Techdirt

One of the most frustrating lines that we hear from people criticizing internet website content moderation is the idea that thanks to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, websites have no incentive to do any moderation. This is a myth that I consider to be the flip side of the claims by aggrieved conservatives insisting that Section 230 requires "no bias" in moderation decisions. The "no incentive" people are (often lawyers) complaining about too little moderation. For reasons I cannot comprehend, they seem to think that the only motivation for doing anything is if the law requires you to do it. We've tried to debunk this notion multiple times, and yet it comes up again and again. Just a couple weeks ago in a panel about Section 230, a former top Hollywood lobbyist trotted it out.I've been thinking about that line a bunch over the past few days as a huge number of large companies began pulling ads from Facebook as part of a "Stop Hate for Profit" campaign put together by a bunch of non-profits.Over 200 companies have said they've joined the campaign and pulled their Facebook ads, including some big names, like Unilever, Verizon, Hershey, The North Face, Clorox, Starbucks, Reebok, Pfizer, Microsoft, Levi's, HP, Honda, Ford, Coca Cola and many, many more. Now, the cynical take on this is that with the current economic conditions and a global pandemic, many were looking to pull back on advertising anyway, and joining this campaign was a way to do so and get a bit of an earned media boost at the same time.But many of the companies are putting out statements demanding that Facebook change its practices before they'll bring back ads. Here's an open letter from Levi's:

While it required some nudging, major US ISPs announced last March they would be suspending their usage caps and overage fees for 90 days as millions of Americans hunkered down to slow the spread of COVID-19. They also struck an entirely voluntary deal with the FCC to not kick users offline during this period for nonpayment due to financial hardship, though given the fecklessness of the captured Trump FCC, many ISPs ignored these promises and saw no penalty for it.Despite the fact that the pandemic is seeing explosive growth across most of the U.S. and financial hardship for many won't be ending anytime soon, most ISPs will begin imposing usage caps and surcharges again starting in July:

California law says all police training materials must be published "conspicuously" on its Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) website. This is part of the reforms to public records law that finally allowed the public to have access to law enforcement records related to misconduct and use-of-force. This is the law a bunch of cops sued over, as well as a bunch of journalists and activists. The former group is still trying to argue they shouldn't have to fully comply with the law. The latter is arguing cops aren't fully complying with this law.But there's a federal law getting in the way of public access, as Dave Maass and Naomi Gilens report for the EFF. Unsurprisingly, it's a law we've seen abused time and time again to restrict access to all sorts of things.

Back in 2018, we wrote about the Consorzio di Tutela della Denominazione di Origine Controllata Prosecco, heretofore called only "The Prosecco People" to save my brain, opposing the trademark for a pet treats company over its branded doggy drink "Pawsecco." The EU IPO, in one of the most bizarre trademark rulings I've ever seen, acknowledged that there was almost no chance for any actual customer confusion over the use of "Pawsecco", but found in favor of The Prosecco People anyway, strictly because Prosecco was a well-known thing, and Woof and Brew's pun was referencing a well-known thing. That is simply not the purpose of trademark law. The entire idea is that the public shouldn't be confused in a given market of goods as to the origin of competing products. Pet drinks and Italian knockoffs of champagne seem fairly distinct in the marketplace.As do alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks, for that matter, and yet here come The Prosecco People again. This time, they are going after a French wine group that created a non-alcoholic sparkling grape drink and named it "Nosecco."

Do you have a bit of time? I'd suggest, before digging in here, that you get yourself a nice cup of something warm, and maybe a little snack to go with it. Because there's a lot to read here, and you're not going to want to stop. It goes on for quite a while, but it's all worth it. Every bit of it.We've written a bunch about copyright trolling lawyer Richard Liebowitz and his long history of having judges yell at and issue monetary sanctions on him, and I'd repeat some examples and link back to them (though you can just click on the link above and see all our stories about him) but why go through all that work when Judge Jesse Furman in the Southern District of NY helpfully has done it for us in his latest opinion involving a Richard Liebowitz case. Let me just say, that when a judge's opinion opens this way, it's (1) going to be a fun read (2) except if your Richard Liebowitz (and his clients).

As the debates about content moderation rage on, it is becoming increasingly clear that most people don't know a whole lot about how large internet platforms actually handle these decisions — namely, that they have teams of people who have been working and studying under the "trust and safety" umbrella for a long time. Recently, an association and related foundation were launched to help bring these experts into the public conversation, and this week we've got two of the founding board members — Adelin Cai and Clara Tsao — joining us on the podcast to discuss the actual process of addressing tough content moderation choices.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.

One of the most important privacy cases you’ve never heard of is being litigated right now in a federal district court in Maine. ACA v. Frey is a challenge by the nation’s largest broadband Internet access providers to a Maine law that protects the privacy of the state's broadband Internet users. If the broadband providers prevail, this case could eliminate sector-specific privacy laws across the nation, foreclose national privacy legislation, and have broad implications for broadband regulation generally.In May 2019, the Maine legislature overwhelmingly passed LD 946, "An Act to Protect the Privacy of Online Consumer Information." The law largely tracks the now-repealed FCC’s 2016 broadband privacy rules, requiring broadband providers to obtain customer consent before disclosing, selling or otherwise using customer personal information. When the Maine bill was being considered, broadband providers complained that the law didn't apply to online companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon. If everyone was treated the same, they claimed, they would support privacy legislation.But the industry's lawsuit shows that its true intent is to avoid privacy regulation of any kind. Instead, they claim that giving consumers any control over their own data violates the First Amendment rights of the broadband providers to market goods and services. The industry also claims that by targeting only broadband providers, and not edge providers or any other company, the law is based on their status as a "speaker" and should be subject to "strict scrutiny" under the First Amendment, which requires a law to be "narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest."The court should reject these arguments. Should it accept them, it would set the stage for overturning any and all sector-specific privacy laws as unconstitutional "speaker-based" violations of the First Amendment. If that were the case, then federal and state laws regulating the privacy practices of, among others, hospitals, financial institutions, pharmacies, credit reporting agencies, and libraries would all fall. Maine alone has nearly a dozen sector-specific laws. Now multiply that by 51.The broadband industry argues that there’s no good reason to regulate it differently than any other company. But their claim that "no special characteristics of ISPs justify that distinction" doesn’t reflect reality. Broadband access providers do have "special characteristics" that other companies—including edge providers—do not.As the FCC found in 2016, a broadband provider "sits at a privileged place in the network, the bottleneck between the customer and the rest of the network." This gatekeeper position allows broadband providers to see every piece of digital information a customer sends and receives over the Internet while on the network, often including the content of the information. Broadband providers see every website a customer visits, every communication they make, every device they use and, in many cases, every location they have visited.Despite Big Broadband’s breathless objections, the principles underlying Maine’s broadband privacy law are nothing new. Instead, the law fits within a longstanding tradition of state and federal laws that prohibit those that deliver messages of all kinds—whether paper or electronic—from disclosing any information relating to those packages; in other words, a duty of confidentiality. This "common law" covers everyone from the post office to the telephone company to a broadband provider.The reasoning is simple: in order to receive service, customers must expose their personal information to those entities. Like the post office or a telephone company, broadband providers shouldn't be allowed to unfairly exploit that information or reveal that information to others for profit. None of these laws violate the First Amendment. If this duty of confidentiality were found to be unconstitutional, all these laws, and those that protect lawyer/client, doctor/patient, and other fiduciary relationships would fall as well.In any case, the core behavior prohibited by the statute—collecting and selling data—isn't even speech. The First Amendment typically protects "expressive" activity—something meant to convey a message. Instead, the law regulates the commercial exchange of data. Just because the data could potentially transmit information does not make it expressive. My former colleagues at Public Knowledge said it best in a "friend of the court" brief supporting the State of Maine:

Face masks are now available in the Techdirt store on Threadless »We've had some requests for this, and now it begins: we're adding face masks as an option for all our gear in the Techdirt store on Threadless. Not just that, we've expanded the Threadless line with our ever-popular Takedown gear and the much-anticipated return of our most successful design ever: Nerd Harder.All the face masks are available in two versions (premium and standard) as well as youth sizes. And of course, the designs are also available on a wide variety of other products including t-shirts, hoodies, mugs, buttons, and more! Check out the Techdirt store on Threadless and order yours today.

The Data Analysis with Excel + Power BI Bundle will help you learn how to use these tool to perform complex data analysis for your business. With Power BI you can connect to hundreds of data sources, build complex relational models, and design stunning, interactive dashboards from scratch. Excel Pivot Tables provide fast, accurate, and intuitive solutions to even the most complicated questions. The final course will introduce you to Microsoft Excel's powerful data modeling and business tools Power Query, Power Pivot, and Data Analysis Expressions (DAX). 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.

Senator Ted Cruz now loves Parler, the Twitter alternative that a bunch of Trump fans mistakenly believe won't moderate content. We've already shown that's false. However, there's another issue with Parler that some are calling out -- which is that you run a risk if you agree to that site's user agreement, because of the following that is buried as #14 on the user agreement:

For years we've noted how the United States has spent billions on broadband subsidies, tax breaks, and regulatory favors for major ISPs, only to receive half-completed networks. That's largely thanks to lobbyists and the captured regulators who love them, resulting in a government that doesn't do a great job tracking where subsidy money is spent, refuses to seriously police fraud, still doesn't really know where broadband is or isn't available, and routinely approves terrible industry consolidating mergers.The result: the US is mediocre in nearly every major broadband metric that matters -- some 42 million US consumers still can't get any broadband whatsoever, and Americans pay some of the highest prices for broadband in the developed world. To fix this will require a deep look in the mirror, some significant campaign finance reform on the state and federal level, and the elimination of a revolving door regulator system that all but ensures the US broadband monopoly problem is perpetuated. Instead of doing that, we routinely try to thrown even more money at the problem in the hopes that this time will surely be different.Enter the Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act (H.R. 7302), which would create an $80 billion fiber infrastructure program run by a new Office of Internet Connectivity and Growth, coordinating the US government's response to our broadband dysfunction. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation notes, the bill is certainly filled with a lot of good ideas, including the elimination of the 19 state laws giant ISPs have lobbied for (and in many cases literally written) that prohibit or hamstring towns and cities looking to build their own broadband networks, even if the private sector has failed them:

Two years ago, the Indiana state Appeals Court ruled residents could not be compelled to unlock devices by law enforcement -- not at the drop of a warrant. To compel the production of a password, law enforcement needs to have a certain amount of information in hand before it can ask courts to hit uncooperative criminal suspects with contempt charges.The Appeals Court decision raised an interesting point about device encryption. Without decryption, the alleged criminal evidence is nothing more than a scramble of bits and bytes of no use to anyone. With the correct password in place, the data is reintegrated into something usable -- which turns the production of a password into a testimonial act.

On Monday, both Twitch and Reddit ramped up their efforts to deal with various forms of hateful content on their platforms -- and both of them ended up shutting down some forums related to President Trump -- which inevitably (but incorrectly) resulted in people again screaming about "anti-conservative bias." Reddit kicked things off by announcing new content policies (which you can read here). The key change was an expanded rule against communities that "promote hate based on identity or vulnerability."Based on that, Reddit has permanently shuttered around 2,000 subreddits, including, most notably the r/The_Donald subreddit for Trump fans. However, as if they were expecting the bogus claims of anti-conservative bias to show up in response, Reddit also shut down r/ChapoTrapHouse, which might be considered the flip side to The_Donald subreddit, but from the left end of the traditional political spectrum. Both communities were known for their anger spewing wackos. Reddit painted its decision to suspend both as a way to show that it is applying the rules equally across all its subreddits:

So many of the discussions around content moderation have focused on the so-called "edge-providers" (the companies that are more user-facing). We all know the stories about content moderation dealing with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google, etc. But for a while now we've been concerned about how the debate will play out regarding content moderation at the infrastructure layers -- that is the behind-the-scenes providers that people don't always even know exist. This includes hosting companies, DNS providers, domain registrars, CDNs, broadband providers and many, many more.So we're (in the form of our Copia Institute think tank) are excited to be a part of a new grant to research this issue, with a specific focus on how these infrastructure content moderation issues may impact competition, privacy, and liability. We're planning to do some (virtual, for the time being!) gatherings, and putting together some research about these issues as well.This is the first time we've worked with the Knight Foundation, and we're excited that they were willing to step up and support such important work.

Sometimes cop cameras do what they're supposed to. In most cases, camera footage captured by cops is used by prosecutors to build cases. But every so often, they provide the accountability we were promised when cameras began rolling out.In-car footage of officers engaging in a bigoted discussion of current protests prompted by the killing of George Floyd has resulted in some of that accountability we've heard so much about. Three Wilmington (NC) police officers have been fired for comments they made while sitting in their squad cars.This wasn't the result of a citizen's complaint. Rather this horrific "discussion" was seen by a supervisor during a routine audit of recordings.

Well, it's happened. The thing people have been warning about for years. A person lost some of their freedom due to a facial recognition mismatch. It may have only been 30 hours, but it should have been zero. And it might have been zero hours if investigators had bothered to read the disclaimers attached to its facial recognition search results.According to the New York Times report, this is the first time a false positive has led to someone being arrested. Or, at least, the first time the public's been made aware of it. A few years ago, the FBI and a local law enforcement agency used "facial analysis" performed by humans to arrest the wrong man twice for two separate robberies. This time, it was software. And it took 30 hours away from an innocent person.

The InPaint Photo Editing App Bundle has 5 apps to help you learn how to edit photos like a pro. With InPaint, you'll have the power to delete light poles, trees, photo bombers, garbage cans, and any other objects you don't want in your photos. InPaint will magically fill the selected area with intelligently-generated textures pulled from the surrounding image data. iResizer's image resizing software rescales images non uniformly while preserving the key features of the picture. Batch InPaint is designed to remove typical objects like timestamps from batches of photos. With PhotoStitcher you can stitch multiple photos into a picturesque panoramic image. With MultiView-Inpaint, you can easily remove tourists or any unwanted objects from a photo. 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.

OH NO. GOOGLE MUST HAVE ANTI-TECHDIRT BIAS! THEY'RE THREATENING TO DEFUND US! Or not. A couple of weeks ago, we received yet another notice from Google that some of the pages on Techdirt violated its AdSense policies (AdSense is Google's program for putting ads on 3rd party pages). We'll get to what those pages were and what the complaints were in a moment, but the timing struck us as ironic -- as it came a day after we had written about why Google sending a similar notice to The Federalist was not some conspiracy of "anti-conservative bias" to silence them. Yet, when it happened to the Federalist, a bunch of big name politicians and commentators went into overdrive attacking Google.So my question: where are they now defending Techdirt? Hmm?The background: a few weeks back there was a bunch of attention paid to a misleading story from NBC claiming that Google had banned the Federalist from its ad program -- The Federalist, of course, being a laughable propaganda machine promoting the president's messaging, no matter how ridiculous it makes that site look. So, immediately, a bunch of people jumped onto the claims that this was yet more evidence of "anti-conservative bias" by Google and an attack on a website that supports the president. A bunch of politicians jumped onto the grandstanding train, starting with old friend Senator Josh Hawley who sent an angry letter demanding answers from Sundar Pichai:

You may be shocked to learn this, but nearly all of the promises AT&T made in the lead up to its $86 billion merger with Time Warner wound up not being true.The company's promise that the deal wouldn't result in price hikes for consumers? False. The company's promise the deal wouldn't result in higher prices for competitors needing access to essential AT&T content like HBO? False. AT&T's promise they wouldn't hide Time Warner content behind exclusivity paywalls? False. The idea that the merger would somehow create more jobs at the company? False.Last week, yet another AT&T promise disappeared without much fanfare or notice. Ahead of the Time Warner merger, AT&T promised regulators the deal would directly culminate in the release of a cheaper, $15 per month TV service dubbed AT&T Watch. This $15 service was highly promoted not only in AT&T filings, but during its court defense of the merger by the CEO himself:

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is That One Guy with the only sane response to seeing a jokey cartoon about police brutality in an official police use-of-force training presentation:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2015, the Sunday Times in the UK was doubling down on its widely criticized article in which it parroted the government's talking points, while the GCHQ was in trouble for illegally holding onto emails (but not for collecting them in the first place). New documents released by Wikileaks revealed that the NSA had been spying on French presidents (which France was not happy with, even though it was moving to do more spying of its own), while the FISA court was tackling questions about Section 215 surveillance. We also learned about Google being gagged for four years from talking about fighting the Wikileaks investigation, including some ridiculous redactions required by the DOJ.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2010, a closely-watched lawsuit about the "hot news doctrine" was drawing interest from across the board, with Google and Twitter weighing in to oppose the return of the doctrine while a huge group of newspaper publishers were predictably taking the other side, and internet rights groups were stepping in to tackle the First Amendment issues. We saw an extremely terrible ruling in the Golan case saying it's okay to remove content from the public domain, and another very good ruling with the court smacking down Viacom in its lawsuit against Google (which left Viacom in denial).Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2005, the MPAA was refusing to give up and making yet another attempt to get the Broadcast Flag enshrined in law, while at the same time embarrassing itself with wild overhype about shutting down a DVD processing plant — which it tried to explain away by claiming it was calculating projections of future piracy. Politicians in the EU were making it clear that they really didn't understand software patents, but were moving forward with them anyway, while the US Register of Copyrights was proposing major changes in copyright law. We also saw the start of yet another important appeal about the DMCA.

It is exceedingly difficult to overcome qualified immunity in civil rights lawsuits against law enforcement officers. It often seems no matter how egregious the rights violation, qualified immunity still gets awarded because no previous law enforcement officer has egregiously violated rights in this exact way prior to the current case.It's a rigged game -- one rigged by the very same institution that cursed the nation with this judicial construct more than 50 years ago. The Supreme Court conjured up this atrocity in 1967 and has spent the last several decades making it even more difficult for cops to be held accountable for their actions.In this case [PDF], via Gabriel Malor, it's a pair of unicorns. Not only does the Sixth Circuit Appeals Court strip the qualified immunity the lower court awarded to a couple of Ohio cops, but it also strips the immunity from the city of Euclid, Ohio. It's a very rare occurrence when courts actually find a "pattern and practice" argument worthy of a sustained Monell claim and this is one of them.Let's jump right in and see what led to this lawsuit. Surprise, surprise: it's the beat down and bogus arrest of an unarmed black man. Lamar Wright was conversing with a friend while sitting in his SUV. Unbeknownst to Wright, he and his friend were being surveilled by plainclothes cops on the lookout for drug activity. The officers presumed any short conversation between black men must be drug-related and rolled up on Wright. Here's what happened next:

In all sorts of intellectual property conversations, one common refrain is something like "If you let people copy others, those copycats will be just as successful without having to work to develop a product." This ire is most commonly aimed at big companies that see something successful and simply come up with their own version of it. And, to be generous, there certainly does seem to be something less than fair about that. But then you take a step back and watch just how often these copycat startups fall flat on their faces and you have to wonder why anyone worries about this stuff at all. Does nobody remember Google Plus?Other companies have shown that it often builds more trust to not care about copycats any further than poking fun at them. Again, this is because the innovator almost always has a massive leg up on the copycat competitor, rather than the other way around. The most recent example of this is Microsoft's Mixer platform, which was supposed to be a streaming service geared towards video gaming, with Twitch being the competition it was trying to "copy" off of. Well, even with the corporate power and war chest of Microsoft behind it, the platform failed and has since been offloaded to Facebook Gaming.

Senator Kelly Loeffler has apparently jumped on the grandstanding bandwagon in trying to destroy Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act without understanding the first thing about how any of this works. Loeffler was already a co-sponsor of Josh Hawley's latest dumb bill to reform Section 230 and somehow decided that she had to introduce her own, even dumber, bill. It is clear that Loeffler, the wealthiest elected official in Congress (by a lot), has never spent any time with the actual working people who do content moderation. Because her bill is written by someone who doesn't understand the first thing about how all of this works.The key to Loeffler's bill is the unconstitutional dream that some ignorant people have that websites shouldn't be able to remove any speech except speech that isn't covered by the 1st Amendment. Among the things her bill would do is change Section 230's famous Section (c)(1) (the so-called "26 words that created the internet" by saying that no website is liable for 3rd party speech) to only apply if a website is focused on moderating "unlawful" speech. Under her bill (c)(1) would go from:

A Case Study in an edTech appToday I discovered that my twelve year old daughter doesn’t read the books in school that she’d most like to read. She chooses the ones that will get her the most points on the school reading app.Each book in the English school library, is listed on the American app, weighted with a reading level. Children earn a book’s points depending on how well they do on the online quiz to prove they read it.Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is rated at level 6 and gets you 18 points. Susan Cooper’s novel, The Dark is Rising, also a level 6, only wins the reader 13 points by comparison. Heller’s Catch-22 is a level 7.1 and gets you a whopping maximum possible 30 points. By contrast, Orwell’s Animal Farm while rated at a higher level, 7.3 only gets you 5 points closer to the bronze, silver, gold, and platinum goals.

Germany's speech laws are bad and they're getting worse. Ignoring the rights the government has (apparently provisionally) extended to citizens, the recent years have seen a lot of claw-back by this same government as it seeks to regulate more kinds of speech, including the ultra vague "hate" variety.The laws place more pressure on platforms to be responsive to "eye of the beholder"-type demands to remove "hate speech." This, of course, leads to over-blocking. Every so often, a different branch of the government is asked to weigh in. And when it does, it finds the supposedly criminal content isn't actually criminal.As is the case with most vague speech regulations, collateral damage is expected. It's so expected it almost appears to be acceptable to regulators. But even the vaguest of speech laws can't explain what's happening here.

The EVEN H4 Wireless Headphones are like your usual Bluetooth 5.0 headphones but better. It features a built-in quick and easy EarPrint setup that learns and adapts music to for your unique hearing profile so you never skip a beat or miss a note. Featuring EVEN's voice assistant Sarah, the EarPrint is built into the headphones and only takes 90 seconds to set up. With over 20 hours of battery life, EVEN H4 lets you enjoy your music for the whole day. They're on sale for $100 and if you use the code SAVE20EVENH4, you'll receive an additional $20 off.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Like Gab before it, the hot new Twitter-wannabe service for assholes and trolls kicked off of Twitter is Parler. The President and a bunch of his supporters have hyped it up, and the latest is that Senator Ted Cruz (and Rep. Devin Nunes) have recently joined it, and like others before them they have hyped up the misleading claim that Parler supports free speech unlike Twitter. Cruz -- who has been spewing blatantly false information about "anti-conservative bias" on various internet platforms -- even announced his move to Parler... on Twitter, which does not seem to be moderating him at all. Cruz's overwrought speech is full of nonsense that has come to typify his pathetic attempt to win fans among Trump's base.But, I did want to take a closer look at the claims that Parler supports free speech, because it does so in basically the same way every other platform -- including the way Twitter, Youtube and Facebook do: by saying that they can remove your content for any reason they want. Their user agreement includes this:

Over at our Tech Policy Greenhouse, Article19's Joey Salazar and Consumer Reports' Benjamin Moskowitz just discussed how it's long past time to encrypt the Domain Name Server (DNS) system at the heart of the internet. Thanks to the GOP demolishing of FCC broadband privacy rules in 2017, ISPs have carte blanche to monetize this data as they see fit, storing and selling access to your DNS browsing data to data brokers who continue to build detailed user profiles with little to no meaningful oversight.At the forefront of encrypting DNS have been Google and Mozilla, both of which have been pushing for a standard known as "DNS over HTTPS," a significant security upgrade to DNS that encrypts and obscures your domain requests, making it more difficult (though not impossible) to see which websites a user is visiting. The proposal doesn't come without downsides, and has seen opposition from ISPs that are either eager to continue to profit off of this data, or are worried that somebody else will (usually Google) if they can't.Comcast, AT&T, and others had previously been trying to demonize the Google and Mozilla efforts any way they could, from insisting the move constitutes an antitrust violation on Google's part (it doesn't), to saying it's a threat to national security (it's not), to suggesting it even poses a risk to 5G deployments (nah).After Mozilla claimed to Congress that ISPs were being disingenuous with their opposition to the plan, at least one major ISP appears to have come around to the proposal. This week Mozilla announced that Comcast had joined the Firefox Trusted Recursive Resolver (TRR) program, which requires encrypted-DNS providers to not only meet privacy and transparency standards, but to promise not to block or filter domains by default "unless specifically required by law in the jurisdiction in which the resolver operates." From the blog post:

The NYPD has never been the most honest -- or the most transparent -- law enforcement agency. It enjoys the secrecy it has. And it really enjoys the secrecy it grants itself. And it seems to enjoy hiding as much as it can from the public at all times.Trying to live up to its self-imposed reputation as "New York's Finest" must be exhausting. So much bad news to bury so often. The city has asked for stats from the department but it's not getting honest answers. New York's cops kill far fewer people per capita than almost any other major city in the United States. But they kill far more people than the NYPD is willing to admit, even when directed to share this data with the city's Health Department.

Lawyer Charles Harder (who, yes, was once the lawyer for the guy who sued us) has built up a nice reputation now of the lawyer who tries and fails to stop people from saying stuff that upsets President Trump. You may recall that Harder, representing the president, threatened former Trump adviser Steve Bannon for his supposed quotes to author Michael Wolff. More recently, Harder, representing the Trump Campaign, has sued the NY Times, the Washington Post and CNN over various articles (often opinion pieces) that portray the President negatively.His latest move, representing Donald Trump's brother, Robert Trump, is to sue Mary Trump, Donald Trump's niece, over her new book that is quite critical of the President. The argument in the lawsuit? That Mary Trump was violating a confidentiality clause that was part of the settlement of a legal dispute over the estate of Fred Trump -- another of Donald's brothers, and Mary's father. It took all of about a day for the judge to reject the lawsuit, basically because Charles Harder messed up the filing.

A few weeks ago we highlighted Ron Wyden's explanation of the intent of Section 230, which was useful since he was one-half of the team that wrote the law. Now, the other half of the team, Chris Cox has written a long and detailed article highlighting how nearly every attempt at reform of 230 misunderstands both the intent and history of the law. On the history side, he highlights the incorrect notion being spread by some that Section 230 was designed as "balance" to go along with the rest of the Communications Decency Act, which was written by porn-hating Senator James Exon. Some have argued that because the two were passed together, but then the rest of the CDA was thrown out as unconstitutional, that now means that 230 is somehow unbalanced.As Cox points out, that's completely untrue. The Cox-Wyden proposal was designed to be an alternative approach to Exon's obviously crazy approach:

Leaving aside the many legal and ethical questions associated with the publication of John Bolton's The Room Where it Happened, there's one question nobody (to my knowledge) has asked: Why should John Bolton get copyright protection?As a matter of law, this is what lawyers call a "stupid question." Under virtually every copyright regime in human history, Bolton's book would be eligible for copyright. But when asked concerning the economics of the publishing industry and the public's right to know what happened in the room where it happened, the question becomes far more interesting.The Room Where it Happened will be a financial success. The book is number one on Amazon Kindle–with 200,000 copies already shipped to booksellers–and Bolton has secured a slew of top-dollar speaking engagements.The army of eager readers pre-ordering the book and all those who will buy it as soon as it is released are evidence of a lead-time advantage that exists independent of exclusivity and isn't unique to this situation.A few weeks in theaters is enough to make back the production cost (and then some) of a blockbuster movie. In the complete absence of copyright, some people would probably wait to grab a free copy online; there are already pirated copies of The Room Where it Happened floating around the internet. But every pre-order of a book or game, and every packed theater at a midnight premier, is an opportunity to charge a premium that doesn't rely on copyright.An obvious response to this is that, while there will always be a population willing to pay to receive content as soon as possible, among those first in line are those willing to wait a little while for it to appear online for free–especially if there were no legal risks for copying. This is probably true on the margins. Still, it doesn't imply that nobody (or next to nobody) would purchase this book, and we have a few natural experiments to prove it.Thanks to the government edicts doctrine, all works created by government officials in the course of their official duties are in the public domain. Court decisions, legislation, and reports of all kinds are all posted online for free. If we apply the logic that in the absence of copyright (almost) nobody would purchase what they can get online for free, then the sales of high-profile government reports would be negligible.This couldn't be further from the truth. The Starr Report, the first "blockbuster" government publication after the dawn of the internet, sold millions of paperback copies shortly after its release. This is back in the days of laserjet and low-resolution computer monitors, so it's certainly not a one-to-one comparison. However, we still see sales of these reports even as reading on a computer became more tolerable. Released in July 2004, the 9/11 Commission Report sold over a million copies by November of that year. It vastly outperformed The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report, which still sold all 25,000 copies from its initial printing in a month. The Mueller Report was also a minor bestseller.For all intents and purposes, copyright law does't exist for these works. I can't say whether or not the government made its money back from these sales (the answer is likely no due to the intensive fact-finding involved and sales by third parties), and these examples are far from sufficient to refute the case for copyright as a whole. Even so, these natural experiments thoroughly disprove the notion that free access necessarily makes for a commercial flop.As a memoir of sorts, The Room Where It Happened doesn't have the overhead of a government inquiry. Time and effort surely went into the writing and editing of the book, but the source material is Bolton's time in the White House. This leads to the second reason The Room Where it Happened should be in the public domain: the contents should have been public record.Ten thousand years ago, in January 2020, there was the possibility that John Bolton would testify during the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. This didn't happen. Had it happened, it is highly likely that a significant amount of the information in The Room Where it Happened would have been made available to the public.Would this have changed the outcome of the impeachment trial? Probably not. Had he testified, would everything in The Room Where it Happened come out in Bolton's testimony? Again, probably not. But John Bolton's words would have been on the record and not behind a paywall.In the context of John Bolton, this may not seem like a serious issue. Aside from the pirated copies, reviews of the book have already revealed some truly outlandish conduct by the Trump Administration–and the President in particular. But it is worth knowing what happened in his words specifically for the same reason direct testimony is more valuable than an accurate second-hand account.Direct quotations, even lengthy ones, would qualify as fair use depending on the context, and I don't think there's a serious risk of this book falling down the same copyright memory hole that books from the 20th century have. Still, unrestricted access for the American public can only be guaranteed by the public domain.There is obviously a middle ground between the public domain and our current copyright laws. It is also safe to say that, whatever his motives, John Bolton has done some kind of service by writing The Room Where it Happened. Regardless, it's cases like these that create the opportunity to critically examine both the economic logic of copyright law and how to balance it with access to information in a democracy.

We've long noted how Bill Barr, a former Verizon lawyer (and forefather of our domestic surveillance apparatus) isn't a big fan of this whole "rule of law" thing. It had already been established that he'd been wielding the DOJ's antitrust authority as a personal Trump bludgeon, using it to launch capricious, unnecessary probes (the whole short-lived and nonsensical inquiry into California automaker emissions), and prop up the interests of companies willing to kiss Trump's ass voraciously enough (the decision to rubber stamp the Sprint/T-Mobile merger while ignoring all objective data).But in testimony this week before Congress, longtime agency employee turned whistleblower John Elias made it very clear that it's all dumber and worse than we had previously known. The cornerstone of his testimony (pdf) involved noting that Bill Barr and DOJ antitrust boss Makan Delrahim routinely ignored staff advice and waged all manner of vindictive, facts-optional, politically motivated assaults on industry under the auspices of "antitrust."Barr's biggest target appears to be the legal marijuana industry, investigations into which consumed upwards of 29% of agency resources. In many instances, he notes, Barr's DOJ launched inquiries into marijuana companies and smaller mergers that in no way posed competitive or monopolistic threats. In many instances, the merging companies didn't even compete with one another. Yet the inquiries pulled agency resources from investigations into, you know, actual monopolies:

The All-in-One Six Sigma Bundle has 8 courses geared to help you become a better manager by learning the Six Sigma belts and the Lean method. You'll learn how to get to the root cause of business problems with the 5 Why Analysis, how to use Minitab to analyze any business situation, how to visualize an organisation from an end-to-end perspective, and much more. It's on sale for $40.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Last fall, when it first came out that Senator Brian Schatz was working on a bill to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, I raised questions publicly about the rumors concerning the bill. Schatz insisted to me that his staff was good, and when I highlighted that it was easy to mess this up, he said I should wait until the bill is written before trashing it:

Is it too early to say "I told you so" yet?Despite countless pre-merger promises that its $26 billion merger would create oodles of new jobs, T-Mobile laid off 6,000 employees at its Metro prepaid division before the ink was even dry. Another 200 Sprint employees were fired during a 6 minute conference call a few weeks ago. T-Mobile and Sprint quietly confirmed the layoffs had nothing to do with the pandemic.Both the FCC and DOJ ignored all critical data and rubber stamped the deal, because that's what feckless, revolving-door regulators do. The only real resistance T-Mobile saw to its competition and job-eroding deal was the California PUC, which set certain 5G deployment (T-Mobile had to deliver 5G connections of at least 300Mbps to 93 percent of California by the end of 2024) and job (T-Mobile had to hire 1,000 additional employees within three years in California) targets. Given T-Mobile told regulators repeatedly that the merger would dramatically expand 5G deployment and jobs by default, neither should have been a problem.Yet less than three months from the deal's closure and T-Mobile is already trying to wiggle out from underneath its obligations in California by claiming California regulators lack the authority to enforce them:

The UK's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has taken a look at what law enforcement officers are hoovering up from citizens' phones and doesn't like what it sees. The relentless march of technology has enabled nearly everyone to walk around with a voluminous, powerful computer in their pocket -- one filled with the details and detritus of everyday living. And that relentless march has propelled citizens and their pocket computers right into the UK's regulatory void.The ICO's report [PDF] doesn't just deal with the amount of data and communications UK cops can get from suspects' phones. It also deals with the insane amount of data cops are harvesting from devices owned by victims and witnesses of criminal acts. Left unaddressed, the lack of a solid legal framework surrounding mobile phone extractions (MPEs) will continue to lead law enforcement officers to believe they can harvest everything and look for the relevant stuff at their leisure.Very few people would consent to this sort of intrusive search, but some aren't aware of how extensive these searches are. Those that are aware are less likely to come forward to help further an investigation, even if they're a victim of a crime.

Back at the end of 2017, Germany's competition authority, the Bundeskartellamt, made a preliminary assessment that Facebook's data collection is "abusive". At issue was a key component of Facebook's business model: amassing huge quantities of personal data about people, not just from their use of Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram, but also from other sites. If a third-party website has embedded Facebook code for things such as the 'like' button or a 'Facebook login' option, or uses analytical services such as 'Facebook Analytics', data will be transmitted to Facebook via APIs when a user calls up that third party's website for the first time. The user is not given any choice in this, and it was this aspect that the Bundeskartellamt saw as "abusive".After the preliminary assessment, in February 2019 the German competition authority went on to forbid Facebook from gathering information in this way without voluntary permission from users:

Well, some small bit of good news in the Section 230 front: after a judge was clearly skeptical over Devin Nunes' arguments for why Twitter should be involved in Nunes' frivolous SLAPP suit over a satirical internet cow that mocks him, the judge has now announced that Section 230 of the CDA rightly protects Twitter.In a letter that quickly dismisses each of Nunes's lawyer Steven Biss's silly arguments why 230 doesn't apply, the judge basically says "nope" to all of those arguments and tells Twitter's lawyer to draft an order dismissing Twitter from the case. Here's just one part of the letter:

While we often read about (and most likely experience ourselves) public outrage regarding personal data pulled from websites like Facebook, the news often fails to highlight the staggering amounts of personal data collected by our governments, both directly and indirectly. Outside of the traditional Fourth Amendment protocols for constitutional searches and seizures, personally identifiable information (PII) – information that can be used to potentially identify an individual – is collected when we submit tax returns, apply for government assistance programs or interact with federal and government social media accounts.Technology has not only expanded governments’ capability to collect and hold onto our data, but has also transformed the ways in which that data is used. It is not uncommon now for entities to collect metadata or data that summarizes and provides information about other data (for example, the author of a file or the date and time the file was last edited). The NSA, for instance, collected metadata from over 500 million calls detailing records during 2017, much of which it did not have the legal authority to collect. Governments now even purchase huge amounts of data from third party tech companies.The implementation of artificial intelligence tools throughout the government sector has influenced what these entities do with our data. Governments aiming to “reduce the cost of core governance functions, improve the quality of decisions, and unleash the power of administrative data the name” have implemented tools like artificial intelligence decision making in both criminal and civil contexts. Algorithms can be effective tools in remedying government inefficiencies, and idealistic champions believe that artificial intelligence can eliminate human and subjective emotions to obtain a logical and “fairer” outcome. Data collected by governments plays a role in developing these tools. Individual data is taken and aggregated into data sets which are then used for algorithmic decision making.With all this data, what steps do governments take to protect the information they collect from their citizens?Currently, there are real and valid concerns that governments fail to take the adequate steps necessary to protect and secure data. Take, for instance, the ever-increasing number of data breaches in densely populated cities like New York and Atlanta. In 2018, the city of Atlanta was subjected to a major ransomware attack by an Iranian based group of hackers that shut down major city systems and led to outages that were related to “applications customers use to pay bills or access court related information,” (as per Richard Cox, the city's Chief of Operations at the time). Notably, the city had been heavily criticized for its subpar IT and cybersecurity infrastructure and apathetic attitude towards fixing any vulnerabilities in the city.While the city claimed there was little evidence that the attack had compromised any of its citizens’ data, this assertion seems unrealistic given the span and length of the attack and the number of systems that were compromised.Race, Algorithms and Data PrivacyAs a current law student, I have given much thought over the last few years to the role of technology as the “great equalizer.” For decades, technology proponents have advocated for increased use in the government sector by highlighting its ability to level the playing field and provide opportunities for success to all, regardless of race, gender or economic income.However, having gained familiarity with the legal and criminal justice systems, I have begun to see that human racial and gender biases, coupled with government officials’ failure to understand or question technological tools like artificial intelligence, often leads to inequitable results. Further, the allocation of governments funds for technological tools often go to police and prosecution rather than defense and protection of vulnerable communities.There is a real threat that algorithms do not achieve the intended goals of objectivity and fairness, but further perpetuate the inequalities and biases that already exist within our societies. Artificial intelligence has enabled governments to cultivate “big data” and thus, have added another tool to their arsenals of surveillance technology. “Advances in computational science have created the ability to capture, collect, and combine everyone's digital trails and analyze them in ever finer detail." Through the weaponization of big data, governments can even more easily identify, control, and oppress marginalized groups of people within a society.As our country currently addresses the decades of systematic racism inherent in our political and societal systems, privacy must be included in the conversation and reform. I believe that data privacy today is regarded as a privilege rather than a right, and this privilege is often reserved for white, middle- and upper class citizens. The complex, confusing and lengthy nature of privacy policies not only requires some familiarity with data privacy and what the government and companies do with data, but also the time, energy and resources to read through the entirety of the document. If the receipt of vital benefits was contingent on my acceptance of a government website privacy policy, I have no doubt that I would accept the terms regardless of how

For years leading up to the passage of FOSTA, we were told that Congress had to pass the law as quickly as possible because so many women were "at risk" due to trafficking. And when asked for evidence of this, people would point to Backpage, even though the site had shut down its "adult" section under pressure from Congress a year earlier. Of course, the actual stats that were provided turned out to be fake and Backpage was seized before the law was even passed. The charges against the founders did not include sex trafficking charges. Also, as the details have come out about Backpage, it's become evident that rather than facilitating sex trafficking, the company was actively working with law enforcement to find and arrest sex traffickers. However, where they started to push back on law enforcement was when law enforcement wanted to go after non-trafficked sex workers.However, with all of the moral panic around the need to pass FOSTA, we highlighted earlier this year that two years had gone by and the DOJ had not used the law a single time to go after any "sex trafficking" site. Instead, as we predicted, the law was being used in nuisance lawsuits, such as mailing list provider MailChimp and CRM provider Salesforce because Backpage had used those services.Finally, last week, however, the DOJ made use of FOSTA in shutting down a website and arresting its operator. A site called CityXGuide.com (and some other sites that it ran -- including one with a name similar to Backpage) were seized, and the guy who ran it, Wilhan Martono, was arrested in California. From the details provided, it does look like Martono saw an opportunity to jump into the market vacated by Backpage, and the charges claim that he brought in $21 million doing so.The original indictment was done in early June, but it was only just unsealed with Martono's arrest and the seizure of the various websites. It does seem clear that Martono sought to be the source for advertising sex work, but the DOJ conveniently mashes together sex work and sex trafficking, because that's the kind of thing law enforcement likes to do.Indeed, the immediate reaction to this appears to be that plenty of non-trafficked sex workers, who previously had relied on Backpage to remain safe and now relied on Martono's sites, are again put in danger. The Hacking/Hustling collective -- a group of sex workers who came together to advocate around issues such as FOSTA -- put out a press release calling out what a stupid, counterproductive move this is:

The All-In-One Mastering Organization Bundle has 5 courses to help you become more organized and efficient. You'll learn how to organize all your digital files into a single inbox-based system, how to organize your ideas into a hierarchy, how to categorize each object in your home/apartment/office/vehicle into one of the categories from the "One System Framework," and more. It's on sale for $30.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Another day, another bad bill. Just as we're coming to terms with the EARN IT Act moving forward in Congress, three Senators -- Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton, and Marsha Blackburn -- have announced a direct attack on encryption. The full bill is here. It's 51 pages of insanity that would effectively destroy privacy and security on the internet. This is five-alarm fire bad.For what it's worth, Graham is also a co-sponsor of the EARN IT Act, which makes me wonder if he's going to agree to an amendment of EARN IT that keeps encryption out of it while pushing this bill instead. That's now the rumor making the rounds, and I even received a press release from an anti-porn activist group supporting this bill because they think it will help clarify that EARN IT won't end encryption (none of that makes sense to me either, but...)The announcement of the bill includes all the usual "think of the children" nonsense, claiming that we can't have encryption because some bad people might use it for bad stuff. The press release summarizes what they claim the bill will do:

FCC boss Ajit Pai likes to repeatedly proclaim that one of his top priorities while chair of the FCC is to "close the digital divide." Pai, who clearly harbors post-FCC political aspirations, can often be found touring the nation's least-connected states proclaiming that he's working tirelessly to shore up broadband connectivity and competition nationwide. More often than not, the junkets involve Pai informing locals that gutting FCC oversight of some of the least competitive, least liked companies in America resulted in near-miraculous outcomes.Reality continues to have something else to say.In the wake of COVID-19 quarantines, more attention than ever has been given to the fact that upwards of 41 million Americans (double official FCC estimates) still can't get any type of broadband despite thirty years of subsidization and lip service toward fixing the nation's "digital divide." Millions more can't afford service because feckless regulators and limited competition work in concert to ensure U.S. broadband prices remain some of the highest in the developed world. This was always a problem. It's just more obvious now that citizens in countless COVID-19 hotspots are forced to actually pay attention to it.While there's a universe of folks paid by the sector to pretend this is all fantasy or hyperbole, at the heart of the problem remains captured regulators who can't be bothered to hold bad actors accountable or adequately map where US broadband is or isn't available. The Reveal has a good piece talking to policy experts who, (once again with feeling) note that the core of the problem is bad FCC leadership and bad data. As in, we literally do not know where broadband is available in the United States or at what speeds and price points it's offered. We pretend we do, but we simply don't:

A bunch of police reform efforts are underway in New York City. NYPD officers may not have been responsible for the killing that has sparked protests around the country, but they've provided plenty of ammo for police critics and reformers over the years.With Mike Bloomberg no longer running front office interference for the PD, the department has found itself absorbing more un-deflected criticism. This criticism is finally turning to action, now that it's incredibly inconvenient for ANY city to pretend its law enforcement agencies aren't in need of an overhaul.Early last week, NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea decided to dismantle the NYPD's plainclothes units. These officers didn't look like police officers. And since they didn't look like police officers, they didn't behave like police officers. Removing the uniform seemed to remove all pretense of accountability as well, resulting in the so-called (and strangely-named) "anti-crime" units being the NYPD's leader in crimes committed against citizens.

The attacks never stop. After rumors last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee has officially put the EARN IT Act onto the schedule for this week, though many expect that it will get held over and marked up next week on July 2nd, which, conveniently, is a neat time to sneak through legislation when lots of people are not paying any attention (right before July 4th). In short, this means that there's a decent chance the EARN IT bill will be moving forward and could potentially pass.This would be very, very bad. I won't go back over everything in it, but the general intent of the bill is to undermine both encryption and Section 230 by trying to make Section 230 dependent on not offering encryption. That's at the highest level. Now, the bill is written in a sneaky way to let some Senators pretend it won't impact encryption, since encryption is not mentioned in the bill. However, the bill does condition 230 protections on meeting certain "best practices" that would be developed through a process mostly controlled by the Attorney General, who has made it clear his number one priority regarding the internet is to kill off real encryption. As we've discussed, the EARN IT Act creates a very dangerous moderator's dilemma that will act to suppress both free speech online and the ability to communicate securely and privately.And beyond moving forward with such a bad proposal, and trying to sneak it through during a holiday week, it's astounding that this is happening right at the very moment when more people than ever are relying on the internet to work from home -- a situation in which open speech platforms and strong encryption are more important than ever. Indeed, Senator Blumenthal, one of the sponsors of the bill who insisted it wouldn't be used to target encryption, is the same senator who got angry when he found out Zoom video calls weren't end-to-end encrypted.If he wants to support encryption and promise that EARN IT won't be used to undermine encryption, he should write that explicitly into the law.In short, the EARN IT Act would:

Last week, the attacks on Section 230 kicked into high gear with Senator Hawley's bill and the DOJ recommendations both coming out on the same day. As usual, the content of the bill and recommendations — and the discussion around them — is a huge mess, so this week we've got returning guests Emma Llansó and Cathy Gellis joining us to discuss just what's going on with Section 230 and what these proposals would do.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.

Welcome back to Techdirt's favorite faux game show, Playing Semantics! This week, we're diving back into the semantics of moderation, discretion, and censorship. As a reminder, this bit is what we were arguing about last time:Moderation is a platform operator saying "we don't do that here." Discretion is you saying "I won't do that there." Censorship is someone saying "you can't do that anywhere" before or after threats of either violence or government intervention.Now, if we're all caught up, let's get back into the game!A Few Nits to PickIn my prior column, I overlooked a couple of things that I shouldn't have. I'll go over them here to help everyone get on the same page as me.

I would assume big corporations have the funds to hire Top Legal Minds, but what do I know? Maybe I'm just making this assumption because it seems like the sort of thing you should do when you have lots of capital and a plethora of brands to watch over.Kellogg's -- the manufacturer of Cheez-It snack crackers, along with hundreds of other foodstuffs -- is no stranger to wielding IP law like a defective, factory-second bat. Every so often, its highly paid IP lawyers take a swing with it, but seldom manage to injure anyone but themselves and the company they represent. Kellogg's has tried to assert IP dominance over toucans and Mayan imagery in the past. More recently, it went after an Australian tennis player who branded himself "Special K."Its latest move is something else entirely. I mean, it's just as dumb but it involves copyright rather than trademarks. And it does involve the Streisand effect, which means the thing it hoped to nuke out of existence with a bogus DMCA takedown is about the only thing people see when they view responses to the Cheez-It Twitter account's tweets.Back in late April, Cheez-It offered up some free backgrounds for snack fans to use as video chat backgrounds.