Techdirt

It never ceases to amaze me how often people that really should know better seem to think that they can simply remove their own histories from the internet effectively. It seems the be a lesson never learned, be it from major corporations or even the Pope, that the internet never forgets. Thanks to tools like The Wayback Machine and others, attempts to sweep history under the rug are mostly fruitless endeavors. And, yet, people still try.Such as Michael Caputo, the new spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services. That department is just a tad important at the moment, given the COVID-19 pandemic we're all enduring. Well, Caputo got the job and decided he better get to Twitter to delete all that racist and conspiratorial shit he said so that we all don't find out about it.

Over the last month or so, we've written plenty on the challenges of social media companies managing content moderation in the midst of a pandemic, highlighting the challenges when misinformation is coming from official sources, when it's impossible to distinguish legit info from misinformation, when the intersection of politics and misinformation gets tricky, and, of course, when platforms have to rely more on AI while all their workers are working from home (raising significant privacy concerns if they're still moderating content).In the long run, what happened over the last couple months is going to represent a truly fascinating place to look for case studies about content moderation on the internet -- but only if the data is available. To that end, a bunch of public interest groups, led by CDT, have put out an open letter asking social media platforms to preserve as much as possible about the content moderation decisions they're making and to be as transparent as possible for future research:

Get your OK, Landlord gear

On April 11, Princeton mathematician and the inventor of “Game of Life” John Horton Conway passed away from the coronavirus. Known as a “magical genius” whose curiosity extended beyond just mathematics, the passing was a devastating blow to many who loved the man.Yet as news of his passing broke, an interesting scenario developed. Instead of a formal statement from the institution or his family, the news first appeared on Twitter. With no verifiable proof of the claim, many were left struggling to determine whether to believe the story.This scenario––a questionable story that can be proven true or false in time––presents a challenge for combating the spread of false information online. As we have seen many times before on social media, stories are often shared prior to the information being verified. Unfortunately, this will increasingly occur––especially in an election year and during a pandemic. Therefore, examining how social media responded during this particular event can help better determine the rules and patterns that drive the spread of information online.Around 2:00 pm EST on Saturday, April 11, news started to spread on social media that John Horton Conway had died. The main source was a tweet that came from a fellow mathematician, who expressed his condolences and shared a story of Conway writing a blog post for April Fool’s Day.As the news began to spread, most individuals who saw the tweets accepted the information as true and began expressing condolences themselves.However some started to question the news; mainly because the original tweet had no source verifying the claim. As time went on, people began to speculate that this may indeed be a hoax, and many began deleting and retracting earlier tweets; a void existed where a source should be.Users filled that void with Wikipedia, a platform where any individual can make changes to the information on any given page. However, this led to a series of citation conflicts, where users would post and then others would delete the post, claiming a lack of source.The confusion eventually died down as more individuals who knew John Horton Conway explained what had happened, and how they knew. Indeed, the account that first broke the news followed up later with an explanation of what happened. But in that brief window where questions arose, we received a glimpse into how social media reacts to questionable news. And as if discovering the rules to a “Game of Misinformation,” this teaches us a few important lessons about user behavior and how misinformation spreads over time.First, most users quickly trusted the initial reports as the information filtered in. This is to be expected: research has shown that individuals tend to trust those in their social networks. And indeed, the mathematician whose tweet was the primary source, while not the closest person to the deceased, was in the same community. In other words, what he said had weight. Further, by linking an article in Scientific American, users may have made a connection between the news and the article, even when the tweet did specify that was not the case.Because of this level of trust within networks, individuals must carefully consider the content and the context by which they share information. Rushing to post breaking news can cause significant harms when that information is incorrect. At the same time, presentation can also have a drastic impact on how the reader digests the information. In this case, linking to the Scientific American story provided interesting context about the man behind the name, but also could give the reader the impression that the article supported the claim that he had died. That is not to say that any tweets in this situation were hasty or ill-conceived, but individuals must remain mindful of how the information shared online is presented and may be perceived by the audience.Second, people do read comments and replies. The original tweet or social media post may receive the most attention, but many users will scroll through the comments, especially those who post the original material. This leads to two key conclusions. First, users should critically examine information and wait for additional verification before accepting assertions as truth. Second, when information seems incorrect, or at least unverified, users can and should engage with the content to point out the discrepancy. This can mean the difference between a false story spreading between 1,000 people or 1,000,000 people before the information is verified/disproven. Again, while this will not stop the spread of false information outright, it can lead to retractions and a general awareness from other users, which will “flatten the misinformation curve”, so to speak.Finally, when a void of sources exists, individuals may try to use other mediums or hastily reported news to bolster their point of view. In this case, so-called “edit wars” developed on John Conway’s Wikipedia page, with some writing that he had died while others removed the information. While it is impossible to say whether the same individuals who edited the Wikipedia page also used it as evidence to support the original tweet, it does highlight how easy it could be to use a similar method in the future. Users often have to rely on the word of a small number of individuals in the hours following the release of a questionable story. When this is the case, some may try to leverage the implicit trust we have in other institutions to bolster their claims and arguments. In this case, it was Wikipedia, but it could be others. Users must carefully consider the possible biases or exploits that exist with specific sources.Like Conway’s Game of Life, there are patterns to how information spreads online. Understanding these patterns and the rules by which false information changes and grows will be critical as we prepare for the next challenge. Sadly, the story that spread earlier this month turned out to be true, but the lessons we can learn from it can be applied to similar stories moving forward.Jeffrey Westling is a technology and innovation policy fellow at the R Street Institute, a free-market think tank based in Washington, D.C.

