Techdirt

The Chinese government's surveillance of undesirables isn't limited to its borders. It has been working with tech companies to produce an outsider-oriented surveillance platform to keep tabs on visiting students and foreign journalists -- neither of whom might feel particularly obliged to maintain the party line.The journalist-targeting surveillance system, detailed in a December 2021 Yahoo report, is apparently already mostly a reality. This New York Times report shows the government is already applying its oppression to visitors to the country, hoping to ensure nothing contradicting the official narrative makes its way to the internet airwaves.

The 2022 Ultimate Cybersecurity Analyst Preparation Bundle has 8 courses with everything you need to become a cybersecurity pro. Courses cover threat management, vulnerability management, security architecture, and incident response. You'll learn about social engineering, pentesting, and ethical hacking. It's on sale for $20.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

There are multiple efforts under way in the US to pass laws that require social media sites to take down "medical misinformation." As we've described repeatedly, these are really dangerous ideas. Bills like those from Senators Amy Klobuchar and Ben Ray Lujan seek to force social media to remove medical misinformation as declared by the Ministry of Truth... er... Secretary of Health & Human Services. Of course, it was not all that long ago that we had an administration that was actively anti-science, and wanted to declare anything that made the president look bad as "fake news."Also, in the midst of a pandemic, when the data and the science are rapidly evolving, what might seem reasonable at one point, may later turn out to be misinformation -- and vice versa. Forcing down misinformation leads to all sorts of dangerous consequences. Hell, we saw this in China, where such a law was used to silence a doctor who tried to raise the alarm about COVID-19, and was forced to apologize for spreading "untruthful information online."But there's another aspect of this which people rarely try to deal with: content moderation involves a lot of very gray areas and an awful lot of context, much of which may not be immediately obvious. An ongoing war of words between the former British Medical Journal (now just "The BMJ") and Meta/Facebook demonstrates nicely just how impossible it is to claim that "medical misinformation" must be taken offline. There's a bit of background here, and it's a, well, touchy subject, so try to go through the whole thing before you react.First off, the BMJ is not, in any way, anti-vaccine. Somewhat famously, the BMJ was a key player in exposing the fraudulent behavior of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, whose fraudulent study created the modern anti-vax movement. That said, in November, The BMJ published an investigative journalism piece, based on a supposed "whistleblower" suggesting that there was some data integrity issues with the way Pfizer's vaccine was tested, specifically involving a research partner of Pfizer, Ventavia Research Group.Ventavia responded to the allegations by noting that the supposed whistleblower in question had raised the issues a year earlier, and they were investigated and found to be unsubstantiated. That said, many reasonable people noted that this should be further investigated and worried that it might lead to further damaging the public's trust in science.But, of course, you can fully predict what happened next. It didn't just "damage the public's trust in science," the BMJ article instead was instantly championed by all of the big anti-vax voices all over social media as "proof" that the COVID vaccine was dangerous and rushed into approval -- key talking points among that crowd, repeated despite tons of evidence that the vaccine is both incredibly effective and incredibly safe.This resulted in Lead Stories, a fact checking organization, to fact check the article, and slap it with a "missing context" label, and calling into question the way that people were interpreting the article:

A ruling (pdf) last week by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has paved the way for deployment of faster, better Wi-Fi, while simultaneously cementing the FCC's authority to make important decisions related to spectrum and interference concerns.Last year, the FCC voted to open up a chunk of spectrum in the 6GHz band for unlicensed use, providing more airwaves to be used by Wi-Fi and other technologies. Wi-Fi is the most immediate beneficiary; this posed the biggest expansion of available spectrum since Wi-Fi was first unveiled back in 1989. The expansion, and the new standards making more efficient use of more spectrum, should result first in better, more reliable Wi-Fi, and ultimately faster speeds of 1–2 Gbps connections over Wi-Fi. That means better broadband, and more innovation in the band:

What's unreasonable for law enforcement to do when searching for a criminal suspect? Not much, apparently. The Eighth Circuit Appeals Court has handed down a ruling that says detaining minors at gunpoint is just good policework when they're in the general vicinity of a suspected criminal act. (via FourthAmendment.com)Here's what prompted this apparently excusable violation of rights, taken from the Appeals Court decision [PDF]:

It isn't news that China has begun a campaign against video games within its borders. The battles in this war are being waged on a couple different fronts. In 2021, Beijing set new rules for what youths can play when it comes to games, as well as a strict schedule for when they can play them. This birthed an underground economy for account sharing to get around those rules, but the rules still had some effect. Chinese regulators also have exerted strict control over what foreign games are available in online stores, while those same regulators strictly control what games gain approval for release from within. This all seems to be some sort of legislative stream of consciousness from President Xi Jinping's belief that video games are somehow massively harmful and addictive to children.So what has the impact of all of this regulatory warfare produced? Well, according the South China Morning Post, no less than 14,000 shuttered gaming businesses within China itself.

The Eleventh Commandment (paraphrased from the original Homer Simpson):

There is no greater example of just how totally broken copyright is than the story of Eric Clapton suing -- and winning -- a poor German woman for copyright infringement after she listed (but did not sell) a bootleg CD that her late husband had purchased in a store. The woman had no idea it was a bootleg. She just knew that she had the CD and wanted to sell it, so she put it on eBay. Eric Clapton -- who has been a despicably awful human being for decades -- sued her over this and won. He won, despite the fact that (1) she hadn't bought the CD, and was just selling her late husband's CD, (2) she had no idea it wasn't authorized, (3) she didn't actually sell it, as she quickly pulled down the listing, and (4) it was just one damn CD and she listed it for less than $12. And not only that, under German copyright law, she was told she also needed to pay Clapton's legal fees.Lots of people (reasonably) got mad about Clapton for pursuing this case, and we'll get to that in a moment, but you should also be furious about copyright laws. Because that's what makes this sort of absolute nonsense not just possible, but plainly encouraged.We've pointed out in the past that one of the biggest problems of copyright in the internet age is that it was designed for a time when "infringement" generally had to mean deliberate attempts by commercial entities to copy someone else's work and profit off of it. The internet has laid bare just how unfit for purpose copyright is by suddenly turning us all into lawbreakers many times over every single day. At that point, it should be obvious that it's the law that's the main problem.However, as we highlighted in a guest post a few years back, copyright hung on as relevant for a few decades in part because of the concept of "copyright toleration," in which the vast, vast majority of those daily infringements were ignored by rights holders. However, as that article has detailed, we've seen increasingly less "toleration" these days, which explains things like the nonsense demands for universal upload filters by the music industry.But, still, there remains some discretion in all of this, and that's where Eric Clapton is still very much at fault. After this story came out, shortly before Christmas, and went viral with lots of people trashing Clapton for such nonsense, his team, trying to do a bit of damage control put up a statement trying to justify what happened. It's... not particularly convincing.

