Techdirt

There were some questions as to whether or not Trump would actually go through with his threat to veto the National Defense Authorization Act, which has been passed and signed into law every year for the past six decades, but it appears that is the case. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has officially notified Congress that Trump is vetoing the NDAA... because they refuse to kill off the open internet.

The pandemic and associated lockdowns have underlined the incredible importance of broadband, and the many problems with it in America. This week, we're joined by Dane Jasper, CEO of Sonic — Mike's ISP, and one with a reputation for treating its customers well and speaking out against bad broadband policy and regulation — for an insider perspective on what's happening with US broadband in 2020, and where it might be going next.Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes or Google Play, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

Four years of Trump was more than enough time to weaponize federal agencies against journalists. The administration has routinely condemned critical press outlets as "fake news" and Trump's fervent embrace of border patrolling made it easier for the DHS and its agencies to abuse their power.The Constitution doesn't seem to matter much to those "securing" the nation. The CBP put a bunch of journalists, activists, and immigration lawyers on a watchlist, subjecting them to additional intrusive searches at border crossings and airports. The DHS tried to top this by compiling dossiers on journalists who covered anti-police brutality protests in Oregon, as well as journalists who had published leaked DHS documents.The assault on the Constitution continues, with another DHS component deciding the protections given to journalists aren't nearly as important as figuring out who's leaking government documents.

The NSA shut down its bulk phone records collection -- authorized under Section 215 -- after it became apparent it wasn't worth the effort. Reforms put in place by the USA Freedom Act prevented the agency from collecting it all and sorting it out later. Instead, it had to approach telcos with actual targeted requests and only haul away responsive records. The NSA somehow still managed to overcollect records, putting it in violation of the law. The NSA hinted the program had outlived its usefulness anyway, suggesting it had far better collections available under other authorities that it would rather not subject to greater scrutiny.But this didn't end the government's bulk records collections. It just ended the phone metadata program. The NSA still collects other records in bulk, including banking records and, oddly, books checked out by library patrons. The broad authority of Section 215 could be read to allow the government collect other records, like email metadata and internet activity. Reasoning that people voluntarily create records of their internet use by using third-party services to surf the web, the government hinted it could sweep these up just as easily as it had swept up call records.The government's attempt to collect internet history under this authority ran into some friction earlier this year when the Senate voted to block this collection. Senator Ron Wyden directly asked the director of national intelligence (DNI) to inform the Senate whether or not agencies under its purview had gathered internet use records under this authority. He received this answer.

The Retro Bluetooth Speaker adds a touch of old-school style to your space while letting you listen to your favorite music. It's bluetooth compatible and has a micro SD card slot. It measures 3.75 × 1.8 × 2.75 inches so it's very portable. 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.

AT&T's had a bit of a tough stretch lately. Saddled by massive debt from its $200 billion Time Warner and DirecTV mergers in recent years, the company keeps deciding to recoup that debt from its subscribers in the form of relentless price hikes. That, in turn, has resulted in millions of subscribers heading for the exits. In fact, AT&T has lost roughly eight million pay TV subscribers since 2017 -- not exactly the sector domination AT&T executives dreamed of when they first began their massive acquisition spree back in 2015.Normally, a company hoping to make inroads in a sector like TV (traditional or streaming) would try and focus more on not pissing its subscribers off. But as a government pampered telecom monopoly unfamiliar with things like competition, this is all alien territory for many AT&T executives. So, relatively unsurprisingly, the company is imposing all manner of new rate hikes across its AT&T broadband, TV, and DirecTV service options.That includes a $5 to $9 rate hike for many of DirecTV and AT&T's already pricey cable bundles, but it also includes entirely new bogus fees the company has introduced design to sound like a government-mandated surcharge, specifically designed so you'll get mad at government, not AT&T:

Last week we wrote about an effort in Congress, which appeared to be succeeding, to try to sneak through a controversial (and likely unconstitutional) copyright reform bill by adding it to a must-pass government funding bill. The ACLU has now stepped into explain why this a bad idea and should not move forward:

Police forces -- both local and federal -- greeted Portland protests with violence. To be sure, there were some violent protests. But officers of both varieties felt they should be able to target journalists and legal observers with the same force they were deploying against rioters.Once the feds rolled into town, things got worse. This was met with litigation, with journalists and observers asking the court to make the cops play by the normal rules of engagement. If journalists and observers weren't committing any crimes, they should be free to report and observe without fear of being beaten, shot at, or gassed.The court agreed. So did the court above it, albeit belatedly. Injunctions were granted, prohibiting the use of force against the plaintiffs. These injunctions were immediately violated, resulting in more litigation.It wasn't just the feds, although the feds were the most immediately noticeable violators of this court-ordered relief. The local police were having problems keeping themselves from greeting non-violent protesters with violence. A federal judge has just ruled that the Portland Police Department (PPD) violated his instructions and his restraining order on multiple occasions. (via Courthouse News Service)Back in June. Judge Marco Hernandez banned the use of tear gas by cops except in life threatening situations. Another modification to his order banned the use of rubber bullets and pepper balls against "people engaged in passive resistance." According to Hernadez's latest ruling [PDF], the Portland Police have continued to violate his orders.The court cites several instances detailed by protesters. In at least three cases, PPD officers violated the court's instructions on force deployment during a protest on June 30 -- less than a month after Hernandez issued his first order.

Another state is looking to join California in banning facial recognition tech by law enforcement. Massachusetts legislators have just passed a bill that would outlaw facial recognition use in the state, following up on similar bans passed by cities within the state.

This is insane. Earlier this year, we wrote about Rebekah Jones, the data scientist working for Florida, who put together that state's COVID-19 database (that had received widespread praise), and who was fired by the state for her failure to fake the data to make it look like Florida was handling the pandemic better than it actually was. Governor Ron DeSantis had made it clear he wanted data showing good results in order to justify reopening the state.As Jones herself explained after being fired:

We've heard a lot about the latest defense authorization bill in recent days, thanks mainly to President Trump's (empty) threats to withhold funding for the military (the guys he says he loves!) if it doesn't include a Section 230-stripping poison pill (aimed at the guys he hates!). Congress has belatedly developed a backbone and is threatening to override the President's promised veto -- something Trump is promising to do because, apparently, funding the military is less important than making sure people on Twitter don't treat him like the idiot he is.Trump's tantrum notwithstanding, the bill will pass with or without his support. No other mildly rational legislator actually believes preventing social media platforms from being sued over third-party content is a "national security" issue. Plus, the sitting president will soon be forced to stand, pack his shit into file boxes, and make his way towards the exit.There's some good stuff in the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act), even if you believe America isn't obligated to protect the world from everyone. Yes, America's war machine is a trillion dollar industry that shows little sign of slowing down. Its excesses allow cops to avail themselves of war gear and the nastiest end of its spectrum sends legislator-blessed death from above to perform extrajudicial killings.But, as Dan Friedman reports for Mother Jones, there's an addition to the latest NDAA that would prevent Gestapo-esque bullshit from being carried out by federal agents sent to quell anti-government protests in American cities. If this bill passes as written, there will be no more disappearing of protesters by unidentified federal cops. Going forward in 2021, federal law enforcement agents will have to be clearly identified while tossing protesters into unmarked vehicles.

It's 2020. The Internet should be reliable and powerful regardless of where you live, but that's not the case for millions of Americans. In many ways, Coloradans represent a microcosm of the demographic diversity across the country, with groups from farmers to business owners, students and young professionals. This makes the job of a regional service provider like us challenging.And that was before the COVID-19 pandemic threw the country into disarray.In the rural Colorado communities we serve, many of our customers were content with a stable connection that enabled them to browse, stream their favorite shows and occasionally check work email from home. That quickly changed eight months ago when some broadband luxuries became necessities.This story isn't uniquely ours, though, as rural providers around the country that work with communities—historical or not—face similar challenges.Since our founding in 1990, Jade Communications has worked with mayors of some of America's oldest towns to ensure that their history remained intact, but that their citizens weren't left behind by obsolete technology. What we see and hear from bigger internet providers is a one-size-fits-all approach. That would never work in San Luis, Colorado, the oldest town in the state, or most rural communities we serve.We have built an understanding of the 30 communities we serve in Southern Colorado and quickly realized that while the services we provided were far better than average, residents weren't used to working and learning remotely.Instead of catastrophe, we found a solution.At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic in mid-March, we offered all subscribers: free installation, a complimentary speed tier upgrade, and a premium Wi-Fi upgrade—all at no cost for 60 days. After the complimentary period, 62 percent of those who had upgraded a service tier opted to keep it.Pre-pandemic internet speeds were no longer fruitful for our communities. Most people weren't used to their kids being at home or running their business from their kitchen tables. Our doubling (and, in some instances, tripling) of bandwidth was critical to ensuring people could comfortably work and learn from home. We also offered them the ability to increase/decrease speeds to certain devices (or limit access for apps like TikTok on children's devices during certain times of day) via our app. Following our conversations with seven different school districts across the San Luis Valley, we've connected more than 100 students and are still working with these districts to get even more of their most remote students connected.Together with our sister company, Blanca Networks, we signed the Federal Communications Commission's "Keep Americans Connected Pledge." We are the first and only providers in the San Luis Valley to sign the pledge. Along with the other 390 U.S.-based broadband companies and associations that have signed it, we promised to continue to work with customers disproportionately impacted by the pandemic.But there's more work to do. While we're proud our customers rarely face issues we can't support, much of Colorado is playing catch up. According to local election results in 2018, access to high-speed internet was one of the top list of issues rural voters cared about. This isn't a sentiment unique to Colorado. According to a Pew Research Center survey, about six in ten Americans in rural communities (58 percent) believe access to high speed internet is a problem in their area. While we work in various parts of Southern Colorado, the majority of the 30 communities are rural towns.We're at a turning point for Colorado and other states in the U.S. where we see an increase in urban flight. Professionals are moving from expensive cities like Denver to rural mountain towns to save money and enjoy the recreational benefits. But many of these new homes aren't well-equipped for professional needs. While the views might be nice, the technology and broadband options are virtually archaic. The same broadband speeds in urban cities must be available to those in rural towns in order to support this new lifestyle and the ability to work from anywhere.So how does Colorado find its solution? Is something like fiber the answer? Yes, but it is only part of the equation. Though many may claim that technology behind broadband will save us, the digital divide won't be solved by technology alone. Even prior to the pandemic, we built our business on relationships first, our solutions enabled by technology, education and understanding what leaders in rural communities were looking for.We believe that technology will enable the solution, but it will take people understanding and learning how, in this case, broadband, can support the economic vitality of their towns, cities and people. We've always been a proponent of fiber broadband as a possible end to the digital divide, but it won't happen overnight or without a thorough understanding of the communities we serve.The pandemic has impacted our lives in innumerable ways, but it has become clear is that connection matters now more than ever before. Rural and regional CSPs like Jade are putting in the work today so that the future can be a bit brighter—and more connected—as our world changes. Without proper and reliable internet, millions of Americans have suffered from feeling disconnected and left behind. It's always been a problem. It has just taken a pandemic for Americans to wake up and start looking for a solution.Jordan Wehe is the Director of Marketing at locally-owned Colorado-based broadband provider Jade Communications

We have lots of concerns about court transparency, and how more transparent court systems would be nice. One of the more interesting consequences of the pandemic, in which many court hearings are now done virtually, is that courts have been much more open to allowing more realtime access to these court hearings. In one of the more high profile (and more ridiculous, if that's possible) lawsuits challenging the election results -- the so-called "Kraken" lawsuit in Georgia -- there was a hearing earlier today. The court announced that the audio would stream on YouTube:That says that the audio will be streamed on YouTube and provides you with a link. However, beneath it, it says the following:

Perhaps you’re a consultant or salesperson creating presentations and proposals. Maybe you’re a marketing manager looking for novel creative assets, and you’re tired of paying high dollar for a single image or video. For the price of one asset, you can get lifetime access to the Kroma Pro Plan, a collection of infographics, data visualization, B2B presentations, and other expertly structured and professionally designed templates. Pick the one you want and easily plug in your own content, logo, and brand colors. It's on sale for $50.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.

Never underestimate the desperation of a government entity being asked to manage its money better. After years of mismanaging the millions of dollars the court system rakes in every year, The federal judiciary has believed for years that "free and open access" to court documents should be way less than free. The court's PACER system puts a paywall between citizens and court documents. On top of this, it places an antiquated front end that further separates citizens from court documents, charging them per page of useless search results.The PACER system has been a frequent target of litigation and legislation. Unfortunately, these efforts haven't resulted in an overhaul of the system. The system continues to treat infinite goods as paper documents, charging users per page of downloaded PDFs or docket listings. It also charges per search, allowing the system's far-from-useful search functions to generate revenue for the courts. The money from PACER was supposed to make PACER better and lower the cost of usage. Instead, it has been used to buy furniture and flat screen TVs for those fortunate enough to live within walking/driving distance of a federal courthouse. As for everyone else, the government collects up front and provides very little in the way of improvements for telecommunicators.Legislators are once again pushing for the system to be free for most citizens. And the courts are pushing back, claiming being unable to charge per page fees would irreparably harm the recipients of these fees.

Among the dated and dumb business concepts exposed as folly during the pandemic is the traditional Hollywood film release window, which typically involves a 90 day gap between the time a move appears in theaters and its streaming or DVD release (in France this window is even more ridiculous at three years). The goal is usually to "protect the traditional film industry," though it's never been entirely clear why you'd protect traditional theaters at the cost of common sense, consumer demand, and a more efficient model. Just because?While the industry has flirted with the idea of "day and date" releases for decades (releasing movies on home video at the same time as brick and mortar theaters), there's long been a lot of hyperventilation on the part of movie theaters and traditionalists that this sort of shift wasn't technically possible or would somehow destroy the traditional "movie experience," driving theaters out of business.The pandemic has changed everything. To the point where AT&T/HBO this week announced that the company's entire lineup of 2021 films will be released on the company's streaming platform (HBO Max) the same time it hits theaters. There are some caveats: it's a one year trial, and movies will only appear on HBO Max for a month before they disappear (though they may return later). You'll also probably pay far more to watch these movies than it's worth. But it's still a sensible shift given the circumstances, as Warner Brothers (AT&T) made clear it a statement:

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Thad with a sentiment I think we all share:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2015, details were continuing to emerge that showed the Paris attackers made very little effort to hide themselves while the French government was using the state of emergency as an excuse to round up climate change activists, and some in the US were using the San Bernadino shooting to push for more domestic surveillance. New problems were being discovered with the UK's snooper's charter, while documents were showing that the country's intelligence agencies were hacking computers with minimal oversight. And there was a fresh attack on encryption from a different direction, as a patent troll started suing all kinds of encrypted websites.Also this week in 2015, Homeland Security finally returned two domains they had seized for bogus reasons five years earlier, but we'll talk more about that in our next section...Ten Years AgoYes, it was the very same week in 2010 that we first reported on ICE seizing a bunch of domain names supposedly for intellectual property violations. It immediately looked like a censorship campaign that was stretching the law to its breaking point, and inspection of the targeted websites revealed that many appeared legitimate and some were even embraced by big-name music artists — until Homeland Security eventually admitted that it was taking cues straight from the entertainment industry, further undermining any ability of the US to take a stance against internet censorship worldwide.Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2005, we learned more about how the Sony rootkit came to be, and weren't that surprised to discover that other Sony copy protection tech also had big issues — plus, the rootkit had caught the attention of Eliot Spitzer, and new information revealed that Sony knew about it before it went public. The FCC suddenly changed its tune on a la carte cable programming, with plenty of people weighing in from televangelists (opposed) and Cablevision and AT&T in favor. Meanwhile, ratings giant Nielsen was finally acknowledging the existence of DVRs and introducing its now ubiquitous live-plus-x-days ratings for TV shows.

The DMCA is a weird law. It's comprised of two almost completely unrelated provisions: Section 512, with its platform safe harbors, and Section 1201, which forbids circumventing technological measures. Both parts are full of problems, but to the extent that the DMCA provides platforms with liability protection via the safe harbors, it is also a critically important law. We are therefore fans of the DMCA because of this platform protection it provides, but it's like being fans of a terrible actor who had one absolutely fantastic performance in a classic movie we can't stop loving, even though the rest of his work is unwatchable dreck. In other words, we can't pretend the law is without its appeal, but we nevertheless fervently wish it were a whole lot better since we're stuck having to deal with the rest of it.Which brings us to Senator Tillis, who has expressed interest in reforming the DMCA and already started to lay the groundwork. We dread where this reform effort might go, because we know (see the Copyright Office's 512 study) that many people are championing for the things already terrible about it to be made worse. But at the same time it would be great to fix the terrible things already there so that it could actually become an unequivocally good law that does what copyright law is supposed to do: stimulate expression and promote the spreading of knowledge.Last month Senator Tillis put out a call for stakeholder input on the reforms he is thinking about, and earlier this week the Copia Institute submitted its response. Instead of answering his specific questions, which all seemed to presume way too much about what allegedly needs fixing in the DMCA, and not necessarily correctly, we made two larger points that need to apply to any reform measures: (1) There needs to be a clear, data-supported understanding of what needs to be fixed and why so that any implemented change actually helps, rather than hurts, creators, and (2) the statute must scrupulously comply with the First Amendment, which unfortunately it currently falls way too short of in way too many ways.On the latter front we made several points. First, for the DMCA to be First Amendment-compliant, fair use cannot continue to be treated as an afterthought. It is not a minor technicality; it is a fundamental limit on the reach of a copyright and therefore needs to limit the power of what a copyright holder can do to advance that right. Thus, as we wrote in our submission, Section 1201 should no longer obstruct a fair use, and Section 512 should no longer enable the censoring of a fair use either. Protecting fair uses must be a central tenet of any DMCA revision in order to ensure that fair use can remain meaningful in the digital age.There are also a number of problems that have emerged over the years in the way the Section 512 system operates that have turned it into an impermissible system of prior restraint. Platform protection is hugely critical for fostering online expression, but the irony is that this protection comes at the expense of the very expression it is supposed to foster. The basic problem is that, unlike Section 230, the platform protection the DMCA provides is conditional. But the even bigger problem is that the protection is conditioned on platforms acting against speakers and speech based only on allegations of infringement, even though those allegations may be unfounded. When a law causes speech to be sanctioned before a court has ever adjudicated it to be wrongful it is prior restraint and anathema to the First Amendment. But current judicial interpretations of the DMCA have made Section 512's critical platform protection on just this sort of thing, with dire consequences to speakers and their speech. Reform is therefore needed so that platform protection is no longer contingent on this sort of constitutional violation.Similarly, we noted that Section 512 also undermines the First Amendment right to anonymous speech, given the operation of Section 512(g) (governing counter-notices) and Section 512(h) (establishing a special type of federal subpoena). But an even more significant constitutional defect with the DMCA overall is with Section 1201. As we've talked about before, Section 1201, and its prohibition against circumventing technical measures, chills security research and innovation and forecloses fair uses. None of these things are constitutionally permissible, and all undermine the overall goal of promoting progress.Which brings us to our second main point. The whole point of copyright law is to promote progress. And that means encouraging expression so that the public can enjoy the fruits of it. But not every proposed change to the DMCA will lead to that result. In fact, many would do the exact opposite.The problem is, many of the proposed changes presume that strengthening the power of a copyright holder automatically advances that greater interest. But in reality it doesn't. And we suggested that the reform effort was being sidetracked by a string of misguided assumptions that needed challenging.First there is the idea that digital technologies are causing economic harm to copyright holders, but it is an idea that should be treated with skepticism. For one thing, it treats the consumption of every "pirated" digital copy as a lost sale. It also ignores that some works are only consumable at a price of $0 and overlooks that copyright holders have historically flourished even when works were available for free, such as in libraries or on over-the-air radio. In other words, the consumption of copyrighted works for free does not automatically equate to economic harm to copyright holders.And then there is the presumption that copyright holders and creators are one and the same, and thus economic harm to the former means that there's economic harm to the latter. In fact, copyright holders and creators may frequently be entirely different entities – and even stuck being entirely different entities – with entirely different economic interests. Furthermore, advancing the interests of copyright holders may actually be adverse to the interests of creators, with the former potentially wanting to maximize profit from specific works, and the latter potentially more economically advantaged over all if they can develop robust market interest for their works over all.Next we pointed out that hobbling digital technologies imposes its own economic harm, which should be the last thing for copyright law to encourage. We noted that it is not good that Veoh Networks got financially obliterated by the process of trying to assert its DMCA safe harbor defense (which was ultimately vindicated), because the Section 512 safe harbor provision is so needlessly cumbersome to deploy. It is not good that we now have one less competitor to YouTube and one less outlet available for creators. Nor is it ok that Seeqpod, a search engine dedicated to helping locate creative works, is now no longer available for people to use to find the works of artists they might then choose to support. The loss of these companies, their jobs, their innovation, and their economic energy is a loss that copyright law, including the DMCA, should lament, not exacerbate.The loss of these platforms also directly harms the economic interests of creators. Here we challenged two assumptions, one, that the economic interests of platforms are somehow in conflict with creators', and two, that creators and platform users are somehow different. In reality creators are platform users. When the DMCA causes platforms facilitating user expression to disappear, or even the expression itself to disappear, those users themselves are creators who are being affected. And that affects their economic interests by depriving them of outlets to promote their works or even directly monetize them. None of these consequences are consistent with what copyright law is intended to accomplish, and any reform effort should make sure to avoid them too.

Summary:In May 2015, Google rolled out its "Google Photos" service. This service allowed users to store their images in Google's cloud and share them with other users. Unlike some other services, Google's photo service provided unlimited storage for photos under a certain resolution, making it an attractive replacement for other paid services.Unfortunately, it soon became apparent the rollout may have outpaced internal quality control. The built-in auto-tagging system utilizing Google's AI began tagging Black people as "gorillas," resulting in backlash from users and critics who believed Google's algorithm was racist.Google's immediate response was to apologize to users. The Twitter user who first noticed the tagging error was contacted directly by Google, which began tackling the problem that made it out of beta unnoticed. Google's Yonatan Zunger pointed out the shortcomings of AI when auto-tagging photos, noting the company's previous problems with mis-tagging people (of all races) as dogs and struggles with less-than-ideal lighting or low picture resolution. In fact, Google's rollout misstep mirrored Flickr's own struggles with auto-tagging photos, which similarly resulted in Black people being labeled as "ape" or "animal."Decisions to be made by Google:

I know everyone is focused on Trump's attempt to take away Section 230 in the NDAA, but an equally important issue is that members of Congress have been trying to do Hollywood's bidding and sneak massive copyright reform into a must-pass government appropriations bill. The CASE Act has many problems that we've discussed, including the fact that it would unleash a wave of copyright trolling for people accidentally or innocently sharing works they don't realize are covered by copyright. There are also significant Constitutional problems with it, in that it routes around the Title III courts by handing disputes about private rights to the executive branch. That's not allowed.But rather than actually discussing and debating those issues, and fixing the bill to make sure it is constitutional and protects the public, we've heard from three different sources that Nancy Pelosi has given the go-ahead in the House to include the CASE Act in the spending bill. As we said earlier this week, if you're trying to ram through a bill by adding them to an appropriations bill, it's because you know it has problems and will cause major issues and you just don't care because the politics of pleasing donors is too important. Hollywood has been screaming for this bill, and Pelosi has agreed to put it in.If you're a constituent of Pelosi, I would highly recommend reaching out to her office and making it clear that you absolutely oppose any effort to attach the CASE Act to any appropriations bill. To ignore the many concerns that have been raised about the bill and what it will do to people across the country (especially in the middle of a pandemic) is a travesty. There is no need to pass this bill now, and there is certainly no need to do it in this way. Even if you're not a Pelosi constituent, it's worth reaching out to your Congressional Representatives. The good folks over at EFF have a handy dandy form under the accurate headline: "Don't let a quasi-court bankrupt internet users."Many people have raised thoughtful critiques of the CASE Act, and there are many suggestions out there for how the bill can be fixed. To date, Congress has ignored those fixes. This is a bill that is highly controversial and should not be put into law through a sneaky, underhanded move like this. Make sure that Congress understands this.

As America struggles with a deadly and historic health crisis, millions of Americans risk getting kicked offline due to economic hardship. At a time when stable access to power, broadband, and water are essential for survival, government agencies tasked with representing and defending the public welfare have been asleep at the wheel.Millions of Americans risk losing access to essential utilities as overdue bills pile up thanks to the COVID-19 crisis. With only 21 states prohibiting utilities from disconnecting impacted users, roughly 179 million Americans risk losing these essential lifelines as bills pile up and their economic woes accelerate.It’s a problem that extends to broadband connectivity. Data suggests Americans pay some of the highest prices in the developed world for broadband. The pandemic has exacerbated the problem, forcing countless students and teleworkers to huddle around fast food restaurants because broadband isn’t available, or isn’t affordable, in their neighborhood.While millions of Americans face a mountain of growing utility bills — they’ve seen little help from the federal government.Back in March the Trump FCC announced with great flourish that it had solved the problem with its “Keep Americans Connected” pledge, an entirely voluntary agreement with broadband providers who agreed they wouldn’t impose late fees or kick users offline during the crisis - at least temporarily.Despite signing the pledge, some of the nation’s largest ISPs proceeded to ignore it entirely, kicking struggling and some instances even disabled users offline, despite repeated assurances this wouldn’t happen. There was little effort by the FCC to confirm ISPs were living up to the pledge or other pandemic-related promises, such as making Wi-Fi hotspots available to the public, suspending arbitrary bandwidth usage caps and overage fees, and creating or expanding low-cost broadband offerings for low-income Americans.Despite an accelerating pandemic, the hollow pledge came and went quickly, expiring quietly at the end of June with little fanfare and no substantive FCC action. When pressured by Congress as to why the agency hadn’t done more, the agency punted the problem back to Congress, stating it could only act if lawmakers gave broadband providers more money.So what were the results of the Keep America Connected pledge and the other promises ISPs made to address the pandemic? Nobody knows. The FCC doesn’t bother to collect data on how many broadband subscribers have been kicked offline during the pandemic due to non-payment. It doesn’t have a clue how many Americans have been disconnected as they face economic collapse, and there’s little to no indication that the agency under Trump has any intention of learning.Nor does the FCC know whether any of the promised low-cost broadband offerings have made a dent in the tens of millions of Americans who lack broadband either because they can’t afford it, or because they don’t have access to a broadband network at all.To make matters worse, the Trump FCC has eliminated FCC legal authority over broadband providers and popular consumer protections that would have protected U.S. consumers from bogus fees, surprise surcharges, and predatory behavior during the crisis. Without legal authority over broadband providers, the agency can’t hold any of those companies to their promises — they can simply walk away without penalty. Many already have.Pinky swears simply aren't adequate to ensure that struggling Americans can work, learn, have access to health care, and communicate during an historic crisis.The Communications Act of 1934 gives the FCC ample flexibility to ensure the public is protected during a national emergency. But when it comes to broadband internet access, this FCC is powerless by choice, leaving consumers crippled by debt facing the loss of essential services.The Biden FCC must make restoring the FCC’s authority over broadband providers its first priority. It is essential to ensuring that all Americans remain connected during this crisis and the inevitable crises to come. It is also essential to protect consumers from price gouging, account termination, privacy violations and unfair market practices.The next FCC must also collect more accurate data about who does and doesn’t have broadband and why they don’t have it. The FCC’s current data grossly overstates the number of Americans who have access to broadband and doesn’t take into account the principal reason many don’t adopt broadband - cost. When the broadband industry makes promises to protect consumers and close the digital divide, the impact should be documented and made public.Press releases and promises won’t close the digital divide - effective policies and strong oversight will. The American people deserve an FCC that’s committed to ensuring that everyone has access to affordable and robust broadband.Gigi Sohn is a Distinguished Fellow at the Georgetown Institute for Technology Law and Policy and a Benton Senior Fellow and Public Advocate. She served as Counselor to Former FCC Chairman from November 2013-December 2016.

In 2009, the FCC funded a Harvard study that concluded (pdf) that open access broadband networks (letting multiple ISPs come in and compete over a central, core network) resulted in lower broadband prices and better service in numerous locations worldwide. Of course when the FCC released its "National Broadband Plan" back in 2010, this realization (not to mention an honest accounting of the sector's limited competition) was nowhere to be found. Both parties ignored the data and instead doubled down on our existing national telecom policy plan: letting AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast do pretty much whatever they'd like.Since then, "open access" has become somewhat of a dirty word in telecom, and even companies like Google Fiber -- which originally promised to adhere to the concept on its own network before quietly backpedaling -- are eager to pretend the idea doesn't exist. Why? Because having ISPs compete in layers over a centralized network may improve service, boost speeds, and reduce prices, but it would eat into monopoly revenues and you simply can't have that.Of course that doesn't mean the model doesn't work. The original 2009 Harvard study looked at numerous global instances where it worked really well to disrupt the status quo. This week, the Benton Institute for Broadband and Society released a new report (pdf) finding that, once again, open access networks could be a productive path out of the current monopolistic logjam that is the broken U.S. broadband market. Specifically when they're used for so-called "middle mile" broadband networks, with the support of local communities:

The iOS 14 and SwiftUI Bootcamp Bundle is here to help you master iOS14 and SwiftUI so you can develop Apple apps and widgets. If you’re not familiar with SwiftUI, it’s a new way to program that uses a declarative approach, which lets us build incredibly cool apps, using about 5 times less code than previous programming paradigms. SwiftUI includes all of Apple's platforms, so build the app once and deploy it on the other platforms very easily. You'll learn how to create a Currency Converter, Emoji Dictionary, Daily Journal, and API/JSON apps. The bundle is on sale for $25.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.

On Tuesday, we highlighted that it looked like Congressional Republicans were willing to finally stand up to their party's insecure and whiny lame duck president and refuse to include a Section 230 repeal as part of the military authorization bill, the NDAA.Senator Jim Inhofe, who heads the Senate Armed Services Committee and who lead the negotiation on the bill, has been a longtime supporter of the President, and has said that the two talk by phone every couple days. But on Wednesday, Inhofe apparently did his phone call telling Trump that the 230 repeal wasn't going into the NDAA while on a speakerphone walking down the hallway of a Senate building, meaning that people overheard Inhofe tell Trump that the 230 repeal wasn't going to happen.On Thursday, the negotiations closed and a deal was made on the NDAA that does not include anything on Section 230 because, as Inhofe rightly notes, that's got nothing to do with the military at all. In response, Trump continued his temper tantrum and claims he really will veto the bill, putting the military he always claims to support so much at risk of severe cuts.

France's relationship with free speech is strange. On one hand, no one protests like the French protest. Given the nation's predilection for targeted vandalism and guillotine construction, it would seem the government would have taken notice of citizens' right to engage in speech that's right on the edge of targeted violence… all without losing sight of the importance of that speech.But for every bit of slack cut to protesters, the government still targets the people's freedom to express themselves. This results in more protests and more backtracking, but the country's government is surprisingly resilient. It just shrugs off the latest protests and tries again.The government has passed laws that allow the literal police to literally police the internet for speech the government doesn't like. This law was struck down by the courts but there can be little doubt a replacement is in the works. The government has also sided with extremists by engaging in speech-related prosecutions that target citizens who've criticized extremists. The firebombing of a French satirical newspaper by Islamic extremists hasn't nudged the dial towards freer speech, unfortunately. The government has also made insulting certain politicians a crime and has given itself broad powers to take down internet speech.So, it's unsurprising the government has gotten itself into the business of regulating ridicule. A new law forbids citizens from denying services to other citizens who may be sporting the "wrong" accents, targeting a cornerstone of French culture: disparaging of people who "aren't from around here."

The trouble for Nikola Motor Company began only in September, a couple of months ago. That's when a hedge fund very publicly called out the company and its founder, Trevor Milton, for essentially fooling people with doctored video of its electric semi-truck product to get them to invest in the company. This led to rumors of federal investigations, the resignation of Milton, and the company idiotically trying to use copyright takedowns to silence its critics. All of this was likely in the service of trying to save a very public $2 billion deal with General Motors that was due to be closed upon in early December.Well, what was Nikola's bad month is turning into a very bad quarter, as the General Motors deal has gone fairly sideways.

The Los Angeles Police Department is shutting down a very small percentage of its facial recognition searches. Last month, public records exposed the fact that the LAPD had been lying about its facial recognition use for years. Up until 2019, the department maintained it did not use the tech. Records obtained by the Los Angeles Times showed it had actually used it 30,000 times over the past decade.The most recent development in the LAPD's mostly dishonest use of this tech is that it will not allow personnel to mess around with certain third-party offerings. As Buzzfeed reports, the LAPD has forbidden the use of Clearview by officers following the release of information the department already should have already been aware of.

We've noted at length how the GOP is rushing this week to appoint Trump ally Nathan Simington to the FCC. Simington, you'll recall, wrote Trump's ridiculous executive order targeting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the essential law that protects freedom of expression and innovation on the internet. The bumbling attack is necessary, you're told, to "fix" the social media "censorship" of Conservatives that doesn't actually exist. In other words, an unqualified appointment pushing an idiotic solution to a nonexistent problem that actually creates new, unnecessary headaches.Simington you'll recall is slated to replace Mike O'Rielly, the Republican FCC Commissioner fired last August by Trump for some timid statements suggesting that Trump's plan wasn't a great idea (an argument supported by a massive bipartisan coalition of experts) and the FCC lacks the proper authority to enforce. O'Rielly's term is up at the end of the year, so the GOP is rushing to gain a quick Simington approval in both committee and the broader Senate. The committee vote sped through process this morning along party lines, with the GOP making nary a peep about Simington's lack of any real qualifications for the post.Attention now shifts to a full Senate vote on Simington.It gets lost in analysis, but the GOP wants to target Section 230 because it wants to stop social media giants from being able to police disinformation and race-baiting bullshit, a cornerstone of modern party power. But given the gambit's unlikely success at the FCC in the wake of a Trump loss and Ajit Pai exit, the 230 stuff has almost become a distraction now, at least as it pertains to the FCC.The goal for McConnell has shifted toward miring the Biden FCC in partisan gridlock to prevent it from being able to reverse unpopular Trump-era policies. Should Simington be approved, the agency would sit at two Republican and two Democratic Commissioners heading into the new year. I've spoken to several consumer groups and insiders familiar with the process who say this is the likely GOP strategy. But it was further highlighted in a letter by Grover Norquist (yes, he's still around) to Mitch McConnell.Norquist's right wing 501(c)(4) organization, Americans for Taxpayer Reform (ATR), is a telecom-industry favorite, frequently used in policy debates to target things AT&T and Comcast don't like, from functional, adult oversight of the broadband sector, to diabolical plan by many communities to build better, faster broadband networks. Norquist's letter spells out to McConnell (who of course already knew this) that the Simington appointment would be a great way to thwart the Biden FCC from doing much of anything. Of course it's phrased in such a way to suggest Norquist and friends are only interested in genuine, good faith bipartisanship:

After writing about the MPA/RIAA's ever-shifting targets of who to freak out about regarding copyright infringement, it helps to take each new target with a grain of salt. They were mad about Napster, then LimeWire, then YouTube, then cyberlockers/cloud storage. And now, apparently the target is... random social media sites? There's been plenty of attention recently over the RIAA turning its attention to... background music in Twitch streams. But who the hell thinks that Twitter is some den of piracy? Apparently, the recording industry does.Senator Thom Tillis, who is leading a new effort to completely overhaul copyright law is apparently angry that Twitter chose not to send someone to a hearing he's holding in mid-December.The letter that Tillis sent to Twitter in response to this decision is way over the top. Unless subpoenaed, appearing before Congress is very much voluntary. People and companies refuse to appear all the time. And even if there was a subpoena, it seems worth noting that it's Tillis' party that has decided that ignoring Congressional subpoenas is just fine and dandy.But, really, the bigger issue here is why is Twitter even a target at all? No one thinks about Twitter as a source for copyright infringing materials. And Twitter has always been known to be responsive to DMCA takedowns. They have a whole section in their transparency report about copyright takedown notices. That certainly shows that Twitter is very responsive to DMCA notices. It does highlight how it has refused to comply with some notices, but those are in cases where it's clearly abuse of the DMCA for censorship, such as when a bunch of DMCA notices were sent to try to silence critics of the Ecuadorian government.In fact, if anything, we've often seen Twitter be too responsive to questionable DMCA takedown notices, like the time it pulled down a Trump campaign video (remember, Tillis is a big Trump supporter) over a highly questionable copyright claim.And yet, here's Tillis trying to make it sound like Twitter is a den of piracy that ignores copyright takedowns.

The Complete Web Developer Course will help you learn how to build websites with HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. Throughout the course, you will build 20 different websites to help you better understand the various programming languages. It's on sale for $15.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're turning over discipline of school kids to cops and their tech and it's just making existing problems even worse. We've seen the problems inherent in facial recognition tech. And it's not just us -- this so-called leftist rag (according to our anonymous critics). It's also the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Its study of 189 facial recognition algorithms uncovered why most legislators seem unworried about the surveillance creep:

When the EU Copyright Directive was being drawn up, one of the main battlegrounds concerned memes. The fear was that the upload filters brought in by the new law would not be able to distinguish between legal use of copyright material for things like memes, quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody and pastiche, and illegal infringements. Supporters of the Directive insisted that memes and such-like would be allowed, and that it was simply scaremongering to suggest otherwise. When the Directive was passed, BBC News even ran a story with the headline "Memes exempt as EU backs controversial copyright law". The MEP Mary Honeyball is quoted as saying: "There's no problem with memes at all. This directive was never intended to stop memes and mashups."But just as supporters insisted that upload filters would not be obligatory -- and then afterwards changed their story, admitting they were the only way to implement the new law -- so people who insisted that memes and parodies would still be allowed are now demanding that they should be banned. Copyright companies were the first to make that shift, and now a group of 576 German artists have sent a letter to the German government and politicians complaining about the proposed implementation of the Copyright Directive in their country (original in German). In particular, they are appalled by:

This always seemed like the the most likely outcome, but Trump had complicated things with his temper tantrum demands and his threat to veto the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) if it didn't include a clause wiping out Section 230. However, Congress has come to its senses and leaders of both parties have said they'll ignore his impotent veto threat and move forward with the bill as is.

Summary:The Proud Boys, a group with a history of violent interactions, often in support of Donald Trump, received prominent attention during the first Presidential debate of 2020 between Trump and Joe Biden. Upon being asked about whether or not he would condemn white supremacist groups that support him, Trump asked for an example. When given The Proud Boys, Trump told them to “stand back and stand by,” which many in the group took to be an endorsement of their activities.While the group has long denied that its views are racist, the group has long said that it is based around “Western chauvinism” and has been repeatedly associated with violence and white supremacist groups and individuals. Both Twitter and Facebook banned the group in 2018.However, after they received renewed attention at the 2020 debate, actor George Takei suggested “reclaiming” the #ProudBoys hashtag, and using it to promote the LGBTQ community instead, saying that they could respond to hate with love.This made the hashtag go viral on a variety of platforms, including Twitter and Instagram (owned by Facebook). In response Facebook was accused (incorrectly) of only just blocking the hashtag after this attempt at reclaiming. However, Facebook exec Andy Stone noted that the opposite was true, and that Facebook was currently in the process of unbanning the hashtag after seeing how it had been reclaimed, and the meaning and usage changed.Decisions to be made by Facebook:

It's not just American law enforcement agencies turning kids into criminals. They're doing it in Australia too. In Florida, the Pasco County Sheriff's Office uses software to mark kids as budding criminals, using questionable markers like D-grades, witnessing domestic violence, or being the victim of a crime. The spreadsheet adds it all up and gives deputies a thumbs up to start treating students like criminals, even if they've never committed a criminal act.Over in Australia, the process seems to be a bit more rigorous, but the outcome is the same: non-criminals marked (possibly for life) as potential criminals who should be targeted with more law enforcement intervention.

U.S legislators have drawn a bizarre line in the sand when exploring the invasive nature of technology companies and personal rights to privacy.In Washington, D.C. there are regular hearings about the potential harms that “big tech” companies can cause because they have so much access to so much information. Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon testified before Congressional Subcommittees about their business practices, their data sharing between their own businesses, and the way that information gets used in relation to competition. What’s interesting about that, though, is the fact no consumer can share their personal information directly with any of them.In order to reach any of the Big Tech companies that are generating immense amounts of policy discussion these days, a person must first have access to an internet service provider (ISP). This could be your home wireline connection from companies like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Frontier, Charter/Spectrum or a litany of other providers. It could also be your mobile service provider if you use a smartphone to browse the internet.Who Sees What Data?The big tech companies have historically obtained the majority of the data they have because people elected to use the services. Amazon knows your buying habits because they track what you order. Google knows what ads to show because it tracked what searches you were making. The ISPs, though, have a unique position in that they facilitate the connection between you and those edge services. They not only know that you elected to go to Google to perform a search, they also know that from that Google search, you then clicked a link and navigated to another website. While Google’s reach can be pretty extensive with the ability to track behavior from a search or any click on an ad that they provide, an ISP doesn’t need that secondary interaction. They know where you go online because they facilitate the connection between you and that end point.There are ways to protect yourself against ISPs monitoring how munch they can see. First, HTTPS encrypts a lot of the actual data being transferred. This means that unless the website is encrypting DNS itself, the only thing the ISP might know is what websites you’re choosing to visit. You can also use a virtual private network (VPN). If you choose to do that, then the ISP will see only that you are connecting from your location to the secondary location. This allows you to mask your location to websites because all of the bidirectional browser traffic is between the websites and the secondary location you’ve tunneled into where the VPN is located.The Internet is More than Browser TrafficThe problem with many of the policy considerations regarding how to protect consumers when so much of their data is accessible is that it repeatedly falls short. Think about all the devices in your life that connect to the internet. These include your phone, tablet, and laptop along with all of the ancillary devices – lights, outlets, home assistants, robot vacuums, and even the infamous toaster - that make up the world of the Internet of Things (IoT). These IoT devices require similar connectivity as your computer or phone, but without many of the security and safety measures in place.IoT functions relatively simply. There is a sensor that connects to the network in order to communicate its status to a processor. When the sensor’s status changes, it sends that single to a processor. From there, the processor determines what that sensor’s status change means and sends out a command over the network to an actuator that performs a task. Consider the following example: You pull into your driveway, your house recognizes that you’re there and it opens your garage door, adjusts the temperature, turns on lights, starts your favorite evening playlist. Maybe it even brews you a fresh cup of decaf so you can kick off your shoes and settle in for whatever comes next.That’s one sensor using merely the presence of your device to trigger a communication with the processor. That processor then reaches out over the network and provides commands for services provided by potentially five different manufacturers – the garage door controller, the thermostat, the lights, your preferred streaming music service, and your coffee pot. How much information has an ISP just potentially learned about you with you typing a single character?They know that someone arrived home at that specific time because the sensor communicated over the network to the control processor. They know that you have each of those devices in your home provided by each of those manufacturers. They know what streaming music service you prefer.Some of that information might seem innocuous. Who cares if the ISP knows what coffee maker you have? Why does it matter if the ISP knows what time you got home? Everyone is going to have to get home at some point in time, aren’t they?The value of an ISP being able to monitor that kind of information is not in the snapshot of one instance. Yes, they can use that information to help third-parties better target where they sell ads for your browsing behavior. The real value, though, is that these ISPs know what devices are connecting to your home, and that they can trace your habits and behavioral patterns from that information.If you habitually arrive at home around that specific time each day, the ISP can track that information. If that data shows that every Thursday there’s no command, but there’s increased traffic from your home, the ISP can reasonably conclude that those are the days that you work from home. They might be able to glean that information from just the increased traffic, but the missing command when you arrive home gives them more verifiable data about your habits and practices.Your next thought, after reconsidering the position that the data isn’t that important might be to conclude that you have some protections to under United States privacy laws from an ISP monitoring your behavior online. Except, you'd be wrong.ISPs Broadening Their ReachThis may not concern you, personally, because you figure there isn’t enough data there to be harmful. However, not everyone is a sophisticated tech user. Some people, would rather have one company provide them all of their smart tech and have that company manage it. This is the landscape we’re starting to find ourselves in today.Comcast not only offers cable and internet to homes, they also offer security systems including cameras, window and door sensors, and more. They even tout the capabilities of being compatible with numerous smart home devices like door locks, thermostats, and lighting. AT&T is no different, offering to sell streaming media players, smart outlets, security cameras, and both Google or Amazon devices as the control.The ISPs do not care what devices you connect to your network. In theory, any device should work just as well as any other. Though, given the repeal of federal net neutrality regulations. The ISPs have positioned themselves in the perfect spot to pick preferred vendors. Essentially, while they won’t state it openly, if you buy the products that they sell, now they know exactly what’s in your home, and you have an extra bit of confidence that it will work reliably, without any blocking or throttling, because you bought it from the service provider. This creates an advantage for any company willing to open up your information to the ISP because there’s a self-serving benefit. Provide more data to the ISP-reseller about the user and how the device is used and you’ll be included in the preferred vendor list.Ties to Title IIIt seems almost everything that has to do with telecom these days has to do with the net neutrality and reclassification battle, and the ability of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to make privacy rules is no different. The ability of the FCC to promulgate privacy regulation turns on the same point in the 1996 Telecommunications Act as net neutrality.If telecommunications are classified as a Title I service, then they are subject to 47 U.S.C. §160 which states,

Last week, we noted how Comcast had expanded its bullshit broadband usage caps during a pandemic, insisting that the confusing, technically-unnecessary restrictions were being deployed in an alleged act of fairness. Of course as we noted, there's nothing "fair" about costly, punitive surcharges that serve absolutely no technical purpose, and exist exclusively so a monopoly can extract additional revenue from monopolized markets and captive subscribers with no alternative ISPs to choose from.But Comcast's not just using usage caps to extract its pound of flesh. The company is raising prices across most of its services just before the new year, including significant price hikes for its TV services, broadband services, and hardware rental costs. Comcast will also be increasing a bevy of misleading fees, including another $4.50 per month for the company's "Broadcast TV Fee," which is simply some of the cost of programming broken out and hidden below the line, so that the company can falsely advertise a lower rate than you'll see on your final bill:

The Ultimate Cartoon Animator 4 Pro Windows Bundle has 2 courses to help you learn how to bring your own images and characters to life. Cartoon Animator 4, formerly known as CrazyTalk Animator, is a 2D animation software optimized for both abilities of entry and productivity. You can turn images into animated characters, generate lip-sync animation from audio, accomplish 3D parallax scenes, produce 2D visual effects, and access content resources. Cartoon Animator gives users unparalleled control when animating 2D talking characters for videos, web, games, apps, and presentations. It's the easiest way to make incredible animations from scratch. The bundle is on sale for $50.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.

President Trump has continued to throw his little temper tantrum in response to #DiaperDon trending on Twitter. When that happened, he suddenly demanded a full repeal of Section 230 -- which would not stop Twitter from showing #DiaperDon trending when the President throws a temper tantrum like a 2 year old. Then, yesterday, we heard that the White House was really pushing for the Senate to include a 230 repeal in the must pass NDAA bill that funds the military.Late last evening I heard from people in touch with various Congressional offices saying that this entire effort by the White House was dead in the water, because almost no one had an appetite to even try to attempt it, and despite the whackadoodle conspiracy theories from the President and Senators Ted Cruz, Marsha Blackburn, and Josh Hawley, it turns out that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell doesn't care about 230 reform.Of course, even later last night, things took an even stupider turn, as Trump declared on Twitter that unless the NDAA included a full repeal of Section 230, he would veto it. This is all sorts of stupid and we'll break it all down in a moment, so bear with me.That says:

Section 230 has become a mainstream discussion topic, but unfortunately many discussants don’t actually understand it well (or at all). To address this knowledge gap, co-editors Profs. Eric Goldman (Santa Clara Law) and Jeff Kosseff (U.S. Naval Academy) have released an ebook, called “Zeran v. America Online,” addressing many aspects of Section 230. You can download the ebook for free at:

For reasons only known to legislators who apparently had their ears bent to the point of detachment by law enforcement, the French government -- at least briefly -- believed the nation would be better secured if citizens weren't allowed to film police officers and publish those recordings online.A bill passed through the general assembly that would have made this act a crime.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals continues to do what other circuits far too often won't: protect citizens from their government. The Ninth Circuit is the best place to bring allegations of rights violations. It only grants immunity in 42% of cases it handles, compared to the Fifth Circuit, where cops and their qualified immunity triumph 64% of the time.This seems to irritate the Supreme Court, which often finds itself overturning decisions bubbling up from the Ninth. But every win for Americans is another chance to establish precedent making it easier for future victims to obtain redress from courts anywhere in the nation.This recent decision [PDF] by the Ninth will probably once again raise the hackles of the Supreme Court. This one allows a plaintiff to sue federal officers for rights violations -- something the Supreme Court has repeatedly made more difficult to accomplish. In 2017, the Supreme Court said non-US persons couldn't sue federal officers for violating their rights. It reinforced this decision in 2019, rejecting a lawsuit brought by the family of a Mexican teen who was shot ten times by a Border Patrol agent in response to some alleged rock throwing. The Border Patrol agent was on the US side of the border. His bullets traveled across the border and into the Mexican teen, killing him in Mexico. The Supreme Court shrugged and said it was unfortunate the teen died where he did. If he had only managed to die on the US side of the border, he might have had a case.This case doesn't end in death. But it does involve federal border security and violated rights. Here's the summary of the events leading to the lawsuit:

If you have to sneak your transformational copyright bill into a "must pass" government spending bill, it seems fairly evident that you know the bill is bad. Earlier we talked about how the White House is trying to slip a Section 230 repeal into the NDAA (military appropriations) bill, and now we've heard multiple people confirm that there's an effort underway to slip the CASE Act into the "must pass" government appropriations bill (the bill that keeps the government running).What does keeping the government running have to with completely overhauling the copyright system to enable massive copyright trolling? Absolutely nothing, but it's Christmas season, and thus it's the time for some Christmas tree bills in which Senators try to slip in little favors to their funders by adding them to must-pass bills.We've detailed the many problems with the CASE Act, including how it would ratchet up copyright trolling in a time when we should actually be looking for ways to prevent copyright trolling. But the much larger issue is the fact that the bill is almost certainly unconstitutional. It involves the executive branch trying to route around the courts to set up a judicial body to handle disputes about private rights. That's not allowed.At the very least, however, there are legitimate concerns about the overreach of the CASE Act, and, as such, those supporting it should at least be willing to discuss those issues honestly and debate them fairly. Slipping them into a must-pass government spending bill certainly suggests that they know that they cannot defend the bill legitimately, and need to cheat to make it law.

This week, we're having another conversation about how more decentralized, interoperable, and competitive systems could help restore the original promise of the open web — and this time around we've got a pair of guests with perspectives that are related to, but distinct from, the protocols, not platforms idea that we talk about so much. Author Cory Doctorow has been discussing adversarial interoperability or competitive compatibility, while Stanford's Daphne Keller has been proposing magic APIs, and both join this week's episode to discuss what all these things are, how they differ and relate, and how they could save the web.Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes or Google Play, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

I had meant to write an update on the never ending clusterfuck that is copyright troll Richard Liebowitz last month, as things appeared to be going badly in the two cases where the judges had clearly grown completely tired of the games he was playing with the court: Usherson v. Bandshell and Chevrestt v. Barstool. In both cases, judges had gotten very, very angry at Liebowitz for continuing to lie, play games, mislead and so on. In the Chevrestt case, the judge actually let him off kind of easy last month, saying that for the next two years, any time that he is ordered to show cause for why he shouldn't be sanctioned again (basically, any time he gets in trouble with a judge), he has to share the details of what happened in the Chevrestt case (in which he does not come out of it looking good).But the bigger story is in the Usherson case, where this week, Judge Jesse Furman mentions in passing that the Southern District of New York's Grievance Committee had issued an order suspending Liebowitz "from the practice of law before this Court." This is temporary, pending "final adjudication of the charges against [him]" so it's likely to get worse. Also, it only applies to SDNY, but that's where he's filed so many of his cases, and the stink over his practically non-stop sketchy behavior in court will follow him everywhere else. It's not clear exactly which of the many problems that Liebowitz has brought upon himself resulted in the Grievance Committee acting, but the list is very long.In fact, it's rather convenient that it's Judge Furman who is revealing the suspended license, given that he was the one who catalogued the dozens upon dozens of times that Liebowitz had been caught lying to courts or has been sanctioned for lying to courts.As you may recall, Judge Furman laid out those details in an order telling Liebowitz to file a copy of that order with every case that he was involved with. Liebowitz, in true Liebowitz fashion, waited until the last minute to whine that this was unfair and a violation of his rights. The judge was not impressed and neither was the appeals court.Liebowitz then had one day to send a copy of Judge Furman's order to every one of his clients and to every court in which his cases were being heard. At the time, we pointed to at least one case where the order had not been filed, but we had heard from a few lawyers in other cases that no such filing had been made either. And those lawyers weren't just telling me: they told Judge Furman as well. At the beginning of October, Judge Furman asked Liebowitz to file a declaration addressing why he hadn't filed the order in some cases (and why he had filed it late in others). Liebowitz then filed quite an amazing declaration on October 15th, explaining how and why he had failed to file the order in 113 different cases. In typical Liebowitz fashion, he had excuses for all of them. He blamed PACER (which we agree is a terrible service), but he also admits that he never thought to use his case management system -- the one he'd been forced to install a year earlier as part of sanctions in another case (the one where he blamed the death of his grandfather for failing to appear in court, and then lied about the actual date of his grandfather's death). That case also involved the judge referring Liebowitz to the Grievance Committee.Other excuses Liebowitz gave for not filing the order in cases was that he thought some cases were completely over and just missed that they had motions pending. Some cases he closed out between the time the original order was made and his attempted compliance with them. And then there were some cases which he argued he was more peripherally than directly involved in them.Either way, Judge Furman, finds this literally unbelievable.

Every day that I think I can't be shocked and horrified by anything being done in the name of politics today, I end up being more shocked and more horrified. The latest is that one of the President's campaign lawyers, Joe diGenova, who has been involved in a wide range of politically motivated conspiracy theory mongering, went on the Howie Carr show to say that fired CISA director Chris Krebs should be "taken out and shot."There's a lot to unpack here. First off, we wrote about Krebs being fired by Trump for daring to contradict the narrative that the election was rigged. Krebs is one of a very few Trump appointees who was widely respected across the political spectrum. In his years running the newly created Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), he'd been praised by many for the job he had done in actually dealing with cybersecurity threats, and coordinating information sharing about such threats to the private sector.But him telling the truth and debunking the politically motivated nonsense the President and his dwindling team of supporters are trying to spew, apparently means that Krebs has been cast out as the enemy. Making matters worse (for Trump and his supporters) was that on Sunday, 60 Minutes had Krebs on, in which he made a very credible case that the President was just making shit up in claiming that there was interference or malfeasance in the election. In fact, in that interview, Krebs highlighted the death threats that are being made against election officials, rightly calling it "a travesty" that public servants are put through this nonsense.

iMazing calls itself the Swiss Army Knife of iOS device management because it lets you truly manage your mobile data the way you want to. This all-purpose tool lets you easily browse and manage your backups, extract and print your text messages, drag and drop songs to your iPhone - all without jailbreaking your device. Licenses are for sale for 2 devices at $20, 3 devices at $25, or 5 devices at $30.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

This was rumored a week and a half ago, and at the time I stated that there was no way in hell it was happening, and that it was all just performative nonsense... but yesterday Axios reported that the White House is still pushing Congress to insert a total repeal of Section 230 into the "must pass" National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). At the time, the story was that Trump would make a trade: he wouldn't veto the bill over a provision that removed Confederate army names from US military bases if there was a full repeal of Section 230 in it.This is silly for all sorts of reasons, including the idea that you're horse trading the law that helped create the open internet for racist military base names in a bill that has fuck all to do with internet/telecom policy. Of course, then Thanksgiving happened, and the President threw a total shitfit because #DiaperDon started trending on Twitter, making him declare that we had to repeal Section 230 for "national security." Seems more like it would be for dealing with the insecurity of the President of the United States.And so it appears that the White House has decided to appease the whims of the mad child emperor, and is still pushing Congress to slip the repeal into the NDAA and hoping that the confused, misplaced, and somewhat contradictory bipartisan hatred for Section 230 will cause them to go with it. Incredibly, Axios notes that it's the Republicans in the Senate trying to talk the White House out of this plan -- though they're pushing a bunch of nonsense 230 reform bills as an "alternative." The article's only comment on Democrats is that they "are sure to object." And I think that will still doom this entire effort. But, the real goal seems to be to try to sneak through some terrible bills that are short of a full repeal.

Like AT&T, Frontier, and other U.S. telcos, Verizon has a long, rich history of taking tax breaks, regulatory favors, and taxpayer subsidies in exchange for networks it only half deploys. That was the case in the 90s when Verizon took a several billion tax breaks from the state of Pennsylvania in exchange for networks it never deployed. It was also the case in New York City, where Verizon was sued by the city for promising to deploy fiber universally to all five boroughs, and then, well, not doing that.In 2017, NYC sued Verizon, stating a 2014 deal to deploy fiber to the entire city fell well short of the full goal. As some local reporters had warned at the time (and were promptly ignored), the city's deal with Verizon contained all manner of loopholes allowing Verizon to wiggle over, under and around its obligations. And wiggle Verizon did; a 2015 city report found huge gaps in deployment coverage -- particularly in many of the less affluent, outer city boroughs.Last week during the holiday bustle the city quietly announced it had settled its lawsuit with Verizon. Under the confidential settlement, the city claims Verizon will expand fiber deployment to an additional 500,000 low income homes across the city: