Techdirt

The EU's Copyright Directive was passed back in 2019, and the two-year period for implementing the law in national legislation is almost up. The text's contradictory requirements to stop infringing material from being posted online without imposing a general requirement to monitor users, which is not permitted under EU law, has proved difficult for governments to deal with. France aims to solve this by ignoring even the limited user protections laid down by the Directive. Germany has been having a rather fraught debate about how exactly Article 17, which implicitly requires upload filters, should be implemented. One good idea to allow users to "pre-flag" as legal the material they upload was jettisoned. That led to fears that the country's implementation of Article 17 would be as bad as France's. But the final version of the law does attempt to ensure that automated filters -- now admitted as indispensable, despite earlier assurances they were optional -- do not block user uploads that are not infringing on copyright. Communia explains:

A proper adversarial system means the accused can confront the accuser. But that's rarely the case when crime solving software is involved. The FBI doesn't allow accused child porn downloaders to examine the malicious software it used to identify their computers. Multiple law enforcement agencies have dropped cases rather than discuss Stingray devices in open court.All DNA analysis is handled by software. Most DNA analysis utilizes proprietary code created by private companies which license it to government agencies. The analysis may be performed by government agencies and employees, but when it comes to giving defense lawyers and their clients a chance to examine the software used to generate evidence, it suddenly becomes a very private matter.Companies routinely intercede in criminal cases, telling judges that handing over source code or other information about their algorithms would somehow make it impossible for them to compete in the crime solving market. In most cases, judges are sympathetic to claims about trade secrets and proprietary code, allowing the accused to only confront their accuser by proxy, via a government expert or an employee of the software company.In rare cases, the court actually finds in favor of the defendant. Earlier this year, a case involving third-party DNA software and the EFF's intercession went the defendant's way with a federal judge in Pennsylvania telling the government it couldn't hide behind third-party trade secret assertions to keep this code out of the accused's hands. As the court reasoned then, if DNA evidence is central to the case against the defendant, the defendant should have access to the evidence and the software that created it.The EFF is hoping for a similar outcome in a case being handled in California. It deals with the possibly wrongful conviction of a 70-year-old man for rape. And it involves a DNA software company whose algorithm was the only one that tied the suspect to the crime.

The hack of the Colonial Pipeline has already made lots of news, and with that, the government is rushing to come up with new regulations, which will almost certainly be overkill. While the transparency aspect of the expected rules (requiring reporting of "cyber incidents" to the federal government) was more or less expected to come at some point no matter what, the other rules are likely to be fighting the last battle. There are constant changes to these kinds of attacks, and seeking just to prevent them is a fool's errand.However, we're now seeing some truly silly suggestions. Lee Reiners, who runs Duke Law School's Global Financial Markets Center, has published an op-ed in the WSJ that truly is an astounding example of throwing out all the babies with the bathwater. Reiners says the way to stop these attacks is to just ban all cryptocurrency. This is silly on many levels -- mostly because (1) that's impossible, (2) it wouldn't work, and (3) it would destroy a ton of important and valuable projects. Frankly this op-ed does not speak well to the Global Financial Markets Center and its understanding of anything. Here's the core of the argument:

The Ultimate 2021 White Hat Hacker Bundle has 10 courses to teach you how to defend any system from digital attacks. You'll develop an understanding of the threat and vulnerability landscape through threat modeling and risk assessments, and build a foundation for which to expand your security knowledge. It's on sale for $39.90.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.

Here's a small victory for the First Amendment and presumption of openness that's supposed to apply to court proceedings. A recent opinion [PDF] by the DC Circuit Court will give everyone more access to recordings covering the dozens of prosecutions of insurrectionist cosplayers who raided the Capitol on January 6th. The court comes down firmly on the side of openness and transparency, but has hung a rather large asterisk on that statement.ProPublica is the entity that made the request for an administrative order, but it's the in-court figurehead for a group of fourteen journalistic concerns. The US Attorney's Office hasn't exactly been proactive when releasing recordings entered as evidence in the Capitol raid cases. It has even (temporarily) withheld recordings that were pulled from social media services and YouTube -- something that indicates these recordings were public before the government made them private.While these recordings are viewable during court proceedings, limited access has prevented some journalists from accessing them. And once the proceedings are over, they're no longer viewable. The DC Circuit Court has made some permanently accessible but only on a case-by-case basis. Considering the volume of criminal cases being handled by the court -- combined with limited access prompted in part by the COVID pandemic -- this no longer appears to be acceptable.

We've repeatedly noted how the "right to repair" movement has been gaining a full head of steam as consumers, independent repair shops, schools, farmers, and countless others grow tired of corporations' attempts to monopolize repair. Whether it's Sony and Microsoft creating repair monopolies for their game consoles, Apple bullying independent repair shops, or John Deere making it a costly hassle just to fix a tractor, the more companies restrict access to cheap repair, parts, tools, and documentation, the more this movement seems to grow. Especially in the COVID era where the problem has also hindered health care.Bloomberg notes that 27 states have considered right to repair legislation so far this year, making access to essential tools and less expensive repair options a legal right. But corporations have shot down all of them so far, in part thanks to a misleading, coordinated lobbying campaign falsely claiming that reform on this front poses dramatic privacy and security harms:

It looks like app developers want to be cops. Late last week, a Los Angeles resident spotted a Citizen-app branded patrol car roaming the city. Citizen is yet another app that allows residents to send crime alerts and other news to each other, following in the steps of Ring's Neighbors app and Nextdoor, a hyperlocal social media service that only lets actual neighbors connect with each other.The only thing missing here is the replicant hunters.

Twitch seems to be putting on some sort of master class in how to respond to a crisis on its platform in as confusing a manner as possible. Without writing a thousand word summary, this whole thing started when Twitch nuked a bunch of streamer content in response to a backlog of DMCA notices, changed its affiliate program without notice, hung its streamers out to dry over the DMCAs when the backlash occurred, and basically angered the hell out of its most important asset, it's creative community. This basically set the theme for the public that Twitch wasn't treating its community very well.This continued to the present. Most recently, we discussed one streamer suddenly having her channel demonitized, ostensibly over so called "hot tub meta" streams, in which she appears in a bathing suit in a hot tub. While Twitch can do as it pleases with its platform, the real issue here was that all of this was done without any communication or notice from Twitch to the streamer, who goes by the handle Amouranth. Well, it turns out that she wasn't alone in having her channel suddenly demonitized in this fashion.

As vaccinations and relaxed health guidelines make returning to the office a reality for more companies, there seems to be a disconnect between managers and their workers over remote work.A good example of this is a recent op-ed written by the CEO of a Washington, D.C. magazine that suggested workers could lose benefits like health care if they insist on continuing to work remotely as the COVID-19 pandemic recedes. The staff reacted by refusing to publish for a day.While the CEO later apologized, she isn’t alone in appearing to bungle the transition back to the office after over a year in which tens of millions of employees were forced to work from home. A recent survey of full-time corporate or government employees found that two-thirds say their employers either have not communicated a post-pandemic office strategy or have only vaguely done so.As workforce scholars, we are interested in teasing out how workers are dealing with this situation. Our recent research found that this failure to communicate clearly is hurting morale, culture and retention.Workers relocatingWe first began investigating workers’ pandemic experiences in July 2020 as shelter-in-place orders shuttered offices and remote work was widespread. At the time, we wanted to know how workers were using their newfound freedom to potentially work virtually from anywhere.We analyzed a dataset that a business and technology newsletter attained from surveying its 585,000 active readers. It asked them whether they planned to relocate during the next six months and to share their story about why and where from and to.After a review, we had just under 3,000 responses, including 1,361 people who were planning to relocate or had recently done so. We systematically coded these responses to understand their motives and, based on distances moved, the degree of ongoing remote-work policy they would likely need.We found that a segment of these employees would require a full remote-work arrangement based on the distance moved from their office, and another portion would face a longer commute. Woven throughout this was the explicit or implicit expectation of some degree of ongoing remote work among many of the workers who moved during the pandemic.In other words, many of these workers were moving on the assumption – or promise – that they’d be able to keep working remotely at least some of the time after the pandemic ended. Or they seemed willing to quit if their employer didn’t oblige.One of authors explains the research.We wanted to see how these expectations were being met as the pandemic started to wind down in March 2021. So we searched online communities in Reddit to see what workers were saying. One forum proved particularly useful. A member asked, “Has your employer made remote work permanent yet or is it still in the air?” and went on to share his own experience. This post generated 101 responses with a good amount of detail on what their respective individual companies were doing.While this qualitative data is only a small sample that is not necessarily representative of the U.S. population at large, these posts allowed us to delve into a richer understanding of how workers feel, which a simple stat can’t provide.We found a disconnect between workers and management that starts with but goes beyond the issue of the remote-work policy itself. Broadly speaking, we found three recurring themes in these anonymous posts.1. Broken remote-work promisesOthers have also found that people are taking advantage of pandemic-related remote work to relocate to a city at a distance large enough that it would require partial or full-time remote work after people return to the office.A recent survey by consulting firm PwC found that almost a quarter of workers were considering or planning to move more than 50 miles from one of their employer’s main offices. The survey also found 12% have already made such a move during the pandemic without getting a new job.Our early findings suggested some workers would quit their current job rather than give up their new location if required by their employer, and we saw this actually start to occur in March.One worker planned a move from Phoenix to Tulsa with her fiancé to get a bigger place with cheaper rent after her company went remote. She later had to leave her job for the move, even though “they told me they would allow me to work from home, then said never mind about it.”Another worker indicated the promise to work remotely was only implicit, but he still had his hopes up when leaders “gassed us up for months saying we’d likely be able to keep working from home and come in occasionally” and then changed their minds and demanded employees return to the office once vaccinated.2. Confused remote-work policiesAnother constant refrain we read in the worker comments was disappointment in their company’s remote-work policy – or lack thereof.Whether workers said they were staying remote for now, returning to the office or still unsure, we found that nearly a quarter of the people in our sample said their leaders were not giving them meaningful explanations of what was driving the policy. Even worse, the explanations sometimes felt confusing or insulting.One worker complained that the manager “wanted butts in seats because we couldn’t be trusted to [work from home] even though we’d been doing it since last March,” adding: “I’m giving my notice on Monday.”Another, whose company issued a two-week timeline for all to return to the office, griped: “Our leadership felt people weren’t as productive at home. While as a company we’ve hit most of our goals for the year. … Makes no sense.”After a long period of office shutterings, it stands to reason workers would need time to readjust to office life, a point expressed in recent survey results. Employers that quickly flip the switch in calling workers back and do so with poor clarifying rationale risk appearing tone-deaf.It suggests a lack of trust in productivity at a time when many workers report putting in more effort than ever and being strained by the increased digital intensity of their job – that is, the growing number of online meetings and chats.And even when companies said they wouldn’t require a return to the office, workers still faulted them for their motives, which many employees described as financially motivated.“We are going hybrid,” one worker wrote. “I personally don’t think the company is doing it for us. … I think they realized how efficient and how much money they are saving.”Only a small minority of workers in our sample said their company asked for input on what employees actually want from a future remote work policy. Given that leaders are rightly concerned about company culture, we believe they are missing a key opportunity to engage with workers on the issue and show their policy rationales aren’t only about dollars and cents.3. Corporate culture ‘BS’Management gurus such as Peter Drucker and other scholars have found that corporate culture is very important to binding together workers in an organization, especially in times of stress.A company’s culture is essentially its values and beliefs shared among its members. That’s harder to foster when everyone is working remotely.That’s likely why corporate human resource executives rank maintaining organizational culture as their top workforce priority for 2021.But many of the forum posts we reviewed suggested that employer efforts to do that during the pandemic by orchestrating team outings and other get-togethers were actually pushing workers away, and that this type of “culture building” was not welcome.[Like what you’ve read? Want more? Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter.]One worker’s company “had everyone come into the office for an outdoor luncheon a week ago,” according to a post, adding: “Idiots.”Surveys have found that what workers want most from management, on the issue of corporate culture, are more remote-work resources, updated policies on flexibility and more communication from leadership.As another worker put it, “I can tell you, most people really don’t give 2 flips about ‘company culture’ and think it’s BS.”Kimberly Merriman, Professor of Management, Manning School of Business, University of Massachusetts Lowell; David Greenway, Doctoral Candidate in Leadership/Organization Studies, University of Massachusetts Lowell, and Tamara Montag-Smit, Assistant Professor of Business, University of Massachusetts LowellThis article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The recent ransomware attack on the Colonial Pipeline has brought renewed public attention to cybersecurity issues. The field is always evolving, and the attack serves as a great starting point for understanding the current state of cybersecurity, so this week we're joined by three experts — Ross Nordurft and Alex Botting from Venable LLP, and Amy Mahn from the National Institute of Standards and Technology — to discuss the lessons from the pipeline attack, and how to take a risk management approach to cybersecurity.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.

Way back in 2005, former AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre whined incessantly about how Google was getting a "free ride" on his company's "pipes," and that they should be charged an additional toll (you know, just because). As we've discussed countless times in the years since, Whitacre's argument made absolutely no sense, given that Google not only pays plenty for bandwidth, but the company owns billions in international and oceanic fiber runs, data centers, and network infrastructure. Despite making no sense, this idea that Google was some kind of free ride parasite and should be throwing millions in additional money at telecom giants has been a talking point for global telecoms for years.While the feeble argument had taken a vacation for a while after the net neutrality debate, it popped up again this week in a clumsy, logic-optional op-ed over at Newsweek by FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr. In it, he argues that we should do away with existing flawed but important low-income and school broadband subsidy programs like E-Rate, and instead have "big tech" pay for everything:

A former Trump spokesman has reached the end of his always-doomed attempt to sue an online publication for reporting on the content of court documents. And it's going to cost him about $42,000 in legal fees.Jason Miller was understandably disturbed when the now-defunct Splinter (owned by Gizmodo) wrote about allegations made by another Trump campaign staffer, A.J. Delgado. These allegations were made public during unrelated court proceedings. And they're pretty disturbing.

The A To Z Cybersecurity And IT Training Bundle has 12 courses to help you all about cybersecurity. Some courses cover ethical hacking, penetration testing, and SQL injections. Other courses include test prep content for various certification exams like CISSP, GSEC, CompTIA Security+, and others. The bundle is on sale for $39.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Remember the absolute shit fit that Donald Trump threw after Twitter placed warning labels on some of his tweets about mail-in ballots? That resulted in the ridiculous executive order to undermine Section 230, even though all Twitter had done at the time was add more speech to Trump's tweets and pointed out that they were presenting misleading information.To some extent, however, we should be thankful that the power of the US President is at least somewhat limited, or we might have ended up with a situation like what happened in India this week. The story begins similarly to what happened with Twitter labeling some Trump tweets. In this case, there was something of a political spat in India, where the Indian National Congress (more or less the opposition political party, not a legislative body as the name might imply), complained to Twitter that the leading BJP party was spreading "forged documents" on Twitter. They asked Twitter to suspend the accounts of some BJP leaders who were supposedly spreading those documents.

As we've been noting, there's a long runway between the Biden Administration's vague but promising broadband plan and actual implementation. And there's millions of dollars and literally thousands of lobbyists hard at work trying to make sure that the plan, whatever it winds up looking like, doesn't disrupt the comfortable, status quo that is the regionally-monopolized and dysfunctional US broadband market.I've already seen some evidence said lobbyists have had some success weakening plan language that would limit the amount of "overbuilding" (read: competition) to existing monopolized markets. 83 million Americans live under a broadband monopoly, and incumbent giants AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast want any and all spending focused exclusively on giving them subsidies for unserved areas, instead of building out vibrant competition in their existing footprints.Activists are also growing annoyed with the fact that the Biden administration still hasn't fully staffed the FCC and appointed a new permanent boss, without which the agency can't reverse the net neutrality repeal, or most of the Trump FCC's butchering of the agency's consumer protection authority. Giving the Canadian Ambassadorship to a a top Comcast lobbyist appears to be happening at a quicker cadence.Meanwhile, the Biden plan overall is already starting to shrink as his administration tries to get the 10 GOP voted needed to nab a 60 vote majority. As a result, the $100 billion plan is officially now a $65 billion plan, and shrinking:

It certainly appears the new Attorney General is doing some house cleaning. A pretty steady drip of disclosures have made their way into the public sphere about the DOJ's activities while headed by Bill Barr and overseen by the Trump White House.A couple of weeks ago it was disclosed that the DOJ had obtained three Washington Post journalists' phone records while investigating leaks related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. More recently, a case involving a Twitter account targeted by a Devin Nunes defamation lawsuit was unsealed, showing the DOJ attempted to force the social media service to turn over identifying info related to the NunesAlt account.And now there's this: another journalist targeted by the DOJ -- again supposedly to root out the source of White House leaks.

We have certainly seen some shitty trademark disputes in the past, but this one that centers around lawn fertilizer may take the proverbial cake. Apparently, the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, supposedly focused on keeping the city's public water clean and local flooding from occurring, has something of a side hustle going where it also sells fertilizer to citizens, marketed as "Milorganite". Menards, the well-known home improvement retailer based in Wisconsin, sells its own fertilizer, marketed as e-Corganite. For this reason, in part due to an advertisement Menards put out (more on that in a moment), the Sewerage District has sent letters to Menards threatening to sue for trademark infringement. Worth noting is that Milorganite is actually sold in Menards stores.

The libs have been owned. They've been owned so thoroughly that Maricopa County, Arizona is going to need to buy millions of dollars of new electronic voting machines.

And, off we go. We've talked about a bunch of states pushing blatantly unconstitutional social media content moderation bills, with Florida leading the pack as the most eager to waste taxpayer money on something so obviously bogus. As you'll recall, at the end of last month, Florida really added some unconstitutional icing on the unconstitutional cake by exempting Disney (and any other company that owned a theme park in Florida) from the bill's social media requirements.The bill has a few different unconstitutional provisions, but the one getting the most attention is that it bans non-theme park associated websites from removing content or accounts from people running for office. There are also the ridiculous transparency clauses that have become stupidly popular of late, and which really serve as a smokescreen to allow users to sue websites for being moderated.And despite tons of experts explaining why this is unconstitutional, Governor Ron DeSantis -- who made this bill a key plank in his "look at me, I'm a MAGA culture warrior" platform -- has now signed the bill. And to put a clown show cherry on top of the censorious, unconstitutional cake, DeSantis highlighted infamous provocateur and fabulist James O'Keefe from Project Veritas, who attended the bill signing, and is currently suing Twitter for defamation over its reasons for kicking him off their platform.

Landmark Technology, a patent troll that has spent 20 years threatening and suing small businesses over bogus patents, and received EFF’s Stupid Patent of the Month award in 2019, has been sued by the State of Washington.Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson has filed a lawsuit claiming that Landmark Technology has violated the state’s Patent Troll Protection Act, which bans “bad faith” assertions of patent infringement. Following a widespread campaign of patent demand letters, more than 30 states passed some kind of law placing limits on bad-faith patent assertions.These laws face an uphill battle to be enforced. First of all, the Constitution places important limits on the government’s ability to penalize the act of seeking legal redress. Second, the Federal Circuit has specifically held that a high bar of bad faith must be established for laws that would penalize patent assertion.Washington’s case against Landmark could be a major test of state anti-troll laws, and whether state anti-trolling and consumer protection laws can dissuade some worst-of-the-worst patent troll behavior.The lawsuit is filed against “Landmark Technology A,” a recently created LLC that appears to be largely identical to the now-defunct “Landmark Technology.” The new company asserts the same patent against the same type of targets. The patent’s inventor is Landmark Technology owner Lawrence Lockwood.Over 1,000 Demand LettersLandmark threatens and sues small businesses over U.S. Patent No. 7,010,508, which was issued to Lockwood in 2006 and claims rights to “automated multimedia data processing network for processing business and financial transactions between entities from remote sites.”The Washington case reveals just how widespread Landmark’s threats are. From January 2019 to July 2020, Landmark sent identical demand letters to 1,176 small businesses all across the country. Those letters threaten to sue unless Landmark gets paid a $65,000 licensing fee.Landmark essentially insists that if you use a website for e-commerce, you infringe this patent. In recent years, it’s filed suit against candy companies, an educational toy maker, an organic farm, and a Seattle bottle maker, just to name a few.Or as the Washington State Attorney General put it:

It's taken as given among many politicians (and much of the media) that "something must be done" about "big tech" companies. The public seems a lot less concerned about it all. Unfortunately, as we've noted repeatedly, many in the government are focused on specific regulatory levers that seem incredibly unlikely to work (and which have a high likelihood of making any of the problems discussed even worse). A big one is antitrust. We keep hearing grandstanding politicians talk about how they need to break up "big tech" without any of them getting into how that will solve any particular issue. In the House, Rep. David Cicilline has been the poster child of this approach -- insisting that antitrust is the answer, but refusing to actually explore the nuances and tradeoffs of that approach.One of the big problems with the antitrust approach is that the traditional remedies of antitrust do very little to fix the issues that people insist come about due to the big internet companies. Big fines seem mostly meaningless to them (though they will shift some behavior). And breaking them up really doesn't do very much at all. The value of the internet is the ability to communicate with everyone, and you can't create "BabyBooks" for Facebook in the same way it was possible to create "BabyBells" out of AT&T in the 1980s (and, we can all see how well that worked in the long run).Some of us have suggested alternative approaches that might lead to more real competition and better end-user control over data. Over the last few months, I have been having more discussions with various different government officials about exploring some of these alternative remedies, but I have been less and less sure if any government official would ever actually pay attention.So it's actually nice to see Rep. Zoe Lofgren, responding to Cicilline's giant confusing mess of a "Digital Markets" report by posting her own thoughts on better ways to think about regulating the internet. I don't agree with all of Lofgren's points, but it's one of the most sane and reasonable documents I've seen coming from a government official in a long, long time regarding issues on regulating internet companies. Unlike so many, it acknowledges the nuances and trade-offs inherent to this discussion, and the lack of any silver bullet fix.

Creating a site has been made easier with Way Pro. This landing page builder is an easy, no-code, and component-ready platform that helps you execute lead generation campaigns faster. It comes with tons of templates and components that make your page beautiful and powerful. With a responsive design, Way Pro makes every element and section mobile-ready. Its quick setup only takes less than 30 seconds to publish a landing page and start getting results. You can also easily export your leads with a click. It's 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.

Following the passage of a law that finally made lots of documentation related to police misconduct publicly accessible in California, the requests for information began pouring in. Some law enforcement agencies complied. Others sued. The state Attorney General showed the public how much they mattered by siding with the secretive agencies.The entity behind the standards for law enforcement training in the state -- Police Officers Standards and Training (POST) -- was supposed to post its training materials publicly in response to the new law. But it found a convenient out: copyright law. It claimed the company that produced its training materials on everything from ALPR readers to deployment of facial recognition tech refused to allow its copyrighted material to be posted publicly.This was obviously a load of crap. Copyright law does not forbid the publication of public interest documents by the agencies that utilize them. Allowing the public to view and download the documents does not destroy the market for law enforcement training materials. This was obviously nothing more than a convenient way to avoid complying with the new public records law.Making this even stupider was the fact the EFF had already obtained a copy of POST ALPR training materials through a public records request. That copyrighted material had already been "distributed" to outsiders, all without putting POST or the EFF on the wrong side of IP law.This bullshit is probably going to end up costing the state's taxpayers. The EFF is suing POST over this convenient kowtowing to meaningless copyright claims.

You may have to squint to see it, but tell me if you can detect the faint outline of a pattern here.Last year, AT&T and Verizon paid $116 million to settle allegations they'd been ripping off state government agencies for more than a decade. Last March, an AT&T whistleblower stated that AT&T had been ripping off US schools for just as long, and that he was summarily fired when he brought that to the attention of his superiors (there's been no meaningful government inquiry into his claims). And this week, AT&T was required to strike a $1.5 million penalty to settle a lawsuit (pdf) accusing the company of, you guessed it, ripping off the local DC government for years. From the DC AG announcement:

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is David with a comment about the cop accused of beating up another cop:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2016, we were digging deeper into the Oracle/Google fight over the Java API and the challenges therein. Comcast was trying to claim that it wasn't 'feasible' to deliver TV to third-party set top boxes, a cable lobbying group was saying that more competition would hurt consumers, and a former FCC boss turned cable lobbyist was complaining that the industry was being unfairly attacked. Meanwhile, the story of the CIA Torture Report was getting even stranger, and Senators Wyden and Paul introduced a bill to stop the expansion of government hacking.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2011, we looked closer at the awful PROTECT IP act, while Google noted the assault on free speech it represented — an attitude its defenders labelled as thinking you're above the law. A Supreme Court ruling took a huge chunk out of the 4th Amendment, while the Indiana Supreme Court took an even bigger chunk out of it. And it really wasn't a good week for said amendment in general, with the RIAA calling for warrantless searches and Congress extending the Patriot Act with no concessions.Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2006, we wrote about how amazing an online searchable database of scanned books could be, and how it was already helping bring attention to commercially neglected works. MLB was trying to find a backdoor way to control game data, astroturf continued to grow in the net neutrality debate, and a Canadian politician gave a rare inside look at the RIAA's lobbying/fearmongering tactics. We got a couple important court rulings too, with the Supreme Court noting that injunctions don't always make sense in patent cases, and an appeals court highlighting why making a profit doesn't disqualify something from fair use exceptions to copyright.

When you cover as many trademark disputes centered around the alcohol industry as I have, you really do start to realize just how many other industries don't seem to understand that their products are not the same as adult libations. Alcohol, you see, is not the same as a major metropolitan city. Alcohol is also not the same thing as fruit juice. Beer, as well, is not the same thing as wine. Alcohol is also not the same thing as a famous movie franchise.And, as the producers of the hit show Peaky Blinders are hopefully about to learn, alcohol is also not the same thing as a television show about a famous historical gang. See, Sadler's Brewhouse in the UK recently applied for a trademark on the many "Peaky Blinders" alcoholic drinks it sells in the United States. The production company for Peaky Blinders the Netflix show caught wind of this and promptly sued for trademark infringement, going so far as to ask the court for an injunction to prevent Sadler's from selling its products.

Summary: The messaging service Kik was founded in 2009 and has gone through multiple iterations over the years. However, it seemed to build a large following for mostly anonymous communication, allowing users to create many new usernames not linked to a phone number, and to establish private connections via those usernames. This privacy feature has been applauded by some as being important for journalists, activists and at-risk populations.However, the service has also been decried by many as being used in dangerous and abusive ways. NetNanny puts it as the number one dangerous messaging apps for kids, saying that it “has had a problem with child exploitation” and highlighting the many “inappropriate chat rooms” for kids on the app. Others have said that, while the service is used by many teenangers, many feel that it is not safe for them and full of sexual content and harassment.Indeed, in 2017, a Forbes report detailed that Kik had a huge “child exploitation problem.” It described multiple cases of child exploitation that we found on the app, and claimed that it did not appear that the company was doing much to deal with the problem, which seemed especially concerning given that over half of its users base was under 24 years of age.Soon after that article, Kik began to announce some changes to its content moderation efforts. It teamed up with Microsoft to improve its moderation practices. It also announced a $10 million effort to improve safety on the site and named some high profile individuals to its new Safety Advisory Board.A few months later the company announced updated community standards, with a focus on safety, and a partnership with Crisis Text Line. However, that appeared to do little to stem the concerns. A report later in 2018 said that, among law enforcement, the app that concerned them most was Kik, with nearly all saying that they had come across child exploitation cases on the app, and that the company was difficult to deal with.In response, the company argued that while it was constantly improving its trust & safety practices, it also wanted to protect the privacy of its users.Decisions to be made by Kik:

One point that we keep trying to make in the various debates about content moderation and Section 230 in particular is that the second you give people a legal method through which they can seek to remove unflattering information from the internet, they will use it... and abuse it. We've seen it for decades with the DMCA, certainly, which is regularly abused to try to remove unflattering information even if it has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright. We've also seen it in the context of fake defamation lawsuits.Of course, it also opens up some other scenarios as well, which Yelp recently discovered when Google alerted the company that one of its pages, about an auction house in Knoxville, Tennessee, was going to be delisted from Google's index. Why? Well, according to the takedown letter that was sent to Google, by Wray Williams, the owner of the auction house, the statements on the website were found to be defamatory.

Patent trolls are everyone’s problem. A study from 2019 showed that 32% of patent troll lawsuits are directed at small and medium-sized businesses. We told the stories of some of those small businesses in our Saved by Alice project.But some patent trolls go even further. Hawk Technology LLC doesn’t just sue small businesses (although it does do that)—it has sued school districts, municipal stadiums, and non-profit hospitals. Hawk Tech has filed more than 200 federal lawsuits over the last nine years, mostly against small entities. Even after the expiration of its primary patent, RE43,462, in 2014, Hawk continued filing lawsuits on it right up until 2020. That’s possible because patent owners are allowed to seek up to six years of past damages for infringement.One might have hoped that six years after the expiration of this patent, we might have seen the end of this aggressive patent troll. Nope. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted Hawk Tech another patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,499,091. It’s just as bad as the earlier one, and starting last summer, Hawk Tech has started to litigate.Camera Plus Generic TermsThe ‘091 patent’s first claim simply claims a video surveillance system, then adds a bunch of computer terms. Those terms include things like “receiving video images at a personal computer,” “digitizing” images that aren’t already digital, “displaying” images in a separate window, “converting” video to some resolution level, “storing” on a storage device, and “providing a communications link.” These terms are utterly generic.Claim 2 just describes allowing live and remote viewing and recording at the same time—basic streaming, in other words. Claim 3 adds the equally unimpressive idea of watching the recording later. The additional claims are no more impressive, as they basically insist that it was inventive in 2002 to livestream over the Internet—nearly a decade after the first concert to have a video livestream. Most laughably, claim 5 specifies a particular bit rate of Internet connection—as if that would make this non-invention patentable.In order to be invalidated in court, however, the ‘091 patent would have to be considered by a judge. And Hawk Tech’s lawsuits get dismissed long before that stage—often in just a few months. That’s because the company reportedly settles cases at the bottom level of patent troll demands, typically for $5,000 or even less. That’s significantly less than a patent attorney would request even for a retainer to start work, and a tiny fraction of the $2 million (or sometimes much more) it can cost to defend a patent lawsuit through trial.The patent monetization industry includes the kind of folks that can be counted on to sue a ventilator company in the middle of a pandemic. Even in that context, Hawk Tech has taken some remarkable steps.Hawk Tech has sued a municipal stadium that hosts an Alabama college football team; a suburban Kentucky transit system with just 27 routes; non-profit thrift stores and colleges; and a Mississippi public school district that serves an area with a very high (46%) rate of child poverty. That last lawsuit is one of at least three different public school districts that Hawk Tech has sued. These defendants would be hard pressed to mount a legal defense that could easily cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.One type of company you won’t see on the long list of defendants is a company that actually makes camera systems. Instead, Hawk Tech finds those companies’ customers and goes after them. For instance, Hawk Tech drew up an infringement claim chart against Seon, a maker of bus camera and GPS systems; then used that chart to sue not Seon, but the Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky (TANK), based on a Seon pamphlet that pointed to TANK as a “case study.” Instead of suing camera company Eagle Eye, Hawk Tech sued the city of Mobile, Alabama, likely after seeing a promotional video made by Eagle Eye on how the city’s stadium used its camera systems.The problem of what to do about patent trolls that demand nuisance-level settlements is a tough one. What may be a “nuisance” settlement in the eyes of large law firms can still be harmful to a charity or a public school serving impoverished students.That’s why EFF has advocated for strong fee-shifting rules in patent cases. Parties who bring lawsuits based on bogus patents won’t be chastened until they are penalized by courts. We also have supported reforms like the 2013 Innovation Act, which would have allowed customer-based lawsuits like the Hawk Tech cases to be stayed in situations when the manufacturer of the allegedly infringing device steps in to litigate.Right now, there are two different parties seeking to invalidate Hawk Tech’s ‘091 patent and collect legal fees. One is Nevada-based DTiQ, a camera company whose customers, including a Las Vegas sandwich shop, have been sued by Hawk Tech. Another is Castle Retail, a company that owns three supermarkets in Memphis. Let’s hope one of those cases gets to a judgment before Hawk Tech files off another round of bogus lawsuits against small companies—or public schools.Reposted from EFF's Stupid Patent of the Month series.

A little over a year ago, we wrote about a copyright dispute involving Rachel Dolezal, who now also goes by the name Nkechi Amare Diallo. As you may recall, there was a fair bit of attention paid to her years ago because while calling herself a black woman, it turned out that she was actually white. Whatever you think of that controversy, our focus was on the fact that she was a client of notoriously inept copyright troll Richard Liebowitz, who had filed a lawsuit over the copyright on a photo in Paper Magazine.That lawsuit was bizarre on multiple levels, beginning with the fact that Liebowitz was initially representing an entity called Polaris Images, who had apparently worked out an exclusive licensing deal with Dolezal regarding her images. When Paper Magazine's attorneys called into question that "exclusive licensing agreement," Liebowitz, in standard Liebowitz fashion, simply dropped Polaris from the complaint and replaced it with Dolezal herself -- which raised a bunch of questions.Anyway, earlier this week a new lawsuit caught my attention, as it was Dolezal suing over copyright again, this time suing CBS Interactive, claiming that CBS property ET Online infringed Dolezal's copyright in publishing this photo in this article, published on June 12, 2015.There are a whole bunch of problems with the lawsuit, and we'll probably cover only a few of them. However, I did notice that it wasn't Liebowitz who was representing her -- which makes sense since last we'd heard Liebowitz was suspended from practicing law in the Southern District of NY. However, it does look like Liebowitz and/or his firm is still involved in the case. The lawyer who filed the case, Daniel Roscho (who appears to run his own copyright litigation practice called "Copyright Justice" even though his law firm's website mostly focuses on real estate law...) filed a declaration with the complaint, noting that this was in partnership with Liebowitz.

The 2021 Complete AWS DevOps Engineer Bundle has 11 courses to help you hone your skills, prepare for exams, and get you on your way to becoming a DevOps engineer. Courses cover AWS Database, cloud automation, Lambda, Docker and more. It's 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.

The city of Fullerton, California spent nearly two years trying to turn some local journalists into criminals. Bloggers, who contributed to the digital publication Friends for Fullerton's Future, dug into files posted publicly by the city and got sued for doing nothing more than anyone with a link to the city's shared folder could have done.Here's the beginning of this ridiculousness, via the EFF.

For a long time we've talked about the fact that if you really want to understand why U.S. broadband is expensive and mediocre, you should take a good hard look at Frontier Communications. The regional phone company in 25 states has, for years, been accused of neglecting to adequately upgrade or repair its network, despite millions in wasted taxpayer subsidies. Protected from both competition and accountability thanks to state and federal corruption, the company has happily price gouged captive customers without facing real penalties.In recent years that has shifted slightly thanks largely to individual states like Washington, New York, and Minnesota, which have all sued the company at various times for neglecting its network, advertising speeds its sluggish DSL lines can't deliver, or inundating its subscribers with bullshit fees and surcharges (a neat trick that lets ISPs advertise one price, then charge you a much higher rate).This week Frontier found itself again under fire for, you guessed it, lying about its broadband speeds and overcharging consumers for substandard service. This latest suit (pdf) was jointly filed by the FTC, the attorneys general from Arizona, Indiana, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin, and the district attorneys’ offices of LA County and Riverside County, California. Like previous suits, the new FTC suit accused Frontier of advertising speeds it knows its aging and distance-constrained DSL lines can't deliver, failing to disclose those limits to consumers, and overbilling subscribers based on speeds they can't actually get.Granted there's a reason Frontier keeps getting sued without much changing. And that's because the fines levied upon regional telecom monopolies are usually a small fraction of the money made from exploiting captive consumers (and local governments). As such, the penalties are just viewed as the cost of doing business, get quickly brushed aside, and little really changes in the underlying market mechanics.Thanks to the Trump administration's net neutrality repeal (which also gutted FCC consumer protection authority), the FCC is now limited as to what it can do to thwart this behavior. That left (as telecom lobbyists intended) most oversight to the FTC, which can't make new rules, lacks the resources and staff to adequately tackle telecom (on top of fifty million other obligations across a universe of other sectors) and is limited to enforcement actions in instances where it's extremely clear a company is engaged in "unfair and deceptive" behavior under the FTC Act.The telecom lobby knew all of this, which was the whole point of the net neutrality repeal. That was acknowledged by acting Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter in a statement on the lawsuit:

Nintendo really can't help itself. With the company's storied reputation for valuing strict control of all things intellectual property over literally everything else, we have detailed plenty of occasions where this restrictive attitude seems to work directly against the company actually selling things. From DMCAing fan-made ports of Nintendo's games to antiquated game systems, to getting fan-made expressions of Nintendo fandom taken down from 3rd party creation games like Dreams, to just DMCA carpet-bombing a wide range of fan-made games that serve as homages to Nintendo properties, the company has made it very clear that it will choose strict control over being good to its fans at every opportunity. Even, as is so often the case, when that means getting content taken down that essentially serves as an advertisement for Nintendo products.Perhaps this has never been more evident than when Nintendo recently got a Kickstarter project shut down, as that project was for a guidebook to Nintendo Amiibo products.

Amid all the news about the third wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic and the politics behind the vaccination roll out, you might have missed the Ministerial Declaration from the G7 Digital and Technology Ministers’ meeting. As per tradition, the G7 Digital Ministerial provides the opportunity for the seven richest countries of the world to declare their commitments and vision on the type of digital future they would like to see. The document is non-binding but it has the tendency to provide some useful insights on the way the G7 countries view digital issues and their future positions in multilateral fora; it is also informative of other, more formal, multilateral processes. On 28 April 2021, a statement was made addressing key technology issues and opportunities including security in ICT supply chains, Internet safety, free data flows, electronic transferable records, digital competition and technical standards.Yes, you read that right - technical standards. In the last several years technical standards have moved from the realm of engineers into wider politics. News stories have been replete with China’s efforts to become a competitive force on 5G, AI and facial recognition standards and its wish to be developed internationally based on their national rules, culture and technology. But the public eye turned more closely to China when it was discovered that the facial recognition standards being developed by China in the UN system were from countries on the US sanctions list and used by China for monitoring Uighurs.None of this is new. For the past few years and for anyone who has been paying attention, China has been strategically positioning itself in various standards bodies realizing that shifting from a unipolar to a multipolar world order cannot happen unless it is capable of demonstrating a more strategic and competitive approach to the domination of the west. What was the tipping point, however, that made the seven richest countries in the world offer explicit language on standards inserted into their declaration? Everything seems to be pointing to the "newIP" standard proposal, recommending a change in the current Internet technology, that was put forward by Huawei and supported by China in the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). Although this new standard did not manage to pass the ITU’s study group phase, it did raise the eyebrows of the West. And, rightly so.Historically, Internet standards have paved their own path and have majorly managed to stay outside of politics. In one of the earliest Requests for Comments (RFC), the definition of a standard was specific and narrow: a standard is “a specification that is stable and well-understood, is technical competent, has multiple, independent and interoperable implementations with operations experience, enjoys significant public support, and is recognizably useful in some or all parts of the Internet”.Traditionally, governments have had a hands-off approach in the development and deployment of standards related to the Internet; their development was part of the consensus-based, community-driven process developed and nurtured by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and their deployment was left to the market. A standard’s life has always depended on its utility and contribution to the evolution of the Internet.This seems to be the case less and less. Over the past years, governments have shown increasing interest in the development of standards, and have sought ways to inject themselves into Internet standardization processes. There are two distinct ways that this trend has emerged. First, there's China, which actively seeks to displace the current Internet infrastructure. That was clear in the attempt with the “newIP” proposal. China has been strategic in not directly suggesting a complete rejection of the Internet model; instead, its claims have been that the Internet cannot meet future technologies and needs and, therefore, a new infrastructure, developed and nurtured by governments, is necessary. The second trend continues to support the open, market-driven standards development processes, but seeks ways for governments to be more actively involved. This, so far, has mainly been interpreted as identifying ways to provide incentives for the creation and deployment of certain standards, often those deemed strategically important.Even though these approaches reflect different political and governance dimensions - China supports a top-down approach over the West’s bottom-up model - they do share one commonality: in both cases, politics are becoming part of the standardization process. This is entirely unlike the past 30 years of Internet development.This could have significant implications in the development and future of the Internet. There are benefits from the current structure: efficiency, agility and collaboration. The existing process ensures quick responses to problems. But, its main advantage is really the collective understanding that standards are driven by what is “good for the Internet”; that is, what is required for the Internet’s stability, resilience and integrity.This doesn’t mean that this process is perfect. Of course, it comes with its own limitations and challenges. But, even then, it is a tested process that has worked well for the Internet throughout most of its existence. It has worked - despite its flaws - because it has managed to keep political and cultural dimensions separate. Participants, irrespective of background, language, and political persuasion have been collaborating successfully by having the Internet and what's good for it, as their main objective.On the contrary, intergovernmental standards are driven by political differences and political motives. They are designed this way. This is not to say that governments should not be paying attention to the way standards are developed. But, it is crucial to do so in ways that do not seek to upend a model that is tested and responsive to the needs of the Internet.Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis is the Senior Director, Policy Strategy and Development at the Internet Society.Dominique Lazanski is the Director of Last Press Label, and a Consultant in International Internet and Cybersecurity Standards and Policy.

Techdirt has just written about belated news that the FBI gained access two years ago to the Apple account of Alexandra Elbakyan, the founder of Sci-Hub. This is part of a continuing attempt to stop the widespread sharing of academic papers, mostly paid for by the public, and currently trapped behind expensive paywalls. You might think somebody helping scholars spread their work to a wider audience would be rewarded with prizes and grants, not pursued by the FBI and DOJ. But of course not, because, well, copyright. It's easy to feel angry but helpless when confronted with this kind of bullying by publishing giants like Elsevier, but a group of publicly spirited Redditors aim to do something about it:

Lawyers for a cop accused of beating an undercover cop during a 2017 protest are pretty angry prosecutors have let the public know just what kind of bigoted dirtbag the indicted officer is.St. Louis police officer Dustin Boone -- along with four other officers -- attacked undercover officer Luther Hall. Boone is white. Detective Hall is black. This is relevant information, even if Boone's lawyers are claiming his texts -- which contain plenty of bigotry -- aren't. Boone's legal rep is seeking to have prosecutors sanctioned for bringing Boone's texts to his prosecution.

Last month we noted that Apple told Congress that it was allowing Parler's iOS app to return to its app store, after the company (apparently) implemented a content moderation system. This was despite Parler's then interim CEO (who has since been replaced by another CEO) insisting that Parler would not remove "content that attacks someone based on race, sex, sexual orientation or religion." According to a deep dive by the Washington Post, the compromise solution is that such content will be default blocked only on iOS devices, but will be available via the web or the sideloaded Google app, though they will be "labeled" as hate by Parler's new content moderation partner, Hive.

The Complete Become a UI/UX Designer Bundle has 9 courses UI/UX design, sales funnels, and business development. You'll learn about the phases of web development, the UX design process, different UI design types, and more. You'll also learn about freelancing, starting your own business, and how to create highly profitable sales funnels. It's 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.

Earlier this month, it was revealed the DOJ -- while headed by Bill Barr and an extraordinarily leaky White House -- decided it would be cool and constitutional to demand journalists' phone and email records while supposedly investigating leaks pertaining to Trump's first impeachment.The DOJ apparently did manage to get the phone records. For whatever reason, it never bothered to collect the email metadata, despite having obtained a court order to do so. Nearly four years after this occurred, the Washington Post journalists were finally notified about the government's interest in their communications.The Justice Department's statement was less than satisfactory. It claimed that this sort of First Amendment-troubling activity was "rare" and that it followed all of its internal guidelines when targeting journalists' communications. It also claimed it was ok because the journalists weren't the target of the investigation. All the DOJ wanted were their sources.That's not ok no matter what internal guidelines are followed. If the DOJ has a leak to investigate, it needs to confine itself to the end doing the leaking, not the recipients of the leaks. Just because it might be easier for investigators to work their way backwards from journalists' communications to identify the source of leaks doesn't make it acceptable. The ends don't justify the means -- not when the means wander across the constitutional lines.Now the DOJ has (yet again) angered Senator Ron Wyden. Wyden has sent a letter [PDF] to Attorney General Merrick Garland, demanding he revamp the internal rules to make this sort of thing far less likely to reoccur. Wyden is also asking for full reports on any surveillance of journalists the DOJ engaged in over the last couple of years.As Wyden points out, using subpoenas and court orders to sniff out journalists' sources may be less disruptive than subjecting them to the justice system, but the end result is the same breach of trust and Constitutional protections.

More than 16,000 journalists and editors were laid off last year, a tally that excludes broader media jobs and freelancers. While COVID certainly played a role (read: advertisers not wanting the brands to appear in ads next to stories telling people the truth about a pandemic), the layoffs were part of a broader trend in which the unprofitable business of delivering the factual reality (usually) continues to wither on the vine.Mindless media consolidation has created vast news deserts where local news of any quality literally no longer exist. Incompetent but wealthy new media CEOs, free from anything vaguely resembling accountability, fire their entire newsrooms on a dime at the slightest hint of unionization, a threat that wouldn't be so pronounced if we'd managed to pay reporters a living wage. The US press feels broken, a consensus on how to fix it remains elusive, and bad ideas seem to outnumber good ones by a wide margin.Into that vacuum has stumbled all manner of terrible beasts, ranging from phony "pink slime" local news, a steady parade of foreign and domestic propaganda artists, and consolidated broadcasters for which truth is a distant afterthought. Just this week, OAN, a "news" channel found on most mainstream cable lineups and pumped into millions of American homes, not only trumpeted the bogus election "audit" in Arizona, it was happily fundraising off of it with zero repercussions whatsoever:

Joseph Cox broke the news for Motherboard late last year: the US military was also making use of location data purchased from data brokers, joining a host of other federal agencies that seemed to feel buying from brokers was an acceptable alternative to respecting the Fourth Amendment.Of particular interest to the Defense Department was location data generated by apps popular with the world's Muslims, including the Muslim Pro prayer app and Muslim Mingle, a Muslim-centric Tinder. The DoD didn't have much to say in its… um… defense at that time, obviously preferring everyone to assume the focus on Muslim-focused apps was indicative of its good and righteous work fighting terrorist organizations around the world.Unfortunately, the data came from brokers who also collect plenty of location info from US located app users and there was no information provided by the government that showed the military made an effort to steer clear of acquiring this data.More confirmation has arrived, via some half-answers, redactions, and "can we talk about this in private?" responses to Senator Ron Wyden's demand for more information from the Defense Department. Once again, it's Joseph Cox and Motherboard bringing us the latest:

We've covered a variety of issues Twitch is facing as a platform over the past several months, but there has also been a theme to all of these issues. Whether it's been Twitch's decision to simply nuke a bunch of creator content due to DMCA claims it received for them, its tone-deaf attempt to redirect the focus onto a dumb emoji, changes to its affiliate program, or how it chooses to roll out, or not, tools for creators to respond to the DMCApocalypse it kicked off, those stories all have one thing in common: they demonstrate that Twitch does a brutally terrible job of communicating to its most valuable asset, its own creative community.When changes happen at Twitch, they often come as a shock to Twitch streamers. If you think that streaming on a platform that is constantly pulling the rug out from under you sounds like a terrible idea, well, I agree with you. And it just keeps happening. The latest is one streamer, who at least partially made a name for herself doing so-called "hot tub meta" streams, suddenly having her ability to make advertising revenue stripped from her without warning or dialogue.

Summary: Substack launched in 2018, offering writers a place to engage in independent journalism and commentary. Looking to fill a perceived void in newsletter services, Substack gave writers an easy-to-use platform they could monetize through subscriptions and pageviews.As Substack began to attract popular writers, concerns over published content began to increase. The perception was that Substack attracted an inordinate number of creators who had either been de-platformed elsewhere or embraced views not welcome on other platforms. High-profile writers who found themselves jobless after crafting controversial content appeared to gravitate to Substack (including big names like Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept and The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan), giving the platform the appearance of embracing views by providing a home for writers unwelcome pretty much everywhere else.A few months before the current controversy over Substack's content reached critical mass, the platform attempted to address questions about content moderation with a blog post that said most content decisions could be made by readers, rather than Substack itself. Its blog post made it clear users were in charge at all times: readers had no obligation to subscribe to content they didn't like and writers were free to leave at any time if they disagreed with Substack's decisions.But even then, the platform's moderation policies weren't completely hands off. As its post pointed out, the platform would take its own steps to remove spam, porn, doxxing, and harassment. Of course, the counterargument raised was that Substack's embrace of controversial contributors provided a home for people who'd engaged in harassment on other platforms (and who were often no longer welcome there).Decisions to be made by Substack:

SpaceX says the company has received more than 500,000 pre-orders for the company's growing low-orbit satellite broadband service. The company opened up pre-orders back in February, and says it currently has about 10,000 users around the world participating in the beta. Starlink, which (for now) costs about $100 per month (plus a $500 first month equipment charge), should provide a welcome new option for many folks currently stuck without any broadband whatsoever.But for those who continue to think Starlink is going to truly disrupt the broken U.S. broadband market, here's a few quick numbers. Up to 42 million Americans lack access to any broadband whatsoever, be it wired or wireless. Another 83 million currently live under a broadband monopoly, usually Comcast. Tens of millions more live under a broadband duopoly, which usually consists of Comcast and some regional phone company that stopped caring about upgrading its DSL networks sometime around 2005 or so. This regional monopolization directly results in spotty, expensive, sometimes sluggish service.In contrast, SpaceX and Musk say that the 500,000 users will probably get the service they've pre-ordered. But Musk noted last week that as the company begins to push into the several million connection territory, things will likely get tricky. Particularly in more dense areas where capacity constraints will continue to be a big problem, much like existing higher-orbit satellite offerings:

It isn't some novel revelation that scammers and malware purveyors have used the public's fear and lack of knowledge about copyright laws and processes to pull off their nefarious deeds. For more than a decade, bad actors have looked at the shady methods of copyright trolls and noticed that those tactics are perfectly suited to convince the public to download malware or fraudulently extract money from people's wallets. None of this is new or surprising. What should be surprising, however, is that absolutely nothing has been done about any of this. Never has a hard look been taken as to why copyright enforcement so resembles these illegal activities, nor has any serious consideration been given to what this culture of permission and fear has done to so well prepare the public to be susceptible to these scams.As a result, these bad acts continue to the present. TorrentFreak has a post about how scammers are currently using fake notices sent to the public, made to look like copyright threats or warnings, all in an effort to get them to click links and download malware.

One of the earliest themes on Techdirt, going back decades, is the difficulty of jurisdiction on the internet that easily crosses nearly all geographical borders. We wrote a post back in 2002 raising the question of how is it possible to enforce local laws on a borderless internet. Of course, that hasn't meant that various countries haven't tried -- either trying to issue global injunctions or going even more extreme. One preferred idea is to just jail the employees of a company who happen to be in the country that wants content blocked. Over the years we've seen that happen (or attempt to happen) in Italy, Brazil, and recently India.For many companies, the best way to deal with this is to avoid having any employees in those countries where such threats are likely to happen. There's a reason Google pulled employees out of Russia, for example.But now that various countries seem to enjoy the ability to jail random employees of internet companies who won't do they're bidding, they're moving to pass laws to require local employees if a company wants to operate in that country. In many cases, these seem to be fairly transparent attempts to make sure that the government has hostages it can threaten to jail should the company not suppress content in the way its leaders wish.What's particularly nefarious about this, is that these generally authoritarian countries are able to "defend" these laws on the same basis as (mostly European) countries demanded data localization laws, saying that data on local citizens needed to be kept within that country to protect their information from -- say -- snooping NSA eyes and ears.

The Complete Mobile and App Development Bundle has 9 courses to help you learn how to program, design, and build apps for both Android and iOS. Courses cover Java, React Native, Git, Swift 5, and more. The bundle is 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.

Earlier this month, Baltimore prosecutor Marilyn Mosby decided to do something she definitely shouldn't have. Mosby may claim to be part of the "progressive prosecutor" movement, but her decision to ask the federal government to investigate a prominent critic of hers is pretty goddamn regressive.Mosby doesn't care for the allegedly slanted coverage she's receiving from WBFF, a local Fox affiliate. Rather than accept the fact that criticism -- even when it's made in bad faith -- is part of the public service job, she decided to ask the FCC to open an investigation into the station. She attempted to justify this by quoting the FCC's own words back at it, noting that FCC rules say "intentionally distorting the news" is forbidden.Distortion in newscasting has been a thing for years and it takes far more than the pretty innocuous examples provided by Mosby to get the FCC to start trifling with the First Amendment. Most of the anti-Mosby stuff seemed to be the usual anti-whatever stuff that happens when news stations call in commentators to add a bit more opinion to the news. Mosby also complained she was receiving too much coverage, citing WBFF's 248 stories about her in 2020 -- far more than she observed at any competing news outlet.Mosby claimed she had all the respect in the world for the First Amendment. But apparently WBFF had too much free speech at its disposal and that's why the FCC needed to step in.One FCC commissioner has responded [PDF] so far. And it's Brendan Carr, the FCC's hackiest partisan. Taking a break from his usual business of assailing social media companies for dumping his favorite people from their platforms while vaguely threatening to do "something" about Section 230 immunity, Carr manages to make some good points despite himself. It probably helps that his target -- Marilyn Mosby -- is on the other side of the political fence. (h/t Volokh Conspiracy)