#i keep listening to the snippets in that one video jay posted

[nikoisme]

clawing at the bars of my enclosure i need more of song 40

[onestowatch]

Jay Loud Escaped Naptown, and Now It's Shaping His Music [Q&A]

Jay Loud made it out of the maze. For the multi-faceted Indianapolis artist, that fact was easier said than done. Life in the middle of Naptown involved shootouts, constant peril, and all the dangers that come with living in one of America’s most dangerous cities. It took an acquaintance's mother stepping in for his fortune to change for the better, helping him relocate to Seattle where he received the break that would spark his music career.

Now, he’s making his voice heard with Naptown, his debut project released via EMPIRE. Despite all he’s endured to get this far, there’s a sizeable amount of brightness on the album, present in his joyful melodies and the bouncy production behind them. 

“Ice Cream” sounds like the Santa Monica Pier in the middle of summertime, drenched in twinkling synths and a sugary hook that’s sweeter than a pint of Ben & Jerry’s. When he does treat his songs with a harder edge, it’s just as compelling. “Wait” brings the abrasive percussion to ratchet the energy up a notch, while his stuttering flow keeps it rolling along without a hitch.

We caught up with the artist to learn how Naptown came together, how he was first discovered, and how the move to Seattle changed his life.

Ones To Watch: Naptown is out now. What does that city mean to you?

Jay Town: Naptown is like a maze. That’s the only way to describe it. You’ve got people who are lost, you’ve got people who are trying to get out, and you’ve got people who know they’re never getting out, so they try to keep you locked in. It’s like a system, either you fail or you find a way to get out.

What kept your head on straight within that maze?

My mama being there. If she wasn’t there, I don’t know what I’d be doing. She still calls me to this day. She still gives me advice and makes sure I’m feeling right. It’s been times I didn’t think I’d be able to handle the situations I’ve been in, and she’d just remind me, “You’re good, move like this and you’re good.” She’s been a big part of that.

How much pressure did you put on yourself before this album?

I put a lot of pressure on myself. My manager Taj was like, “We have four weeks to get this done,” but it was hard for me to write songs. The simple fact that he and everyone else stayed on me, to make sure it all got done. My struggle was mostly trying to come up with hits, non-stop. If I wasn’t going to make a hit, I didn’t want to make a song. I had to warm up into exploring my way into the music, where I can come up with something regardless of how I feel about it. 

What makes you feel like you have the hit?

Previously to now, I would say “Narcos” is the hit. But “Ice Cream” was definitely a hit. It was a different sound that I didn’t even let anyone else hear. I was just rapping, with a little bit of that auto-tuned singing. But once I started actually working on it, and was able to figure out the lyrics, I knew right away. As soon as I came up with the hook, I knew it would be catchy. 

You said your manager gave you a month to finish the album. How much of it came together in that final stretch?

Within the first three weeks of that deadline, it really came together. The last week, I was just sprinkling extra things on it, or maybe replacing a few songs with older ones. But really, the album was made in those three weeks.

Talk about how you got the idea for the “Ice Cream” video.

That was Taj’s idea. He came out with the Friday look, and it fit so well, with the ice cream truck and Big Worm. I didn’t even think I’d be wearing all the curlers like that, until he showed the picture and said “We got all this for you.” You don’t know how many times I went over that scene. I know everyone else’s scene in Friday, but Big Worm is like, you don’t really pay attention to him, you’re paying attention to Smoky. I had to go over it like 10 times, until I could really come up with it. It took a lot of practice.

You ever think about acting?

I just got asked this (laughter). I promise, I really do. I could see myself on a show. I would want to direct my own, though, and then I’d be a character in it. I don’t want to be that person that just dies off.

Let’s double back to the album. How did you put it together? Did you have a checklist of like, “I have to hit this sound, this topic?”

I was cherry-picking, really. Everytime I would hear a beat, I was coming up with different sounds. Everytime I came up with a sound that was really sticking in my head, it was like, I’m going to do something with this. I didn’t write as much, so I would come up with a hook and a little bit of a verse, and then just freestyle the rest. I had to find something juicy enough that would stick with me. When it came down to it, though, it was definitely hard putting it together. I’m not going to lie, I was complaining, I was acting like a punk, like “I can’t get this done.” Taj kept reminding me, stop thinking too hard, it’s not about making a hit every time. 

When it comes to the album as a whole, who do you make you music for? Do you have an audience in mind, or is it more for yourself?

I have a certain, personal audience. It’s for me, but I want someone to feel how I feel, in that song. I want someone to feel those emotions. I just want a crowd that’s similar to me, I want to gravitate toward people who resonate with me. I was trying to figure out what I would want to listen to.

What made you leave Indianapolis and move to Seattle?

I had too much on my plate in Indy. I was talking to somebody, and their mom gave me a connection out. I told her my story, about shootouts, all of that, and she was like, you’ll at least have a better chance of dealing with your case out here. I didn’t even know how that was possible, I told her I was going to pass. I called my cousin after and he was like, “Are you dumb? There’s nothing here.” I ended up taking the chance, I took the Greyhound to Washington.

Once I got here, I was living with the mom for about two weeks, before I separated and went to the shelter. I actually got two jobs while I was working at the shelter, one at security, and one working at the mall. But I lost them both, because I didn’t have transportation. I was basically homeless, it was hard to get anywhere. One day, I decided to try and get another job. Someone told me that McDonald’s was hiring, they were doing walk-in interviews. I decided to do it, and went over for the interview.

I’m always singing and rapping out of nowhere, I don’t know where it comes from. But I was singing in McDonald’s waiting for the interview, and this dude Vontae who was doing security was like “You’re dope.” I told him I was just trying to start over, and get a better life going. He told me he had these big producers who lived in Seattle, they were looking for artists like me. I sent him a snippet and he sent it to Taj, and he got me in the studio. I recorded “Lick,” that was the first song I ever recorded. And then Taj was like, “I want to push behind you.” It just went up from there.

Did you ever work a day at that McDonald’s?

I didn’t even make it to the interview! On everything, as soon as he said “Send me a snippet,” I sent it to him, and I was like, “I’m out of here.” I’m not gonna lie, I was feeling weird about it at first. I’m from a different place, I thought it was a setup. I’m thinking, “Why is he talking to me out of all people at McDonald's?” It didn’t make sense. But then eventually, it was God talking to me. He was saying, “I’m going to set this in front of you.” Matter of fact, he put it around me, so I couldn’t even go anywhere.

How different is the energy for you in Seattle compared to back in Indianapolis?

It’s much more relaxed. I’m able to actually chill, and think about what my next move is. Back there, it was like “I don’t have a dollar in my pocket.” I gotta go out and make something happen, sell hats, whatever. Down here, I don’t even have to think like that. It’s like, “Oh, I can go get a job.” 

You don’t even want to think about a job back there; minimum wage is $7.25, and you’re only getting section 8 a certain time of the year, you have to wait for that. Until then, what are you gonna do? You can’t buy an apartment, that’s $2000 a month. You can’t buy a house, that’s even more. Even if it’s cheap, it wasn’t cheap because of minimum wage.

You named this project Naptown. Do you feel any responsibility to the music scene back there?

One of my good friends, Melo, he’s a great rapper. It’s a couple people from back home I would work with, but as far as anybody else, I don’t think so. Most people would hate, or they’re just doing it for the fame. They’ll be like “Let me do a song with you,” and then they’ll diss you on their own song. You have to be cautious about who you let into your music world.

How are you with the other parts of the music industry? Does social media feel like a chore to you?

For a second, it felt like a chore. I was like, “I’m not even a social media person,” but then, how do you expect to be heard? You can’t just go around selling CDs anymore. You can have someone in the studio post you on their story, but that’s only going to get you a couple followers. You’ve got to be promoting, you have to reach out, you have to engage. Even with non-social media people, you still have to reach out. They might have the whole city on lockdown outside of social media. 

What’s your definition of success?

I could say… everybody around me in a wealthy living situation. My family back home, and me too. But everyone around me has to experience it too. Even if you weren't there through everything back then, if you’re making an effort to show me you’re with it until the end, I got you. 

I don’t want to be that guy where it’s “If you weren’t with me from the start, then it’s F you, yada yada.” It’s a lot of people who weren’t with me, but they’re with me now. Half the reason why I’m even blowing up now is because of people who weren’t with me from the start. You have to be cautious, but at the same time, you have to open up. I just want to see everyone around me eating, that’s going to make me feel successful.

Who are your Ones to Watch?

My friend Melo, back home. Keshawn from Seattle, Louie from Tacoma. It’s a lot of artists… Rod Wave is still coming up. Duke Duece, TJ Porter, he’s from New York. 147 Calboy, he’s already making a name. It’s a lot of people that I was watching when I was in that area, props to them. 

[wolfliving]

The Privacy Threat From Always-On Microphones Like the Amazon Echo

*Can’t say you weren’t warned after you pore through all the text from the always-warning ACLU here.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/privacy-threat-always-microphones-amazon-echo

 The Privacy Threat From Always-On Microphones Like the Amazon Echo    

 By

Jay Stanley

Senior Policy Analyst, ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project

January 13, 2017 | 10:15 AM  

A warrant from police in Arkansas seeking audio records of a man’s Amazon Echo has sparked an overdue conversation about the privacy implications of “always-on” recording devices. This story should serve as a giant wakeup call about the potential surveillance devices that many people are starting to allow into their own homes.

The Amazon echo is not the only such device; others include personal assistants like Google Home, Google Now, Apple’s Siri, Windows Cortana, as well as other devices including televisions, game consoles , cars and toys. We can safely assume that the number of live microphones scattered throughout American homes will only increase to cover a wide range of “Internet of Things” (IoT) devices. (I will focus on microphones in this post, but these devices can include not just audio recorders but video as well, and the same considerations apply.)

The insecurity of a nearby mic

I was at a dinner party recently with close friends where the conversation turned to some entirely theoretical, screenplay-writing-type speculations about presidential assassinations—speculations that would be pretty dicey should certain outside parties who did not know us and where we were coming from be listening in. Realizing this as we spoke, the group thought of our host’s Amazon Echo, sitting on a side table with its little light on. The group’s conversation became self-conscious as we began joking about the Echo listening in. Joking or not, in short order our host walked over and unplugged it.

It is exactly this kind of self-consciousness and chilling effects that surveillance—or even the most remote threat of surveillance—casts over otherwise freewheeling private conversations, and is the reason people need ironclad assurance that their devices will not—cannot—betray them.

Overall, digital assistants and other IoT devices create a triple threat to privacy: from government, corporations, and hackers.

It is a significant thing to allow a live microphone in your private space (just as it is to allow them in our public spaces). Once the hardware is in place, and receiving electricity, and connected to the Internet, then you’re reduced to placing your trust in the hands of two things that unfortunately are less than reliable these days: 1) software, and 2) policy.

Software, once a mic is in place, governs when that microphone is live, when the audio it captures is transmitted over the Internet, and to whom it goes. Many devices are programmed to keep their microphones on at all times but only record and transmit audio after hearing a trigger phrase—in the case of the Echo, for example, “Alexa.” Any device that is to be activated by voice alone must work this way. There are a range of other systems. Samsung, after a privacy dust-up, assured the public that its smart televisions (like others) only record and transmit audio after the user presses a button on its remote control. The Hello Barbie toy only picks up and transmits audio when its user presses a button on the doll.

Software is invisible, however. Most companies do not make their code available for public inspection, and it can be hacked, or unscrupulous executives can lie about what it does (think Volkswagen), or government agencies might try to order companies to activate them as a surveillance device.

The dumber and more straightforward a user’s control, the better. Depriving a microphone of electricity by unplugging it and/or removing any batteries provides ironclad assurance that it’s not recording. A hardware switch is nearly as good, provided there’s no software mediation that could be overcome by hackers. (Switches can be bought for just that purpose.) A verbal command is far less certain, and devices like Echo will sometimes misinterpret sounds as their “wake word” and record random snippets of conversation. It's easy to see how a sentence such as “He was driving a Lexus in a way she said was dangerous” could be heard by an Echo as “Alexa: Sin away she said—was dangerous.” The constant potential for accidental recording means that users do not necessarily have complete control over what audio gets transmitted to the cloud.

Once their audio is recorded and transmitted to a company, users depend for their privacy on good policies—how it is analyzed; how long and by whom it is stored, and in what form; how it is secured; who else it may be shared with; and any other purposes it may be used for. This includes corporate policies (caveat emptor), but also our nation’s laws and Constitution.

Access to recordings by law enforcement We fear that some government agencies will try to argue that they do not need a warrant to access this kind of data. We believe the Constitution is clear, and that, at a minimum, law enforcement needs a warrant based on probable cause to access conversations recorded in the home using such devices. But more protections are needed. Congress, recognizing the extremely invasive nature of traditional wiretaps, enacted safeguards that go beyond what the courts had ruled the Constitution requires. These include requirements that wiretaps be used only for serious crimes, or be permitted only when other investigative procedures have failed or are unlikely to succeed. We think that these additional privacy protections should also apply to invasive digital devices in the home.

     Unfortunately the existing statutes governing the interceptions of voice communications are ridiculously tangled and confused and it’s not clear whether or how data recorded by devices in the home are covered by them. (CDT’s Joe Jerome has written a good

roundup

of that law and how it might apply to always-on devices.)

When it comes to law enforcement access, the key issues for us as a legal matter are:

Breadth. Access needs to be no broader than necessary. Any warrant authorizing access to stored conversations should particularly and narrowly describe the data that law enforcement has probable cause to believe is related to a crime—for example a specific time period, subject matter, and/or type of activity.

Minimization. There need to be protections in place to limit the collection of information that is ultimately irrelevant. In the wiretap context these include rules requiring the police to stop listening when a conversation is irrelevant, and analagous rules should be developed for IoT device data.

Notice. Historically, citizens served with search warrants have always received notice that their property is being searched—especially when that property is one’s home—and that practice should not be ended just because it is moving into the electronic realm. (We discussed this issue in greater depth last year.) Notice of IoT searches should always be served on all affected parties.

In the Arkansas case, the police did serve Amazon with a warrant—but Amazon has fought it, apparently because of overbreadth. Our only information is what the company has said in a statement: that “Amazon objects to overbroad or otherwise inappropriate demands as a matter of course.”

A legal contradiction

Digital assistants, like smart meters and many other IoT devices, split open a contradiction between two legal doctrines that both sit at the core of privacy law:

The sanctity of the home. The inside of the home has for centuries been sacred when it comes to privacy. The Supreme Court has refused to let police use thermal scanners on private homes, for example, despite government protests that it was only measuring the heat leaving the home. And although the Court has ruled that dog sniffs for drugs are not a search in cars or in public spaces, it refused to allow them near the home. As Justice Anthony Scalia pointed out in the thermal scanner case, “the Fourth Amendment draws a firm line at the entrance to the house.”

The third-party doctrine. As strong as privacy jurisprudence has been in protecting the home, it has been very weak in another area. Under the court's so-called “third party doctrine,” the Constitution does not require police to get a warrant to get people's records from their bank, telephone company, internet service provider, Google, Amazon, or any other third party. As a result, law enforcement agencies have argued in recent years that they should be able to obtain information such as individuals’ cell phone records, location history, even emails from companies without a warrant.

The contradiction arises when devices inside the home stream data about activities in that home to the servers of a third-party corporation. Because of the third party doctrine, to give just one example, police have been obtaining home energy-use data from utilities without a warrant. In a home with a “smart meter,” that kind of data can be so minutely detailed that it can reveal all kinds of details about what people are doing inside their homes—which appliances they use, and when they use them—and even what television shows they watch (based on the patterns of light and dark in a show, which changes a television set’s electricity draw). In fact, in the very same Arkansas murder case in which the police are seeking data from the suspect’s Amazon Echo, they built their case against him using warrantlessly obtained data from his smart water meter, which prosecutors say shows he used 140 gallons of water between 1 and 3 a.m. They allege he was trying to hose blood stains off his patio. (He says the AM/PM setting on the meter’s clock was wrong and he used that water in the afternoon in order to fill his hot tub.)

The solution to the contradiction between the sanctity of the home and the third-party doctrine is clear: the third party doctrine must go. It is increasingly untenable in an era where much of the data created about people's lives sits on the servers of international corporations—and the growth of IoT devices like digital assistants will make its inadequacy in the information age even clearer.

Recommendations In addition to rigorously applying constitutional privacy protections as outlined above, the following steps should be applied to IoT microphones:

Speech fragments transmitted to companies should be retained for the minimal necessary period, should not be shared absent a warrant, and should not be used for other purposes.

Companies should do whatever necessary to ensure their users have a clear understanding about what data is kept and for how long. That means fine print buried in a click-through agreement is not enough.

Users should have access to any of their audio recordings that a company retains, and the option to delete them. Commendably, some companies (Google and Amazon, for example) already do this. It needs to become at minimum an expected, standard best practice.

It should become standard for microphones to feature a hardwired, non-software-modifiable LED indicator light that turns on whenever a mic is on (defined as transmitting electrical signals to anywhere else). It might make sense for there to be another, separate indicator when software is recording and/or transmitting signals to the Internet. The more transparency to the consumer, the better.

It should also become standard to build in a hardware power switch that physically cuts off electricity to a microphone so that consumers can stop a microphone from recording. As much as possible, the power interruption that that switch effects should be tangible or even visible, so that customers can feel complete certainty that the microphone cannot record, akin to the certainty that comes from putting a bandage (or ACLU sticker) over the camera on one’s laptop.

To the greatest extent possible, the code governing the operation of microphones should be public. When people depend on software to protect their privacy, transparent code is the only way to give people assurance a device is doing what it’s supposed to and no more.

Special attention should be paid to any capability for remote activation of recording. Best for privacy is for no such activation to be possible. If there is a strong case to be made that such capability may be desired by consumers, then it should be to the greatest extent possible designed to be something that only consumers themselves can activate, and that consumers can permanently disable if they wish. Consumers must also be given explicit warning where any such capabilities exist.

Companies and policymakers need to address the raft of issues around the stability of IoT devices, especially in-home devices with microphones or cameras. When not regularly updated, for example, such devices quickly become security threats. And what happens when the company providing those updates goes out of business or is acquired—or just changes its privacy policy? Devices that start out as private and secure can become a toxic presence inside the home as a result of things happening in the outside world, and right now, consumers are on their own in a Wild West.

One of the best things that can be done for privacy is for speech recognition capabilities to be embedded locally in a device, so there’s no need to send audio clips to servers across the Internet. While that can work now for some simple commands, experts say that good recognition of a broader array of speech still requires processing in the cloud.

Legislative privacy protections are also needed. In addition to broad privacy rules governing corporate use of private data, which would help in this area as in so many others, Congress should lay out strong and precise standards for when the government can access data from these new devices. As with wiretaps, the privacy and public interests at stake may require protections beyond a warrant and notice requirement.

Again, all of these principles should also apply to video that in-home devices may capture and potentially stream to the cloud, which carries the same threats and problems.

It is a healthy thing that this Arkansas story has sparked a public conversation about always-on devices. We and other privacy advocates have been watching this technology for some time—our allies at the privacy group EPIC wrote a letter to the FTC in 2015 requesting an investigation of always-on devices and their privacy implications. And the Future of Privacy Forum, a DC think tank, produced a helpful report on the issue last year.

But if microphones are going to be part of our daily lives in our intimate spaces, we need broader awareness of the issues they raise, and to settle on strong protections and best practices as soon as possible.