Techdirt

The failed insurrection may be over -- all but the Capitol cops ending their own lives after being assaulted by "law and order" types, who thought they could bypass the peaceful transfer of power with violence. (Fuck all those people, by the way -- all 500+ of them.) But the hope remains. It must have been stolen, say a collection of denialists and grifters. Let's win back the election process, say those unable to count votes or put their faith in the institution that put their boy in the White House in the first place (looking at you, Electoral College).So the grift continues. So does the denialism. But it's going to start costing people some serious money. The people that decided that backdrafting Trump's odorous emanations following the November election are still theoretically on the hook for besmirching the election process and the machinery behind it.While it's always appropriate to question the security and trustworthiness of election tech, it makes zero sense to air a bunch of insane conspiracies as actual fact. A bunch of acolytes thought they could call the presidential election into question if they amplified QAnon-level speculation into the public discourse. The stupidity of these actions has been called out by a frequent target of unvetted speculation: Dominion Voting Systems.The challenges were only raised in areas where Trump expected to win but lost, indicating these "challenges" had nothing to do with election integrity. After all, if the integrity of the election was in question, wouldn't these people be questioning election results where Trump won? Everyone knows it's a façade -- a carelessly edited sermon to the converted. Playing to the base usually pays off. But it may not in these cases.Dominion has been suing over these false statements, implications, and complete, utter bullshit. The company first targeted Trump legal figures (both past and present) like Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani. Now it's coming for Trump's favorite non-gorilla-related programmers: One America Network and Newsmax. Both companies stepped up during Trump's last couple of years mismanaging the country to prove they could be even further right than far-right mainstay Fox News.Two more lawsuits have been filed by Dominion. They reiterate many of the same allegations raised against Powell and Giuliani. That shows "Republican" figureheads have all been operating off the same cheat sheet when it comes to contesting the parts of the election they don't like.I won't quote the latest lawsuits by Dominion at length. We've already covered the lies and misinformation spread by defendants who now claim this was all just heated rhetoric and hyperbole (even when portraying these same claims as "evidence" of voter fraud in lawsuits where they were the plaintiff). It's all more of the same: a debunking of literally incredible claims by defendants willing to sell out their credibility (if not their defamation insurance providers) by attaching themselves like so many remora on a shark in the midst of capsizing in its own wake.Here's one representative accusation (taken from Dominion's suit [PDF] against One America Network):

Software engineers are computer science professionals who use their knowledge and skills in engineering and programming languages to build applications, develop computer games, and run network control systems. The tech industry is ever-growing and so should your skills. In this Super Software Engineer Bundle, you'll get 41 video content on IoT, Java, Angular, MongoDB, AI, and so much more. This package is ideal for professionals aspiring for a career in NoSQL databases and MongoDB. 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.

For quite some time now we've been trying to remind people that the internet is not just Facebook. Unfortunately, this seems quite difficult for many people -- especially policy makers -- to understand. We've discussed how the various policy regulations (including some that Facebook now supports) will actually do a lot more harm to all of us -- and we urge people to examine how various policy proposals will impact tons of smaller sites and their users.Indeed, I keep hearing from people in the policy world who are just... basically mad at Facebook for screwing up so much stuff, so badly, that it's going to end up destroying much of the rest of the internet. As we noted a few years ago, Facebook's bad behavior may cause everyone to lose recess.Konstantinos Komaitis recently had a really excellent piece in Slate highlighting just how bad a problem this is and noting that regulators need to realize that Facebook is not the internet. It starts out by noting some of the history of social media (thankfully, he starts with SixDegree.com, the first social media website I ever used, which many people don't remember at all):

Last September Verizon announced it would be spending $6.2 billion to buy Tracfone, a prepaid wireless phone provider heavily used by lower income families. Given Verizon's reputation and the US telecom industry's long history of empty pre-merger promises, unions and consumer groups rightfully balked.They warned Verizon's track record indicated this would likely end in the consolidation harming the sector, and many low-income customers inevitably paying more money than ever for wireless service. They also pointed to the fact that Verizon just got busted exploiting a Covid broadband relief program to upsell users to more expensive plans. In short, they warned that a company like Verizon probably wouldn't be a particularly good steward of a service that catered predominately to low-income Americans. They were correct.Apparently that was then, and this is now. Unions and several consumer groups appear to now have done a complete 180, announcing they now support the deal after Verizon pinky swore it would behave responsibly:

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Rekrul with a comment (which also racked up a lot of funny votes) on our post about the end of ownership and how big companies are trying to turn everyone into renters:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2016, we looked at the recent emergence of the new "value gap" rhetoric" in music industry complaints about tech, while Kickass Torrents was trying to get the Justice Department to drop charges against it, and Ed Sheeran was facing lawsuits for songs that were merely inspired by older songs. The EFF was asking the FTC to enforce "truth in labeling" rules around DRM, a judge upheld his own problematic ruling concerning Cox's repeat infringer policy and the DMCA, and we were anticipating a deluge of copyright fights over viral news videos. One judge thankfully laughed off the notion that Twitter was liable for ISIS attacks, while another court said the FBI had to be much more frequent about reviewing NSL gag orders. And the Monkey Selfie case got even more silly with an amacus brief from a primatologist.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2011, some patent troll lawyers were smacked down and made to pay sanctions, while the website Fark got another patent troll to settle for nothing. We looked at a historical example of how even the death penalty doesn't stop infringement, just as New York was expanding anti-piracy laws for no reason and a court in India ruled that service providers are liable for copyright infringement by users — all while file sharing continued to grow, not shrink. A very worrying ruling by the Sixth Circuit said that sending too many emails can violate the CFAA, Apple advertised how frightened it was of the Samsung Galaxy tablet by getting a Europe-wide blockade of the device, and the San Mateo County District Attorney finally realized that Gizmodo didn't break the law by writing about the iPhone 4 prototype it found.Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2006, AOL made a huge and astonishing unforced error by exposing the search queries of 500,000 users for research purposes, leading the CEO to eventually start calling individual customers to apologize — and the incident seemed to spark some recognition in government that data retention isn't a good thing. The Senate released a patent reform plan with some good aspects and a whole lot of bad ones, while a very interesting patent battle broke out over Amazon's infamous one-click patent. Major League Baseball failed in its attempt to claim ownership of stats, but decided to double down with a slightly different approach. And the RIAA was fighting against efforts to have its representatives deposed in a lawsuit by demanding sweeping gag orders on the depositions.

There are two types of video game publishers: those that embrace their modding communities and those that do not. The latter group is in something of a spectrum. iD Software, for instance, has long kept the modding community open and operating on its Doom titles, while developer 1C embraced its modding community so much that it built some mods into official releases. Other publishers have gone into full restriction mode, shutting down modding communities and even going after them over supposed copyright infringement violations.Rockstar Games has previously had its own run-in with its modding community, banning modders who attempted to shift GTA5's online gameplay to dedicated servers that would allow mods to be used, since Rockstar's servers don't allow mods. What it's now doing in issuing copyright notices on modders who have been forklifting older Rockstar assets into newer GTA games, however, is totally different.

Every so often law enforcement forgets to keep the mask on. The public front is all about safety and providing a line of defense against criminal chaos. Behind the front, it's a bunch of people with the same flaws as regular humans, only with access to an incredible amount of power and an almost nonexistent amount of accountability.When law enforcement agencies are looking to hire, they're generally not looking for the best, most honest people. They're looking for the kind of people who desire power and disdain personal responsibility. A recent open call for applicants on Facebook -- posted by the Manchester, New Hampshire Police Department -- made the mistake of being a bit too direct.

You may recall last month we wrote about how the Texas legislature -- even after seeing a similar Florida bill go down in the flames of Constitutional fire -- decided to launch a special legislative session solely to focus on passing culture war legislation that plays well with ignorant voters. The bill we saw last month was in the Senate and was SB5. Now there's another bill in the House called HB20, and it's really, really dumb.First, it tries to just outright declare social media websites common carriers, despite them possessing basically none of the characteristics of a traditional common carrier. As a side note, I find it funny how Republicans these days are obsessed with this idea of randomly declaring companies "common carriers," as they spent decades fighting against any attempt to call broadband companies common carriers, and insisting that common carrier concepts were the root of socialism or something. But, apparently, when it comes to culture wars, things like principles, consistency, and just basic common logic go out the window in favor of nonsense.Incredibly, this bill doesn't just talk about social media -- but sweeps up email services as well. Hope you enjoyed having email filters, because Texans, you can kiss those goodbye. The legislature thinks that not forcing junk you don't want into your account violates the spammer's rights apparently. I only wish I were joking, but an actual person in a legislature put this nonsense in a bill:

Last week, we wrote about our concerns about Apple's newly announced scanning efforts that the company claimed were to protect children. Lots of security experts raised concerns about how this was being rolled out -- and none of the complaints were meant to take away from the very real and legitimate concerns about child sexual abuse. Security guru Alex Stamos wrote one of the most thoughtful threads about the whole thing, noting (as with so many of these issues) that there are no easy answers here. I highly recommend you read the entire thread, but here's a little snippet:

The giant record labels, their association, and their lobbyists have succeeded in getting a number of members of the U.S. House of Representatives to pressure Twitter to pay money it does not owe, to labels who have no claim to it, against the interests of its users. This is a playbook we’ve seen before, and it seems to work almost every time. For once, let us hope a company sees this extortion attempt for what it is and stands up to it.Here is the deal. Online platforms that host user content are not liable for copyright infringement done by those users so long as they fulfill the obligations laid out in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). One of those obligations is to give rightsholders an unprecedented ability to have speech removed from the internet, on demand, with a simple notice sent to a platform identifying the offending content. Another is that companies must have some policy to terminate the accounts of “repeat infringers.”Not content with being able to remove content without a court order, the giant companies that hold the most profitable rights want platforms to do more than the law requires. They do not care that their demands result in other people’s speech being suppressed. Mostly, they want two things: automated filters, and to be paid. In fact, the letter sent to Twitter by those members of Congress asks Twitter to add “content protection technology”—for free—and heavily implies that the just course is for Twitter to enter into expensive licensing agreements with the labels.Make no mistake, artists deserve to be paid for their work. However, the complaints that the RIAA and record labels make about platforms are less about what individual artists make, and more about labels’ control. In 2020, according to the RIAA, revenues rose almost 10% to $12.2 billion in the United States. And Twitter, whatever else it is, is not where people go for music.But the reason the RIAA, the labels, and their lobbyists have gone with this tactic is that, up until now, it has worked. Google set the worst precedent possible in this regard. Trying to avoid a fight with major rightsholders, Google voluntarily created Content ID. Content ID is an automated filter that scans uploads to see if any part—even just a few seconds—of the upload matches the copyrighted material in its database. A match can result in either a user’s video being blocked, or monetized for the claiming rightsholder. Ninety percent of Content ID partners choose to automatically monetize a match—that is, claim the advertising revenue on a creator’s video for themselves—and 95 percent of Content ID matches made to music are monetized in some form. That gives small, independent YouTube creators only a few options for how to make a living. Creators can dispute matches and hope to win, sacrificing revenue while they do and risking the loss of their channel. Fewer than one percent of Content ID matches are disputed. Or, they can painstakingly edit and re-edit videos, or avoid including almost any music whatsoever and hope that Content ID doesn’t register a match on static or a cat’s purr.While any creator has the right to use copyrighted material without paying rightsholders in circumstances where fair use applies, Content ID routinely diverts money away from creators like these to rightsholders in the name of policing infringement. Fair use is an exercise of your First Amendment rights, but Content ID forces you to pay for that right. WatchMojo, one of the largest YouTube channels, estimated that over six years, roughly two billion dollars in ads have gone to rightsholders instead of creators. YouTube does not shy away from this effect. In its 2018 report “How Google Fights Piracy,” the company declares that “the size and efficiency of Content ID are unparalleled in the industry, offering an efficient way to earn revenue from the unanticipated, creative ways that fans reuse songs and videos.” In other words, Content ID allows rightsholders to take money away from creators who are under no obligation to obtain a license for their lawful fair uses.That doesn’t even include the times these filters just get things completely wrong. Just the other week, a programmer live-streamed his typing and a claim was made for the sound of “typing on a modern keyboard.” A recording of static got five separate notices placed on it by the automated filter. These things don’t work.YouTube also encourages people to simply use only the things that they have a license for or are in a library of free resources. That ignores that there is a fair use right to use copyrighted material in certain cases, and lets companies argue that no one has to use their work without paying since these free options exist.So, when the labels make a lot of disingenuous noise about how inadequate the DMCA is and how platforms need to do more, they have YouTube to point to as a “voluntary” system that should be replicated. And companies will fold, especially if they end up being inundated with DMCA takedowns—some bogus—and if they think the other option is being required to do it by law, the implicit threat of a letter like the one Twitter received.This tactic works. Twitch found itself buried under DMCA takedowns last year, handled that poorly, and then found itself being, like Twitter, blamed for taking money out of the hands of musicians by the RIAA. Twitch now makes removing music and claimed bits of videos easier, has adopted a similar repeat infringer policy to YouTube’s, and makes deleting clips easier for users. Snap, owner of Snapchat, went the route of getting a license, paying labels to make music available to its users.Creating a norm of licensed or free music, monetization, or automated filters functionally eviscerates fair use. Even if people have the right to use something, they won’t be able to. On YouTube, reviewers don’t use the clips of the music or movies that are the best example of what they’re talking about—they pick whatever will satisfy the filter. That is not the model we want as a baseline. The baseline should be more protective of legal speech, not less.Unfortunately, when the tech companies are facing off against the largest rightsholders, it's users who most often lose. Twitter is only the latest target, we hope they become the one to stand up for its users.Originally posted to the EFF Deeplinks blog.

The All-Access CompTIA A+ And Network Certification Prep Bundle has 12 courses designed to help you prepare for various certification exams. Courses cover CompTIA A+, PenTest+, Security+, Network+, and more. It's on sale for $45.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.

It would be nice if we could have just a single week where some major "respected" publication could do the slightest bit of fact checking on their wacky articles on Section 230. It turns out that's not happening this week. Harvard Business Review has now posted an article saying It's Time to Update Section 230 written by two professors -- Michael Smith of Carnegie Mellon and Marshall Van Alstyne at Boston University. For what it's worth, I've actually been impressed with the work and research of both of these professors in the past -- even though Smith runs a program funded by the MPAA, that publishes studies about the internet and piracy, his work has usually been careful and thorough. Van Alstyne, on the other hand, has published some great work on problems with intellectual property, and kindly came and spoke at an event we helped to run.Unfortunately, this piece for HBR does not do either Smith or Von Alstyne any favors -- mainly because it just gets so much wrong. It starts out, like so many of these pieces, with some mythmaking, that Section 230 was passed due to "naive" techno-optimism. This is just simply wrong, even if it sounds like a good story. It then (at least) does highlight some of the good that social media has created (Arab Spring, #MeToo, #BlackLivesMatter, and the ice bucket challenge). But then, of course, it pivots to all the "bad" stuff on the internet, and says that "Section 230 didn't anticipate" how to deal with that.So, let's cut in and point out this is wrong. Section 230's authors have made it abundantly clear over and over again that they absolutely did anticipate this very question. Indeed, the very history of Section 230 is the history of web platforms trying to figure out how to deal with the ever-changing, ever-evolving challenge of "bad" stuff online. And the way that 230 does that is by allowing websites to constantly experiment, innovate, and adapt without fear of liability. Without that, you create a much worse situation -- one in which any "false" move by the website could lead to liability and ridiculously costly litigation. Section 230 has enabled a wide variety of experiments and innovations in content moderation to figure out how to keep platforms functioning for users, advertisers, and more. But, this article ignores all that and pretends otherwise. That's doing a total disservice to readers, and presenting a false narrative.The article goes through a basic recap of how Section 230 works -- and concludes:

For years, AT&T worked tirelessly to erode its customers' legal rights, using mouse print in its terms of service preventing consumers from participating in lawsuits against the company. Instead, customers were forced into binding arbitration, where arbitrators, chosen and paid by the companies under fire, unsurprisingly rule in favor of companies more often than not. Initially, the lower courts derided this anti-consumer behavior for what it was, noting that however brutally flawed the class action is, binding arbitration, at least the way we let companies design it, in many ways made things worse.But these lower court roadblocks quickly evaporated when the Supreme Court ruled in 2011 (Mobility v. Concepcion) that what AT&T was doing was perfectly OK. While lower courts saw this as an "unconscionable" abuse of consumer rights and the law, the Supreme Court bought into the ongoing myth that binding arbitration is a hyper-efficient, modern alternative to class actions. In reality, it shifted things to a form of binding arbitration that was costly, lopsided, and cumbersome for consumers, and less transparent for those used to visiting Pacer to dig up legal histories.Fast forward to a few years ago, when a growing number of companies and services (like Fairshake) began streamlining the arbitration process, making it easier and less expensive for consumers (and yeah, class action lawyers). This shifted the balance of power back toward consumers, and starting in 2018 or so companies like Uber, AT&T and Comcast began to complain they were being swamped with arbitration feuds.So now we're seeing another sea change. Now, even giants like Amazon are being forced to take consumer complaints back to the courtroom, in part because a system they constructed to dodge accountability is no longer helping them do that.At the same time, company lobbyists are firing up their opposition to the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal (FAIR) Act, which would (as the name implies) prohibit the practice in several sectors. The bill has already passed the House, and to prevent it from passing in the Senate companies have been busy cultivating phony "grass roots" (astroturfed) opposition to the bill. That usually involves using some proxy org (in this case the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) to throw money at people to write (or just support) op-eds in papers around the country insisting how wonderful binding arbitration is:

With a new Attorney General in charge and a new President in the White House, the Department of Justice is getting back to taking care of the uncomfortable business of investigating local law enforcement agencies. This part of the DOJ's responsibilities was largely abandoned under Trump, who opened up his presidency by declaring he would "end" the "dangerous anti-police atmosphere."Trump actually made it worse. His enthusiastic support for police and police violence did nothing to discourage the sorts of actions that create "anti-police atmosphere." Concurrently, the DOJ -- under AGs Sessions and Barr -- looked the other way as law enforcement agencies engaged in activities that violated the rights of the public.The latest law enforcement agency to under the DOJ's scope is the Phoenix, Arizona police department. The Phoenix PD last made news here at Techdirt after its union offered cops access to paid service that would "scrub" social media services of their posts. This was deployed in reaction to multiple investigations opened all around the nation after transparency activist group Plainview Project was able to link bigoted and violent social media posts to current law employment officers.There are some specifics to this investigation that indicate some parts of the Phoenix PD's enforcement efforts are more problematic than others.

Summary: In late June 2021, Twitter briefly suspended the account of Ravi Shankar Prasad, the Indian government's Technology Minister because his content violated copyright. Although Prasad was given a copy of the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) takedown request, he posted a short Twitter thread that claimed this moderation action was Twitter silencing him, rather than simply responding to a takedown notice targeting alleged copyright violations.According to Prasad, the removal of his tweets and brief suspension were the result of him not aligning himself with Twitter's "agenda." He claimed Twitter would "arbitrarily" do the same to others who did not "tow the line that they draw."Prasad also claimed the takedown via DMCA notice violated Indian law. Specifically, the Technology Minister claimed Twitter violated local law by failing to provide him with prior notice before locking him out of his account. The law cited was Rule 4(8) of the Information Technology Rules 2021.Prasad's pushback against Twitter's decision to suspend his account based on claims of copyright violations came after weeks of Indian government officials' public criticism of American social media companies. Shortly after this critique, the new Information Technology Rules law went into effect on May 26, 2021.The new law affects multiple US social media platforms. It requires them to remove certain content within 24 hours of notification and forces them to set up local offices in India where complaints can be handled by newly-created compliance, contact, and grievance officers. While the new law has been in the works since 2018, its passage was accelerated by Twitter's refusal to block tweets/accounts associated with the long-running "Farmer's Protest" that greeted the Indian government's passage of laws that many farmers believe do more to aid corporate farms and large agricultural concerns than the many small, independent farmers that populate the country.Earlier in June, the Indian government issued a "final warning" to Twitter, ordering it to comply with the new law or "face consequences." Twitter has since temporarily removed nearly 500 tweets associated with the Farmer's Protests. During the same time period, its offices in India were raided by Indian law enforcement after Twitter labelled a tweet from a member of India’s ruling party as "misinformation."Company Considerations:

We've covered Twitch's no good, very bad time for many months now, which should give you an indication just how bad this time has been. If you need a brief background, the major points of contention have been the Amazon-owned company having a laughably one-sided approach to DMCA takedowns of content, its complete inept method for temp-banning its own creative community over copyright claims, and its totally vague approach to banning creators over various rule-breaking when it comes to Twitch's indecipherable guidelines and the capricious manner in which it applies them.While all of it is frankly bad, the lowest hanging fruit in all of this has always been the lack of communication Twitch has offered its own creative community when it comes to bans, copyright issues, or guidelines. For instance, Twitch, at first, would just disappear content, with little or no notice to the streamer who authored it. When it has given any notice to creators, that notice has traditionally been so devoid of any details so as to be entirely useless. Which I suppose is why the recent announcement by Twitch that it will finally tell streamers who have been hit with a copyright takedown what that infringing content is... is good?

Just last week we had Prof. Genevieve Lakier on our podcast to talk about the 1st Amendment and the concept of "jawboning": government officials using informal pressure and wink-wink-nudge-nudge efforts to pressure companies into doing things that they are allowed to do as private companies, but which the government is forbidden from doing under the 1st Amendment. The key court case on this is the Bantam Books Supreme Court ruling in 1963. But there are questions about how this applies in a social media era, when you have politicians on both sides of the aisle leaning on social media companies to remove or punish speech they dislike.Last fall, we had highlighted what we thought was potentially an interesting and important case about this involving Shiva Ayyadurai. As regular readers of Techdirt know, Ayyadurai sued us years ago for our articles highlighting the lack of evidence for his claims to be the inventor of email (claims that don't stand up to much scrutiny when viewed against the historical record). That lawsuit went on for two and a half years and was incredibly draining and frustrating.You might think, then, that we'd automatically side against Ayyadurai in his latest legal fight, but as we noted, he actually raised a really important 1st Amendment issue. The case originally was about Massachusetts government officials alerting Twitter to tweets from Ayyadurai that they claimed were election misinformation. Those tweets were extraordinarily misleading, and in the lead-up to the 2020 election, you can understand why election officials were tremendously concerned about election mis- and disinformation online. And, various government agencies and social media websites had set up processes to share information regarding such misinformation and disinformation.But, most mis- and disinformation is still protected by the 1st Amendment. So there's a really interesting question about where is the line between simply alerting private companies of such content -- i.e., using the bully pulpit of government to highlight something a private actor can fix -- and an unconstitutional move by the government to silence constitutionally protected speech? This case had the potential to explore that very issue -- and it appeared that the judge saw that point. Unfortunately, much of the rest of the case went off the rails entirely.I won't go through all of the many twists and turns the case took (there were many), but a quick summary of a few of the key points. In response to a request for a temporary restraining order from reporting his account, Massachusetts agreed that it would no longer report tweets to Twitter until after the election, thus rendering the TRO request moot. As the case went on, the judge wondered why Twitter was not included as a party, if Ayyadurai was alleging state action (I actually think the judge is wrong on this -- while there are some cases where the private actors should become parties, to me the focus should always be on the government actors who allegedly threatened or pressured the private actors -- otherwise, it's a kind of victim-blaming). Ayyadurai (representing himself) then moved to add Twitter as a party.Somewhere in this process, Twitter shut down Ayyadurai's account entirely. Ayyadurai insisted that this was because of its close relationship with government officials, and that because it happened soon after he had mentioned a Massachusetts official, it was somehow evidence that they were working hand in hand with the government. Ayyadurai then tried to file various amended complaints that included RICO/conspiracy claims and a variety of other claims. He found some widely available public documents that were produced to better educate both social media companies and election officials about how to respond to election disinformation, and claimed it was proof of the conspiracy and a manual to suppress protected speech. At a hearing in May, ostensibly about adding Twitter as a defendant, the judge strongly suggested that Ayyadurai hire lawyers for the next phase of the case, and even recommended a lawyer (Howard Cooper from Todd & Weld). The judge also hinted very strongly that the RICO claims had no chance and were likely to be dismissed, but he was interested in exploring whether or not the individual Massachusetts officials who were sued were protected under qualified immunity.Soon after that, Ayyadurai notified the court that Todd & Weld would be representing him, along with... Charles Harder's law firm (Harder, of course, represented him in his case against us) -- though, he also asked that it be what's known as hybrid representation, where he would be allowed to speak on his own behalf in the court, rather than just through a lawyer (the defendants from Massachusetts strongly opposed this request). Over the following few weeks, lawyers from Todd & Weld made their official appearances before the court, though as far as I can tell, no one from Harder LLP did so (this becomes more important shortly). There was then some more, um, somewhat abnormal back-and-forth regarding Ayyadurai's proposed agenda for a scheduling conference, in which both Massachusetts and Twitter disputed Ayyadurai's characterization of their discussions.The judge eventually set out a schedule, asking Ayyadurai to file a revised complaint by July 15. On July 14, the attorneys from Todd & Weld, who had only just appeared a month earlier, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, noting that Ayyadurai had "terminated" their representation on the 13th. Also on the 14th, lawyer Timothy Cornell (who was also Ayyadurai's lawyer in the case against us, and had asked to file an amicus brief in this case) filed an appearance on behalf of Ayyadurai... and then on the 15th (the day the filing was due!) asked for an extra six weeks, noting that he needed time to get up to speed on the case.The defendants in the case quite understandably called foul on all of this, hinting in their filings that part of the reason Ayyadurai fired his lawyers was that they had agreed to remove the claims against various defendants in their personal capacities:

The judge, who blocked the FBI from moving forward with forfeiting property from certain US Private Vaults' customers who haven't been accused of crimes, is now ordering the FBI to return money to one of the people contesting the seizures.The FBI raided US Private Vaults in March, claiming customers, if not the owners of the business themselves, were involved in a host of crimes, including drug trafficking and money laundering. It's now August and no one has been charged. The FBI, however, has millions of dollars in currency and other property in its possession and is refusing to give any of it back.The FBI's warrant specifically said agents would only search the content of safety deposit boxes to determine ownership. The contents were to be inventoried but the FBI's affidavit suggested the agents performing the raid would not be searching the contents for evidence of criminal acts.That self-imposed restriction was ignored. And the FBI was able to move forward with seizures even without bringing criminal charges because civil asset forfeiture remains a thing in this country: the taking of people's property using only the unproven assertions that they may be the result of illegal activity. This vagueness didn't sit well with Judge R. Gary Klausner, who blocked the FBI from moving forward with some forfeitures early last month.The FBI insists it is right to keep this process in motion. However, as the judge points out in his latest order [PDF], its insistence hasn't been accompanied by any plausible justifications. (h/t FourthAmendment.com)

The Complete Udemy Instructor Mastermind Bundle has 7 courses to help you create your own online course on Udemy. Courses cover video production, website creation, podcast production, how to develop a curriculum, and much 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.

A newly formed patent troll is looking for big money from small business websites, just for using free, off-the-shelf login verification tools.Defenders of the American Dream, LLC (DAD ), is sending out its demand letters to websites that use Google’s reCAPTCHA system, accusing them of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,621,578. Google’s reCAPTCHA is just one form of a Captcha test, which describes a wide array of test systems that websites use to verify human users and keep out bots.DAD’s letter tells targeted companies that DAD will take an $8,500 payment, but only if “licensing terms are accepted immediately.” The threat escalates from there. If anyone dares to respond that DAD’s patent might be not infringed, or invalid, fees will rise to at least $17,000. If DAD’s patent gets subject to a legal challenge, DAD says they’ll increase their demand to at least $70,000. In the footnotes, DAD advises its targets that “not-for-profit entities are eligible for a discount.”The DAD demand letters we have reviewed are nearly identical, with the same fee structure. They mirror the one filed by the company itself (with the fee structure redacted) as part of their trademark application. This demand letter campaign is a perfect example of how the U.S. patent system fails to advance software innovation. Instead, our system enables extortionate behavior like DAD’s exploding fee structure.DAD Didn't Invent Image CaptchaDAD claims it invented a novel and patentable image-based Captcha system. But there’s ample evidence of image-based Captcha tests that predate DAD’s 2008 patent application.The term “Captcha” was coined by a group of researchers at Carnegie Mellon University in 2000. It’s an acronym, indicating a “Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart.” Essentially, it blocks automated tools like bots from getting into websites. Such tests have been important since the earliest days of the Internet.Early Captcha tests used squiggly lines or wavy text. The same group of CMU researchers who coined “Captcha” went on to work on an image-selection version they called ESP-PIX, which they had published and made public by 2005.By 2007, Microsoft had developed its own image-categorization Captcha, which used photos from Petfinder.com, then asked users to identify cats and dogs. At the sime time, PayPal was working on new captchas that “might resemble simple image puzzles.” This was no secret—researchers from both companies spoke to the New York Times about their research, and Microsoft filed its own patent application, more than a year before DAD’s.There’s also evidence of earlier image-based Captcha tests in the patent record, like this early 2008 application from a company called Binary Monkeys. Here's an image from the Binary Monkeys Patent:And here's an image from DAD's patent:So how did DAD end up with this patent? During patent prosecution, DAD’s predecessor argued that they had a novel invention because the Binary Monkeys application asks users to select “all images” associated with the task, as opposed to selecting “one image,” as in DAD’s test. The patent examiner suggested adding yet another limitation: that the user still be granted access to the website if they got one “known” image and one “suspected” image.Unfortunately, adding trivial tweaks to existing technology, such as small details about the needed criteria for passing a Captcha test, can and often does result in a patent being granted. This was especially true back in 2008, before patent examiners should have applied guidance from the Supreme Court’s 2014 Alice v. CLS Bank decision. That’s why we have told the patent office to vigorously uphold Supreme Court guidelines, and have defended the Alice precedent in Congress.Where did DAD come from?DAD’s patent was originally filed by a Portland startup called Vidoop. In 2010, Vidoop and its patent applications were purchased by a San Diego investor who re-branded it as Confident Technologies. Confident Tech offered a “clickable, image-based CAPTCHA,” but ultimately didn’t make it as a business. In 2017 and 2018, Confident Tech sued Best Buy, Fandango Media, Live Nation, and AXS Group, claiming that the companies infringed its patent by using reCAPTCHA. Those cases all settled.In 2020, Trevor Coddington, an attorney who worked on Confident Tech’s patent applications, created Defenders of the American Dream LLC. He transferred the patents to this new entity and started sending out demand letters.They haven’t all gone to large companies, either. At least one of DAD’s targets has been a one-person online publishing company. Coddington’s letter complains about how Confident Tech failed in the marketplace and suggests that because of this, reCAPTCHA users should pay—well, him. The letter states:

We've noted more than a few times how the AT&T Time Warner and DirecTV mergers were a monumental, historical disaster. AT&T spent $200 billion to acquire both companies thinking it would dominate the video and internet ad space. Instead, the company lost 9 million subscribers in nine years, fired 50,000 employees, closed numerous popular brands (DC's Vertigo imprint, Mad Magazine), and basically stumbled around incompetently for several years before recently spinning off the entire mess for a song.I just got done noting how the US press' total failure to adequately outline the scope of this mess ensures that the executives, regulators, and various megamerger cheerleaders will never be held accountable for it. That, in turn, all but guarantees it will happen again. And again. And again. America's obsession with "growth for growth's sake" and megamergers is built on the inherent promise that no matter how many times a megadeal results in layoffs, chaos, and no benefits for anyone other than executives and investors, we'll simply refuse to learn anything from the experience.That requires a lot of revisionist history. So, as if on cue, AT&T CFO Pascal Desroches this week complained that AT&T didn't get enough credit for turning HBO Max into a successful streaming brand. AT&T was forced to spin off this mess because the doddering telco sucked at running a media company. But Desroches is trying to claim the recent spinoff of its media ventures occurred because AT&T didn't get enough credit for building HBO:

It won't be a massive surprise that Manchester United, the famed Premier League football club, has made it onto our pages before. As the "Yankees of European soccer", it would be shocking if the club hadn't at some point taken aggressive action in the technology and IP space. Still, there isn't a great deal of posts in there, so you would be forgiven if you thought of Man-U as generally not bad on this sort of thing.But, no, the club is perfectly capable of being protectionist, and even occasionally taking outrageous positions. For instance, we can start with the fact that Sega's Football Manager 22 will no longer include the name of the club in the game, but will shift it to something barely different after a lawsuit was filed because of... reasons.

You may have heard that conspiracy theorist and nonsense-spouting Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has, not for the first time, been temporarily suspended from Twitter for passing along conspiracy theory nonsense regarding vaccines. She's unable to tweet for 7 days. I, unfortunately, can't find the tweet now, but back in July when she was similarly suspended for just 12 hours, I saw someone jokingly note that temporarily suspending someone like Greene was the equivalent of Twitter throwing her a fundraiser, since she would immediately turn around, play the victim, and get her gullible, duped followers to throw more money at her. And, no doubt the same is true with this suspension as well. She's already put out a statement and the usual "conservative" media orgs are already talking about how "Twitter can't handle the truth" or some such nonsense.And then, of course, you have people who are reasonably ticked off at Twitter "only" temporarily suspending Greene for spreading nonsense info, rather than permanently banning her.So, in the end, you have both ends of the political spectrum mad about this setup, and trying to spin it to their own advantage. However, once again, it really seems to highlight the impossible nature of content moderation at scale, especially when some of the parties are clearly acting in bad faith.Twitter has its escalation policies in place, and they're designed (reasonably!) to deal with good faith users, who might not realize they're violating the rules or spreading dangerous disinformation. In that world, an escalating penalty system makes sense. Getting suspended for a few hours or a week generally sucks for users who actually like to use the site but it's a sort of "cool off" period combined with a gentle nudge to be a better participant on the internet. But, of course, that system kind of breaks down when you have not just bad faith actors who are deliberately testing the boundaries of what they can get away with, but who actually benefit from the suspension and the press attention that comes with it.At this point, some will say "well, that's a perfect reason to just suspend such people permanently." But, alas, that comes with its own challenges. Indeed, jumping straight to a permanent suspension only proves that the company would be treating some people differently, and would be treated by people like Greene as "proof" of "anti-conservative bias" (again, this would be bad faith, but it would allow the story to have some level of confirmation). So, Twitter can't do that without providing what a bunch of people will see as confirming evidence. So Twitter follows its rules, and continues to escalate the punishment (eventually MTG will get permanently suspended, it seems only a matter of time).Looked at realistically, the fact that Twitter is following its stated escalation policies, rather than doing an outright ban should be seen as evidence that it is not "biased against conservatives," but is treating everyone the same. If you violate the company's policies about COVID vaccines, then you go through the escalation process -- whether you made a mistake in good faith or whether your a bad faith grifter. Of course, that's not how it will play out anywhere, because no one does nuance any more.Some might argue that the obvious bad faith nature of MTG's arguments mean that Twitter should just have a policy of banning bad faith grifters. And that's certainly tempting, but how do you define bad faith grifter within a policy such that a large team of content moderation professionals can apply it consistently? The problem is that you really can't. The very nature of an escalation policy is that it does, eventually, take care of most bad faith grifters. It just takes time, and allows them to violate the rules a bunch of times before getting the final send-off.

The pandemic has brought us face to face with important questions about (among many things) the roles of technology and government in our lives, and especially the intersection of the two. One interesting example that is worth exploration is California's new digital vaccine record system, and who better to discuss it with than the person who spearheaded the project: California's Chief Technology Innovation Officer Rick Klau, who joins us this week to discuss tech, government, and what happens when the two manage to work well together.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.

We've covered the Defense Department's 1033 program several times here at Techdirt. The program allows law enforcement agencies to acquire surplus military gear at low, low prices in exchange for little more than their claim to need anything from filing cabinets to grenade launches to mine-resistant armored personnel carriers (MRAPs).Thanks to the never-ending "War on Terror" and "War on Drugs," the DoD has allowed law enforcement agencies to blur the line between serving the public and invading a war zone. Officers regularly don camouflage when rolling out of armored personnel carriers, turning warrant service into a paramilitary invasion. MRAPs tend to make appearances at protests targeting police violence, giving responding officers the appearance of an occupying force, rather than the domestic peacekeepers they're supposed to be.Multiple efforts have been made to curtail the acquisition of gear clearly designed for war zones, rather than domestic policing. None of those efforts have been permanent. The distribution of war gear to cops is subject to the whims of the sitting president and very few have felt too concerned about the program's ability to widen the chasm between the public and the people who are obligated to serve them.The Huffington Post has acquired nearly 1,200 pages of 1033 program acquisition forms via public records requests. (Unfortunately, it has decided the public will get to see them whenever it gets around to publishing them, which means it has provided no access to the underlying documents at this point.) What these show is the Defense Department rubberstamping requests for military gear (such as MRAPs) by law enforcement agencies, even when the requesting agency can barely demonstrate a need for the equipment. They also show law enforcement agencies consider the public to be their enemy -- one that must be confronted with as much force as possible.

While various states are pushing unconstitutional laws to try to compel social media websites to host content they don't want to host, it appears that some state Attorneys General are seeing what kinds of questionable things they can do even without a law. Florida's law was already declared unconstitutional, but other states are still trying to pass these laws. One feature seen in a bunch of them is the ability for residents in a state to complain to the Attorney General and to ask the AG to investigate.It appears that Louisiana and Alabama aren't waiting around for a law on that front. The Attorneys General from both states, Jeff Landry from Louisiana and Steve Marshall from Alabama, have announced plans to set up a special hotline for ignorant people who are sure they've been "censored by big tech."

The 2021 Complete Angular Developer Bundle has 10 courses to help you learn about web development. Courses cover Angular, Advanced RxJS, Nx Monorepos, and more. You'll configure an Angular app and deploy it to production, learn about accessibility issues, learn how to build Micro Apps, as well as other useful skills. The bundle is on sale for $40.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.

Alt-right "personality" (I guess?) Laura Loomer keeps filing lawsuits and losing them. Loomer seems to believe it's legally actionable to be moderated by social media services. No court has agreed with her. Between Section 230 and the First Amendment, Loomer doesn't have a case. Oblique approaches -- like claiming getting kicked off Twitter is tortious interference in a (nonexistent) business relationship (Loomer and Twitter, according to Loomer, but definitely not according to Twitter) -- haven't been any more successful.Grasping at straws and switching attorneys in midstream hasn't helped matters. This case involved Loomer trying to sue CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relationships) and Twitter in Florida, claiming CAIR's reporting of her Twitter account tortiously interfered with Loomer's get-rich-quick plan of being extremely extremist online. It only took six pages for a federal judge to dismiss Loomer's baseless claims.By the time that dismissal happened, it was too late for Loomer. Seven months after the lawsuit was filed (in October 2019), CAIR approached Loomer and suggested a settlement under Florida state law -- one that would have been much cheaper for Loomer. Loomer refused. That has turned out to be a very expensive decision. (h/t Techdirt reader Thad)The court [PDF] says the offer of judgment complied with Florida law and could have provided Loomer a quicker, cheaper way to step away from her doomed litigation. Loomer argued the offer wasn't proper because she was seeking injunctive relief in addition to monetary damages. A judgment offer would obviously have short-circuited injunctive relief. But the court points out Loomer only mentioned an injunction in the complaint and never bothered to follow up on seeking this particular form of relief.

Back in 2014 when Facebook bought Oculus, there were the usual pre-merger promises that nothing would really change. Oculus founder Palmer Luckey, who has since moved on to selling border surveillance tech to the Trump administration, made oodles of promises to that effect before taking his money and running toward the sunset. Among those promises was the promise that users would never be forced to use a Facebook login account just to use your VR headset and its games, and that the company wouldn't track your behavior for advertising.Like every major merger, those promises didn't mean much. Just about a year ago, Facebook and Oculus announced that users will soon be forced to... use a Facebook account if they want to be able to keep using Oculus hardware, so the company can track its users for advertising purposes.Fast forward a year and things have been flipped a bit on their heads.Facebook users who have their accounts hacked and subsequently locked say it's impossible to get anybody at Facebook support to even listen to them. There's no real customer support helpline, and like many places COVID has made customer service staffing harder than ever. There is apparently an online form you can use that requires you provide your driver's license and other data to unlock your account, but Facebook users say it's apparently less than useless:

Nearly two years ago -- prior to the 2020 repeal of 50-a, the statute that codified law enforcement opacity in the state of New York -- the Brooklyn DA's office released part of its "Brady list" to Gothamist. The "Brady" (or "Giglio," depending on who's naming it) list tells prosecutors (and [supposedly] defense attorneys) which cops aren't to be trusted, thanks to previous perjury/severe misconduct/evidence-planting/etc. This keeps prosecutors from calling witnesses who can be easily impeached. And it helps defense lawyers know which government witnesses are ripe for undermining.It's the latter reason that often keeps these lists shrouded in secrecy. While some law enforcement agencies are more than willing to share with prosecutors in order to keep convictions intact, they're far less willing to give the defense anything to work with. But some of this information can be obtained through public records requests. And some of it can be obtained through new transparency laws or court orders.The list handed to Gothamist in 2019 was far from complete. Now with 50-a repealed, the information is flowing more freely. The NYPD is still doing what it can to withhold its own version of its Brady list, but that's not stopping others in possession of at least part of this list from releasing what they have on hand.Once again, it's both the Brooklyn DA and Gothamist combining forces to provide more information about bad cops to the public. While others have attempted to compile Brady lists from public records requests, this proactive move by the Brooklyn DA's office far outpaces any independent collection of Brady-listed officers.The latest publication by Gothamist contains 679 records in a searchable database compiled by Tarak Shah, a data scientist for the Human Rights Data Analysis Group. There are redactions, but they do not serve the NYPD's interests. As Shah notes in his statement accompanying this release, the redactions only cover information that "could have put those involved with investigating this story at risk."More than 10,000 documents are now in the hands of Gothamist, courtesy of Brooklyn DA Eric Gonzalez. What's in there? Plenty of cop bullshit. Here are just a few highlights:

We've made this point before, but the moment you attempt to scale up copyright enforcement, you run into problems. Collateral damage from automated systems mistaking non-infringing content for infringing, the possibility of fraud and abuse, the blind eye towards Fair Use all become problems. But sometimes those problems are so silly that they expose what a pure fiasco this has become. Several years back, we discussed Universal Pictures asking Google to delist a bunch of supposedly infringing sites, listing one of them as 127.0.0.1. Depending on how computer savvy you are, you may recognize that this IP address is how a computer or system refers to itself. In other words, it essentially means "home."And, yet, despite how silly this all is, it just keeps happening. Most recently, the anti-piracy outfit used by a Ukrainian television broadcaster may have outed its own client by also asking Google to delist 127.0.0.1.

One of the great warrant exceptions is the "inventory search." Stop a car in a high-traffic or "high crime" area, and officers will feel compelled to tow it away. But before it's towed, they'll make a list of everything in the car to ensure the vehicle's owner gets all of their possessions back when they retrieve it from the impound lot. If there happens to be contraband in the car, it's a win for the cops. The "discovery" (even if derived from a mostly-pretextual search) will be called "inevitable" and can be used against the person to deprive them of their freedom along with their car.This one simple trick usually works out for law enforcement. But every so often it doesn't. And when it doesn't work, it's usually because officers were in such a hurry to carry out the warrantless search that they completely forgot about the pretext.That's the case here in the Tenth Circuit Appeals Court's handling of a motion to suppress. The lower court denied the suppression motion, but the Appeals Court reverses [PDF] that decision, finding that the officers created an excuse to search the car, making their discoveries less than inevitable.It all started with a call to the Tulsa (OK) Police Department about Evan Woodard. The caller said Woodward was in the middle of a drug case, may have smoked PCP, had three previous gun charges, and had violated a protective order. Tulsa PD officers headed out to find Woodard and serve him with an outstanding warrant for public intoxication and the protective order he was allegedly violating.Here's what happened next:

We've talked a lot on Techdirt about the end of ownership, and how companies have increasingly been reaching deep into products that you thought you bought to modify them... or even destroy them. Much of this originated in the copyright space, in which modern copyright law (somewhat ridiculously) gave the power to copyright holders to break products that people had "bought." Of course, the legacy copyright players like to conveniently change their language on whether or not you're buying something or simply "licensing" it temporarily based on what's most convenient (i.e., what makes them the most money) at the time.Over at the Nation, Maria Bustillos, recently wrote about how legacy companies -- especially in the publishing world -- are trying to take away the concept of book ownership and only let people rent books. A little over a year ago, picking up an idea first highlighted by law professor Brian Frye, we highlighted how much copyright holders want to be landlords. They don't want to sell products to you. They want to retain an excessive level of control and power over it -- and to make you keep paying for stuff you thought you bought. They want those monopoly rents.As Bustillos points out, the copyright holders are making things disappear, including "ownership."

I went back to Ohio/but my First Amendment was goneFor those of you just joining us, allow me to catch everyone up. In the wake of protests against police violence and multiple people realizing that online anonymity only extends as far as anyone's personal opsec, an "anonymous" Ohio police officer decided to sue (anonymously!) people for claiming he was some sort of white extremist.The pseudonymous "M.R." -- who filed a lawsuit in an Ohio court claiming he was "defamed" by people pointing out his questionable posts" -- is a Cincinnati police officer. Thanks to his quotation of social media posts referring to his questionable behavior, it was pretty easy for online, part-time sleuths to link "M.R." ("Michael Ryan") to Officer Ryan Olthaus.Despite the fact that M.R. had been outed as Officer Ryan Olthaus, a local court allowed "M.R" to pursue his defamation lawsuit anonymously. Not only that, but it granted a temporary injunction forbidding the people M.R. had failed to de-anonymize from saying anything negative about the officer involved in two questionable shootings.Hello, prior restraint! This order has been appealed and both the really-not-that-anonymous-cop and people on the side of free speech are arguing about the First Amendment. Since it's Officer Ryan "M.R." Olthaus on the early winning side (as appellee), we'll deal with his ridiculous motion [PDF] first. (h/t local lawyer Jeffrey Nye, who is challenging the unconstitutional gag order.)According to M.R.'s lawyers, no one can appeal a TRO. Not only is it not appealable, but the larger issues show the aggrieved cop is right. To wit, an editorial:

The Z2 headphones earned their name because they feature twice the sound, twice the battery life, and twice the convenience of competing headphones. This updated version of the original Z2s comes with a new all-black design and Bluetooth 5.0. Packed with TREBLAB's most advanced Sound2.0 technology with aptX and T-Quiet active noise-cancellation, these headphones deliver goose bump-inducing audio while drowning out unwanted background noise. These headphones are on sale for $79.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.

For more than a decade we've noted how the US broadband industry's biggest problem is a lack of healthy competition. In countless markets consumers either have the choice of a terrible phone company or a cable giant. The nation's phone companies have spent the last decade refusing to upgrade (or in some cases even repair) their aging DSL lines, because they don't see residential broadband as worth their while. That, in turn, is giving giants like Comcast and Spectrum an ever greater monopoly in many markets, reducing the already muted incentive to compete on price or shore up comically terrible customer service.While that may be great for cable companies, execs, and investors, it's not so great for consumers whose only choice of broadband is aging DSL from an apathetic telco. Instead of upgrading its customers to fiber across more than 20 states, US telco CenturyLink (recently rebranded "Lumen") announced it would be selling much of the company's copper DSL and phone network to private equity firm Apollo. Under the $7.5 billion dollar deal CenturyLink will keep the customers it actually cares about, then throw the (mostly rural) customers it doesn't care about at a private equity firm that isn't likely to upgrade them either.Apollo, primarily famous for acquiring old newspapers, lobotomizing them, then stripping them for parts, claims it will upgrade many of these users to fiber. But that doesn't seem particularly likely given their track record, or the track record of similar deals like this, which basically involves shuffling ownership of aging DSL lines nobody wants to actually upgrade, then milking the assets until the next sale. Many of these customers have been stuck on expensive, slow DSL for the better part of fifteen years as they get shuffled from disinterested owner to disinterested owner:

Selective leaking has always been a part of the federal government's day-to-day business. When there are narratives to massage, controlled leaking is tolerated. Leaks that make the government look bad tend to result in prosecutions, but leaks that act as highly unofficial PR or align with the motivations of the agencies they're leaked from are largely ignored.Every so often, though, oversight is asked to keep an eye on leaking, if only to make it appear that all leaks are considered equal. In the interest of perceived fairness, the FBI's Office of the Inspector General has taken a look at the incidents surrounding the selective release of information about the investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email server during her stint at the State Department under Barack Obama.There were questions about political motivations -- ones not helped at all by selective leaks about the investigation. This was on top of supposedly official actions, like then-FBI director James Comey's decision to hold a press conference to announce the outcome of the FBI's investigation. In the agency's determination, what Clinton did was unwise and gave the appearance of impropriety, but was not illegal.That would have been it. But shortly before the 2016 election, James Comey decided it was time for him to act unwisely and give off an air of impropriety by announcing the FBI would be reopening its investigation of Clinton and her email server, thanks to developments in an unrelated case. Comey's actions were also questionable, but apparently not actually illegal.The OIG tried to dig into the FBI's use of selective leaking during this time period. And it has arrived at the conclusion that it's almost impossible to accurately point fingers, much less discourage powerful federal agencies from doing whatever the hell they want to, policies and laws notwithstanding. (h/t Brad Heath)The report [PDF] leads off with a summary of the undoubtedly frustrating investigation. First, it points out how things should be handled…

For this post, we're going to need to provide some context when it comes to In-N-Out's fraught relationship with the entire country of Australia. The famous burger chain based here in America has made a habit of suing Australian entities that sell burgers using the same or similar names over trademark rights. If you're not familiar with the history here, that may not strike you as particularly noteworthy, especially given that some of the sued entities in question very much do use names and branding that serve as at least an homage to In-N-Out. The problem here is that In-N-Out has basically no presence in Australia. The company has no storefronts or brick and mortar businesses in Australia. As in... at all. Instead, the company has made a habit of doing pop-up restaurants in the country once every three years or so. Why? Well, because of a provision in Australian trademark law that allows this to satisfy the use-it-or-lose-it nature of trademark protection.In other words: In-N-Out has no real presence in Australia, has never shown any indication of having a real presence in Australia, and simply uses these once-in-a-while pop-up locations solely to keep its trademark registrations active.This has continued to the present, where In-N-Out is yet again suing another entity for violating the trademarks it's just barely using in Australia.

When police officers kill someone, the kneejerk reaction is to publicly disparage the dead, in hopes of making the deceased appear to have "deserved" to be killed, even if their actions during the incident didn't appear to justify the killing. To do this, officers dig into their databases and dredge up every arrest, citation, and documented interaction with law enforcement to make it appear as though the officers have (permanently) removed a threat from the streets, rather than simply applied excessive force until the person was dead.The NYPD is no different than other agencies. It did this following the killing of Eric Garner, leaking arrest records to press outlets in hopes of portraying the dead man as a persistent threat to public safety and police officers.But the NYPD breaks the law when it does this. State law is supposed to prevent access to sealed arrest records -- records that aren't tied to convictions. This law is in place to protect people from discrimination and harassment by making these unavailable to be used against them when being interviewed for jobs or seeking places to live, just to name a couple of examples.The NYPD isn't exempt from this law, but it sure seems to feel it is.

If you recall, economists repeatedly warned the $26 billion Sprint/T-Mobile merger would kill jobs, harm competition, and ultimately raise prices for consumers. To "fix" the problem, the Trump DOJ and FCC concocted an elaborate and cumbersome plan to create a replacement fourth wireless carrier out of Dish Network, despite the company's lack of experience in the sector and history of empty promises. So far none of this is going particularly well, with 5,000 and counting lost jobs, Dish and T-Mobile clearly unable to get along, and Dish... the cornerstone of the entire plan... continuing to bleed both TV and wireless subscribers.Of all the pay TV providers dealing with "cord cutting," Dish has indisputably been hit the hardest, losing another 67,000 pay TV subscribers last quarter. It technically added 65,000 Sling TV streaming video subscribers, but it wasn't enough to offset the 132,000 customers that cancelled Dish's traditional satellite TV service. With absolutely no plans to build new satellites and users shifting increasingly to streaming, Dish knows satellite TV is a dead end.That's where the company's wireless business is supposed to come in.As part of the DOJ/FCC deal, Dish obtained billions in spectrum and the Boost prepaid mobile brand from Sprint. The idea is that Dish is supposed to operate a Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO) as it builds out its own, full 5G wireless network.But, there too, things aren't going particularly well. Dish lost 201,000 Boost subscribers in the last quarter. And while it added 200,000 subscribers last March by buying a small wireless company named Republic Wireless, a research note by Wall Street analyst Craig Moffett indicates the overall trajectory isn't a great one:

Tech that supposedly detects gunshots has been deployed in multiple cities across the nation with the intent of providing faster response times to possible violence and to give investigators heads up where illegal activity may have occurred. The tech has some pretty serious problems, though.For one, it cannot reliably detect gunshots.

I've written a lot about the impossibility of doing content moderation well at scale, and there are lots of reasons for that. But one of the most common is the difficulty both AI and human beings have in distinguishing hateful/trollish/harassing behavior from those reporting on that behavior. We've pointed this out over and over again in a variety of contexts. One classic example is social media websites pulling down human rights activists highlighting war crimes by saying it's "terrorist content." Another were the many examples of people on social media talking about racism and how they're victims of racist attacks having their accounts and posts shut down over claims of racism.And now we have another similar example. A new video series about antisemitism posted its trailer to Instagram... where it was removed for violating community guidelines.

ScaffoldHub is a full-stack JavaScript/typescript web application generator directed for JavaScript/typescript developers. It lets you create a project or app with the modeling tool and preview it online. The "download the source code" means that you can download and use the source code, subject to the ScaffoldHub license. ScaffoldHub also comes with API documentation, authentication, security, audit logs, forms, lists, filters, and many other features. An unlimited subscription is on sale for $110.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.

I'm not sure what's happening in the New York legislature, but a whole lot of NY politicians appear to believe law enforcement officers -- some of the most powerful public servants in the nation -- are some ultra-rare species of easily frightened lagomorphs, incapable of performing their jobs without being protected from the people they serve.Last week, US Congresswoman Claudia Tenney served up a bill that would codify qualified immunity for law enforcement, claiming this was necessary because people whose rights have been trampled are too litigious and cops are dying at an alarming rate. Ignored were the uncomfortable facts that qualified immunity is an enabler of the bad apples who spoil the cop bunch and cops are dying of communicable viruses, rather than the guns and bullets of bad guys.Following in the footsteps of Tenney's bad bill and an unseemly amount of so-called "Blue Lives Matter" laws, comes this terrible legislative pitch from a handful of Nassau County (NY) lawmakers. Having utterly failed to read the room, these legislators think the time is right to convert cops (and other first responders) into a protected class. (via Adam Steinbaugh)Here's the bill's [PDF] pitch in all-caps form:

Under former CEO Randall Stephenson, AT&T spent nearly $200 billion on mergers with DirecTV and Time Warner, hoping this would secure its ability to dominate the pay TV space through brute force. But the exact opposite happened. Saddled with so much debt from the deal, AT&T passed on annoying price hikes to its consumers. It also embraced a branding strategy so damn confusing -- with so many different product names -- it even confused its own employees.All told, AT&T lost 9.5 million customers in just over four years. Not exactly the kind of "domination" the company envisioned. Meanwhile, employees also paid the price. Despite billions in regulatory favors (killing net neutrality and broadband privacy rules) and a $42 billion tax break from the Trump administration for literally doing less than nothing, AT&T has also laid off more than 50,000 employees since 2017. The company also took an axe to several well-loved brands (Mad Magazine, DC's Vertigo Comic imprint) as its executives crashed and bounced their way around unfamiliar businesses.Last week AT&T finally completed its spinoff of DirecTV. Kind of a sad little whimper to the company's original vision. Yet somehow, much of the sterile news coverage of the whole mess doesn't capture the real scale or scope of the failure.The New York Post, for example, can't be bothered to mention a single layoff or a cite a single AT&T misstep. The same thing over at CNET, where the final chapter in AT&T's ugly saga is framed in this detached, oddly clinical way, completely avoiding pointing out AT&T incompetence or the human wreckage these deals left behind. This is how spending $200 billion on mergers that resulted in massive layoffs and utter organizational chaos is described by the outlet:

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Blake C. Stacey with a comment highlighting the extreme breadth of the internet services the Canadian government wants to regulate with a heavy hand:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2016, it was revealed that the FBI's hacking tool compromised dozens of computers in Australia, while new FOIA documents showed that the FISA court once refused the FBI's request to scoop up communications along with metadata, one FBI official was comparing encryption guru Moxie Marlinspike to the KKK, and the Manhattan DA was claiming he didn't want encryption backdoors even though he certainly did. Meanwhile, we were wondering why the Copyright Office was helping to protect the cable industry's monopoly on cable boxes, and why it was so intent on changing the part of copyright that protects libraries and archives. The RIAA's latest attacks on YouTube were drawing criticism even from usual defenders of the association, and the DOJ made a smart decision about music licensing that caused music publishers to freak out.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2011, we highlighted the latest evidence that copy protection does not increase sales, and discussed the question of whether ISPs should cut off the entertainment industry over its constant attempts to convince them to engage in censorship — just as a new paper was arguing that ISPs should be made liable for cybercrime efforts, and the Justice Minister in Switzerland decided that ISPs should have to retain data despite no legal basis for forcing them to do so. A court found that Megaupload could be guilty of direct infringement in the Perfect 10 case, but the biggest and most important Perfect 10 ruling from the 9th Circuit said that proving copyright infringement doesn't automatically mean irreparable harm was done. We also saw a major episode in the interminable (and fascinating) Mattel lawsuit over Bratz dolls.Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2006, we marveled (and wondered) at the absurd glut of video sharing services appearing (a bunch of them specifically from Time Warner) while YouTube took the world by storm, and also noted the interesting (but likely unimportant) fact that MSN was technically considered the leader over YouTube. There was an early discussion about the influence of Google AdSense policies on journalism, Norway was talking about banning iTunes, and — in a somewhat historic move — AOL finally became a free portal with free email addresses. Also, as expected, Limewire got sued, beginning the first big fight over the inducement standard recently set down in the Supreme Court's Grokster decision.

Good public relations, when mired in a controversy, isn't always easy, but it does tend to be quite simple. If you have a controversy on your hands, be direct, be honest, be transparent, do not attempt to paper over the controversy with other good works already done, and for the love of god do not give any indication that you're turning a deaf ear to those who are upset over the controversy.Or, if you're Activision Blizzard, do the exact opposite of all of the above and definitely trot out your own Chief Compliance Officer to do so. The context around this is that Activision Blizzard was recently sued by the state of California over its workplace practices, with specific issues revolving around reported treatment of women and people of color that, if true, are absolutely horrific.

The app formerly known as "Vigilante" is surreptitiously redefining the term "citizen journalist." The new definition will probably be capitalized and trademarked. The crime reporting app that once entertained plans to become part of the law enforcement community by partnering with private security companies is paying users to head out to crime scenes and annoy civil servants.