Techdirt

The How to Hack Bundle has 8 courses to teach you all about ethical hacking. You’ll learn how to diagnose different kinds of cybersecurity attacks and how to defeat them. You'll practice all the skills and techniques in real-time using an ethical hacking lab so you can put your learning to the test. You'll experience real-time hacking examples while learning how to protect yourself against them. It's on sale for $39.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

A massive data leak has confirmed what's been suspected (and reported by security researchers like Citizen Lab) for a long time: Israeli malware developer NSO Group's powerful cellphone snooping tools have been used to target journalists, activists, and dissidents all over the world.The Guardian and 16 other media outlets have dug into the data leak and uncovered some pretty disturbing info about NSO's Pegasus malware, which allows those deploying the spyware to extract messages, record phone calls, and surreptitiously activate microphones.Who's in the list of phone numbers seen by the Guardian? Lots and lots and lots of journalists.

For years we've talked about how the broadband and cable industry has perfected the use of utterly bogus fees to jack up subscriber bills -- a dash of financial creativity it adopted from the banking and airline industries. Countless cable and broadband companies tack on a myriad of completely bogus fees below the line, letting them advertise one rate -- then sock you with a higher rate once your bill actually arrives. These companies will then brag repeatedly about how they haven't raised rates yet this year, when that's almost never actually the case.One 2019 Consumer Reports study found that about 24% of consumer bills are comprised of bullshit fees, generating cable giants $28 billion in additional revenue annually. The problem is just as bad over in broadband (see Centurylink's utterly nonsensical "Internet Cost Recovery" fee). Often cable and broadband companies will try to give such fees official-sounding names like "regulatory recovery" so that consumers falsely blame government for being nickel-and-dimed. But between TV fees, hardware fees, usage fees, and other surcharges, bundled customers dole out a small fortune every year for absolutely nothing.It's fraud, but fraud that has somehow been normalized over decades.I've been writing about this problem for the better part of twenty years, so it's disheartening to see the Washington Post still covering this bullshit in 2021 without much having changed:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2016, the DEA seemed to be making some kind of effort to curb its abuse of warrantless wiretaps, while a report in the UK showed that police improperly accessed data on citizens thousands of times, and Sweden was considering making DNA that had been donated purely for medical research available to cops and insurance companies. Two senators were speaking out against efforts to expand FBI surveillance, and one of them who is well known to Techdirt readers — Ron Wyden — joined the podcast to discuss it. This was also the week that Pokemon Go took the world by storm, and we had an early mention of what is now a household name with a post about AstraZeneca trying to extend a patent.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2011, we wrote about why PROTECT IP would fail in its goals because people would never accept it, while lobbyists were ramping up the pressure to get it passed. Righthaven was accused of avoiding paying legal fees it owed and was ordered to stop delaying, while it continued to suffer loss after loss. And the Monkey Selfie drama continued, with a news agency telling us to remove the photos from our post and the photographer claiming he owned the copyright because he thought the picture might happen, while we looked closer at why the photo is likely in the public domain.Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2006, a judge handed down a worrying ruling that said it infringes copyright to edit movies you've bought. The recording industry in the UK was asking ISPs to shut down the accounts of file sharers, but they were not convinced by the evidence, drawing the disappointing ire of indie record labels that were failing to innovate. There was also a lot of think-of-the-children panic happening, and we took a look at the overbearing ways people were trying to keep kids "safe" by tracking and monitoring them, while some in congress were blaming MySpace for troubled children.

Honestly, this is the last thing I wanted to be writing about today. First, let's make this clear: when I've seen political officials -- both Democrats and Republicans alike -- threatening to punish companies for 1st Amendment protected activities, I call it out. Indeed, I've been highlighting these kinds of issues for years -- and it has nothing to do with politics or ideology or who I like or who I don't like.It's a simple fact: the US government should not be threatening or coercing private companies into taking down protected speech.But, over the past few days there's been an absolutely ridiculous shit storm falsely claiming that the White House is, in fact, doing this with Facebook, leading to a whole bunch of nonsense -- mainly from the President's critics. It began on Thursday, when White House press secretary Jen Psaki, in talking about vaccine disinfo, noted that the White House had flagged vaccine disinformation to Facebook. And... critics of the President completely lost their shit claiming that it was a "First Amendment violation" or that it somehow proved Donald Trump's case against the social media companies.It did none of those things.On Friday, rather than recognizing how this whole line of argument would be weaponized, the White House doubled down, again highlighting how it was upset about misinformation about vaccines on social media, and then when asked directly about "Facebook" Joe Biden said "they're killing people." This is, of course, wrong. Facebook is not killing people. Some idiots on Facebook are spreading misinformation and disinformation that is likely causing people to die, but we should be putting the blame where it needs to be put. On the people spreading the disinformation.Either way, the fact that the government might flag to social media companies that certain content is disinformation does not, in any way, reach the level of coercion or demands that would make it a 1st Amendment violation. There was no indication that the companies were told to take it down. There's no indication that anything happened other than the administration saying "Hey, this stuff is dangerous." And, I mean, if you're going to get mad at administrations demanding social media posts get taken down, it certainly looks like the Trump administration went way further than the Biden administration did in demanding such things (like that time with regards to posts advocating for the removal of confederate statues). I don't remember any of the folks now screaming about the Biden administration complaining when Trump actually did demand posts be removed.Of course, that still doesn't make this necessarily the right approach by the White House -- and frankly, it's astounding that they walked right into this seemingly unaware of how it would all play out. Ken White wrote out the perfect way in which a smart White House would have dealt with this issue:

A group of California police officers has decided other people's expressive rights end where their personal offense begins. Five Palo Alto police officers are suing the city, along with their own police department, for somehow discriminating against them by allowing artists to create a street-long Black Lives Matter mural these officers passed on their way to work. (Well, at least up until the mural was removed by the city in November 2020, less than six months after it was first painted.)The complaint contends harassment begins with the letter "E." From the lawsuit [PDF]:

I'm beginning to think that Montana Senator Steve Daines really, really doesn't like the 1st Amendment. Instead, he likes to wrap himself in a faux American flag as he pretends to be patriotic, while attempting to stamp out the rights the 1st Amendment provides to Americans. Last week, we wrote about his attempt to amend the Constitution (specifically, chipping away at the 1st Amendment), to make flag burning illegal.This week, he decided to just spit on the 1st Amendment itself and introduce yet another unconstitutional social media moderation bill that would amend Section 230. Called the "Preserving Political Speech Online Act," the bill does a few different things, but the key one seems to be... to make politicians like himself a special protected class. Because, Senators like himself, worth over $30 million, clearly are an oppressed class.There's some stuff about how if you take political advertisements from some candidates you have to take them from all candidates. But the really sketchy stuff is in how it modifies Section 230. It would change Section (c)(2) -- the part of Section 230 that is rarely relied upon, regarding "good faith" blocking of content -- such that the "otherwise objectionable" bit is deleted, and replaced with "threatening or promoting illegal activity." It would also remove the line that sites are protected for blocking material "whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."Of course, this misunderstands the nature of both Section 230 (and how (c)(1) already protects most moderation) and the 1st Amendment, which already protects most content moderation editorial choices as well. But, then Daines has to take it a step further and make absolutely sure his bill is blatantly unconstitutional. Because it also adds in a prohibition on certain types of moderation. It says you can no longer moderate "political speech." Apparently Daines wants to make sure all Nazis are protected when they promote fascism. His bill would add in this bit of unconstitutional garbage:

I'm beginning to think that Montana Senator Steve Daines really, really doesn't like the 1st Amendment. Instead, he likes to wrap himself in a faux American flag as he pretends to be patriotic, while attempting to stamp out the rights the 1st Amendment provides to Americans. Last week, we wrote about his attempt to amend the Constitution (specifically, chipping away at the 1st Amendment), to make flag burning illegal.This week, he decided to just spit on the 1st Amendment itself and introduce yet another unconstitutional social media moderation bill that would amend Section 230. Called the "Preserving Political Speech Online Act," the bill does a few different things, but the key one seems to be... to make politicians like himself a special protected class. Because, Senators like himself, worth over $30 million, clearly are an oppressed class.There's some stuff about how if you take political advertisements from some candidates you have to take them from all candidates. But the really sketchy stuff is in how it modifies Section 230. It would change Section (c)(2) -- the part of Section 230 that is rarely relied upon, regarding "good faith" blocking of content -- such that the "otherwise objectionable" bit is deleted, and replaced with "threatening or promoting illegal activity." It would also remove the line that sites are protected for blocking material "whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."Of course, this misunderstands the nature of both Section 230 (and how (c)(1) already protects most moderation) and the 1st Amendment, which already protects most content moderation editorial choices as well. But, then Daines has to take it a step further and make absolutely sure his bill is blatantly unconstitutional. Because it also adds in a prohibition on certain types of moderation. It says you can no longer moderate "political speech." Apparently Daines wants to make sure all Nazis are protected when they promote fascism. His bill would add in this bit of unconstitutional garbage:

One of the last hopes of getting the EU's terrible upload filters thrown out was an intriguing legal challenge brought by Poland at the region's highest court, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). As is usual in these cases, a preliminary opinion is offered by one of the CJEU's special advisers. It's not binding on the main court, but can offer interesting hints of what the final judgment might be. Unfortunately, in his analysis Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe recommends that the CJEU should dismiss the action brought by Poland (pdf), because in his view Article 17 of the EU Copyright Directive is compatible with freedom of expression and information.That's a huge disappointment, since many hoped he would unequivocally rule that upload filters breach fundamental rights. However, the Advocate General's opinion is by no means a complete disaster for users of online sharing services. He recognizes the right of people to make "legitimate use of protected subject matter." Specifically, that means people must be able to rely on the EU's exceptions and limitations to copyright. Moreover:

Zulu Exero is a bone conduction headset that lets you experience truly personal out-of-ear audio. Using a light vibration in the headset as they rest around your ears, music is generated just for you, without blocking out your surroundings. There are many situations where noise cancellation is unsafe and also uncomfortable. These headphones are the perfect alternative. Better than normal headphones because you can still hear the world around you. They have up to 6 hours of play. The headphones are on sale for $34.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

As you'll recall, Florida's social media bill was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge a couple weeks ago. The state has already moved to appeal that decision, so we'll have to see how the judges on the 11th Circuit feel about all of this. However, apparently the case in the lower court is still moving forward in some way (I had assumed that after the preliminary injunction and appeal that the case would be stayed until the appeal was decided, but apparently not? Understanding civil procedure is an impossibility).Earlier today Florida filed its response to the lawsuit, which is... not much. It's basically this sentence over and over again:

The US has always had a fairly pathetic definition of "broadband." Originally defined as anything over 200 kbps in either direction, the definition was updated in 2010 to a pathetic 4 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up. It was updated again in 2015 by the Wheeler FCC to a better, but still arguably pathetic 25 Mbps downstream, 3 Mbps upstream. As we noted then, the broadband industry whined incessantly about having any higher standards, as it would only further highlight industry failure and a lack of competition.Unfortunately for them, pressure continues to grow to push the US definition of broadband even higher. Back in March, a coalition of Senators wrote the Biden administration to recommend that 100 Mbps in both directions become the new baseline. And last week, the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a new report noting that the current standard of 25 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up is simply too pathetic to be useful. The focus was on small businesses, but the GAO politely noted that the FCC should update its definition soon:

Law enforcement officers have no legal obligation to protect and serve. The words look nice on badges and insignias, but courts have said this is only a nicety, not a guarantee.But that doesn't mean officers can abandon any pretense of protection and service. There are some limits enforced by precedent. Neglecting to take complaints and threats seriously can have consequences. The difference is the definition. There's no due process right to protection and service. But the government does have an obligation under the Fourteenth Amendment to ensure no citizen receives less protection and service than others.That fine line was crossed in this tragic case handled by the Tenth Circuit Appeals Court. And it all could have been avoided if the officers involved didn't decide to give one of their own some unequal protection. The decision [PDF] opens by briefly alluding to this fine line.

For what it's worth, lawsuits against Apple over emojis are not entirely unheard of. You may recall that Apple was sued by a woman who claimed it was copyright infringement for Apple to have emojis that represent more diverse communities, for instance. But for a truly fun story about Apple being sued, and winning its defense, over emojis, well, you have to go to a case between Apple and a company called Social Tech.

We warned that this was likely back when Google announced plans to phase out third-party cookies in Chrome (something all the other major browser makers had already done): that this would be used to attack Google as being anti-competitive, even as it was pro-privacy. Privacy and competition do not need to be in conflict, but they can be. And what's happening now is that more sketchy ad companies are abusing the constant drumbeat and fear over "Big Tech" to attack privacy protections -- but that behind the scenes story is getting missed as people are more focused on more breaking news about how Google has decided to push back its move on 3rd party cookies for two more years.Issie Lapowsky, over at Protocol, has a must read story on how sketchy ad and data brokers have crashed the W3C, riding a wave of anti-big tech feelings to push for worse solutions for everyone as it comes to privacy (of course, Facebook is on the wrong side of this as well -- it's basically all the sketchy companies and Facebook against all the other companies). It's quite a story.

A decision that created a chilling effect on protected First Amendment activity is headed to yet another court to get the details sorted out.It's been more than four years since an anonymous police officer sued over injuries they sustained while responding to a protest in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The officer was struck in the face by a thrown chunk of concrete. Rather than recognize this was an unfortunate side effect of being in the law enforcement business, the officer sued activist DeRay Mckesson -- who decidedly did not throw the object that struck the officer.The officer's argument was that Mckesson's organization of the protest, as well as his decision to lead protesters out to block the highway in front of the police station, made him at least indirectly responsible for the injuries the officer sustained.Somehow this lawsuit and its ridiculous premise survived two passes by the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court, with its second decision noting how angry it was that it was forced to take another look at its inexplicable first decision: the one that said that Mckesson should have know that leading protesters out into a street would result in the injury of police officers.

The Washington Examiner is popular among conservatives, so it's good to see them publish a wonderful article by Hannah Cox completely dismantling the various arguments made by so many Republicans these days, that the government should force websites to carry all speech. In particular, she targets Donald Trump's pathetic lawsuits against Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube with the brilliant title: "You're not entitled to a platform, boomer." Of course, if only it were true that it were just clueless boomers making this argument, but the point stands.What I like most about the article, though is that it hits on just how incredibly entitled and hypocritical these arguments have been -- completely tossing in the garbage what had been seen as bedrock conservative viewpoints about private property and not playing the victim all the time.

The The Professional Microsoft Excel Training Bundle has 8 courses designed to help you become a data crunching pro. You'll learn the basics of designing a spreadsheet, creating charts and graphs, then move on to learning popular functions and automation. One course focuses on PivotTable, which allows you to automatically sort data from one table and present it in another, and another focuses on Microsoft VBA to help you automate tasks and operations that you perform frequently, and more. The bundle is on sale for $39.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Grandstands and bandwagons: that's what's headed to Social Media Town. Professional victims -- far too many of them earning public money -- have produced a steady stream of stupid legislation targeting social media platforms for supposedly "censoring" the kind of the content they really like: "conservative views." Convinced by failed-businessman-turned-failed-president Donald Trump (and his herd of Capitol Hill toadies) that social media has it in for anyone but the leftiest leftists, a bunch of legislators have hacked up "anti-censorship" bills that aim to protect free speech by trampling on free speech.The latest (but surely not the last) legislator to grab his bandstand and board the bandwagon is Wisconsin state Senator Julian Bradley. Bradley seems convinced his low Twitter polling must be due to social media companies keeping him down.

For years, US wireless carriers have had a... somewhat nebulous relationship with the dictionary definition of "unlimited." As in, for the better part of two decades they've sold wireless data plans professing to be "unlimited," then included all manner of heavy handed limitations, often buried in mouse print. Verizon received wrist slaps for this way back in 2007. AT&T recently settled accusations that it lied to consumers about the throttling limitations in the company's "unlimited" plans (impacted consumers got all of $22 for participating in the class action).None of these penalties were meaningful enough to really change industry behavior. AT&T and Verizon for example now charge more for "unlimited" plans that don't throttle 4K or HD video. And you need to pay more if you want to use your phone and "unlimited data plan" as a mobile hotspot. Sprint at one point even tried throttling all games, music, and movies unless users paid more.Somehow we normalized paying wireless providers more money just to avoid arbitrary restrictions, then celebrate when they ease off even modestly. For example this week, AT&T announced that users that buy the company's most expensive wireless plan ($85-per-month "Unlimited Elite) will no longer see their connection throttled after a set amount of usage. In short, if you want AT&T to get close to adhering to the dictionary definition of "unlimited," you'll need to pay more:

We've already written a few times about how Japan's onerous Unfair Competition Prevention Law has created what looks from here like a massive overreach on the criminalization of copyright laws. Past examples include Japanese journalism executives being arrested over a book that tells people how to back up their own DVDs, along with more high-profile cases in which arrests occurred over the selling of cheats or exploits in online multiplayer video games. While these too seem like an overreach of copyright law, or at least an over-criminalization of relatively minor business problems facing electronic media companies, they are nothing compared with the idea that a person could be arrested and face jail time for the crime of selling modded save-game files for single player game like The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild.

Summary: Since its debut in 2007, Twitter hasn't changed much about its formula, except for expanding its character limit from 140 to 280 in 2007 and adding useful features such as lists, trending topics and polls. Twitter has embraced images and videos, adding it to its original text-only formula, but seemed to have little use for audio. That changed in June 2020 when Twitter announced it would allow users to upload audio-only tweets. Remaining true to the original formula, audio tweets were limited to 140 seconds, although Twitter will automatically add new audio tweets to a thread if the user's recording ran long.With Twitter engaged in day-to-day struggles moderating millions of tweets, critics and analysts expressed concern the platform would be unable to adequately monitor tweets whose content couldn't be immediately discerned by other users. The content would be unable to be pre-screened by moderators -- at least not without significant AI assistance. But that assistance might prove problematic if it caused more problems than it solved by overblocking.There was also the potential for harassment. Since abusive audio tweets relied heavily on other Twitter users reporting, abusive audio tweets could be posted and remain up until someone noticed and reported it.Another issue audio tweets raised wasn't about proactively flagging and removing unwanted content, but that this new offering excluded certain Twitter users from being a part of the conversation.

I know that the internet is taking quite a beating these days, but we should not forget the promise of the internet, and how it can be used for important movements. The protests in Cuba are a perfect example of this. As you probably know, Cuba has had very limited access to the internet, though it has expanded recently. Twenty years ago we wrote about efforts to build bootleg internet connections in Cuba, and a decade later, Fidel Castro suddenly talked about how important the internet was, noting that he had become something of an internet junkie himself. It's really only in the last few years that Cuba has made it really possible for people to have internet in their homes, but only via the state operated ETECSA with fairly limited speeds.Of course, access to information (and people) is a two-edged sword in many ways, and as many authoritarian governments have discovered in the past, the general public might not go in the direction you want them to go in. And thus, the Cuban government did what so many authoritarians have done before: as the protests picked up, the internet began to shut down. It wasn't a full internet cut-off, but what appeared to be targeted at specific messaging apps. According to Kevin Collier at NBC News:

Judge Roy Moore -- former Senate hopeful and twice-removed-for-misconduct Alabama Supreme Court justice -- has lost his lawsuit against satirist Sacha Baron Cohen. Having agreed to be on the receiving end of some satire (albeit not knowingly), Roy Moore sued Cohen after falling victim to a prank in which Cohen (performing as his character General Erran Morad) waved an electric wand he claimed could detect sexual predators. The wand beeped while close to Roy Moore.The bit was, of course, a reference to the cascade of sexual misconduct allegations that rained down on Roy Moore during his run for a Senate seat. Moore claimed that he never would have agreed to this if he hadn't been duped by Cohen and his production team into thinking he was actually in New York City to receive a prestigious award for his "strong support of Israel." Moore also claimed the pedophile wand beeping in his presence was defamation -- and $95 million of it at that.Well, it isn't defamation and if there was any duping (and there was), Roy Moore agreed to it. The New York federal court handling the lawsuit brought by Moore and his wife, Kayla, has dismissed the case with prejudice, using both contract law and the First Amendment to do so.Moore's claims fail because he signed a Standard Consent Agreement (SCA) in which he agreed to do (and, more importantly, not do) several things. Because this agreement was willingly signed, all three of Roy Moore's claims (infliction of emotional distress, fraud, defamation) have already been waived.Here's the court [PDF] spelling it out the details Moore apparently failed to read when he signed the agreement:

Just because government officials may not like the tone of the criticism they're receiving doesn't mean they can use their government power to mandate civility. That's the determination of the Sixth Circuit Appeals Court, which has struck down part of an Ohio school board's rules of (public) engagement.Following a school shooting in 2016, the Madison (OH) Local School District came up with a preventative plan -- one that involved allowing school staff to carry concealed weapons. This didn't play well with some parents. It also didn't play well with some of the district's students, who staged a walkout to protest gun violence. Following the discipline of those students, some residents decided to attend a school board meeting to express their feelings about the rule change and the punishment of students for their expressive speech.Madison school district meetings are governed by the following "Public Participation Policy:"

The Complete 2020 Learn Linux Bundle has 12 courses to help you learn Linux OS concepts and processes. You'll start with an introduction to Linux and progress to more advanced topics like shell scripting, data encryption, supporting virtual machines, and more. Other courses cover Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 (RHEL 8), virtualizing Linux OS using Docker, AWS, and Azure, how to build and manage an enterprise Linux infrastructure, and much more. It's on sale for $59.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Back in April, we wrote about how Steven Biss, who has become infamous for his flurry of frivolous defamation lawsuits -- many of which are on behalf of Congressional Representative Devin Nunes as well as an odd collection of wacky people in Nunes' orbit -- had lost yet another case, but that the court had rejected sanctioning Biss. That didn't last long. That ruling was in the 4th Circuit appeals court in the case Biss brought on behalf of Russian-born academic Svetlana Lokhova against a Cambridge academic, Stefan Halper, and a variety of media organizations. I'm not going to recount all the details of the case again. You can read those in our original post. Just know that it seemed to be a pretty obvious SLAPP suit. Much of it was filed after the statute of limitations had passed, on statements that were clearly not defamatory, and, in at least one case, appearing to sue the wrong party. However, the District Court judge and the Appeals Court both found that while Biss had a long history of bad behavior in court, they didn't want to take the further step of sanctioning him. Yet. Though both courts made it clear that further shenanigans could change that.I will give you just one guess what happened next. And I'm sure you'll get it right.I had somehow missed that while Biss/Lokhova were getting benchslapped in that case, they had decided it would be a good idea to file another frivolous SLAPP suit against Halper. This case involved claims that Halper had somehow defamed Lokhova (again) and tortiously interfered with her publishing contract, regarding a book she was publishing all about Steven Halper (which Halper insists itself is defamatory towards him). Halper had sent a letter to the publisher and distributor of the book arguing that Lokhova's book was defamatory, and then Biss/Lokhova sued Halper again. They failed to mention that they had already sued Halper, and that the cases were related, which probably didn't make the court very happy in the first place.Judge Leonie Brinkema seems to have had enough. Recognizing that her original lenient order not to issue sanctions in the last case was ineffective, she has finally recognized that Biss seems unwilling to back down. So she has now order both Biss and Lokhova to pay Halper's legal fees in this case.

We've repeatedly noted how the "right to repair" movement has been gaining a full head of steam as consumers, independent repair shops, schools, farmers, and countless others grow tired of corporations' attempts to monopolize repair. Whether it's Sony and Microsoft creating repair monopolies for their game consoles, Apple bullying independent repair shops, or John Deere making it a costly hassle just to fix a tractor, the more companies restrict access to cheap repair, parts, tools, and documentation, the more this movement seems to grow.We're now reaching an obvious tipping point. The federal government and more than two dozen states have proposed new right to repair laws. The recent Biden executive order also urged the FTC to do everything in its power (which is limited under the FTC Act) to address the problem.And last week, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak jumped into the fray to point out that after finally studying the issue at length (he insists his "busy schedule" prevented this until now), he's now a big fan of meaningful right to repair reform:Ironically, the company Woz once founded has proven to be the most obnoxious player on this front. Apple's ham-fisted efforts to shut down, sue, or otherwise imperil third-party repair shops are legendary as are the company's efforts to force recycling shops to shred Apple products (so they can't be refurbished and re-used, harming consumers and the environment alike). The company also routinely lies about what right to reform legislation actually does, trying to conflate its desire to protect revenues with altruistic worries about public safety.After researching the issue, Woz says he now "totally supports" the right to repair movement and that open-source technology and standards were absolutely instrumental in Apple's early successes and popularity, whether it was their ability to manipulate video input on older TVs, or shipping the Apple I with full design specs so users could tinker with the device once they got it home:

Any review of the stories we've done on DRM in video games will reveal two main categories as far as themes for those posts. The first is that DRM is laughably ineffective. DRM is an arms race that only ever has one winner: those who seek to circumvent it. Even the once-vaunted Denuvo DRM, thought, for some time, to be undefeatable, has now been reduced to being an industry joke. The other theme is how DRM has awful effects on paying customers and absolutely zero negative effects on those who commit copyright infringement. So, what is DRM? A useless platform used by video games with only one real impact: annoying paying customers.But one point that often gets lost is that cracked versions of games that include annoying DRM aren't just functioning as copyright infringement (though they certainly are primarily that), but also that these cracked versions can also be legitimately seen as fixing these broken games. For an example of this, one need only look at the PC gaming experience surrounding Resident Evil 8: Village, which is fundamentally broken on the PC for paying customers.The background here is that Capcom actually layers two different DRM systems on the game, apparently as a method for making the game much harder to crack. Instead of being cracked at the time of release, in May, the game was only cracked here in July. The problem is that this 2 months worth of protection appears to have come at the cost of the game being able to keep up when players do very necessary things in a Resident Evil game like, oh say, shooting zombies.

Last month, a federal judge easily declared Florida's social media law (complete with its Disney-inspired theme park exemption) as unconstitutional. It wasn't a hard call. Florida had tossed out a bunch of wacky arguments and the judge smacked down each and every one of them. He even pointed out that if you didn't use strict scrutiny (as you must) to analyze whether the law violated the 1st Amendment, it would still be unconstitutional.But, of course, as we discussed with Florida legislator Anna Eskamani last week, this was never about anything more than trying to kick up yet another culture war. So it should come as little surprise that Florida has now officially moved to appeal the district court ruling. This will shock no one, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be disappointed. This will be yet more of a waste of Florida taxpayer money on a frivolous legal battle in a state that has some pretty significant and real problems at the moment.Hopefully, the 11th Circuit makes quick work of this. The district court judge, Robert Hinkle, of course, expected all of this, and much of his ruling seems drafted to convince judges on the 11th Circuit (he more or less said as much in the hearing before his ruling). But, these days, you still do need to worry that some confused judge will suddenly get infatuated with a dumb idea, and make a total mess of things. Even though to basically every expert this law is obviously unconstitutional, no one should breathe easy until after the courts have thoroughly stomped on its dead corpse and made that abundantly clear.

Outside of the company's unwavering fanboys, it's fairly clear to most folks that the honeymoon phase of the planet's relationship with Tesla is coming to a close. Whether it's regulatory scrutiny of the company's premature and often inaccurate self-driving claims, the loss of significant emissions credits in the US and Europe, frustration at the often stupid shit that comes out of Elon Musks' mouth, legal issues related to the SolarCity acquisition, or major quality headaches related to the company's solar installations and cars alike, the bloom has, as they say, fallen from the rose.That also extends to China, where Tesla's early successes appear to have hit a bit of a roadblock. Part of that roadblock recently emerged in the form of a massive recall of nearly every Tesla sold in China due to software issues. Responding to bipartisan US aggressiveness (see: TikTok), the Chinese government has also banned all Teslas from being used by government agencies, citing potential privacy natsec concerns. After initially rolling out the red carpet, Chinese officials have sharply shifted their tone over the better part of the last year.As Bloomberg notes, genuine concerns about Tesla safety, government anger over Tesla hubris, and a souring US/China relationship appear to have fused into one big headache for the company:

Now that it's been revealed the FBI -- along with an unnamed conspirator linked to encrypted phone development -- created a honeypot device to harvest communications between suspected criminals, the backdoored devices are making their debut in the (non-criminal) public domain.Following the exposure of the FBI-created "Anom" chat service -- a backdoored service placed on secure phones supposedly only sold to members of large criminal organizations -- multiple law enforcement agencies announced the arrest of dozens of suspected criminals. The devices, however, are still out there. And they're showing up on classified ad sales sites and potentially suckering in people just looking for a cheap Android device.Whatever the price is, you're getting screwed, as Joseph Cox reports for Motherboard.

The need for American Sign Language speakers is continuing to rise. This Complete 2021 American Sign Language Bundle includes Level 1, 2, and 3 and a bonus course for free: baby sign language. Learn the basics from the sign language alphabet to more advanced signs, such as for medical emergencies. This bundle is exactly what you need to become confident in sign language for many situations. It's on sale for $20.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

As you know, last week Donald Trump sued Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube in ridiculously dumb cases (which seemed to only really serve the purpose of continuing his culture grievance war and to be used as a fundraising hook). In each case, they claimed (incorrectly) that the private companies violated the 1st Amendment by kicking Trump and others off the platform and that Section 230 itself was somehow unconstitutional.Two days later, it appears that someone on the legal team realized that when you file a lawsuit claiming that a federal law is unconstitutional, you have to file a notice of constitutional question, which effectively alerts the DOJ/Attorney General that someone, somewhere is challenging the constitutionality of the law.Trump has now done so with identical such filings for YouTube, Twitter and Facebook. The notice is as short and sweet as it is ridiculous:

GETTR, the Twitter clone created by former Trump advisor Jason Miller, seems to have rolled out just as smoothly as every other attempt to replace the social media service that's still inexplicably popular with people who claim to hate it for moderating their speech.It's yet another "free speech" platform that claims it upholds the lofty ideals of allowing those banned from other, more functional sites to speak their minds… just as long as said mind speech does not include any of the following:

GETTR, the Twitter clone created by former Trump advisor Jason Miller, seems to have rolled out just as smoothly as every other attempt to replace the social media service that's still inexplicably popular with people who claim to hate it for moderating their speech.It's yet another "free speech" platform that claims it upholds the lofty ideals of allowing those banned from other, more functional sites to speak their minds… just as long as said mind speech does not include any of the following:

The city of Lexington, Kentucky recently passed a ban on no-knock raids by the local police department. A long string of no-knock raids that have ended tragically likely contributed to this, but a recent high-profile raid in which a 26-year-old black ER technician was shot and killed by Louisville, Kentucky police officers probably hit closest to home.In that raid, officers did not announce their presence. Bursting into the house, they were met by gunfire from one of the house's residents who thought he was being robbed. (He had called 911 prior to arming himself.) While the officers did knock, they apparently did not declare they were police officers before breaking down the door. The officers returned fire, killing Breonna Taylor. The entire thing was predicated on an drug investigation that appeared to be at least partially fabricated.Lexington has its own experience with botched drug raids. A no-knock raid in 2015 terrorized the residents of the wrong house, most of whom thought they were being robbed. It wasn't until the residents were surrounded by officers pointing guns that the officers realized they had the wrong address. The push to end no-knock raids began then, prompting opposition from law enforcement.

While most folks didn't notice ahead of the holiday weekend, the FTC on Friday announced it would be giving chipmaker Broadcom a bit of a wrist slap after the agency found it had become an "illegal monopoly." In the FTC's complaint (pdf), the agency notes that Broadcom "illegally monopolized" both the cable modem/gateway and cable set top box markets by preventing its customers from buying products from other vendors. It did this by forcing both OEMs and service providers into long-term agreements that prevented them from purchasing chips from Broadcom's competitors, then bullying them if they went off script:

Let us gaze again in shock at the pathetic weakness of powerful people, unable to handle targeted criticism without resorting to violating people's rights. That's right, we're talking about cops again.Certain states have added law enforcement officers to the list of protected groups that can benefit from hate crime laws. Cops are historically a very powerful group. They have not been oppressed in any way since the inception of law enforcement -- an idea that really took off when slave owners wished to see their dehumanizing, minimal investments protected.Hello, Utah. What the actual fuck? (via C.J. Ciaramella and Reason)

My friend and colleague Sherwin Siy died suddenly last week, way before his time, way before any of us were ready to lose his friendship, and way before the Internet and the principles he defended could afford to be without his help defending them.There are some people out there with the very silly idea that the only reason people advocate for the sorts of issues like we do here at Techdirt is because someone is paying us to. The thinking seems to go that "but for" this monetary carrot none of us would bother.Nothing could be further from the truth. Those of us who fight for these issues do so because we fervently believe they are the right positions to serve the public interest, the Internet, and ultimately the world. Taking on these battles is in many ways a calling, something we feel personally compelled to do.In the case of both Sherwin and myself (and many others, I'm sure), it is also what drove us to go to law school. As he explained in this interview about his most recent work at Wikimedia, as Lead Public Policy Manager:

The saga of how RomUniverse, a site dedicated to offering ROMs for classic Nintendo games, came to its end is both frustrating and very dumb. Back in 2019, Nintendo launched a massive war on ROM sites, coinciding with the release of a mini version of Nintendo's NES console. Eventually, the company's sights turned to RomUniverse. Run solely by Matthew Storman, the site first tried and failed to crowdfund its legal expenses, made the lame argument that somehow the first sale doctrine meant that Storman could legally offer up digital versions of bought Nintendo games, only to see Storman represent himself in court and eventually lose. While Nintendo always had the law on its side, it was also true that sites like RomUniverse existed for a long, long time and Nintendo wasn't injured enough by any of this for it to be on the radar prior to the ROM War of 2019. In fact, I would argue that ROM sites for a long, long time kept up the interest in these classic games that created a market for Nintendo's classic console releases.I would also argue that the whole thing was a giant waste of time and money, an assertion backed up by the fact that the victorious Nintendo reportedly can't even get $50 a month out of Storman, despite court orders.

Courthouse News Service has obtained a significant win in its lawsuit against court clerks in Virginia -- one that soundly affirms the First Amendment right to access court documents. This isn't the only place CNS is fighting for its First Amendment rights, but this decision affects everything in the Fourth Circuit, which covers Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia.Here's the battle Courthouse News Service has been fighting on several fronts, assisted by several other news agencies and First Amendment activists.

If you've been following our coverage of Florida's recent law about social media content moderation, you know it hasn't been going well — it was an insane bill that was quickly shut down by an injunction from a judge who could see how obviously unconstitutional it was. But the fight isn't over, so this week we're joined by Florida Representative Anna Eskamani, one of the most vocal critics of the bill in the state legislature, to discuss how this all happened and what's going to come next.Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via Apple Podcasts, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

The FBI has spent thousands on social media monitoring software. These contracts are public, making it literally unbelievable the agency has managed to stave off FOIA requests by handing out "neither confirm nor deny" non-answers. A court didn't buy the FBI's excuse for its Glomar, pointing out that confirming public information would not give criminals a heads-up on surveillance software the FBI is currently using.The FBI's inability to honestly discuss its social media monitoring programs continues. The January 6th raid on the US Capitol building has resulted in hundreds of arrests. A lot of the evidence for these prosecutions has come from social media posts by members of the ad hoc raiding party.The FBI continues to provide contradictory responses when questioned about its social media monitoring programs. Its Congressional testimony has kind of eluded direct questions about the FBI's incursions into First Amendment territory -- something the FBI is now using to explain why it wasn't more aware of the impending threat prior to January 6th.Quinta Jurecic's post for Lawfare points out the FBI lack of awareness was somewhat stunning, given the vast amount of publicly available information circulating social media prior to the Capitol raid.

Yes, it can always get dumber. The news broke last night that Donald Trump was planning to sue the CEOs of Facebook and Twitter for his "deplatforming." This morning we found out that they were going to be class action lawsuits on behalf of Trump and other users who were removed, and now that they're announced we find out that he's actually suing Facebook & Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter & Jack Dorsey, and YouTube & Sundar Pichai. I expected the lawsuits to be performative nonsense, but these are... well... these are more performative and more nonsensical than even I expected.These lawsuits are so dumb, and so bad, that there seems to be a decent likelihood Trump himself will be on the hook for the companies' legal bills before this is all over.The underlying claims in all three lawsuits are the same. Count one is that these companies removing Trump and others from their platforms violates the 1st Amendment. I mean, I know we've heard crackpots push this theory (without any success), but this is the former President of the United States arguing that private companies violated HIS 1st Amendment rights by conspiring with the government HE LED AT THE TIME to deplatform him. I cannot stress how absolutely laughably stupid this is. The 1st Amendment, as anyone who has taken a civics class should know, restricts the government from suppressing speech. It does not prevent private companies from doing so.The arguments here are so convoluted. To avoid the fact that he ran the government at the time, he tries to blame the Biden transition team in the Facebook and Twitter lawsuits (in the YouTube one he tries to blame the Biden White House).

The Complete 2021 Beginner to Expert Guitar Lessons Bundle has 14 courses to help you master playing guitar. By the end of these courses, you'll be playing chords in songs, soloing, strumming various patterns, reading the guitar tab, and generally understanding your guitar. You'll be able to teach yourself any song you want to learn. Courses will also introduce you to electric guitar, blues and jazz guitar, and more. It's on sale for $30.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Back in 2015, frustration at John Deere's ham-fisted repair restrictions and draconian tractor DRM helped birth a grassroots tech movement dubbed "right to repair." The company's crackdown on "unauthorized repairs" turned countless ordinary citizens into technology policy activists, after onerous restrictions not only significantly drove up repair costs, but forced owners to often haul their equipment hundreds or thousands of miles to an authorized repair location.John Deere's multi-year promise to do a better job providing access to tools, documentation, and repair options simply never materialized. And of course John Deere is just one of numerous companies engaged in this kind of behavior across numerous sectors, driving major public support for proposed legislation in more than a dozen states that would put a major dent in technology repair monopolies.In a small win for farmers and right to repair advocates, Biden is apparently planning to include some right to repair mandates in an upcoming executive order on competition. The order itself will urge the FTC to craft tighter rules to address the problem:

The Chinese government agreed to stay out of Hong Kong's (government) business until 2047 when it took possession of the region in 1997. It has refused to hold up its end of the bargain.Its steady encroachment into Hong Kong's affairs has been met with increasingly intense pro-democracy protests. Realizing this wasn't going to make its eventual takeover any easier, the Chinese government increased its pressure on the local government. When that wasn't working fast enough, it started replacing legislators with handpicked pro-China representatives.When all of that still wasn't enough to get the Hong Kong populace to bend the knee, it implemented a new national security law and imposed it on the region. Being anti-China meant being a threat to national security. Pro-democracy protesters were threatened with life sentences. Pro-democracy press outlets were hassled and their leaders arrested.Apparently, giving Hong Kong the appearance of a police state just isn't enough. If Hong Kong is going to become China 2.0 far ahead of schedule, it needs to become an actual police state.

It's not exactly a secret that we've been very anti-DRM here at Techdirt for some time. It's honestly perplexing how anyone can be otherwise. DRM has shown time after time to be of almost no hindrance whatsoever for those seeking to pirate video games, but has done an excellent job of hindering those who actually bought the game in playing what they've bought. Ubisoft, in particular, has had issues with this over the years, with DRM servers failing and preventing customers from playing games that can no longer ping the DRM server.And while those instances involved unforeseen downtime or migrations impacting customers' ability to play their games, this time it turns out that Ubisoft simply stopped supporting the DRM server for Might and Magic X-Legacy. And now basically everyone is screwed.