Andy Baio always digs up the absolute best stories. His latest involves layers upon layers of fascinating issues and legal questions. The key part, though, is that Jay-Z and his company Roc Nation, were able to convince YouTube to remove two "audio deepfakes" by claiming both copyright infringement and "unlawfully using AI to impersonate our client's voice." Both of these are highly questionable claims. But let's take a few steps back first.We've discussed how there seems to be a bit of a moral panic around deepfakes, with the idea being that more and more advanced technology can be used to create faked video and audio that looks or sounds real -- and that might be used to dupe people. So far, there's little evidence of the technology ever actually being used to really deceive people, and there's plenty of reason to believe that society can adjust and adapt to any eventual attempts at using deepfakes to deceive.Still, in part because of the media and politicians freaking out about the whole idea, a number of social media platforms have put in place fairly aggressive content moderation policies regarding deepfakes, so as to (hopefully) avoid the inevitable big media "expose" about how they're enabling nefarious activities by not pulling such faked videos down. But, as we've noted in some of those previous articles, the vast majority of deepfake content these days is purely used for entertainment/amusement purposes -- not for nefarious reasons.And that's absolutely the case with the anonymous user Vocal Synthesis, who has been playing around with a variety of fun audio deepfakes -- just using AI to synthesize the voice of various famous people saying things they wouldn't normally say (or singing things they wouldn't normally sing). The creator releases them as videos, but it's just a static image, and even when they're "singing" songs, it's without any of the music -- just the voice. So, here's Bob Dylan singing Britney Spears' "... Baby One More Time":And here's Bill Clinton's rendition of Sir Mix-A-Lot's "Baby Got Back":Some other people have taken some of those audio deepfakes and put them to music, which is also fun. Here are six former President's singing N.W.A.'s "Fuck the Police":A few of the audio deepfakes use Jay-Z's distinctive voice -- and apparently Jay-Z or his lawyers got upset about this and issued takedown notices to YouTube on two of them. As I type this, those two videos (one of Jay-Z reciting the famed "To Be, Or Not To Be" soliloquy from Hamlet and another of him doing Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire") are back up with YouTube saying that the original takedown notices were "incomplete" and therefor the video had been reinstated. But they were taken down originally, and it's possible that more "complete" takedowns will be sent, so for the time being (as Andy Baio did) I'll also point to the same content hosted by LBRY, a decentralized file storage system:And here's where things get odd. As Andy notes in his post (which is so detailed and worth reading), the takedown from Roc Nation made two separate claims: first that the videos infringe on Jay-Z's copyright, and the second that each video "unlawfully uses an AI to impersonate our client’s voice." But what law is being broken here? And if it was illegal to impersonate someone, a bunch of impressionists would be in jail. Andy goes through a detailed fair use analysis on the copyright question:

The Increase Your Google App Productivity with Google Script Bundle has 7 courses to help you learn about Google Apps Script. Apps Script lets you increase the power of your favorite Google apps — like Calendar, Docs, Drive, Gmail, Sheets, and Slides. These 7 courses cover every step to get started with Google Scripts including an overview of the editor and what it does and how to use it. You'll learn more advanced uses with hands-on projects and more. It's on sale for $35.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

I get that people are getting a bit of cabin fever and perhaps that's impacting people's outlook on the world, but a recent piece by David Rotman in the MIT Tech Review is truly bizarre. The title gets you straight to the premise: Covid-19 has blown apart the myth of Silicon Valley innovation. Of course, even the paragraph that explains the thesis seems almost like a modern updating of the famous "what have the Romans ever done for us?" scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian:

42 million Americans lack access to any kind of broadband whatsoever -- more than double official FCC estimates. Millions more can't afford broadband because the monopolized US telecom sector suffers from a dire lack of competition in most markets. US telcos, bored with the slow rate of return, have effectively stopped upgrading their DSL networks across broad swaths of America, leaving cable giants like Comcast and Charter spectrum with a bigger monopoly than ever across wide swaths of America. And no, wireless 5G won't magically fix the problem due to patchy availability and high prices.This is, to hear the FCC tell it, all going swimmingly.By law (Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) the FCC is required once a year to issue a report indicating whether quality broadband is being deployed on a "reasonable and timely basis." If not, the agency is supposed to, you know, actually do something about it. But every year like clockwork, the FCC issues the report ignoring all of the biggest problems in the telecom sector, to the obvious benefit of an industry eager to keep things precisely as they are: largely uncompetitive. Never will you see policy that improves competition, because the lack of competition isn't even acknowledged.This year was no exception. The Trump FCC's latest report once again insists that broadband "is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion," so no shift from the status quo is necessary. And in a very Trumpian statement, FCC boss Ajit Pai congratulates himself for incredible leadership, while repeating the falsehood that his decision to take an axe to already fairly filmsy FCC oversight of the broken sector has somehow resulted in a massive wave of new investment:

Over the years, Techdirt has written many stories about the various forms that censorship has taken in China. The coronavirus pandemic has added an extra dimension to the situation. China is evidently trying to erase certain aspects of the disease's history. In particular, it seeks to deny its likely role in acting as the breeding ground for COVID-19, and to downplay how it infected the rest of the world after the initial outbreak in Wuhan. As the New York Times put it: "China is trying to rewrite its role, leveraging its increasingly sophisticated global propaganda machine to cast itself as the munificent, responsible leader that triumphed where others have stumbled." Quartz reports on a new front in this campaign to re-cast China's actions. Volunteers in China working on a project called Terminus2049, which aims to preserve key digital records of the coronavirus outbreak, are now targets of a crackdown:

Four years ago, the Baltimore Police Department unilaterally decided to put several eyes in the sky. The 192-million megapixel camera system capable of covering 32-square miles was sent skyward with zero public comment or input from the city. And why not? The city was barely involved. The BPD received the camera system courtesy of a private donor.The head of the company, John McNutt, was contacted by some Texas-based philanthropists who offered to pay for the system if McNutt's company, Persistent Surveillance Systems, would put it up in the air. What the system lacks in depth, it makes up for in breadth. Humans and vehicles are reduced to mere pixels, but the system's ability to rewind recordings makes it possible for the PD to track movement of vehicles and people near crime scenes.The aerial surveillance system is more re-purposed war tech. It was originally deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan under the name "Gorgon Stare." That's what Persistent Surveillance Systems is flying over Baltimore, this time with the city's official blessing. After a period of public comment, the surveillance system is no longer just a test project.The ACLU sued to block the launch of the program, citing the Supreme Court's Carpenter decision, which adds a warrant requirement to the collection of cell site location data. It's not an exact fit, but the Carpenter decision has been read by some courts to cover more than just location data.Unfortunately, the ACLU's attempt to secure an injunction has failed. The decision [PDF] doesn't find the Carpenter decision applicable to an all-seeing-eye that can only capture the movement of pixels, rather than identifiable human beings. That being said, the planes (three of them) will fly for a minimum 40 hours a week each, resulting in six months of 12-hour-a-day coverage of nearly the entire city. (h/t Munchkin at Law)There's something more than a little dystopian about the program. But, despite the promise contained in the company's name, this surveillance isn't all that persistent.

The broadcast and TV sector spent the last fifteen years trying to claim that TV cord cutting (cancelling traditional TV and going with streaming or antenna broadcasts) wasn't a real thing, or that it was only something done by losers. But it's the cord cutters who'll be getting the last laugh.A new study (pdf) by the Convergence Research Group indicates that cord cutting, once denied to exist at all by the cable TV sector, is about to get even hotter. According to the report, 36% of US homes didn't pay for "traditional" cable TV at the end of a particularly bloody year for the pay TV sector. The group estimates that total will grow to 42% of US households in 2020, and finally topple into a majority of consumers (54%) by 2022. That in turn is contributing to a notable drop in revenue from the major cable TV providers, down from $100 billion in 2019 to a predicted $94.8 billion this year.If you're worried about major giants like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon struggling, you shouldn't. While their video profits will erode, their monopoly over broadband means they'll simply be recouping that lost revenue by jacking up the price of your broadband connection (including usage caps and overage fees) in the massive number of uncompetitive US broadband markets:

Fucking predictive policing/how the fuck does it work. Mostly, it doesn't. For the most part, predictive policing relies on garbage data generated by garbage cops, turning years of biased policing into "actionable intel" by laundering it through a bunch of proprietary algorithms.More than half a decade ago, early-ish adopters were expressing skepticism about the tech's ability to suss out the next crime wave. For millions of dollars less, average cops could have pointed out hot crime spots on a map based on where they'd made arrests, while still coming nothing close to the reasonable suspicion needed to declare nearly everyone in a high crime area a criminal suspect.The Los Angeles Police Department's history with the tech seems to indicate it should have dumped it years ago. The department has been using some form of the tech since 2007, but all it seems to be able to do is waste limited law enforcement resources to violate the rights of Los Angeles residents. The only explanations for the LAPD's continued use of this failed experiment are the sunk cost fallacy and its occasional use as a scapegoat for the department's biased policing.Predictive policing is finally dead in Los Angeles. Activists didn't kill it. Neither did the LAPD's oversight. Logic did not finally prevail. For lack of a better phrase, it took an act of God {please see paragraph 97(b).2 for coverage limits} to kill a program that has produced little more than community distrust and civil rights lawsuits. Caroline Haskins has more details at BuzzFeed.

Last month, Kara Swisher wrote an opinion piece for the NY Times ripping Sean Hannity and Fox News to shreds for convincing her mother that COVID-19 wasn't going to be too bad back in February and leading into March. It's notable how she started her piece:

After writing this post, we realized that the phrase would make a great t-shirt! So now you can get yourself some OK, Landlord gear from the Techdirt store on Threadless »For a long time now we've explained why comparing copyrights to property is fraught with problems. So much of the reason that we engage in property rights is to enable a more efficient allocation of scarce goods. When you have something that is not-scarce -- or as the cool economist kids like to say "non-rivalrous and non-excludable" -- treating them in the same manner as if they were scarce creates all sorts of weird problems, many of which we've spent two decades detailing on this site. Indeed, for every argument made that copyright is property, you could make a compelling case that it's actually the opposite of property in that it frequently takes away the rights and ability of individuals to do what they want with products they rightfully own.Five years ago, I noted that one of the big problems around the concept of "intellectual property" was the failure of people to separate the content, from the exclusive rights. That is, it's fair to think of the copyright as a form of property -- as the "right of exclusion" that it creates is more property-like -- but that it must be seen as separate from the underlying content. The "copyright" is not the content. And so much of the discussion around copyrights conflates the right and the underlying content and that creates all sorts of problems.Meanwhile, law professor Brian Frye has spent the last month or so making a really important point regarding the never-ending "is copyright property" debate -- saying that if copyright is property, then copyright holders should be seen and treated as landlords. This whole approach can be summed up in the slightly snarky and trollish phrase: "OK, Landlord" used to respond to all sorts of nonsensical takes in support of more egregious copyright policies:

The Start-to-Finish Guide to Launching a Successful Podcast Bundle has 9 courses designed to teach you what you need to know to get your own podcast up and running. Regardless of your budget or skill level, this bundle will show you what it takes to start, record, edit, publish, grow, and monetize your podcast. You'll dive into the benefits of running a podcast, the gear you'll need to get started, and more essential concepts. Courses also cover social media marketing, music production, how to interview your heroes, and more. It's on sale for $45.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Whenever our nation's court system resumes to normalcy, there will hopefully be another case on the Supreme Court docket that could clarify if someone who engages in protected speech can be held responsible for violent actions of someone else at the same protest.Activist DeRay McKesson participated in a Black Lives Matter protest in Baton Rouge, Louisiana following the shooting of Alton Brown by police officers. During this protest, someone threw a chunk of concrete at a cop, injuring him. The officer -- known only as "John Doe" in his filings -- sued McKesson (along with the entire Black Lives Matter movement and, inexplicably, a set of Twitter hashtags).The district court found in favor of McKesson, saying he wasn't directly or indirectly responsible for the actions of other protesters, even if the protest began with protesters illegally blocking traffic. Officer Doe appealed. Inexplicably, the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court refused to address the First Amendment issue, finding instead that -- under state law -- McKesson could continue to be sued for participating in the same protest where this mystery cop was injured.McKesson asked the Fifth Circuit to take a second look at its awful decision. It did and liked what it had said the first time around. The only exception was Judge Don Willett, who belatedly recognized the First Amendment issue was paramount and that allowing protest organizers to be personally sued for the violent actions of others was extremely bad precedent to set.That's where the Supreme Court might be able to help. If it takes the case, it can reverse this precedent -- one that stands not-so-firmly on a 8-8 split between Fifth Circuit judges. Constitutional law professor Garrett Epps has a thorough rundown of the case's history at The Atlantic. Epps says the wild card in play is not the recently-apologetic Judge Willett, but rather another member of the court, Judge James Ho, who seems determined to make Constitutional rights subservient to the needs and wants of police officers.

With a large part of the planet on lockdown in a bid to slow the spread of COVID-19, streaming video consumption has seen explosive growth. Streaming platform Mux this week issued a study stating that during one three-week period measured by the company, streaming video usage overall jumped 239%.UK piracy tracking firm Muso TNT says they've also seen "unprecedented" traffic to movie streaming websites around the world in the last few months. The firm found that in many countries, the kind of piracy traffic traditionally reserved for weekends is now the norm during most weeks:

A million and a half people are all sending this monstrosity to me. From patient zero of overly aggressive content ownership, the Twitter account of Disney+, the new streaming service from Disney, announced that everyone should share their favorite Star Wars memories using the #MayThe4th hashtag. As you probably know, "May the 4th" has become the semi-official Star Wars day, thanks to fans of the movies spreading the "May the force be with you"/"May the 4th be with you" puns on social media a little over a decade ago, leading to it being declared (unofficially) as "Star Wars Day" in 2011. Disney finally agreed to embrace it in 2013.Anyway, after asking people to share their favorite Star Wars memory, Disney+ just had to Disney it all up by declaring that if you use that hashtag, you are agreeing to Disney's very broad terms of use, which include a bunch of fun nonsense like "binding arbitration" and a "class action waiver." All based on the use of a hashtag. After everyone started mocking them for this bullshit rights claim, five hours later they added a new "clause" by tweet, saying that "the above legal language only applies to replies" to Disney+. Of course, that still doesn't make it legit.In case you can't read it, here is the three tweet sequence typed out:

It's too bad it takes a lawsuit to free up supposedly "open" records. A few years ago, transparency group Reclaim the Records asked for some easy-to-compile birth and death data from the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services and received this ridiculous response.