The Department of Homeland Security is trying to distance itself from its most toxic asset, the Washington Post reports:

The 2022 Complete Raspberry Pi and Arduino Developer Bundle has 9 courses to teach you everything you need to know to start creating your own projects. Courses cover Linux, C++, Python 3, ROS, and more. You'll learn through a combination of lectures and hands-on projects. The bundle is on sale for $20.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

A week before Christmas, Radley Balko published a typically excellent story about the police chief in Little Rock, Arkansas, Keith Humphrey. It's a good story, and you should read it. Humphrey, who was appointed police chief as part of a reformist campaign, has faced on ongoing campaign to try to take him down from stalwarts within the Little Rock police department, including a few others who wanted his job -- but mainly by the local police union, the Fraternal Order of Police. Anyway, what caught my attention was that a few days after the article went live, The Intercept reported that it had been removed from Google search due to a DMCA copyright takedown notice.This raised a lot of eyebrows, including questions of whether or not some of the characters who come out of the story negatively were abusing the DMCA to get the story disappeared from Google. It also surprised some people who didn't realize that you could issue a DMCA complaint to Google to get something removed from search. Over the holidays, however, the actual story came out and it's even dumber and more pointless than you could have imagined, but it does highlight (yet again) just how incredibly broken the copyright system is these days.First off, the "Google removal" bit is nothing new. Even though you might think that DMCA takedowns should only be handed to sites that actually host the content in question, hosts are only one part of the DMCA 512 rules. That's the part that most are familiar with, 512(c) with the rules for dealing with "information residing on systems or networks at direction of users." That's the part that has all the standard notification and takedown rules. But there's also 512(d), which is for "information location tools" and says that if such a tool is notified of infringement -- using the same method in 512(c) -- you have to "respond expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.In other words, yes, if someone wants to block something from being found via Google, they can try to file a DMCA takedown claim, saying that the content is infringing. We've seen this used and abused plenty over the years. You may remember revenge pornster Craig Brittain who sought to use this system to get links to a bunch of articles about him removed from Google (this included the press release from the FTC about him settling with them for his sketchy revenge porn efforts). In fact, Brittain tried this multiple times.Indeed, many copyright holding entities don't even bother to go after the hosting of infringing materials -- they find it more expedient to just have that content de-linked from Google. As Google notes in its transparency report, it has been asked to delete 5.5 billion URLs from its index. For what it's worth, elsewhere, Google has reported that the vast majority of URLs it is told to delete aren't even in its index -- but it's still pretty crazy. And while Google at least has a team that tries to review these requests, mistakes happen, because mistakes always happen at this scale.In this case, this was clearly a mistake. But it's an incredibly stupid mistake, so it's worth highlighting. Notably, Google put the link to Balko's story back into Google a few hours after The Intercept publicly complained about it, but it took another week or so until the actual DMCA notice made its way to the Lumen Database where we could finally see just what caused it. Was it the annoyed Fraternal Order of Police in Arkansas? Or just other annoyed cops?No. It was a cybersecurity company that is apparently really bad at it's job.The notice came from Group IB a "cyber threat" company based in Singapore that claims to specialize in the "prevention of cyberattacks, online fraud, and IP protection." It claims to be an "industry-leading cybersecurity solutions provider" but it frankly looks like most of the other companies in the space which probably shouldn't exist. This notice was sent on behalf of a Russian firm: ООО "РАЗВЛЕКАТЕЛЬНЫЙ ОНЛАЙН-СЕРВИС." As far as I can tell this seems to translate into Online Entertainment Service Limited Liability Company -- about as generic a name as you can find. The company was only created in the summer of 2020, so it's a relatively new company.And, apparently, it hired Group-IB to issue takedown notices for a bunch of Netflix shows and movies. From the notice, I would guess that the Russian company is supposed to be trying to take down Russian translations of these Netflix shows, because while all of the names listed in the notice are from Netflix, they're each listed with their English name... and their Russian name. And most of the URLs in the notice do appear to be to various sketchy film download sites. Also, in listing the "original URLs" (which are supposed to show the original copyright covered content), the notice lists both the American IMDB site URLs... and the Kinopoisk.ru links, which is a Russian IMDB-like site owned by Yandex, the big Russian internet company.So, for example, the takedown for "Stranger Things" in this notice looks like this:

We'd already noted how the FAA had been making some shaky claims about how 5G deployments in the 3.7 to 3.98 GHz "C-Band" spectrum range posed safety threats to airline safety. More specifically, the FAA claims operating in this band poses a potential interference problem for airline altimeters. The problem: FCC data, and data from upwards of 40 countries where 5G is already deployed in this band, suggest the concerns are baseless, and that the FCC's decision to set aside a 220 MHz unused guard band to act as a buffer was more than enough to prevent any issues whatsoever.It's been a bit of a weird story given the FAA's own documents have suggested that there isn't a problem. And the FAA, instead of initially working transparently with the FCC (the regulator with specific expertise on this kind of stuff), instead spent the last few months leaking scary stories to the press. The FAA then issued an order pausing all 5G deployment in this C-Band.Deployment in this band matters to you because U.S. 5G performance has been largely mediocre, in large part because of our failure to make middle-band spectrum available for use. We've got plenty of high-band spectrum (high speeds, but limited range and poor building wall penetration) and lots of low-band spectrum (great range but slower speeds), but not much in the middle (a decent combination of speed, penetration, and range). Verizon and AT&T recently paid $70 billion to deploy this spectrum, and aren't keen on any additional delays for obvious reasons.The two companies had already agreed to a 30-day deployment pause, and to lower the power of transmissions at this range. But in a letter to the FAA last week, the two balked at any additional, prolonged delays:

For the second time in about as many weeks, an appeals court has handed down a decision denying qualified immunity to a government employee. That's good! We don't see a lot of these. Getting more than one in a month almost feels excessive, as if we're being set up by the courts for a few months of anger and disappointment to offset this judicial largesse.Offsetting this unexpected goodwill towards the appellate courts in general is this fact: both cases also involve what should unquestionably be obvious violations of rights. Both cases involve fabricated evidence.The one recently handled by the Third Circuit alleged officers hid evidence that would have cleared a man falsely accused of murder… and they, along with the prosecutor, kept this information from the imprisoned man for 25 years. Truly obscene and truly a blindingly obvious violation of rights, as the court noted:

A year ago, Techdirt wrote about an important lawsuit in India, brought by the academic publishers Elsevier, Wiley, and the American Chemical Society against Sci-Hub and the similar Libgen. A couple of factors make this particular legal action different from previous attempts to shut down these sites. First, an Indian court ruled in 2016 that photocopying textbooks for educational purposes is fair use; the parallels with SciHub, which provides free access to copies of academic papers for students and researchers who might not otherwise be able to afford the high subscription fees, are clear. Secondly, the person behind Sci-Hub, Alexandra Elbakyan, is fighting, rather than ignoring, the case, as she has done on previous occasions.One manifestation of her new pro-active approach is a tweet she posted recently. It included a screenshot of an email she wrote to Nature magazine, which had contacted her about a forthcoming article on the Indian court case. Following standard practice, the journalist writing the article, Holly Else, asked Elbakyan to comment on some of the accusations the academic publishers had made against Sci-Hub. Her responses are fascinating, not least because they provide Elbakyan's perspective on several important issues.For example, according to the publishers' comments as transmitted by Else, "Pirate sites like Sci-Hub threaten the integrity of the scientific record, and the safety of university and personal data". In reply, Elbakyan points out Sci-Hub is unique, and the use of the phrase "Pirate sites like Sci-Hub" is a clever attempt to lump Sci-Hub in with quite different sites, thus prejudging the legality of its activities. Elbakyan says that it's academic publishers -- not Sci-Hub -- which threaten the progress of science:

A handful of Proud Boys members charged with crimes related to the January 6th raid on the Capitol building are arguing their actions are protected by the First Amendment. According to the defendants, the raid they participated in was nothing more than a protest. Alternatively, they're arguing one of the laws being used against them is unconstitutionally overbroad, turning otherwise legal activity into illegal activity.Unfortunately for these would-be insurrectionists, the DC federal court doesn't find any of their arguments sympathetic. (via Courthouse News Service)This is the law the Proud Boys members are challenging, as related in the recitation of the indictment by the DC court [PDF]:

We've written a bit about Judge Alan Albright, the only judge in the US district court in Waco, Texas. Judge Albright, a former patent litigator, decided that, upon taking the bench, he'd become the friendliest court for patent cases in the entire country. He even went around advertising that patent plaintiff's should file there and they've taken him up on it in droves. Since he's the only judge in the district, all the cases get assigned to him and, at last count, more than 25% of new patent cases are all going to him. He's so busy with patent cases he had to hire a former patent troll lawyer as a magistrate judge to help him out.He's also, somewhat famously, been pissing off the notoriously pro-patent appeals court for patent cases, the Federal Circuit, by refusing to rule on transfer requests to more appropriate districts, while making the process for patent defendants more expensive and cumbersome. It got so bad that even the generally pro-patent Senator Thom Tillis sent a couple of letters to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (who oversees the court system) and to the USPTO, about Albright's "forum selling."It took a little while, but the Administrative Office of the US Courts, has finally responded to the letter sent by Tillis (and Senator Pat Leahy) to Justice Roberts, noting that it appears to be somewhat aware of the problems of Judge Albright.

Asset forfeiture is just cops going shopping for things they want. The analogy -- one prompted by statements made by Sean McMurty, the head of a county forfeiture unit in New Jersey -- works on multiple levels. McMurtry encouraged cops to seize stuff they wanted or needed.

The Ultimate Microsoft Excel Training Bundle has 6 courses to help you learn everything you need to know about working with Excel. You'll learn how to build a household budget, how to work with Macros and VBA, how to use Pivot Tables, and much more. The bundle is on sale for $20.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

We've joked in the past about how Republicans hate Section 230 for letting websites moderate too much content, while Democrats hate it for letting websites not moderate enough content. Of course, the reality is they both are mad about content moderation (at different extremes) because they both want to control the internet in a manner that helps "their team." But both approaches involve unconstitutional desires to interfere with 1st Amendment rights. For Republicans, it's often the compelled hosting of speech, and for Democrats, it's often the compelled deletion of speech. Both of those are unconstitutional.On the Republican side, we've already seen states like Florida and Texas sign into law content moderation bills -- and both have been blocked for being wholly unconstitutional.We've already heard that some other Republican-controlled states have shelved plans for similar bills, realizing that all they'd be doing was setting taxpayer money on fire.Unfortunately, it looks like the message has not made its way to Democratic-controlled states. California has been toying with unconstitutional content moderation bills, and now NY has one as well. Senator Brad Hoylman -- who got his law degree from Harvard, where presumably they teach about the 1st Amendment -- has proudly introduced a hellishly unconstitutional social media bill. Hoylman announces in his press release that the bill will "hold tech companies accountable for promoting vaccine misinformation and hate speech."Have you noticed the problem with the bill already? I knew you could. Whether we like it or not, the 1st Amendment protects both vaccine misinformation and hate speech. It is unconstitutional to punish anyone for that speech, and it's even more ridiculous to punish websites that host that content, but had nothing to do with the creation of it.Believe it or not, the actual details of the bill are even worse than Hoylman's description of it. The operative clauses are outlandishly bad.

We've noted repeatedly that despite a lot of breathless rhetoric about America's "quest to bridge the digital divide," U.S. government leaders still don't actually know where broadband is or isn't available. Shoddy broadband mapping has generally been a good thing for regional U.S. telecom monopolies, who not only have been allowed to obscure competition gaps (and the high prices and poor service that result), but hoover up an endless gravy train of subsidies and tax breaks for networks that...mysteriously...always wind up half deployed. Our failure to measure deployment success has been painfully, repeatedly exploited.But there are other ways that incumbents exploit our ongoing failure to map broadband to their advantage. Case in point: roughly 230 U.S. communities have applied for broadband grants being doled out as part of the National Transportation Infrastructure Agency (NTIA)'s $288 million Broadband Infrastructure Program. But when a town or local cooperative/utility/public-private partnership looking to build its own, better broadband network applies for the grant, they're facing baseless challenges by ISPs which claim they already serve these areas.Grafton, New Hampshire, for example, is looking to build its own fiber network after years of market neglect. It had 3,000 of the 4,000 census blocks they applied for grant money for falsely challenged by regional giants Comcast and Charter Spectrum:

Happy new year, everyone! You know what time it is — time for our round-up of the top comments from all of 2021, based on user votes for Insightful and Funny. Plus, unlike past years where we featured a few outliers from the leaderboard of combined votes in both categories, this year there was absolutely no overlap for the second time — so we'll be including all three of the comments from overall votes as well. Meanwhile, if you want to see this week's winners, here's first and second place for insightful, and first and second place for funny.The Most Insightful Comments Of 2021For our first place winner, we head back a few months to September, when GoDaddy reignited the debate over infrastructure-level content moderation by banning the snitch website brought into existence by Texas's anti-abortion law. Naturally some more general points about the issue came up in the comments, including the perennial observation that pro-life movements often seem unconcerned about what happens to children once they're actually born. That One Guy wins first place with a response to someone making this point, but in a way the real credit goes to the person being quoted:

Gaming Like It's 1926: The Public Domain Game JamHappy new year everyone — and happy public domain day! That's right: as of today, works from 1926 are now officially in the public domain in the US, and that means it's time for the latest public domain game jam: Gaming Like It's 1926, presented by Techdirt and Randy Lubin of Diegetic Games. Just like in past years, we're calling on game designers of all stripes and levels of experience to create games that make use of, or are based on, material from newly-public-domain works. The jam starts today and runs until the end of the month: just sign up for the jam on itch.io and submit your game by January 31st.As always, the jam is open to both digital and analog games (be sure to read over the full requirements on the jam page). There are lots of interesting works entering the public domain this year, including:

As long term readers of Techdirt know, each year since 2008 my final post of the year has been a kind of reflection on optimism. This tradition started after I had a few people ask how come it seemed that I was so optimistic when I seemed to spend all my time writing about scary threats to innovation, the internet, and civil liberties. And there is an odd contradiction in there, but it's one that shows up among many innovation optimists. I'm reminded of Cory Doctorow's eloquent response to those who called internet dreamers like John Perry Barlow "techno utopians."

Following protests over killings by law enforcement officers, the Department of Justice decided it might be a good idea to equip more police officers with body cameras. In May 2015, it announced the federal government would be spending $75 million over the next three years to purchase body cameras for local law enforcement agencies.The DOJ saw the potential for body cameras to produce more accountability, lower the chances of deadly interactions, and rebuild some trust with the communities officers served. That's presumably why it opted out of this push for body camera adoption. Five months after it announced the body cam grant program, DOJ reps told local law enforcement that use of body cameras wasn't allowed when partnering with federal law enforcement. Either the cameras stayed home or the local cops did. No exceptions.It wasn't until five years later that the DOJ finally decided it was ok for federal agents to work with local law enforcement officers sporting body cameras, perhaps realizing the cameras simply weren't going to go away. After all, it had encouraged adoption of the tech with three years of federal funding. But this still meant federal officers were going about their work unobserved, which still seemed problematic given all the advantages the DOJ said these cameras created when it started handing out federal cash in 2015.It took another year before the DOJ finally decided federal officers should get with the body camera program. Six years after it invested in nationwide distribution of body cameras, federal officers are finally going to start wearing them. The ATF was the first to perform a test run of the cameras. Now, the DHS is following suit.

It's been a rough year for our community of tech policy advocates, with us losing two of our own, Sherwin Siy in July and then Elliot Harmon in October. We remembered Sherwin here, and the EFF wrote about Elliot over there.But what we realized is that both of them had also written here at Techdirt, so we thought we'd use this end-of-year time of reflection to share those posts from the Techdirt archives.Sherwin appears to have had just one post, but it was a quintessentially Sherwin post that both relished the absurdity of the world, while diligently explaining it:"Die Another Eh: What Does It Mean Now That James Bond Is In The Public Domain In Canada?"Elliot also wrote about wayward applications of intellectual property laws. His first post here was about a winner of the EFF's stupid patent of the month "award," which was bestowed upon Ford for having patented a windshield. He then later wrote about another stupid patent with Daniel Nazer, this time "celebrating" Elsevier's patent on peer review.He also wrote about copyright getting out of hand, including in this post about how current copyright policy creates dangers to research.Of course, IP isn't the only thing to worry about in tech policy; there's also the chilling efforts to increase liability for platforms. He wrote about the problems with these proposals too, counseling Congress not to force platforms to censor their users, and warning about the inevitable harms of SESTA/FOSTA in several other posts:

After bad cops do bad things, other cops will rush to the defense of the agency employing them, claiming most cops are good and these officers are outliers. These assertions might be more believable if law enforcement agencies (and their unions) didn't regularly cover for bad officers or, in the case of police unions, work tirelessly to ensure bad cops get their jobs back.Everything works in favor of bad cops. Their union reps can force agencies to rehire them. Fellow officers look the other way or falsify reports to cover for their actions. Oversight boards are neutered, ignored, and obstructed. Police officials with the power to rid agencies of bad officers either refuse to do so or are powerless in the face of restrictive union contracts.If there's an upside to all of this right now, it's that transparency has been forced on several law enforcement agencies over the past few years, making it easier to obtain misconduct records. Agencies no longer have the opacity to engage in repeated denials of severe misconduct by officers. And they can no longer claim they truly care about ensuring only the best officers remain employed.And there are other, non-official sources for this data. Entities like DDoS (Distributed Denial of Secrets) have exfiltrated files from law enforcement servers, resulting in revelations law enforcement agencies weren't willing to make.Disciplinary files freed by a ransomware hack were converted to searchable documents and examined by The Reveal and DCist. The documents show how much the Washington, DC police department has done to ensure some of its worst officers stayed on the payroll. Criminal misconduct by law enforcement officers apparently isn't worth a firing, not when DC police officials have the final say on discipline.

Missouri Governor Mike Parson is nothing if not consistent in his desire to stifle free speech. As you'll recall, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch discovered that the state's Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) website was programming in such an incompetent fashion that it would reveal, to anyone who knew where to look, the social security numbers of every teacher and administrator in the system (including those no longer employed there). The reporting on the vulnerability was done exactly following ethical disclosure best practices -- getting just enough evidence of the vulnerability, alerting the state to the problem and not publishing anything until the vulnerability was fixed. The FBI told Missouri officials early on "that this incident is not an actual network intrusion" and DESE initially wrote up a press release thanking the journalists for alerting them to this.But then Parson blundered his way into making a mess of it, insisting that the reporters were hackers and ordering the Missouri Highway Patrol to "investigate" them for prosecution. When people mocked him for this, he doubled down by insisting that this was real hacking and that those reporting otherwise were part of "the fake news."A month later, DESE admitted that it had fucked up, apologized to all the teachers and administrators (current and former) who its own incompetence had exposed, and offered credit monitoring to them all. Notably, DESE did not apologize to the journalists who discovered this mess, and the governor has continued to stand by his call to prosecute them.Earlier this week the Highway Patrol claimed it had completed its investigation... and turned the findings over to state prosecutors. That alone seems worrisome, as there's nothing to turn over to prosecutors here beyond "our governor is a very foolish man, who can't admit to his own failings."

Congress has been holding lots of "but think of the children online!" hearings over the past couple of months, and one prominent topic that comes up over and over again is the fact that people can find "drug" information online. Fears about kids and drugs goes back decades, but politicians love it, because it always works. And, of course, the media loves to run these overhyped stories. A quick search finds dozens of stories like the following in just the last month or so:

Zen Wireframe is the simplest online software to create wireframes of mobile apps, websites, or any projects that need UI planning. With +58 pre-made components in our wireframe tools, users can simply drag and drop to compose a mobile wireframe or website mockup in just minutes. It's on sale for $65 and if you use the code CYBER20 you'll get an additional 20% off.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.

Pretty much exactly a year ago, the Washington Post obtained documents that showed Chinese tech giant Huawei was working with the government to create facial recognition on steroids: a system capable of not just recognizing faces, but also certain ethnicities.There's only one reason for developing ethnicity recognition in China. The government's war on its Muslim Uighur population continues with no sign of letting up. Huawei's tech would enable the government to identify and track its most undesirable citizens, most likely to find any reason at all to disappear them into the country's many prisons and reeducation camps.Huawei denied involvement in this project. It did not deny the documents seen by the Washington Post were legitimate, however. Instead, it claimed the documents referred to a test project that had not been deployed. According to its spokesperson, the company would never provide the powerful Chinese government with tools developed for the purpose of targeting Uighur citizens.It was a pretty weak denial, considering Huawei's disadvantaged position. If it wishes to maintain its healthy market share in China, it will have to comply with the government's demands. That's how it works in China and that's how it's worked for years. And, no matter where they're located, companies don't often spend money on test runs of products they don't intend to sell or deploy in the future. Some testing may be done to see if something is feasible. But if the product works well enough to put on the market (or sell to governments), it will eventually result in real-world applications.One year later and it's the Washington Post again obtaining documents about Huawei's relationship with the Chinese government. Huawei has suggested it's not working directly with the government to create surveillance gear, claiming it's nothing more than a provider of apolitical networking hardware and software.But the documents seen by the Post strongly suggest otherwise.

Two years ago the Trump DOJ and FCC rubber stamped the Sprint T-Mobile merger without heeding experts warnings that the merger would likely erode competition, raise rates, and kill jobs. Then, working closely with T-Mobile and Dish, the FCC and DOJ unveiled what they claimed was a "fix" for the problematic nature of the deal: they'd try to cobble together a fourth major replacement wireless carrier in Dish Network.As we noted a few times the proposal was never likely to succeed. One, because Dish had no track record in this space outside of a parade of empty promises. Two, because the remaining three providers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile) want less price competition and would be incentivized at every step to ensure it fails. Three, because the government would likely dole out more than wrist slaps should Dish miss major build out milestones.So far, things are going just about as well as you'd expect. T-Mobile has already laid off 5,000 employees, and the plan has been mired with endless squabbling between T-Mobile and Dish. And both the beta and commercial launch of Dish's 5G network, first in Las Vegas, keeps being delayed. There is technically a network operating in Las Vegas, but most folks in wireless continue to eye the company's plans with justified skepticism. Early analysis of the network that does exist isn't what you'd call bubbly, as both speeds and coverage are sorely lacking after repeated delays:

While we have been discussing the way mainland China's plan to slow-creep the end of democracy in Hong Kong has turned into more of a sprint, it's also quite true that what is occurring there hasn't gotten nearly enough media burn as it should. Plenty of folks have chalked up China's aggressive attitudes towards Hong Kong to the 2019 pro-democracy protests, but the real sprint began once it became clear that Donald Trump stood a good chance of losing the White House to Joe Biden. Trump showed little willingness to push back on China when it came to its treatment of Hong Kong and the theory was that Biden would reverse course and show some backbone. That he generally hasn't is one of geopolitics great ironies. Beijing has taken such steps as to try to erase the CCP's own bloody history, to censor all kinds of Hong Kong pro-democracy culture, and to arrest of all kinds of pro-democracy lawmakers and media.Democracy is over in Hong Kong, in other words, and has been for some time now. What Beijing is currently in is a mop-up mode, as it looks to take the vice it has built around the city-state and spin the tightening lever. China's actions have made any designation of Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region an absolute punchline, including at present when China is busy arresting more pro-democracy cultural icons, including a popular musician, Denise Ho.

Years after they've become a go-to tool for law enforcement to work their way backwards to suspects, the Massachusetts Supreme Court is wrestling with the issue of cell tower dumps.Cell tower dumps can often be had with only a subpoena. They give investigators access to all cell phones that were in the area of the tower at certain times. Investigators peruse these lists of numbers to try to find numbers that might be linked to someone who committed a crime. The problem is investigators don't know who that "someone" is, so they, however briefly, turn everyone in the area into a suspect.The Third Party Doctrine tends to control this collection of data. The information is collected as a necessary part of cell phone operation. Therefore, there's no expectation of privacy in this information, the theory goes, since users are aware service providers need this information to provide service. And it very well may be that cell users are aware of this. What they generally don't expect is that law enforcement can obtain this data without a warrant, or, indeed, obtain it at all when investigators don't even know who they're looking for.The thorny issue of tower dumps is before the court, which now has the US Supreme Court's Carpenter decision to consider as well, something it didn't have prior to June 2018. In that decision, the Supreme Court says there was an expectation of privacy in cell site location data, which tower dumps are, even if they contain information on hundreds or thousands of people, rather than the more targeted collection of cell site location info related to a single targeted number.The Carpenter decision was rather narrow, holding that use of cell site location info to track people's movements requires a warrant. But it also stated clearly that there's an expectation of privacy in these records, whether or not they're collected long term or once via a tower dump. The tracking was the issue here, but Carpenter changed how courts view cell site location info.The state of Massachusetts has its own constitution to factor in as well. And in some cases, state constitutions have proven more protective of rights than the US Constitution, which is considered to be the floor for rights, rather than the ceiling.Thomas F. Harrison covered the oral arguments in the Massachusetts Supreme Court for Courthouse News Service. And from what's reported here, it appears the justices aren't all that keen on pretending working backwards from untargeted data dumps isn't the sort of thing the public expects to be happening with the phone records they generate simply by taking their phones wherever they go.

The history of copyright can be seen as one of increasing control by companies over what ordinary people can do with material created by others. For the online world, the endgame is where copyright holders get to check and approve every single file that is uploaded, with the power to block anything they regard as infringing. That digital dystopia moved much closer two years ago, with the passage of the EU Copyright Directive. At the heart of the Directive lies precisely these kind of upload filters – even though the legislation's supporters insisted that they would not be needed. When the law was safely passed – despite voting issues – only then did they admit that upload filters would indeed be required.The parts of the EU Copyright Directive dealing with upload filters are so badly crafted that most of the EU’s Member States are struggling to implement them in their national laws in any coherent way. This means the full impact of the legislation's upload filters won't be known for some time.Until then, we can look at the real-life effects of a similar approach, as used by YouTube. Content ID is a digital fingerprinting system developed by Google at great cost – around $100 million by 2018 – which is designed to spot and block allegedly infringing material on YouTube. Content ID’s flaws are well known, particularly in terms of overblocking perfectly legal uploads. This is the fundamental problem with all upload filters: there is no way that an automated, algorithmic system can encompass the complexities of global copyright laws, which even trained lawyers struggle with. The problem of overblocking is widely known on an anecdotal basis, but we have not had reliable data about the scale of the problem. That has finally changed with the release of YouTube’s first Copyright Transparency Report. The Kluwer Copyright Blog has a good analysis and summary of the report by Paul Keller, Director of Policy at openfuture.eu:

It remains somewhat surprising to me how many people who have ideas for Section 230 reforms clearly do not understand the law and how it works. Perhaps much more surprising is that, when experts try to highlight where their analysis has gone wrong, these "reformers" double down rather than correct their previous faulty assumptions. Dean Baker is a fairly well-known economist whose views on copyright we've highlighted in the past for being quite insightful. Unfortunately, Baker seems to feel that his insight in these other areas allows him to skip the basics on Section 230, defamation law, internet business models and the like. A year ago he wrote two separate very wrong and very confused blog posts advocating for the full repeal of Section 230. Both of them misunderstand how 230 works, its interplay with the 1st Amendment, and how defamation law works.I had planned to write a response to them last year, but never got around to it. However, Baker is still at it, and after Jeff Kosseff and I spent some time trying to explain some fairly basic principles that you need to understand in order to explore the trade-offs in any Section 230 reform proposal, Baker wrote a long thread ignoring the points we raised, and insisting that his plan for 230 reform wouldn't run into any issues. He's wrong, and despite my going back and forth with him over a dozen times, it's become clear that he has no interest in exploring or correcting the mistakes in his analysis. That said, I do think that he makes so many fundamental errors, that it might be useful to go through his thread to explain to other, more open-minded folks, the very significant challenges in these plans to reform Section 230.Baker's latest proposal is apparently no longer the full "repeal" of Section 230 he wanted a year ago, but now just that only subscription supported sites (with no advertising) get the benefits of Section 230. As laid out in his thread, the underlying theory is that Facebook is too big, and by removing Section 230, this would force Facebook to downsize. This is wrong for a bunch of reasons, some of which we've explained before, but we'll get there. He seems to no longer support a full repeal of Section 230 because people highlighted how it harms other sites. So his new version is that Section 230 is only removed for sites that have advertising as their main business model under the (incorrect) theory that this will magically create a world where every site other than Facebook moves away from ads to subscription only, and that somehow makes Facebook smaller. Substacks for everyone!So, again, the keys to Baker's plan seem to be that by removing Section 230 for ad supported sites, it somehow (1) forces Facebook to shrink and (2) forces paywalls all over the internet. And this is somehow good. Both assumptions are fundamentally wrong -- but it's important to understand why, because this mistake is made by too many people who haven't bothered to take the time to understand Section 230.Section 230 does not provide an outsized benefit to Facebook -- instead, it protects everyone else significantly more than it protects Facebook.This is one thing that many, many people fundamentally misunderstand about Section 230. They think that because Section 230 "protects" Facebook and Facebook is so big, that Section 230 protects Facebook more than it protects others, and therefore any removal of 230 protections will have a greater impact on Facebook than other sites.The problem with this is that the real benefit from Section 230 is not the underlying protection from liability, rather it's the procedural benefits that 230 provides that help companies get out of frivolous lawsuits at an earlier stage. We've discussed this before a few times, but many people seem to miss it. There are two important issues as it relates to liability for websites in cases that try to drag them in: (1) what is the likelihood of any underlying cause of action actually leading to liability (outside of Section 230) and (2) how expensive is it to find out whether or not that liability sticks.In the vast majority of cases, there is no underlying cause of action that will create liability. We've actually seen this in action in the few cases that get past the Section 230 hurdle. One of the most famous cases that chipped away at Section 230 protections was Fair Housing v. Roommates, in which the court determined that, while Section 230 protected Roommates.com from content that other users created, it did not protect the company from liability for the pull down menus that it created itself.Many people think this means that Roommates.com lost the case, and very, very few people realize that years later Roommates.com still won, when the courts determined that even though 230 didn't kick the case out early, Roommates.com still didn't actually violate the law. The same is true of the other big 230 exception case, the more recent Enigma Software v. Malwarebytes case, in which the court (somewhat bizarrely) argued that Malwarebytes doesn't get Section 230 protections in cases where a malware designation might be deemed anti-competitive. But, in the end, many years later, Malwarebytes still won.Again, the key benefit to Section 230 is not that it removes all liability, but rather that it gets cases dismissed very early on, cases that would have almost no chance if they went through the full litigation process. In other words, it's a form of protection against frivolous lawsuits, and the main mechanism involved is getting cases dismissed earlier, rather than years (and millions of dollars later). That helps smaller companies way more than it helps Facebook. Facebook has all the money in the world and it can afford to litigate these cases all the way through. It would cost the company pocket change, but the company would likely still win in the end.Smaller companies, on the other hand, cannot afford the costs. Getting a case dismissed on 230 grounds might cost six figures. Having to go all the way through the full litigation is more like 7 or 8 figures (depending on circumstances). Facebook can find that money in the seat cushions of their office couches. Smaller companies cannot.Dean also appears to not understand how defamation law works at all. In his thread, he seems to think that without Section 230, if someone posted something defamatory that would automatically make Facebook liable for the defamation:

India's Information Technology Act has been problematic since its inception. Almost a decade ago, it was deployed to justify the arrest of an Indian citizen who'd done nothing more than criticize a politician, insinuating the politician had used his position to amass personal wealth.Once the politician complained, the government ignored available libel law, which would have resulted in a civil case and opted to use a clause of the IT Act which allowed prosecution for "sending an email or other electronic message that causes annoyance or inconvenience." That's how the law was used in 2012.The 2021 version of the law is much more dangerous. Folding into the act passed in 2000 are new rules about national security. This escalates the Act's abusability, since nearly anything can be called a threat to national security and drastically limits the defenses those targeted by this part of the act can raise.Added into this revision are new mandates for social media companies, which allows the government to hold companies responsible for content created by their users. There's a long list of forbidden content that starts with child sexual abuse material and terroristic content and ends with things like "promoting tobacco use," "blasphemy," and "harms minors in any way."It is those changes that have resulted in the banning of 20 supposedly "anti-India" YouTube channels.

The OMNIA Q5 power station is specifically designed to support iPads, Apple Watch, iPhones, AirPods, and Apple Pencil simultaneously while providing optimum charging ability, and storage convenience with the necessary safety features in place. The charging station & the charging pad can be used separately. It's on sale for $99.95 and if you use the code CYBER20, you'll get an additional 20% off.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.

Senator Amy Klobuchar really is taking to her role as the Senator most eager to set up a Ministry of Truth in the government. Klobuchar has always been terrible on tech/internet issues, but she's really taken it to a new level in the past year or so. Over the summer, she released a blatantly unconstitutional bill that literally would empower the Director of Health & Human Services to declare what counts as health misinformation and make social media websites liable for it (imagine how that would have played out under a Trump administration -- because Klobuchar apparently can't remember that far back).Last week, she sent a ridiculous letter to Mark Zuckerberg demanding he explain Facebook Meta's handling of misinformation regarding the election. A dozen other Senators -- including many who have unfortunately long histories grandstanding against the internet -- signed on to the letter as well.

For years the broadband industry has successfully convinced the U.S. government to remain fixated exclusively on broadband coverage gaps, not the overall lack of broadband competition. That's in part because they've known for decades that substandard maps mean policymakers have never really known which areas lack or need access. That's helped create an ecosystem where we throw billions upon billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies at regional monopolies every year, in exchange for broadband networks that are routinely half-completed.With a record $42 billion broadband investment on the horizon, the industry is obviously worried that some of that money might go toward (gasp) added competition. As in, not just used to expand access to the estimated 20-40 million Americans without broadband, but funding to help bring new competitors to the estimated 83 million Americans living under a broadband monopoly. That regional monopolization, as we've long documented, is why U.S. broadband tends to be expensive, spotty, slow, and with terrible customer service.Of course you can't just come out and acknowledge you don't want money going toward encouraging broadband competition, even though more competition would greatly benefit consumers, small businesses, and countless internet-based economies. So instead the industry's biggest players (and the politicians and regulators paid to love them) like to complain about "overbuilding," or the act of creating "duplicative" broadband networks in "already served" areas. This is generally framed in such as a way as to make it sound as if broadband in most parts of the country is already wonderful, and spending any money to expand access in these "already served" areas would be completely wasteful.That rhetoric and language was quick to pop up in a House Republican letter sent to the two agencies overseeing fund distribution: the NTIA (pdf) and FCC (pdf). In the letters, lawmakers profess they're just super duper worried about the potential for waste:

In early 2019, a whistleblower revealed some ugliness emanating from the United Arab Emirates: former NSA analysts working for a private company hired to perform counterterrorism work for the government were spying on journalists, activists, and the occasional American citizen on behalf of their royal benefactors.Why these analysts were working for known human rights abusers was unclear. Why they decided this work should involve targeting people who weren't terrorists, but rather critics of the UAE government, was similarly left unexplained. The program was called Project Raven and former employee Lori Stroud was the only person involved willing to speak publicly about its activities. Everyone else -- from the NSA to the UAE government -- refused to comment.More than two years later, the harms perpetrated by these former analysts were given a price tag. Three former US intelligence community analysts (two of which worked for the NSA) were fined $1.68 million for utilizing powerful hacking tools to target dissidents, activists, journalists, and the occasional American citizen for the UAE government. The tools used included "Karma," which was capable of remotely compromising targets' phones without any interaction from phone owners, allowing for wholesale collection of photos, emails, text messages and location information.Over the years covered in the indictment (which resulted in the fines mentioned above), the analysts began with Project Raven, which migrated from Cyberpoint (a company associated with Italy's infamous Hacking Team), before finally ending up as a wholly-UAE-owned company called Darkmatter.It's this company that's now being sued by one of its targets, a Saudi activist represented by the EFF.

Horizon Worlds is a VR (virtual reality) social space and world building game created by Facebook. In early December, a beta tester wrote about being virtually groped by another Horizon Worlds user. A few weeks later, The Verge and other outlets published stories about the incident. However, their coverage omits key details from the victim’s account. As a result, it presents the assault as a failure of user operated moderation tools rather than the limits of top-down moderation. Nevertheless, this VR groping illustrates the difficulty of moderating VR, and the enduring value of tools that let users solve problems for themselves.The user explains that they reported and blocked the groper, and a Facebook “guide”, an experienced user trained and certified by Facebook, failed to intervene. They write, “I think what made it worse, was even after I reported, and eventually blocked the assaulter, the guide in the plaza did and said nothing.” In the interest of transparency, I have republished the beta user’s post in full, sans identifying information, here;

It's becoming quite a theme: basically every industry is blaming the internet for anything wrong happening in their industry and the legacy media is more than willing to help out. The latest is the supposed "surge" in shoplifting and retail crime. You've probably seen the stories, and maybe the shaky video coverage of the big smash and grab runs at some big San Francisco stores. This is being leveraged by those retailers in a variety of ways, including in a push to roll back policing reforms, but also to attack the internet. We've talked about the problems of the INFORM Act, which is being pushed heavily by large retailers. If you read that letter (sent to Congressional leaders by a bunch of big retailers), it uses those stories of theft to say we need to pass new regulations about internet sales:

To be subservient to the Chinese government is to be in a constant state of (mandated) denial. The government has a narrative to project. No, that's not an accurate depiction. The state has a narrative to enforce.An obscene amount of oppression and death is apparently nothing to be ashamed of. And how could the government be ashamed of it? It never happened. Whatever violence Chinese citizens saw perpetrated against them was merely the actions of a heroic and patriotic government, inflicting death and misery for the greater good. Of course, the only beneficiaries of this "greater good" are those inflicting death and misery. Hence the friction between fact and government fiction.To make things easier for the people who serve the government (rather than the other way around), the Chinese government has spent years trying to eliminate the friction. Having a singular narrative may not fool people, but it at least gives them an official timeline to follow, which makes it easier to maintain "citizen scores" and stay off the radar of a government more interested in curbing thoughtcrime than actual crime.The Chinese government's steady incursion into the day-to-day activities of Hong Kong residents has been greeted with heated, sustained protests from residents of the region, as well as international condemnation. Neither of these reactions have slowed the Chinese government's roll. Neither has its tacit agreement with the British government to leave Hong Kong unmolested until 2049. Since 1999, the Chinese government has inflicted its will on the extremely profitable region, stripping it of the democracy and independence that allowed it to flourish.When regular laws just weren't effective enough in shutting down Hong Kong protests, the Chinese government introduced a new national security law. With this vague and easily abused justification for crushing dissent, the Chinese government made resistance untenable by threatening protesters and critics with life sentences for daring to challenge the narrative.Then it began erasing history. The Chinese government had already cleared the slate in China, eliminating its past misdeeds by rewriting textbooks, jailing dissenters, and creating an insular web overseen by multitudinous censors. Then it came for Hong Kong, using its "national security" pretext to jail journalists, target documentarians, and prevent artistic works challenging the official narrative from being displayed.Now, it has come for the last physical remnants of its checkered past. Erasure is here if you want it. If you have no monument to atrocities, did the atrocities even happen?

Aspiring filmmakers, YouTubers, bloggers, and business owners alike can find something to love about the Complete Video Production Super Bundle. Video content is fast changing from the future marketing tool to the present, and in these 10 courses you'll learn how to make professional videos on any budget. From the absolute basics to the advanced shooting and lighting techniques of the pros, you'll be ready to start making high-quality video content and driving viewers to it in no time. This bundle will teach you how to make amazing videos, whether you use a smartphone, webcam, DSLR, mirrorless, or professional camera. It's on sale for $35 and if you use the code CYBER20 you'll get an additional 20% off.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 noted for years how U.S. telecom giants aren't particularly competent when it comes to wandering outside of their core competencies (building and running networks, lobbying the government to hamstring competitors). As government pampered regional monopolies who haven't had to try particularly hard for decades, stuff like competition, innovation, adaptation, and creativity are often alien constructs.It routinely shows in the failed products they try to launch: mobile payment platforms that share names with terrorist organizations; Millennial-targeting streaming video platforms nobody actually wanted to watch; news websites that aren't allowed to write about the news; "me too" apps, app stores, and other products that can't compete.AT&T in particular has showcased telecom's knack for face plants with its $200 billion acquisitions of DirecTV and Time Warner, which was supposed to cement the telecom's place as an advertising and mobile media giant. Instead, the company somehow managed to lose millions of subscribers while laying off tens of thousands of employees, despite receiving no shortage of regulatory favors and tax breaks to make it easier to succeed.After recently spinning off the entire media fiasco, AT&T's now jumping ship from its ad ambitions as well as it tries to recover from the massive debt load creating by its megamerger fiasco. The company last week quietly announced it would be selling Xandr, its programmatic advertising marketplace, to Microsoft:

It's always fun to watch each new entrant into the social media market that rushes in claiming that it is the "true" supporter of "free speech" learn about the necessity of some level of content moderation. We watched it happen with Parler, the site set up by Trump benefactor Rebekah Mercer. And now we're watching it happen with former Trump spokesperson Jason Miller -- who is so supportive of "free speech" that he once sued a news org for reporting on something he didn't want public (he lost badly and was told to pay legal fees). GETTR has already had some fun learning that content moderation is necessary (and not a necessary "evil" -- just necessary). But now it's gone up a level.Of course, it was just a month ago that Miller was running his mouth, attacking Twitter and claiming that Jack Dorsey was "strangling free expression" at Twitter and "censoring opinions he doesn't like."So it seems noteworthy that just a few weeks later, it's Miller who is... doing the same thing. Specifically, GETTR banned Nick Fuentes, a pathetic wannabe neo-Nazi, who seems to spend all of his time just trying to troll people into being mad about what a sad little white nationalist he is. GETTR claimed that Fuentes violated its terms of service which, um, is the same thing that Twitter does when it bans people because that's how it works.But then GETTR went even further -- including much further than anything I've seen Twitter ever do. It started banning a word associated with Fuentes and his followers: "groyper." It's not worth getting into the history of groyper, but suffice it to say, it started as an alternative to the old alt-right co-opting of the Pepe the frog cartoon, and then just became a truly pathetic chant that Fuentes' followers chant as a sort of talisman to make sure they ward off anyone with more than a dozen brain cells. Anyway, Fuentes' little band of misfit children started filling up GETTR with "groyper spam" to protest the ban of Fuentes, and so Miller and GETTR just... decide to ban the word "groyper" from the site entirely. As the Daily Beast discovered, it's just not allowed at all.Say what you want about Twitter "strangling free expression" but I don't recall the company ever blocking your ability to post a single word in an effort to stop a bunch of sad edgelord teenagers from overflowing the site with protest spam. And, of course, as anyone with more than a little bit of experience in the content moderation space knows, doing simple word filter bans is not just silly, but also totally ineffective, as Arizona's dumber-than-you-can-believe State Senator Wendy Rogers highlighted with the addition of a few "o's":The key point here is that every website needs some level of content moderation or it becomes a total and complete cesspool that is basically unusable. Every website realizes that eventually. The idea that GETTR is any more "supportive of free speech" is nonsense. It just has a different set of rules that it will enforce somewhat arbitrarily, and it will make mistakes just as Twitter, Facebook, and other sites make mistakes. Of course, as a marketing tool, GETTR will continue to lie and claim that it is somehow uniquely more supportive of free speech, when that's all a bunch of nonsense.

In a spectacular bit of self-ownership, the Dallas Police Department (DPD) took to Facebook to brag about stealing money from a person at Love Field Airport.If you can't read the text or see the picture, it's a photograph of a Dallas PD drug dog standing next to several piles of money. The caption, written by the DPD, says:

Racism and policing go hand-in-hand. It's been this way ever since police forces were created for the purpose of tracking down escaped slaves and returning them to their owners. Flash forward 150 years and very little has changed other than the ending of slavery.Unsurprisingly, the advent of social media platforms and the increase in smartphone use has exposed the racism that still flows through far too many law enforcement agencies. Multiple investigations have been triggered by the exposure of bigoted communications between officers. It hasn't exactly resulted in a nationwide reckoning for racist officers, but it has at least seen a few bad apples tossed from barrels across the country.If cops aren't worried about what happens to them -- as is evidenced by their carefree deployment of casual racism -- it's doubtful they're too worried about what happens to the general public. They claim to be the thin blue line standing between us and criminal chaos, but their racist words are erasing that line, allowing criminal suspects to return to the streets.The Torrance Police Department in California is the epicenter of the latest garbage racist cop shitstorm. And rightfully so, given what's been uncovered there. Convictions and pending criminal cases are now in jeopardy because of officers texting each other things like this:

Don't kid yourselves, techbros. Predictive policing is regular policing, only with confirmation bias built in. The only question for citizens is whether or not they want to pay tech companies millions to give them the same racist policing they've been dealing with since policing began.Gizmodo (working with The Markup) was able to access predictive policing data stored on an unsecured server. The data they obtained reinforces everything that's been reported about this form of "smarter" policing, confirming its utility as a law enforcement echo chamber that allows cops to harass more minorities because that's always what they've done in the past.

We've long written about how you don't really own what you buy in the modern era. Books, games, and other entertainment can stop working on a dime due to crappy DRM. Game consoles you've purchased can find themselves suddenly with fewer features. Or worse, hardware you've bought thinking you'd own it for a decade can wind up being little more than a pricey paperweight.But quite often, products that should work for years just slowly stop being supported, leaving you with hardware that gradually becomes less and less useful. We saw this recently when Sonos initially bricked still working (and expensive) speakers. The phenomenon popped up again this week when Google announced that its OnHub router, launched back in 2015, will no longer be supported starting next year. The products will still technically function as a basic router, but they'll no longer see security updates, and many of the cloud-based functionality and advanced features will be stripped from the devices.To be clear this isn't an end of the world type of scandal. Google's providing 40% discounts to OnHub owners off of new Google routers (which will experience the same fate in a few years). The Hub also had some initial performance problems, and was quickly supplanted in Google's lineup by its Google WiFi (now Nest) products a year after they launched. But the downgrades are still part of an annoying shift in which companies hype all manner of cloud-based functionality at launch, then gradually strip functionality away once they no longer want to pay to support their own products: