"The Pokemon was us all along," realizes Esquire's Luke O’Neil, after BuzzFeed's Joseph Bernstein showed us all the data Pokemon Go is collecting from our phones (at 2,500 shocked shares so far -- shocked!). Put another way, per CNN's David Daniel: "As you collect 'em all with #PokemonGO, here's what Nintendo is collecting about you." In layman's terms, if you signed up with your Google account to play Pokemon Go, Niantic has access to your Google account. Or as the author Bernstein describes it, "gotta catch ‘em all. “all” = your private information. you’re sheep, i’m sheep, we’re sheep." Even more charmingly put by Anthony Crupi: "Pokemon Go F**k Yourself. Why America's latest dopey craze is a hacker's wet dream." James Downie at the Washington Post advises, "Even the not-so-paranoid should probably think twice about using Pokemon Go on iOS devices." Of course, we can always count on a few good skeptics to bring us back down to earth when the threat of anxiety becomes too great: "Articles designed to scare ppl about normal data collection are by far the worst takes in the Pokemon Go takestorm," resolves Eric Geller at POLITICOPro.
Perhaps it's all a ruse to distract us from the surprising new evidence that shows racial bias in police use of force, but not in shootings. How surprising? The Harvard study's author Roland G. Fryer, Jr. calls it "the most surprising result of my career." "The study everyone's talking about today on police use of force and race (note it's a working paper, not reviewed)," observes Ben Swasey at WBUR-FM. "Study by (black) Harvard economist finds cops LESS likely to use deadly force on black suspect vs. white. TOLD YOU!" crows Larry Elder at KRLA-AM. "But for incidents other than shootings, there are clear disparities," underscores Farhad Manjoo at the New York Times. And here, again, the headline received some pushback: "A study looked at 1.6 million arrests in Houston, selecting five serious arrest codes that account for 16,000, or 1% of the total," notes The Atlantic's Yoni Appelbaum, before continuing, "Researchers then randomly sampled 5% of the 1%—or 800 incidents. And somehow, that produced headlines like this." At the NY Times, Binyamin Appelbaum cautions, "If your sentence about Fryer's findings on police shootings doesn't include the modifier "in Houston" you are overstating those conclusions" then adds, "Put differently, I don't understand Fryer's reasons for presenting these findings as if they were national." At Scientific American, Alex Wild pleads, "Dear ppl talking about the police shootings study, Please note the small non-random sample of cities." You better believe WaPo's Wesley Lowery has something to say about it, too: "Aren’t more white people than black people killed by police? Yes, but no."
In breaking news, two bailiffs and an inmate are dead after the inmate got hold of a gun at a courthouse in Michigan, which was not the news we wanted after last week's carnage. "Stop! Please, just stop," begs KPNX anchor Mark Curtis. Michigan's governor says the courthouse has been secured. In politics, Evan Bayh reportedly is mounting a Senate return, which could tip the balance in November. "Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water," quips Joshua Holland at The Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute. Meanwhile, Donald Trump supposedly will make his mind up on his VP pick in the "next three to four days." Howard Kurtz with Fox News speculates, "Trump seems to rule out Flynn, doesn't want 'anti-establishment' figure but does want 'chemistry' with his No. 2." At Fusion, Mark Gimein wonders, "So does this mean its Christie? No danger of him helping the ticket."