So here's a bit of a fun milestone. This blog post will be my 50,000th blog post on Techdirt, which is kind of insane when you think about it. I noticed last year that I was approaching that number and have checked back periodically to see where I was. Last month I realized I was 100 posts away, and have been watching the counter move along until now, the 50,000th post on the site.For what it's worth, the Guinness World Records folks still claim that the world record for "most prolific professional blogger" was Darren Murph and his measly 17,212 posts for Engadget in 2010. By that time I already had over 30,000 posts, but apparently Guinness is not too concerned about accuracy. In 2014, I had reached out to Guinness just to suggest that their record there was wrong, but rather than investigating the matter themselves, they sent me a huge form to apply for my own record, which would involve a ton of work to "document" all my posts, and, honestly, who the hell has time for that, when there are more blog posts to write.Anyway, just for fun, I thought I'd link back to some other "milestone" posts, starting with my very first post, which was actually a copy of an email newsletter I sent out in August of 1997. For the first few years, it really was mostly just a newsletter, and I'd take the emails and post them to the website as well. The first "real" blog post to the site came on March 12, 1999, and was about E*Trade launching a corporate venture fund. Exciting stuff, I know. The 10,000th post came on January 2nd of 2003, discussing how American kids weren't texting as much as kids elsewhere (of course, back then we called it "wireless messaging" because "texting" hadn't been invented yet in the old times). The reasoning? More use of instant messaging on computers at home as compared to in other countries (and less use of public transportation). I'd imagine crappy phones had a role as well.The 25,000th post was in November of 2006 and was about banks acting surprised that insiders were a big data breach threat -- again, not the most exciting of Techdirt fare, but I don't make the rules. I just write the posts. Anyway, given that I got to 25,000 posts by 2006, it's pretty clear that my prolific nature has slowed quite a bit in my later years. Those first 25,000 or so came in about 7 years, and it took another 14 to get the next 25,000 posts. I'm going to have to pick up the pace to get to 100,000 posts.At least I know I have more than 17,212.Anyway, a special thanks to everyone who has visited Techdirt over the years, whether you've read all 50,000 of my posts, or this is your first one. It's been quite a journey, and it wouldn't have happened if no one ever read anything I wrote...

Our nation's prisons and jails are coronavirus incubators. Everyone inside is stacked on top of each other and the notion of "social distance" doesn't have much meaning in a place where sheltering in place means breathing the air of everyone else being forcibly sheltered in place.Taking the risk of appearing soft on crime, some states have begun releasing at-risk prisoners, subject to a long list of exceptions that still leaves plenty of people in jail (and plenty of people tasked with watching over them). Since most crimes don't come with death sentences, it seems kind of cruel and unusual to subject minor criminals to the increased possibility of dying, but only a small percentage of inmates meet the criteria for release.However, enough of them have that Rikers Island -- New York City's most infamous jail -- has seen its population dwindle to its World War II numbers. Like most jails, Rikers Island's population includes people who have yet to be convicted of a crime -- jailed until their trial date. With courts handling fewer cases than usual, jailings have become more indefinite than usual while awaiting trial.Testing has ramped up in federal prisons and local jails, bringing with them severe spikes in confirmed cases. This never looks good on the COVID-19 balance sheet, but jam enough people into enclosed spaces and bad things develop quickly during pandemics.Releasing at-risk inmates is a good idea, even if it's still mostly an unpopular one. The state of New Jersey decided to show some much-needed compassion by releasing some of its inmates. But that compassion came tied to a long list of restrictions that somehow included First Amendment violations, as NJ.com reports.

The long saga of Georgia locking up its laws under copyright is (hopefully) officially over, with a Supreme Court ruling that says pretty explicitly that the law must be in the public domain. If you don't recall, this case started years ago. The state of Georgia has a somewhat odd way of publishing its official code. Every new law is published, by state edict, in the "Official Code of Georgia Annotated" or the OGCA. Every new law explicitly says that it will be published in the OCGA. The tricky copyright issue came from the "Annotated" part of that. Annotations are (mostly) summaries of judicial interpretations of the law, and the state of Georgia outsourced the annotating to the private company LexisNexis. LexisNexis would write the annotations, for which it received a copyright, and then assign the copyright to the Georgia government. While Georgia put up a free version of the unannotated law, to get the annotated version -- which, again, is the "official" law of the state -- you either had to pay or to register with a website that included significant (and highly questionable) restrictions. In response, Carl Malamud, who has devoted much of his life's work to making sure that the laws of the world are freely accessible to those who are ruled by those laws, posted a free copy of the OGCA to the web.In response, Georgia first demanded he take it down, then it sued him for copyright infringement. The state initially won in the district court, but then was overturned on appeal, with the 11th Circuit saying that you can't copyright the law. Both sides appealed to the Supreme Court -- with Georgia wanting to continue locking up the law, and with Malamud wanting a precedent that applied beyond just the 11th Circuit. For what it's worth, even after the appeals court ruled in Malamud's favor, the state bent over backwards to try to block Carl Malamud from getting a copy of the OGCA. Yes, they didn't want him to get a copy of the state's official law, which is as crazy as it sounds.Earlier today, the Supreme Court ruled mostly in favor of Carl Malamud and free access to our laws, though there is a bit of weirdness in the overall ruling. The key part is the most important though. You just can't copyright the law.

When the coronavirus crisis hit, several countries saw an opportunity to engage in/expand domestic surveillance. Unsurprisingly, China and Hong Kong were some of the first to step up their snooping. But it was Israel that quickly deployed one of the more concerning virus-tracking programs: opening up a massive collection of cellphone data to its national security force, Shin Bet.This was done without any legislative discussion or input from the millions of stakeholders whose cell data had just become a plaything for Shin Bet. To make matters worse, the backup plan involved Israel's premier malware merchant, NSO Group, which has offered its spy tools to governments to spy on journalists, attorneys, and activists.Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's unilateral declaration that telcos' data stores were open for government business may have been premature. While there's definitely value in tracking infected members of the population, a more voluntary program would have been the place to start.The nation's High Court has at least temporarily blocked Shin Bet's use of cell location data.

Beelinguapp uses new techniques to help you learn to read a second language. It shows the same exact text in two languages, side by side. At the same time, it's an audiobook, and with its unique karaoke reading, you'll follow the audio in the text on both sides. There are many texts available in 14 languages including Spanish, English, German, Korean, French, and more. The texts go from fairy tales, news, to science papers and novels; and new ones are added every week. 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.

One of the most important Supreme Court rulings in the patent space is the so-called Alice ruling in 2014 which should have effectively spelled the end of software patents (even though the ruling doesn't exactly say that). The ruling just says that you shouldn't get patents on software that "does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions." As we noted at the time... that's basically all software that is found on computers and personal devices. Sure, there may be some specialized machines, and, fine, let them get patents. But based on this ruling, nearly all software patents should be rejected.And, for a little while it seemed like that was happening. There were stories of the Patent Office rejecting a bunch of patents based on this ruling and things seemed to be heading in a good direction. Bad patents for generic software were not being allowed. But something changed. Indeed, after a general plateau in patents granted after Alice, patents started to go back up again.While some patent system supporters have been claiming that various Supreme Court decisions, such as Alice, have destroyed their ability to patent their non-patentable concepts, reality shows that the PTO has continued approving plenty of awful patents.And, now we know why. The US Patent Office has just released quite an eye-opening report regarding how it responded to the Alice decision entitled Adjusting to Alice. The TL;DR summary: "After Alice we started rejecting a lot more patents, but then Patent Office bosses issued "new guidance" that effectively overruled Alice, and we're back to approving bad patents again!"They didn't quite put it that way, but that seems to be the clearest interpretation of the report. First, they say what happened after the Alice decision:

For many years in the early aughts, broadband providers insisted they needed to impose usage caps and costly overage fees to help manage network congestion. By 2015, leaked documents from Comcast revealed that was never true. In the years since, even industry CEOs have acknowledged that the limits are little more than an additional tax on captive customers in uncompetitive U.S. broadband markets.As COVID-19 struck, ISPs quickly bowed to pressure to eliminate such restrictions so home-bound Americans weren't inundated with significantly higher bills. In a press release, Comcast makes it clear that its network has (gasp), performed perfectly well under the added load -- despite a 32% increase in upstream traffic and 18% increase in downstream traffic. There's been a 77% surge in gaming downloads, a 37% bump in streaming video consumption, and a 228% bump in VOIP and teleconferencing use. This is, Comcast says, causing no issues for Comcast:

This week, both our winners on the insightful side come in response to one particular comment from Australia's treasurer about the country forcing Google and Facebook to pay news organizations for sending them traffic, which he described as something that will "help to create a level playing field". Anonymous Anonymous Coward took first place with a baffled refutation:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2015, Sony was once again warning the media not to report on leaked emails — and they even sent a letter to Techdirt, to which we publicly responded — while MPAA boss Chris Dodd was implying that the US should go after Wikileaks for publishing them. Perhaps because the emails revealed things like how the MPAA pirated clips from Google commercials to make its own propaganda videos, and strategized about how to "tell the positive side" of internet censorship. Meanwhile, major record labels were trying to get SOPA by the back door, via a lawsuit against MP3Skull, and the war on owning-what-you-buy was being waged on fronts from GM vehicles to DVDs.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2010, since everyone had already seen ACTA after the full text leaked, the USTR decided it was time to release it. The revised text was only slightly less awful than expected, and of course was missing one piece of information that would have been especially interesting: what each country was pushing for.Also this week in 2010: Google began releasing stats on info and takedown requests from governments, a look at piracy stats showed the UK ones to be just as bogus as US ones and revealed that the MPAA unsurprisingly refused to share details on how it collected its numbers, and the Canadian entertainment industry was launching a new media campaign to push for draconian copyright laws.Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2005, Verizon's CEO was deftly responding to consumer demands by complaining about the very fact that customers want any kind of service at all, while the ISP war on VoIP was bringing more companies in more countries into the fray, as was the recording industry's war on lyrics websites. We took a closer look at the entertainment industry's relationship with federal law enforcement, Microsoft's weak-sauce attempts to keep Encarta competitive with Wikipedia, and the latest impossible promise of perfect DRM (coming just as other providers of copy protection software got locked in a patent battle). This was also the week that Adobe bought Macromedia.

Techdirt has just written about France's incredibly hypocritical attitude to privacy when it comes to contact tracing apps for COVID-19. The European Commission seems to be rather more consistent in this area. As well as pushing privacy legislation like the GDPR and ePrivacy Directive, it has released a series of documents designed to help EU Member States create tracing apps without compromising on citizens' privacy. For example, on April 8, it adopted a "Recommendation to support exit strategies through mobile data and apps", which called for "a joint toolbox towards a common coordinated approach for the use of smartphone apps that fully respect EU data protection standards". Details followed a week later, when the European Commission announced a pan-EU toolbox for "efficient contact tracing apps to support gradual lifting of confinement measures". A 44-page document spelled out in some detail (pdf) the "essential requirements" for national apps deployed in the region -- that they should be:

As we've been discussing, esports is having something of a moment during the COVID-19 shutdown. While it's been interesting to see the general uptick in interest for esports globally, it's been equally interesting to watch professional sporting organizations and leagues, that can longer operate in real life, shift quickly to putting professional players behind gamepads and broadcasting esports matches instead. NASCAR was the first to jump on this and has certainly set the quality standard, but racing was quickly followed by other major professional sports leagues.And now the NHL is coming online as well. In an announcement, the league said it will be hosting an NHL 20 players tournament featuring players from every team. They even have a major sponsor for it.

This is the story of a person who should have never been allowed to be a law enforcement officer. He wasn't one for long, but he was one long enough to do something so batshit crazy, it nearly requires the suspension of disbelief asked of us by fiction writers.Noah Arwine is no longer a sheriff's deputy. But while was still a deputy, he did this:

We've discussed in the past the various court rulings that say that public officials (such as the President) cannot block users on social media as it violates the 1st Amendment. There has been vigorous debate on this (as well as plenty of confusion) but the basic concept is that the courts view the space beneath a social media post -- where people comment -- as a "designated public forum" and as such, bars any content-based discrimination.That should apply to all government institutions -- not just the social media accounts of those holding elected office. A fascinating new report from FIRE, digs deep into this issue by highlighting that tons of public universities are using opaque Facebook blocklists to hide student comments. For private universities, it wouldn't be a 1st Amendment issue, but courts have repeatedly said that public universities are an arm of the government, and thus Constitutional limits apply to them as well. From the opening of the report:

Law enforcement officers and officials are given a considerable amount of discretion. Too bad they so rarely use it.The sheriff of Marquette County, Wisconsin decided to exercise his considerable discretion by threatening a teenager's parents with jail over her Instagram posts. And for that misuse of his discretion, Sheriff Joseph Konrath is being sued. (h/t SBWisLaw)

The Z2's earned their name because they feature twice the sound, twice the battery life, and twice the convenience of competing headphones. Packed with TREBLAB's most advanced Sound2.0 technology with aptX and active noise-cancellation, these headphones deliver great audio while drowning out unwanted background noise. It's like you're at a concert every time you turn up the volume. They're on sale for $70.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.

If there's one thing that nearly everyone can agree on while locked down during this COVID-19 pandemic, it's that Netflix's show Tiger King is the most batshit thing to watch. Everything about the documentary series played as if it was a Christopher Guest mockumentary, except in real life (and, incredibly, with characters even more colorful than Guest's usual crew). I watched it about a week after it came out (i.e., a week after everyone else in the world had watched it) and was surprised that no one mentioned to me that amidst all the other craziness regarding various competing keepers of "big cats," there was a copyright lawsuit.As is all too common these days, the documentary didn't do a particularly good job describing the legal issues at the heart of the dispute, and mentioned both trademark and copyright claims that came up. There were actually three separate lawsuits -- one over trademark and two over copyright (and then a few follow on efforts that we won't even get into). To be clear, the trademark claims, were more legitimate -- though not a complete slam dunk. You can see the court docket here. I still feel like many trademark cases are bogus, but this case seemed like the perfect example of what trademark law is supposed to be for: to stop a pretty obvious copycat from trying to confuse the public into who is who. And that's exactly what Joe Exotic was attempting to do in setting up Big Cat Rescue Entertainment Group, for his "traveling show" (bringing tigers and such to malls) in a manner that was designed to confuse the public into thinking he was actually his nemesis organization Big Cat Rescue Corp (which doesn't do shows). In fact, despite being based in Oklahoma, Joe Exotic used a Florida phone number for the BCR "Entertainment" Group, knowing full well that the actual BCR was based in Florida.So, that sounds like a standard issue trademark infringement situation... Except, it wasn't even that clear. While Carole Baskin and BCR had a trademark on BCR's logo, they did not have a registered trademark on the name -- nor the use of "snow leopard eyes." The website has since changed, but here's a quick screenshot from the Netflix episode (Episode 4) that discusses the cases. On the left is Joe Exotic's "copycat" and on the right is Carole Baskin's website at the time:The crazy thing is (probably by total coincidence) the elements that Joe Exotic copied were not the elements that were covered by the registered trademark. That said, Baskin had a strong case for common law trademark infringement, which is almost as good, but the case (contrary to what's said in the documentary) did not actually end with the court ruling that Baskin won the trademark dispute. While the documentary implies that Baskin won the case, that's not quite what happened. Joe Exotic had filed some (mostly silly) counterclaims in his response to the complaint, trying to throw a bunch of fairly weak defamation claims back at Baskin (and a few equally weak tortious interference claims).Carole Baskin and BCR sought to have the counterclaims thrown out on summary judgment, which is exactly what the judge did. While the clip in the documentary shows Howard Baskin saying the judge ruled in their favor, that was only on dismissing Joe Exotic's counterclaims, and not on the actual trademark issue. That was still set to go to trial, and perhaps recognizing how insanely costly an actual trial was going to be, that's when the two sides agreed to settle, with Joe agreeing to pay nearly a million dollars (though as the documentary makes clear, he had little intention of actually doing so).The main copyright case covered in the documentary (full docket here), however, is just... bad. It's a really bad case. It's an obvious SLAPP suit, filed on very questionable grounds, as a pile-on lawsuit while the trademark lawsuit discussed above was still chugging along. The details here are just ridiculous. Joe Exotic had come across a photo of Baskin's employees happily holding up some dead rabbits that they were going to feed to the tigers, and made a big deal out of her killing the rabbits (it appears that this was not, as we find out, because he's opposed to killing animals -- because he's not -- but apparently because he hates Carole Baskin). Joe used the photo on social media and in a variety of videos as part of his never-ending hate-campaign against Baskin. I'm not going to post the photo here, but will say that it's both in the documentary and if you do want to see it, it's in the court filings.Baskin had not taken the photograph, nor registered it, but had purchased the rights to the photograph from the photographer, Julie Hannon, then registered the photograph, and immediately issued DMCA notices on Joe's use of the images. Joe counternoticed the DMCA takedown claiming that the "material was removed due to a mistake or misidentification." He should have claimed fair use, because it clearly was. But he didn't, and then Baskin sued.Again, this is quite clearly an abuse of copyright law to censor fair use of the image. No matter what you think of either of the two individuals (neither of whom comes out of this looking good), there's no way the use in question was not fair use, and the purchasing of the rights and the late registration, were quite clearly just aimed at censoring Joe Exotic, the critic, and not for any legitimate copyright purpose.While Joe eventually did make a fair use claim, the fact that he (stupidly) didn't use that as his claim in the YouTube counternotice actually opened him up to Baskin adding a DMCA 512(f) (!!!) claim for making false statements in his counter notice. Joe's legal team argued fair use, failure to state a claim, misuse of copyright, and a few other similar defenses. Most of these got tossed because (they were nonsense and because) Joe Exotic's legal team didn't actually support most of the defenses, making it easy for the judge to toss them. The one defense that the court did not rule on was the fair use defense, which the judge said should be determined by a jury at trial. For what it's worth, the judge also claimed the 512(f) claim should go to trial as well.There were a few more twists and turns in the case before, once again, the case settled with a consent decree, with Joe agreeing to pay statutory damages of $50,000. The statutory damages part is interesting, in part, because statutory damages are supposed to only be available for infringement that happens after registration -- and registration is supposed to occur within 3 months of "first publication" for statutory damages to be available. In this case, it's unclear what actually counts as "1st publication" or if there was a first publication by the photographer.Separately, even though the initial infringement occurred prior to registration, it appears that after Baskin sued, Joe Exotic decided to keep on posting the image over and over and over again to various social media, blogs, and videos, which might then open him up to statutory damages. Of course, the fact that the case was settled kind of makes the whole question moot anyway. It feels odd that the settlement agreement said it was for statutory damages. In the terms of a settlement agreement, it's not clear why the type of damages matters at all. It's just been agreed to by the parties.That said, what's amazing to me is that copyright maximalists seem to be cheering on this clear abuse of copyright as a form of a SLAPP suit. The Copyright Alliance, a Hollywood front group that lobbies for ever more aggressive anti-consumer copyright policies, put out a blog post happily explaining this lawsuit as if it were a perfectly normal and reasonable copyright lawsuit. In fact, the Copyright Alliance -- somewhat incredibly -- says that Joe Exotic should have just taken down this obviously fair use image when he got the DMCA takedown notice, to avoid the lawsuit, which was clearly filed as a pile-on to go with the trademark lawsuit:

By and large, most major ISPs have handled the labor angle of COVID-19 relatively well, with giants like Comcast and AT&T offered hazard pay, and Verizon slowing new broadband, phone, and TV installations altogether.Charter, which sells broadband, TV, and phone service under the Spectrum brand, has been a different story entirely. The nation's second biggest cable company is now facing an inquiry by New York's Attorney General after several weeks of bad press highlighting how the company wasn't giving its employees hazard pay or adequate protective gear (many got $25 gift cards to closed restaurants instead), wouldn't let many employees work from home even if it was easy, and even forced people to continue to work in buildings where co-workers tested positive for the virus.With some 250 Charter employees now sick, New York's Attorney General has opened an inquiry into the company's bungled response:

Last year, the Australian government decided journalists just weren't feeling chilly enough. In response to the publication of leaked documents detailing the government's plan to allow more domestic surveillance, the Australian Federal Police started raiding journalists' homes.They started with News Corp. journalist Annika Smethurst's home. Hours later, police raided broadcaster Ben Fordham's home. A third raid was broadcast live, as the AFP swarmed ABC's offices seeking documents that might reveal who leaked sensitive documents to journalists.Australia's prime minister, Scott Morrison, had no problem with this cop-based threat to the country's free speech protections.

It's funny how fast things can change. With the exception of our recent stories on how esports has taken over the sporting world due to the COVID-19 shutdown, any other review of our stories on video games would leave you with the impression that gaming has tons of IP problems and is also the scapegoat for many of the world's problems. Blamed for real world violence, for teenager apathy, for falling school test scores, and even for men not being manly enough, there seems to have been very little for which some beep-boop games couldn't be blamed.And then came COVID-19 and its shutdown of schools across the world. And so many teachers naturally turned to the evil video games as a tool to continue to educate their students.

The US broadband market is a competitive mess. US telcos have routinely refused to upgrade their aging DSL lines, as the return on investment has never been fast enough for Wall Street. That has left cable giants like Comcast and Charter (Spectrum) with bigger broadband monopolies than ever before. While many see 5G wireless as some sort of competitive panacea waiting in the wings, there's a litany of problems (cost, reach, competition eroding M&As) that suggests folks should temper their enthusiasm.Then there's satellite broadband. Long despised by consumers for slow speeds, inconsistent performance, high prices, and usage caps, the sector is poised for disruption by a number of low-orbit satellite ventures. These new offerings offer significantly lower latency using a litany of smaller low-orbit satellites. One of the major players is of course Space X, whose Starlink satellite broadband service is slated for a public beta six months or so from now according to Elon Musk:

It's kind of difficult to take "privacy advocates" seriously if they're supportive of the EARN IT Act and its structure that would effectively enable the Attorney General to ban real encryption. That's why it was so ridiculous that vocal privacy advocate non-profit EPIC (in the midst of a truly horrifying scandal in which its President exposed employees to COVID-19 without telling them) came out in favor of the EARN IT Act. As with so much that EPIC does, the issue was more that they saw EARN IT as "anti-big tech companies" and to hell with how it actually impacts privacy and encryption.This is an ongoing problem. Many people who (whether for good reasons or not) dislike big internet companies seem way too willing to embrace bills that appear aimed against them as a sort of "stick it to them" attack, rather than recognizing the long term impact of those bills. We've seen that in the past with bills from the EU's Copyright Directive, the GDPR, and the California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), all of which some groups supported solely because it would "be bad" for Google, Facebook and other internet giants, without recognizing the wider impact.Apparently we can add big news publishers to this list as well. While papers like the NY Times and the Washington Post have run a bunch of stories about how "big tech" is bad about privacy, it's difficult to take them seriously when their lobbyists are out there lobbying in favor of a bill that would ban encryption. And yet, there is the News Media Alliance, formerly the Newspaper Association of America, cheerfully attacking Section 230 of the CDA (which, someone should remind them, all of their websites rely on...) at the DOJ's hearing back in February. Because the EARN IT Act is structured in a way to try to play Section 230 and encryption off of one another, the News Media Alliance's support of attacking 230 gives cover to the EARN IT Act's effective chipping away at encryption.And that should greatly concern all of the journalists who work for these newspapers, like the NY Times and the Washington Post among others. Reporters at those newspapers rely heavily on encryption as they cultivate sources. And the newspapers themselves rely strongly on Section 230 to protect them against bogus SLAPP suits, even as they pretend that Section 230 is a "special favor" for large tech companies.The end result, as with EPIC, is that it seems that the focus on "big internet companies are the problem" means that they're compromising on their own principles in order to "punish" the big internet companies. Suggesting Section 230 should be amended gives cover to the plan to trade Section 230 protections for undermining encryption -- thereby undermining both. And that's really dangerous, given that news reporters and news sites rely on both strong encryption and on Section 230.The News Media Alliance is playing a dangerous game, while being blinded by its dislike of big internet companies.

It's kind of difficult to take "privacy advocates" seriously if they're supportive of the EARN IT Act and its structure that would effectively enable the Attorney General to ban real encryption. That's why it was so ridiculous that vocal privacy advocate non-profit EPIC (in the midst of a truly horrifying scandal in which its President exposed employees to COVID-19 without telling them) came out in favor of the EARN IT Act. As with so much that EPIC does, the issue was more that they saw EARN IT as "anti-big tech companies" and to hell with how it actually impacts privacy and encryption.This is an ongoing problem. Many people who (whether for good reasons or not) dislike big internet companies seem way too willing to embrace bills that appear aimed against them as a sort of "stick it to them" attack, rather than recognizing the long term impact of those bills. We've seen that in the past with bills from the EU's Copyright Directive, the GDPR, and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), all of which some groups supported solely because it would "be bad" for Google, Facebook and other internet giants, without recognizing the wider impact.Apparently we can add big news publishers to this list as well. While papers like the NY Times and the Washington Post have run a bunch of stories about how "big tech" is bad about privacy, it's difficult to take them seriously when their lobbyists are out there lobbying in favor of a bill that would ban encryption. And yet, there is the News Media Alliance, formerly the Newspaper Association of America, cheerfully attacking Section 230 of the CDA (which, someone should remind them, all of their websites rely on...) at the DOJ's hearing back in February. Because the EARN IT Act is structured in a way to try to play Section 230 and encryption off of one another, the News Media Alliance's support of attacking 230 gives cover to the EARN IT Act's effective chipping away at encryption.And that should greatly concern all of the journalists who work for these newspapers, like the NY Times and the Washington Post among others. Reporters at those newspapers rely heavily on encryption as they cultivate sources. And the newspapers themselves rely strongly on Section 230 to protect them against bogus SLAPP suits, even as they pretend that Section 230 is a "special favor" for large tech companies.The end result, as with EPIC, is that it seems that the focus on "big internet companies are the problem" means that they're compromising on their own principles in order to "punish" the big internet companies. Suggesting Section 230 should be amended gives cover to the plan to trade Section 230 protections for undermining encryption -- thereby undermining both. And that's really dangerous, given that news reporters and news sites rely on both strong encryption and on Section 230.The News Media Alliance is playing a dangerous game, while being blinded by its dislike of big internet companies.

Canada is more than just a calmer, more apologetic version of the United States. It's its own thing. But, more accurately, it's a Britain + France thing. While Canada shares a common border with us, it's still more Europe than US of A.Every so often we're reminded of its ties with the other side of the pond. This is one of those times.French regulators recently decided Google owed French news sites for all the traffic it sends to them. It mandated "negotiations" between Google and French newspapers, but insisted the negotiations begin with Google getting out its wallet.It appears Canadian lobbyists agree with France: Google owes them money.

The Google Analytics certification is more than just a bullet point on your resume. This credential tells employers you're capable of mining solid, helpful insights from any page with the web's premier analytics tool. Designed for complete beginners, this course will prepare you to ace the free exam with as little as two days of dedicated study. It's on sale for $14.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.

Yes, we've seen lots of folks using COVID-19 to push their specific agendas forward, but this one is just bizarre. UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) is an organization that is supposed to be focused on developing education and culture around the globe. From any objective standpoint, you'd think it would be in favor of things like more open licensing and sharing of culture, but, in practice, the organization has long been hijacked by copyright maximalist interests. Almost exactly a decade ago, we were perplexed at the organization's decision to launch an anti-piracy organization. After all, "piracy" (or sharing of culture) is actually how culture and ideas frequently spread in the developing countries where UNESCO focuses.So, I guess it isn't so surprising a decade later that UNESCO is using COVID-19 to float the idea of an eternal copyright. I only wish I was kidding:

It seems like only yesterday that AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson was promising on live television that if Trump followed through on his tax cuts, the company would dramatically boost investment and add thousands of new jobs. Not "entry-level jobs," mind you, but "7,000 jobs of people putting fiber in the ground, hard-hat jobs that make $70,000 to $80,000 per year." Each $1 billion in new investment spurred by government favors, AT&T insisted, would result in 7,000 new jobs. "Lower taxes drives more investment, drives more hiring, drives greater wages," Stephenson said.The same rhetoric was a common occurrence as AT&T lobbied to have net neutrality (and FCC oversight in general) stripped away, insisting this would result in significant job creation and a massive surge in investment. The amount of money AT&T saved from turning the FCC into a glorified rubber stamp for industry is likely incalculable. The tax cuts were more easily calculated, with CBS suggesting the cuts should net AT&T around $42 billion.Here on planet Earth the exact opposite of what AT&T promised occurred: the company actually decreased its 2020 CAPEX by some $3 billion, and unions say the company has cut more than 37,000 jobs since the Trump tax cuts took effect.This week, AT&T announced it would be conducting another $6 billion in cuts that will include additional "headcount rationalization," which in human language likely indicates even more layoffs:

We've been writing a lot about the need for real transparency in the midst of a pandemic. The lessons to be learned from Taiwan's transparency compared to China's censorship and speech stifling are important. Tragically, it has become abundantly clear that the US is following the path of China, not Taiwan.We've already covered hospitals trying to silence doctors and nurses from revealing what's actually happening within their hospitals, Jared Kushner hiding his coronavirus task force efforts in a private email account, and the CDC's tragic media gag order for its staff, but it's looking much, much worse.A bunch of stories came out on Wednesday that more or less show how hard the government is working towards silencing anyone "off message" within the administration. First came a NY Times report that head of the the HHS group working on a COVID-19 vaccine was dismissed from his job for daring to question Trump's weird infatuation with hydroxychloroquine as the "miracle cure" to COVID-19 (which studies now suggest actually may be killing more patients than it's saving). Dr. Rick Bright, who had been the director of the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, released quite a statement about what happened:

For decades, the FBI pushed junk science on the courts, resulting in the wrongful convictions of an untold number of people. It wasn't until 2009 that it started trying to undo the damage. And even then, the FBI wasn't 100% sure it shouldn't hold onto to at least some of its favorite junk, even if it had been repeatedly shown there was very little verifiable science behind their expert witnesses' assertions.All that seemed to matter were the convictions. Appealing a conviction is hard work -- something that takes years to do and requires the assistance of experienced lawyers. The damage has been done and the FBI's belated recognition of its contribution to the farce that is our criminal justice system isn't going to give back years of wrongfully-obtained lives.By the FBI's own admission, "nearly every" forensic expert deployed to criminal trials gave flawed testimony that overstated the certainty of their findings. This included experts testifying about fingerprints, DNA, and hair analysis, not just those discussing complete garbage like bite-mark matching or asserting mass-produced clothing is as unique as someone's fingerprints.The DC Appeals Court has just overturned a conviction based on faulty hair match analysis. It comes nearly fifty years after the conviction, meaning the government exchanged bad testimony for most of a person's life. The opening of the decision [PDF] lays out the facts concisely.

Techdirt has been writing about right-to-repair laws -- or, rather, their absence -- for many years now. A recent right-to-repair post concerned ventilators, pretty much the last hope for critically-ill patients suffering the effects of the new coronavirus. This underlines the fact that being able to repair equipment you have bought is not an abstract issue, but is literally a matter of life or death in some cases. Despite that, in Australia the fight to obtain a right to repair is still in its early stages:

It has been nearly seven years since 18-year-old Graham Dyer died due to injuries he sustained while riding in the back of Mesquite (TX) Police car. Dyer, all of 5'4" and 110 pounds, was picked up by Mesquite officers while experiencing a bad acid trip. Dyer had no idea what was happening to him or where he was. As the officers transported him to jail, he thrashed around in the back of the patrol car, ultimately slamming his head into the seat, window, and metal bars forty-six times.The officers never bothered to restrain him. But they did stop the car to head into the back seat to tase him, including one prolonged burst (eight seconds) delivered directly to Dyer's testicles. Dyer's parents had no idea what had happened to their son, who was picked up in good health (bad trip notwithstanding) but was dead less than 24 hours later. The Mesquite PD refused to release any records of this arrest to Dyer's parents. The Dyers finally obtained some records, but from the FBI, which had been called in to investigate the in-custody death.Armed with these records, the Dyers sued the officers and paramedics who handled the arrest and the less-than-adequate care their son received. The paramedics have been dismissed from the lawsuit, but most of the allegations against the officers survive. Two of the three officers involved are still facing the Dyers' lawsuit. And the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court has just thrown the third officer back into the mix, stripping the qualified immunity the lower court awarded him.The Appeals Court says the lower court made the right call for two of the officers, who are facing deliberate indifference claims for apparently not caring at all the arrestee they were delivering to jail was possibly seriously injured. From the decision [PDF]: