Techdirt

Clearview continues to dominate the "Most Hated" category in the facial recognition tech games. And with Amazon tossing aside its "Rekognition" program for the time being (it's spelled with a K because the AI tried to spell "recognition" correctly and failed), Clearview has opened up what could be an insurmountable lead.Clearview has been sued, investigated, banned by law enforcement agencies, and suffered numerous self-inflicted wounds. Underneath Clearview's untried and untested AI lies an underbedding composed of the internet. The ~4 billion images in Clearview's database have been scraped from public posts and accounts hosted by thousands of websites and dozens of social media platforms.There's nothing inherently wrong with scraping sites to make use of information hosted there. In fact, this often controversial power can sometimes be used for good. The last thing we need is Clearview's questionable tech convincing legislators, prosecutors, and courts that scraping sites is something only criminals do.Clearview called out Google's apparent hypocrisy on the subject of site scraping when Google sent a cease-and-desist demanding it stop harvesting images and data from Google's online possessions. But Clearview is apparently unable to recognize its own hypocrisy. While it's cool with site scraping when it can benefit from it, it frowns upon others perpetrating this "harm" on its own databases.Eerily reminiscent of Disney's take on the public domain (good when Disney uses it, bad when Disney's copyrights are set to expire) is Clearview's take on site scraping. Its user agreement [PDF] with the Evansville, Indiana police department (obtained by MuckRock user J Ader) contains this paragraph:

One of the most contentious areas of Internet law is the extent to which sites are responsible for the actions of their users. One issue concerns user-uploaded materials: if these infringe on copyright, should the platform be held responsible too? The EU's highest court, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), has just ruled on two cases touching on this question. One concerned the posting of music recordings to YouTube, while the other involved medical textbooks published by Elsevier, which appeared on some filesharing sites. Both cases were before the Federal Court of Justice in Germany, which asked the CJEU to provide guidance on the liability of online platforms as regards to copyright materials posted by users. The basic decision is straightforward (pdf), explained here by the court's press release:

So, this is... not great. Last year we wrote about a ridiculously bad ruling in Texas regarding a string of what certainly appear to be vexatious lawsuits that try to blame Facebook for sex trafficking. Texas's Supreme Court has now made its ruling on the matter and... it completely upends the limits of FOSTA by literally ignoring what the law explicitly says, and insisting it must mean something different. It is one of the strangest rulings I've ever seen.The key issue is that Facebook sought a writ of mandamus, basically asking the Court to say "these lawsuits can't go forward because of Section 230." But that apparently requires the Justices on Texas's Supreme Court to read Section 230, as amended under FOSTA, and understand what it actually says. However, Justice Jimmy Blacklock apparently couldn't be bothered to do that. You can kind of get a sense of where this is going from the opening:

House Judiciary Chairman Congressman Nadler really does not like "big tech" companies, and four of them (Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon) in particular. His antipathy has led him to bypass any further subcommittee inquiry to identify which issues raised by these companies might be suitable for regulation, or to develop careful language that could remediate them without being an unconstitutional and counter-productive legislative attack on the entire Internet economy.Instead he called a full committee hearing this past Wednesday to debate and markup a slate of six bills that are, in their current form, an unconstitutional and counter-productive legislative attack on the entire Internet economy. (Here's where we'd normally include an embed of the hearing, but for reasons that are not at all clear, after the session was live-streamed via YouTube, it is currently blocked from showing the recording -- perhaps the session that was a debate about how best to break Google, has literally broken Google by streaming a video too long for YouTube to deal with).Although the hearing lasted over 24 hours(!), from midday Wednesday into midday Thursday (with just one three-hour recess and a few other breaks for floor votes), there was little illumination on whether anything these bills target is truly an infirmity at all, an infirmity that Congress hasn't itself created, or an infirmity particular to just these targeted companies. Or whether any of these proposed "remedies" won't hurt the very interests they are ostensibly supposed to help.Over the course of the hearing he did, of course, get some bi-partisan pushback. Some of the most credible seemed to come from Reps. Lofgren and Issa, who tried to alert the bills' proponents to many of the bills' defects, and also Rep. Spartz, who kept noticing all the due process and doctrinal shortcuts built into the bills. And some of the language did get amended. But no evidence was considered and no experts were consulted. The committee was not interested in building any further record that might challenge (or even potentially support) the foregone conclusions that something must be done and these bills should be the something.As a result, the fundamental problems with the bills remain because the fundamental problem remains: even after all that effort the Committee still lacks a meaningful understanding of how and why tech companies get big, including any reasons why we either value that bigness or otherwise force it to happen. The kindest read of the situation – as with most tech policy regulation, it seems – is that it's a bit like the story of the blind men and the elephant, where each man has a different perception of what an elephant must look like depending on whether they are holding its trunk, its ear, or its tail. Here the House Judiciary Committee is holding tightly to the tail and refusing to even contemplate that there might be any more elephant to consider. As a result it also can't recognize how some of the problems they are worried about are actually problems of their own making.One conspicuous example that came up during this marathon bill markup session was the outrage expressed by some members of the committee that Amazon sometimes kicks off independent vendors using its marketplace services. But instead of asking why Amazon might do that, the committee chose to presume that it was due to nothing more than some nefarious anti-competitive instinct. And in making that presumption the committee ignored its own role in forcing Amazon's hand.For instance, how does it make sense for Congress to think that Amazon should potentially be liable for counterfeit or defective goods vendors use their platforms to sell, and yet simultaneously criticize Amazon for denying vendors with potentially problematic products access to their platform? Answer: it doesn't make any sense at all. Congress needs to decide: if it wants Amazon to be more open to more small business users, it has to make it safe for them to be.Yet instead of fortifying laws that offer platforms protection to make it safe for them to be open to more users, including smaller businesses and potential competitors, Congress is instead hard at work crafting bills to further put the screws to the bigger platforms if they give access to the wrong third party user who does something with their platforms that Congress also doesn't like. It is deliberately creating a no-win situation for platforms that forces them to make only bad choices that no one will like – and that Congress will only want to further punish them for.

The 2021 Complete Microsoft Azure Certification Prep Bundle has 6 courses to help you prepare to sit various certification exams. Courses cover AZ-104, AZ-204, AZ-303, AZ-301, and TOGAF standard version 9.2. The bundle is on sale for $35.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.

We've been seeing over and over again lately that politicians (and, unfortunately, the media) are frequently blaming social media and content moderation for larger societal problems, that the government itself has never been able to solve.In other words, what's really happening is that the supposedly "bad stuff" that shows up on social media is really indicative of societal failures regarding education, mental health services, criminal law, social safety nets, and much much more. All social media is really doing is putting a spotlight on those failures. And the demands from politicians and the media for content moderation to "solve" these issues is really often about trying to sweep those problems under the rug by hiding them from public view, rather than looking for ways to tackle those much larger, much more difficult societal questions.Over in Wired, Harvard law lecturer (and former Techdirt podcast guest), Evelyn Douek, has one of the best articles I've seen making this point. First, she describes how -- contrary to the narrative that still holds among some that social media companies resist doing any moderation at all -- these days, they're much more aggressive in seeking to strike down disinformation:

In late 2019, the federal government indicted a Twitter employee, accusing him of acting as an agent of Saudi government. The allegations were pretty ugly.

It's no secret that we've dinged streaming giant Twitch over and over again these past months. Frankly, it was done with good reason, as the Amazon-owned company continues to respond to crisis after crises, conflict after conflict, with pure confusion and callous behavior. While some of those conflicts were Twitch-specific, the company is also dealing with the more common problem of attempting to have a coherent content policy when it comes to what is appropriate to stream and what is not. For instance, Twitch recently found itself in the headlines yet again first by yanking advertising revenue from so-called "hot tub meta" streamers, where streamers live-stream in bathing suits from hot tubs or kiddie pools. Kaitlyn "Amouranth" Siragusa was one of the more prominent names impacted by this move, which again came with no warning. As a result of the public backlash over Twitch choosing not to communicate with its own creative community, the platform announced a "hot tub channel" category, as though that solved anything.But now this has moved on from just a situation where Twitch sucks at communication with streamers, its most important asset. With all of the above having occurred, it seems that the raptors are now going about testing their fencing when it comes to what content is appropriate and what is not. And, if you want to get a sense of just how weird these tests can get, you need only dive into the latest Twitch trend: ear lick meta streams. Perhaps not surprisingly, Amouranth is once again leading this charge.

Summary: Three professors, Tama Leaver, Tim Highfield and Crystal Abidin, wrote a book about culture on Instagram and how it developed. The book, entitled Instagram: Visual Social Media Cultures, was released in February of 2020. Along with the book, the authors set up social media accounts to both promote the book and to continue the discussion about how Instagram culture has developed. Not surprisingly, one of the social media accounts they set up was on Instagram itself.On Instagram, the account would post images about Instagram (including examples of its content moderation issues). The authors were surprised in mid-September when Instagram shut down their account without any clear reason.The authors submitted an appeal saying that they believed the takedown was in error, noting the nature of their work, and explaining why they did not believe the account’s reposting of others’ work as part of their research should violate copyright (though, the disabled account notice did not specify that it was for copyright infringement):

Over the years, we've had many, many concerns about the US government seizing websites as it generally raises 1st Amendment issues (it's not unlike seizing a printing press). Of course, non-US citizens outside the US are not protected by the 1st Amendment, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned when the US government seizes news websites tied to foreign governments, even those with hostile interests to the US, like Iran. But that's exactly what happened.When people first started tweeting about this, and showing the graphic that had replaced the websites, many people insisted that it was actually a hack rather than a US government takedown, but the DOJ has now confirmed that they did, in fact, seize these sites.The DOJ claims they actually grabbed 33 such websites:

A high school student's quest to say "fuck cheer" in a semi-crowded convenience store has reached its end. The origin of this journey -- which began all the way back in 2017 -- was nothing more than a high school student doing high school stuff.

We've noted for a very long time that despite a lot of lip service about broadband, the U.S. government still doesn't have a very good idea of where broadband is or isn't available. There's a long line of reasons for this, including political pressure by regional monopolies that very much don't want a lack of competition and high prices to be apparent (somebody might get the crazy idea to try and fix the problem!). The FCC has also long been criticized for methodology that declares a census block (which can be hundreds of square miles) "served" with broadband if just one home can theoretically get service from an ISP.The problem is made fairly apparent if you spent a few minutes with the FCC's $350 million broadband availability map, which just outright hallucinates available competitors and speeds, and can't be bothered to include an essential metric: prices.Telecom mono/duopolies like AT&T and Comcast want policymakers looking at the problem through rose-colored glasses. The illusion protects up a broken US telecom subsidization process that mindlessly throws money at them for projects that make no coherent sense or often don't materialize. All propped up by zero accountability, and this belief that if you "deregulate" telecom, magic happens. But deregulating a broken captured industry dominated by natural monopolies doesn't result in magic. It results in those dominant monopolies behaving worse than ever. There's thirty years of evidence to that point.It's a very profitable mess that a select group of large companies work very, very hard to keep intact.Enter the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which earlier this month put a stick in the front wheel of this dysfunction by releasing a new broadband map that tracks both median speeds and affordability, the latter being a subject big ISPs and captured regulators never want to talk about. The map integrates data from a wide variety of sources including Ookla, M-Lab, Microsoft, and the FCC. The red in the shot below represents places where the median broadband speeds fall below 25 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up (the FCC's current definition of broadband). It's not pretty:There's a button on the left of the NTIA's map that lets you overlap lower income areas and see how ISPs like AT&T have routinely neglected marginalized communities, something also documented by several past reports. This is the net result of what countless billions in poorly managed subsidies and rampant, often mindless deregulation delivered. Basically, a US broadband market dominated by regional monopolies and overseen by captured, feckless regulators. The data is the data, and for decades those who've coddled entrenched monopolies have tried very, very hard to pretend that this problem doesn't exist.One amusing bit: if you zoom in and look at North Dakota, you'll find that it breaks the national trend of substandard, sluggish broadband:Why? Because a group of communities grew tired of the apathy of their regional monopolies and bought up their networks to form a massive, interconnected group of cooperatives. Like many community broadband networks, it was a project born out of frustration, resulting in fiber networks that deliver faster, cheaper speeds. Studies keep showing that locally-owned community projects like this routinely offer better, cheaper, faster service at more transparent price points. Such networks often tend to be more accountable because they're owned and operated by people who live in those communities.Yet instead of embracing these niche solutions as a creative way to drive an essential service to more people for less money, these projects are routinely demonized by those (like recent FCC boss Ajit Pai) who'd prefer broadband remain monopolized and expensive. There's an entire cottage industry funded by the telecom sector singularly tasked with pretending that US broadband is perfectly healthy, and attacking absolutely any effort to do anything differently. And they've been dominating telecom policy for decades. It's this monopolization and corruption that results in the "digital divide" still being a problem in 2021.Community broadband isn't some mystical panacea. Like any other business plan they're dependent on the quality of the planning and people involved. But these networks do frequently drive better, cheaper broadband to underserved parts of the United States, and they repeatedly force apathetic regional monopolies to try a little harder. It doesn't have to be an either/or equation. There's room for various solutions and players, and numerous ways these home-grown efforts can be integrated into adult broadband policy (cooperatives, piggybacking on existing utilities, private/public partnerships).But instead of doing that, we let entrenched monopolies write shitty state laws that ban such efforts entirely. We let captured regulators demonize an organic, grass roots response to market failure as "government run amok" or "socialism." It's a stupid, self-defeating mess we can fix with enough momentum, but only once people recognize that it's happening. But when you read most major news reports and hear most politicians talk about "the digital divide," regional monopolization (and the state and federal corruption that protects it) is bizarrely and routinely never even mentioned.

The Google Cloud Certifications Practice Tests and Courses Bundle will help you hone your expertise on the Google Cloud Platform with 7 courses and over 1,000 practice test questions for GCP certification exams. With the help of these courses, you'll develop your knowledge of designing, developing, and managing secure, robust, and dynamic solutions on the Google Cloud Platform. Courses cover tests for Professional Cloud Security Engineer, Professional Cloud Architect, Professional Cloud Developer, and more. The bundle is 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.

Content moderation at scale is impossible to do well. I will keep repeating this point forever if I must. Now, I recognize that when you're on the receiving end of a content moderation decision that you disagree with, it's natural to feel (1) angry and (2) that it's a personal affront to you or a personal attack on your view of the world. This is a natural reaction. It's also almost certainly wrong. The trust and safety teams working on content moderation are not targeting you. They have policies they are trying to follow. And they need to make a lot of subjective calls. And sometime they're wrong. Or sometimes you just have a different view of what happened.The publication Reason recently had a video pulled down from YouTube, and rather than freaking out and talking about how YouTube is "out to get" them, they instead wrote an article that clearly said that they support YouTube's right to make whatever content moderation decisions it wants, but also calmly explained why they think this decision was probably a mistake. As the article notes:

The 1-800-LAW-FIRM/Excolo Law losing streak continues. The lawyers at those firms have been preying on the victims of terrorist attacks for a few years now, presumably promising them some form of justice that can only be obtained by filing futile, flawed, completely doomed lawsuits that attempt to hold social media companies directly responsible for the criminal acts of terrorists.This lawsuit -- facing its second rejection in a row -- was one of the stupidest filed by these law firms. Jesus Retana, a Dallas police officer, was wounded during a mass shooting perpetrated by Micah Johnson. The lawsuit attempted to use the AITA (Anti-International Terrorism Act) to hold Twitter responsible for the alleged "radicalization" of Johnson by Hamas, an entity the US government has declared a terrorist organization.The Fifth Circuit Appeals Court finds this attempt to tie Twitter to Micah Johnson and his shooting of Dallas police officers as legally unbelievable as the lower court did. There's no discussion of Section 230 immunity, which would shield Twitter from this litigation, because the rest of the allegations are so baseless there's no reason to bring it up. (h/t Eric Goldman)The court says [PDF] not only is there no link between Hamas, Twitter, and Micah Johnson, there's also no link between Hamas and the shooting in Dallas. And there's certainly no international terrorism justifying the accusations of Twitter's supposed violation of international terrorism laws.

Way back in the ancient history of 2019, famed director Steven Spielberg became something of the front man for the aging Hollywood crowd that sees streaming services as somehow deficient when he announced plans to push the Academy to disallow Oscar nominations for films that appeared first on streaming services, arguing they should instead be considered for Emmys. Spielberg's plans were for naught, however, as the Academy refused to ban stream-first films from nominations. This led to Spielberg, directly and through mouthpieces, walking back his very clear intentions so as to pretend that he felt differently than was the reality. I'll stress again that all of this occurred all of two years ago.Which is part of what makes it strange that Spielberg's production company, Amblin Partners, just inked a multi-film deal with Netflix.

Pretty much everywhere in the United States it's accepted that if the public has access, law enforcement has access. This is the legal theory behind things like automatic license plate readers (anyone can see a license plate), utility pole-mounted cameras (anyone can see someone's front yard), and (to our benefit) recordings of public officials (if they're performing their public duties).This theory (along with the theory of abandonment) tends to govern people's trash. Once it is outside the house and made accessible to sanitation services, it can be accessed by anyone, including law enforcement officers. Sifting through trash that has been "abandoned" is one of several ways officers compile the probable cause for search warrants.Trash can't tell you everything but it can give you some idea what's going on inside a house. Conclusions are drawn from what's been observed in trash cans and officers move in. Sometimes they're horribly, horribly wrong. Sometimes they draw the correct inferences and make a successful bust. In either case, warrantless access to people's trash has been considered lawful for years.Until now.The Iowa Supreme Court [PDF] says garbage being abandoned for pickup by sanitation workers still has an expectation of privacy. (via We Are Iowa)The state's top court breaks away from years of accepted jurisprudence to extend constitutional protections to residents' trash. But only the state's Constitution. The Fourth Amendment still doesn't cover trash pulls.In this case, officers performed a couple of warrantless trash pulls, finding evidence of alleged drug production or use (poppy seeds, empty poppy seed packets, fabric pieces that tested positive for morphine). Using this as a basis for a search warrant, officers searched the house and found something else.

Even among people who recognize the problems with holding platforms liable for user speech, there's an understandable temptation to treat the act of content amplification and recommendation differently, since that's something the platforms do themselves. While you can see the logic to this idea, the fact is it's just as difficult and fraught with problems as other intermediary liability proposals. This week, we're joined by frequent guest Daphne Keller, Director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center, to discuss her recent paper on the subject and why regulating amplification isn't the simple solution it might sound like.Separately, this is the first time we've had a sponsor for the podcast! The Pessimists Aloud podcast is sponsoring today's episode. It's a new offering from the Pessimists Archive Twitter feed, which finds old articles that are skeptical of technology, which in retrospect turned out to be incorrect. The podcast takes those articles and has them artistically read (in an old-timey voice) aloud. We think fans of Techdirt will certainly enjoy the Pessimists Aloud podcast.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.

When last we checked in with Texas utility customers, they were literally freezing to death thanks to repeated underinvestment in the state's utility grid. The Texas utility grid is a unique mish-mash of competitors on its own grid resulting from a massive deregulation effort that didn't really deliver what was promised. The convoluted mess is overseen by state regulators -- detached from federal authority -- which have spent a decade ignoring reports calling for a hardening of the grid in the face of climate catastrophe.Texas consumers have continued to pay higher and higher prices for power. At the same time, state regulators have continued to prioritize the revenues of utility companies over the welfare of the public, and generally (with the occasional exceptions) refused to take the necessary hardening of utility grids in the face of climate change seriously. The results have been what everybody should have expected: an unreliable power grid in the face of both winter and summer extremes created by a destabilizing climate.During the recent heat wave, some Texans were shocked to wake up to find that their local energy company had turned up their thermostats in the night to save energy. Houston locals weren't exactly thrilled to wake up sweating in the night to the sound of dehydrated, crying infants. Customers had apparently signed up for a "sweepstakes" where the fine print in a massive, overlong end user agreement gave control of their own AC thermostats over to the local utility:

As you may have heard, tons of politicians are rushing to introduce new and different bills to undermine or repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act -- a bill that is rightly credited for enabling a more open internet for freedom of speech. As you may recall, in early 2018 we had the first actual reform to Section 230 in decades -- FOSTA. It was signed into law on April 11th, with tons of politicians insisting it was critical to protecting people online. We had so many quotes from politicians (and a whole campaign from Hollywood stars like Amy Schumer) claiming (falsely) that without FOSTA, children could be "bought and sold" online.One thing the bill did include (in Section 8) was a requirement that 3 years after the bill passed, the GAO should put out a report on how effective it has been. It's a few months late (the GAO does excellent work, but tends to be overworked and under-resourced) but on Monday the GAO finally released its study on the effectiveness of FOSTA. And... it basically says that all of the critics claims were exactly right.Before FOSTA became law, co-author of Section 230, Senator Ron Wyden warned:

In the Dynamic 2021 DevOps Training Bundle, Certs-School provides you with 5 courses to introduce you to the DevOps field, improve your skills, and then later excel as an actual practitioner. You will be introduced to DevOps too.ls and methodologies, GIT, CompTIA Cloud, Docker, and Ansible. Each course is self-paced so you can learn in your own time. It's on sale for $60Note: 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.

