Techdirt

You may have heard that in recent days a series of deepfake videos appeared on TikTok of a fake Tom Cruise looking very Tom-Cruise-ish all while doing mostly non-Tom-Cruise-ish things. After that series of short videos came out, the parties responsible for producing them, Chris Ume and Cruise impersonator Miles Fisher, put out a compilation video sort of showing how this was all done.As you can see, this was all done in the spirit of educating the public on what is possible with this kind of technology and, you know, fun. Unfortunately, some folks out there aren't finding any fun in this at all. Instead, there is a certain amount of understandable fear for how this technology might disrupt our lives that is leading to less understandable conclusions about what we should do about it.For instance, some folks apparently think that deepfake outputs should be considered the intellectual property of those who are the subjects of the deepfakes.

Summary: In 2012, the Huffington Post did an exposé on eating disorder blogs, mainly on the site Tumblr. It discussed the world of “thinspo” and “thinspiration” blogs, that focused on building a community around losing unhealthy amounts of weight. In response, Tumblr announced that it was banning “self harm” blogs, and classified eating disorder blogs among those no longer allowed.Three years later, a study by Munmun De Choudhury discussed how there was still eating disorder information on Tumblr, but that it was mainly split into two different categories: those who were supportive of eating disorders such as anorexia (referred to as “proana”) as well as communities built up around recovering from eating disorders. One interesting finding of the report was that the “recovery” groups often used the same keywords and messaging, in an attempt to permeate among the “proana” groups, in order to try to encourage those with eating disorders to seek support, therapy, and help towards recovery.That same year, Amanda Hess argued in Slate that the rush to ban content about eating disorders on social media (or, in the case of France, where such things were outlawed) was the wrong approach.

There was a time not too long ago when tech companies enjoyed broad public support and adulation. Now they face widespread opposition and criticism from almost all corners. The shift from one to the other has long been called the "techlash", but it's always been unclear where it really came from and how it happened, and especially what role tech journalism and company communications played. This week, we're joined by Dr. Nirit Weiss-Blatt, author of the new book The Techlash and Tech Crisis Communication, for a deep dive into the story of the techlash phenomenon and how companies are reacting to the new dynamic.Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

If everyone's going to be talking about Dr. Seuss, then we need to talk about this terrible decision from the Ninth Circuit a few months ago. Not to validate the idea of "cancel culture" in the particular way it's often bandied about as a sort of whining over people not wanting to be associated with certain ideas, but because when law takes away the ability to express them in the first place, that's censorship, it's an affront to the First Amendment, and it's something we all should be outraged about. And, as this case illustrates, the law in question is copyright.We've written about this case, Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. ComicMix LLC, 983 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2020), many, many times before: some people wrote a mash-up using Seussian-type imagery and Star Trek vernacular to express new ideas that neither genre alone had been able to express before. And Dr. Seuss's estate sued them for it.The little bit of good news: their trademark claim failed. Applying the Rogers test to determine whether the Lanham Act could support such a claim, both the district court and the appeals court agreed: it didn't.

Last week we wrote about the many, many, many constitutional problems with a bill proposed in Utah to try to tell internet companies how they can moderate content. As we noted, the bill clearly violates the 1st Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and is also pre-empted by Section 230.So, of course, it passed.The Salt Lake Tribune report has a stunning set of paragraphs that demonstrate that supporters of the bill not only ignored many, many experts telling them the constitutional problems with the bill, but they then pretended no one notified them of those concerns (this is blatantly false):

These Hybrid True Wireless Over-Ear Headphones come in an innovative design that includes an over-the-ear quality with the convenience of earbuds that snap into a portable Bluetooth speaker. Their design offers an ultra-secure fit and style to wear throughout the day. They feature a rich platform that is packed into 1/3 size and weight of other over-the-ear headphones. The best thing about these headphones is that you can enjoy 9 hours of battery use and charging while in speaker mode. With unparalleled accuracy in voice capture, you can immerse yourself in a seamless audio experience. They're on sale for $269. Use the coupon code LISTEN40 at checkout and get $40 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.

A bill [PDF] that's likely headed to a dead end at the governor's desk or a state court targets protected speech that might make some cops angry. The bill may end up dead, but the Kentucky Senate still needs to explain how it let the bill pass, considering it contains this very, very stupid addition, presumably courtesy of the bill's sponsor, Sen. Danny Carroll -- a former police officer.The bill converts free speech into a second degree misdemeanor. And it only targets speech that targets certain public employees.

AT&T had a damn good ride during the Trump administration. Not only did it convince Trump regulators to effectively lobotomize the nation's top telecom regulator (right before a pandemic, no less), the company got billions in tax breaks for doing effectively nothing. And while the government did sue AT&T over the Time Warner merger, that had more to do with making Rupert Murdoch happy than making life hard on AT&T (AT&T won the lawsuit anyway). All told, AT&T nabbed billions upon billions in regulatory favors, merger approvals, and tax breaks. In exchange the US public saw...58,000 layoffs.As another indication that AT&T's good times may be slowing down, the SEC filed suit against AT&T this week, accusing the telecom giant of leaking cell phone sales information to analysts and reporters to change their revenue forecasts for the company. This, in turn, let AT&T "beat" analysts' revenue forecasts in the first quarter of 2016, according to the SEC complaint (pdf). Technically, the SEC says AT&T violated the Securities Exchange Act and the SEC's Regulation "fair disclosure" rules, which "prohibit selective disclosures by issuers of material nonpublic information to securities analysts."Granted, this will now see a year+ of litigation ending it a tiny, pathetic fine (that could then be negotiated away to nothing), but it's still interesting to see regulators trying. From the SEC announcement:

We give government agencies a whole lot of power. That's the way the government works: we, the people, allow agencies to perform their duties with minimal interference and, in exchange, we theoretically benefit from these services we pay for indirectly.To perform their duties, agencies need a bit of runway. Discretion is theirs alone. We can hope to force external change, but internally, agencies operate without direct oversight from the people funding them. And when it comes to litigation, government agencies can usually dodge lawsuits, thanks to multiple levels of immunity. Qualified immunity shields public servants from accountability. Absolute immunity shields pretty much everything else.But there's a flipside, one we don't see all that often. The government can dodge a lot of accountability, thanks to its immunity stacks. On the other hand, it can't easily engage in litigation against the citizens signing its paychecks, thanks to Constitutional, judicial, and legislative protections.The government can only do so much when it feels besmirched. And it definitely can't do this sort of thing. Government officials can sue in their personal capacity. But they can't sue as a cohesive whole. That's the uptake from a short decision entered against a Native American tribe that decided to sue TV producers over some fictional stuff that happened in a fictional TV show. (via the Volokh Conspiracy)The Cayuga Nation -- a federally recognized Native American tribe that possesses land in New York, Oklahoma, and Ontario, Canada -- sued over its depiction in the Showtime series, Billions. In one episode, the Cayuga tribe was depicted as engaging in an illegal land deal -- one that involved bribery and blackmail.The tribe sued, claiming it had been defamed. But the court [PDF] handling the case points out the tribe is a governmental agency and, therefore, cannot engage in libel lawsuits. The First Amendment forbids this sort of government action, even if the government agency pursuing the claim operates outside of the federal government's purview.

The end of a crooked and corrupt era in Mississippi is still paying long-belated dividends to wrongly convicted criminals in Mississippi. The state that has defined "backwater" for so many years is slowly crawling out of its self-created gutter.Eddie Lee Howard has been freed. And it took "only" 26 years. Howard was convicted of murdering Georgia Kemp back in 1995. He was 38 at the time he was arrested. He is now 67. And he is being freed.The case was built on the testimony of two supposed experts, an overworked (and underqualified) coroner (Dr. Steven Hayne) and Dr. Michael West, a self-avowed "bite mark expert." In reality, state medical examiner Dr. Steven Hayne was just another cog in the conviction wheel -- a coroner who somehow managed to perform more than six autopsies a day.Radley Balko -- a longtime police accountability advocate -- has written a book about both of these men: "The Cadaver King and the County Dentist." Hayne only got his position because no one else stepped up to fill it. He certainly didn't have the credentials.

To be clear: Space X's Starlink low-orbit satellite broadband service won't revolutionize the broadband industry. The service lacks the capacity to service dense urban or suburban areas, meaning it won't pose much of a threat to traditional cable and fiber providers. With a $100 monthly price tag and $500 hardware fee, it's not exactly a miracle cure for the millions of low-income Americans struggling to afford a broadband connection, either.That said: if you're currently one of the 42 million Americans who lacks access to any broadband at all, the service, capping out at 100 Mbps, is going to be damn-near miraculous (if you can afford it). It's also going to be a major competitive challenge to the companies that not only compete for rural broadband attention (like WISPs, cellular providers, and last-gen satellite providers), but are busy elbowing out one another at the trough to grab a slice of taxpayer subsidies. Understandably, many of these companies are trying to slow Starlink by any means necessary.Last month, ViaSat urged the FCC to investigate Space X's very real impact on scientific research via light pollution (a genuine problem regulators have done bupkis about so far). Since the 80s, satellite systems have had a baked in exemption from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), excluding their businesses from environmental review. As Amazon and Space X fling tens of thousands of low orbit satellites into space, ViaSat is suggesting that exemption be reversed. ViaSat's motivations here are entirely selfish. But at the same time this is a real problem they're not wrong about.Dish Network is also trying to slow down Starlink a bit more creatively by telling the FCC the company's broadband plans could cause interference in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band:

There's an ongoing trial in (of all places) Iowa that cuts to the heart of First Amendment protections for journalists. Andrea Sahouri, an award-winning journalist for the Des Moines Register, was arrested last May during a protest resulting from the killing of an unarmed black man by Minnesota police officer Derek Chauvin.Despite attempting to identify herself as a member of the press, Sahouri was hit with a tear gas canister, pepper sprayed, and arrested for "failure to disperse." According to Des Moines police, Sahouri wasn't wearing any press credentials, something that has been acknowledged by both Sahouri and her editor at the Register.However, it's also not clear at this point that any order to disperse had been given, making anyone -- much less a journalist -- subject to arrest for not immediately leaving the area. The lack of press credentials could be a problem, but it's also being argued Sahouri was known by officers and should have been recognized as someone covering the protest, rather than participating in it. Journalists generally aren't subject to orders to disperse.Her newspaper issued this statement in its editorial against her prosecution:

We've been highlighting a wide variety of state bills from Republican-led legislatures that all attempt to attack Section 230. Nearly all of them are blatantly unconstitutional attacks on the 1st Amendment. Somewhat incredibly, the latest one from Tennessee might not actually be unconstitutional. That doesn't mean it's good. In fact, it's not just incredibly stupid, but demonstrates that the bill's authors/sponsors are so fucking clueless that they have no idea what they're doing. In effect, they'd be banning the state from investing any money it holds. To spite Section 230.The bill -- which is House Bill 1441 and Senate Bill 1011 -- from Representative Tim Rudd and Senator Janice Bowling represent such a lack of understanding of how literally anything works that it should embarrass both elected officials and anyone who ever voted for either of them. The bill is pretty simple: it bans the state from investing in any entity protected by Section 230. The problem with this? Almost every single person and every single company is, in some way, protected by Section 230. So, in effect, the bill bans the state from investing any of its money.Let's dig in on the specifics. The bill is pretty short and sweet. Here's the key part:

The Adobe Creative Cloud Suite Training Bundle has 8 courses to teach you how to effectively use the tools in the Adobe Creative Cloud Suite. You'll learn how to use Photoshop, Illustrator, Lightroom, Premiere Pro, Spark, and After Effects. Courses cover logo design, photo and video editing, and more. It's on sale for $34.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Ah, we were so young then. We excoriated the Obama administration for attacking and prosecuting whistleblowers at a faster clip than any other administration in history.This happened despite the fact Obama presided over some of the most historic leaks in history -- ones that kickstarted changes in surveillance programs and surveillance attitudes. The Obama Administration claimed to be the most transparent ever, but behind the scenes, it worked tirelessly to punish whistleblowers and leakers who were bringing actual transparency to entities that had long resisted it.The facts about the late, not-so-great Trump Administration are continuing to leak out. And Obama's enthusiasm for punishing professional and amateur transparency enthusiasts has been outdone by his successor -- a man who often engaged in leaking himself through his Twitter account. Here's Ken Klippenstein with the details:

To be clear, the US has always had a fairly pathetic definition of "broadband." Originally defined as anything over 200 kbps in either direction, the definition was updated in 2010 to a pathetic 4 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up. It was updated again in 2015 by the Wheeler FCC to a better, but still arguably pathetic 25 Mbps downstream, 3 Mbps upstream. As we noted then, the broadband industry whined incessantly about having any higher standards, as it would only further highlight the vast impact of monopolization.Unfortunately for them, last week, a bipartisan coalition of Senators wrote the Biden administration, urging it to adopt a more aggressive broadband definition. How aggressive? 100 Mbps in both directions:

Techdirt readers are by now all too familiar with how broken the DMCA takedown system is. But a recent post on TorrentFreak introduces us to some interesting new examples. It concerns the software review site ThinkMobiles. Apparently, it's a company registered in the Ukraine, and many of its authors seem to come from the region -- and nothing wrong with that. As TorrentFreak notes, ThinkMobiles is very protective of its articles. The Lumen database, which collects and analyzes requests to remove material from the Web, has 376 results for the company, representing many hundreds of potential takedowns. But TorrentFreak spotted that some of the most recent ones are particularly unusual:

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed and continues to change how life works for many of us in a variety of ways. We're learning just how underserved America is by our monopolistic broadband providers, for instance. Esports has come into fashion in ways never seen before as well. Work from home has become more normalized and school from home is the bane of parents everywhere, even when it's the best option available.And, with so much emphasis made on not traveling and on remaining socially distant, some had an idea to change how prospective university students perform the ritualistic "campus visit" during COVID times. The idea behind LiveCampusTours was to partner with local university students to provide a virtual tour of a school's campus and facilities.

There's a lot of competition for Worst Police Force in America. The NYPD is known for its casual approach to human life and its antagonistic approach to public records requesters. The Chicago PD operated its own black site to separate residents from their rights while interrogating them. The Pasco County Sheriff's Department thinks it should be in the business of turning students into criminals. The list goes on and fucking on.Enter the Vallejo (California) Police Department -- one that has apparently gamified the shooting of residents.

After a week of congressional hearings following a 16-month, bipartisan investigation into competition in the digital marketplace, it’s clear Republican and Democratic congresspersons alike are skeptical of Big Tech. That’s fine—healthy, even. But that doesn’t make rewriting antitrust legislation to allow Congress to pick winners and losers in the marketplace a good idea.A couple weeks ago, representatives on the House Committee on the Judiciary reconvened to discuss potential antitrust legislation and enforcement. Bipartisanship is usually a welcomed departure from petty politics, but last week, it may have established something far worse: consensus that antitrust laws should be rewritten to address Big Tech’s bigness. Without exception, all committee members expressed their desire to reign in the “gatekeepers,” but few considered the impact of their proposed solutions.During the hearing, congressmen levelled bold accusations against the so-called monopolies, from anticompetitive business practices to outright bullying. The most ironic of these criticisms came from Democratic Representative Pramila Jayapal, who rightly highlighted a “nexus between inequality and antitrust law,” but erroneously attributed it to Big Tech. If limited access, higher prices, and worsening consumer experience afflict the digital marketplace, the culprit will be the committee’s antitrust actions — not technology companies.Representative Jayapal and her ilk are pursuing antitrust reform because of their growing disdain for large technology platforms. Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook are too big and too powerful — that’s certainly arguable. These companies are far from perfect, but the application of antitrust law necessitates more than dissatisfaction with market dominance. Antitrust is built on the “consumer welfare standard,” which evaluates business conduct in the context of consumer harm. This standard has become controversial in recent years, but nevertheless has prevailed since 1979. It remains vitally important to ensure that consumers remain the focus of antitrust action, while simultaneously discouraging arbitrary and heavy-handed government interference in the market.Though the committee and its witnesses highlighted many instances in which small businesses are worse off than their larger competitors, they failed to clearly identify consumer harm. Americans should not be swayed by any government offer to make some businesses more successful than others. Success should be determined by consumers and the market, not legislators on Capitol Hill.Consumer harm is, however, a likely consequence of antitrust action. Many committee members and their witnesses expressed support for data portability mandates, which, similar to Europe’s GDPR and California’s CCPA, would require technology companies to provide users with access, copying, and transferring data capabilities. Data portability allows users to take their information from one platform and transfer it to a competing service, such as Twitter to Parler. This proposal received the most support because it’s innocuous. Unlike a telephone number, which still has value when transferred to another carrier, user data may not provide the same consumer power. For instance, if a consumer exports their data about buying preferences from Amazon, there isn’t much they can do with it. Another e-commerce platform may not be able to make use of the information, especially if it does not sell comparable merchandise. Most of these business silos will still exist, even if the digital barrier is broken down. As a result, data portability requirements will not be enough to reign in Big Tech.Their next solution, structural separation, would pack a bigger punch, but would simultaneously exacerbate inequality. These restrictions would prohibit large tech companies from operating in adjacent lines of business and force divestment where these lines are crossed. For example, antitrust regulators are entertaining the possibility of separating Amazon’s inventory storage and delivery business from the larger corporation. This would result in higher, inaccessible prices in a time when contact-free delivery serves vulnerable populations. Breaking up Big Tech would have significant consequences for consumers, especially those who are cost-conscious.These disastrous, unintended consequences have happened before. In 2012, to allay concerns about anti-competitive behavior from book publishers, Amazon was forced to raise the prices of its Kindle e-books. This had a real and burdensome effect, especially on young consumers. College students who struggle today to pay hundreds of dollars for their textbooks each semester were paying as little as $9.99 per book prior to antitrust enforcement..Line of business restrictions would also hamper human rights. Suppose Facebook is mandated by antitrust legislation to unwind its recent acquisitions. Facebook would need to sell WhatsApp, the encrypted messaging app used by human rights advocates and victims of totalitarian regimes. Since WhatsApp does not generate meaningful revenue, a sell-off would mean that it could no longer benefit from Facebook’s scale and may necessitate functional changes. This could manifest in the form of a paid subscription model, which would be less accessible, or the introduction of advertisements, which would compromise security for those who desperately need it.Antitrust will not create a fairer digital marketplace, but congressmen are still intent on using it to take down Big Tech. They’d like Americans to focus on gatekeeper power, but consumer welfare and equality are the real values on the line, and not in the way congressmen describe.Rachel Chiu is a Young Voices contributor who writes about technology and employment policy. Her writing has been published in USA Today, The American Conservative, and elsewhere. Follow her on Twitter: @rachelhchiu.

Back in December, the Copia Institute submitted comments to Senator Tillis, who wanted feedback on making changes to the DMCA. It was a tricky needle to thread, because there's a lot about the DMCA that could be improved and really needs to be improved to be constitutional. At the same time, having protection for platforms is crucial for there to be platforms, and we did not want to encourage anything that might lead to the weakening of the safe harbors, which are already flimsy enough. So our advice was two-fold: address the First Amendment problems already present with the DMCA, and check what assumptions were driving the reform effort in order to make sure that any changes actually made things better and not worse.None of that happened, however. The draft legislation he proposed earlier this year, called the Digital Copyright Act, or DCA, is so troubling we haven't even had a chance to fully explain how. But at least he invited public comments on it, so last week we submitted some.In short, we repeated our original two points: (1) as Mike wrote when it was originally unveiled the DCA, with its "notice and staydown" regime, has an even bigger First Amendment problem than the DMCA already does, and (2) the proposed DCA legislation is predicated on several faulty assumptions.One such assumption is that the DCA appears to regard Internet service providers as little more than parasitic enterprises that must only be barely tolerated, rather than the intrinsically valuable services that have given artists greater opportunities for monetization and developing audience reach. Indeed, it was the recognition of their value that prompted Congress to try to protect them with the safe harbor system in the first place, whereas the DCA would all but slam the door on them, crushing them with additional burdens and even weaker liability protections. Sure, the proposed legislation offers to throw them a few bones around the edges, but in major substance it does little more than put them and the expression they facilitate in jeopardy.And for little reason, because another significant misapprehension underpinning the DCA is that it helps creators at all. The DCA strengthens the power of certain copyright holders, certainly, but it doesn't follow that it necessarily helps creators themselves, who are often not the actual copyright holders. In fact, in certain art forms, like music, it is frequently the case they are not, and we know this from all the termination litigation where creators are having to go to great effort to try to recover the copyrights in their own works—and are not always succeeding.As we pointed out:

Remember Michael Pack? That's the Steve Bannon protégé who Trump appointed last year to head the US Agency for Global Media. USAGM is the organization that oversees Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Middle East Broadcasting and the Open Technology Fund. It was an open secret that Pack was appointed to turn those widely respected, independent, news organizations into pure Breitbart-style propaganda outfits. He wasted little time causing a huge fucking mess, firing a ton of people in a manner so upsetting that even Republican Senators were concerned. It also turned out that many of the people he fired... he legally had no right to fire.In the fall, things got even more ridiculous as it came out that Pack had been investigating VOA journalists to see if they were "anti-Trump" and then moved to get more power to directly dictate how VOA should be reporting. One of President Biden's first official acts in office... was to fire Pack, who laughably claimed that his being fired was "a partisan act" that would harm the credibility of USAGM.Meanwhile, the latest story, as revealed by NPR, is that Pack spent millions of tax payer dollars investigating staff throughout the various organizations to try to come up with reasons they could be fired. This was in response to the courts pointing out he couldn't just randomly fire people in these organizations.

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

John Oliver has demolished many institutions in his time (not literally, unfortunately, in most cases) as the host of HBO's Last Week Tonight. It's rare when a mainstream program chooses to address more esoteric matters often discussed at this website. But Oliver does it more than most and, for that, we truly appreciate him.His episode from last week dealt with drug raids. Our nation's drug warriors have decided any suspicion of non-violent crime should be met with an uber-violent response, possibly because they've watched just as many Hollywood movies as we have.When it comes to drugs and drug warrants, it's all hands on deck. Sometimes, law enforcement agencies are able to obtain no-knock warrants, which allow them to enter a residence without announcing their presence in order to "preserve evidence" and limit the possibility of a violent response.Let's handle the second thing first. There's a lot of evidence that suggests no-knock raids increase the possibility of a violent response because the first assumption a drug dealer might make is that a rival drug dealer/gang is raiding their house to end their lives, take their drugs, and grab a bit more profitable turf. Cops get killed. People get killed.Now, let's talk about the possibility of evidence being destroyed. We're talking about large amounts of drugs, paraphernalia, and weapons. As John Oliver points out, this is bullshit. Cops are raiding homes without announcing themselves to secure extremely minute amounts of evidence. And that's according to their own justifications:

As our recent Greenhouse policy forum on broadband made abundantly clear, COVID is shining a very bright light on US broadband dysfunction. The high cost of service, spotty coverage, slow speeds, and high prices are all being felt acutely in an era where having a decent broadband connection is the pathway to education, employment, healthcare, and opportunity. And after 25 years of US apathy to its telecom monopoly problem, COVID-19 is applying pressure on lawmakers and regulators in an entirely new way to do something about the 42 million without broadband, the 83 million under a monopoly, and the tens of millions who simply can't afford service due to limited competition.But it's not just high prices and spotty coverage that have proven to be an issue in the COVID era. In Kentucky, one of countless US states where local monopolies AT&T and Time Warner Cable (now Charter Spectrum) literally dictated state telecom policy for 25 years (with obvious results), a lack of broadband access is hampering the public's access to vaccines. Louisville, Kentucky high schoolers recently set up VaXConnect Kentucky to help seniors get access to their first and second shots. And they're finding themselves "surprised" to learn just how many people don't have access to a reliable, affordable connection:

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Stephen T. Stone with a response to a Parler defender insisting that, with regards to the platforms many bans, you have to ask people who got banned why they really posted:

So far, we've featured ~THE GREAT GATSBY~, The Great Gatsby Tabletop Roleplaying Game, Art Apart and There Are No Eyes Here in this series of posts about the winners of our public domain game jam, Gaming Like It's 1925. Today, we're taking a look at the winner of the Best Deep Cut category: Remembering Grußau by Max Fefer (HydroForge Games).Of all the entries this year, this game was the one that had the biggest emotional impact on our judges, with words like "moving" and "powerful" popping up repeatedly in their comments. The best description of Remembering Grußau is perhaps to call it a guided reflection on a piece of artwork — specifically, the 1925 painting of the same name by the Jewish surrealist painter Felix Nussbaum — and its meaning within the greater context of history, and the artist's life and eventual murder in the Holocaust. The game is simple, focused, and highly effective in prompting the player to meaningfully engage with the subject matter in a deeply personal way.A big part of how it accomplishes this is by inventively bridging the gap between digital and physical engagement. The game itself is built in Twine with very basic interactive fiction mechanics, but the player's most important action is taken offline: they are instructed to step away, write a letter to Nussbaum, fold it into an envelope, and keep it nearby for a day before returning to complete the game. When they do, they are asked to indicate the theme of the letter they wrote, and then given a response — but to see what that response is, you'll have to experience it for yourself.Remembering Grußau is somber and impactful, and it demonstrates that there are many different reasons that a growing public domain is important. We talk a lot about the radical, transformative ways new creators can make use of old material, but there's also great value on using new media to examine and explore old works in their pure, original form, introducing them to new people and uncovering new meaning within them. By focusing so closely and intensely on a single 1925 painting that isn't especially well known, and actively giving the player historical context and emotional prompts followed by a reflective task to complete, Remembering Grußau succeeds in doing this to an impressive degree, and is a worthy winner of the Best Deep Cut award.Play Remembering Grußau in your browser on Itch, and check out the other jam entries too. Congratulations to Max Fefer/HydroForge Games for the win! We'll be back next week with another game jam winner spotlight.

Way back in 2013, a class action lawsuit started by ex-UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon resulted ultimately in the NCAA found to have violated antitrust laws. The antitrust bit comes from a waiver the NCAA forces student athletes to sign that removes their ability to be compensated for their names, images, or likeness (NIL). While this restriction has been in place at the NCAA for eons, this case came about due to O'Bannon discovering that he was represented in EA Sports' NCAA Basketball game in a "classic" team loaded into the game.The knock on effect to all of this was that 2010 was the last year EA Sports offered its college basketball game and 2013, the year the lawsuit came about, was the last year the company made its vaunted NCAA Football game. The reason given by the company was that schools were shying away from those games to avoid further lawsuits. For the next seven years, EA Sports stuck to professional sports.But now, in 2021, the company has announced that the college football series is back.

Summary: Almost any platform that allows users to create accounts eventually has to deal with questions of identity and impersonation. Many platforms set up systems like “verified” or “trusted” users for certain recognizable accounts. Others focus on real name policies, or trying to verify all users. But services often discover challenges that come with celebrity users and verification.While it’s one thing to do verified accounts on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram that are often used for promotion and connection, dating site verification is a bit different and more complicated. Setting up fake personas on dating sites to lure people into misleading relationships (for a wide variety of reasons) is so common that it led to the creation of a whole new term: catfishing. Many dating sites now take user verification quite seriously, not just to avoid catfishing issues, but for the safety and protection of their userbase -- who, by definition, are usually trying to meet someone new with the hope of getting together in person.Bumble is a popular dating app which was built up around the premise of being safer, and more responsive to the needs of female daters. The site includes a verification feature that requests the user upload selfie poses that match poses in photos sent to the user -- which are then reviewed by a team member. The idea is that if a user were faking images by pulling them from online profiles or generating them via AI, it’s much harder to match the pose.Apparently, however, this form of verification ran into a problem when the actress Sharon Stone decided to use Bumble to meet potential dates. Users who matched with her, perhaps understandably, had difficulty believing that a famous Hollywood star would be using a dating app like Bumble, and they reported the account. Staff reviewers at Bumble were (again, reasonably) equally suspicious of the account, leading them to suspend it.Bumble quickly restored the account, and did so in a good natured way, wishing her luck in “finding your honey.”Decisions to be made by Bumble:

FBI Director Chris Wray needs to shut the fuck up about encryption.Let me explain sum up:For years, consecutive FBI Directors have claimed encryption is preventing law enforcement from doing law enforcement. And for years, public records, efforts by researchers, and court documents have shown encryption isn't much of an impediment to investigations.Most importantly -- in the FBI's case -- the agency overstated the amount of locked devices in its possession for years while agitating for encryption backdoors. It turns out the FBI's "locked device" spreadsheet performed some faulty math, greatly misstating the number of locked devices in its possession. While the FBI said it has over 8,000 impregnable electronics allegedly preventing law enforcement from investigating crimes, the correct amount is expected to be less than a quarter of that.That discovery was made in May 2018. The FBI has yet to provide an accurate count of these devices.So. Shut. The fuck. Up.Wray is shameless and incapable of shutting the fuck up, even after the agency admitted to Congressional oversight it really didn't know how many locked devices it had or how often encryption actually prevented investigators from investigating.And yet, here's Chris Wray, leveraging the January 6th insurrection to complain about encryption yet again.There doesn't appear to be any lack of open source data capable of aiding the FBI in its investigation of this event. Hundreds have already been charged for their participation in the raid on the US Capitol building.This event has forced US law enforcement to admit domestic terrorism is an actual threat -- a threat propelled mainly by white extremists and others aligned with the pathetic ideal that white makes right. This threat includes far too many law enforcement officers, who have also aligned themselves with the same ideals. That's why it's been ignored for so long and that's why it's a much bigger problem now than it should be.But here's what Chris Wray has chosen to focus on with his allotted testimonial time before the Senate: encryption. Wray says it's a "lawful access" problem. And he begins with what can only be considered an overstatement of the threat, considering the FBI has done nothing but overstate the problem for years.

As I'm pretty sure most of you know, Rep. Devin Nunes has been filing a ton of blatant SLAPP lawsuits trying to silence criticism and mockery of him, as well as critical reporting. Kind of ironic for a guy who co-sponsored a bill to discourage frivolous lawsuits and who has regularly presented himself as a free speech supporter. What kicked off those lawsuits, somewhat incredibly, was a satirical Twitter account, @DevinCow (mocking Devin Nunes for repeatedly holding himself out as a "dairy farmer" from Tulare California when it turns out his family farm moved to Iowa years ago).You may also know that at the time Nunes sued the satirical cow for making fun of him online, the @DevinCow account had a grand total of 1,204 followers. Within a couple days, @DevinCow had 400k followers and had surpassed Nunes' himself. Today the Cow has 772k followers and is one of the most interesting Twitter accounts online, with a huge pasture of followers. Pretty incredible.What a lot of people don't realize is that the case against the cow is still going on, and Nunes and his lawyer, Steven Biss, have constantly gone to fairly extreme lengths just try to figure out who is behind the Cow account. The craziest of all was that Biss used a totally unrelated case, that did not involve Nunes, and then abused his subpoena powers to ask Twitter to reveal who was behind @DevinCow, despite the Cow being totally unrelated to the case. Biss and Nunes made up some nonsense about how the cow was connected, but it was clearly ridiculous, and a judge rejected it.Of course, that raised lots of concerns about whether or not Nunes might abuse other methods to try to uncover the cow. Freelance journalist Shawn Musgrave filed a FOIA request with the Justice Department and the FBI to see if Nunes might have sought to use either organization to try to uncover the Cow's identity. After all, Nunes was (incredibly) the chair of the House Intelligence Committee and would have greater access to the FBI and its surveillance tools than just about any other Congressional Representative. Musgrave made it abundantly clear in his FOIA that he was not seeking to identify the Cow and did not want any information that might reveal the Cow's identity. He just wanted to know if the DOJ or the FBI had sought to uncover the Cow's identity.However, the DOJ and FBI have failed to comply, so now Musgrave is suing the DOJ to try to get them to actually properly respond to the FOIA request.

(Thispiece overlaps a bit with Mike’s piece from yesterday, “Howthe Third-Party Cookie Crumbles”;Mike graciously agreed to run this one anyway, so that it can offeradditional context for why Google’s news can be seen as ameaningful step forward for privacy.)Privacy isa complex and critical issue shaping the future of our internetexperience and the internet economy. This week there were two majordevelopments: first, the State of Virginia passed a newdata protection law,the Consumer Data Protection Act (CDPA), which has been comparedto Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation;and second, Googleannounced that itwould move away from all forms of third-party identifiers for Webadvertising, rather than look to replace cookies with newertechniques like hashes of personally identifiable information (PII).The ink is still drying on the Virginia law and its effective dateisn’t until 2023, meaning it may be preempted by federal law ifthis Congress moves a privacy bill forward. But Google’s actionwill change the market immediately. While the road ahead is long andthere are many questions left to answer, moving the Web beyondcross-site tracking is a clear step forward.We’rein the midst of a global conversation about what the future of theinternet should look like, across many dimensions. In privacy, onehuge part of that discussion, it’s not good enough in 2021 tosay that user choice means “take it or leave it”;companies are expected to provide full-featured experiences withmeaningful privacy options, including for advertising-based services.These heightened expectations—some set by law, some by themarket—challenge existing assumptions around business modelsand revenue streams in a major way. As a result, the ecosystem mustevolve away from its current state toward a future that offers aricher diversity of models and user experiences.Google’sPrivacy Sandbox, inparticular, could be a big step forward along that evolutionary path.It’s plausible that a combination of subscription services,contextual advertising and more privacy-preserving techniques forlearning can collectively match or even grow the pie for advertisingrevenue beyond what it is today, while providing users withcompelling and meaningful choices that don’t involve cross-sitetracking. But that can’t be determined until new services arebuilt, offered and measured at scale.Andsometimes, to make change happen, band-aids need to be ripped off. Byending its support for third-party identifiers on the Web, that’swhat Google is doing. Critics of the move will focus on theshort-term impact for those smaller advertisers who currently rely onthird-party identifiers and tracking to target specific audiences,and will need to adapt their methods and strategies significantly.That concern is understandable; level playing fields are important,and centralization in the advertising ecosystem is widely perceivedto be a problem. However, the writing has been on the wall for a longtime for third-party identifiers and cross-site tracking. Firefoxblocked third-party cookies by default in September2019; Apple’sSafari followed suit in April2020—Firefoxfirst made moves to block third-party cookies asfar back as 2013,but it was, then, an idea ahead of its time. And the problem wasnever the cookies per se;it was the tracking they powered.As forleveling the playing field for the future, working through standardsbodies is an established approach for Web companies to shareinformation and innovate collectively. Google’sengagement withthe W3C should,hopefully, help open doors for other advertisers, limiting anyreinforcement effects for Google’s position in Web advertising.Further,limits on third-party tracking do not apply to first-party behavior,where a company tracks the pages on its own site that a user visits,for example when a shopping website remembers products that a userviewed in order to recommend other items of potential interest. Whilefirst-party relationships are important and offer clear positivevalue, it’s also not hard to imagine privacy-invasive acts thatuse solely first-party information. But Google’s moves must becontextualized within the backdrop of rapidly evolving privacylaw—including the Virginia data protection law that justpassed. From that perspective, they’re not a delaying tacticnor a substitute for legislation, but rather a complementary piece,and in particular a way to catalyze much-needed new thinking and newbusiness models for advertising.I don’tthink it’s possible for Google to put privacy advocates’minds at ease concerning its first-party practices through voluntaryaction. To stop capitalizing totally on its visibility into activitywithin its network would leave so much money on the table Googlemight be violating its fiduciary duty as a public company to serveits shareholders' interest. If it cleared that hurdle and stoppedanyway, what would prevent the company from going back and doing itlater? The only sustainable answer for first-party privacy concernsis legislation. And that kind of legislation will struggle to befeasible until new techniques and new business models have beentested and built. And that more than anything is the dilemma I thinkGoogle sees, and is working constructively to address.Often,private sector privacy reforms are derided as merely scratching thesurface of a deeper business model problem. While there’s muchmore to be done, moving beyond third-party identifiers goes deeper,and deserves broad attention and engagement to help preserve goodbalances going forward.

The Complete QuickBooks Desktop 2021 Certification Bundle has 10 courses to help you manage your finances and get ready for tax season. These comprehensive courses will provide an understanding of QuickBooks Pro Desktop 2021, 2020, 2019, and 2018 in a format beneficial to both beginners and advanced users. You'll learn data input relate to invoices, bills, checks, deposits, purchase orders. You'll also learn how to generate reports, how to create budgets, how to analyze reports, how to perform bank reconciliations, and much more. The bundle is on sale for $35.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

As you may recall, Parler had filed a ridiculously weak antitrust lawsuit against Amazon the day after it had its AWS account suspended. A judge easily rejected Parler's request for an injunction, and made it pretty clear Parler's chances of succeeding were slim to none. Parler, which has since found a new host, had indicated it would file an amended complaint, but instead it chose to drop that lawsuit in federal court and file an equally laughable lawsuit in state court in Washington (though with some additional lawyers).Rather than claiming antitrust (which was never going to work) the new complaint claims breach of contract, defamation and deceptive and unfair practices. The complaint makes a big deal over the fact that in December Twitter and Amazon signed an agreement to use AWS for hosting some Twitter content, and hints repeatedly that Amazon's move a month later was to help Twitter stomp out a competitor. But this is all just random conspiracy theory nonsense, and not at all how any of this actually works.The defamation claim is particularly silly.

When T-Mobile was selling its $26 billion Sprint merger to regulators, it told anybody who'd listen that the deal would create a parade of new jobs. In a 2019 blog post that still hasn't been deleted (amateur move, guys), ex-T-Mobile CEO John Legere didn't mince words in his predictions:

I've been so focused of late on issues related to Section 230 in the US, that I've had barely any time to devote to the Digital Services Act in the EU, which is the EU's ongoing efforts to rewrite intermediary law in the EU. The reports I have followed have been a mix of concerns, with the admission that it at least appeared that EU politicians were trying to get a good grasp on the issues and trade-offs and not rush in with a totally horrible plan. That doesn't mean the end result is good, but so far it does not appear to be totally disconnected from reality, as with many similar proposals we've seen around the globe.Joan Barata has a good report looking at the the current state of intermediary liability in the latest DSA proposal and notes that it's... kind of a mess. Basically, as is often the case with intermediary liability laws, very few policymakers have experience with the actual issues, and thus they can't take into account how various provisions will actually work in practice. Frequently that means that proposals are worded vaguely, and no one will really know what they mean until after a series of lengthy, confusing, and expensive court decisions.As Barata notes, the DSA appears to retain the basic liability protections that have existed for the last two decades in the EU in the form of the E-commerce Directive (which is weaker than Section 230's protections in the US, but are roughly equivalent in saying that websites should not be held liable for 3rd party content). The big difference with the E-commerce Directive is that websites do need to remove content "upon obtaining actual knowledge or awareness" of "illegal activities." Of course, what exactly is meant by "obtaining actual knowledge or awareness" becomes a tricky question at times and did involve some lawsuits.The DSA, though, moves the liability situation further away from Section 230 and more to a DMCA style "safe harbor" situation, by establishing that knowledge can be obtained through "notices":

Way back in the simpler time of 2010, Mike wrote up an interesting piece on Twitter's trademark enforcement policies and how it handles third parties that interact with Twitter using Twitter-related terms. In short, Twitter built a reputation for itself in freely licensing these terms for use by third parties, believing that tools that made Twitter more useful were good for the platform overall. It was a smart, productive way of looking at protecting trademarks so as not to lose them to genericide.Which is part of what makes it sort of strange that Twitter seems to take the opposite tact when it comes to totally unrelated business entities attempting to trademark terms like "tweet."

In the post the other day about Utah trying to ignore Section 230 so it could regulate internet platforms, I explained why it was important that Section 230 pre-empted these sorts of state efforts:

Arizona appears to be moving forward with an interesting (though, potentially unconstitutional) bill to say that Apple and Google would need to allow alternative payment systems in their app stores. I think this bill means well in that it's targeting what appears to be a real issue: the control that Apple (especially) and Google (to a lesser, but still significant extent) have over getting apps onto iOS and Android devices. Both companies take a pretty large cut out of in app-purchases -- basically 30% (it's a little more complicated than that).The argument from both companies is that (1) it's their system and their providing value by creating the very platform that effectively allows all these apps to exist in the first place, and (2) part of the value of having a single app store model is that it allows for more security and privacy protections for end users (that's a big part of Apple's argument, certainly). Google is slightly more open in that it does allow for sideloading and even third party app stores, but it strongly discourages such practices. And, there is some validity to that argument... but it's also partially nonsense. For many apps, Google and Apple aren't really adding that much value, and for them to demand such a large cut seems silly. 30% is also... quite a lot. It's way more than other platforms in more competitive situations take, which often take closer to 5 to 10%. That certainly suggests some rent seeking.That said, the bill has some issues as well. The biggest being that this is a state bill, which likely makes it unconstitutional. Regulating Apple and Google services like that likely violates the Commerce Clause, which limits the states' ability to pass laws that regulate "interstate" commerce. It seems like if this kind of law is being written, it should be a federal law, rather than a state one.The other big question is what are the downstream impacts of such a bill. If Google and Apple rely on their cut of these in-app sales for revenue, and those effectively go away with such a law, then they're going to seek to make up that revenue elsewhere. Now, one hopes that they would do this by improving their offerings, adding additional value and figuring out ways to charge for those value-added features. And perhaps that would happen. But the fear is that the companies would seek to find a different revenue stream to tap -- such as charging for access to dev tools or even just to list an app on the app store. And, the end result of that might be to shut down or shut out smaller app developers.The other odd thing about this bill is that it literally exempts the equivalent situation with video game consoles (which also take a ~30% cut):

A couple of years ago, we discussed the somewhat ironic story of a German software company suing the United States Navy for pirating its software. The initial story was a bit messy, but essentially the Navy tested out Bitmanagement's software and liked it well enough that it wanted to push the software out to hundreds of thousands of computers. After Bitmanagement sued for hundreds of millions of dollars as a result, the Navy pointed out that it had bought concurrent use licenses through a third party reseller. While Bitmanagement pointed out that it didn't authorize that kind of license itself, the court at the time noted that without a contractual arrangement between the company and the Navy, the Navy had an implied license for concurrent users and dismissed the case.Bitmanagement appealed that ruling, however, arguing that the lower court stopped its analysis too soon. The story there is that such an implied license would require the Navy track concurrent users across its 500k-plus computers it installed the software on, but it appears the Navy didn't bother to track concurrent users at all.

Last summer as protests raged around the nation in response to the killing of an unarmed black man by a white Minnesota police officer, federal legislators offered up a solution to one of the hot garbage problems of our time. A federal police reform bill contained a number of fixes to policing in America, including one crucial element that would make it far easier for citizens to pursue lawsuits over rights violations: the termination of the qualified immunity defense.Over the years, qualified immunity has morphed from a limited protection for officers to allow them to make split-second decisions in dangerous situations to a blanket excuse for rights violations. Thanks mainly to the US Supreme Court, qualified immunity now shields officers from large numbers of legitimate accusations of rights violations. SCOTUS has shifted the emphasis to judicial precedent, rather than any discussion of the alleged violations brought before federal court judges. As long as law enforcement personnel violate rights in new ways that aren't covered by existing precedent, the officers are allowed to dodge lawsuits, juries, and fact-finding.The Supreme Court has made it easier for lower courts to dodge questions about rights violations -- and, in turn, prevent them from establishing new precedent -- by forcing them to defer to a limited test that only involves established precedent and a very limited examination of the facts of the case. Only recently has the Supreme Court realized it may have had this wrong. Two remands to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (the circuit most protective of cops) in the past few months indicate the nation's top court now feels the lower courts have followed its damaging instructions too closely.So, there may be hope going forward. But it will be slow in arriving and still somewhat limited by the Supreme Court's precedential blanket instructions on QI cases. Nonetheless, there is hope.What may be faster-acting is some federal legislation. Far too often, courts defer to legislators who seemingly have zero interest in deterring the wreckage qualified immunity has wrought. Asking politicians to go head-to-head with some of their most powerful supporters is kind of a non-starter. But if it's legislation courts are demanding, at least a few legislators are willing to give it to them.The last effort to eliminate qualified immunity died quietly, even as cities continued to burn. The effort has been renewed by a bipartisan group of legislators who have seen immunity and the damage done and refuse to offer their tacit blessing of this accountability escape hatch by doing nothing. Akela Lacy has more details for The Intercept:

With the Avanca T1 Bluetooth Wireless Earbuds, you can enjoy your favorite songs with complete wireless freedom. Enjoy deep bass and high-quality audio in a compact and stylish design. The earbuds automatically connect to your iPhone or Android phone via Bluetooth, allowing you to immediately listen to your favorite music. You can easily pause, resume, and switch to the next song via touch controls. You can also answer and hang up phone calls with just a tap on the earphones. These wireless earbuds are perfect for everyday use with a battery life of up to 30 hours. They're on sale for $29.95Note: 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 CIA has delivered a rather curious response to a records requester. J.M. Porup sent a FOIA request to the agency asking it for documents about its rather well-documented assassination attempts and received a very curious non-answer from the US's foremost spooks.

We've noted a few times how giant telecom providers, as companies that have spent the better part of the last century as government-pampered monopolies, are adorable when they try (then inevitably fail) to innovate or seriously compete in more normal markets. Verizon's attempt to pivot from curmudgeonly old phone company to sexy new ad media darling, for example, has been a cavalcade of clumsy errors, missteps, and wasted money.AT&T has seen similar issues. Under former CEO Randall Stephenson, AT&T spent nearly $200 billion on mergers with DirecTV and Time Warner, hoping this would secure its ability to dominate the pay TV space through brute force. But the exact opposite happened. Saddled with so much debt from the deal, AT&T passed on annoying price hikes to its consumers. It also embraced a branding strategy so damn confusing -- with so many different product names -- it even confused its own employees.As a result, AT&T intended to dominate the pay TV space, but instead lost 8 million pay TV subscribers since early 2017. Hoping to buy itself a little financial breathing room, AT&T has been shopping DirecTV around for months. But with few suitors interested in paying for a traditional satellite TV provider in the middle of a cord cutting revolution, AT&T instead last week settled on spinning off DirecTV and the rest of its pay TV operations into a new company. Under this new structure, AT&T will retain a 70% majority stake, with the other 30% being owned by private-equity giant TPG.As part of the deal, AT&T valued the new DirecTV at around $16.2 billion, a massive loss from the $67 billion (including debt) AT&T paid for DirecTV back in 2015. AT&T begrudgingly admitted in a statement this wasn't a particularly impressive feat:

Google made some news Wednesday by noting that once it stops using 3rd party cookies to track people, it isn't planning to replace such tracking with some other (perhaps more devious) method. This news is being met cynically (not surprisingly), with people suggesting that Google has plenty of 1st party data, and really just doesn't need 3rd party cookie data any more. Or, alternatively, some are noting (perhaps accurately) that since Google has a ton of 1st party data -- more than just about anyone else -- this could actually serve to lock in Google's position and diminish the alternatives from smaller advertising firms who rely on 3rd party cookies to bootstrap enough information to better target ads. Both claims might be accurate. Indeed, in the "no good deed goes unpunished" category, the UK has already been investigating Google's plans to drop 3rd party cookies on the grounds that it's anti-competitive. This is at the same time that others have argued that 3rd party cookies may also violate some privacy laws.And, yes, it's possible that it can be both good for privacy and anti-competitive, which raises all sorts of interrelated issues.In theory cookies should have been very pro-privacy. After all, they're putting data on end user computers where they have control over them. Users can delete those cookies or block them from being placed. In theory. The reality, though, is that deleting or blocking cookies takes a lot of effort, and while there are some services that help you out, they're not always great. In an ideal world, we would have built tools that made it clearer to end users what information cookies were tracking, and what was being done with that information -- as well as consumer-friendly tools to adjust things. But that's not the world we ended up in. Instead, we ended up in a world where the hamfisted use of 3rd party cookies is generally just kinda creepy. In the past, I've referred to it as the uncanny valley of advertising: where the advertising is not so well targeted as to be useful, but just targeted enough to be creepy and annoying by reminding you that you're being tracked.The actual death knell for 3rd party cookies happened a while back. Firefox and Safari phased out 3rd party cookies a long time ago, and Google announced plans to do the same a year ago, with an actual target date for implementation a year from now. Today's news was more about what happens next, with Google promising not to use some sneaky method to basically replace cookies with something even worse. There is a concerted effort by some to track you through a "hashed email address". This is really creepy and kinda sketchy.As a side note, a few years back, we were approached by a company doing this. They basically asked us to hand over a hashed set of emails we had collected. We looked over the details, and highlighted that they wanted us to use their hash, meaning that they could easily reverse the hash and figure out the emails. We explained that they must be mistaken, because that's really not all that different from just handing over emails, which would be a violation of our own privacy policy. We were told that, no, the whole idea was everyone had to use the same hash, and it was fine because the email addresses were hashed (ignoring the point we made about that being meaningless if everyone is using the same hash). We rejected this deal, even though they were actually offering decent money. I do sometimes wonder how many other publishers just coughed up everyone's emails, though.So, Google's latest point is that it's not going to use some other unique identifier, and recognizes that the hashed email based-identifier is a bad idea:

Way back in early 2019, we wrote about an odd story with a game developer DMCAing its own game on Valve's Steam platform over a dispute with its publisher. The short version of the story is that the developer accused the publisher of ghosting out on royalty payments, so the takedown allowed the developer to wrestle back control of the game and put it back up themselves. Steam, which has a reputation of being far more friendly to publishers than developers, in this case actually helped the developer wade through getting control of its game.And now, two years later, it's happening again. Frogwares, developer of The Sinking City game, issued a DMCA notice for the game to Steam. At issue again is the publisher, Nacon in this case, being accused of both of skipping out on royalty payments last summer and cracking Frogwares' game and altering it, putting out a completely unauthorized version. See, due to the royalty issues, Frogwares had already pulled the game off of digital storefronts last summer. Suddenly, Nacon published a new version of the game on Steam in the past few days. The details as laid out by Frogwares on that last bit are... quite a thing.

Summary: Formed as a more decentralized alternative to Twitter that allowed users to more directly moderate the content they wanted to see, Mastodon has experienced slow, but steady, growth since its inception in 2016.Unlike other social media networks, Mastodon is built on open-source software and each "instance" (server node) of the network is operated by users. These separate "instances" can be connected with others via Mastodon's interlinked "fediverse." Or they can remain independent, creating a completely siloed version of Mastodon that has no connection with the service's larger "fediverse."This puts a lot of power in the hands of the individuals who operate each instance: they can set their own rules, moderate content directly, and prevent anything the "instance" and its users find undesirable from appearing on their servers. But the larger "fediverse" -- with its combined user base -- poses moderation problems that can't be handled as easily as those presenting themselves on independent "instances." The connected "fediverse" allows instances to interact with each other, allowing unwanted content to appear on servers that are trying to steer clear of it.That's where Gab -- another Twitter alternative -- enters the picture. Gab has purposely courted users banned from other social media services. Consequently, the platform has developed a reputation for being a haven for hate speech, racists, and bigots of all varieties. This toxic collection of content/users led to both Apple and Google banning Gab's app from their app stores.Faced with this app ban, Gab began looking for options. It decided to create its own Mastodon instance. With its server now technically available to everyone in the Mastodon "fediverse," those not explicitly blocking Gab's "instance" could find Gab content available to its users -- and also allow for Gab’s users to direct content to their own users. It also allowed Gab to utilize the many different existing Mastodon apps to sidestep the app bans handed down by Google and Apple.Decisions to be made by Mastodon:

The government says we have no right to access information about its law enforcement "means and methods." To give these secrets away is to instigate a criminal apocalypse.That's the argument the government has made to protect everything from sketchy confidential informant testimony to Stingray devices. Even when the public has a pretty good idea about what's going on, the government still argues the public can't be trusted. Stingrays aren't a big secret anymore. And confidential informants are only trustworthy until the government decides they aren't and starts feeding them to the criminal justice system.The government has obligations to the public. Court cases have a presumption of openness -- what happens there can be accessed by everyone. To dodge this, the government seals cases and demands ex parte hearings that cut the defense side out of the equation.The government also avails itself of a number of private contractors. The government is big enough it can't do everything by itself. And it doesn't hurt that its contracts with private companies help keep some of its questionable activities out of the public eye.Ask a private company to do your dirty work and you can fend off judges and presumptions of transparency. Add law enforcement "means and methods" arguments to claims about trade secrets and you can wield the private sector against the public for as long as possible.For the most part this process works. Every so often a federal judge kicks back, prompting everyone involved to come up with better arguments as to why defendants shouldn't be allowed to take a deep look at the evidence being used against them.Government agencies have ditched cases when defendants have asked about cell tower spoofers or forensic software used to generate evidence against them. But they only do this when courts have decided the people whose life and liberty are at stake deserve answers.If a court doesn't act to intercede, the government will continue to wield the private sector against the public sector. In cases where proprietary software is involved, the government will allow private companies to assert that giving defendants a chance at a fair trial would undercut the contractors' ability to turn a profit.When these private entities intercede, they're asking the courts to declare it's more important for these companies to remain viable than allow Americans to fully exercise their rights.Fortunately, courts haven't always been sympathetic to the arguments the government has raised on behalf of its private contractors. One of the more frequent private intercessors have been DNA companies who argue that revealing their algorithms would cause the collapse of the private DNA-sequencing industry… starting with those who have aided the government the most.Not true, says at least one federal court. In at least one case involving DNA evidence, a federal court has said hiding behind trade secrets and confidentiality agreements doesn't serve the public. If the government wants to use evidence derived from proprietary software, it had better be ready to share that software with the person it's accusing of criminal acts.The EFF's intercession into another case involving DNA software and government/private sector secrecy has paid off for the defendant. The basic tenets of due process say criminal defendants must have access to the evidence used against them. Private contractors like Cybergenetics -- which is hoping to shield its "trade secrets" -- are subject to the same discovery rules that affect the government.A short ruling [PDF] issued by a Pennsylvania federal court says private contractors working with the government are obligated to hand over information to criminal defendants.The court resists the government's resistance:

When you're a natural monopoly in America you get away with a lot. Take for example Frontier Communications, which has spent the last few years stumbling in and out of bankruptcy while dodging no shortage of scandals, including allegations of subsidy fraud. Last year, Frontier got a light wrist slap for fraudulently charging its customers a "rental" fee for modems they already owned. The company also paid a tiny $900,000 fine last year to Washington State AG Bob Ferguson for using bogus fees to rip off the company's captive subscriber base.Of particular annoyance in consumer complaints has been the company's $4 per month "Internet Infrastructure Surcharge," which is a completely nonsensical, bullshit charge the company levies below the line. The surcharge doesn't really go to "infrastructure" (that's what your entire bill is for). What it does do is give Frontier a way to continually increase consumer prices while falsely advertising a lower rate. Other ISPs engage in similar behavior with little real penalty (see CenturyLink's "Internet Cost Recovery" fee).While the $900,000 Washington State AG fine is semi-helpful, like most US regulatory "penalties" it's a tiny fraction of the money made via the dubious business practice. And while the company stopped charging the fee in Washington, it still charges it across the rest of its 22 state footprint. Note that Frontier has 3,735,000 broadband subscribers, each paying $4 a month in completely erroneous surcharges. That's nearly $15 million in bullshit charges in just one month, or $180 million in dodgy revenue every year.Facing only a light wrist slap for the practice, Frontier seems intent on doubling down on this behavior. The company this week announced it will be bumping the fee to $7 per month. Frontier attempted to explain away the bogus surcharge this way:

In all honesty, we've been asking the police to do too much for years. If we really care about the most vulnerable members of our community, we would stop calling cops to handle it. But for years, that's been pretty much our only option. We call 911 and 911 tends to send cops to deal with people in the throes of mental health crises.This has worked out badly. Cops aren't trained to handle mental health issues. They're trained to apprehend criminals and meet latent threats with deadly force. People who just need a good doctor are ending up with bullets in them. In far too many cases, suicide threats end with the suicidal person dead. That's not what we want from the police. Unfortunately, that's all they really have to offer. And that's how courts end up excusing cops for, say, tasing a person doused in gasoline, ensuring the latent threat they poised became a reality, killing the person needing help, and burning down the house around him.Cities are beginning to take another approach to mental health issues. Wellness checks are better handled by mental health professionals. It's a conclusion that seems obvious but is rarely embraced by law enforcement and the local governments overseeing them. There's a time and place for law enforcement response. Someone suffering from mental health issues isn't a police matter. Neither is homelessness. Neither is bog standard trespassing, which often just means someone saw someone where they didn't expect to see someone.Routing these calls to people trained to respond appropriately works. A pilot program in Denver, Colorado just wrapped up six months of rerouting, resulting in no deaths, no wounding, and no arrests, despite handling more than 350 calls. Police still handle most 911 calls, but even in a part-time capacity, Denver's new mental health response team has shown an improvement over how these calls have been handled historically.And now it appears the largest police department in the nation will be handing off mental health calls to mental health professionals. The NYPD will no longer be handling some calls related to issues that really don't require a show of force in response. The program was first announced late last year in response to the killing of Daniel Prude -- a man suffering a mental breakdown -- by Rochester, New York police officers.