usual
sense
of
the
word.
And,
in
any
event,
the
jury
certainly
found
that
Trump
at
least
digitally
penetrated
E.
Jean
Carroll;
how
was
Trump
damaged
by
Stephanopoulos
saying
that
Trump
had
“raped”
E.
Jean
Carroll
rather
than
more
accurately
saying
that
he
“jammed
his
fingers
inside
E.
Jean
Carroll
without
her
consent”?

ABC
News
might
have
fought
this
ridiculous
lawsuit.
But
the
Walt
Disney
Co.
owns
ABC
News.
The
federal
government,
with
Trump
at
the
helm,
can
destroy
the
Walt
Disney
Co.,
so
Iger
had
to
capitulate
and
pay
$15
million
to
a
presidential
foundation
and
museum
to
be
established
by
Trump.

Iger
has
too
many
business
interests,
so
he
has
no
power.

Who’s
left
to
speak
the
truth?

Perhaps
a
few
courageous,
and
independent,
media
outlets.

But
nobody
big
and
important.
They’re
all
too
rich,
so
they
have
to
capitulate.

I’m
afraid
that
only
schlubs
like
me
can
speak
the
truth.

For
what
Above
the
Law
pays
me
for
writing
these
columns,
I’d
be
better
off
if
they
fired
me.
I’m
otherwise
retired,
so
I
don’t
have
to
worry
about
an
employer
canning
me.
My
vast
corporate
empire
is
still
a
few
pennies
short
of
being
worth
a
billion
bucks,
so
I
don’t
have
business
interests
that
Trump
can
punish.

Isn’t
it
funny?
The
meek
have
inherited
the
earth.

Those
of
us
who
don’t
matter
are
more
able
to
speak
truth
to
power
than
those
who
appear
to
be
rich
and
powerful.

This
is
a
dreadful
situation.

But
speak
up!
You’re
the
only
one
who
can.

And
please
do
send
me
a
toothbrush
next
month,
when
you’re
notified
that
I’ve
been
imprisoned.

---

Mark Herrmann


spent
17
years
as
a
partner
at
a
leading
international
law
firm
and
later
oversaw
litigation,
compliance
and
employment
matters
at
a
large
international
company.
He
is
the
author
of



The
Curmudgeon’s
Guide
to
Practicing
Law and Drug
and
Device
Product
Liability
Litigation
Strategy (affiliate
links).
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected].

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

It’s
an
overwhelming
sense
of
loss.
People
want
to
do
something
to
help
and
the
reality
is,
I
don’t
know
what
that
is.
But
the
offers
are
there,
and
the
offers
are
tremendously
meaningful.

—

Judy
Keyes,
an
employment
partner
at
Davis
Wright
Tremaine,
in
comments
given
to

Law360,
concerning
the
destruction
of
her
home
due
to
the

raging
California
wildfires.
Keyes
had
been
staying
with
a
colleague
from
the
firm,
and
recently
moved
to
an
Airbnb
in
Santa
Barbara
with
her
daughter’s
family,
whose
home
was
also
destroyed
by
the
fires.
As
she
has
been
rendered
homeless,
DWT
is
allowing
Keyes
to
use
her
office
address
for
her
financial
accounts
and
to
have
packages
delivered.
Keyes
explained
that
soon,
she’d
go
back
to
her
home
to
dig
through
the
rubble
and
ash
to
search
for
anything
of
value.
“I
just
need
to
see
it
with
my
own
eyes,”
she
said.

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Judge
Aileen
Cannon
woke
up
this
morning
and
decided
that
she’d
be
only

half
lawless.
Which
is
an
improvement
on
her
prior
batting
average!
Instead
of
telling
the
DOJ
it
can’t
publish
the
entire
special
counsel
report
on
the
Trump
investigations,
she
only
purports
to
control
half
of
it.

See,
what
were
you
libs
whining
about?
It’s
just
a
federal
district
judge
policing
the
interactions
between
the
executive
and
legislative
branches,

no
biggie!

Judge
Cannon
was
confirmed
to
the
Southern
District
of
Florida
after
Trump
lost
the
2020
election,
and
she
rose
to
prominence
by
inventing
jurisdiction
to
allow
Trump
to
challenge
the
sufficiency
of
the
Mar-a-Lago
search
warrant.
When
the
case
was
eventually
assigned
to
her,
she
spent
a
year
abusing
the
special
counsel
and
then
dismissed
it
after

discovering
that
special
counsels
were
illegal.

That
dismissal
is
on
appeal
to
the
11th
Circuit,
but
the
DOJ
dropped
the
charges
against
Trump
when
he
won
the
election
in
2024,
leaving
his
henchmen
Walt
Nauta
and
Carlos
De
Oliveira
holding
the
bag.
The
pendency
of
the
appeal
gave
the
dipshit
henchmen
a
hook
to
challenge
the
report,
which
they
did
in
Judge
Cannon’s
courtroom

natch,
as
well
as
at
the
11th
Circuit.

Without
holding
a
hearing,
soliciting
a
response
from
the
government,
or
even
going
through
the
four-factor
test
for
injunctive
relief,
Judge
Cannon

enjoined
the
government
distributing
the
report.
And
to
top
it
off,
she
reserved
three
days
after
the
11th
Circuit
weighed
in
to
take
another
crack
at
it.

The
DOJ

informed
both
the
trial
judge
and
the
appellate
panel
that
the
report
was
divided
into
two
volumes:
Volume
1,
which
deals
with
the
election
interference
case
in
DC;
and
Volume
2,
which
deals
with
the
stolen
documents
case
in
Florida
dismissed
by
Cannon.
Volume
1
was
intended
for
public
release,
and
Volume
2
reserved
for

in
camera
review
by
the
heads
of
the
House
and
Senate
Judiciary
Committee
during
the
pendency
of
the
criminal
case.

On
Thursday
night,
the
11th
Circuit

denied
the
henchmen’s
motion
for
an
injunction,
but
refused
the
DOJ’s
request
to
order
Judge
Cannon
to
knock
it
off.
Instead
the
unnamed
panel
instructed
the
government
to
appeal
her
ruling,
which

they
did.

The
henchmen
have
taken
multiple
bizarre
—
not
to
say
dubiously
legal
—
positions
in
these
proceedings.
In
their

first
motion,
they
stated
as
fact
that
AG
Garland
would
release
the
entire
special
counsel
report
publicly,
violating
their
due
process
rights,
by
poisoning
the
jury
pool,
and
also
the
Presidential
Transition
Act
and
the
Executive
Vesting
Clause.

After
the
DOJ
informed
the
courts
that
it
only
intended
to
release
Volume
1
to
the
public, the
henchmen
switched
tactics.
They
adamantly

insisted
that
they

were
mentioned
in
Volume
1,
and
they
argued
that
their
cases
would
be
damaged
by
congressional
leaks
if
Volume
2
were
shared
with
anyone
outside
the
DOJ.

When
the
DOJ
responded
with

evidence
that
the
henchmen
were

not
mentioned
at
all
in
Volume
1,
they
pivoted
again
in
their

reply
brief.
This
time
they
argued
that
dirtying
up
Trump,
by
reminding
Americans
of
that
time
he
tried
to
overthrow
the
government,
was
unfair
to
his
prior
co-conspirators:
“The
protective
order
principle
applies
fully
where
the
government
seeks
to
‘try’
in
a
court
of
public
opinion
a
figure
it
identified
as
a
co-conspirator
in
this
case.”

And,
uhhh,
what
if
the
attorneys
reviewing
the
report
are
too
green
to
appreciate
that,
if
you
read
between
the
lines,
the
election
interference
case
is
actually

all
about
Trump’s
body
man
shifting
boxes
into
and
out
of
the
storage
locker
in
Mar-a-Lago
and
trying
to
delete
the
security
camera
footage
after
it
got
subpoenaed?

The
attorneys
asserting
no
connection
do
not
know
the
significance
of
certain
matters
addressed
in
the
Report;
they
do
not
adequately
understand
the
connections
between
the
two
cases
and
their
respective
investigations;
they
do
not
have
a
well-versed
understanding
of
the
evidence
and
the
potential
witnesses.
There
is
anticipated
to
be
overlap
between
the
witnesses
used
in
the
respective
cases.
The
facts
and
circumstances
of
the
respective
cases
are
inextricably
intertwined
insofar
as
the
conduct
targeted
in
both
investigations
was
occurring
around
the
same
time.

This
morning,
with
her
three-day
stay
set
to
expire,
Judge
Cannon
issued
her

ruling.
Even
she
had
to
admit
Trump’s
cronies
hadn’t
come
up
with
a
single
marginally
pretextual
reason
to
bottle
up
Volume
1.
But
she
insists
that
Volume
2
“presents
contested
factual
and
legal
issues
that
must
be
resolved
in
an
orderly,
expedited
basis,
following
full
briefing
and
a
hearing,”
which
she
scheduled
for
this
Friday.

That
is,
in
effect,
an
order
quashing
the
release
of
report
to
Congress,
since
Trump
will
be
sworn
in
on
Monday,
and
he
will
instruct
the
DOJ
to
burn
the
thing.
Indeed,
he’s
already
weighed
in
with
amicus
briefs
at
both
the
District
and
Circuit
courts
claiming
that
the
reports
are
illegal
political
interference.
As
has
Jeff
“the
Oil
Spill”
Clark
who

busted
in
last
night
demanding
that
Judge
Cannon
enjoin
the
release
of
the
election
interference
report
because
it
might
prejudice him.

It’s
also
a
constitutional
crisis
to
have
a
wacked
out
trial
judge
in
Florida
telling
the
AG
that
he
can’t
share
the
conclusions
of
a
vital
national
security
investigation
with
Congress.
Particularly
since
that
report
documents
the
behavior
of
multiple
Trump
administration
nominees,
including
Kash
Patel,
his
pick
to
lead
the
FBI.
When
Patel
was
working
at
the
Epoch
Times,
a
Chinese
ex-pat
money
laundering
operation
attached
to
a
rightwing
media
company,
he
publicly
claimed
to
have
seen
Trump
declassify
the
documents
at
issue.
But
he
took
the
Fifth
before
the
grand
jury
investigating
this
case,
and
was
eventually
immunized
and
forced
to
testify
by
Judge
Beryl
Howell.
His
conduct
here
is
certainly
germane
to
the
confirmation
battle,
and
Congress
has
a
right
to
see
it.

The
11th
Circuit
has
shown
no
inclination
to
rouse
itself
for
this
task.
But
maybe
Trump
—

whoops,
I
mean
Walt
Nauta
and
Carlos
De
Oliveira
—
would
like
to
take
one
more
flyer
at
SCOTUS
to
see
if
they
can’t
peel
Justice
Barrett
off
to
block
release
of
Volume
1.

US
v.
Trump [SDFL
Docket
via
Court
Listener]

US
v.
Trump [11th
Circuit
Docket
via
Court
Listener]

Lies.
Scams.
Disinformation.
Misinformation.
Voice
cloning.
Likeness
cloning.
Manipulated
photographs.
Manipulated
videos.
AI
has
exploded
the
possibilities
of
all
these
things
to
the
point
that
it’s
almost
impossible
to
trust
anything.
Lack
of
trust
has
enormous
implications
for
lawyers,
judges,
and
the
way
we
resolve
disputes.

And
if
you
believe
a
Thursday
afternoon


CES

panel
presentation
entitled


Fighting
Deepfakes,
Disinformation
and
Misinformation,
it’s
likely
a
problem
that
will
only
get
worse
and
for
which
there
are
precious
few
solutions.

The
Bad
News

A
year
ago,
it
was
relatively
easy
to
tell
if
a
photograph
had
been
substantially
manipulated.
Today,
according
to
the
panelists,
it’s
next
to
impossible.
In
a
year,
the
same
will
be
true
of
manipulated
or
AI
generated
fictitious
video.
Right
now,
it
takes
the
bad
guys
about
6
seconds
of
audio
to
clone
a
voice
so
well
it’s
hard
to
tell
the
difference
—
and
that
time
will
get
less. 

The
bad
guys
are
only
going
to
get
better.
Add
to
this
fact
that,
according
to
the
panel,
we
are
accustomed
to
assuming
that
a
photograph
or
video
or
even
audio
recording
is
what
it
purports
to
be.
Camera,
video,
and
audio
companies
have
spent
years
convincing
us
this
assumption
is
valid.

Finally,
as
we
begin
to
use
AI
generated
avatars,
digital
twins,
and
even
AI
agents
of
and
for
ourselves,
it
will
get
worse:
The
bad
guys
won’t
have
to
create
a
fake;
we
will
do
it
for
them.

What’s
to
Be
Done?

The
panel
talked
about
solutions,
none
of
which
struck
me
as
that
great.
First,
there
is
detection.
There
are
sophisticated
tools
and
analyses
that
can
be
done
to
attempt,
with
varying
success,
to
detect
deepfakes.
The
problem,
though,
is
similar
to
what
the
cybersecurity
world
faces:
The
bad
guys
can
figure
out
ways
to
avoid
detection
faster
than
we
can
figure
out
how
to
detect
the
fakes.
Yes,
tools
do
exist
to
detect
fakes.
But
the
tools
always
will
lag
behind
the
abilities
of
the
deepfake
producers
to
elude
detection.
In
addition,
forensic
tools
and
experts
are
expensive,
giving
the
bad
guys
more
opportunity.
And
there
are
a
lot
more
bad
guys
than
forensic
experts.

The
second
way
to
combat
the
problem
is
referred
to
as


provenance.
Provenance
is
a
way
to
determine
where
the
object
in
question
came
from
and
what
data
was
used
to
create
it.
It
informs
and/or
labels
any
object
that
may
have
been
manipulated.
Watermarks
are
perhaps
a
familiar
example.
The
idea
is
to
create
something
like
the
nutrition
labels
on
foods.

But
again,
the
panelists
noted
that
provenance
examination
and
labeling
don’t
always
work
since
the
bad
guys
will
always
be
a
step
ahead
of
the
game
and
can
erase
or
hide
the
information.
Provenance
doesn’t
completely
solve
the
problem
in
any
event,
particularly
when,
as
in
a
court
of
law,
accuracy
counts.
Provenance
may
tell
you
a
photo
may
have
been
manipulated,
but
it
won’t
necessarily
tell
you
whether
it
has
been
for
sure
and
how.
(Keep
in
mind
that
with
photos,
for
example,
some
level
of
manipulation
may
be
acceptable
or
even
expected.
The
issue
is
when
the
process
creates
an
altered
or
fictitious
image).
So
the
question
remains
subject
to
debate.

Where
did
the
panelists
come
down?
Detection
and
provenance
need
to
be
used
together
to
achieve
the
maximum
chances
of
success.
I
didn’t
get
a
warm
and
fuzzy
feel
from
this
solution,
though.

So
What
Are
Lawyers
to
Do?

Deepfakes
pose
tough
questions
for
lawyers,
judges,
and
juries.
For
lawyers
and
judges,
while
we
may
want
to
believe
what
we
are
seeing,
we
now
have
to
accept
that
we
can’t.
We
can
no
longer
assume
that
something
is
what
it
purports
to
be.
We
have
to
view
evidence
with
new,
more
critical
eyes.
We
have
to
be
prepared
to
ask
tougher
evidentiary
authentication
questions.
Authentication
can’t
be
assumed.
It
is
no
longer
the
tail
wagging
the
proverbial
dog.
It
may
be
the
dog.

One
thing
the
panelists
did
agree
on:
You
can’t
determine
if
something
is
fake
just
by
looking
at
it
or
listening
to
it.
So
we
have
to
ask
questions.
We
may
have
to
use
experts. 

We
have
to
keep
abreast
of
the
tools
available
to
question
authenticity;
we
have
to
keep
abreast
of
tools
and
strategies
the
bad
guys
are
using.

The
panelists
offered
some
help
using
what
they
called
the
human
firewall
to
ferret
out
deepfakes.
We
need
to
ask
questions
like:
Where
did
the
object
come
from?
What
is
the
credibility
of
the
source?
What
is
the
motive
of
the
object
provider?
Does
the
object
depict
something
that
is
consistent
with
the
remaining
evidence,
or
is
it
in
stark
contrast?
Is
the
photograph
consistent
with
other
photographs
from
other
sources?

In
short,
we
have
to
treat
those
attempting
to
authenticate
evidence
the
same
way
we
treat
substantive
witnesses.

Judges,
too,
have
a
significant
role.
They
need
to
understand
the
threat.
They
need
to
know
that
authenticity
can’t
be
assumed
and
is
important.
They,
too,
have
to
keep
abreast
of
what’s
happening
with
AI
and
deepfakes
and
what
the
threats
are
in
real
time.
They
need
to
know
that
“letting
the
jury
decide”
is
not
a
solution.

We
need
more
and
better
rules
for
assessing
evidentiary
credibility.
Just
as
Daubert
was
a
watershed
case
for
ensuring
the
credibility
of
expert
witnesses
and
evidence,
courts
need
some
definitive
guidance
in
the
rules
as
to
how
to
assess
deep
fake
issues.

The
public
from
which
juries
come
needs
to
be
constantly
educated
about
the
threat
so
they,
too,
can
take
with
a
grain
of
salt
evidence
that
comes
to
them
if
the
court
does
not
make
the
determination.

Is
This
Realistic?

Despite
these
potential
solutions,
it’s
hard
not
to
be
pessimistic.
Precious
few
resources
are
allocated
to
our
court
systems
already.
It’s
hard
to
see
legislatures
providing
the
funds
necessary
to
better
educate
judges
on
deepfake
issues.
The
expense
of
experts
and
forensic
analysis
will
place
less
well-heeled
litigants
at
a
disadvantage.
It
will
be
hard
to
convince
people
that
they
can’t
believe
what
they
see
when
they
have
been
conditioned
to
do
so.

And
with
today’s
polarization
of
political
beliefs
and
ideologies,
it
may
be
hard
to
convince
people
that
something
is
fake
if
they
want
to
believe
to
the
contrary.
As
lying
and
misinformation
become
more
prevalent,
litigants
and
even
lawyers
may
be
more
and
more
tempted
to
use
deepfakes
to
justify
what
they
believe
and
want.

Put
all
this
together,
and
I’m
fearful
of
what
technology
may
do
to
our
cherished
legal
institutions.
I’m
generally
an
evangelist
when
it
comes
to
technology.
Sometimes
though,
shiny
new
objects
turn
out
to
be
nothing
more
than
a
bucket
of
shit.

---

Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.