We haven't seen a lot of legal challenges to so-called "reverse warrants." This is likely due to their relative novelty. It's probably also due to the fact that no one "targeted" by these warrants knows about them until well after an investigation has been closed.Reverse warrants don't target people or places. They target (and I'm using that term loosely) areas roughly defined/confined by GPS coordinates. Everything inside the geofence is a target. Working backward from the data obtained from companies like Google, investigators try to determine which of these data points is their suspect.For the time being, it's mostly up to the judges reading the warrant affidavits to raise challenges to the methods used or the broadness of request. And, so far, we've only seen one rejection of a reverse warrant, albeit one rejected twice by consecutive judges (a magistrate and a district court judge).Now we have one more rejection to examine, coming to us via FourthAmendment.com. A magistrate judge in Kansas has rejected [PDF] the government's attempt to obtain location data from Google. The magistrate notes that judges all over the nation should expect to see more of these as time goes on and should be aware of the constitutional issues at play when the government works backwards from bulk data to identify a criminal suspect. Because this investigative technique is only expected to become more common, this judge has decided to set some ground rules for the government's future attempts to work its way backwards to probable cause.

We've written so many stories about how you don't own what you've bought any more due to software controls, DRM, and ridiculous contracts, and it keeps getting worse. The latest such example involves Peloton, which is most known for its extremely expensive stationary bikes with video screens, so that you can take classes (usually on a monthly subscription). I will admit that I don't quite understand the attraction to them, but so many people swear by them. The company also has branched out into extremely expensive treadmills with the same basic concept, but that product has been in the news for all the wrong reasons lately, after a six year old child died in an accident with the device (for what it's worth, that article links to a page on the Peloton site where the article says Peloton posted an open letter to its customers about the accident, but the letter is no longer at that link).The death kicked off an investigation by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission, which then told Peloton it should recall the treadmills and that people should not use them if there are children or pets nearby and apparently you should lock yourself in a room with them:

We've marked an awful lot of progress markers when it comes to the emergence of esports into the popular lexicon throughout the world. If there were a general theme to those posts, it certainly would be the progress esports has made in being considered a real, established sport, and not just a hobby that borrows that word with no validity. Progress, as I enjoy saying, is not linear, however.And now it appears that how at least one nation is dealing with the world's early emergence from COVID-19 protocols, is exposing one minor step back on all the progress. Sweden was set to host Valve's DOTA 2 big championship contest, The International, until very recently when the country's sports federation suddenly decided that esports aren't actual sports when it comes to COVID-19 travel exemptions. By way of background, this tournament was originally supposed to be held in Sweden in 2020, but it got pushed to 2021 due to the pandemic. As Valve planned for the event, it worked with the Swedish authorities to make sure everything was a go.

Amazon's doorbell-camera acquisition, Ring, has captured a large segment of the home security market. Part of its growth is due to its long list of law enforcement partnerships. Coupled with the rollout of its companion app, Neighbors, Ring has been handing out cameras to cops… who then hand out these complimentary cameras to local homeowners.Strings are attached -- some explicit and some implicit. The implicit strings connect cops to citizens: the assumption recipients of discounted or free cameras will allow officers to access recordings without having to bother the courts with a warrant request.The explicit strings tie up cops, making them brand ambassadors for Ring and its ever-expanding network of cameras. If cops want cheap cameras and the access to recordings those might provide, they have to become Ring's unofficial spokespeople.Public records show Ring has required police departments to assign employees to act as press and social media liaisons in the new partnership with Ring. Ring controls PR efforts and public statements. It also dangles its wifi-connected carrot: more signups for Ring's Neighbors app means more free cameras for cops.This unhealthy relationship between Ring and law enforcement is detailed in a recent LA Times article by Johana Bhuiyan. Thousands of dollars of cameras were handed out to LAPD officers in exchange for their promotion and distribution of Ring's products.

Last year I backed a very cool looking crowdfunding project for my kids. It's called Makeway, and seems like the coolest ever possible marble run setup. Marble runs are already cool, but since basically everyone in my family will spend hours just staring at some of the more advanced marble run setups in museums (or building them in the more hands on museums, or much simpler ones with just home kits), this seemed like a really amazing project to be able to create a museum-level marble run in your own home. The project launched right before the pandemic went into full swing, and, like tons of crowdfunding projects, it's had some difficulties along the way. Of course, unlike many such projects in which the creators go quiet and hide behind silence as they deal with the difficulties, the guy behind Makeway sends out incredibly and intricately detailed novella length updates, going deep into the challenges and (usually!) the solutions.Indeed, that part has been kind of fascinating -- especially to my kids, who actually get super excited each time a new update is sent and want to hear all the details of the project (indeed, learning about how difficult it is to create a product like this, and the effort the creators are making to get past those hurdles, seems like a good lesson for kids to learn). While they've been disappointed that the shipping of the product has been delayed, the updates are still neat, and I have every confidence that the product will eventually be delivered.Except... not all of it. The latest update gave me a new lesson to teach my kids: just how stupid patents can be, and how they can mess up cool products. Buried in the middle of this latest epic update was one hurdle that simply could not be overcome: threats from patent holders. For a freaking marble run piece.It's not a critical piece by any means -- it was more of a fun piece. Indeed, they called it the "party" piece. Basically as a marble would zip by, a fan would spin, and it could light up with a message and play music. Neat:The Makeway guys really liked this part too:

Tech platforms, especially the largest ones, have a problem—there’s a lot of offensive junk online. Many lawmakers on Capitol Hill keep coming back to the same solution: blaming Section 230.What lawmakers don’t notice is that a lot of the people posting that offensive junk get stopped, again and again, thanks to Section 230. During a March hearing in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, lawmakers expressed concern over some of the worst content that’s online, including extremist content, falsehoods about COVID-19, and election disinformation.But it’s people spreading just this type of content that often file lawsuits trying to force their content back online. These unsuccessful lawsuits show that Section 230 has repeatedly stopped disinformation specialists from disseminating their harmful content.Section 230 stands for the simple idea that you’re responsible for your own speech online—not the speech of others. It also makes clear that online operators, from the biggest platforms to the smallest niche websites, have the right to curate the speech that appears on their site.Users dedicated to spreading lies or hateful content are a tiny minority, but weakening Section 230 will make their job easier. When content moderation doesn’t go their way—and it usually doesn’t—they’re willing to sue. As the cases below show, Section 230 is rightfully used to quickly dismiss their lawsuits. If lawmakers weaken Section 230, these meritless suits will linger in court longer, costing online services more and making them leery of moderate the speech of known litigious users. That result could make it easier for these users to spread lies online.Section 230 Protects Moderators Who Remove Hateful ContentJames Domen identifies as a “former homosexual,” who now identifies as heterosexual. He created videos that describe being LGBTQ as a harmful choice, and shared them on Vimeo, a video-sharing website. In one video, he described the “homosexual lifestyle” this way: “It’ll ruin your life. It’s devastating. It’ll destroy your life.”In at least five videos, Domen also condemned a California bill that would have expanded a ban on “sexual orientation change efforts,” or SOCE. Medical and professional groups have for decades widely recognized that efforts to change sexual orientation in various ways, sometimes called “conversion therapy,” are harmful.Vimeo removed Domen’s videos. In a letter to Domen’s attorney, Vimeo explained that SOCE-related videos “disseminate irrational and stereotypical messages that may be harmful to people in the LGBT community,” because it treated homosexuality as “a mental disease or disorder” that “can and should be treated.” Vimeo bans “hateful and discriminatory” content, and company officials told Domen directly that, in their view, his videos fell into that category.Domen sued, claiming that his civil rights were violated. Because of Section 230, Domen’s lawsuit was quickly thrown out. He appealed, but in March, the federal appeals court also ruled against him.Forcing a website to publish Domen’s anti-LGBTQ content might serve Domen’s interests, but only at the expense of many other users of the platform. No website should have to face a lengthy and expensive lawsuit over such claims. Because of Section 230, they don’t.Some lawmakers have proposed carving civil rights claims out of Section 230. But that could have the unintended side effect of allowing lawsuits like Domen’s to continue—making tech companies more skittish about removing anti-LGBTQ content.Section 230 Protects Moderators Who Remove Covid-19 Falsehoods Marshall Daniels hosts a YouTube channel in which he has stated that Judaism is “a complete lie” which was “made up for political gain.” Daniels, who broadcasts as “Young Pharaoh,” has also called Black Lives Matter “an undercover LGBTQ Marxism psyop that is funded by George Soros.”In April 2020, Daniels live-streamed a video claiming that vaccines contain “rat brains,” that HIV is a “biologically engineered, terroristic weapon,” and that Anthony Fauci “has been murdering motherfuckers and causing medical illnesses since the 1980s.”In May 2020, Daniels live-streamed a video called “George Floyd, Riots & Anonymous Exposed as Deep State Psyop for NOW.” In that video, he claimed that nationwide protests over George Floyd’s murder were “the result of an operation to cause civil unrest, unleash chaos, and turn the public against [President Trump].” According to YouTube, he also stated the COVID-19 pandemic and Floyd’s murder “were covert operations orchestrated by the Freemasons,” and accused Hillary Clinton and her aide John Podesta of torturing children. Near the video’s end, Daniels stated: “If I catch you talking shit about Trump, I might whoop your ass fast.”YouTube removed both videos, saying that they violated its policy on harassment and bullying.Daniels sued YouTube, demanding account reinstatement and damages. He claimed that YouTube amounted to a state actor, and had thus violated his First Amendment rights. (Suggesting that courts treat social media companies as the government has no basis in the law, which the 9 Circuit reaffirmed is the case last year.)In March, a court dismissed most of Daniels’ claims under Section 230. That law protects online services—both large and small—from getting sued for refusing to publish content they don’t want to publish.Again, Internet freedom was protected by Section 230. No web host should be forced to carry false and threatening content, or Qanon-based conspiracy theories, like those created by Daniels. Section 230 protects moderators who kick out such content.Section 230 Protects Moderators Who Remove Election DisinformationThe Federal Agency of News LLC, or FAN, is a Russian corporation that purports to be a news service. FAN was founded in the same building as Russia’s Internet Research Agency, or IRA; the IRA became the subject of a criminal indictment in February 2018 for its efforts to meddle in the 2016 U.S. election.The founder and first General Director of FAN was Aleksandra Yurievna Krylova, who is wanted by the FBI for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Later in 2018, the FBI unsealed a criminal complaint against FAN’s chief accountant, Elena Khusyaynova. In that complaint, the FBI said that Federal Agency of News was not so different than the IRA. Both were allegedly part of “Project Lakhta,” a Russian operation to interfere with political and electoral systems both in Russia “and other countries, including the United States.”Facebook shut more than 270 Russian language accounts and pages in April of 2018, including FAN’s account. Company CEO Mark Zuckerberg said the pages “were controlled by the IRA,” which had “repeatedly acted deceptively and tried to manipulate people in the U.S., Europe, and Russia.” The IRA used a “network of hundreds of fake accounts to spread divisive content and interfere in the U.S. presidential election.” Facebook’s Chief Security Officer stated that the IRA had spent about $100,000 on Facebook ads in the United States.At this point, one might think that anyone with alleged connections to the Internet Research Agency, including FAN, would lie low. But that’s not what happened. Instead, FAN’s new owner, Evgeniy Zubarev, hired U.S. lawyers and filed a lawsuit against Facebook, claiming that his civil rights had been violated. He demanded that FAN’s account be reinstated, and that FAN be paid damages.A court threw the FAN lawsuit out on Section 230 grounds. The plaintiffs re-filed a new complaint, which the court again threw out.Small Companies And Users Can’t Afford These Bogus Lawsuits Weakening Section 230 will give frivolous lawsuits like the ones above a major boost. Small companies, with no margin for extra legal costs, will be under more pressure to capitulate to bogus demands over their content moderation.Section 230 protects basic principles, whether you run a blog with a comment section, an email list with 100 users, or a platform serving millions. You have the right to moderate. You have the right to speak your own mind, and serve other users, without following the dictates of a government commission—and without fear of a bankrupting lawsuit.Innovation, experimentation and real competition are the best paths forward to a better internet. More lawsuits over everyday content moderation won’t get us there.Reposted from the EFF's Deeplinks blog.

Frustrated by high prices, a lack of competition, spotty coverage, and terrible customer service, some 750 US towns and cities have built some form of community owned and operated broadband network. While not some silver bullet, studies have shown these networks often provider faster, cheaper, better service than most apathetic regional telecom monopolies. They also tend to put money back into the local community, as well as being somewhat more accountable given they're run by folks with a vested interest in the community they live in.Instead of preventing such efforts by offering better, faster, cheaper service, giant regional mono/duopolies ISPs like AT&T, Charter, and Comcast have historically found it cheaper to write and lobby easily corruptible state lawmakers. There are currently laws in 17 states either hamstringing or outright banning cities from building their own networks, almost all of them ghost written by industry.As COVID highlighted the essential nature of broadband, some states have realized the counterproductive nature of such proposals. For example Arkansas and Washington both eliminated their state restrictions earlier this year, arguing that such creative, local niche solutions can go a long way in shoring up access and lowering prices.But Ohio is taking a different tack. State Republicans embedded a new amendment in the state budget earlier this month that would effectively outlaw community broadband in the state. The provision is so unpopular among consumers, none of the Republicans pushing for it are willing to affix their name to it:

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.

There's a very, very dumb conspiracy theory making the rounds -- and I want to be very clear on this -- that has zero evidence to support it, that the FBI was actually behind the January 6th invasion of the Capitol. It was originally reported by a wacky extremist news organization that I won't even bother naming here, and then got a lot more attention when Fox News made it a story via Tucker Carlson's show. The underlying confusion is that a (former Trump admin official who was let go after attending a conference with white nationalists but then later appointed to a new job within the Trump White House) reporter completely misunderstood what "unindicted co-conspirator" means in various charging documents.What it generally means are people the government has not yet charged, and who they don't want to name so they don't tip them off (or where they don't yet know who they are, or don't have enough evidence to charge, or for a variety of other reasons). What it absolutely never means, is an undercover FBI agent or informant. Those people are not ever described as unindicted co-conspirator. But the reporter somehow got it into his head that this meant they were FBI agents, and then went to town with a conspiracy theory blaming the FBI for the insurrection, claiming that it was designed to "frame the entire MAGA movement."As noted, this is false, and there is no evidence to support this. At all. It's a fiction of imagination from someone who has no idea what he's talking about, and of course Tucker Carlson ran with it, because that's what Tucker Carlson does.But... here's the thing: it would be a hell of a lot easier to debunk this nonsense if the FBI (especially since 9/11) didn't have a depressingly long history of... setting up fake terrorist plots in order to entrap people to get big headlines around an arrest of someone who never had any means to actually carry out the attack. We've covered examples of these kinds of FBI activities for years. We've written about examples of this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.No doubt, what the FBI does in those cases is disgusting and highly questionable. It often involves them searching out people who are either mentally troubled or really desperate, and then proposing they get involved in a completely fictional terrorist plot -- a plot that the individuals would have no possible chance of actually carrying out on their own. The undercover FBI agents (or the confidential informant working for the FBI) then proceed to do all the actual "planning" including buying any of the necessary materials and getting all the details in order. Then, after the planning has reached a certain point and the sucker is bought in on the plan, they're arrested, and the FBI claims it "stopped" a terrorist attack -- which usually gives the FBI lots of glowing press attention.Of course, the reality is that there was no threat. There was no actual plot. There is never any ability to actually carry anything out. The weapons or bombs or whatever are all faked or never actually in existence. It's all a shadow play so the FBI can try to get some headlines and pretend they're doing something.But that's clearly not what happened with January 6th. For one thing, the events of January 6th actually happened. The Capitol was actually invaded. Damage was actually done. If the FBI was planning it as per their usual homegrown plots, no actual attack would have happened. Also, if you look at the pattern of who the FBI has gone after with these plots... it's not really been the Trump supporting MAGA militia type.Either way, though, people wouldn't have to be doing this big silly debunking of this kind of nonsense conspiracy theory if the FBI didn't actually have a track record of doing this kind of thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.So, you know, perhaps they should stop doing that.

The Kraken is on the move!Former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell -- last seen being sued by a voting machine maker after making (and filing) a bunch of baseless claims about a "stolen" election -- is headed to Detroit, Michigan. There will be some more Michigan-focused courtroom action, but it won't be Powell playing offense.

Another form of evidence used in criminal cases is being called into question. The latest (via CJ Ciaramella) to receive the dubious honor of being designated "dubious" is blood spatter analysis. This brings it in line with a long list of other things long-considered (and, in too many cases, still considered) to be evidence worthy of introducing into a court of law, joining bite mark analysis, hair analysis, um… pair of blue jeans analysis... and even the old standby, DNA analysis.The problem with all of these sciences is that they're mostly subjective. Sure, they look pretty science-y. A lot of math and charts and lab coats and computers are scattered all over the place. Inscrutable printouts are carried by expert witnesses with years of experience under their belts. They show up in court and make claims about certainty of matches or probability of X contributing to Y, much of which can't be easily contested because, as mentioned earlier, the results are open to interpretation.Despite this, a lot of what's called forensic science still ends up being used as evidence in criminal cases, even though it's more accurate to refer to it as forensic guesswork. Blood spatter analysis is no exception. This study [PDF] for Forensic Science International says the lack of solid standards in the blood pattern analysis field have resulted in experts looking at the same blood patterns but all seeing something different.

Last June, as anti-police brutality protests were sweeping across the nation following the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, some NYPD officers claimed it was the public that was actually violent and abusive.This supposed anti-police sentiment manifested itself -- at least in this case -- as "poisoned" milkshakes served to NYPD officers by a local Shake Shack.

Ever since the giant news organizations, led by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., began pushing the ridiculous idea of forcing Google and Facebook (and often just Google and Facebook) to pay a "link tax," we've been pointing out that while this might be a windfall of free money for the news giants, small news organizations (like, um, us) would likely get totally screwed over. With Australia leading the charge of silliness and passing its link tax, we're discovering that our predictions were exactly correct.The big Australian publishers, News Corp. and NINE, are making out like bandits, while the smaller publications? Not so much.

The DOJ is testing some waters it may not want to be troubling, not with hundreds of prosecutions stemming from the January 6 Capitol raid on the docket. It has asked the DC court to compel a defendant to decrypt his laptop so the FBI can search it for evidence. (h/t Marcy Wheeler)The government is seeking an All Writs Act order [PDF] forcing the alleged device owner to unlock the device using either his face or his passcode.

As part of a recent COVID bill, the government announced that folks struggling economically during COVID would be getting some temporary help. Under the EBB (Emergency Broadband Benefit program), U.S. consumers can nab a $50 discount off their broadband bill, or $75 if you live in tribal areas. The program ends when its $3.2 billion in federal funding expires, or six months after the government has declared an end to the pandemic.To be clear the program is bringing some helpful aid to struggling consumers, with more than 2.3 million users signed up through the voluntary program's 825 participating ISPs. But this being the busted US broadband industry overseen by fairly feckless federal leadership, the efforts aren't going without a hitch.For one, some ISPs like Verizon exploited the program to force consumers onto even more expensive plans (not too surprising for a company that thought it would be a good idea to cap, throttle, then upsell firefighters during an historical California wildfire). Other ISPs like Charter Communications, Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T greatly restricted which plans qualified for the program. A few ISPs, like Charter, rejected users who didn't agree to sign up for more expensive broadband tiers once the program ends. This violated FCC rules designed to prevent bill shock among poor people, but it's not clear the agency did much about it.Charter and Comcast also appear to be rejecting qualified applicants based on incompetence and some dumb database issues. One qualifying Comcast user, for example, was rejected four times by Comcast despite being approved for the program by the FCC:

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. This particular job is always in-demand. In the Super Software Engineer Bundle, you'll get 41 hours of video content on IoT, Java, Angular, MongoDB, AI, and so much more. 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.

Mother Jones has a slightly weird article saying that Facebook is making an "awkward legal argument" in a lawsuit that was filed against the company by Muslim Advocates, arguing that Facebook and its executives lied to Congress when it insisted that the company would remove hate speech. There's a lot to unpack here, though I'd note that there are two things I find awkward here -- and neither of them are Facebook's legal arguments in the case. The real awkwardness is Muslim Advocates trying to argue that Facebook failing to remove certain content violates consumer protection laws. The second awkward bit is Facebook's constant political posturing about its openness to Section 230 reform.Let's dig into the case, though. The complaint from Muslim Advocates (and filed by a lawyer who is a long-term critic of Section 230) is fairly straightforward. It says that Facebook's execs have testified before Congress that the company removes content that violates its policies. Yet, when Muslim Advocates alerted the company to content that it believed violated Facebook's policies, the company did not always remove it. Ergo (the complaint says), it means that Facebook's execs lied to Congress... and somehow that violates DC's consumer protection laws.There's plenty here to roll your eyes about. There is no doubt that (tragically) there is plenty of hate speech on Facebook directed at Muslims (and many other groups). It is also true that content moderation is impossible to do well at scale, and that (1) mistakes will be made and (2) lots of people will disagree with Facebook's interpretation of its own rules. And just because Facebook testifies that if it becomes aware of content that violates its policies, it will take it down, if someone else believes that content violates Facebook's policies, but Facebook doesn't take it down, that does not mean that Facebook lied to Congress. It just means that there are differing interpretations of Facebook's policies, and Facebook is the one who gets to have the final say on that.The lawsuit, obviously, argues otherwise. I find that argument to be kinda silly. And, if it actually wins the day in court, it would be tremendously problematic for the open internet. Enabling basically anyone to sue a company for not taking down content that the person (but not the company) believes violates policies is a recipe for (1) a ton of frivolous, wasteful litgation and (2) the creation of a near automatic heckler's veto for almost any content online. That would be very, very bad.Also, the specific claims are kinda weird. How is it a "consumer protection" violation? Well, according to the lawsuit:

Researchers have discovered a backdoor in 2G encryption, one that was deliberately created. As this report by Lorenzo Franchesi-Bicchierai for Motherboard points out, the researchers didn't necessarily know it was deliberate when they discovered it.

Researchers have discovered a backdoor in 2G encryption, one that was deliberately created. As this report by Lorenzo Franchesi-Bicchierai for Motherboard points out, the researchers didn't necessarily know it was deliberate when they discovered it.

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Bloof with some thoughts about Rupert Murdoch's antitrust hypocrisy:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2016, we were learning more about the scope of Peter Thiel's attack on Gawker (and the further exploits of his laywer...) while Gawker was exploring a questionable legal counterattack. The issues with corporate sovereignty in trade agreements were getting more mainstream attention while the paperback version of Hillary Clinton's memoir removed text about her support fro the TPP. Europe was getting ready to create a link tax just as its top court was confirming that copyright levies don't work. An appeals court handed a big loss to record labels in their attack on Vimeo over lipdub videos, while Twitter, Facebook and Google were hit with claims of material support for terrorism following the Paris attacks.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2011, while some websites were playing pranks by pretending their domains had been seized by ICE, several of the sites that were actually targeted were challenging the seizures — and notable target Rojadirecta sued the US government, Homeland Security, and ICE. But ICE was still stalling on FOIA requests seeking more information about the seizures. And at the same time, China was getting in on the website seizure game while using copyright infringement as an excuse. Meanwhile, a judge was threatening sanctions while tossing out a Righthaven lawsuit, and the Denver Post was sued over its considering taken action, leading Righthaven to threaten them with more suits.Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2006, we were bracing for the onslaught of political spam, and also for the inevitable freakout about mobile social media, while rolling our eyes at the latest panic about violent video games. We took a look at how the recording industry had Canadian politicians in its pocket, while the RIAA seemed to be reaching the denial stage of its war on piracy (and opening up a new front by sending out cease-and-desist letters to people dancing to music on YouTube). And while we were glad to see Congress starting to recognize the problem of patent trolls, we were not so optimistic about Rep. Lamar Smith's approach to combating them.

The decline of democracy in Hong Kong, with Beijing continuing to tighten its grip, has accelerated. While the Chinese government pledged a hands off posture towards Hong Kong for 50 years when the UK relinquished its control, that pledge seems to have been worth less than the paper on which it was written. A couple years ago, Hong Kong implemented a new "national security" law that has almost nothing to do with national security beyond allowing for the prosecution of anyone who doesn't think the CCP are perfect in every way. The end result of that has been the arrest of media members accused of participating in "unauthorized protests", arrests of protesters themselves, and the ousting and later arrest of pro-democracy lawmakers for the crime of being pro-democracy.One of the media members arrested early on was Jimmy Lai, founder of the Apple Daily newspaper and website. Lai had initially gotten out on bail, only to have that bail revoked by the court on reinterpretation of the national security law. If the Chinese government thought that his arrest and treatment would end the voracious threat of an actual journalistic outfit in the Apple Daily, it was sorely mistaken. As you might expect, this of course has led to even further arrests of Apple Daily staff and partners.

In February 2018, 24 armed officers from the Flint Circuit Drug Task Force engaged in the raid of a McDonough, Georgia house. Led by Captain David Cody, the officers deployed flash-bang grenades and forced their way through the door of the house at 303 English Road. Inside, they found only Onree Davis, the 78-year-old owner of the house.Unfortunately for Davis, who was sitting innocently and non-drug-dealerly in his own home watching the news when it was raided, the task force was supposed to be raiding 305 English Road. But officers on the scene felt the house at the correct address (the same one they'd been investigating and surveilling on-and-off for two years) was "uninhabitable" and decided to try their luck at the house up the street.Even more unfortunately for Davis, the courts have decided every officer involved in the wrong house raid is protected by qualified immunity. The latest blow to common sense and professional decency comes courtesy of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which says the last officer whose immunity was still in question (Captain David Cody) is no longer in question. (via Reason)The lower court granted Cody immunity for leading the raid to the wrong address, despite the houses having different paint colors, different items in their yards, and different numbers of their houses. The Eleventh Circuit affirms [PDF] all of this, even though Capt. Cody admitted he failed to apprise himself of all the pertinent facts before leading a task force on a violent raid.

As we've noted a few times, SpaceX's Starlink service will be a massive improvement for the up to 42 million Americans that lack access to broadband. The ongoing 10,000 user beta is delivering speeds between 50 and 150 Mbps at low latencies, something that's much better than the expensive, slow, high-latency, usage-capped traditional satellite broadband service most people hate.That said, early reviews have also showcased how the service isn't going to be quite the miracle some Elon Musk fans are expecting. And this week complaints bubbled up among Starlink beta participants that their service dishes have been overheating in the summer sun:

Imagine this: a limited liability company (LLC) is formed, for the sole purpose of acquiring patents, including what are likely to be low-quality patents of suspect validity. Patents in hand, the LLC starts approaching high-tech companies and demanding licensing fees. If they don’t get paid, the company will use contingency-fee lawyers and a litigation finance firm to make sure the licensing campaign doesn’t have much in the way of up-front costs. This helps give them leverage to extract settlements from companies that don’t want to pay to defend the matter in court, even if a court might ultimately invalidate the patent if it reached the issue.That sounds an awful lot like a patent troll. That’s the kind of entity that EFF criticizes because they use flimsy patents to squeeze money from operating companies, rather than making their own products. Unfortunately, this description also applies to a company that has just been formed by a consortium of 15 large research universities.This patent commercialization company has been secretly under discussion since 2018. In September 2020, it quietly went public, when the University of California Regents authorized making UC Berkeley and UCLA two of its founding members. In January, the DOJ said it wouldn’t challenge the program on antitrust grounds.It’s good news when universities share technology with the private sector, and when startup companies get formed based on university research. That’s part of why so much university research is publicly funded. But there’s not much evidence that university patenting helps technology reach the public, and there’s a growing body of evidence that patents hinder it. Patents in this context are legal tools that allow someone to monopolize publicly-funded research and capture its promise for a private end.While larger tech companies can absorb the cost of either litigating or paying off the patent assertion entity, smaller innovators will face a much larger burden, proportionately. That means that that the existence of this licensing entity could harm innovation and competition. When taxpayers fund research, the fruits of the research should be available for all.With 15 universities now forming a consortium to license electronics and software patents, it’s going to be a mess for innovators and lead to worse, more expensive products.Low-Quality Patents By The Bundle Despite the explosion in university patenting and the growth of technology transfer offices (essentially university patent offices), the great majority of universities lose money on their patents. A 2013 Brookings Institute study showed that 84% of universities didn’t make enough money from their patents to cover the related legal costs and the staffing of their tech transfer office. Just a tiny slice of universities earn the majority of patent-licensing revenue, often from a few blockbuster pharmaceutical or biotech inventions. As many as 95% of university patents do not get licensed at all.This new university patent licensing company won’t be getting any of the small number of impressive revenue-producing patents. The proposal sent to the UC Board of Regents explains that the LLC’s goal will be to get payment for patents that “have not been successfully licensed via a bilateral ‘one patent, one license’ transaction.” The universities’ proposal is to start by licensing in three areas: autonomous vehicles, “Internet of Things,” and Big Data.In other words, they’ll be demanding licensing fees over lots and lots of software patents. By and large, software patents are the lowest quality patents, and their rise has coincided with the rise of large-scale patent trolling.The university LLC won’t engage in the type of patent licensing that most actual university spinoffs would want, which are typically exclusive licenses over patents that give it a product or service no one else has. Rather, “the LLC will focus on non-exclusive sublicenses.” In other words, they’ll use the threat of litigation to attempt to get all competitors in a particular industry to pay for the same patents.This is the same model pursued by the notorious Intellectual Ventures, a large patent troll company that convinced 61 different universities to contribute at least 470 different patents to its patent pool in an attempt to earn money from patents.What about the Public Interest? The lawyers and bureaucrats promoting the UC patent licensing scheme know how bad this looks. Their plan is to use patents as weapons, not tools for innovation—exactly the method used by patent trolls. In the “Pros and Cons” section of the memo sent to the UC Regents, the biggest “Con” is that the University of California “may incur negative publicity, e.g., allegations may arise that the LLC’s activities are tantamount to a patent troll.” That’s why the memo seeks to reassure the Regents that “it is... the expectation that no enforcement action will be undertaken against startups or small business firms.” This apparently nonbinding “expectation” is small comfort.The goal of the patent-based LLC doesn’t seem to be to share knowledge. If the universities wanted to do that, they could do it right now. They could do it for free, or do it for a contracted payment—no patents required.The real goal seems to be finding alleged infringers, accusing them, and raising money. The targets will know that they’re not being offered an opportunity—they’ll be under attack. That’s why the lawyers working with UC have promised the Regents that when it comes time to launch lawsuits against one of the “pre-determined targets,” they will steer clear of small businesses.The university LLC isn’t going to license their best patents. Rather, the UC Regents memo admits that they’re planning to license the worst of them—technologies that have not been successfully licensed via a “one patent, one license” transaction by either UCLA or UC Berkeley.To be clear, universities aren’t patent trolls. Universities are centers for teaching, research, and community. But that broader social mission is exactly why universities shouldn’t go off and form a patent-holding company that is designed to operate similarly to a patent troll.Patents aren’t needed to share knowledge, and dealing with them has been a net loss for U.S. universities. Universities need to re-think their tech transfer offices more broadly. In the meantime, the UC Regents should withdraw from this licensing deal as soon as possible. Other universities should consider doing the same. The people who will benefit the most from this aren’t the public or even the universities, but the lawyers. For the public interest and innovation, having the nation’s best universities supply a patent-trolling operation is a disaster in the making.The fifteen members of the University Technology Licensing Program are expected to be:

As you may recall, Rep. Devin Nunes has been involved in a bunch of totally frivolous SLAPP suits that seem designed to try to intimidate journalists from writing stories criticizing Devin Nunes. A key one that seems to have gotten deeply under Nunes' skin is an Esquire piece from a few years ago entitled Devin Nunes’s Family Farm Is Hiding a Politically Explosive Secret written by reporter Ryan Lizza. In the fall of 2019 he sued over that article, and a few months later his family sued over it as well.To say it hasn't gone well for Nunes would be an understatement.As a reminder, the article claims that the "politically explosive secret" is just the fact that, despite Nunes repeatedly pitching himself as a California farmer, his family packed up the farm and moved it to Iowa a while back. Much of the article is about how they appear to have worked over time to try to hide that:

Have you ever accidentally lost an important file or ran out of space on your hard drive? Or spent hours digitally rifling through your documents, photos, videos, and more to try and delete a whole slew of files and still can’t free up enough space? Never have to worry about that problem again with Polar Backup Cloud Storage, a complete backup solution to protect your prized photos, videos, important documents, and thousands of gigabytes of irreplaceable data. Polar Backup utilizes state-of-the-art Amazon Web Services (AWS) technology, GDPR-compliance, and generous cloud storage to provide you smooth backups. Intuitive and user-friendly, this platform gives you full control of your data, letting you easily manage, sort, locate, and preview files with just a click. There are 3 subscriptions available for sale: 1 year for $45, 2 years for $90, or 3 years for $110. Don't forget our Father's Day Sale. Use the code WELOVEDAD to get 20% off everything in the store.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 few weeks back we noted how FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr had taken to Newsweek to dust off a fifteen year old AT&T talking point. Namely that "big tech" companies get a "free ride" on telecom networks, and, as a result, should throw billions of dollars at "big telecom" for no real reason. You'll recall it was this kind of argument that launched the net neutrality debate, when former AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre proclaimed that Google wouldn't be allowed to "ride his pipes for free." Whitacre was effectively arguing that in addition to paying for bandwidth, tech giants should pay him a troll toll. You know, just because.The claim that technology giants (or anybody, really) gets a "free ride" when it comes to US telecom is farcical. Companies like Amazon, Google, and Netflix all pay billions of dollars in total for undersea cable runs, massive cloud storage, transit routes, and content delivery networks. Hell, Google is even a residential ISP. That's on top of the money consumers, businesses, and Silicon Valley giants pay for their own bandwidth, which in the US is often some of the highest in the developed world thanks to regional monopolization and captured regulators (precisely like Carr).Carr's right about one thing: we need to reform the USF broadband subsidy system, heavily reliant on income from dying landline phones. But he's not actually coming at the issue in good faith. He's using that need for reform to help shovel yet more unearned cash at AT&T, a company that already gleaned billions in utterly pointless tax breaks, subsidies, and regulatory favors under Carr and Donald Trump's watch.I've covered the telecom beat for twenty years of an adult life, and know what a captured regulator looks like when I see one. But despite the fact AT&T's argument is coming out of Carr's mouth, the press somehow keeps taking Carr's point earnestly. CNET recently took him at face value last week. This week it was Bloomberg's turn to promote Carr's idea that Google, Netflix, and Amazon should throw money at companies like AT&T for no damn reason:

In the wake of Australia getting its ridiculous, anti-open internet link tax passed into law, the push to create similar such laws everywhere else has gone into overdrive. In the US, the main driver of this effort (which has been pushed by legacy newspaper giants) has been an antitrust exemption that would allow the newspapers to collude, in order to put up (what they think is) a joint effort to demand that Google and Facebook pay them for links. The supposed "antitrust" wing of the Democratic party, David Cicilline in the House and Amy Klobuchar in the Senate, have decided that this is a good idea and introduced the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA) (here's the House version). Leaving aside the oddity of thinking that the best way to deal with what you believe are dominant firms is to allow other firms to collude and avoid antitrust laws, the entire proposal is silly, and potentially destructive to the open internet.Public Knowledge has put together a letter to Congress explaining why (our think tank, the Copia Institute, has signed onto the letter). In a separate blog post, Public Knowledge notes that while it as an organization has been largely supportive of Cicilline and Klobuchar's antitrust efforts around the tech companies (something we at Techdirt are somewhat less convinced by), this bill is a complete disaster.The key part is exactly what we highlighted was wrong with the Australian law. The idea that this is a competition issue and that newspapers need to be able to band together to have enough clout to negotiate a price for linking to their stories has a totally false underlying assumption, that there's some underlying right to be paid for links. The whole nature of the open internet is that you don't need permission or a license to link to someone else. But this bill seems to think that's not true. And that's a problem.